Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2006/08

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

Jump to: navigation, search
Commons logo

This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests.

You can visit the most recent archive here.
Archive
  Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2004 09 10 11 12
2005 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2006 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
  Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2007 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2008 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2009 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12

——————————————— Archive August 2006 ———————————————

Contents

[edit] August 1

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

[edit] Category:Pennsylvania counties

Orphaned, with contents moved/merged into Category:Counties in Pennsylvania. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 03:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

deleted by User:Klemen Kocjancic --ALE! 06:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Elvetritsch.jpg

A black square seems utterly useless to me.--Wiggum 08:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC) Kasimir Malewitsch: Black square (1913). utterly useless? nah... it's art!

 Delete Bad copy of the Malewitsch (but I guess the uploader knows this, otherwide he wouldn't have called it 'Elvetritsch') Commons is not a place for homebrew art. --Rtc 09:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
The de:Elwetritsch is a German legendary creature and this picture a bad joke (Elwetritsch in the dark, look how perfectly camouflaged he is! a joke not very specific to Elwetritsches ;-) Therefore delete --::Slomox:: >< 15:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

A large, 17k, black JPEG is completely useless. In the unlikely event of a large black square being somehow useful, it should simply be created using CSS:

— Erin (talk) 01:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Hitler .JPG

Derivative work using at least two copyrighted pictures (see #Bilder von Adolf Hitler)--Wiggum 09:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

 Delete Tagged as derivative. If some admin will have the guts to finally eradicate #Bilder von Adolf Hitler? --Rtc 09:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

13:49, 1 August 2006 Raymond de (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Image:Hitler .JPG" (derivative work of protected material)

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

[edit] Image:Flag of Amorí.svg

Uploaded by me under the wrong filename - it was supposed to be Flag of Anorí.svg- --Fibonacci 21:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Marked with {{badname}} for the speedy deletion. --Panther 09:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! 11:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] image:ZwiazkiV.svg

I want to delete it because it has several mistakes. I made better one. —the preceding unsigned comment is by Winiar (talk • contribs)

To the nominator: Please check again the given file name. --ALE! 16:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. --Panther 15:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Kaahumanu.jpg

This is a painting by Herb Kawainui Kane (pronounced Kah-nay), a currently living hawaiian painter whose livelihood is dependent on sale of his art. His site claims that images are all rights reserved. Painting details at http://hawaiiantrading.com/cgi-bin/mivavm?/store/merchant.mvc+Screen=PROD&Product_Code=hk-276&Category_Code=herb-kane&Store_Code=hieyes


The image page does not mention the painters name, nor the fact that it was painted recently. It asserts a contradictory statement that the image was released into the public domain, but is contracted by the limitation "for educational and historical purposes". It is either Public domain or it isn't. While it is concievable that Herb Kane signed away all rights to the state and they have released it into the public domain, or Mr. Kane has or allowed free use of this image, no such documentation has been provided. -Mak 08:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


For articles requiring replacements, there is an image at Image:Queen Kaahumanu.jpg. Though not as idealized, it is a period representation of her that is in agreement with other likenesses from that time. -Mak 08:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

 Delete per nom --Astrokey44 12:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Ticonderoga Launch.jpg

(uploaded be me myself) according to http://www.dodmedia.osd.mil/DVIC_View/Still_Details.cfm?SDAN=DNSN8309083&JPGPath=/Assets/1983/Navy/DN-SN-83-09083.JPG, picture was taken by Ingalls, not a navy sailor. As substitute, I uploaded Image:USS Cowpens (CG-63) drydocked.jpg --Schlendrian 10:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Heroes Acre 4.jpg

double-image effect, image taken trough a window? --GeorgHH 16:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

 Delete -- Infrogmation 15:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:DSCF0478.JPG

bad quality and bad name. --GeorgHH 17:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

kept (Bad quality: yes. Bad name: yes. But the image is used.) --ALE! ¿…? 14:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Banderamonteria.JPG

BadJPEG, superseded by SVG file. --Fibonacci 17:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

 Delete --GeorgHH 09:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 14:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Banderasincelejo.jpg

BadJPEG, superseded by SVG file. --Fibonacci 17:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 14:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Category:All planetary systems of the milky way

Useless category. Actually, we have only one solar system to list in this category, and no chance to get all the planetary systems of the Galaxy. More, “milky way” is mispelled.

Present scheme : Category:Astronomy => Category:Astronomical objects => Category:Planets => Category:Planets outside the Sol system. --Juiced lemon 18:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

deleted the empty category --ALE! ¿…? 22:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:F Scott Fitzgerald.jpg

Sorry, i am the uploader but it already exists. --Dada 23:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Mark as {{duplicate}} or {{badname}} please. --Panther 09:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

kept (although there is Image:Francis Scott Fitzgerald 1937 June 4 (1) (photo by Carl van Vechten).jpg, this iamge has IMHO a better quality) --ALE! ¿…? 14:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Brasília - Praça dos três poderes.jpeg

Moved it from german wikipedia, but it's a press photo too. There seems to be some relation to Agencia Brasil, but no CC tag is on the pages. Perhaps you can get them to do this, too. --Rtc 08:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Agencia Brasil seems to be a subagency of Radiobras. The logo of Agencia Brasil is clearly displayed on the right top of the page linked from the image ([1]). Furthermore, when trying to search the picture on the http://agenciabrasil.gov.br site (busca: Banca de Imagens, searched for the term Praça dos três poderes, you get a notice stating (roughly translated): Attention: we are busy migrating our contents to our new site. To search images produced before the 28th of june, click here. If you click you go to the archives, where the old images (up to 2004) can be found. So at least not delete until it's clear that a) this is just a temporary thing, as the website seemes to state and b) it's clear that Radiobras is something else than Agencia Brasil (which I don't think). Seen that earlier debate about this template and subsequent communication with Agencia Brasil led them to slap a CC license on their pictures, considering this picture has the same copyright texts as all of the current pictures had before, considering that Agencia Brasil is a subagency of Radiobras, considering that they state they are migrating their content to a new structure, this leads me to the conclusion that the original license text (© Todas as fotos poderão ser reproduzidas desde que citada a fonte e o nome do repórter and O uso das fotos produzidas pela Agência Brasil é livre. De acordo com a legislação em vigor, é obrigatório registrar o crédito, como por exemplo : Nome do fotografo/ABr.) should be considered the same as the cc-by-2.5-Brasil license as used by Template:Agencia Brasil. NielsF 22:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

deleted (unclear license) and replaced the usages with another image --ALE! ¿…? 14:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Template:SPDFraktion

It's a pure press license ("Der Nutzer des Fotos erklärt sich durch Klick des Buttons "OK" mit folgender Vereinbarung einverstanden: Das Foto darf nicht ohne den Quellen-Vermerk weitergegeben oder veröffentlicht werden. Der Quellen-Vermerk muss gut leserlich im Bild integriert werden oder unmittelbar neben dem Foto angegeben sein. Quelle: spdfraktion.de") [2]. Beyond such use, it does not explicitly permit redistribution, commercial use and derivative work, and, as we all know, all that is not permitted explicitely is forbidden by default. The according claims on the template are solely the invention of the template author. --Rtc 06:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep Using a picture in a newspaper is commercial use. You can be shure that the newspapers also create derivative work by cropping, adjusting white balance etc. Then they redistribute it by selling their archive DVDs. I see this agreement as equal to cc-by-2.0 which is a legitime license. --Ikiwaner 07:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

That's simply wrong. A press license is a press license. So it permits redistribution, commercial use and derivative work only to the extend that it is needed for press use, so clearly not "for any purpose" as the template has written in bold letters. It is not equal to Template:Cc-by-2.0. Get them to put a CC-BY tag on their website as is the case with Agência Brasil if you want to keep – that should be easy if you are right, shouldn't it? We had this discussion again and again. What would not be permitted for these pictures is selling them on their own or similar things (making a calendar, etc.). En.wikipedia labels press photos even as only fair use. Press licenses are not free as in freedom, period. --Rtc 07:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Instead of helping to clarify the situation of 200 useful pictures (may they be used on a calendar too?) you do a deletion request and let the others do the work. I don't like your proceeding. I will ask for explicit cc-by license. --Ikiwaner 16:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Instead of provinding proper licencing informatin the respective uploaders did sloppy work and let others fix it. That's the point. Delete while there is no definite license.--Wiggum 16:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
This is wrong. See my comment below. --Ikiwaner 18:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Die SPD-Fraktion hat diese Bilder der Wikipedia zur Verfügung gestellt. Es gilt nicht der Text auf der Webseite. Ich bekam folgende E-Mail von Kerstin Villalobos, zuständig für Öffentlichkeitsarbeit: auch nach nochmaliger Rückversicherung bei den Vertragsaushandelnden: grünes Licht, wir haben die uneingeschränkten Nutzungsrechte (bis auf Film und 1/1 Plakat, aber das -wie gesagt- können wir aufgrund der Qualität der hochgeladenen Bilder auschließen) und geben sie hiermit an Wikipedia weiter. --JuergenL ✈ 21:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC) Wenn's jemand übersetzen will darf er das gerne, ich schaff das heute abend nicht mehr ;-)
Hallo Jürgen, 'an wikipedia' reicht eben nicht. Wir brauchen eine Lizenz 'für jedermann'. Wikipedia ist da garnicht nicht relevant, alleine dass das Wort in ihrer Antwort auftaucht, zeigt deutlich, dass sie die Natur der Sache nicht erfasst haben. Dürfen die Bilder völlig frei weiterverbreitet, verändert und, auch einzeln, kommerziell genutzt werden, von jedermann? Ich glaube nicht, denn das steht im Konflikt zur Aussage "Es gilt nicht der Text auf der Webseite." 'für jedermann' geht entweder ganz oder garnicht, nicht für Wikipedia so, für die Besucher der Webseite anders, sondern nur auf gleiche Weise für jedermann. Bitte versteh den Unterschied. Sie sollen ein CC-PD, oder CC-BY, oder CC-BY-SA-Schild auf ihrer Webseite anbringen – Agencia Brasil schafft das ja auch – oder eine Einverständniserklärung an OTRS schicken. Ich glaube diesen Aussagen einfach nicht, die man problemlos im Streitfall auch anders auslegen könnte. --Rtc 02:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Die zuständigen haben es schon richtig verstanden und meiner Meinung nach auch richtig formuliert. Sie geben uns die uneingeschränkten Nutzungsrechte. Diese können wir auch weitergeben. Soll ich dir die Kontaktadresse von Fr. Villalobos geben? Dann kannst du versuchen eine genauere Lizenz zu bekommen. --JuergenL ✈ 07:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Jürgen hat sehr wohl nachgefragt, bevor die Bilder hochgeladen wurden. Ich habe die von ihm erhaltene Einverständniserklärung auf der Diskussionsseite hinterlegt. „...die freie Nutzung der Bilder ist (...) erlaubt“ sollte uns Grund genug sein, die Bilder bedenkenlos zu verwenden. Die hier betriebene Paragraphenreiterei nervt mich, ich hoffe, das ist nun erledigt. --Ikiwaner 18:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Man hat hier nur leider wieder den Fall, dass diese Formulierung interpretierbar ist. Ähnlich gelagert war das Spiegel-Cover, welches letztlich gelöscht wurde. Ich hatte damals zwar für behalten optiert, jedoch sind die zugrunde liegenden Überlegungen hier eine restriktive Interpretation (nämlich: Nutzung nur bei Wikipedia, keine kommerzielle Nutzung, Veränderung etc.pp.) anzusetzen absolut nachvollziehbar: wir müssen im Sinne eines wie auch immer gearteten Qualitätsstandards die freie Lizenz der Bilder sicherstellen, um auch für Nachnutzer Sicherheit zu schaffen. Das heisst, dass die Willenserklärung des Urhebers so eindeutig wie möglich sein muss - es reicht halt nicht "Ihr könnt die Bilder bei Wikipedia frei verwenden" (schon der Hinweis auf WP indiziert eigentlich, dass keine CC-Lizenz gemeint sein kann) sondern es muss schon explizit "Ja, die Bilder können als CC-BY verwendet werden" sein. Es gibt doch Formulierungsvorlagen für solche Anfragen, warum verwendet man die nicht? Alternativ könnten die Rechteinhaber auch ein CC-BY-Tag auf ihrer Website plazieren.--Wiggum 21:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

