Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2006/09

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

[edit] Image:Charlie Patton & Bertha Lee - Mind Reader Blues.ogg (audio-file)

This case is a bit difficult: In 1934, blues legend Charley Patton recorded the last time and died about three months later, in April 1934. Thus his work is PD since 2004. On his before mentioned last recording session, he accompanied his common-law-wife Bertha Lee on guitar. The resulting two songs (this tune is one of them) have been released on Vocalion Records, bearing the number 02650, and under Bertha Lee's name only (her only release ever), the filename is misleading so far. Regrettably I am not aware of the exact date she died, but she was still alive in the fifties and sixties, answering questions of researchers on Charley Patton. Thus this song is currently not free and should be deleted. Denisoliver 08:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure why the death date of Charlie Patton would be the relevent point here. Early 20th century US records (especially of folk and blues music) were genererally made as "for hire", with the artist selling all rights to the recoring and any original composition to the record company for a fee. (They were sometimes given the choice of taking a lesser recording fee with a chance to possibly collect royalty payments if the record was a hit, which was exersized in a small minority of such contracts). The issue of copyright status of this recording I think depends on the original contract and more if the copyrights were renewed (many of this type were not and have lapsed into the public domain, but I know believe this is old enought to assume that such is certain without confirmation). In short, more information would be needed to confirm copyright status. If no confirmation that this is PD is provided, file should be deleted. -- Infrogmation 00:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, the death date of Patton, to be more precise, Bertha Lee, is a relevant point here, as many states worldwide do not accept the complete selling of all rights. For Germany I know for sure, that no contract can transfer the so called "Urheberpersönlichkeitsrecht", which always stays with the author and ends 70 years after his death (a registration or renewal has never been necessary therefore, it is founded by the act of the creation itself); as I understand it, the same applies within the European Union. So this file would be illegal at least in Germany, and maybe even large parts of Europe. Denisoliver 23:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I think music copyright is pretty more difficult than that one about pictures. We have to regard two cases of copyright protection: the copyright of the song itself and the copyright of the specific recording. Since we use a country of origin approach to determine copyright ownership or PD status, we should consider what Infrogmation said. If Patton himself owned the copyright of the song we have no problem. Otherwise i see a very fundamental problem because a) i have no idea, how the protection of corporate copyright works (70 years pma might be somehow ridiculous) and b) i don't now how we shall prove that a copyright hasn't be renewed. The next ist the copyright of the recording itself, hence the protection of the performer's work. I don't know how this is handled in other countries, in germany protection ends with the death of the singer but at least 50 years after the performance.--Wiggum 00:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

BTW: I haven't got the slightest idea (and all my literature isn't stating anything about this AFAIK), who is the author of the song itself. Furthermore: We have about 24 songs of Charley Patton available here, which are free today without any doubt. Thus I don't believe, that we should keep this doubtful one by any means. Denisoliver 09:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Ask for such questions always user Lupo! --Historiograf 17:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

No, please don't! I have no idea. AFAIK, performer's rights were brought under the auspices of copyright only with the Rome Convention of 1961. I have no idea if that treaty also covered earlier performances. And then there's the Geneva Phonograms Convention of 1971... Furthermore, we'd need to know who wrote the lyrics (and the music!), whether they were indeed "works made for hire", and then whether the U.S. copyright was renewed. That's all hard to show. However, I find it interesting that the lyrics do not seem to be available on the Internet: [1], [2], [3], [4]. Somehow that looks as if somebody had complained, so I'd assume that indeed these lyrics are still copyrighted (as pre-1978 U.S. works, until 95 years after publication, i.e. until 2029). As Denisoliver said, there are enough Charley Patton songs; let's Delete this dubious one. (Even if it exists at the Internet Archive, albeit without copyright status indication.) Lupo 08:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

OK Lupo. Give us a hint: Which person can we ask here instead of you? Stop your boring humility or give us the names of the experts from which we will probably get answers --Historiograf 17:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I did some research and it might be of use, that I found her year of death. Bertha Lee Pate (her full name) died in 1975 in Chicago. Furthermore: Vocalion Records has been a sublabel of Brunswick since 1924 and Brunswick changed its owners a few times, nowadays either Warners or CBS control this era's recordings. Concerning the text: it is rather close connected to some biographical events in the couple's life, which indicates strongly, that this lyrics are either made by Lee or Patton around 1934. In the fourth verse Lee sings: "I remember a day when I were livin' at Lula town, I remember a day when I were livin' at Lula town, my man did so many wrong things 'til I had to leave the town." Lee was from Lula, Mississippi and Patton lived there with her for a period of time, but later on the couple moved. Concerning the music: it would be rather uncommon for a blues-musician of the time, to take lyrics of his own and to combine it with a music of somebody else. All these are not hard facts, but they indicate at least, that this in fact could be a copyvio. We could take that risk and keep it or delete it, as we cannot guarantee, that it is in fact a file free of copyright. Concerning the copyright renewal, I wrote an e-mail to Brunswick Rec. to find out more about it. Regards, Denisoliver 08:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Denis thanks for your research. I would now vote for delete --Historiograf 13:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

deleted--Shizhao 11:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Eastern_State_Penitentiary_aerial.jpg

Has been superseeded (corrected perspective, removed border) by Image:Eastern_State_Penitentiary_aerial_crop.jpg. Since it is not used, it could be deleted.

It would be best to just replace the original with the cropped version to preserve the logged information that it was originally uploaded by User:FlickrLickr. Also I think personally that images coming from an external source with a url that have clearly been improved by cleanup don't need the original version conserved on Commons, other than maybe in the file history. --Para 13:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

deleted by User:Fanghong --Rtc 15:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Spain flag large.png

This has been superseded by Image:Flag of Spain.svg and I have replaced all instances of this flag on other wikis. Please be quick before more people start using it again --Lhademmor 14:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Delete superseded --jed 21:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

deleted by User:WarX --Rtc 15:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Downblouse.jpg

HighInBC set to it {{speedy|per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=72838894&oldid=72838063] and [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Foundation_issues]}} -- Platonides 21:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I reviewed the issue. "I posted under WP:AGF and if that isn't sufficient then I am not going to perform like a circus lion for the benefit of a small few." (Wikipedia:Publicgirluk photo debate) is the central issue: The uploader refuses to give a simple, easy proof of authorization. I think it's questionable if the model's permission is there (which would not be so much of an issue here, since the person is not identifiable), and if the user who uploaded these is the photographer or has his permission. Do not assume good faith until sufficient proof of the contrary is there, when it comes to licenses and law. I vote for delete because of an unclear legal situation which is not going to change (the user has been indef blocked). --Rtc 23:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Got to agree with Jimbo on this one. Secondly is this even remotely within our project scope? Is there a pressing need to illustrate w:decolletage in such a manner? The image is only being used on userpages which leads me to think definitely not. pfctdayelise (translate?) 02:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Deleted, HighInBC was the uploader. pfctdayelise (translate?) 02:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Jdanov kruiser on modernisation.jpg and Image:Flash).jpg

• Image:Jdanov kruiser on modernisation.jpg, moved to Image:Jdanov cruiser on modernisation.jpg
• Image:Flash).jpg, moved to Image:Stonefish in Red Sea (with flash).jpg

thanks Serguei S. Dukachev 06:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Deleted (by User:Erin Silversmith) Cnyborg 11:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Sicily physical map.jpg

Duplicate of Image:Freeworldmaps-sicily.jpg. It is my own upload. --Trifi 08:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I think Image:Sicily physical map.jpg has a more descriptive name. So Image:Freeworldmaps-sicily.jpg can be deleted. /81.229.40.196 11:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Delete. These are not duplicate images. The one nomination for deletion shows Ficuzza, which is a "tiny hamlet" and also has the freeworldmaps watermark. Therefore the old version is superior IMO.--Nilfanion 13:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Delete. also Caltanissetta became Caltanizzetta in the Image:Sicily physical map.jpg. About the name the old image can be renamed to the newer name if appropriate. AnyFile 09:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

deleted--Shizhao 11:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Jery Sandoval IV.jpg

This has been deleted twice before, because the license was Wikipedia use only. Now, the same uploader has suddenly taken the photo himself rather than copied it from a fansite. As his talk page shows, this is a problem user who keeps re-uploading deleted photos. Cnyborg 16:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

 Support You can follow the discussion of user es:Usuario Discusión:Phranciscusmagnus and myself about the images. This image is clearly not made by him. --Ecelan 09:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

 Support I've been talking with the user, and he contradicts often, stating that the images were taken by him, then he changed to images are owned by televisa, then that televisa granted permission but only for wikipedia (and he claims to have an email, I've told him to forward to permissions@wm but the supposed email allows use exclusively at wikipedia and thus it's not suitable by the project. The user has also a history of copyvios, see [5] and also of putting PD tags [6] whose PD status is unclear. Drini 16:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Deleted.--Jusjih 08:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:64er1.jpg

No proof that the uploader is the author of all the pictures shown on the covers --Phrood 09:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

deleted by User:Nilfanion --ALE! ¿…? 08:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Silvio Gesell Geburtshaus.png

No Reason for PD. --Ixitixel 09:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Source: Archiv Helms. Please ask de:Benutzer:GregorHelms about the reason for PD. --::Slomox:: >< 12:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

de:Benutzer:GregorHelms agreed that the image has to be deleted at [7] --Ixitixel 14:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

It's another image and he didn't say, that it has to be deleted, but that he has no objection against deletion cause it is poor quality and superseded. --::Slomox:: >< 01:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Deleted -- "Das Bild ist schon erheblich älter (1925), die Postkarte stammt von 1931.", not enough to assume PD. / Fred Chess 08:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Lionel Messi, argentine football player.jpg

• Fetched from Speedy Delete, but not an "obvious copyright violation". This was said on img description: "Very likely a AP press picture - user had uploaded many files like that and is banned for one month for doing so.--NSX-Racer 10:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)"

/ Fred Chess 22:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Source file from en:wikipedia has already been deleted. You don't seriously think that Bigwhisker has taken this picture or has the right to publish it?--NSX-Racer 01:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• deleted Fred Chess 07:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:F-15-Ra'am-IAFcounts.jpg

• This image is probably a copyright violation. The uploader describe the fighter as F-15 "Ra'am", but it's actually F-15 "Baz". The photo must have been taken by an IAF pilot in formation, so it's unresnoable offcourse that he wouldn't distinguished between the two types. F-15I "Ra'am" is an advanced derivative of the F-15E, where F-15 "Baz" is air superiority F-15 (A/B/C/D). It's easy to visualy distinguish between the two by the paint scheme, among other differences. Hashekemist 12:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Deleted / Fred Chess 07:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:SWlogo.jpg

Please delete this, it is orphan on all wiki projects. --Emx 09:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• Deleted -- logo / Fred Chess 08:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Stozer.jpg

Source (Croation Wikipedia) has no license tag, and PD-self looks extremely unlikely. Cnyborg 16:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• Deleted / Fred Chess 07:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Do Wal 8t 1939.jpg

No reason for PD. The referenced "KUG" is a german law which is outdated for several years.--Wiggum 16:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course KUG is (partly) outdated since 1965. But this did not mean that the copyright did not expired prior 1965. Look at e.g. http://www.fotorecht.de/:

"Ein nach KUG nicht mehr geschütztes Foto profitiert nicht mehr von dem Schutz der längeren Fristen des 1965 in Kraft getretenen UrhG, aber wenn es am In Kraft Treten des UrhG noch geschützt war, kann es von den längeren Schutzfristen profitieren."

--Stahlkocher 08:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't matter since the implementation of european law in 1995 revived the copyrights on pictures that were protected in any of the EU member countries in 1995.--Wiggum 12:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Did matter, because § 137f Abs.2 S.1 UrhG could only be taken into account, if the picture was still protected by the actual law or the intermediate law established 1965 (there: § 129 UrhG) -- Stahlkocher 18:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Stahlkocher, i'm pretty sure you already know the court judgement of the OLG Hamburg which states that the copyright on a 1941 photograph was revived with the EU harmonization directive due to the long retention periods of Spain. --Wiggum 20:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Please read section a) at [8]. The whole judgement based on the conclusion, that the copyright of the image did not exhausted according KUG, but the new UrhG. Not EU directive nor the copyright of spain is responsible for this. It is just a matter of the national law UrhG 137f and its scope. -- Stahlkocher 16:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

This is your interpretation. Other comments focus on the same point i mentioned - that copyright is revived due to the retention periods in other EU countries without considering the transition between KUG and UrhG. (see [9] and [10]). Neither you nor i know for sure how courts will determine the retention period of a picture, therefore we have the 70 years pma rule because this represents the current legislation and is therefore reliable. Anyway, due to the prohibition of the rule of shorter term in cases concerning two EU member states (decision of EuGH in 2002) pictures like this would be protected in the other EU countries. Maybe i should have argued more precisly: No testable reason for PD. Only an assumption.--Wiggum 23:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Law is most of the time interpretion an assumption. Your first link is the same judgement then the one i gave you (but somehow bogus) and I mentioned the second one first. It is allways easier to make something dodgy than to proof. Your EuGH decision, i guess it is case C-360/00 (6. Juni 2002), is still something complete different. Could you name a judgement in which § 137f Abs.2 S.1 (since UhrG 137f is responsible for reviving copyright in germany) was used on work which copyrights has expired under KUG law and in which the copyright revived? -- Stahlkocher 16:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete of course and ban Stahlkocher for repeated trolling. --Rtc 07:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• delete The ugly protection revival is EU law. If the picture would be free in DE the creator can sue us in another EU country. The aim of the 1993 was the harmonization of all national laws re copyright terms. Thus German law has to be interpreted in the light of the EU directive --Historiograf 18:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no EU copyright law. Coypright is national law in EU. German UrhG-law must not be interpreted in any light, because it was updated 1995 as reaction of the EU directive made 1993. That a picture is copyrighted elsewhere in the EU (which is the statement of the OLG judgement, which triggers the §137f) is widely accepted, just see Panoramafreiheit (or british law) vs. french law (or danmark law), German law vs. PD-US (bilateral treaty) etc. The scope of § 137f Abs.2 S.1 is fully unquestioned: "(2) Die Vorschriften dieses Gesetze in der ab dem 1. Juli 1995 geltenden Fassung sind auch auf Werke anzuwenden, deren Schutz nach diesem Gesetz vor dem 1. Juli 1995 abgelaufen ist, ...." But KUG is a different law, which still exists and which is applicable. -- Stahlkocher 11:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Bitte verschone uns mit diesen Rechtsverdrehereien und den Versuch auch noch abstruseste Konstellationen auszuloten. "nach diesem Gesetz" bedeutet 'Bezüglich der in diesem Gesetz genannten Schutzfristen'; nicht 'unter dem zeitlichen Geltungsbereich dieses Gesetzes'. Wenn also das Bild nach den Schutzfristen, wie sie vor dem 1.Juli 1995 in dem Gesetz standen, nicht mehr geschützt war, dann erwachen die Schutzrechte wieder. --Rtc 15:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

You call me a pettifogger, since you are not able to falsify my claim? The scope was proofed within the OLG judgement in the described manner. -- Stahlkocher 07:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The OLG judgement II.3.a only says that §137f can be applied for the picture even with the interpretation that "nach diesem Gesetz" means that the picture did not expire prior to KuG being displaced by UrhG. It does not claim that this interpretation is the correct one and it does not rule out that the interpretation in light of EU copyright law is the correct one, ie. that "nach diesem Gesetz" means anything that was not protected anymore under UrhG before 1995. So the court merely showed that even with the less restricting (your) interpretation, the picture is not PD anymore (so it showed a stronger conclusion), so it does not need to discuss whether the less restricting (your) or the more restricting (EU) interpretation of §137f holds or not. Under the more restricting interpretation, the picture would unquestionably not have been PD for sure. Courts always try to give the strongest conclusions under the least restricting interpretations if possible, but that does not mean weaker conclusions are not possible and it does not mean the least restricting interpretation is the correct one.