JuergenL, die zuständigen haben es mit an Sicherheit grenzender Wahrscheinlichkeit eben nicht richtig verstanden, sonst hätten sie sich nicht so ausgedrückt und würden auch keine widersprüchlichen Angaben auf der Webseite machen. Die Antwort an Ikiwaner ist noch deutlicher, dass es sich hier lediglich um eine Lizenz für die Verwendung in der Wikipedia handelt. Zwei Möglichkeiten: a) Sie machen ein CC-Lizenzschild auf ihre Seite, b) die Bilder werden gelöscht. So Trucksereien können wir uns jedenfalls nach dem in der Vergangenheit erlebten nicht erlauben. Wiggum: Ich halte die Klausel "von jedermann" für die wichtigste, die bei der erteilung der Lizenz genannt werden muss. also, "Ja, die Bilder können von jedermann unter CC-BY verwendet werden" z.B. --Rtc 04:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Da ich mehrmals mit Fr. Villalobos telefoniert habe weiß ich, dass zumindest Sie es verstanden hat. Daher sollte es auch kein Problem sein, diesen von Rtc gewünschten Zusatz "von jedermann" zu bekommen. --JuergenL ✈ 05:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Telefonieren: Auch das hatten wir schon, bei der CDU. Trotzdem haben sie's nicht kapiert. Versuch bitte sie dazu zu überreden, ein CC-Schild bei den Bildern auf ihrer Webseite anzubringen und wenn Du Dir irgendwelche Erklärungen geben lässt, dann sollte es die Einverständniserklärung an ORTS sein, nicht nochmal so ein halbgares Formulierungsgewurschtel. --Rtc 12:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Weil du diese Einverständniserklärung geschrieben hast ist sie genau das was wir hier brauchen? Wenn du der Meinung bist dann frag doch bitte selbst bei der SPD nach oder lösch die Bilder. Ich hab mir schon genug Arbeit mit diesen Bildern gemacht und werde nicht noch mehr Zeit damit verschwenden. --JuergenL ✈ 15:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Nein, sie verlinkt auf die offizielle Vorlage. Meine ist nur eine Überarbeitung davon und Anleitung dazu. Merkwürdig, immer wenn diese Vorlage mit der umfassenden Aufklärung kommt, dann ziehen die Lizenzbehaupter den Schwanz ein. Wie kommt das nur? Ich glaube, wir wissen beide ganz genau, dass die SPD diese Einverständniserklärung nicht abgeben würde und die Bilder deshalb wohl leider gelöscht werden müssen. Immer diese dümmlichen Versuche, faktische Presselizenzbilder irgendwie im angeblichen Interesse der Enzyklopädie zu behalten. Ich kann nur nochmal deutlich betonen, dass die Freiheit der Enzyklopädie zuerst kommt, dann erst ihre inhaltliche Qualität. Wenn wir Pressebilder akzeptieren, schwächen wir unsere Position. Anders können wir sagen: Wer eine wirkliche freie Lizenz erteilt, der darf ein Bild in der Wikipedia haben, wer das nicht tut, ist im Nachteil. --Rtc 15:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Die offizielle Einverständniserklärung (auch in englischer Übersetzung hier auf Commons verfügbar) wurde ursprünglich von mir formuliert (nicht von Rtc). Rtc hat aber voll und ganz recht, dass uns windelweiche gutgemeinte Erlaubnisse NICHT nützen. --Historiograf 20:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Ich denke, da es hier um etwa 200 Fotos von wichtigen Personen geht, sollten wir nicht einfach forfait geben. Um ganz kurz zusammenzufsassen: Auch ich würde es begrüssen, wenn die SPD eine klare CC-Lizenz abgeben würde. Auch ich bin der Meinung, dass man Bildbeiträge von Organisationen, die eine Genehmigung an Wikipedia geben, hier nicht annehmen sollte. In diesem Streit geht es aber um etwas anderes:
  1. Darf man Bilder annehmen, wenn man bloss sicher ist, dass der Rechteinhaber einer commons-kompatiblen Lizenz zustimmt, aber keinen expliziten schriftlichen Text hat? Konkret: Reicht Die Bilder dürfen frei verwendet werden oder braucht es die Bilder dürfen von Jedermann frei verwendet werden?
  2. Dürfen wir Bilder von Leuten annehmen, wo wir annehmen müssen, dass sie von Urheberrecht nicht sehr viel verstehen? Reicht eine Interpretation unsererseits, dass der Rechteinhaber die Bilder nicht nur an uns lizenziert, die Bilder verändert und kommerziell genutzt werden dürfen?
Ich persönlich bejahe beide Fragen beherzt. Wer bestimmte Formulierungen auf der Homepage der deutschen SPD-Bundestagsfraktion verlangt, setzt die Messlatte zu hoch. Ich verstehe auch, wenn ein Sachbearbeiter ob Rtcs Einverständniserklärung kalte Füsse kriegen sollte. Ferner hat mir ein Blick auf rtc's Diskussionsseite geholfen, seinen Löschantrag in den richtigen Kontext zu setzen. --Ikiwaner 21:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Nein, Ikiwaner. Beide Fragen sind ganz klar mit nein zu beantworten, so ein gewurschtel können wir nicht akzeptieren. Und wie ich schrieb ist völlig egal, ob es "200 wichtige personen" sind, man kann da kein Auge zudrücken, nur weil es vielleicht vermeintlich der Enzyklopädie zugute kommt, auch wenn viele immer wieder mit diesem Argument kommen. Wer bei der Einverständniserklärung kalte Füße bekommt, der bekommt sie zu recht. Assume Good Faith gilt nicht in Belangen, die so etwas betreffen und es ist davon auszugehen, dass, wer die Einverständniserklärung nicht abgibt, auch keine freie Lizenz erteilen will. Auch lese ich heraus, dass Du etwas akzeptieren würdest wenn "die Bilder dürfen von Jedermann frei verwendet werden" kommt. Auch das reicht nicht und darf nicht herangezogen werden, um auf die Einverständniserklärung zu verzichten. Sie ist dafür da, benutzt zu werden und ist einfach notwendig, weil sonst keine Sicherheit für Nachnutzer gegeben ist. PS: Was hast Du auf meiner Diskussionsseite gefunden, was Dir bei der einordnung geholfen hat? --Rtc 07:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
If a license "free use for everybody" is not enough and just the text from Rtc is valid this is not commons as I knew it anymore. --Ikiwaner 05:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Ehm, which part of the statement on the template's discussion page is the "free use for everybody"?--Wiggum 08:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
"free use for everybody" is not enough because it's too unclear. Does use also mean modification? Does it mean commercial use? Does it mean redistribution? We had so many unclarities in the past that we should really only use the email template. If somebody does not send the template permission, he does not really want to grant a free license. It's that easy. And no, the official text is not a text by me. --Rtc 12:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
The text you request is even in your user namespace though and no, to be free it's enough that the owner of the image gives a free license or uneingeschränkte Nutzungsrechte. No template needed. --Ikiwaner 17:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but it is only a small part of the text and by no means sufficient. No, "free license" or "uneingeschränkte Nutzunsrechte" violates the fundamental ethical requirement of umfassende Aufklärung. You can't explain free licenses in two words. Those who reject to use the template are dishonest and committing license rubbery. Why are you refusing to use the template? Because you know that most would reject to grant the license after umfassende Aufklärung has taken place? Our wishes for nice pictures must step back here behind the need for clean, honest licenses. I make deletion requests on sight for each and every single picture that is the result of such dishonesty directed at the licensors. It's fahrlässige Irreführung and most likely invokes §119 BGB. --Rtc 19:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Apropos umfassende Aufklärung: Du willst die Leute aufklären die die Gesetzte in deinem Land erlassen... --Ikiwaner 19:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

We need to close this deletion request soon. After having read the discussion I would say, that "for Wikipedia" is not enough and that we need to delete all the images. Any objections to my conclusion? --ALE! ¿…? 07:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Wait -- Personally (not as a representative of Commons's administrators) my view is that the images can be kept. The SPD said "die freie Nutzung der Bilder ist mit Quellenangabe ‚spdfraktion.de‘ erlaubt." which means "the free use of the images is allowed with a source reference 'spdfraction.de'". IMO, why assume that people don't understand what they are saying?
But certainly the license should be confirmed by the OTRS people. I think we should wait with deletion until an OTRS person has confirmed that the image are free enough for Wikipedia. I will ask somone from OTRS right now.
Fred Chess 08:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Delete if we do not receive a written confirmation into OTRS with the "Einverständniserklärung". All other is not really free. On Template talk:SPDFraktion: "dürfen bei www.wikipedia.de veröffentlicht werden. Das Urheberrecht liegt beim jeweiligen Fotografen" That is not a free licence. It's limited to Wikipedia. Do the SPD Fraktion has really got all rights from the authors ("ausschließliche Nutzungsrechte")? --Raymond Disc. 18:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Despite I do not see a necessity for this, I sent another email to the Bundestagsfraktion. Lets see their reaction. --Ikiwaner 22:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Please accept the truth that there will be no free license for PR photos; such licenses are an illusion. The Bundestagsfraktion cannot give any free license; you need to ask the photographers themselves, they are the only ones who have the relevant rights. The Bundestagsfraktion has only non-exclusive permission for PR related use, which is not a free license. Take your camera and make some photos yourself instead of diligently trying to merely collect them. Collection is not the purpose of commons. --Rtc 01:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. Copyright concerns have not been sufficiently answered. / Fred Chess 12:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] August 2

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

[edit] 2 incorrect svg version of Nuvola kmoon icons

Image:Nuvola_apps_kmoon.svg and Image:Nuvola_apps_kmoon2.svg are test svg versions of Image:Nuvola_apps_kmoon.png and should be deleted. NERV 10:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! 11:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Alpha antiterror group emblem.gif

Uploaded in wrong format (gif). There's the same picture in PNG.--Darz Mol 19:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

deleted, please use {{duplicate}} or {{badname}} next time and do not list the image here. --ALE! 21:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:DSC 0068.jpg

Wrong pic uploaded in wrong format and under wrong name. God, I hate lag... Halibutt 03:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Mark {{speedy}} or {{badname}} please. --Panther 09:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

deleted by User:Paddy --ALE! 09:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Marian richero and Image:Marian Richero.jpg

REASON: promotion. --Juiced lemon 08:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

WATCH OUT! The author has removed the delete templates from these pages. --Juiced lemon 16:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

deleted by User:Thuresson --ALE! 09:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Rafa.JPG

Source given is a magazine webpage and a forum webpage. This image is a copyvio from the magazine. --Abu badali 03:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

deleted (copyvio) --ALE! ¿…? 22:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Konstanz stadtwappen.png

Not used, vector version available -- rayx talk 12:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 22:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Synchronicity.jpg

Lizenzkonflikt (siehe Copyright-Hinweis), Autor reagiert nicht auf Anfrage: de:Benutzer_Diskussion:Christoph Balzar

license conflict: VG Bildkunst is claiming the copyright, while author says its GFDL. The author didnt answer in the German Wikipedia to the questions concerning this (see de:Benutzer_Diskussion:Christoph_Balzar#Copyright_?). -- 141.30.81.164 14:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC) aka Amtiss

For me this image is a case for {{PD-ineligible}} --ALE! 14:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep with PD-ineligible or</> delete for futility and copyright as well.--Wiggum 14:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't keep it. It seems as if the author won't come back so soon. -- 141.30.81.164 13:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's ineligible for copyright, but that's not enough reason to keep it. It's a bad JPG, it's unused, and it could always be replaced by simply typing (*)*, couldn't it? Angr 09:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm pretty sure that your're impertinently ignoring the matter of fine art which is with this picture ;-) --Wiggum 19:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
    • It has been used before, but now it has been removed, because of the copyright problems. -- Amtiss 16:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Delete Please understand: It is not ineligible for copyright. You cannot compare copyright for works of applied art and copyright for fine art. This is fine art, and of course it's copyrighted. Sure you may write (*)*, but you may not copy this work (or draw from it as a template, or trace it), or claim, for any (*)*, by context or otherwise, that it's this "(*)*" of Chris Balzar. --Rtc 07:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I would never concern that such a ridiculous "work" is fine art 8-) but on that premise you're right. Delete.--Wiggum 10:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted--Shizhao 14:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] 3 Echinops pictures to be deleted

Both Image:Echinops_sphaerocephalus.jpeg and Image:Echinops_sphaerocephalus_blatt.jpeg have a duplicate name. Image:Echinops_sphaerocephalus_bluete.jpeg is obsolete now and should be deleted. Thanks. The author of these pictures. Fabelfroh 09:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

 Comment The third image is still used. --ALE! 11:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 09:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Light bulb icon3.svg and Image:Light bulb icon4.svg

Both of these images were tests, but they appear the same as Image:Light bulb icon2.svg while having slightly different code (hence no {{duplicate}} tag). Elembis 10:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

My account is now old enough that I've been able to upload the proper version of the icon to Image:Light bulb icon.svg. This makes Image:Light bulb icon2.svg unnecessary as well, so icon2, icon3 and icon4 are all now marked for deletion as broken copies of the correct one. Elembis 19:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

 Delete - All icon3 icon4 and icon2 per the nom.--Nilfanion 22:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Deleted — Erin (talk) 13:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Little swiss and slinger speedway.jpg

Midnightcomm 02:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

 Delete --GeorgHH 09:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 Delete non-commercial license --ALE! ¿…? 09:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted--Shizhao 12:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Ddm 2004 025 Zuoying Festival.jpg, Image:Ddm 2004 024 Zuoying Festival.jpg

not cc-by, is cc-by-nc-nd-2.0, see[3]--Shizhao 12:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

deleted by User:Raymond de --ALE! ¿…? 07:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Xu 2003 003 Hualian.jpg

not cc-by2.0, is cc-by-nc-sa-2.0, see [4]--Shizhao 12:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

deleted --Raymond Disc. 06:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Statue Michael Jordan.JPG

No freedom of panorama for statues in the U.S. Statue was created in 1994 by Omri and Julie Rotblatt-Amrany.[5] -- howcheng {chat} 16:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 12:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:CheyFidel.jpg, Image:Che Guevara2.jpg

unrestricted commercial use is not allowed, therefore against the Commons policy --ALE! 12:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

 Delete -- when the copyright holder reserves his right to have the final say about usage, the image shouldn't be on Commons. But it would be perfectly acceptable as fair use on those Wikipedia that accept it. / Fred Chess 16:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Alberto Korda sued that vodka maker based on his moral rights that are independent of copyright status. Moral rights are included in Berne Convention, so if the photographer is still alive, he still might sue you even if the picture is public domain. The moral rights are not transferrable, and when Korda died 2001, no one can control the use of those pictures anymore. --Mikko Paananen 18:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
This is not the way it works in the United States, and we do expect creators to waive some portion of their moral rights as much as we expect them to waive their economic rights. Jkelly 00:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
In that case we should delete everything that is taken by Finns and maybe other citizens of the EU. I can not waive my moral rights. -Samulili 09:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The license says "The copyright holder of this file allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that it is not used for the promotion of products such as alcohol, or for any purpose that denigrates the reputation of Che Guevara.". This is too unspecific to be called "free material". Be warned that the files will very likely be deleted, so you should better upload it as fair use on the Wikipedia you want to use it, if it allows fair use. / Fred Chess 13:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Keep Mikko said above, what I wanted to say. --VinceB 12:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • This photo is against policy. I will be very surprised if it is kept. Can not be used for a “purpose that denigrates the reputation of Che”? Not a free image at all then.  Delete --Kjetil_r 12:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Comment A related debate [6]. Very interesting! / Fred Chess 19:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, images are unfree. They can be undeleted on January 1, 2072. Angr 09:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Images deleted. I am not allowed to upload my own photos under these conditions. Thuresson 08:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Chekhov house.jpg

this Image has a coyrigth. --- Aineias 06:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

This image is free for distribution upon proper attribution. You may read more in details here: http://taganrogcity.com/copyright.html ISasha 14:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Image deleted. Web site claims "However, The City of Taganrog makes no warranty that materials contained herein are free of copyright claims or other restrictions or limitations on fair use or display.". Thuresson 08:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Flag of Abkhazia.png

SVG-version available: Image:Flag of Abkhazia.svg. Please look at Image:Abchaziëvlag.png and Image:Abjasia.png, i think they should be delete, too. (the three png-images are not in use)--GeorgHH 18:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete Keep the SVG and delete the PNGs --jed 08:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Image:Flag of Abkhazia.svg does not have a copyright license. Thuresson 08:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I deleted the two smaller PNGs, but Image:Flag of Abkhazia.png is currently the only image with a proper license tag. (Also, it's being used now.) If it is orphaned and the SVG license is fixed and in the meantime no one else objects, then the PNG can be deleted. pfctdayelise (translate?) 08:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  •  Comment The shades of green in the two flags are quite different too. --Himasaram 23:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  •  Comment very different colours --ALE! ¿…? 15:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

kept (the superseding SVG has no proper license tag) --ALE! ¿…? 14:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] World War I era images

The following halftone images I've uploaded, their status as PD-old etc. was contested a while ago. No help from the village pump. One admin suggested that I'd research who actually the photographer is, something which I can't (needle in a haystack..). More detail here.

Original upload: Image:Horse simulator WWI.jpg, Image:East Prussia war grave 1914.jpg, Image:Ferdinand Foch pre 1915.jpg, Image:Friedrich von Ingenohl pre-1915.jpg, Image:Paul von Hindenburg pre-1915.jpg, Image:Rear Admiral David Beatty pre-1915.jpg, Image:SMS Mainz sinking (photo).jpg, Image:Imperial Russian artillery ammunition baskets WWI.jpg, Image:Crew of Unterseeboot 9 (WWI).jpg

Later addition: Image:HMS E7 (WWI).jpg, Image:HMS Shark (WWI).jpg, Image:George V and Admiral Callaghan onboard HMS Iron Duke.jpg, Image:HMS D1 (WWI).jpg

The latter series and some of the original ones I would put as {{PD-BritishGov}} (British armed forces photos), the rest as perhaps {{Anonymous work}} because it will be very difficult to determine the original author. That they were in widespread circulation (newspapers etc.) I do know, some of the images in the book I scanned them from have been put on commons via Project Gutenberg and the Imperial War Museum.

What to do? Scoo 06:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I suppose those credited to "Det stora världskriget vol. II, p. 347. Printed in Stockholm 1915." would fall under whatever the copyright status of that 1915 Swedish book is? -- Infrogmation 01:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd consider the book PD, though apparently the photos status as PD is contested. See also the discussion at Image talk:Horse simulator WWI.jpg. Scoo 07:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Based on [7], it seems that these photos published in 1915 or earlier are out of copyright in the USA. Even if the main editor/author of the book, Major General Carl Otto Nordensvan who died 1924 had individual's copyright, Swedish copyright duration of life + 70 years would have expired.--Jusjih 14:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
There seems to be an error in the logic of your quote: Normally, an unregistered foreign work's copyright would have expired and then be restored by the URAA. The court case you are quoting claims that there is nothing to be restored because the work is to be regarded as unpublished in the US, so copyright was determined by the URAA to begin with (without restoring anything). In both scenarios, such images are not PD in the US. It's only the rational that changes. --Wikipeder 12:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. We do not know if the authors died more than 70 years ago, and we have no reason to be sure any exception to this will apply. As long as we are not 100 per cent sure images are free content we must not use them. --Wikipeder 12:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Isn't this exactly what {{Anonymous work}} is for? What we are saying otherwise is that we can never be sure that a work was truly anonymous and that thus all images on Commons which are PD due to having been published (without known photographer) after say 1850 would have to be deleted. I'd like to point out that this probably includes several thousand images. /Lokal_Profil 21:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
The 70 year provision is for anonymous images, i. e. images of which the author never claimed authorship. That we, after glancing at a scanned image, do not know who the author was, is something completely different and does not at all mean that the image is in the public domain after 70 years.
In fact, you are very right with your observation that there probably are loads of images that are not free content among those simply tagged "anonymous" for convenience. We can hardly ever proove that the author really never ever has claimed authorship. For that reason, e. g. the German WP does not accept anonymous images if they are not at least 100 years old (which is arbitrary, too, but certainly safer). --Wikipeder 08:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
And when would we ever know that an image is anonymous? Does it have to be signe anonymous, what about if the author used the pseudonym anonymous. What you are saying is basically that everything marked anonymous (less then ~170years old) should be deleted.
Also what I was trying to point out is that this image is argued to fall under the copyright of the book it was published in since they didn't specify a source (wherby it's possible that the photographer was a contributor). An argument agaiinst this would mean that all(most) images tagged with e.g. {{PD-Ugglan}} and {{1922 cyc}} would have to be deleted. /Lokal_Profil 12:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep German copyright laws/WP rules can not be used generally for the works of the pictures here, some are being uploaded from Singapore, some from Argentine. This suggestion simply ignores the laws of other states. Do not implement this rule! MoRsE 12:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
    • This argumentation is not valid. You have to obbey the law of the country were the image was taken not from were it was uploaded. --ALE! ¿…? 16:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
What about {{PD-US}} then? It's a difficult question though. Scoo 16:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete in doubt delete --ALE! ¿…? 16:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep all the images of UK origin here at least. These all look fairly safe (and are quite likely to be government works). Unsure about the German pics, more sourcing would be good but as thats unavailable...--Nilfanion 19:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe to remember that the UK, US and French government didn't accept German copyright from prior and during WWI as a result of the war. Naturally this led to massive problems for the German economy and busted the development of new solutions. So we could look if these rules could apply. I will do some research (but I guess nobody minded to abolish the concerning laws). Wandalstouring 14:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep. While caution (as Wikipeder and ALE! urge) is good, in this case I think they're all anonymous, and covered by the 70 year doctrine and are safe to keep. If not, I suggest individual deletions, not en masse. ++Lar: t/c 20:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] August 3

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

[edit] Image:Ashcroftman.jpg

A silly joke. --Panther 10:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Also Image:Cheneyman.jpg. --Panther 10:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

deleted by User:Darkone --ALE! 11:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:No-map.PNG

I accidently uploaded this image with .PNG with capital letters. A new one has been uploaded at Image:No-map.png, so this is only a unused duplicate. Mathias-S 15:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Slettet. Ingen grunn til å ta opp slike ting her, merk feilopplastinger med {{bad name}}. Kjetil_r 17:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Artigas-flag.jpg

I the author ask for delete it for Wrong flag desing. Thank you, Loco085 18:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! 21:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:NGC 6822.jpg

Copyright violation: the source of the image is [8]; NOAO images require permission for commercial use. Mangojuice 20:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

deleted by User:Shizhao --ALE! ¿…? 13:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Stuetzebach im Thueringer Wald

bad name, right article is Stützerbach.--GeorgHH 21:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Article moved to Stützerbach im Thueringer Wald. No need for deletion. Article deleted; only image there is already at Stützerbach. Angr 14:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Elisabeth Schwarzkopf.jpg

Source of the image is [9]. I didn't find any information on the original author nor on the copyright status on Sandy's Opera Gallery. The licensing section claim this image to be PD-old. This is very unlikely to apply. Miss Schwarzkopf was born in 1915. So, if we assume her to be 21 years or older at the time of taking the image, it was in 1936 or later, so PD-old can not apply. Anyway, the image is certainly not older then 1930, so its unlikely that the author died before 1936. Rotkraut 21:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, free status cannot be confirmed. Angr 14:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Deleted, yes this was my personal error from the past. I'll look into some of my other opera singer uploads soon, some of them are copyvios. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 02:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Alto Palancia cv.png

Low resolution image, superseded by Image:Localització de l'Alcalatén respecte del País Valencià.png ; the other locator maps have gray backgrounds (see Category:Land of Valencia comarca locator maps). --Juiced lemon 07:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete --jed 08:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 10:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Diamond-problem class relationships.png

An UML-compliant and public-domain version in SVG exists now: Image:Diamond_inheritance.svg. The en- and de-Wikipedia articles which used the image are already changed to refer the new image. --RokerHRO 13:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete --jed 08:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 10:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Coat of arms of the Soviet Union.svg

The image contains at least 20 errors in mottos and a few other errors and is poorly sourced. See [10] for more details. Cmapm 09:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Kept, work in progress is not a reason to delete. If you're not happy with it, you don't have to use it until it's improved. pfctdayelise (translate?) 08:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Logo o2 300dpi.jpg and Image:Logo o2 72dpi.jpg

Both images found in the "against policy category". However, I think both can be save applying the {{PD-ineligible}} license tag. Both images were downloaded from http://www.de.o2.com/ext/o2/media/index?preview_req=&category=Pressebilder+Logo --ALE! 14:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

They are as ineligible for copyright as about any other logo. --Rtc 09:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Delete Hmm, it seems that the UK, where O2 orginally comes from, uses the "sweat of the brow" concept. Which means, that these image are most probably copyrighted in the UK. (If it was a German logo, I would vote keep.) It is only used on the German Wikipedia, where a local duplicate was uploaded as a reaction to this deletion request. The template {{Logo-Germany}} IMO is not usable in this case. --ALE! ¿…? 09:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 13:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Skibladner arrives Lillehammer 1924.jpg

Photo by Anders Beer Wilse († 1949). The uploader claims that the copyright has expired, (I guess) because he considers it a non-artistic photo (without «verkshøyde»). Non-artistic photos are only protected for 50 years in Norway. I disagree with the uploader, nearly all Norwegian photos from 1924 should be considered works of art. --Kjetil_r 21:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete The shorter protection period is for trivial works; this is a planned photo by a professional photographer, and not a trivial snapshot. Cnyborg 23:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: Clearly a commericially produced postcard. If such 1924 commerical postcards are still typically protected under copyright by Norway law, this should be deleted as a copyright problem. - Infrogmation 18:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Deleted --Kjetil_r 01:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Es ist eine Farce, was hier abgeht, was hier alles behalten wird. Mit der Herangehensweise, krampfhaft alles behalten zu wollen, verschrecken die commons professionelle Fotografen! Die hiesigen Admins sollten sich einer Wiederwahl stellen, sonst verkommt das hier zu einer Sammlung irgendwelcher Fotos, die nicht frei sind, die man schlecht findet und deren Lizenzen sehr zweifelhaft sind, also eine äußerst unzuverlässige Quelle - Finger weg von commons! --217.88.160.79 23:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

EN: Low quality is not a reason for deletion, except a better image with same or similar content exists. But a Non-free license is a reason for deletion. So please tell us, which image(s) do you mean. Thank you. --User:RokerHRO 06:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
DE: Schlechte Qualität ist kein Löschgrund, außer es existiert ein besseres Bild mit gleichem oder ähnlichem Inhalt. Nicht-freie Lizenzen dagegen sind ein Löschgrund. Es wäre nett, wenn du uns konkret sagen könntest, auf welche Bilder sich dein Kommentar bezieht. Danke. --User:RokerHRO 06:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Ticketwc06.jpg

Months ago I uploaded a pic of a ticket for the Winter olympics of Turin 2006. It was deleted because it was considered a copyviol (ediscussion here. If that was true, I think the same applies with this picture. Otherwise I will reload mine. --Snowdog 13:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - derivative work. A.J. 09:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - if I take a picture of a person walking in front of an advertisement, the advertiser can't sue me for copyright infringment. When I take a picture of a bunch of tickets randomly put on a table, it is not copyright violation.--FlagUploader 08:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • This is very, very widely used... :( I disagree with FlagUploader, because the intent here is clearly to show the tickets. Hope the CommonsTickers do some work soon... pfctdayelise (translate?) 08:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - merely a picture of some objects thrown on a table. --LimoWreck 12:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Deleted. They are copyrighted items on a table. / Fred Chess 19:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] August 4

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

[edit] Image:Image-Uttower1.jpg

Speedy delete requested by uploader - me. OB by Image:Uttower1.jpg -Nv8200p 03:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. Please use {{bad name}} for such requests. --Kjetil_r 05:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Peter-rabbit.PNG

Beatrix Potter died in 1943. Why is it PD? --171.23.128.1 11:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Beatrix's Potters books were published simultaneously in London and New York. Anything published in the United States before 1923 is in the public domain, even if the author has been dead less than 70 years. (According to w:Wikipedia:Public domain, in fact anything published anywhere in the world before 1923 is in the public domain in the United States, but I'm not sure if that claim is generally believed here at Commons.) The question of whether Beatrix Potter books can be uploaded to Wikisource was discussed here and answered positively. Angr 15:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I changed the license tag from {{PD}} to {{PD-US}}. I hope that is ok. --ALE! 21:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I took the picture from the book in Project Gutenberg.. ;-) --Civvi 21:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Seems ok then. --171.23.128.1 17:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

deletion request was withdrawn --ALE! 10:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:MWP Bofors wz36 02.jpg

Uploaded by mistake. Balcer 15:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

 Delete --GeorgHH 09:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Frodo35.JPG and Image:Frodo.JPG

Not useful here. --Panther 14:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

 Delete both --GeorgHH 09:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 22:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:2006 Lebanon war Israeli civilian fatalities.jpg

Claimed to be free use because the website acknowledges that its images can be reproduced under the fair use doctrine. That's simply a statement acknowledging the existence of that doctrine, it isn't a license for unrestricted commercial and derivative work. Doesn't belong on Commons. Jkelly 19:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

This image is not claimed to be free, but rather a fair use of possibly copyrighted material available on MFA website. Obviously the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs has not taken those pictures, and has not paid anyone to bring them online. I think this image falls into the same category as this one. Anyways, following this deletion request, I have emailed the MFA website a request to explicitly approve this montage image. They're unlikely to reply earlier than Sunday local time, so I hope it's possible to keep the image online until then. Cheers. --Lior 22:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
That image is hosted at en:wikipedia. Fair use isn't allowed at commons. Jkelly 03:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
In this case it's my mistake of course. If MFA give their written consent for the publication of this image in Commons, will it be allowed on Commons? BTW, how do we know that Image:Qana_afp.jpg is free? There is no sign of prior contact with AFP, nor a link to its site of origin.--Lior 05:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
We need a license that allows commercial and derivative use. If they are willing to license the image in that manner, then we don't need to do anything here. Emails go to permissions AT wikimedia.org. I'll take a look at the image you are asking about. Jkelly 17:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 Delete Got a reply from the Information and Internet Department of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, saying the following: "The Foreign Ministry does not own the copyright to any of these photos and CANNOT give written consent to reproduce them." Therefore I'm afraid it's time to delete my montage, unless there are some other considerations I'm missing.--Lior 14:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Deleted, fair use pfctdayelise (translate?) 09:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Type 98 tanks on parade.jpg

This picture has insufficient information on its source as to the fact that it is free because it comes from a US gov source. The only reference comes from a magazine, which could easily be a copyright violation. Also its wikipedia listing appears to have been deleted, which increases my suspicion that the image is not free for use. 82.32.20.159 18:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The magazine in question is Armor Magazine, hosted on a .mil domain, and describes itself as the "professional journal of the US Army's Armor Branch". I expect that the bill is footed by the United States taxpayer, and that the magazine falls into the public domain as all other US federal intellectual property. Harald Hansen 10:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
If no one else disputes that, I'll remove the tag later on. 82.32.20.159 23:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 Comment Seems a little bit strange to me, that an U.S. military or Department of Defense employee is able to take take pictures of a chinese military parade in Beijing while in duty. --Rotkraut 20:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Kept Curious, but legitimate licence -- Infrogmation 03:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Nanjing ditch.jpg

This image purports to represent the "Ten Thousand Corpse ditch", which was part of the "Nanking Massacre". However there is no evidence on the originating website listed on the image's Commons entry as to who the author of the picture was, nor to support the assertion that it actually occured during the Nanking Massacre. So I don't think that it can be taken to fairly represent the Nanking Massacre on the wikipedia article[11] and thus should be deleted. 82.32.20.159 17:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

  •  Keep。PD--Shizhao 14:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Further discussion in section below, to discuss deletion of all Nanking Massacre-related photos. Miborovsky 00:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
kept--Shizhao 13:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] All Nanjing Massacre pictures (bar "Nanjing Ditch" and "Slayers")

See Category:Nanjing Massacre

These images (except for Nanjing Ditch) are not in use on wikipedia. Also they purport to represent Japanese war crimes, yet there is no evidence on the corresponding source websites as to where or when they were taken, or by whom. Thus it is not possible for them to have a proper encylopedic use, so I think they should be deleted. Also some of the images do not have sources listed.