So, in summary, you cannot cite the OLG judgement to conclude that your interpretation of §137f is the correct one and the EU interpretation is not, since the latter would not be in conflict with the judgement: Your interpretation is not neccessary for the judgement to hold, it would hold more than ever under the EU interpretation. To argue for your interpretation, you would have to show a judgement which deems a picture to be PD which expired according to KUG and before UrhG came into effect, with the court explicitely rejecting the EU directive interpretation of §137f in the way Seiler does (probably making the same fallacy as you).

And please see the whole argumentation is irrelevant since it will be protected about anyhwere else. The picture is surely protected in Spain, which has 80 pma, and, in consequence, in about any other EU country that implemented the EU directive correctly. Stop the law-twisting. EU directive, even if not law, should become Commons policy. That's the only sane way. --Rtc 08:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no light of "EU law". I can cite the OLG law, in the manner i did. The fact that the retention period expired within the scope of the UrhG is eminent for the judgement, since the §137f has this certain scope. This scope is written down explicitly. At least there is no "EU interpration" to the judgement, but yours. Your argumentation of "copyrighted anywhere else" is as wrong, since you are not even able to falsify my claim.

btw.: You know that this is one of the pictures made by a series camera operated by a test engineer during start/landing trials? -- Stahlkocher 15:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

There is the light of the EU directive as shown by the BGH and Austrian court cases, who did refer to the directive directly instead of local law. Your claim is irrelevant, since it will in any case not be recognized in other EU countries (by anti-discrimination). These protect German photos by their local law, which do not know such constellations (probably absurd also in Germany). It is not on me to falsify your claims, it is on you to prove your claims by a court case that deems a critical picture as PD. You do not have such a case, so please do not ask for the photo to be kept. It also is irrelevant who operated the camera. --Rtc 22:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• The "who" operated the camera is just a byline. This a documentational image solely made to determine the behavior of an airplane.
• The BGH case is not a revive case (for germany) nor this is the austrian case. Both did not deal with copyright expiring under KUG.
• The image is not copyrighted in most other EU countries, as it is not copyrighted in germany.
• The anti-discrimination law is not a copyright revival law
• The §137f was installed 1995 as reaction to the EU-directive 1993.
• The constellation is imminent to germany
• If you can not proof my claim wrong ("If an copyright expires under KUG, it will not rivive under UrhG 137f"), your claim must be wrong.
• If you still see a (your) EU-light, and certain interpretations, and assumptions and and and....your problem.

Summing up: Somebody told you the wrong story. -- Stahlkocher 15:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Your claims are getting obscure. The discussion is over. --Rtc 16:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Ich weiss nicht was diese Diskussion bringen soll. Ich zitiere jetzt nochmal aus [11].

Leitsatz: Der urheberrechtliche Schutz für ein Lichtbild, der nach deutschem Recht zum 31.12.1968 ausgelaufen war, kann nach § 137f Abs. 2 UrhG zum 1.7.1995 wieder aufgelebt sein, wenn er zu diesem Zeitpunkt in einem anderen Land der Europäischen Union (hier: Spanien) noch bestand. [...] Die 25 jährige Schutzfrist des 1943 in einem Buch erschienenen Fotos war am 31.12.1968 nach § 26 KUG und 68 UrhG abgelaufen.[...]

Können wir damit die Spekulationen beenden und uns ab und an mal auf Leute verlassen, die in diesen Belangen erfahren sind?--Wiggum 22:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

We should rely on guys who are experienced with installing own laws? No, i really don't think so. And the guideline you quote is really not:"Every photo within EU is now copyrighted 70 years pma." You will see, if you switch off the light of your non existing EU-copyright law, that this quote perfectly supports my claim. "may revive" if its copyright has expired under "§ 26 KUG and § 68 UrhG", not "§ 26 KUG or § 68 UrhG" -- Stahlkocher 15:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The comments which i cited or linked didn't even mention or discuss the point you stress. They are only highlighting the copyright revival due to the retention periods in other EU countries. This point is mentioned in the EU directive 93/98/EWG itself, Article 10 (2) clearly states that all works have to be protected which would have been protected in any of the EU member states by respective national laws on 1. july 1995. I wonder how you got the idea, that the lawyer who's newsletter i quoted would trie to "install his own law" - i tend to agree with Rtc, this is getting somehow obscure.--Wiggum 15:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The directive is not law. Accept this please. Copyright law is national law in EU. And your excerpt did not contradict my claim. -- Stahlkocher 07:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

deleted / Fred Chess 20:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Psicotropia.jpg

PD-self claimed, but looks like a band promo photo to me. Other images uploaded by Ptato (talk • contribs) on 1 September should be deleted for the same reason. —JeremyA 02:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

deleted by User:Fred Chess --ALE! ¿…? 10:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Westhafen (Berlin) Verwaltung.jpg

replaced by Image:Westhafen (Berlin) Administration Building.jpg --ThoKay 07:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. --Dodo 08:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Airdeccan.jpg

The permission was given only to use this image on Wikipedia (see text). --Conscious 07:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. --Dodo 08:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Edvard Munch - Madonna (1894-1895).jpg

Not PD before 2014. (Painter died in 1944). 85.166.196.217 14:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy deleted as copyvio. Cnyborg 15:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Dasher.png

Is a duplicate of Image:Dasher_logo.png. Name is better, there already is a Dasher.png on Wikipedia. It was an incorrect upload on my part. --Bruce89 21:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

deleted by User:Erin Silversmith --ALE! ¿…? 10:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Category:Statues in München

Funny English/German mix. Might be renamed in "Statuen in München" or "Statues in Munich" 195.93.60.33 18:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The city's name is München, so what? No Danzig-discussions please.--Wiggum 20:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

quote from above: "It is rarely necessary to delete category pages. In the vast majority of cases, simply remove all the files from the category, and then redirect the old category to the new one (using either {{Category redirect}} or #REDIRECT)." so go ahead and rename it if you feel like, I don't think it's that important as long as the pictures can be found -- Gorgo 18:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] Category:Unknown trees

Duplicates Category:Unidentified trees - MPF 21:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Made RDR, pfctdayelise (translate?) 08:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Brand-and-family-with-Guillaume.jpg

From http://www.bundestag.de/interakt/impressum/index.html:

"Alle im Internetangebot des Deutschen Bundestages veröffentlichten Bilder, Dokumente usw. unterliegen dem Copyright des Deutschen Bundestages.

Ein Download oder Ausdruck dieser Veröffentlichungen ist ausschließlich für den persönlichen Gebrauch gestattet."

"Zur Verwendung von digitalen Bildern des Deutschen Bundestages gelten folgende Nutzungsbedingungen."

And from http://www.bundestag.de/wissen/archiv/sachgeb/bilda/bildnutz.html:

"Eine darüber hinausgehende Nutzung für kommerzielle Zwecke, insbesondere für Werbezwecke, ist nicht zulässig."

--Phrood 23:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

delete --Historiograf 17:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete --Steschke 17:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --Rtc 07:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 13:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Comunisti Italiani.jpg & Image:Lega Nord 2006.jpg

Two recent political posters from parties on different sides of the spectrum; the PD-self tag is very unlikely and probably refers only to the photo of the posters. Cnyborg 23:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Definitively under copyright under Italian law. I wonder how can fair use can apply on such images. AnyFile 09:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 09:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Vladimir GoldenGates.jpeg

No author and no further information provided, so there is no reason for PD. The Source Weblink doesn't work.--Wiggum 20:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I (uploader) think, we can delete this pic. I don't remember copyright status. And we have many photos en Category:Golden Gate in Vladimir. --ajvol 07:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 14:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:UMassD library.JPG

• Image:UMassD campus.JPG
• Image:Buttonwood Park Zoo entrance.JPG

These 3 photos were taken by me. Because they were of poor quality, I later retook them with a higher quality camera, and have upload replacements for each of them already. -- LGagnon 22:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 14:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Triméthylamine.png

The title is wrong (the image shows something else), and the image already exists under its correct title at Image:Énamine.png. KlaudiuMihaila 18:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

deleted--GeorgHH 19:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Iyotetsu_tram.svg

This SVG contains Japanese characters, but I uploaded the figure without understanding WikiMedia can not show Japanese characters in SVG.

P.S. Is it planned that characters other than European languages are available in SVGs in WikiMedia?

Sinryow 17:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

deleted --Matt314 16:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Flag serries

[edit] Image:San marino flag 300.png

superseded by Image:Flag of San Marino.svg --jed 21:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete--Ultratomio 07:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for reference - clearly different --Himasaram 11:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
•  Comment different colours are used

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 09:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Bahamas flag 300.png

superseded by Image:Flag of the Bahamas.svg --jed 21:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete--Ultratomio 07:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for reference - colors are slightly different --Himasaram 11:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

deleted by User:Maximaximax --ALE! ¿…? 09:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Baden Flagge.gif

superseded by Image:Flagge Großherzogtum Baden (1891-1918).svg --jed 21:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete--Ultratomio 07:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for reference - very different colors --Himasaram 11:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
•  Comment very different colours --ALE! ¿…? 15:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

deleted by User:Odder --ALE! ¿…? 14:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Baden-1891 Flagge.gif

superseded by Image:Flagge Großherzogtum Baden (1871-1891).svg --jed 21:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete--Ultratomio 07:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for reference - very different colors --Himasaram 11:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
•  Comment very different colours --ALE! ¿…? 15:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 21:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Bahrain flag 300.png

superseded by Image:Flag of Bahrain.svg --jed 21:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete--Ultratomio 07:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 15:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Bangladesh flag large.png

superseded by Image:Flag of Bangladesh.svg --jed 21:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete--Ultratomio 07:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
•  Comment the colours are clearly different --ALE! ¿…? 15:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for reference --Himasaram 11:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

deleted (the svg seems to be more correct) --ALE! ¿…? 09:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:John Warner on Meet the Press.jpg

The uploader claimed that this was a public domain work of the U.S. Federal Govt. but it is clearly a screen shot of the NBC program Meet the Press, not a govt work. Just because it is on the senator's website doesn't mean it's a government image. --141.156.134.169 23:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep. It is fairly clear that this image is not a screen shot, due to the fact that it is quite crisp and is of a high resolution. Furthermore, there are other people on the set when these shows are taping besides the crew, and this is likely a photo taken by one of his staffers for publicity purposes. --tomf688 (talk - email) 23:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Anyway: It is a copyvio. --ALE! ¿…? 09:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Why is it a copyvio? If it was taken by a congressional staffer, wouldn't it be PD-USGov, as the original image upload indicated? The site's policy states: Information presented on this site is considered public information and may be distributed or copied unless otherwise specified. Use of appropriate byline/photo/image credits is requested. Carl Lindberg 06:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. The source is fishy. / Fred Chess 12:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Sts-41 crew.GIF

Clearly superseded by Image:STS-41 crew.jpg, uses the unfree GIF format and does not contain any additional information comparing to the JPEG version. --Bricktop 04:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete The jpg is a much better image.--Nilfanion 19:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 16:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Flag of Japan (Border).svg

Copy of Image:Flag of Japan.svg, with border added - this is unneeded as wikicode can do the same -- Nilfanion 16:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Deleted, no argument given as to why border is necessary. pfctdayelise (translate?) 08:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:417px-Gb4dot.svg.png

Delete as png copy of previously existing svg map -- Nilfanion 16:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Deleted, pfctdayelise (translate?) 08:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Flag of Palestine.png

superseded by Image:Flag of Palestine.svg --jed 21:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete--Ultratomio 07:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Kept, dimensions of red triangle are different and the shade of red is also different. And the PNG is in use. pfctdayelise (translate?) 08:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Grackle.png

REASON (Picture is my own, I accidentally uploaded the wrong image.) --WeightlessDog 01:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

You can just upload over the top you know... deleted pfctdayelise (translate?) 08:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Barbados flag 300.png

superseded by Image:Flag of Barbados.svg --jed 07:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete--Ultratomio 07:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 15:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Arab Revolt flag.png

superseded by Image:Arab Revolt flag.svg --jed 13:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

As the author of Image:Arab Revolt flag.png, i agree it should be deleted. Foobaz·o< 22:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 15:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Afbeelding OostendeVlag.gif

superseded by Image:Afbeelding OostendeVlag.svg --jed 11:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 13:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Historicalgermanophone.png