However, the "Slayers" picture has been well sourced on wikipedia so I have no problems with it. "Nanjing Ditch" is listed above for a different reason. 82.32.20.159 17:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

 Keep both pictures. license seems fine to me and I don't see a reason for a deletion at all. If the the source is questionable this has to be verified, but they definitely have a encyclopedic value. -- Gorgo 18:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
As I mentioned on Gorgo's talk page, I'm not sure if he was sure what the deletion listing was, as he said "both pictures". Obviously I said two particular pictures from the category are either ok (Slayers) or listed above (ditch). Plus I thought that if pictures were not in use in wikipedia articles (as is with the case with the pictures in the category), that was a justified reason to list for deletion. 82.32.20.159 18:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
sorry I meant both of your listed deletion requests are not valid in my opinion. "Not in use" is no reason, because pictures can be on a gallery in commons which is just linked from wikipedia, or they might be used in future articles/projects. -- Gorgo 18:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok. So what the lack of information in regards to the source? You said that "If the the source is questionable this has to be verified". How can anyone verify their sources, given that the website links are far too vague? If the image purports to represent something, surely that "something" must be made clear in the source to ensure it is used properly.
Also Image:Nanjing massacre rapes.jpg has no source at all on the wikipedia file, as the URL link is broken. So at the very least that one should be deleted. 82.32.20.159 19:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep, this is a POV issue, nothing to do with licensing. When these editors run out of things to deny the Nanking Massacre with, they do this sort of thing to game the system. First they construe that "no/little sourcing is provided" when in reality thousands of sites as well as published bestsellers use these images, remove them from the article page, then try to delete them on en or commons to get rid of these images forever. Miborovsky 19:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any information as to the veracity of these images - not that the images are fake, but that they actually show what they are supposed to. 82.32.20.159 20:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Also, as I have repeatedly said Image:Nanjing massacre rapes.jpg has no source. If you want me to relist it separately, that's no problem. But at the same time you should acknowledge that picture can be removed. 82.32.20.159 20:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
that's what I meant with "If the the source is questionable this has to be verified" - but they seem ok and consistend with pictures about nanjing in other literature, so there is no need to rush any decision. If someone finds a source (e.g. a book) that states this/these pictures are indeed what they seem to be than this has to be added, if someone finds a different source they have to be renamed. Until that time maybe a note should be added that there is no verified source right now. -- Gorgo 21:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Plus what's this about "getting rid of these images forever"? These aren't the only copies of these pictures in existence. If there isn't anything wrong with them, it would be very easy to re-list them. I admit that I misunderstood the best way to list for deletion, but having been pointed in the correct direction I've worked out what to do. Now you, Mib, have consistently refused to either update tags properly (in some cases you edited so there were no tags) or indicate why pictures are justified, etc. You just "cry wolf" in regards to this being a POV issue, which is hardly fair. One should expect more from a moderator. 82.32.20.159 21:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Evidence abounds, but remains inacessible for most people. Wikipedia is one of the top 10 US websites, where our volunteer staff from all over th world writes about all sorts of articles on everything imaginable. Just add it up. As for my removal of the {{unknown}} tags, these were to prevent Orphanbot from automatically removing them from articles in which they have resided since time immemorial, and to prevent unwary admins from accidentally deleting them. Miborovsky 00:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a top website, but fast becoming a joke for anyone trying to do serious research. Trying to justify current policy because of the number of hits is ridiculous. It's supposed to inform people correctly, not further misunderstanding. 82.32.20.159 11:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Just because pictures have been used in works doesn't mean they should be attributed like that. Besides, Suzhou is not Nanjing. For one thing it's much closer to Shanghai than Nanjing. 82.32.20.159 11:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Also another site refuting the use of that picture[12]. 82.32.20.159 12:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I wonder whether Mr. IP.82 have examined that article. The conclusion it made is absolutely weak. It's an absurd reasoning to say that the oringinal photo is not concerned with Nanking Massacre only because the author couldn't find a wall in Nanjing, while he even admitted that he was not sure about whether it was a wall since the photo is too obscure. The brave author even made a further assumption that "Most likely", the photo is about the confliction between the Nationalists and Communists, with no evidences provided. Why, Mr. IP.82 tends to trust such ridiculous passages rather than those well constructed works such as Chang's? --Alexcn 06:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
FACT: All these images are used as evidence of the Nanking Massacre. We can include these images, mention both sides' claims as to the photos' origins, and let the reader figure it out himself. Or, you can delete these images, and I can reupload them, ad infinitum. You are violating WP:POINT by trying to delete all Nanking Massacre-related photos all at once. I have offered you this compromise. It's up to you whether to take it. Miborovsky 18:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I can't delete pictures because I don't have sys-op abilities. If they are deleted, it will be because an admin agrees there are problems with them. So far only some of the photos here are eligable for deletion here according to the way the voting has gone, so you will still be able to use some of them.
If you re-upload pictures having lost the argument, then you're abusing your admin powers and are a far more childish editor than you can accuse me of being. 82.32.20.159 11:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep.
kept, deleted Image:Nanjing massacre beheading.jpg and Image:Nanjing massacre rapes.jpg--Shizhao 13:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Xbox 360 white background.jpg

not found in flickr.--Shizhao 03:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

  •  Keep They took Image:Xbox 360.jpg from [16] and removed the carpet and such. The image description page could be more clear though. (That is, unless there is some problem with Image:Xbox 360.jpg too, but shizhao seems to think it doesn't have a source even though it says "origin"?) Kotepho 07:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

kept --ALE! ¿…? 11:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Category:Logos

Almost all logos would have to be tagged as {{Logo}} in this category, so would be eligible for speedy deletion. If you claim that logos are copyrighted (they are not, except, perhaps, if they are from UK-like territory with appropriate international treaties in effect, I have not checked that) then digitizing it or photographing it won't change that, but that's the way people unsuccesfully try to evade the (non-existing) copyright protection. Further, almost any logos in there are protected by trademark, and, even if (incorrectly) believed to be licensed under GPL (what's not protected can't be licensed) or something similar that does not change anything about trademark protection. Further, Panoramafreiheit does not apply to trademark. Either we delete the whole category including all logos or we make a resonable policy. --Rtc 10:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

  •  Keep and make a reasonable policy; accept logos regardless of trademark status. Assume Germany's jurisdiction about copyright for logos, except for sweat of the brow countries. I started a tag Template:Trademarked and Template:Logo-Germany and labelled some. --Rtc 10:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Delete if logo main subject of image. Could you use trademarked image for any purpose? I don't think so. --EugeneZelenko 14:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Could you use a Coat of Arms for any purpose? I don't think so. Could you use a picture of a patented object for any purpose? I don't think so. Could you use a panorama freedom picture for any purpose? I don't think so. Could you use a photo where the logo is not the main subject of the image for any purpose? I don't think so. Could you use a photo of a person for any purpose? I don't think so. Could you use a photo for a nazi emblem for any purpose? I don't think so. --Rtc 15:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Delete. I think this is a very slippery ground and it is better to make a radical decision now than to periodically discuss in on each case. --Panther 15:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Delete Could you use all those images to sell postcards, calendars or books without claim "fair use"? if you can then keep them. --Martin Rizzo 20:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Can you sell photos from celebrities here on postcards? If no delete all photos of living persons here --Historiograf 20:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • keep WMF legal dep. (Villy) has argued for the use of non-copyrighted logos. de has a reasonable policy and lives good with it --Historiograf 20:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Keep Arguments, see rtc --ALE! 22:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Comment Rtc is wasting his/her time... Trademarks are not allowed on Commons, as per Commons:Licensing. Any arbitrary interpretation that is not in line with that page will be reverted. / Fred Chess 00:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
    • That's why I wrote "make a reasonable policy". The restriction about Trademarks has been designed by Duesentrieb (even if he claims it was derived from earlier discussions), who has a clear point of view about these matters and from whom you'd not have expected something different. ---Rtc 04:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
      • These things have to be discussed with a broader audience (for example the commons mailinglist). You know why? Because we on Commons can't decide that by ourselves. Duesentrieb did not invent our policies. It will be a waste of time to try and change something that will be rejected by the Foundation. Most important, it has to be accepted by user:Eloquence (who proposed Commons in the first place) and by Jimbo Wales. / Fred Chess 20:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC) PS. Don't think that I haven't argued to keep trademarks on Commons -- in fact I wanted to create a Commons just for symbols and logos -- alas it is not my project... DS.
        • ACK  Delete NO LOGOS on Commons --- gildemax 11:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
        • As far as I understand Historiograf's comment you are the ones reject this, not the Foundation. --Rtc 13:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Keep while a few of the logos are copyrighted thus fair use most in the category aren't. Jaranda wat's sup 03:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

keep and rivise the foolish Commons:Licensing restictions. Trademark protection is completely independend from copyright and we should care for copyright only. --h-stt !? 15:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Lengthy arguments (Rtc) wont win the case, neither does votes and opinions. I have now asked for others' opinions on the mailinglist, lets see if anyone from the Foundation answers. / Fred Chess 00:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. See mailinglist and there is no reasen why german people should be allowed to upload logos because of missing "Schöpfungshöhe" and others not. And I have no idea why we should throw well established policies overboard. This should be a speedy deletion. greetings. --Paddy 13:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    Why can Germans upload photos using panorama freedom and why can others not? Why can Argentine people upload photos older than 25 years after its first publishing and why can others not? Why can Germans upload COAs as PD and why can others not? In different countries there are different laws. In Germany the threshold of orginiality (is that Schöpfungshöhe?) is very high, so we can upload logos. --ALE! ¿…? 22:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    • It is not true. You may not upload photos using "Panoramafreiheit" if it infringes some other law of a country (e.g. glass pyramid at the Louvre). In germany there is such thing as "Panoramafreiheit" in other countries there are other laws. What I am trying to say is that you try to apply the german law to all countries in the world. But that does not apply at all. @ALE! shure? Are you talking about a persuasive precedent? Or are you just guessing that most logos do not have any kind of "Schöpfungshöhe" in germany? greetings --Paddy 07:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
      • @Pamoramafreiheit: I am saying that users can upload photos taken in Germany in a public space applying German law. However, users can not upload photos taken in the US applying the same criteria than in Germany. Thus, we apply different criteria according to the law / jurisdiction applicable in the particular case.
        @Logos: In Germany the law and the jurisdication fixed a high level threshold for copyrightable originality (Schöpfungshöhe) like the laufendes Auge case in Germany (see: de:Schöpfungshöhe. That means, that a logo under German jurisdiction in the first place - like the IG Farben logo - has to be judged under the German legal criteria. Which means, that the IG Farben logo is not subject to copyright, but to other legal restrictions like the German Markenrecht (trademark law) or the Geschmacksmusterrecht (design patent). Therefore it can be uploaded. Concerning logos of other countries I am not really sure. It could be that the O2 logo is copyrightable in the UK but not in Germany. Therefore it could be, that the logo cannot be uploaded to Commons but the German Wikipedia. But: I am not a lawyer. Maybe we should ask one specialized in international copyright law to write an expertise for us. --ALE! ¿…? 10:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

keep --Steschke 13:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

  • comment -- (my comment pertains only to car badges' and hood ornaments' photos contained within this category) Perhaps the Commons is not the best place to keep such photos that can raise some controversy, but at least some of those pics are not the logos themselves but depictions of details of motor vehicles. Perhaps the legal status of such is varied from country to country, but I doubt it whether any manufacturer would oppose free publicity. I guess WP is a rather well-known medium and if any manufacturer had a problem with that, they would have emailed WP Foundation long ago.
    Many articles on Wikipedias use those photos as the only available depictions of badges or hood ornaments that are discussed in this or another way in articles. Therefore, even if the category is deleted, please make sure every photo is transferred to all Wikipedias using them. Bravada 13:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  CommentIf Template:Deletion_requests#.7B.7BLogo-Germany.7D.7D is being kept, this category should be kept too. However, all logos in this category have to be revised for copyright. --ALE! ¿…? 13:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Hmmm, Logo-Germany is valid (if we trust those who argue in favour of it) in Germany. I looked through the category and don't see a problem with the category itself.  Keep for the category. Some images might need to be deleted, they should be listed separately. For example Image:Evisu pocket.jpg, Image:ASBÖ Logo Jacke.jpg, in addition to already mentioned Category:Motorcycle company logos and Category:Car company logos. / Fred Chess 22:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Again, please do not delete entire categories of images. If you find it inappropriate to host them in the Commons, please place notices in Wikipedia articles using them (giving us some reasonable time, e.g. a week) so that we could make Wikipedia-only copies of them. Bravada 01:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

kept --ALE! ¿…? 07:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] All paintings by Pavel Korin

See Category:Pavel Korin

These paintings have the disputed license {{PD-Soviet}} on them which claims that all works published in the former Soviet prior to 1973 are public domain.

Pavel Korin died on 1967-09-22, and I don't think that the license is valid.

Fred Chess 17:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete them all and this ridiculous template as well. These pictures are obviously protected in Russia and elsewhere. --Wiggum 17:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 Delete Wiggum is right, the template is ridiculous. --Rtc 05:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 Delete all the paintings are copyrighted, keep Image:Pavel Korin photo.jpg Jaranda wat's sup 03:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 Keep Do you want to delete all the paintings by the PD-Soviet? He died in 1967, all his work were published before 1973. Keep Alex Bakharev 10:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, unless PD-Soviet is outlawed. MaxSem 10:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. You cannot selectively delete some articles from a category. All or none. SO fare there was not a singe legal issue with the template; it was extensively discussed. Mikkalai 20:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Keep per MaxSem. --Panther 06:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Take your problems with the tag to the appropriate place, the tag's talk and TfD. Don't propagate randomly to the selected pages that use this tag. --Irpen 07:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The template seems to be totally false. Delete these paintings along with lots of other PD-Soviet stuff. --Kjetil_r 08:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Keep per Alex Bakharev. --Yakudza 12:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Keep per the rest. --Ghirlandajo 13:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Keep. 83.237.229.9 19:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Comment -- actually I don't know why people think that this template has legal validity. I will gladly accept your proof of this. The evidence provided at Template talk:PD-Soviet does not confirm your view. / Fred Chess 00:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • That someone created an arbitrary license and now thinks that is had legal validity based on lack of proof of the opposite is improper. While some former Sovier works may be assumed to be public domain, this assumption can hardly be made in the case of world-renonwed paintings, which is why I believe it is a fair place to start clean-up. / Fred Chess 23:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Keep per Alex Bakharev. 81.17.146.136 16:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • delete and ignore the Russian lobby voting for keep. Law is no case of voting --Historiograf 16:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Keep per Alex Bakharev and en:Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Lupo. Copyright paranoia only hampers wiki and does nothing to move it further. --Kuban kazak 00:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Keep As per above. --TimBits 22:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
    • This RfC is a very interesting link. I cite a premise from the top of this page:
      Huge number of people use pre-1973 Soviet publications as the public domain works. Many use them commercially. The legal reasons to depreciate the tag are obscure and certainly are untested in the USA courts. I can not imagine that the first test case will be Wikipedia (noncommercial organization working for the common good). Depreciating the tag will be a catastrophe for a whole section of wiki and the risk is most probably just our imagination. I would suggest to stop the self-harming actions until a real danger (test case) will be present
    • If en-wikipedia relies on what might be or what might not be instead of laws and facts - it's their problem but i emphatically insist that commons should keep a straight line and uses only justifiable licenses. Huge number of somebody using something is not an argument in copyright issues.--Wiggum 08:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
      • I would also quote another one:
        From reading this page, and a number of the previous discussions on this topic, it appears that we don't know that there is a case of copyright infringement here. It might be that we can't know this without a copyright lawyer's professional advice, or more likely, without referring to the precedent of a court case. And it's possible that no relevant precedent exists at all. Given this situation, since there has been no legal claim by a copyright holder against Wikipedia, nor even a request to take down any allegedly copyrighted work, there is no real evidence that copyright infringement exists, and therefore no reason to take down the materials in question. The assertion that we need to do this to protect Wikipedia from lawsuits seems to be without legal basis, given the facts that I have seen.
      • Speaks for itself doesn't it.--Kuban kazak 14:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Yes it does. I repeat myself: we should only use justifiable licenses. Your quotation shows that nobody knows anything precise so i see no reason why we should generelly accept such a bogus license, especially since Russia and most other countries of the former Soviet Union signed to the berne convention.--Wiggum 16:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
          • OK, On May 23 1973 Soviet Union signed the Geneva copyright agreement. The recognition of the copyright law was not retroactive, thus Soviet Union and Russia were free to publish anything from abroad published before 1973 and people outside of Russia were free to use anything published in Russia as a public domain [17]. It is the common understanding of the matter through out the world (see [18] as an example). Nobody AFAIK have challenged this state in a court. On the other hand some bright legal wikiminds have found that theoretically this state of affairs is challenge-able and yes, if it would be challenged somewhere we do not know the outcome. The only thing we know for sure that Wikipedia would not be the first to be challenged. Wikipedia-wide the tag PD-USSR on commons and Sovietpd on en-wiki existed almost as long as Commons - from july 2004. Legal department of Wikimedia is well aware aware of this tag, nobody from foundation commanded us to pull it down or deprecate it. Alex Bakharev 07:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Delete; my arguments are on the template's talk page. The template itself eventually should go as being completely unsourced. (The link to marxists.org, which Alex gave, just repeats the claim; it doesn't justify it. The PDF Alex linked, BTW, is an article of 1973. In view of the developments since the mid-1990s, the claim just is wrong.) Besides, as Korin died only in 1967, his works would still be copyrighted in all "70 years p.m.a." countries... Lupo 12:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Keep --Butko 13:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Keep I suggest this ridiculous witch-hunting stop. -- Grafikm fr 20:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Keep --Khoikhoi 05:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Keep Mikkalai 21:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
kept--Shizhao 14:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Ulrike Meinhof

[edit] Image:Ulrike Meinhof als junge Jo.jpg

Keep, same picture as below, private family picture published with the permission of the family. Kph 20:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Keep VanHelsing.16 13:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Ulrike Meinhof als junge Journalistin.jpg

Nice that there is permission from the daughter, but this permission is entirely irrelevant. Basically, we need permission from the photographer. --Rtc 14:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I upload this image. It is a privat familiy picture. Here daughter w:de:Bettina Röhl send me this picture after my request. -- Stefan Kühn 06:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Keep, obviously. Kph 20:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Keep VanHelsing.16 13:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
kept--Shizhao 11:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Eiffel tower and the seine at night.jpg

Reason : The lightning of the Eiffel tower is copyrighted and no image of it by night can be published without the authorization of the company which has the exploitation rights of the tower. This image is at the edge of what could be made : there's the Seine river and a bridge (small) in the foreground, a skyscraper (with no point of interest) at the right and the tower well visible in the background, almost the main element of the picture. The possible deletion of this photo needs to be discussed. Sting 01:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep, the courts seemed to have ruled against SNTE in this matter, and it doesn't apply in the U.S. anyway. Andrew Levine 15:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Note to Andrew Levine. It's Commons policy to respect EU laws in matters where the images were taken in the European Union, rather than say "it doesn't apply in the US anyway." However, I'd be interested in your note about the "courts ruling against the SNTE" in this matter. If this means what I think it does, then this would support our keeping it. Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 13:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Was interessiert US-Recht? --217.88.173.194 23:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Translation of your comment: Who's interested in US law? Please comment in English only, thanks. Answer to your question: It's Commons's policy that images must be legal in the USA and the country where the image was made. In this case, that's French law. Commons is not the German Wikipedia. BTW: Delete, no freedom of panorama in France. In that case, all images on Tour Eiffel page must be Deleted. TZM de:T/T C 13:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Well not all images as the effel tower is over 100 years old thus PD-old, and no longer affected with the freedom of panoama, only the night images. Jaranda wat's sup 23:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep Platonides 21:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC) Plus, i can't see how they can copyright lightning. And i don't see any special pattern. Only light all over the Eiffel Tower.

Kept. Well this is not easy to judge. To Platonides: apprently they can. Please see w:Eiffel_tower#Image_copyright_claims. From there, I quote: In a recent decision, the Court of Cassation ruled that copyright could not be claimed over images including a copyrighted building if the photograph encompassed a larger area. This seems to indicate that SNTE cannot claim copyright on photographs of Paris incorporating the lit tower. Since this photograph encompasses a larger area, I think it is OK. If it cropped to only show the tower, and not the surrounds, then I would think that is not OK.

To TZM: comments in all languages are welcome. The Commons does not have an English-only discussion policy (or even practice). pfctdayelise (translate?) 08:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Olofw.jpg

Due to the EU copyright harmonisation, this image is not in the public domain outside of Sweden (if it is in Sweden at all) and should be removed since it cannot be freely used elsewhere.--Wikipeder 10:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep -- what is wrong of applying the country of origin's copyright? If I understand all the legal discussions that goes on this page, only artistical creations are protected for 70 years after death of author according to the EU copyright harmonisation. I wouldn't consider this to be artistical. / Fred Chess 00:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
The point is that this image cannot be used anywhere else if it is PD in Sweden at all. While it might be suitable for the Swedish WP, it is not for the Commons, which are meant to hold images that can be freely used in international projects. There are hardly any images that will not pass as works in the EEA and the US, see e. g. User:Lupo/Simple Photographs --Wikipeder 22:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I want to remind you that we base copyrights on the copyrights in the country of origin, which may regard copyrights differently for "simple" photos. Please see Commons:Copyright_tags. For this reason we also accept for example {{PD-US}} for works first published in the U.S., and {{PD-Finland50}} for "simple" Finnish photos; we have also been subjected to lobbying to accept German logos without Schöpfungshöhe, although this is a German concept, and there are hardly any logos that do not pass as works in the U.S. .
If you wish to dispute the accuracy of {{PD-Sweden}} or other templates, you should do that at commons_talk:Licensing, not on a case-by-case basis.
Fred Chess 05:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Kept. Fred is right: if you want to dispute a template, then discuss the template as a whole, not each individual image. pfctdayelise (translate?) 08:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Baader.jpg

Obviously the site does not have the copyright on the source material for the scans it offers, thus cannot grant such a permission in the first place. --Rtc 14:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete copyright of someone else --ALE! ¿…? 07:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • German speaking admin, please pfctdayelise (translate?) 08:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Deleted insufficient source. / Fred Chess 08:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:WiiRemoteController.png

Looks like a tracing of the official press release photo [19], compare the diagonal shadow across the face. We have free photos of this device.

  • Delete ed g2s • talk 14:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Against sweat of the brow arguments. Tracing in this case is perfectly okay, since the photo displays the controller in a standard position. --Rtc 15:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, copyvio. Angr 09:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep nothing copyrighted. What's next? Prohibition of photographs of refrigerators and walls? --Wiggum 14:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
    • You are completely missing the point. The photograph was taken by Nintendo. ed g2s • talk 04:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
      • [20] is a photograph taken by Nintendo. Image:WiiRemoteController.png is not? It's even more different than it needs to be. --Rtc 06:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't see the point with that photo. Image:WiiRemoteController.png is just a picture of that stupid remote. Why should it be prohibited to make a picture of a doohickey just because another one made a picture of the same doohickey before?--Wiggum 09:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Because this picture is an near identical copy, hence a derivative work. If I take a photo of a car, I can copyright it. If you copy my photo with a few tweaks, my copyright still applies. ed g2s • talk 13:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
          • Please stay resonable; this is not a photo of a car. The controller is in a standard position, thus there is basically not much variation possible. If you want to draw the controller in such a position, you will never come up with a many differces in the result. In fact anything that could be different for such a position is different in the drawing: Just take a close look at the buttons. Cleary not a copyvio. --Rtc 13:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep --71.242.153.162 03:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, it even doesn't have any nintendo logo --Martin Rizzo 02:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    • That is completely irrelevant. We can take our own photos of it, but Nintendo's publicity shots are copyrighted. ed g2s • talk 04:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Clearly a derivative work. Just take a picture of the actual remote control, which would be a perfectly suitable replacement. howcheng {chat} 23:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Deleted. Tracing others' illustrations is not permitted. There's no reason to keep this image. / Fred Chess 08:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] August 5

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

[edit] Image:IMG_2302.jpg

I uploaded this image by mistake and i have also uploaded the same with a corect name Image:Terra Sigillata.jpg plese delte. Thanks --Bullenwächter ↑  19:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

 Delete --GeorgHH 09:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. Please use {{badname}} instead. --Panther 06:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Prestige Satellite Oil Slick.jpg

Image no free

This image is not a work of NASA but of ESA (European Space Agency) which copyright its publications see here. Lundeux 23:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I've just checked the usage of the image on the wikipedias and delete it. The uploader, a colleague from es:wiki, died last year. Anna 02:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:1_1_11.svg

If I have understood this correctly pictures from the Swedish Road Administrations cannot be used commersially, and cannot be changed. They then ought to be deleted, all of them./Mannen av börd 00:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep, that notice would seem to regard content on their website (image gallery) only. While it would seem that the SVG in question is directly off their website, I don't think that road signs are restricted in any of the Nordic countries (say one could photograph a sign and make a vector image of it). I'd re-upload as File:Swedish road construction warning sign.svg and put a {{badname}} on the current one though (perhaps rename all at Road signs of Sweden. Scoo 09:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Category:Lens, Pas-de-Calais

In France, Lens is a very known town also i created a category called Category:Lens without Pas de Calais. Sofian 14:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

 Delete --GeorgHH 09:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

deleted (empty category) --ALE! ¿…? 09:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Coat of arms of Schleswig-Holstein.svg

Strange/unclear license & strang look... Does not seem to be authentic... The image is derived from a private source, although the image depicts the official coat of arms of a state of F.Rep.GERM. This is the original: http://landesregierung.schleswig-holstein.de/coremedia/generator/Aktueller_20Bestand/A__Bilder/StK/Maximalansicht/Landeswappen,templateId=render.html --213.54.71.244 17:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

FYI: Image:Landeswappen_Schleswig-Holstein.png --213.54.71.244 08:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

 Keep For the license see Sodipodi's Clipart Gallery (and the gallery containing the image), this clearly has been released to public domain!
See also Coat of Arms of Berlin and Flag of Zambia, these are only two examples of many flags etc. created by Tobias Jakobs, published on Sodipodi's Clipart Gallery and released to public domain.
 Comment The sodipodi license is bogus (at least regarding this particular image). The author merely redrew an already existing piece of art. This does not constitute a new original work. The sodipodi artist does not hold any rights on the image. It's the original author's right that counts. The original author's rights are ruled in § 5 Abs. 1 UrhG (Deutschland) and that's why this image is in the PD. Rotkraut 07:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I would appreciate any correction to the license information, but I favor keeping this image! Drbashir117 12:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 Keep The licensing info on the image is clear and it is correct. The image depicts the coat of arms of a Land of Germany and therefore it is in the public domain no matter what the actual source of the image is. Rotkraut 07:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
kept--Shizhao 14:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:PV seal.png

Unused and superseded by Suomen Puolustusvoimien tornileijona.svg. --Hautala 11:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

 Delete. As the uploader I have no objections to the deletion. --Laisak 09:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 Delete --jed 09:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Merivoimat.gif

Unused and superseded by Suomen Merivoimien tunnus.svg. --Hautala 11:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

 Delete. Superseded. --Panther 06:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 Delete --jed 09:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Ilmav.png

Unused and superseded by Suomen Ilmavoimien tunnus.svg. --Hautala 11:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

 Delete. Superseded. --Panther 06:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 Delete --jed 09:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted--Shizhao 12:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Maavoimat.PNG

Unused and superseded by Suomen Maavoimien tunnus.svg. --Hautala 11:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

 Delete --jed 09:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 12:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Claude Monet Rouen Cathedral, The Façade in Sunlight.jpg

I uploaded this image: The image is redundant to Image:Claude Monet La cathédrale de Rouen, le portail.jpg, which i uploaded later and has a better quality. --Rlbberlin 18:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete --GeorgHH 09:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Deleted.--Nilfanion 21:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:SS Sniper 1941.jpg

There is no reason for PD since this is a 1941 picture so the author could hardly be dead for more than 70 years. I asked the uploader on de some months ago but he forgot where the picture was from and i didn't find it on the web myself.--Wiggum 19:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, no source. Thuresson 15:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Deleted, Thuresson 08:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Blütenkopf Dipsacus laciniatus.jpg

bad image – Simon / ?! 18:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep Der superseded-tag ist falsch, es handelt sich um ein anderes Bild, nicht um ein besseres. --GeorgHH 09:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Aber es ist trotzdem nicht gut ... Ist ja von mir – Simon / ?! 18:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete self nomination --jed 09:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Deleted, pfctdayelise (translate?) 08:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] All flags uploaded by user Bab83

More than one year ago I requested a bot to delete all flags uploaded by this user but no action were taken so I repost it here:

First an extract (sorry in French) from our discussion. We can see here that he is not the authors and that he don't care about copyright:

Bonjour, serait il possible d'avoir une réponse à ma question ci-dessus? Es tu Pascal Gross? Car après comparaison des fichiers de drapeaux que tu as uploadé je remarque que ceux-ci sont les mêmes que ceux de cet auteur. Serait il possible d'avoir plus de précision car je voudrais lever tous les doutes à propos des droits d'auteur. greatpatton 31 août 2005 à 12:35 (CEST)

Je ne suis pas M. Gross. Certains drapeaux ont été dessinés par moi, d'autres proviennent de crwflags, d'autres proviennent d'ailleurs ecore. Cela dit, je peut aussi redessiner chaque drapeau. Il suffit de l'ouvrir dans Photoshop, de diminuer sa taille d'un pixel et ce n'est plus la même image, donc plus de problème de droits d'auteur. Faut-il faire ça ? S'il le faut, j'écrit vite un petit script de redimensionnement des images et je les réuploade tous Bab83 31 août 2005 à 13:09 (CEST)

All the flags are comming from Flags of the World. Here is an exemple:

There is a remarkable similarity in file size and image size between Category:Flags of municipalities in the district of Echallens and Flags of Echallens district. Notice for example the striking similarity between Image:Assens Vaud-drapeau.gif and [21]

Can someone help with this task?