Diese Sprachenkarte widerspricht allen gängigen Versionen. Nie war die "Oder-Neiße-Grenze" im 20. Jahrhundert eine Sprachgrenze zwischen Slawisch und Deutsch...das war sie allenfalls einmal im 10. Jahrhundert. Die ehemaligen deutschen Ostprovinzen Pommern, West- und Ostpreußen sowie Schlesien wiesen bei der amtlichen Volkszählung von 1910 eine deutsche Bevölkerungsmehrheit von rund 97 % aus! Südtirol hatte 1918/19 einen deutschsprachigen Bevölkerungsanteil von ebenfalls 97% und Elsaß-Lothringen einen deutschen Bevölkerungsanteil von 80 % (1910). Diese Karte verwirrt mehr als sie erklärt, da sie völlig verfälschende Informationen enthält. Die Oder-Neiße-Linie wurde erst von den Polen 1848/49 als "natürliche Sprachgrenze" erklärt, indem sie slawischstämmige Minderheiten (Prußsaken [Masuren in Ostpreußen], Kaschuben [Wasser-Polen in Westpreußen], Schlonsaken [Wasser-Polen in Oberschlesien]) zu "Polen" erklärte und ethnisch-begründete Ansprüche auf die überwiegend deutsch-besiedelten Provinzen erhob...allein in der Provinz Posen war eine deutliche polnische Mehrheit vorhanden! 195.93.60.33 21:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

This language map contradicts all common versions. The "Oder-Neisse-border" was never a linguistic boundary between Slavonic and German ... in the 20th century this was if need be she once in the 10th century. The former German east provinces Pomeranians, the west and east Prussians as well as Silesia expelled a German population majority of about 97% at the official national census of 1910! 1918/19 had a German-speaking part of the population South Tyrol of 97% and Alsace-Lorraine also unite a German part of the population of 80% (1910). This card confuses more than her professedly since she contains information distorting completely. The Oder-Neisse line was declared "a natural linguistic boundary" first by the Poles 1848/49 by available the predominating German-she settled Slavonic sturdy claim which is explained to minorities (Prußsaken [Masurians into east Prussians], Kashubes [Water-Polish into west Prussians], Schlonsaken [Water-Polish in Upper Silesian]) to "Polish peoples" and ethnic well-founded lifted up ... alone in the province Posen province was a clear Polish majority! 195.93.60.136 18:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

kept (no copyright issue) --ALE! ¿…? 13:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:ARP Example.png

I'm the author of this image and would like it to be deleted since I replaced it with a corrected version, under a different name (didn't, still don't actually, know how to replace an image). More on the image's page if needed... Thanks in advance. --Papadopa 21:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 13:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Powiat nowosadecki herb.png & Image:Powiat nowosadecki flag.png

There are SVG versions of those files: Image:POL powiat nowosądecki COA.svg & Image:POL powiat nowosądecki flag.svg. Both are even better the original (without JPG thingies). Usage checked, orphaned (if you will check be sure to use image pages in local wikis). --Nux (talk) 21:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep for reference --Himasaram 11:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 15:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Male Mast.gif

Please speedy delete!--Mahatma 09:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Against public order and morals! --Ultratomio 04:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep As every time that this image is in use it is either hidden until requested, or is with images of similar type, I think that it should be kept. Delete Please delete as it seems to be causing quite a problem.--Robert Fuller 13:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This seem to me to be a pure provocation playing with wiki-commons democratic rules. Moreover, this image is not use in any article as of 17:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC) . My own enquiry show that Robert Fuller use at less 3 "accounts" to spread his dozen of sex picture accross wikipedias. Then, he come back to commons saying "Look, wikipedians use my pics : you can't delete it." And he will probably do so again. Yug (talk) 17:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete It's not on any page except a user's page collecting nude pics. --24.168.34.42 05:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC) (Wikipedia user Scottandrewhutchins)
• Delete I thought I'd seen it all. Please delete... ew. Riana dzasta 03:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

deleted by User:Yug --ALE! ¿…? 07:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Easy Card adult.JPG

From Speedy deletion, not clear if it is a derivative work -- Nilfanion 16:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. That's my mistake. It should be fair use image. I will upload it on wikipedia instead. Please delete it. --Jiahwang 17:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

deleted--Shizhao 06:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Anti-Nazi-Symbol.png

superseded by Image:Anti-Nazi-Symbol.svg --jed 07:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

deleted by User:Odder --ALE! ¿…? 12:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Johnnie Hillwalker explains how carp become dragons.png

Image was only used for an english wikipedia article that was deleted in AFD there. Delete here has well. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 16:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Flag arab revolution.png

superseded by Image:Arab Revolt flag.svg --jed 13:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

•  Comment the aspect ratios and the colours are different --ALE! ¿…? 15:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for reference --Himasaram 11:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 12:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Banderamompox.PNG

superseded by Image:Flag of Mompox.svg --jed 10:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

•  Comment the aspect ratios are slightly different --ALE! ¿…? 15:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for reference --Himasaram 11:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

deleted by User:Odder --ALE! ¿…? 09:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Bandera Ipiales Narino Colombia.png

superseded by Image:Flag of Ipiales.svg --jed 11:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

•  Comment the aspect ratios are slightly different --ALE! ¿…? 15:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep colors are slightly different --Himasaram 11:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

deleted by User:Odder --ALE! ¿…? 09:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Tintin covers on wall.jpg

I have a feeling this may be a copyright violation. Although the photographer may have released his image under a license appropriate for Wikimedia Commons, the subjects (album covers) in the picture probably are copyrighted. -- tariqabjotu 10:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, this is probably a derivative work. Haukurth 11:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

What's the wall of Majestic Comics? An how was it made? Doesn't seem to be book covers (thugh the images are the book covers' ones) Platonides 22:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm no expert on copyright law, but the reason I added this image is because I found it on flickr released under a fair use compliant license. I'm not the author of the image. Apologies for the mess. However, I think you need to look at a lot of images in the light of Commons:Derivative works, for example Image:MickeyTrumpetMG03.jpg would also be a derivative work, as would Image:Waltdisneystatue-disneyland.jpg, for starters. It appears that no image of a copyrighted character is going to used under anything other than fair use law, would that be correct? Steveblock 08:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Could someone also clarify one more thing: if we use a photograph such as the one above, are there two copyrights in the image? I mean, is there a copyright attached to the photo and one attached to the copyrighted character? Because if so, an image like this one would be preferable over one where the photo is not released under a Wikipedia acceptable license, as it would have only one instance of fair use to comply with rather than two, is that correct? Steveblock 09:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• We're not using it on Wikipedia now, so if you want to speedy it over here I'm fine with that, I just didn't see uploader request as a speedy reason apart from bad file names. Unless people think it is of use and appropriate content for the Commons. Steveblock 10:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

deleted. Book/magazine covers are protected by copyrights. / Fred Chess 20:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Celtic europe.PNG

Unused and inaccurate. There was no period of time when northeastern Italy and northwestern Spain were Celtic, but England, Northern Ireland, and large portions of the Continent south of the Rhine and Danube weren't. Delete. --Angr 12:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Just to add to this, the map itself has no intrinsic value. It's just a version of our blank map of Europe, with modern 'Celtic' regions highlighted, along with Friuli, inexplicably. It's unused in part because the Wikipedia article for which the image was originally made, was itself deleted as a mix of nonsense and original research. QuartierLatin1968 20:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

deleted/ Fred Chess 20:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Lord Wilson.jpg

• Fetched from Speedy Delete, claimed to be copyright. Originally from the University of Hong Kong [12]. Do the release material into the PD? And what does the template state, in Chinese? / Fred Chess 14:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• I don't read Chinese, but looking at the English text included it's clearly a fair use template. Cnyborg 15:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• It's a promophoto fair use template. The bottom of HKU's Main Page says (C) All Rights Reserved. -- tonync (talk) 17:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• The I say Delete. Cnyborg 22:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

deleted / Fred Chess 20:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Wiener Markt und Loewe.jpg

Keep: This diskussion is total nonsense

• the lion belongs the grocers of the Wiener Martk, becaue they boght the lion
• the lion can be sold/auctioned by the owners, but its not a must
• this lion will probably stay there permanently, because it´s a nice feature for the market
• i know this because I „organized“ the lion, made the picture and put the picture in the WP

If you want to know more about this special lion, you can contact me. By the way, you could have contacted me before trying to delete this „evil“ picture GMH 15:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

You do realise that copyright is different from property in chattels? The only true argument is that the lion might stay there after the end of the project, which you should have mentioned on the description page. -- 3247 15:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Munich Lion Rudolph Moshammer.jpg

Copyright violation.

• These lions are not installed permamently, so "Panoramafreiheit" does not apply. The images have no license or permission from the author of the depicted lions (one has a permission from the owner(?) but that's irrelevant wrt copyright). -- 3247 22:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep Die Löwen sind auf unbestimmte Zeit in der Stadt ausgestellt, also ist der Grundsatz von "bleibend" sicher erfüllt (siehe de:Panoramafreiheit#Das_Kriterium_„bleibend“). Passend dazu gibt es auch das „Grassofa“-Urteil. Siehe dazu auch die bereits gelaufene Diskussion unter de:Wikipedia_Diskussion:Bildrechte#Panoramafreiheit_-_Stichwort_.22bleibend.22. Siehe z.B. auch noch CowParade und andere Bilderserien. --BLueFiSH ✉ 22:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

No, they are not. The webpage[13] clearly says that the lions are supposed to be sold at the end of the project to raise more funds. AFAIR the project was started for the Bundesgartenschau (2005) and has been extended to cover the FIFA World Cup (2006). So the authors never intended their works to be installed for an indefinite time, which is a requirement for "Panoramafreiheit" (panorama freedom). -- 3247 08:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

keep intention of the authors is not relevant. Read Grassofa. Let us be fair. Any artist is stupid if he doesn't assert that his art action is only temporarily. Artists are interested in income - thus they will never put an "open end" label on their works --Historiograf 15:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

This is why the Grassofa court did not believe the author, especially as the sofa had been there for about six years. -- 3247 14:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I think we should keep them and reasses the case at the end of the year. According to the website the lions shall be removed in autumn 2006. If they are still there (i will kindly look after it :-) after autumn we should keep them because there is - contrary to the website's statement - no definite end of their exhibition in public space. Otherwise delete the pictures.--Wiggum 00:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Kept for unbestimmte Zeit. / Fred Chess 20:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Schoental-jagst-1930.jpg

This is an old postcard from ca. 1930, certainly not the work of the uploader, so it cannot be GFDL. It is also not old enough to be PD-Old, unless we know for certain the photographer died before 1936, which we don't. --Rosenzweig 12:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 15:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Flag of UNESCO.svg

was marked for speedy deletion, however I disagree (at least to the argument given there). Arguments from Image talk:Flag of UNESCO.svg copied here for further discussion --Bjs 20:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

•  CommentIt sound's like that: freely used and copied for educational and other non-commercial purposes [14]. If it's only for non-commercial use it can't be on commons. Radomil talk 15:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • But you omitted: "This information may be freely used ..." The sentence refers to the information on this web site, not on this flag (which even ist not shown there.)--Bjs 18:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Disclamer is about whole content of UNESCO page, also about graphics Radomil talk 22:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Other UNESCO signs were deleted also as non commercial (not by me) Radomil talk 22:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Flags are fundamentally different from other signs. —Nightstallion (?) 19:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC) (copied from Image talk:Flag of UNESCO.svg, rest of the discussion see there) --Bjs 06:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Remember, that it isn't flag os state but organization! Example: Flag with logo of Microsoft is still TM, not PD just because it is flag. We can't vote about law. Radomil talk 19:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
    • But we can vote whether a personal interpretation of law is to be followed. In this case, the flag is not shown on the site which indicated the non-commercial use, and copyright is quite a different thing from trademarks. --Bjs 20:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, UNESCO is not a normal, private organization. This could however probably be settled authoritatively and easily by contacting UNESCO; has anyone tried that yet? Cnyborg 00:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This is not about opinion or a simple 'keep' vote, I'd rather keep this image, too. I see no reason(s) why this image would be available under an allowed license. Siebrand 00:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• {{vk}} From how I read this page, it said information from that page may be used in a non-commercial way. The original image that we used for the flag was taken from the OpenClipArt website, which grants their work to the public domain. Then another user fixed it up, still keeping the public domain license intact. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 02:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I worry about the 'truth' in this matter. How do you establish that OpenClipArt was right? Siebrand 13:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
    • That I do not know; since there were plenty of flags that were taken from this site in the begining, but those are starting to be replaced by the stuff that we draw. All they said is that all worked submitted to the website are PD, and this was one of the flags we found. Another user fixed it up, but I believe he cannot downgrade licenses (unless the original license is false). But, since we did not get the flag image from the USESCO website, we are not bound by their TOS (frankly speaking). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 23:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete It seems the graphic can't be kept here under an allowable licence since it may only be freely used and copied for educational and other non-commercial purposes. Maire 19:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Can you please back that up with a reference? As far as I can see no sourced arguments for either keep or delete have been given here. Siebrand 20:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
    • It's in the link provided above by Radomil. The disclaimer also refers to graphics. Maire 17:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, I don't care about information on the website, I care about law. Zero 22:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not free ~ bayo or talk 11:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• I sent an email to UNESCO, hoping that this can be sorted out soon. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 00:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Strong delete. Radomil has right: the disclamer on UNESCO page is about graphics too, and it's not PD just because it is a flag. It's under 'for non-commercial use' license. MesserWoland Dyskusja 10:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• DeleteIgnore everything I said, since UNESCO has not replied to any of my emails that I sent them. Until then, just delete the image. We can always recreate later if we are given the go-ahead. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 13:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• KeepI'm sorry for my bad English and I'm sorry that I'm just an IP, but my point of view is that public domin is not only given because it's a flag, but because this picture has no threshold of originality (I hope that is the right word). It is just letters with a few geometrical figures on blue ground. You can't put those things under any license. You maybe could say that there was a wrong tag put under the picture, but in my opinion it is definitely public domain. --84.135.213.153 20:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • There are many simpler signs that have some restriction, like badges of carmakers (Mercedes, Audi or Volkswagen ...) Radomil talk 22:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you talk about restrictions of copyright or restrictions of trademark right? I don't know if the UNESCO Logo is a trademark, but even if, I think that for commons only restrictions of copyright should apply. (with a few exeptions like coats of arms, or rights of personality) --84.135.255.68 15:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vote only

Remember: these are ignored by admins as comments or votes should be accompanied by reasoning and/or sources explaining your vote. Moved to bottom on 07:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC) by Siebrand