Greatpatton 10:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I will see what I can do, but there are plenty more images from FOTW that needs to be dealt with. I know from personal knowledge that Pascal does not want his images to be used at all on Wikipedia. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 01:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC) (Disclosure: I am the Belarus and Moldova editor for FOTW)

I don't speak french, can you translate that? TZM de:T/T C 18:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Image:Versoix-drapeau.gif Image:Vernier-drapeau.gif Image:Vandoeuvres-drapeau.gif Image:Troinex-drapeau.gif Image:Thônex-drapeau.gif Image:Soral-drapeau.gif Image:Satigny-drapeau.gif Image:Russin-drapeau.gif Image:Puplinge-drapeau.gif Image:Presinge-drapeau.gif Image:Pregny-Chambésy-drapeau.gif Image:Plan-les-Ouates-drapeau.gif Image:Perly-Certoux-drapeau.gif Image:Onex-drapeau.gif Image:Meyrin-drapeau.gif Image:Meinier-drapeau.gif Image:Lancy-drapeau.gif Image:Laconnex-drapeau.gif Image:Jussy Genève-drapeau.gif Image:Hermance-drapeau.gif Image:Gy Genève-drapeau.gif Image:Grand-Saconnex-drapeau.gif Image:Genthod-drapeau.gif Image:Genève ville-drapeau.gif Image:Dardagny-drapeau.gif Image:Corsier-drapeau.gif Image:Confignon-drapeau.gif Image:Cologny-drapeau.gif Image:Collonge-Bellerive-drapeau.gif Image:Collex-Bossy-drapeau.gif Image:Choulex-drapeau.gif Image:Chêne-Bourg-drapeau.gif Image:Chêne-Bougeries-drapeau.gif Image:Chancy-drapeau.gif Image:Céligny-drapeau.gif Image:Cartigny Genève-drapeau.gif Image:Carouge-drapeau.gif Image:Bernex Genève-drapeau.gif Image:Bellevue-drapeau.gif Image:Bardonnex-drapeau.gif Image:Avusy-drapeau.gif Image:Avully-drapeau.gif Image:Anières-drapeau.gif Image:Aïre-la-Ville-drapeau.gif --pfctdayelise (translate?) 08:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. All flags stolen from Pascal Gross and crwflags have been deleted. Thuresson 21:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] August 6

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

[edit] Image:CoA Burgstaedt.svg (with space)

Reason: wrong page sizing. Corrected version: Image:CoABurgstaedt.svg (without space) --Der Burgstädter 11:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

deleted by User:EugeneZelenko --ALE! 07:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Joepink.gif and Image:Vibe.gif

These images were linked to the en article Joe Francis. On en, they would be speedy deleted as attack images. I'm not sure what the rules are here, but I can't see a legitimate use for this image. —Josiah Rowe 23:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I did not find a rule about attack images here at Commons. Can they be speedy deleted? --Kjetil_r 23:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
As it says on the Upload box, "Useful content only - Wikimedia Commons is for educational or informational content." I don't think joke prank photoshops would fit, and the claim of "PD-self" is dubious as I quite doubt the uploader is the author of the original images used here. Speedy deleting. -- Infrogmation 01:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

deleted by User:Infrogmation --ALE! 07:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Wikipe-tan.png

This image is not GFDL images. This is Fair use image. Copyright infringement. --Owerz 01:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Why do you say this? Creater of image seems to have put GFDL right on image. -- Infrogmation 01:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 Keep Huh? The image says it's licensed under the GFDL, and I see no reason to believe artist User:Kasuga (who has personally uploaded other images of Wikipe-tan, all under under GFDL) does not intend to put it under the GFDL. —da Pete (ばか) 09:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 Keep The image says on it that it is GFDL, and User:Kasuga has claimed that he himself created the image, on en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Mascot:
"This is an oekaki that I posted to Futaba-channel before.
It didn't expect to be used for Wikiproject. I redraw it and put on Comons. If you use it as mascot, I want you to use new one.
--Kasuga 17:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)"
So. what gives? Why does Owerz believe this is not GFDL? -- Ned Scott 05:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps s/he will explain the reasoning in more detail, but honestly, I find it hard to assume good faith. —da Pete (ばか) 13:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 Keep as per above -- Alpha for knowledge 07:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 Keep The author is me. I admit it is under GFDL. --Kasuga 10:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Decisision:Keep. Bad nomination. -- Infrogmation 23:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Marley bob.jpg

I just do not believe that "Scumfrog" is the photographer. Jkelly 03:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] image:Slot1.jpg

Uknown source and author, not used, better image image:Slot 1.jpg uploaded from en Wiki. Roo72 06:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

 Keep The better image is only an other image. No reason to delete. commons are not a competition for the best images.--GeorgHH 09:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 Delete. License is incorrect because of author is unknown. --Panther 15:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

deleted by User:Szwedzki --ALE! ¿…? 08:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Entrance Museum Beerparadise Brussel.jpg

copyvio (and by the way trademarked, which according to the uploader is forbidden on commons). --Rtc 13:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

revenge ? http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Entrance_Museum_Beerparadise_Brussel.jpg&action=history: (Aktuell) (Vorherige) 15:32, 2006 Aug 6 Rtc (Diskussion | Beiträge) (Gegen copyrightfreie logos rumhetzen, aber selbst urheberrecht verletzen)  Keep --- gildemax 16:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
And the argument is what? It's a copyvio, simple as that. --Rtc 16:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

deleted by User:Paddy --ALE! ¿…? 10:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Statue in front of the European Parliament.jpg

copyvio. "Die Panoramafreiheit im Sinne der deutschen Regelung gilt in Belgien nicht. In Belgien darf daher ein moderner, künstlerisch gestalteter Brunnen auf einem öffentlichen Platz nur dann als Foto veröffentlicht werden, wenn er nicht das zentrale Bildmotiv darstellt." (de:Panoramafreiheit) --Rtc 13:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

  •  Keep no {{copyvio}}; published under a free license --- gildemax 16:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
    • What is it about "Die Panoramafreiheit im Sinne der deutschen Regelung gilt in Belgien nicht. In Belgien darf daher ein moderner, künstlerisch gestalteter Brunnen auf einem öffentlichen Platz nur dann als Foto veröffentlicht werden, wenn er nicht das zentrale Bildmotiv darstellt." that you do not understand? PS: changed to {{derivative}} if you like that better. --Rtc 16:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • keep and block Rtc's zelotism. Panoramafreiheit is a human right we should fight for! --Historiograf 17:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
    • @Historiograf: Please stay reasonable! Bleib vernünftig! --ALE! 17:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Delete, clear copyvio. There is no Panoramafreiheit in Belgium. See Commons:Derivative work. Hr. Historiograf, we have to obey the law, no matter what your personal opinion is regarding Panoramafreiheit. --Kjetil_r 17:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. Which law? Belgian law? French law? Then you have to delete all Panorama freedom pictures from Germany because they are not allowed according French law and each creator is free to sue an uploader for a French court. You don't understand law thus shut up --Historiograf 17:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes. But we need to make a difference. And this difference is the law where the photo has been taken. It wont rule out the risks you are describing, but it will minimize the overall risk, since the constellation your are talking about is an almost entirely academic one. --Rtc 17:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    • @ Kjetil r There is no Panoramafreiheit in Belgium. If this is your rule you have to delete a lot of pictures in European_Parliament and others. Also I have see varios pictures of buildings of the European Parliament in newspapers. All {{derivative}} ? I have never have heard about a concerning court case. Did you ? --gildemax 18:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, then we have to delete a lot of pictures from Belgium. Or should we wait until we get a letter like this? --Kjetil_r 18:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment. I was considering whether it might be PD-old, but the Euro symbol cast doubt on this. That's why I did the deletion request. --Rtc 19:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The publication of the image clearly violates the copyright of the statue's author. Either get his permission or  Delete. Rotkraut 20:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 Delete agree with Rtc -- Gorgo 21:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

deleted. A lot of other artwork in Belgie deleted the last weeks. No Panoramafreiheit. --Raymond Disc. 06:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Brigitte Bardot.jpg

No author or source information is provided. PD-old does obviously not apply. Rotkraut 15:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

 Delete Obvious bad PD-old claim; it's too bad this has been on Commons as long as it has. Also dubiously tagged by same uploader is Image:Pietro Nenni.gif. Other contributions by User:Xylon should probably be reviewed. -- Infrogmation 01:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

deleted and three other images marked as nsd. --Raymond Disc. 07:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Wlqxjrk.gif

No author or source information provided. Has been deleted on en-wikipedia. The only one contribution of this user Glum 17:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

deleted --Raymond Disc. 06:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Np Gesaeuse.svg

Image:Np gesaeuse.svg is simply better, I made a mistake with the filename when uploading. --Thire 18:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

 Delete. Please remove this image from your German user page and set {{badname}} for the speedy deletion. --Panther 08:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

tagged with badname --ALE! ¿…? 09:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Saddamcapture.jpg

Copyvio of the right of the person. Not sure that the US gov had the authorisation from Saddam Hussein to take a picture and to broadcast it. The US government is so guilty of copyvio. I think the international treaties that protect humans and prisonners do apply. This is not a picture of Saddam as a public person in this case. Gloran 21:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

It's the same problem for all the mug shots. Okki 23:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 Keep notable figure, not an random person, image in Public Domain as taken by US gov. Jaranda wat's sup 04:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 Keep "right of person" is independent from copyright, so it cannot be a copyright violation. Prominent persons, such as saddam, have a very restricted "right of person", because of public interest. --Rtc 07:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 Keep "right of person" is no problem here, as Saddam is a "public person". No copyvio! --ALE! 07:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 Keep 1979-2003 Iraqi president is not a random person. Picture is US-Gov Public Domain. Julo 15:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Keep - using it as main ilustration could be a problem because of NPOV, but there's no problem with copyright. A.J. 08:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

kept --ALE! ¿…? 09:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Semimetal.JPG

Superseded by Image:Semimetal.PNG. Keenan Pepper 23:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

 Delete, but IMHO {{duplicate}} maybe better here. --Panther 15:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 Delete, Superseded --Der Burgstädter 17:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 Delete wrong file format --ALE! ¿…? 09:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

deleted next time please use {{duplicate}} --ALE! ¿…? 09:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] All contributions by Yawen165 (talk • contribs)

This user is uploading a lot of images of a single person, none of which have yet been used in a single Wikimedia project. I believe that this user is using the Wikimedia Commons for personal file storage. --JeremyA 02:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

 Delete Not all are of one person, but they all have the url of a website on them in large letters, and none seem to be in any categories nor pages. I suspect you are right. -- Infrogmation 11:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

  •  Delete Strongly agree with Jeremy. If this user uploads any more 'personal' pictures without explanation they should be blocked. pfctdayelise (translate?) 09:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

 Delete - are there any valid information about their copyright status and their purpose?! delete it! --Frumpy 20:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

deleted--Shizhao 13:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Flagge Westpreußen.png & Image:Flagge_Provinz_Brandenburg.jpg

Unused and superseded by a SVG Version of the flag. There is no more practical use for this image in the commons. --David Liuzzo 02:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

 Delete both. Superseded. --Panther 06:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 Delete as per above. and Superseded by SVG. -- Alpha for knowledge 08:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC) [Modify: 08:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)]
deleted--Shizhao 13:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] {{Logo-Germany}}

REASON: The Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content, that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. --- gildemax 11:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

  •  Keep What you say is incorrect. That only refers to copyright. Images and media files with this tag can be used by anyone, for any purpose, as far as copyright is concerned. So what's the problem? We can't care about independent restrictions, else we must reject any picture which displays
    • Coat of Arms. They are restricted in exactly the same way as trademarks: "This image shows a flag, a coat of arms, a seal or some other official insignia. The use of such symbols is restricted in many countries. These restrictions are independent of the copyright status of the depiction shown here." Compare this to "This image shows a logo or trademark. The use of such symbols is restricted in many countries. These restrictions are independent of the copyright status of the depiction shown here." Why do we keep these if we may not keep trademarks? I do not see any rational argument for this. Why can we use words like 'SONY' if trademarks are forbidden? There is no difference between a logo trademark and a word trademark.
    • pictures of persons (which are nonderivative, independent from copyright)
    • pictures under freedom of panorama (which are nonderivative, by independent copyright of the displayed object)
    • pictures of patented objects (may not be used to reproduce the displayed object)
    • pictures of objects of daily use (they are basically "fair use" only, if protected by design patents)
    • nazi emblems are in fact very restricted by criminal law in many countries, yet we keep them
    • I have been told that trademarks that are not central to the picture are perfectly okay. Why? Trademark-wise there is no difference.
Below the line, there simply is no "for any purpose". See also #Category:Logos. Logos are copyright free. You can take parts from them or the general design and make your own logo (if not restricted by design patent). They are not restricted in copying and distribution and derivative work. They are only restricted as far as displaying them in public is concerned. Copyright law and trademark law are entirely different. --Rtc 13:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • keep what Rtc said was said to gildemax on Commons:Forum. I wonder why he is ignoring that.--Wiggum 13:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Keep going aline with the reasoning of Rtc. (e.g. also COAs are not useable freely, yet they are permitted here. So, where is the difference between the two?) --ALE! 17:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Keep We need clear rules on what is acceptable and what not. Therefore we should limit ourselves to copyright here. I.e. everything that can freely be published should be fine for us. If we start considering all kinds of other restriction, that depend more on the context of the publication than on the on the mere publishing by itself, then we'll have to wipe half of all commons in the end. Rotkraut 21:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • keep - Please take a look at the wording of the GFDL. The freedom of all wikimedia-projects is in regard to copyright only. Other kinds of restrictions are of no concern for us. All of us take that intuitivly when using verbal trademarks and protected names. We write about sun and apple, with regard to astronomy and fruits as well as to hard- and software. But these words are of course trademarks: Their restrictions just don't apply to our use of them, so we use them. It should be the same with grafic trademarks, coat of arms and the like, if the are ineligible to copyright or their copyright has expired. Please don't get paranoid about coat of arms and logos. Their specific kind of protection is of no concern for our use in wikimedia-projects. That's true in all signatory states of the WIPO-treaties (USA, EU, OECD). So let's keep them. --h-stt !? 10:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Keep --Steschke 13:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Delete - I do not think that these are copyright-free under international or US law. While the legal argument that they are copyright-unrestricted in Germany may be valid, I do not think that applies internationally, especially for trademarks of non-German entities. Morven 09:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Keep per Rtc. We are interested in copyright only, and don't care about other restrictions. TZM de:T/T C 10:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Keep, because the legendary images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose is a idea, but, by far, not the truth. You may not even use the image of a Dodge Magnum or George W. Bush for any purpose. In this perception, commons has failed. It is not able to change the world, to make it "free". An the other site commons is a success, even with somehow unfree images -- Stahlkocher 16:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
kept--Shizhao 13:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Ajax attacking Cassandra.jpg and Image:Ajax attacking Cassandra.png

These images are tagged PD-art but it is impossible as photos of a 3D object. --Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 00:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

 Delete--GeorgHH 09:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Coat of Arms Burgstädt and Schleswig Holstein

[edit] Image:Wappen Burgstaedt.png

Reason: much better svg version: Image:CoABurgstaedt.svg --Der Burgstädter 11:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

 Delete. Superseded. --Panther 08:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 Delete --jed 09:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 15:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Ordre teutonique logo.gif

Unused and superseded by a SVG Version of the cross. There is no more practical use for this image in the commons --David Liuzzo 03:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 13:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:BrekerSelbstbildnis.jpg

along with

[edit] Image:DF1.jpeg

[edit] Image:BrekerBannertraeger.jpg

[edit] Image:BrekerVernichtung.jpg

[edit] Image:BrekerKameraden.jpg

[edit] Image:BrekerAbschied.jpg

[edit] Image:BrekerJuenger.jpg

[edit] Image:BrekerVerwundeter.jpg

[edit] Image:BrekerWager.jpg

[edit] Image:BrekerWaeger.jpg

All of them are copyvios, as Breker died only in 1991 and these images are derivative works from his copyrighted scuptures. --h-stt !? 09:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Pics are taken by me in the 2006 Schwerin exhibition "Breker-Zur Diskussion gestellt". There was the explicit permission to take pictures. Pl's check at [www.schwerin.de]. Viborg 12:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
As I told you before, this is not enough. You need an individual permission to publish these pictures by the artist (or in this case his hiers). --h-stt !? 15:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

This is not true, I checked again. The explicit permission to take pictures is unrestricted. Viborg 07:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a difference between the permission to take pictures (usually covered by the "Hausrecht" of the musuem whatsoever) and the permission to publish these pictures, especially under a free license which allows commercial use and derivative works. Since your photographs are derivative works of the statues, you need the permission of the artist (Breker in this case) or his heirs to distribute the pictures.--Wiggum 11:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • All deleted.--Jusjih 13:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Bayern_Wappen2.svg

As the name even already implies the image is redundant to Image:Bayern Wappen.svg. There are slight color changes between the files but they do not justify a new file with own crediting. If considered really neccessary those changes should be altered in the old file. --David Liuzzo 12:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't want to overwrite your oddly-coloured version, so I uploaded a new one somewhere else. If you want to change the crediting, by all means do so; I've never really known how to deal with that sort of situation, and I probably credited it wrongly. I did try to make it clear that it came from your work, but if it could be clearer, then let it be so. If you want to replace Image:Bayern Wappen.svg with Image:Bayern Wappen2.svg, then that would be fine by me, but the dull-coloured version is not very appealing. --Stemonitis 16:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
p.s. It would also have been nice if I'd been notified of this deletion request… --Stemonitis 16:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Delete change Bayern Wappen.svg and delete Bayern Wappen2.svg --jed 09:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Deleted, now they're the same, + please notify uploaders! >< --pfctdayelise (translate?) 08:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Dienstflagge_Schleswig-Holstein.svg

Strange/invalid (private) source & strange look (the 3D effects r missing)... The license looks odd... --213.54.71.244 11:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

This one looks better to me: Image:Landeswappen_Schleswig-Holstein.png --213.54.71.244 11:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep For the license see Sodipodi's Clipart Gallery (and the gallery containing the image), this clearly has been released to public domain!
See also Coat of Arms of Berlin and Flag of Zambia, these are only two examples of many flags etc. created by Tobias Jakobs, published on Sodipodi's Clipart Gallery and released to public domain.
I would appreciate any correction to the license information, but I favor keeping this image! Drbashir117 12:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Keep The license should be set to {{PD-Coa-Germany}}. Rotkraut 16:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC).
OK, I corrected that, you're right! Drbashir117 10:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... And what about the 3D effects? And who uses this image? --213.54.69.172 22:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore Image:Flag of Schleswig-Holstein (state).svg looks alike... So this copy(?) should be deleted asap. --213.54.69.172 22:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete The 3D effects are not necessary IMHO, at least for low resolutions (e.g. in navigation bar templates). For usage see, e.g., [22]. But you are right, there are two images of the flag - and according to [23], the aspect ratio of Image:Flag of Schleswig-Holstein (state).svg is correct (5:3), while Image:Dienstflagge_Schleswig-Holstein.svg has a false ratio of 3:2. So I already changed [24], but there are still user sites left that use this image: [25]. Nevertheless, I would now vote for deleting this image! Drbashir117 10:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Delete delete and use Image:Flag of Schleswig-Holstein (state).svg --jed 09:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 15:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] August 7

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

[edit] Image:Rübenvollernter.jpg

Sorry, wrong name. New upload: "image:Ruebenvollernter.jpg" --H.-J. Sydow 10:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. Please use {{badname}} instead. --Panther 15:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] User:Jacopo86/gallery

Unused gallery. It was created by commonist upload. Please delete. Thanks --Jacopo86 18:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. Tag such galleries as {{speedy}} in the future, there is no need to request a deletion here. --Kjetil_r 22:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Zakk Joven.jpg

I think that it is copyvio, but I don't understand the website. Source = http://6holy6devil6.giovani.it/ --Lmbuga gl, pt, es: contacta comigo 10:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

deleted by User:Shizhao --ALE! ¿…? 08:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Category:Stewartia Pseudocamellia

Over-categorisation, wrongly titled. Images previously included now incorporated on the Stuartia pseudocamellia page in Category:Theaceae. - MPF 14:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Deleted --Kjetil_r 06:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Guayra.jpg

Reason for deletion: Copyvio. See http://www.purevolume.com/guayra --Lmbuga gl, pt, es: contacta comigo 12:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

deleted (please tag as {{copyvio}} next time.) --ALE! ¿…? 09:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Calvariocasar.jpg

Reason for deletion request: Logo of http://www.elcasar.net/aboutme.htm & http://www.dguadalajara.es/municipios/casar_el.htm --Lmbuga gl, pt, es: contacta comigo 12:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

See also: Image:Calvario.jpg--Lmbuga gl, pt, es: contacta comigo 12:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Poupard.jpg

The Vatican Press Office is given as author, source and permission. It is highly unlikely that the VPO publishes its photos under GFDL. Gugganij 21:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article or Image:Poupard.jpg

  • ARGUMENTS: VPO publishes its photos so that can be used by World Wide Press

Deleted. odder 09:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Benedict XVI Smile.jpg

The Osservatore Romano is given as author and source, the Vatican Press office as permission. It is highly unlikely that the VPO publishes its photos under GFDL. Gugganij 21:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC) VPO publishes its photos so that can be used by World Wide Press

Deleted. odder 09:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Deskur2.jpg

The Vatican Press Office is given as author, source and permission. It is highly unlikely that the VPO publishes its photos under GFDL. Gugganij 21:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. odder 09:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Medina Estevez.jpg

The Vatican Press Office is given as author, source and permission. It is highly unlikely that the VPO publishes its photos under GFDL. Gugganij 21:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. odder 09:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Russ passing by the Royal Castle in Oslo, May 17th 2002.jpeg

The picture show easily identified persons who, as I can see by the picture description, has not sign off on any disclosure documents. --Bep 22:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. Ref for example Datatilsynet - Bilder på Internett Situasjonsbilder kan defineres som bilder der selve situasjonen eller aktiviteten er det egentlige formålet med bildet. Akkurat hvem som er med på bildet er da mindre viktig enn hovedinnholdet i bildet. Eksempler på dette kan være en gruppe mennesker på en konsert, et idrettsarrangement, 17. mai-tog, eller hendelser som har allmenn interesse. — John Erling Blad (no) 13:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
First: this is borderline a portrait of a girl. Secondly: Norwegian law is not internation law. --Bep 17:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
This photo is taken in Oslo, it is according to Norwegian law, it is protected according to the Berne convention (as all work are gfdl or not) and according to that is under Norwegian jurisdiction, it s in a public place, during the greeting of the king, on the national holliday. Is it possible for anyone to be in a more public place in Norway at 17th of may? Other than the Berne convention, what is there of international law for photos? If you claim you should not follow Norwegian law, how do you define your international law? The norwegian text in a rough translation reads Situation photos can be defined as images whereby the situation itself or the (depicted) activity is the real purpose of the image. Who's on the image is of lesser importence then the content of the image. Examples of this can be a group of people on a concert, a sport event, 17th of May gatherings, or events of general interest. The excerpt is from no:Datatilsynet in Norway, there is also a deutch page. They also have english pages themselves. — John Erling Blad (no) 03:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 Keep The legal basis for the ruling Agtfjott mentions is found in Norwegian copyright law, § 45c (my translation): Photographs depicting a person can not be published or shown in public without consent from the depicted [person], except when: ... b) the depiction of the person is less important than the main motif of the picture; c) the picture shows gatherings, parades in open air or events of interest to the public. This photo clearly falls under c) and most likely also under b) (one of the is enough). Cnyborg 18:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Just a question for future reference: Are pictures posted on commons taken in Norway protected by Norwegian law only? --Bep 22:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
They are protected under the Berne Convention, but the details of the protection are determined by Norwegian law. If the photographer and/or uploader is not a Norwegian citizen, other laws may also apply. Cnyborg 22:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
They are protected according to place of first publishing. This is the same for all countries which has signed the Berne convention. — John Erling Blad (no) 11:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Beholdt. 17.mai-tog kan fritt avbildes. --Kjetil_r 01:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Template:Copyrighted free use provided that

This template is simply abused too much as a catch-all for about any kind of license you can imagine, free or not, especially press licenses and "You may use the picture if you cite the source" – Does that include commercial use? Does that include derivative work? Does that include redistribution? I guess not, in most of the cases, else the licensor would have mentioned it explicitly. Pictures should be checked if they are really free and the template should be changed appropriately. If no according template exists, new ones have to be made, so at least if some site's license turns out to be a problem, the affected pictures can easily be identified. --Rtc 07:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Kept, the template itself is not the problem as nearly all license templates can be (and are!) abused, but perhaps a review process does need to be started. pfctdayelise (translate?) 05:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Laracroft.JPG

For the same reason: Image:Laracroft-neu.jpg

Image was tagged with {{Derivative}}. But it is an image of a living people on a games convention. No trademarks to see (in the foreground). Can this kind of image fulfill the reasons for a derivative work? --Raymond Disc. 20:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Creator of this image is me. THOMAS 09:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
DeleteYou can draw a character, get a model with clothing and make a photograph of it, trace it, screenshot it, render it, whatever. Your result won't evade the fact that it is a derivative work as long as it is clearly Lara Croft, either by similarity or by context. --Rtc 10:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Keep. In the US, You can actually can dress up like someone else, even a character. Else anybody's Halloween pictures would be considered unfree. I'm not certain how the law applies in Germany, where the photograph was taken. Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 16:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Keep - Uhhh, it's a snapshot of a boothbabe dressed up as Lara Croft. So what. I hardly see how this qualifies as copyright infringement. Unless you're saying that anytime I dress up as someone famous I'm commiting copyright infringement. I highly doubt that is the case. --Cyde 16:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, if you dress up without permission as a famous character from a copyrighted work, it's copyright infingement, depending on circumstances, and especially if you make photos or a movie. Just think about it, somebody could simply make his own movie with lara croft. Clearly that's not permitted. (I guess halloween and private clothing can be considered fair use.) --Rtc 17:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete derivative work.--Wiggum 08:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


What does derivative work mean? There exists another improved version of this image. THOMAS 11:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

If you dress up without permission as a famous character from a copyrighted work, it's copyright infingement, depending on circumstances, and especially if you make photos or a movie. Just think about it, somebody could simply make his own movie with lara croft. Clearly that's not permitted. (I guess halloween and private clothing can be considered fair use.) You derive your work (the photo) on creative elements (Lara Croft) from another work work, thus it's called derivative work. --Rtc 11:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, you can delete THIS image, but there's a better version here.

This image was made at an official presentation of the Video game "Tombraider Legend" at the so called "Games Convention" in Leipzig/Germany. So this person is an official Lara Croft from ther official presentation by the games studio. Sorry, but my English isn't this perfect.THOMAS 13:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

See, we have to delete this one too. Your photo contains copyrighted elements for which you do not have a license – Lara Croft. It's hardly relevant if it was an official presentation or not; that only makes the presentation legal, not your photo. Compare to a CD cover: You may have an official, legal CD cover, yet you may not make a photo of it and publish it. It might fall under fair use to use the photo in journalistic context about the games convention, but fair use is not permitted here. --Rtc 14:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I think you are right, Rtc.

But I think that there are big differences between my photo and a DVD cover. If you are sure, you can delete it! Thanks for the information. THOMAS 16:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep the photo is free, it's OK for me. / Fred Chess 13:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
    • It is a derivative Work. --Rtc 13:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
      • What exactly is a derivative work here? Are Lara's clothing, guns, hair and breasts copyrighted? / Fred Chess 15:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
        • What exactly do you think is copyrighted on Picasso's paintings? The blue color? The style? No - it is the work as a whole. Same with the Lara Croft character, it's clearly identifieable what this photograph is about. Try using it commercial - i.e. in computer games - if you think it's free.--Wiggum 15:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think a lot of us are confusing copyright and trademark [26]. I am not a lawyer, but I believe that a character's appearance cannot be copyrighted. Only a specific rendering/photo/video of a character can qualify for copyright. However, characters can be trademarked, and I am sure that Lara Croft is trademarked, but I don't see how that has any bearing here. For example, a picture of a bottle of Coca-Cola is apparently fine on Commons, even though the Coca-Cola logo is a registered trademark. So, I do not see this is a trademark violation, as the usage here is not in direct competition with any of the Lara Croft games, and is far from likely to confuse consumers. I think the distinction between copyright and trademark needs to be made clear somewhere in the Commons Help/Documentation. I'd hate to see too many free images of trademarked products deleted. —TheMuuj Talk 18:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
kept--Shizhao 12:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Bastique has nominated the image again. It is not a model, it is a mannequin/doll, clearly meant to resemble Lara Croft. It should be deleted. Siebrand 06:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep No new arguments to take up deletion request again. --Ikiwaner 14:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Delete. This picture is unclear, and useless. 84.63.106.127 17:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Nidarosdomen erkeengelen Michael2.jpg

Another statue in Norway, cf. previous discussions. Cnyborg 11:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete Is this image significantly different fra the other images of sculptures adorning Nidarosdomen? __meco 22:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
It's different in the sense that there is no architectural element in the photo at all, so it can't be defended by calling it architectural decoration. Cnyborg 23:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
This is not very clear by Norwegian law - we should await the legal investigations done by the norwegian wikipedia before we delete such pictures. Mortendreier 10:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
As quoted in earlier discussions, Norwegian law states "Works of art and photographic works may also be depicted when they are permanently located in or near a public place or thoroughfare. However, this shall not apply when the work is clearly the main motif and the reproduction is exploited commercially". In what way is that unclear? We know that this photo can't be used commercially; anything else is just wishful thinking and attempts to muddy water which is actually very clear. The discussion on the Norwegian Wikipedia concerns the possibility of using it as an illustration; that's simply not possible on Commons (cf. the policy on fair use). Cnyborg 16:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Even this interpretation of the law is being clarified right now by people in the norwegian wikipedia - you will be informed ablut the outcome. Mortendreier 08:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Deleted while no one has argued for its retention.--Jusjih 14:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Mitimaesant.jpg

All other pictures uploaded by this user were copyvios with false "self" tags. This one looks like another promotional picture but no source details are given. However, I can not find a copyvio on the Internet. --jynus (talk) 14:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete all the images of this band uploaded by the same user. --Panther 15:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Deleted all pictures uploaded by this user, including Image:Mitimaesactu.jpg, per your request while there is no good reason to verify the PD-self claims.--Jusjih 14:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Olimpiada popular.jpg

Picture of 1936, not in public domain. Don't believe that "most historical posters hasn't got any copyright". ~Pyb 11:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, actually this PD is quite probable. Remember that it's a poster from Spain 1936, marketing leftist Olimpic Games organized by the republican government of Spain. In this situation PD-gov is pretty probable and I don't believe the republican government restricted the copyrights; and even if they rather wouldn't be valid anyway.
Summing up, not to judge on beliefs some more data would be helpful. If Spaniards knew more about origins of this poster and Olimpic Games (it would be a nice article anyway :) ). aegis maelstrom δ 19:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
You bring some really weird arguments. --ALE! ¿…? 07:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
As Aegis has pointed out, the poster was created in a very specific context, and apparently the authors didn't bother to mark their "author right" (instead of "copyright"). In any cases, it certainly qualifies as "fair use" under US law, thus the comment on "most historical posters hasn't got any copyright" (the checklist on copyright material is a bit too much limited, thus explaining why much material has been titled "stamps" although they had nothing to do with stamps - another subject, but to put it clearly, when dealing with revolutionary events like this, "copyright" is... an irrelevant notion, not because of my opinions (whatever those might be), but because of the turmoil of the period and the openless and will to publicize of such things. This kind of poster is like a logo. 82.43.184.110 23:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Please stop talking nonsense. Also a revolutionary can own copyrights. --ALE! ¿…? 13:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
You stop speaking nonsense, with all respect due. [27].