• Keep Marcin n^® ☼ 20:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, obviously. —Nightstallion (?) 06:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep --B1mbo 14:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Szczepan1990 18:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Krzysiu Jarzyna ☎ 11:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete DingirXul 18:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Kept. Same deal with UN flag. --Cat out 09:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Billete de 100 pesos mexicanos tipo D anverso.jpg

Image is high resolution version of current currency bill. It's copyrighted, illegal to scan, and could be used by forgers. There are 12 images in the category Category:Bills of Mexico with the same problem. --Itzcuauhtli 04:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Deleted all bills in the category. / Fred Chess 13:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Syria flag 600.png

superseded by Image:Flag of Syria.svg --jed 13:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete--Ultratomio 07:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
•  Comment the shade of green of the star is different --ALE! ¿…? 15:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for reference --Himasaram 11:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
•  Comment According to http://www.vexilla-mundi.com/syria.htm the green color should be RGB 0 183 96 non of the two flags matches these values. --ALE! ¿…? 12:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. It isn't used anywhere so I think it can be safely deleted. The SVG is also not based off of the png so it isn't necessary for reference. / Fred Chess 14:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Deix pictures

This deletion request applies to Image:Manfred Deix Portrait 2005.jpg, Image:Karikaturmuseum-Krems Deix-Ausstellung 2006.JPG, Image:DEIX Aenschi vorher-nachher.jpeg, Image:DEIX Rechtschreibreform.jpeg, Image:DEIX Beuys Nitsch.jpeg , Image:DEIX Endlich-in-Pension.jpeg , Image:DEIX Vogelgrippe.jpeg , Image:DEIX Frisch-verlobt.jpeg , Image:DEIX Papstbesuch.jpeg , Image:DEIX Prosit-auf-die-rosige-zukunft.jpeg, Image:DEIX Parteiname.jpeg , Image:DEIX Gustav-Peichl-und-Manfred-Deix.jpeg

Authorization seems to have been given to the uploader by someone from the press office of the museum where these pictures were on display, and not by the copyright owner, who is Günther Kargl for the first two images and Manfred Deix for the others. --Phrood 23:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Hallo, ich bin Edy Renard. Möglicherweise ist der von mir verfasste Text missverständlich. Zunächst: Das Karrikaturmuseum, desssen Chef zugleich der persönliche Manager von Deix ist, ist Inhaber bzw. Verwalter des Copyrights aller Bilder. Die Genehmigung wurde nicht von irgendjemandem, sondern von der dazu autorisierten Pressesprecherin nach ausdrücklicher schriftlicher und mündlicher Information durch Eddy Renard gegeben, und zwar nach Rücksprach mit dem Manager von Deix im Namen des Inhabers des Copyrights. Wir haben das, inklusive der damit verbundenen Möglichkeit der weiteren Veröffentlichung der freigegebenen Bilder und der gewählten Lizenz, auch auführlich in mehreren Telefonaten diskutiert und geklärt. Alles lief super korrekt und sehr klar ab. Ich verbürge mich persönlich dafür. Eddy Renard 07:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Hm, dann habe ich das tatsächlich falsch verstanden. Die Bilder wurden also in der schriftlichen Zusage explizit unter GFDL freigegeben? --Phrood 08:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Dass die Bilder bei Wiki veröffentlicht werden dürfen ist doch zuwenig. Haben sie auch die Zustimmung gegeben, dass sie von jedem auch kommerziell "ausgeschlachtet" werden dürfen? --Bwag 08:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep --Steschke 07:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep --Geiserich77 08:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

FYI: I have withdrawn this deletion request as the licensing information seems to be quite correct. --Phrood 08:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I have reopened the debate.

• Delete Looks like nonderivative 'for wikipedia' license. For professional art, do not trust wild claims but require de:Benutzer:Rtc/Einverständniserklärung being sent by the artist. These will never be sent by any reasonable artist, so we should forbid professional art except panoamafreiheit completeley on commons. --Rtc 08:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I think the picture are free for publication but not for exploitation (GNU). --Bwag 08:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

  GNU is not exploitation. Sounds like a copyrighted free use from the comments above. I'd like a permissions confirmation. --Cat out 09:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Kept. 100% fail proof evidence would be nice, but it seems reasonable to assume that the necessary precautionary actions have been taken, when reading through Eddy Regard's account:

Die Genehmigung wurde nicht von irgendjemandem, sondern von der dazu autorisierten Pressesprecherin nach ausdrücklicher schriftlicher und mündlicher Information durch Eddy Renard gegeben, und zwar nach Rücksprach mit dem Manager von Deix im Namen des Inhabers des Copyrights. Wir haben das, inklusive der damit verbundenen Möglichkeit der weiteren Veröffentlichung der freigegebenen Bilder und der gewählten Lizenz, auch auführlich in mehreren Telefonaten diskutiert und geklärt. Alles lief super korrekt und sehr klar ab. Ich verbürge mich persönlich dafür.

Fred Chess 01:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Soda cans

There are lots of pictures of soda containers here. Those are derivative works because the soda cans incorporate "pictorial, graphic, or sculptural features that can be identified separately from, and are capable of existing independently of, the utilitarian aspects of the article. Those should all be deleted, the listing below is just a sample. Haukurth 23:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Image:Finnish Pepsi 1-5L.jpg Image:Pepsi X.jpg Image:BaiShiKeLeShop.JPG Image:Coke hq.JPG Image:Canofcoke.jpg Image:CocaColaCanThailand.jpg Image:CocaCola pločevinki.jpg Image:Coca-Cola cans.JPG Image:Cherry Coke.JPG Image:Coke Vanilla 2L.jpg Image:Caffeinfree Coca Cola Light.jpg Image:Coca-Cola 400ml 2006 football ver.jpg Image:Coca-Cola 3l and 350ml.jpg Image:Fanta.jpg Image:DietMtDew.png Image:Mountain Dew (Can) (12FL-OZ 355mL).jpg Image:Mountain Dew CODE RED (Can) (12FL-OZ 355mL).jpg Image:Mountain Dew CODE RED theCUBE (tray) (12 pack).jpg Image:Mountain Dew theCUBE (tray) (24 pack).jpg Image:Kofola Citrus.jpg Image:Kofola.jpg Image:DietIrnBru.jpg Image:Gatorade Xtra.jpg

I suggest Keep Image:BaiShiKeLeShop.JPG

Cans and others -- How about Delete them?

Fred Chess 17:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete derivative works--Jusjih 15:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete derivatives --Astrokey44 13:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

All deleted for being derivative works. --Cat out 23:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] All contribution by User:Juan25

Juan25 has uploaded all his images with the PD-Self template, but they look suspicious to me. A Spanish speaking user would be helpful to ask the user. Some of the images:

• Image:Ruperto valderrama.jpg
• Image:Armas comandos.gif
• Image:Atajada.jpg
• Image:Movimiento rienda.jpg
• Image:Record salto.jpg
• Image:Campeonesdechile.jpg

Fred Chess 18:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Image:Campeonesdechile.jpg was copied from [15] (© Compañía Chilena de Comunicaciones S.A.).

Added warning on es: too Platonides 21:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Deleted all PD-self image. Did not delete images tagged with PD-Argetina or PD-Chile. / Fred Chess 01:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Zeligowski lucjan 2.jpg & Image:Zeligowski lucjan 3.jpg & Image:Zeligowski Lucjan.jpg

I dont think, that Template:PD-Polish fits here; he died 1947 in London; he never lived in the People's Republic of Poland (as he did not return after the war) so the image was not taken under the law of the PRP ...Sicherlich ^Post 23:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep In short, it has nothing to do with Żeligowski. The picture was neither owned by him, made by him nor published by him. It was PD already the very moment it was made, as it was an official portrait of a Polish officer, PD by default. Originally probably licensed under the pre-war copyright, it was published several times after the war as well. Both copyrights were almost identical anyway, so it's simply easier to tag them after the known publisher than to trace the very first publisher to publish it - as PD anyway. Halibutt 20:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • in other words: if someone took a image i made and publised it (before 1994) without my permission in Poland it is PD worldwide? i doubt that ...Sicherlich ^Post 04:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Nope. If you were a Polish photographer, making pictures for the Polish Army under the regulations demanding all officers to have an official portrait in full gala uniform, and then the picture would be used according to the original purpose (to be published by the Army wherever it sees fit, as was the case with this one), the picture would not loose anything. It would still be PD, as from the beginning. Halibutt 09:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
      • so where do you know from that the image was

1. made by a polish photographer
2. made in Poland

• and how can the law of the Peoples Republic of Poland be valid for the time before? maybe the photpographer was french? the photo taken in London? hte PRP did not exist at the time the picture was taken (as he died before) ...Sicherlich ^Post 11:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete The person died 1947 --> image was taken 1947 or before, but the law was released 1952. The law is non-retrospective, so the law cannot be valid for this images. --Raymond ^Disc. 20:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep {{PD-US}} refers to times when US didn't exits as well. A.J. 08:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • but this images are much older and so probably PD-old anyways; and it seems this law is explizit for the time before; this is not the case in PD-pl ...Sicherlich ^Post 20:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
    • oh and if I'm not very mistake the us was created in the 18th century? ..Sicherlich ^Post 20:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• There isn't much to go on, why the image is public domain. Copyright status must be clear and undisputed. It should be supported by the law and by practical court examples. And this should be added to the image or a template used by the image. Since this hasn't been done, I'd say Delete... / Fred Chess 16:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Deleted due to uncertainty of copyright status. / Fred Chess 01:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Gressbanen.gif

Copyrighted image from http://kart.gulesider.no, © Findexa AS

• Deleted as copyvio. Cnyborg 11:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Welcome to EPFL.jpg

Claimed to be own work, but the sole contents of the image is a photograph of a work of art, presumably copyrighted by someone else. We have the permission of the author of the photograph, but not of the author of the image on the screen, whereas we would need both. —the preceding unsigned comment is by Andre Engels (talk • contribs)

deleted by User:Rama --ALE! ¿…? 07:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Porin vaakuna.png

Unused, slightly faulty using two different colours for heraldic gold (brown crown and yellow field), superseded by Porin vaakuna.svg. --Hautala 09:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 07:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Poistettu. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 07:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Requesting a rename all the photos made by User:Just1pin, which have the name of Palestine occupation*.jpg

The photos have a POV name, which collides with the NPOV policy of Wikimedia. Even a picture of two towers in Tel Aviv is called "Palestine occupation100.jpg".

In July, ALE asked the user in his talkpage to rename all his images, but he refrained from doing so. I request you to make him do it, since he is infringing the Wiki policies. Yellow up 12:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Closed, already discussed (Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2006/06#.22Palestine_occupationN.jpg.22_by_User:Just1pin). Please only reopen if you have a new argument. pfctdayelise (translate?) 09:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Thomas bredol.jpg

not used outside personal page Broadbeer 22:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Deleted, pfctdayelise (translate?) 08:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Sts-46-crew.GIF

Clearly superseded by Image:Sts-46 crew.jpg, uses the unfree GIF format and does not contain any additional information comparing to the JPEG version. --Bricktop 10:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 15:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Sts-45-crew.GIF

Clearly superseded by Image:Sts-45 crew.jpg, uses the unfree GIF format and does not contain any additional information comparing to the JPEG version. --Bricktop 14:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 15:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Sts-48-crew.GIF

Clearly superseded by Image:STS-48 crew.jpg, uses the unfree GIF format and does not contain any additional information comparing to the JPEG version. Bricktop 15:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 15:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Sts-37-crew.GIF

Clearly superseded by Image:STS-37 crew.jpg, uses the unfree GIF format and does not contain any additional information comparing to the JPEG version. Bricktop 16:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 15:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] STS pictures

• Image:51-A crew.GIF
• Image:51-c-crew.GIF
• Image:51-d-crew.GIF
• Image:51-i-crew.GIF
• Image:51-j-crew.GIF
• Image:Sts-33-crew.GIF
• Image:Sts-29crew.GIF
• Image:Sts-28-crew.GIF

Clearly superseded by JPEG versions and do not contain any additional information comparing to the JPEGs. Bricktop 23:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

all deleted --ALE! ¿…? 13:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Amstaetter1.png

Reasons for deletion request: Image is not free: Permission=Free use for Wikimedia-Projects only! (Such as wikipedia and wikimedia-commons) GeorgHH 13:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

tagged as {{noncommercial}} --ALE! ¿…? 09:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Trespassimp.gif

I don't think this image qualifies as a seal, nor is it likely in the public domain. -- malo (talk) 14:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 09:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Koeln hauptbahnhof wm.jpg

From Speedy, image of a indoor mural in Germany - is it covered by the Panorama stuff? -- Nilfanion 14:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

No. This seems to be a temporary banner, so neither the the criteria "persistent" nor the criteria "in public space" is met. delete.--Wiggum 14:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 12:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:DuchampBrothers.jpg

PD-US applies to U.S. works only, not works published in France. Fred Chess 22:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

•  Delete, clearly not a US work. Cnyborg 11:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
•  Delete no US work --ALE! ¿…? 12:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

deleted / Fred Chess 16:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Band92.jpg

The self-template is not realistic; the photo looks like a promo shot, and the uploader was, according to his user page, born in 1988; since the photo seems to be a few years old that would mean he was very young when it was taken. It was also first uploaded as a gif (deleted by me as unused duplicate), and indication that it was copied from a website rather than scanned or downloaded from a camera. Cnyborg 02:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I have deleted all his uploads. Aditionally, User:Cnyborg gave him a 24h block. --Kjetil_r 05:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Category:Highways in France

Duplicate of Category:Roads in France, French highway network meaning roads in France. Captain Scarlet 08:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

No need to list this sort of thing. Just use either {{Category redirect}} or #REDIRECT. — Erin (talk) (FAQ) 23:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Porsche Cayman S 2005.JPG

Uncorrect licence (on Flick is CC-BY-NC). And this photo is probably a Porshe cie pic as indicated here (on seriouswheels.com image is older than on flick) . if it's real, here it's a copyvio. Oxam Hartog 23:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. --Dodo 08:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Tanit-Symbol.png

Superseded by Image:Tanit-Symbol.svg

The uploader said on my talk page "I would actually support the termination of Image:Tanit-Symbol.png with extreme prejudice -- I tossed it off as a 3-minute quickie in Photoshop, and every time I look at it I'm reminded of certain flaws in it which might be hardly noticeable to other people, but which have always kind of bugged me... AnonMoos 01:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)".