Deleted, not sufficiently sourced to show that it is public domain. pfctdayelise (translate?) 08:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Cravan.jpg

Name of the photographer is missing so it's impossible to know if it is really in PD. ~Pyb 11:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a photo taked for an anonymous photographer in 1915 and used by Arthur Cravan like promotional card when he was boxer. Zerep11 12:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Deleted, this is what {{subst:nsd}} is for...! pfctdayelise (translate?) 08:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:OCC-FIREBIKE.JPG

REASON I suppose a custommade motorcycle such as this must be treated same as a sculpture and we would need permission and an appropriate licence from the builder(s) of the motorcycle. --meco 22:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

For me personally this is not a sculpture. --ALE! ¿…? 11:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
In this instance the bikes are on public display in the official OCC store and customers are encouraged to take pictures. Cameras are allowed in the store (where the bikes are on display) and there is no sign prohibiting photography of any kind. --jimerb (Photographer) 20:17, 29 August 2006

Kept, a vehicle is not a statue! pfctdayelise (translate?) 08:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Verbrennungsunfall1.jpg and Image:Verbrennungsunfall2.jpg

The license probably was handed over to the publishing company Urban & Schwarzenberg.--Dr.Bobo 09:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete if no one can give good reason to keep them.--Jusjih 13:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  •  Comment usually the authors only give the permission to use their work to the editors. They usually do not transfer the copyright. It therefore depends on the contract between the author and the editor whether the author can paralelly exploit his rights or not. --ALE! ¿…? 10:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • German speaking admin, please --pfctdayelise (translate?) 08:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Deleted while no one has spoken for its retention with valid reasons.--Jusjih 12:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Rockefeller Center Atlas1.jpg

Statue created in 1936. Sculptor died in 1963, so not public domain yet and no freedom of panorama in the US for statues. -- howcheng {chat} 18:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Who is the sculptor? --ALE! ¿…? 09:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Lee Lawrie. --Kjetil_r 10:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
DeleteDerivative work of a (still) copyrighted statue --ALE! ¿…? 08:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
If a work was first published in the U.S. between 1923 and 1963 WITH a copyright notice, then it's in the public domain ONLY IF the copyright was not renewed. I am unsure of the statue copyright and I can find nothing at the copyright renewals.--Jusjih 07:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Does not the link you are providing only cover books? --Kjetil_r 01:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think this statue is copyrighted per PD-not-renewed, nothing in the link that Jusjih gave so Keep Jaranda wat's sup 21:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Sanbec ✉ 09:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Deleted for lack of evidence that the image is public domain. / Fred Chess 19:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Template:CNG

permission for wikipedia only (see talk page). Please use Commons:Email templates and CC licenses. --Rtc 13:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I added {{template deletion request}} to the tmeplate. Maybe we get some more echo like this ;-) . --ALE! ¿…? 15:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • User:Saperaud is an admin. I think we should wait to see what he says first. It seems he hasn't been active for a while. Maybe one of the Germans can email him? pfctdayelise (translate?) 08:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. From [28]: "The content of the Site may be used as a shopping and educational resource. Any other use of the Site, including the reproduction, modification, distribution, transmission or display of the content, is strictly prohibited." It is unacceptable here.--Jusjih 14:36, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The permission says "you can use the images as long as...", not "you can use the images on Wikipedia as long as..."--FlagUploader 17:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. (see FlagUploader) --Carlomorino 13:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep (uncertain), "General Terms" as cited above are "general" and as such you can't expect puplic domain or anything like that for the whole site but you can expect it for some parts of it. Other websites which I can't recall just now (a german coin wiki f.e. i think) used cng too with the given condition, so I followed these are well considered terms and not a lost "on Wikipedia" in our permission. --Saperaud 22:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I've searched some sites again and my results are mixed (found some formulation like "to use outside our xy-project you need permission of cng" + CC license), so I can't be certain about CC status without some waterprofed permission of CNG. The template was actually made by me after some research for permissions and original uploaders, I never had contact with cng myself or uploaded one of their images directly form their site. In my memory there was some numismatican (from there) who declared CNG images as CC but that was perhaps hearsay and I can't really remember it well. So it could be a case of "be content with the shit you have and spare you the trouble of dwelling too deep" (I was young and in need of my nerves). I dont have time now to formulate an e-mail masterpiece of diplomatic poesy but I look forward to saturday. --Saperaud 05:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Absolutely Keep, quoting FlagUploader. Bye --Salli 17:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's valuable for educational purposes--Odysses 15:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Very valuable and the permission seems to be very clear.--Eupator 18:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Kept.--Jusjih 17:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] August 8

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

[edit] Image:Blessing of the Dragonfly -i-.jpg

No license. --Ferdinand Porsche 01:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It is cc-by-nc-nd. I have tagged it as such, we can delete it in a couple of days when the projects with a CommonsTicker (hopefully) have unlinked it. --Kjetil_r 00:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

deleted as copyvio. --Raymond Disc. 07:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Zhé.png

Superseded by Image:Zhé.svg

  •  Delete Superseded. — Erin (talk) 07:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Deleted — Erin (talk) 23:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] BigonL

I made a mistake creating this article while thinking I was working on User:BigonL. Sorry ! Can you do something ? BigonL 14:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 15:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:SchoolofAthens.png

Bad version, new (better) one will be uploaded --BjörnF 17:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. --Panther 15:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Karte_Strzelinski.png

Wrong name, correctly named at Image:Karte Strzelin.png. --Rdb 17:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. Please use {{badname}} instead. --Panther 15:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Kurt Gödel.jpg

The licence says that the shot is in public domain "because of the reason above". The reason is : the original website says that the image is in public domain. Not so sure. The site only affirm : "We do not own the copyright to the images used on this website. We believe that most of the images are in the public domain. (...)We have not kept a record of where we found any of the images we have used. If you believe that you own the rights to any of the images we use, please contact us and we will either withdraw that picture or add an acknowledgement."

Furthermore The Times credit a photographer, Alfred Eisenstaedt (died in 1995). See this link : http://www.time.com/time/time100/scientist/profile/godel.html

62.35.127.20 20:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for researching the photographer. So of course it's a copyvio. Tagged as {{copyvio}} --Rtc 20:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

deleted --Raymond Disc. 22:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Rabbitpoop.jpg

Someone edited the Wikipedia article Feces[29], apparently believing that the image there was not free, but simply a photograph of a work by artist Tom Friedman. In searching, I found this, but I'm not sure if the user is correct or not. Either way, I felt it should be investigated.--68.64.65.89 02:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

So... does no one want to go through the hassle of removing the image, or is this page backlogged, or what? If we've got an unfree image sitting on several of our projects, we should probably do something about it... :-/ --68.64.65.89 19:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Deleted. -Samulili 19:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Link.png

not found copyright info in [30]--Shizhao 03:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

 Keep [31], which is the page linked as the source, clearly states it's CC-BY-2.5. I can't find the icon itself in the gallery there, but it's part of other icons. —da Pete (ばか) 08:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
http://www.famfamfam.com/lab/icons/silk/icons/link.png it seems. Kotepho 23:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Kept Appears ok. -- Infrogmation 04:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Etelä-Savon maakunnan vaakuna.png

Unused and superseded by Etelä-Savo.vaakuna.svg. --Hautala 18:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

 Delete. Superseded. --Panther 15:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 Delete --jed 10:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 09:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Evita Flag.PNG

License(s) not credible. First upload of the user. --ALE! ¿…? 23:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

On a side note, such a flag does not exist, but that should not factor in the deletion. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 04:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
It had 3 license tags, it was also tagged as "official insignia" of Argentina (which is not), and while it is stated to be on the public domain, it is a derivative work from the flag (which is not copyrighted) and a portrait whose source is not specified. Barcex 06:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)  Delete
Image pushed by single anon editor in the German, French, Dutch, Italian, Spanish and Catalan Wikipedias. Since the image has no ecyclopedic value and is used for Vandalism under false claims, I strongly support its deletion. Mariano 07:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 Delete Wagner51 11:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted--Shizhao 13:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Copertina Battisti.jpg

Is {{PD-Italy}} applicable for magazine covers? / Fred Chess 00:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

 Delete With the EU directive the template has become invalid retrospectively entirely. Delete it. --Rtc 12:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Furthermore, a magazine cover from 1982 is clearly not a simple documentary photo. deleted. -- Infrogmation 18:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Historisches deutsches Sprachgebiet.PNG

The map presents Frisian and Dutch as part of the German language, eventhough the latter is older than German and has had a standard form for nearly 400 years. It also gives a false view of the German speakers in eastern Europe making them seem more numerous and dominant than they ever were. It compiles different sources in an arbitrary and misleading way in order to prove the author's biased POV. It also does not refer to any particular point in history, thus mixing up different periods. A result of non-scholarly original reseach.

  • Delete Halibutt 07:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Improvements can be made, but what you say is not quite true. Dutch-speaking areas are in a different colour on the map, so the author is not saying that Dutch is exactly the same as German. However, he is right to include Dutch as Dutch and German are historically the same language. Even today, Dutch spoken near the German border is virtually the same as the Plattdeutsch spoken on the other side. There is a dialect continuum in place. Both modern languages descend from Old German. As for German speakers in Eastern Europe, the map correctly represents them as being very few and far between. — Erin (talk) 07:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    That a language is Germanic does not mean it is German, see e.g. Image:Germanictree.PNG. As for Eastern Europe it is pure fiction, e.g. the blue dot immediately south of Warsaw where there was never a German speaking minority (just an example). Wojsyl 07:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Wojsyl 07:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Might might be improved, but is still useful. The Dutch speaking area is marked as de:Niederdeutsche Sprache in the German Article de:Deutsche Sprache using it. The dutch Wikipedia uses this term also: nl:Nederduits. Furthermore: Do you want to delete en:Image:GermanicDialectAreas.PNG too? --ALE! 08:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • delete per nom. The uploader of this map has been blocked in german wikipedia for spreading ethnical POV or at least a blatant ignorance concerning peoples.--Wiggum 09:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep if the map contains errors, fix it. I also agree with Erin. Btw, you forgot to notify the uploader. --Kjetil_r 11:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I am sorry Kjetil but if the map contains errors and you are for keeping it - you fix it. Wikipedia should not contain errors and you cannot tell others to put their time in fixing it. DIY or delete - that's how it works. It's that simple. Best, aegis maelstrom δ 19:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Valid point, Mr. Maelstrom, the users wanting to keep it have the main responsibility for fixing it. --Kjetil_r 22:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Thank you very much, Mr. Ree. :) I'm glad we agree here, too few people understand this IMHO healthy mechanism. aegis maelstrom δ 17:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete delete The uploader of this map is reknowed nationalist and nearly every map he created is the source of heated debates and are often innacurate. This map is no different and should be deleted. Rex Germanus 11:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I would keep it and fix it. Maybe he exagurated a bit but but dont doubt that in Eastern Europ germans lived. AFAIK the picture show the situation until 1945. Wasent many germans from bessarabia and the baltics settelt in poland in this timeframe ? I will not doubt that Postmans idiology had effect on his work, but i would rather try to fix anything instead of deleting it.
    • No, actually they weren't. Since 1918 there is an independent Polish state, so it would be hardly imaginable... as well as German settlers in Polish Kingdom (part of Russian Empire). German settlers were limited to the territories controlled by Prussia. If you want to see true settlers from Germany and Netherlands in Poland you have to go back to the late Medevial...
  • Delete Map is a source of endless controversy due to the original research it contains. Balcer 17:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Hoax. I would be for saving and fixing the map but let's face the facts - nobody is going to do that and nobody really knows how. The map is a pure fiction. It doesn't show which territories are with mixed populations. It is false while considering germanic languages - Lower Saxon is definitely different than Hochdeutsch, not to mention Dutch. It doesn't show what time we are actually talking about neither. And there are complete bollocks while we are talking about Eastern Europe - significant German speaking population in Ukraine? Only when you count in European Jews and jidysz as German... Summing up - whole lot of major errors difficult to spot for ignorants in this matter. And when I read AFAIK the picture show the situation until 1945. I am pretty sure that these errors are harmful. Delete. aegis maelstrom δ 19:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Let it be very clear that the Dutch language nor its dialects is a form of German. The only common ancestor German and Dutch have is Common West Germanic (AD 400), which also the ancestor of English, Frisian, Yiddish, and Scots. I suggest that the people who are unaware of this READ the article on English wikipedia. Rex Germanus 18:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Patently untrue, and the article on en: should be fixed. Language-genetically, Dutch and German belong to a common Dutch-German subgroup, while English and Frisian form the Anglo-Frisian subgroup. There is a dialect continuum on the Dutch east border, which isn't there between Dutch and Frisian. – gpvos (talk) 07:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  •  Comment what about Image:Deutsche Mundarten.PNG, maybe you want to delete it as well? --Kjetil_r 11:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, looks like a different version of the same map. No article uses it. Looks like a candidate for deletion for me. aegis maelstrom δ 19:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
      • No article? It is used in 3 pages in 3 projects, in addition to local copies used in 3 pages in 2 projects. But if Image:Historisches deutsches Sprachgebiet.PNG is deleted, Image:Deutsche Mundarten.PNG should be deleted as well. --Kjetil_r 22:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  •  Comment if you want keep at least mark clearly as highly likely revisionist and non-trustable. Especially, no source is given. Postmann Michel was blocked because he had this revisionist behaviour pattern, overflowing nazi related articles with tons of highly irrelevant facts (assumed they were facts in the first place) to bury the really relevant information. --Rtc 11:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The thing about the dutchs (which sound to me like an english men try to speak the german word Deutsch, which is similar to the dutch word duits) and flamic: As ALE! said and also in german articles it is said that it belongs to the german language tree (not germanic). --Modgamers 16:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep Source proofs and notes of Postmann Michael: The available map is based mainly on the language map "Fischer of the information Atlas Federal Republic of Germany" (Fischer paperback publishing house, S. 63) from the year 1990. Besides calibrations with the "dtv Atlas found to the German language" (German paperbacks publishing house, S. 230/231) and the "Volkskunde - history of the German way of life and culture" (Elard Hugo Meyer, S. 363) from the year 1898 instead of. Furthermore also the books became "the Germanic languages - their history included in fundamentals" (Claus Juergen Hutterer, 1975) of the Akademiai Kiado, "Sudeten German regional studies" (Hans Krebs/Emil Lehmann, 1992), "east Prussian regional studies" (Walther Franz, 1993), all this in the Arndt publishing house appeared to Budapest, "Schlesien regional studies" (Alfred Pudelko, 1993). Also - probably most exact map of the German linguistic area - the dialect map "the spreading of the Germans in Europe had completely large influence 1844-1888" (Heinrich Nabert, 1890), which developed in the course of 30 years and which was presented as reproduction with the federation for German writing and langu