— Erin (talk) (FAQ) 02:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Ichthys.jpg

JPEG is totally unsuitable for this (text and two very simple curves). Superseded by Image:Ichthys.svg. — Erin (talk) (FAQ) 03:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Replaced & Deleted, pfctdayelise (translate?) 08:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Bandera de Santiago.png

Superseded by Image:Flag of Santiago, Chile.svg, which is a better version, with the lion with the right colors. Replaced in all Wikimedia projects at the moment. B1mbo 13:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC))

Well, they are not even remotely similar, but since you created both, I'll go with your judgement. Deleted, pfctdayelise (translate?) 08:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Coccidioidomycosis granulomas on forehead.jpg

I uploaded a better though not identical version: Image:Coccidioidomycosis granulomas on forehead.gif--Steven Fruitsmaak 18:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Good that the text is moved from image to description but why the conversion from jpg to gif when jpg is recomended for photos? /Lokal_Profil 13:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Deleted, but I am actually going to check about the license. I'm not totally convinced it's a work of the US govt. pfctdayelise (translate?) 08:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Jeri Sandoval III.jpg

The copyright status of this image is very shaky. User keeps uploading picture of artist, while claiming different licenses, from CC , GFDL-self, etc. At end, he has stated that the owner of the copyright (Televisa company [16]) released all Jery images "for wikipedia use exclusively". Since he has agreed that televisa owns all the copyright and the images are for wikipedia-only, the images should be deleted. ON the other hand, he tagged this as GFDL, so I'd rather have someone else look into this.}}

• He states the source of the images (some fan website)
• his statement of Televisa owning the copyright

Además recientemente fui atorizado a través de un e-mail por Televisa (la propietaria de todo lo relacionado con Jery Sandoval)para usar las fotos de ella exclusivamente en Wikipedia.

Translation: Besides, I was recently authorized by Televisa (owner of all he content related to Jery Sandoval) via email for use of her pictures exclusively at wikipedia.

BEsides the fact that "for wikipedia only" is not suitable, the only evidence of such email exchange is [17] which could easily be forged. Drini 18:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC) See also: [18] and also of putting PD tags [19].

•  Delete. This just keeps going on and on, with re-uploads and different licenses, and always the same undocumented claim of "Wikipedia only use". The unfree license itself is enough reason to delete. Cnyborg 00:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Deleted, pfctdayelise (translate?) 08:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Auto racing faster car approaching flag light blue with diagonal orange stripe stripe.png

superseded by Image:Auto racing faster car appr.svg --jed 21:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Deleted, pfctdayelise (translate?) 08:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Baarn flag.png

superseded by Image:Baarn flag.svg --jed 21:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• There are some very small differences in these two. I made a comment to Jed, he may improve them. pfctdayelise (translate?) 03:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Deleted, pfctdayelise (translate?) 08:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Bamileke-flag.png

superseded by Image:Flag of Bamileke National Movement.svg --jed 21:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Deleted, pfctdayelise (translate?) 02:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Saint-Pée-sur-Nivelle_front_sculpté.jpg

Superseded by Image:St Pée sur Nivelle Linteau.jpg, same snapshot of better quality --Harrieta171 06:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Deleted, in future please note that you can upload new images over the top of old ones. pfctdayelise (translate?) 02:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] A10 autoroute (France)

Duplicate of en:A10 autoroute (France), fr:Autoroute française A10 and pl:Autostrada A10 (Francja). Created as a page instead of category. Items already categorised at Category:Autoroutes in France. Captain Scarlet 08:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Kept, see Commons:Deletion_requests/2006/09/5#A13_autoroute. pfctdayelise (translate?) 02:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] A13 autoroute

Duplicate of en:A13 autoroute and fr:Autoroute de Normandie. Created as a page instead of category. Items already categorised at Category:Autoroutes in France. Captain Scarlet 08:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Kept, pages are OK too. Has more information than the category, which is more general. BTW things nominated for deletion should be tagged as such! pfctdayelise (translate?) 02:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Scott-is-an-ass-bag.jpg

The file name and description indicates that this is a silly joke at best and harassment at worst. It's not in use, and I can't see any use for it in any project either. Cnyborg 16:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I've speedied it as vandalism/harassment. — Erin (talk) (FAQ) 23:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Jon&richie.jpg

This user has uploaded several images related to bonjovi under a variety of false tags (including a CDCover under a GPFDL license, see Image:HAND.jpg, therefore is highly likely that this license tag is also invalid Drini 21:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Deleted --Kjetil_r 14:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Tonga flag 300.png

superseded by Image:Flag of Tonga.svg --jed 05:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

•  Delete--Ultratomio 07:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 07:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Tunisia flag 300.png

superseded by Image:Flag of Tunisia.svg --jed 06:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

•  Delete--Ultratomio 07:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Deleted Sanbec ✉ 11:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Transnistria Flag.jpg

superseded by Image:Flag of Transnistria.svg --jed 16:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Deleted Sanbec ✉ 11:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Trinidad and tobago flag 300.png

superseded by Image:Flag of Trinidad and Tobago.svg --jed 17:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

•  Delete--Ultratomio 07:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Deleted Sanbec ✉ 11:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Trinidad and tobago flag large.png

superseded by Image:Flag of Trinidad and Tobago.svg --jed 17:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

•  Delete--Ultratomio 07:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

deleted by User:Maximaximax --ALE! ¿…? 13:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Tunisia flag large.png

superseded by Image:Flag of Tunisia.svg --jed 17:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

•  Delete--Ultratomio 07:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Deleted Sanbec ✉ 11:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Edouard Manet La Rue Mosnier aux drapeaux, or le 30 juin 1878 Rue de Berne.jpg

I'm the uploader of this image. Unfortunally there is a cpoyright-sign of the getty museum in the right-bottom corner. New file is here: Image:Edouard Manet The Rue Mosnier with Flags.jpg --Rlbberlin 15:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Done, Sanbec ✉ 10:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Us flag 300.png

superseded by Image:Flag of the United States.svg --jed 17:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

•  Delete--Ultratomio 07:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Deleted Sanbec ✉ 11:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Banyan in fuzhou.jpg

Licence probably uncorrect. Here website http://www.cctv.com/ claim it copyright. Oxam Hartog 19:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

•  Delete Fair use! --Ultratomio 07:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Copyvio, speedy deleted! Sanbec ✉ 11:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:US Old Glory.png

superseded by Image:US flag 48 stars.svg --jed 20:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

•  Delete--Ultratomio 07:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
•  Delete--Shizhao 03:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

deleted--Shizhao 12:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Western sahara flag 300.png

superseded by Image:Flag of Western Sahara.svg --jed 21:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)}}

•  Delete --B1mbo 03:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
•  Delete --Ultratomio 07:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

deleted--Shizhao 12:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:WTC attack 9-11.jpg

Although this image is from a US Government site there is no evidence that it is a work of the US Govt. I suspect that the true source image is commercial and given the high usage of this image discussion seems sensible.--Nilfanion 17:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Would not you prefer that it isn't a photo from the US Govt.?

Responce: I don't think it's a big deal. This picture shows a major part of the 9/11 attacks and it is very powerful.

Responce: I think if it's taken from the USA government embassy website it's upto the government to request to remove it. Photo should stay.

If it were taken by the government, it would be public domain, so we would prefer that. Just because it's on a goverment website doesn't mean they own the copyright or that they can request to remove it. The AP owns the copyright, this is not a free image, and we're violating copyright. Delete it. --Rory096 06:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete. I'm pretty sure this is the same photo. Just because the government uses a photo does not mean they created it. --Gbleem 05:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[AP photo by CARMEN TAYLOR via KHBS/KHOG-TV] [20]

•  Delete looks pretty clear. pfctdayelise (translate?) 08:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
•  Delete --Joanot Martorell ✉ 09:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
•  Delete; delete (as copyvio), despite photo is good itself. Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 10:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
•  Delete; Yes it seem that this image have digital right => delete 14:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
•  Delete - I marked this as a speedy. Cary "Bastique" Bass ^parler _voir 16:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

  I've uploaded a derivative of a free version to compensate for all the projects that may still include this image, it should probably still be deleted. Cary "Bastique" Bass ^parler _voir 16:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

  When I ran CheckUsage before submitting this request it was something like 160 images on 30+ projects; it is widely used :(--Nilfanion 16:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

•  Delete--Shizhao 03:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Solved due to Bastique's re-upload, although it undoubtedly looks quite ugly on doznes of pages now, it should be a lesson in the importance of paying attention to your CommonsTicker... pfctdayelise (说什么?) 08:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Leopold Stokowski.jpg

No proof that the photographer died before 1936 Phrood 18:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. No source. Was also deleted from English Wikipedia for no source. / Fred Chess 17:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:West-vlaanderen.png

superseded by Image:Flag of West Flanders.svg --jed 21:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

 Keep - "superseded" is not a valid reason for deletion. --Tuvic 19:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

 Delete there is no reason to have the same motif in two or more manifestation. --jed 05:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

 Delete duplicate and unused. Sanbec ✉ 11:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

•  Comment the two flags are slightly different --ALE! ¿…? 14:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. Actually it had no source, but I also don't think the differences matter on such trivial design. / Fred Chess 17:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] image:Magnolia eix.jpg

no commercial use allowed. Lycaon 08:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

 Delete. Please use speedy {{noncommercial}} next time. --Panther 13:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Deleted, was already marked for speedy deletion. Cnyborg 22:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Puerto rico flag 300.png

superseded by Image:Flag of Puerto Rico.svg --jed 19:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

•  Delete--Ultratomio 07:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
•  Delete--Shizhao 03:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

deleted--Shizhao 15:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Nobelpreismedallie.jpg

Seriously, this is a copyrighted work. -- Fred Chess 21:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Isn't this identical to the one we recently deleted? If so, there is no need to delay the decision to delete. Cnyborg 22:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

who designed it? If it is the original design from 1902 then it is likely to be pd-old -- Gorgo 22:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Quoting [21] "The medals for Physics, Chemistry, Physiology or Medicine and Literature were modeled by the Swedish sculptor and engraver Erik Lindberg and the Peace medal by the Norwegian sculptor Gustav Vigeland. The medal for The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel (established in 1968 in connection with the 300th anniversary of the Sveriges Riksbank), was designed by Gunvor Svensson-Lundqvist."

Erik Lindberg (1873-1966)

Gustav Vigeland (1869-1943)

Gunvor Svensson-Lundqvist (1916-)

So in other words none of the medals are PD-old. /Lokal_Profil 23:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 16:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Nigeria flag 300.png

superseded by Image:Flag of Nigeria.svg --jed 19:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

•  Delete--Ultratomio 07:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 14:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:TerroristAttacksAlQaeda.png

• Bali bombings are not attributed to Al-Qaida. So the map is wrong. Bontenbal 17:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

kept (no copyright issue, image widely used) --ALE! ¿…? 13:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Bolivia flag 300.png

superseded by Image:Flag of Bolivia.svg --jed 19:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

•  Delete--Ultratomio 07:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
•  Comment the flags have slightly different aspect ratios --ALE! ¿…? 14:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
•  Keep for reference --Himasaram 11:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

deleted (the svg seems to be more correct) --ALE! ¿…? 09:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Blaikiewell primroses.jpg

Reasons for deletion request - image is of Primula vulgaris of which there are many images already. Image is of very poor quality and out of focus. Image adds no new information Velela 11:35, 7 September 2006

•  Delete very bad quality, can't be used. Lycaon 13:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Deleted -- as you wish... image not used anywhere... / Fred Chess 17:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Zeusganymedepederastyafghanistan.jpeg, Image:Zeusabduction.jpg, Image:ZeusPenetrating.jpg and Image:ZeusCourtingGanymede.jpg

Copyvios: these images are ineligible to PD-art because they are reproductions of 3D objects. Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 15:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

it lacks the author of the picture, they might be taken by the uploader (?) -- Gorgo 17:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Source for Image:Zeusganymedepederastyafghanistan.jpeg is http://kaladarshan.arts.ohio-state.edu/loststolen/Afghan/stucco/A1028.html
• Source for Image:ZeusPenetrating.jpg is http://www.androphile.org/preview/Museum/Greece/Zeus_accost_Gany.htm
• Source for Image:Zeusabduction.jpg is http://www.androphile.org/preview/Museum/Greece/Zeus_abducts_Gany.htm
• Source for Image:ZeusCourtingGanymede.jpg is http://www.androphile.org/preview/Museum/Greece/ZeusCourtingGanymede.htm

Platonides 18:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

So they really are copyvio. Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 12:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 12:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:ASBcover.jpg

This is a book cover. Unless it was it was freely licensed by the original copyright holder, a photo probably can't be GFDL'd by the photographer. Recommend move to English Wikipedia as a fair use image. --82.153.128.122 11:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep, an example of {{PD-ineligible}}. --Kjetil_r 14:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• It's a picture taken by me of a book I own on a carpet I own. It is used to illustrate the article Alternative Service Book. I can see the case for not allowing me to give a free licence to this image (my creative input is minimal), but I also understand the previous voters point of view. I would be happy to relicense the image if that would help. — Gareth Hughes 20:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep PD-ineligible. --Rtc 16:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fair use --Shizhao 15:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• tag as {{PD-ineligible}} --ALE! ¿…? 10:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

kept and tagged with {{PD-ineligible}} --ALE! ¿…? 21:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:ASBcover.jpg

Not pd-ineligible -N 04:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, an example of {{PD-ineligible}}. --Kjetil_r 22:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• kept as above! Please respect admin decisions. ChristianBier 22:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] AdsD pictures

This deletion request applies to:

• Image:Brandt-guillaume-1974-train.jpg
• Image:Brand-Guillaume-1974-congress.jpg
• Image:Brandt-Guillaume-event.jpg
• Image:Guillaume-autograph-1993.jpg

I sent an E-Mail to archiv.auskunft@fes.de inquiring about the license status of the pictures published at [22]. They said that the AdsD owns the copyright to all the pictures on their website and they only allow non-commercial use. Phrood 17:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete *sigh* people need to learn the difference between a free license and a press license. --Rtc 16:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Note: Image:Guillaume-autograph-1993.jpg is from another source ([23]). No copyright information found. --GeorgHH 12:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 21:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] :image:Cie_chromaticity_diagram_wavelength.png

The original upon which this is based has been deleted from ENWP as a copyright violation since it was first published in 1931 and there is no confirmation that it was not renewed. UninvitedCompany 20:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

 Comment Can this diagram be copyrighted in any way? I mean, isn't this just a plot of a colour space? Siebrand 11:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

•  Delete--Shizhao 03:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. It isn't clear how the original looked so you can't tell if this derived image can be copyrighted. Anyways, when license status is unclear, they say it is better to delete. / Fred Chess 17:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Abu Ghraib 8.JPG

No source. Is this one from the Abu Ghraib photos?

• -[[User:Nv8200p|Nv8200p]] 22:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Keep. --Descendall 22:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Kept, added "No source" template / Fred Chess 11:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Berlinare Flickr photos by Howie Berlin

Relisted on Commons:Deletion requests/2007/02/03 -- Bryan (talk to me) 14:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC) Image:Tilda Swinton.jpg Image:Jude Law.jpg Image:Gwyneth Paltrow.jpg Image:Juliette Binoche.jpg Image:Katja Riemann.jpg Image:Maria Schrader.jpg Image:Meryl Streep.jpg Image:Julie Delpy 2.jpg Image:Hildegard Knef.jpg Image:Woody Harrelson.jpg Image:Woody Harrelson2.jpg Image:Meryl Streep 2006.jpg Image:Heath Ledger 2006.jpg Image:Tom Hanks Poster.jpg Image:Deborah Kara Unger.jpg Image:Denzel Washington.jpg Image:Denzel Washington2.jpg Image:Horst Buchholz.jpg Image:JudeLaw2.jpg Image:Richard Linklater.jpg Image:Kyle MacLachlan Berlinale.jpg Image:Rachel Weisz.jpg Image:Lena Olin.jpgImage:Enemy at the Gates.jpg Image:Julie Delpy.jpg Image:Talented Mr Ripley3.jpg Image:Talented Mr Ripley2.jpg Image:Gwyneth Paltrow2.jpg Image:Weisz3.jpg Image:Ethan Hawke.jpg Image:Juliette Binoche2.jpg Image:Chocolat 2001.jpg Image:Lena Olin3.jpg Image:Lena Olin2.jpg Image:AnthonyHopkins.jpg Image:Hannibal2001.jpg

CC-BY-SA permission is given as "Wikipedia only", the original licence is CC-BY-NC-ND. Panther 13:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete CC-BY-SA has been illegitimately restricted to wikipedia. That#s not CC-BY-SA anymore. --Rtc 14:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Very unclear permission Sanbec ✉ 11:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not freecopyright--Shizhao 15:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

•  Comment I've sent him a message on flickr. Let see if he replies. / Fred Chess 14:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

He said

hi Fred!

I donT wanna change the license I used. If it works with wikipedia like it was before, it is okay, otherwise delete my pics. I don't care, if someone copy, distribute, etc. my pics, but I don't like the aspect of commercial use of my pictures. Why should anybody make money with them and I dont see a cent? That makes no sense to me, sorry."

Delete

Fred Chess 09:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually I agreed with Howie that commercial use was allowed as long the pics were max 300px height and width, see the following conversation recorded on my Flickr account, pasted below:

Howie's original response 10 May '06, 2.18pm PDT

• Hi Bobby, I would allow Wikipedia to use my pictures, but I don't wanna change the license on flickR in general. So, if it is good enough: I hereby declare that only wikipedia is allowed to use my pictures under the necessary license. Tell me, if this works, please. Greetz, Howie***"

Arniep's reply 10 May '06, 4.53pm PDT

• "That's great! Thanks! I think if you post a reply on www.flickr.com/photos/howie_berlin/128889594 saying that you agree that a Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 license can be used only for your Berlinale photos, that would be proof that you agree, then I can link to this page for each image on Wikipedia. Is this OK?"

Arniep's reply 11 May '06, 6.04am PDT

• "Hi Howie, Thanks for placing a reply. There is a small problem in that you say this license may only be used on Wikipedia, but in effect the license has global implications- the description of the license is:

• to copy, distribute, display, and perform the work
• to make derivative works
• to make commercial use of the work

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/

Basically anyone may do as they wish with the photos as long as they say that you were the creator of the original work. I will understand if you are not happy with this, if you are not I will make sure the images will be deleted on Wikipedia Commons.

Howie's reply 11 May '06, 6.42am PDT

• "Hi again, well the thing is, that I don't like other companies to use my pictures commercially. This makes no sense to me, that other people MAYBE get money for my pics, even if I get my name mentioned... This is strange for me. So, yeah, better delete them on Wikipedia. Thanx. Greetz, Howie***"

Arniep's reply 11 May '06, 7.35am PDT

• "Hi I think the point is that no one could really sell your pictures as the license must always be displayed with them which states that the images are free of royalty payments? Would you be OK perhaps if we used low res versions (say max width height 300px)?"

Howie's reply 11 May '06, 7.58am PDT:

• "Sure!"

Arniep's reply 11 May '06, 8.03am PDT

• "OK, that's great, can you post a short message on www.flickr.com/photos/howie_berlin/128889594 saying that all images must be 300px max height and width otherwise you do not agree to the license. Thanks !"

Arniep's reply 11 May '06, 6.30pm PDT

• "Hi, thanks for posting. Would you like to be credited with your Flickr id or would you want your real name to be used?"

Howie's reply 12 May '06, 3.15am PDT

• "Real name is fine. thanx. Michael Weiner."

Arniep's reply 15 May '06, 8.45am PDT

• "Hi Michael I have uploaded the files I intend to upload to Wikipedia Commons here www.flickr.com/photos/81239542@N00/. All are 300px max width/height, a few are cropped which I hope is OK to make the image usable. Please confirm if you are happy with these."

Howie's reply 15 May '06, 1.01pm PDT

• "everything is fine! enjoy the summer!cheers, Howie***"

I've now sent him another message on flickr. / Fred Chess 19:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

 Comment I'm ready to change my vote if he will set the clear state of these images. --Panther 20:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

 Comment Arniep: Please, provide a link to your flickr account. Sanbec ✉ 07:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

It's here. Arniep 18:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

After further discussions with Howie, I get the impression that he doesn't allow commercial use, and that it was a misunderstanding that he ever allowed it, based on the sentence;

Would you be OK perhaps if we used low res versions (say max width height 300px)?"

To which he replied:

Sure!

He has told me he doesn't mind having his images on Wikipedia, but not for any commercial use. So I have to maintain my delete vote.

I've tried to explain to him the cc license and the GFDL license, but the bottom line is that a lot of people don't share Wikipedia's vision of free knowledge, and in such cases it doesn't help to try and circumvent explicit permissions.

Fred Chess 16:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Why did you deliberately miss out a very important part of what I said to him:

• "Hi I think the point is that no one could really sell your pictures as the license must always be displayed with them which states that the images are free of royalty payments? Would you be OK perhaps if we used low res versions (say max width height 300px)?".

Then he said, "Sure". I made it clear that noone could really sell his pictures as they always had to show the license that shows they are free of royalty payments. Arniep 12:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

You make a liberal interpretation. Howie has explicitly said he does not agree to having his photographs used commercially. One may assume that the license CC-BY-SA makes them undesirable for commercial use, but can we guarantee it? If we can't, then they are non-commercial. / Fred Chess 18:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Having checked some photos, the licenses are non-commercial. I will attempt to contact other Wiki sites about this and ask them to claim fair use if applicable.--Jusjih 17:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Wait. Bobby Mcdobbin has photos with CC-BY-SA/2.0. Do we have to re-upload?--Jusjih 14:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Images are for Wikipedia/Commons use only. There is no guarentee for the images would not be used commercially. --|EPO| 15:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  How about those at [24]?--Jusjih 15:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - People misinterpret different CC licence all the time. I believe this is one of these cases. --Tarawneh 01:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

  Commons:Flickr images suggests that users there may change the copyright license at anytime without logs left.--Jusjih 15:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Clear misinterpretation of the CC. -- Bryan (talk to me) 14:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

•  Comment -- it is possible that I forgot to ask him about the 300 pix width/height restriction earlier. I'm confused sometimes (maybe because I have to deal with a great much of the deletion requests...) I'll send him another message. / Fred Chess 15:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok here we go:

Howard said:

• I am happy if someone uses my pictures for projects like Wikipedia, or public radio website, etc. - people who work on stuff and need pictures for the presentation - that's fine, no matter, which size the picture is. If the copyright and my name is mentioned, all is GOOD!
• if somebody wants to use my pictures, no matter what size they are, they can contact me and buy the rights to produce a brochure or whatever.

BUT what sense does it make, if I publish on Wikipedia, and somebody else makes money (as he/she uses it commercially) out of it???? It makes no sense! Everybody who wants to use my stuff commercially can pay me directly and not somebody else. That makes sense, no? End of letter.

Fred Chess 23:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• I'm confused. Bobby McDobbin's Flickr images seem to all be CC-by (not even CC-by-sa), whereas Howie Berlin's photos are tagged CC-by-nc-nd. Has the licence for Howie's images been changed on Flickr? Is there any way to verify their original licence (and whose brilliant idea was it to allow Flickr users to change irrevocable licences)? I'm opposed to deletion based on users changing their minds about licences they've willingly and irrevocably chosen. If you want to protect your works, you shouldn't release it under a licence you don't understand. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

  Bobby McDobbin's Flickr images, CC-by, seem to reduce the quality of Howie Berlin's photos, CC-by-nc-nd. Howie Berlin seemed to allow CC-by of his photos if the quality has been reduced to limited height and width. Since I am also confused, I have stopped deleting when it is not fully clear. For now, I consider Bobby McDobbin's Flickr images with CC-by fine here but original Howie Berlin's photos with CC-by-nc-nd are no good here.--Jusjih 14:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. Howie did not allow commercial use of his images with reduced quality. I just asked him! You can see the response in blue text. And two wrongs don't make a right -- Bobby McDobbin must also have misunderstood Howie's permission. / Fred Chess 14:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Sts-4 crew.gif

Clearly superseded by JPEG version Image:Sts-4-crew.jpg and does not contain any additional information comparing to the JPEG Bricktop 22:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

 Delete superseded --jed 17:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Deleted--Nilfanion 22:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Images in category:Road signs of Germany

Reasons for deletion request:

They are all superseded by SVG-Versions, which are available in Category:VzKat 1992. Augiasstallputzer 01:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

•  Delete all, but keep the category and rename the SVG category to it.--Nilfanion 23:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

 Delete superseded --jed 07:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I 've sorted the signs between the superseded and the other images using categories. After deleting, I can move the SVGs back with my Bot. Augiasstallputzer 23:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

They are deleted. The category has now a new content. Thank you. Augiasstallputzer 00:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Flag East Berlin.gif

superseded by Image:Flag of East Berlin (1956-1990).svg --jed 05:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

•  Delete --Ultratomio 06:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
•  Keep for reference --Himasaram 11:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 14:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Flag zwolle.gif

superseded by Image:Flag zwolle.svg --jed 05:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

•  Delete--Ultratomio 07:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
•  Keep colors slightly different --Himasaram 11:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 14:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:TerroristAttacksAlQaeda.png

The Bali bombings are not attributed to Al Qaida, but to Jemaah Islamiyah}} —the preceding unsigned comment is by Bontenbal (talk • contribs)

Aren't the two groups linked? Andjam 05:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

No, not in this sense. Regards, Bontenbal 09:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

That's a reason to request to have the image modified, not to have it deleted. In any case, the English Wikipedia article about the w:2005 Bali bombings says that "The attacks bear the hallmarks of the active terrorist network Jemaah Islamiah (JI), an organisation linked to Al-Qaeda, which is believed to be responsible for several bombings in Indonesia, including the 2002 Bali nightclub bombing, the 2003 Marriott Hotel bombing and the 2004 Australian Embassy bombing." --Fastfission 16:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

kept (no copyright issue) --ALE! ¿…? 13:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:GraphPaper.png

superseded by Image:Graph-paper.svg --jed 06:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

•  Delete--Ultratomio 07:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 12:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Galería imágenes Kriegsmarine

The license information in this gallery is unclear (the spanish? text on the talk page provides more info). If my interpretation is correct its not free and so all images should be deleted.--Nilfanion 23:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

deleted by User:Dodo --ALE! ¿…? 09:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Flags of South Vietnam

The PNG-Versions of the Flag of South Vietnam are superseded by the SVG-Version Image:Flag of South Vietnam.svg --jed 06:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Image:Flag-of-republic-of-vietnam.png
• Image:Flag southvietnam large.png
• Image:Flag of South Vietnam.png

•  Delete--Ultratomio 07:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Conscious 07:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
•  Comment All these (four) flags shows different colors! The FOTW link on the SVG's description page is of no use, since it has no official specifications regarding colors. --Himasaram 11:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 09:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Panorama Kapelle Augustinushaus Nordwalde.jpg

• Deutsch: Die Fenster sind urheberrechtlich geschützt.
• English: The Windows are copyrighted.
  --Steschke 19:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Ich versuche, den Künstler zu erreichen, um ein Einverständniss zu bekommen.

Bisher war ich eigentlich der Ansicht, nur die Augustinus-Kapelle von innen fotografiert zu haben. Aber die Fenster nehmen doch irgendwie den größten Teil ein. Keine Ahnung, wie das genau einzuschätzen ist.

I'll try to speak to the artist.

Until now I thought I just take a picture of the chapel, but the windows are the main part of the picture...

--wikipedia@dodekatex.de 08:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I tried to reah the artist but I couldn't. If you really think that this image is copyrightet by the artist of the windows - please delete it. --wikipedia@dodekatex.de 15:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

deleted. The main feature of this image IMO are the windows, which are copyright protected artwork. / Fred Chess 20:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Mika Hakkinen 2001 Japan.jpg

press licenses are not free. --Rtc 04:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

•  Delete It's in the 'free for media use' that makes it not free. Siebrand 11:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
•  Delete see Siebrand. -- Chaddy 14:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Deleted--Jusjih 17:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Flaga Slowian.jpg

superseded by Image:Pan-Slavic flag.svg --jed 05:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

•  Delete--Ultratomio 07:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
•  Keep for reference --Himasaram 11:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
•  Comment the flags have slightly different colours --ALE! ¿…? 15:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

deleted by User:WarX --ALE! ¿…? 15:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Tokyo-Cinderella-Castle.jpg

In this photograph, it is taken a picture in Tokyo Disneyland, and there is fear to violate the copyright of the person related to Tokyo Disneyland.--192.51.44.51 00:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Depends is deriavitive work allowed in Japan? Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

deleted (freedom of panorama in Japan only for non-commercial uses, see Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Japan) --ALE! ¿…? 12:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Leopardsyn3.jpg

File description includes clause " use in all other media [than Wikipedia] is granted when attribution is provided and there has been no attempt to alter the work". This is incompatible with the CC-BY-SA license. I am also concerning about the lack of a release from the legal guardians of the child, since it's not only a portrait but also part of her medical history, but for all I know the uploader might be her guardian; if it's kept I'd like to have that clarified. Cnyborg 23:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

To address these concerns, Yes I am the father of this child and I will clarify that in permissions if needed. My understanding is that under attribution 2.5, not CC-BY-SA, is that I am specifically allowed to set those restrictions. If I am in error, than I will modify the permission.UnseemlyWeasel 06:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

on reading the legal code for 2.5 I would interpret this as meaning I can request attribution, but not lack of alteration, I will change the permissions to reflect this interpretationUnseemlyWeasel 09:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• Kept, uploader changed requirements. Cnyborg 14:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Leopardsyn2f.jpg

See Leopardsyn3.jpg above]]. Cnyborg 23:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

See Leopardsyn3.jpg above for copyright holder's response. UnseemlyWeasel 06:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• Kept, uploader changed requirements. Cnyborg 14:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Category:Blekinge County

Empty - Purka 08:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy deleted / Fred Chess 09:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Coin5Esc.jpg

I am the author of this image please delete it, as it is under a wrong license. Will upload the correct one. Thanks brunurb 17:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• Closed just edit image page / Fred Chess 20:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Reddice.jpg

I am the author of this image please delete it, as it is under a wrong license. Will upload the correct one. Thanks brunurb 17:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• Closed, just edit image page.

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

[edit] Image:Bluedice.jpg

I am the author of this image please delete it, as it is under a wrong license. Will upload the correct one. Thanks brunurb 17:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• Closed Just edit image page -- Fred Chess 20:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Huskvarna in Sweden.png

Not in use - Purka 20:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

•  Keep -- not a reason for deletion / Fred Chess 20:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
•  Keep, the map is useful. --Kjetil_r 22:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

kept --ALE! ¿…? 12:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Zeta4.png

no description and suspicion of uncorrect licence. Oxam Hartog 13:29, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 13:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Robbie-live8.jpg

See en:User_talk:Conman33#Image:Robbie-live8.JPG Edub 08:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

And [25] Edub 09:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

•  Delete - image's only source is en.wp, and it was deleted there as a "possibly unfree image". pfctdayelise (translate?) 08:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Deleted. -Samulili 18:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Coat of Arms of Sealand.png

The image page (from en.wiki) states that it is from Sealand's "official" site. However, it was lined up for No License deletion. I can't think of an appropriate one for this image... is there any that cover it (maybe PD-ineligible)?--Nilfanion 22:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• Tough delete. Sealand is not a recognized nation, and its "national" website has no information on the copyright status of its images. It's either a UK copyright or simply PD ineligible. --Coredesat 23:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• Deleted. No permission ({{insignia}} is not a permission), no source for PD-claim. -Samulili 19:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Pausini grammy.jpg

Source: http://www.alexismagazine.it/photo/alexis_pausini_grammy.jpg . No proof of free use. Fred Chess 17:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 10:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Bjork-athens-olympics.jpg

Source: http://www.krassycandoit.com/blah/img/bjork-athens-olympics.jpg -- can not verify license. Fred Chess 17:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)}}

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 10:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Der ewige jude.jpg

The claim "This file is in the public domain, because it is ineligible for copyright as a production by en:Nazi Germany." is not accepted on Commons -- Fred Chess 08:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

•  Delete When will they stop these ridiculous claims? Should be a speedy candidate. --Rtc 10:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

deleted

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

[edit] Image:Matsyaboat.jpg

Source: http://www.srimadbhagavatam.org/. Copyright notice was: "N.B. if You want to use any of these images on your own website, please put them on your own server too. Do not steal any bandwidth." -- no real proof of permission granted. Fred Chess 17:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)}}

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 22:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] ΦΕΚ: Β 1491 20051027

User Conudrum has been marking [26] as copyvio our Greek images like Partenon, Acropolis, museums material... Based on:

Under Ministerial Decision of the Hellenic Republic (ΦΕΚ: Β 1491 20051027) all the royalties and copyright to this picture reside within the Archaeological Receipts Fund (TAP) of the Greek Ministry of Culture. You should attribute this copyright at all times, and specify the name and location of the monument and archaeological site or museum. You should also have applied for and have acquired license of use.

H-stt objected [27]

Objection: This piece of art is thousands of years old, there is no copyright anymore, and I seriously doubt the validity of any claims by the greek gouvernment. --h-stt !? 09:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Is the Greek gouverment able to take that measure? Isn't those art on open air, clearly free? Is it even reasonably? Specify name of the museum / place location can be ok but applying for permission over your picture if such museum allows photos is quite exagerated.

Plus, we have images taken before such law e.g. [28] taken 17 dic 1999 or Image:Kykladenidol.jpg on august 2004.

Platonides 10:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Objection: I totally agree with H-stt ! This piece of art is thousands of years old, there is no copyright anymore. Manchot 10:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Reply: First of all I must say how much I appreciate the effort of archaeophiles uploading pictures in the Commons. However, nobody could reasonably claim copyright over pictures that are not original and where "indeed, the point of the exercise was to reproduce the underlying works with absolute fidelity" (see indicative case Bridgeman Art Gallery v. Corel Corp 36F. Supp.2d 191 (S.D.N.Y. 1999). [29]). Moreover the situation has nothing to do about the author being alive or not because these items constitute cultural heritage and property of Greece.

I would also like to comment on what H-stt said. There appears to be some misunderstanding in his doubts that the Greek government can claim rights on the golden mask of Agamemnon, which is indeed kept in the National Archaeological Museum of Athens! We should always bear in mind that: “copyright and related rights are legal concepts and instruments which, while respecting and protecting the rights of creators in their works, also contribute to the cultural and economic development of nations. Copyright law fulfils a decisive role in articulating the contributions and rights of the different stakeholders taking part in the cultural industries and the relation between them and the public” [30]. Without the payment of these royalties remarkable monuments would have been deprived of vital funds for their restoration and preservation. Therefore, the Greek government is fully legitimate to regulate the distribution of depictions of Greek cultural heritage. Imagine what would have happened if anyone was allowed to use images of Greek heritage in order to further commercial or other aims without seeking permission. This could damage the integrity of such monuments in the eyes of millions of people. Besides, I would like to underline that guarding a nation’s cultural heritage is not yet another Greek peculiarity as Hstt might imply. For instance in the UK much stricter laws apply; landmark monuments such as the Tower of London, the Windsor Castle, the Hampton Court Palace are crown property and nobody is allowed to take photographs of their interior not even for personal use.

It is not an excuse that the Greek law may be unknown abroad. In fact this is not a recent measure. The ministerial decision published in ΦΕΚ: Β 1491 20051027 is probably an amendment of Ministerial decision αρ. ΥΠΠΟ/ΑΡΧ/Α1-Α2/22647/1336/5.5.1998 (ΦΕΚ 620/Β'/19.6.1998). The law 3028/2002 and the presidential decree ΠΔ 16/1980 (ΦΕΚ 8/Α'/ 16.1.1980) are also relevant. The protection regime dates back to the law 1947 of the year 1939 “On the establishment of Agency for Antiquities and Historical Monuments of the State” (ΦEK 366/Α'/6.9.1939). Perhaps the most recent ministerial decision (updating the licensing fees) can be found here [31] in Greek. The decision allows archaeological photographs for personal use only without flash, as most visitors of Greek museums are likely to know. Moreover the decision regulates the use of images of archaelogical content and the fees for using them on the Internet or Intranet, as the Greek state is the exclusive holder of intellectual rights of the content of these images. Interested parties should secure any complementary licenses according to the case e.g. photographic license.

Furthermore, the decision lists the fees that apply to each case. For educational, informational, scientific and cultural purposes the relevant fees are significantly lower. .Especially for use on the Internet for one month €20 per picture, six months €60 per picture, for a year €80 per picture, for two years €100 per picture. These fees apply only to pictures of low resolution (72 dpi) and only in one language. There applies a 50% increase for each additional language for each picture. For non-static pictures and higher resolution pictures an additional 60% is charged per picture. Furthermore a specific procedure for acquiring license of use of images of archaeological content is foreseen in the decision. An application should be submitted to the responsible Directorate of the Greek Ministry of Culture (ΥΠ.ΠΟ) (Directorate of Museums, Exhibitions, Educational programmes, Department of non public archaeological museums and collections, handling of antiquities and combating illicit trade in antiquities) or to the responsible regional authorities of the Ministry of Culture (Offices of prehistoric and classic antiquities, offices of Byzantine antiquities).

In addition all the images should be accompanied by short texts (captions) with the consent of the Ministry of Culture with the following information: a) for the immovable monuments: Name of Monument- Place (optionally Date and Use) b) for movable antiquities: Name of object and Place (Museum, Collection) number of Index (optionally Date and Use). In addition it should be written that the Copyright of the pictures belongs to the Greek Ministry of Culture as follows: "The Copyright on the depicted antiquities belongs to the Hellenic Ministry of Culture (law 3028/2002”. The images for which license is given should not be presented in a way that corrupts their content (composition, overlapping etc) without the prior special license of the Ministry of Culture. Non compliance with the aforementioned procedure brings upon sanctions according to law.

Consequently, as an immediate step licensing of these images under pd-self, and renouncing of copyright should be abolished. Moreover I believe that paintings, sketches, or drawings should be acceptable instead of unlicensed pictures and if you wish to maintain images of Greek archaeological objects located in Greece, license should be acquired and copyright attributed in all cases prior to publication.

Perhaps Wikipedia should contact:

Contact info:

Tameio Arxaiologikon Poron,

57 Panepistimiou str.

GR-10564 Athens

tel. +30 210 3722500

 Delete --Conudrum 12:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

•  Keep clear copyfraud. --Rtc 13:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

In addition: en:copyfraud. Your conection between the greek claims and "Crown Property" in UK doesn't hold. In London taking pictures is prohibited. That's valid, based on the right to control access. Beside that we disregard those british copyright claims whenever we can: We do have a copy of the King James Bible on Wikisource - s:en:Bible_(King_James) (For those not familiar with british crown copyright: The King James Bible is subject to claims of a perpetual copyright for the crown. Only four printers in UK are allowed to reproduce it and they have to pay royalties. US publishers (and wikisource) don't give a shit for those claims and publish as they like). Let's deal with the greek claims the same way. --h-stt !? 14:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

license should be acquired ? Unless greek goverment makes an exception for images which will have education purposes or similar, it's not possible. I think GFDL doesn't allow a must of paying fees (at least GPL doesn't). Platonides 14:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Reply: Please maintain civility Mr. h-stt. This is not an issue between you and me. I presented what the Greek Law foresees on the matter and comprehensively argued how a possible infringement can be avoided. Again, this is not “Greek claims”, it is LAW. As for your claims that ‘you don’t have to give a shit’ (sic) about royalties in both the U.K. and the Greek case, I believe they are null and void for the reason that the aforementioned countries are parties to the International Regime for the Protection of Intellectual Property, initially the Bern Convention and then also the specialised UN Agencies WIPO and UNESCO and are signatories to relevant treaties which provide for national treatment i.e. artistic works must be given the same protection in each of the other contracting States as in the State of origin (Berne Convention 1886). It should be noted that the International Law prevails in any case. Under no circumstances do Wikipedia’s policies lie above national and international law

It is not a case of convincing me, I understand that many people want to upload their holiday photos--which they are perfectly legitimized to keep for themselves and not to publish--but I am also pointing to the legal situation to which they should not turn a blind eye. Besides some of this massive amount of photos uploaded in Wikipedia do not respect minimum standards of a decent presentation of the monuments and often mistake and mislocate them.

Furthermore all the items in archaeological museums and sights are subject to copyright law because they are products of excavations and form parts of an exhibition, over which the Greek state has copyright. To make it clear, the image of the Golden mask is the result of excavation and restoration and is presented as part of a museum collection under special conditions of exhibition, (e.g. lighting, positioning, background colouring etc.) the copyright of which must be attributed.

On the other hand it is not legitimate to accuse the Greek State of stealing Cultural Heritage. The Greek State is part to the UNESCO 1970 Convention on the protection of Cultural Property and is indeed the Guardian of the monuments, not a thief. It is outrageous to accuse a State, Greece of copyfraud as a penal law delinquent. Greece has undertaken laborious tasks and spent immense amounts of funds -Greek taxpayers’ money- for the restoration of cultural heritage and the restitution of such heritage illegally kept abroad. Perhaps you have mistaken the victim with the perpetrator. Besides, the vast majority of Greek heritage sites are open to the wide public and photographing them for personal use is indeed permitted. But, publishing them in encyclopaedias is a completely different case. In the case of commercial use of images the regulations are even stricter. For instance there was a heated debate in Greece and in the General Archaeological Council in particular, after PHILIPS Corporation applied to use the Parthenon for an international commercial advertisement of its lighting. In return the company offered to provide the lighting for a number of archaeological sites in Greece. Archaeological receipts are used for the expropriation of property for the advancement of archaeological excavations, and do not end up in the pockets of private fat-cat collectors of illicit-in-origin and undeclared items.

I regret to observe that this may be a case of keeping double standards here. Whilst in other cases draconian rules apply which dictate speedy deletion of images, in the case of Greek antiquities the copyright standards seem to be kept disproportionately low. In addition I did not say that British crown property is an identical case, but if you search this site it is virtually impossible to find photographs from the interior of crown property sites. Furthermore, the absence of persecution in the case of Greece does not mean impunity and that unchecked circulation of fragmented snapshots of monuments is acceptable. All in all this is a legal issue, and expert legal advice should be sought. I expressed my opinion after reading the provisions of the Greek law which lead to the conclusion that unchecked publishing of such images constitutes copyright violation. If anyone has any questions or objections they should be better directed to the responsible Greek authorities.

To conclude I must restate that Greece adheres to the civil law tradition and so, much more than the mainly economic provisions for 50-70 years of Intellectual Property protection of the common law tradition, the Greek state has a droit morale perpetuel over the monuments, no matter how long time has passed since the death of their creator. --Conudrum 17:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

If the letter of the law was to be regarded when it came to the Vigeland Sculpture Park, the Louvre Pyramid, the Eiffeltower at night, and others, because of their country law, then they should be applied here too. Absurd? Yes, I think so. But I don't have support.

To prove a point, I think we should  Delete these Greek images. Maybe then, people will wake up and allow a change of the Commons policy. / Fred Chess 17:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

This is totally different case. The pyramid of Louvre and the lightting installation of the Eiffel towers are copyrighted according to the European copyright law. Note that Eifel tower and Lovre building are NOT copyrighted. Greek law, even if it is effective in Grecce, contradicts international EU copyright law. Therefore, it has no power outside Greece. Kneiphof 12:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Please ignore these wild copyfraud claims. They are not acceptable. Nobody owns any copyright on things many hundreds of years old. If we start to accept this, we'd have basically to delete much of commons, ie, reproduction photography etc. Merely giving some objects a special lightning and background does not automatically give you a copyright. We cannot accept these brazen attempts to circumvent copyright expiry. There is no copyright on "result of excavation and restoration and is presented as part of a museum collection under special conditions of exhibition, (e.g. lighting, positioning, background colouring)" and on "undertaken laborious tasks and spent immense amounts of funds -Greek taxpayers’ money- for the restoration of cultural heritage and the restitution of such heritage illegally kept abroad" And BTW, Conudrum is entrirely wrong to claim a country of origin protection by international copyright law. it is in fact the opposite, it gives the protection of the country where this protection is demanded ("Schutzlandprinzip"). See w:Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works: "The Berne Convention requires its signatories to protect the copyright on works of authors from other signatory countries (known as members of the Berne Union) in the same way it protects the copyright of its own nationals, which means that, for instance, French copyright law applies to anything published or performed in France, regardless of where it was originally created." --Rtc 17:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

•  Keep For several reasons I think we should respect the laws of the country of origin, but not when the laws are "silly" (archeology in Greece, pornography from Saudi Arabia etc). Since these are free in the US (where the foundation is), I vote for keeping. -Samulili 18:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• Objection. I agree with H-stt and Rtc. There is no reason to delete photos of ancient artifacts that have been uploaded by the photographer. -- Carbidfischer 00:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

•  Keep Local laws and regulations that are outside internationally prevalent laws and standards should be ignored, especially in cases of obvious copyfraud.--Eloquence 00:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

•  Keep I suppose we should give the Greek government an award for "longest retroactive copyright" - hope that doesn't mean "EU harmonization" requires all ancient buildings in Europe to be copyrighted! What's next, the Swiss copyrighting the Alps? "Because we work hard to keep them attractive and provide access!" Stan Shebs 06:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Totally agree!!! Kneiphof 12:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

•  Keep I've just seen this matter and have not read everything, I am not a lawyer but this just a Minister's Decision (and not a Law) seems not to be valid as it collides on the greek Copyright Law (s:el:Νόμος 2121/93). There is no provision in the copyright law that a photograph's copyright can be taken from the creator and held by the government. A creation's copyright is held always by the creator (and unlike US law, even companies cannot claim copyright on works made by their employees). So Greek government cannot claim any copyright on any photo, so there can't be any restriction or fee. The Ministry of Culture of course can prohibit photographs in museums or ask for a fee when some accomodation is provided for the photographer, but for sure not for publishing the photos. There is a lawyer in Greek Wikipedia, and I'll ask him about this, but it seems that it's just a stupid Decision based on bad interpretation of an old law (stating that an Archeological agency can have income from published photos (N 736/1977), but that I think that can mean photos where the agency has the copyright and not ALL photos. Anyway, a Law is stronger than a Minister's Decision, and according to Law 2121/93, a photographs's copyright is held always by the photographer until he strictly provide it to somebody else. --Geraki 17:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

•  Keep as per Geraki's arguments. Please consider the possibility that we are getting paranoid about copyrights.--FocalPoint 18:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• From what I understand, the point is that the Greek government owns these objects and therefore has reserved all the rights of reproduction and publishing of images, which Wikimedia has not acquired or attributed. Of course this an interpretation of copyright rules often expressed by museums in their image use policy (see Hermitage museum[32])is unclear to me whether is legal or illegal. As for the Unesco conventions I believe they include ownership and protection but haven’t seen if they mention exploitation or reproduction, which I think is kind of bold inference. It’s very sad that Wikipages may have to be striped of all their pictures of monuments and museum objects in this way. Is there any expert in Wikimedia to consult on this? Is there copyright on items of archaeological discovery? Should we ask governments and museums for permission to publish? Obviously this is a big issue and I don’t know how to vote. Maybe  Delete the museum objects (vases, sculptures, knives…) for the moment, and  Keep only external pictures of buildings. --Donnerstag 13:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• I strongly agree with Fred Chess, and to restate this position, there are many ways to interpret the law. The letter of the law may appear strict, but it is a matter of political decision to cede these rights. And recreational non-commercial photography of these treasures is absolutely free. Could publishing them in Wikimedia commons be considered as such kind of use? Besides, educational, informational use of such material is viewed positively by the law. All this discussion has been based on the assumption that according to a strict interpretation of the law uploading pictures of artifacts on the internet may be of disputable copyright. This remains to be proved; because we only know provisions of the law, not the practice of the authorities vis a vis publishing of images on the internet. It would have been interesting to further examine the case. Finally, I would like to condemn the practice of the Commons. It seems that uploading pictures of British artifacts, night views of the Eiffel tower, Norwegian sculptures etc is restricted because of the country law, while there is an innumerable amount of images of Greek artifacts in obvious defiance of the country law. And this is not because they are thousands of years old, more recent Greek treasures subject to the same protection also appear in the commons. In conclusion, the commons should rethink their position -if they ever had one other than selective opportunism. And a serious policy does not depend on the subjective impression of some -who obviously defy the concept of copyright law in general- that a law appears “silly” or intelligent. We should either delete all these pictures that go against country law or keep them all because any intermediate position is an application of double standards. --Conudrum 14:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

  An "a la bande" attitude helps nobody: Being against the PD-Soviet deletion and thus now trying to find the most ridiculous example in order to show us a "serious flaw" in our general licensing policy and thus thinking that we lift the policy under the pressure of that example. This is not the way to go. So please do not mix things that do not belong together:

  • The Eiffel tower itself is out of copyright. The very sad debate is about the copyright of the new Eiffel tower light installation. New norwegian sculptures and for example the Atomium in Brussels are all protected by copyright. So if these objects are the central part of an image the image is unfree or even a copyvio. As you see these works are all new works.
  • Ancient greek works are orders of magnitudes older. Often you even don't know the peeples names that created it. Completely different situation and thus such claims are indeed copyfraud. No today living person can claim the astonishing originality of ancient greek artists for themselves (you hardly can draw a line of sucessors until today even if you know these persons).
  • Ok let's look at todays greek works: If in Greece there is indeed nothing like "freedom of panorama" (as for example in Poland, Austria, Germany, Switzerland...) images of today greek works need to be deleted like it was done with equivalent belgican, french and norwegian images.

  So in summary do not blame failures of uploaders to the Commons admins blame it to the uploader themselves (you hardly can miss our beginners howtos in many languages that explain you everything important). Arnomane 16:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• Leaving aside the extremely weak arguments defending such law raised by the person who brought up this (for me as a Greek) embarassing subject, I would like to point out that this regulation refers mainly to commercial photography and commercial exploitation thereof. I have my doubts on the constitutionality (conformity with the greek constitution) of a law prohibiting the free distribution of non commercial photographs, especially non-commercial photos of open-air monuments. When visiting an open-air archaeological site after paying the entrance fee (THIS is a reasonable measure for recovering restauration expenses), one is explicitly allowed to take non-professional pictures without flash (and of course without fee outside the fence!). Taking pictures without flash is even in some museums allowed. The fact that the law and the ministerial decision seem to try to regulate the publication of legally taken (non-professional) photos even on non-commercial internet sites is apart from regretful also of highly disputable constitutionality. A simple search on the Internet can prove that almost all touristic websites have such pictures on them and these sites are clearly commercial. This means that the ministry of culture itself is not very keen on applying this law when it comes to single photos on internet sites. I would see this regulation as a too broadly phrased reservation, so that the government can intervene in case someone publishes pictures of such cultural items in an "inappropriate" manner or as a measure of purely pecuniary nature and thus of even more doubtful constitutionality. The person who brought this up will probably understand the phrase "let's not be more royal than the king himself". I would see no reason for deleting the pictures--Archidamus 19:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
•  Keep AFAIK these images wouldn't be under copyright in US or other EU countries, that a Greek ministry is claiming copyright over statues and builidings over 2000 years old is absurd, and it would only apply to Greece (if it's even legal over there). It would most certainly be uncopyrightable in my country. Of course if it's a photographical work it would get a new copyright, but if it's been released under a free license, why even bother with this deletion request? NielsF 00:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
•  Keep even if this law is valid in Greece, it contradicts with the international EU copyright law (work enters PD 70 years after creator's death). As international project with no servers in Greece, we should only take international law into account Kneiphof 12:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

•  Keep I wrote in German Wikipedia the article de:Blonder Kopf von der Akropolis for it. --Mario Todte 16:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. It's not obvious to me why we would accept that the placement of floodlights around the Eiffel Tower as making every image taken of it at night a derivative work, while heaping scorn on the idea that the effort and decision-making involved in what to preserve, what to reconstruct, and how to present to the public those preservations and reconstructions on the part of Greek archaeological agenices over the last hundred years is copyrightable or enforceable. I don't think we should delete these images (although a template noting that they may not be freely reusable in Greece may be a good idea), but I'm unhappy about the way that we're discussing a law that we don't like as if we know more about the situation than the relevant legislature does. Perhaps every court in the world would accept the claim that a big glass geometric pyramid in front of the Louvre prevents the free licensing of every image involving it, and none of them would accept that the current appearance of the Acropolis cannot be copyrighted by those people who have arranged that current appearance. We don't, however, know that, and we just need to make reasonable decisions about what we claim to be able to freely license, including noting compromises we might be making on universality and noting for our reusers any applicable local copyright law brought to our attention. Jkelly 19:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  •  Comment. A good deal of Greek artifacts were excavated, analyzed, restored and documented by foreign institutions present in Greece, such as the British School at Athens. Do that means the copyright for these artifacts lies with these institutions? Did the Greek museums infringe their copyright by lighting them or providing them a background? Jastrow 07:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
    • One of my points is that we shouldn't be assuming we know more about the situation than the Greek legislature does, a mistake that your statement here is a prime example of. Jkelly 17:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
      • The fact that the Greek ministry knows about the situation does not mean they take the right or just decision about it. I wonder how the Greek ministry of culture can justify the fact that a foreign institution who has directed an excavation in Greece and assumed the cost of it should now pay for publishing a picture one of its scholars has taken. And yes, before making my statement here, I have asked for the opinion of one of the foreign scholars I'm talking about, who has personally excavated in Greece. Jastrow 22:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

•  Keep The copyright is clearly with the photographer of the object who licensed it here under GNU. Whether or under which circumstances he was permitted to take this picture is not a question of copyright and license. --Bjs 08:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

{{keep}} I'm in a point with Bjs in it. It's a bad fake.--Mario Todte 09:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC) (has already voted above --Bjs 19:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC))

•  Keep (FWIW) Also note that when they are in conflict, EU law overrides member states' laws. This provision may not even be legally enforceable in Greece. 87.75.165.71 11:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

•  Keep. While we should respect Greek laws, this is a ministerial decision, with no support in Greek or EU copyright law. The ministry is free to limit or even ban photography at museums and archaeological sites, but to claim copyright over ancient artefacts is another matter entirely; that needs to be harmonized with existing laws before it can be considered valid. Cnyborg 13:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

•  Keep, agree with Cnyborg. Plus, the amount of hard work needed to present or restore an artwork *as it was before*, though meritorious, is irrelevant with copyright law. Same thing with basic museographic arrangements such as lighting the object or providing a grey background. Jastrow 12:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

•  Keep (reason exposed above) Manchot 00:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

•  Keep per Cnyborg. --24.52.254.62 02:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm writing on article for it. --Mario Todte 15:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

•  Keep I am not a lawyer but I think the Greek government can only claim copyright on images that were taken after the law was introduced. In my opinion it can in no-way apply to immages already published or in public domain. If this was the case, the Greek government's desision would render thousands of publications around the world illegal. ---Botev
•  Keep According to PD-Art the picture must be kept. I think about to upload the better photo of it. --Vissarion 13:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
•  Keep Please Keep. Don't bow to silly retroactive copyright demands. Besides, according to US laws, the copyright violation claim is invalid.

Keep. It would be absurd to claim copyright over every peice of history inside a county. --Cat out 19:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Capitani Reggenti.jpg

This image claims to be a "United States military award", which, if the description is true (Medal of the w:Captains-Regent of San Marino), is flagrantly incorrect. According to Image Google it came from citylink.sm, which I don't see a lack-of-copyright notice on (Granted I can't read that language) and DEFINATELY isn't very Federal. According to CheckUsage (And the "en" tab) there is no mainspace usages outside of the Spanish Wikipedia, which prohibits "fair use", so it can't be locally uploaded. Incidentially, the uploader has been banned for noxious and egregious policy violations on the English Wikipedia. 68.39.174.238 06:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 15:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Yellow star Juif.gif

Took from speedy delete queue. Yellow Jewish star from occupied France. Was claimed, by someone else, to be "a copyrighted patch, so this image is derivative work." Fred Chess 10:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

•  Keep How can you copyright a Davids-star and a word in Hebrew a Hebrew-looking typeface? Fred Chess 10:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
•  Keep too simple of an design, likely PD-old as the Star of David, clearly not copyrighted Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 18:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
•  Keep The original is not copyrighted, unless a representative of Dr. Goebbels/Himmler/Vichy makes a claim. The image is a simple 2-dimensional representation of a generic emblem. The burden is on the nominator to prove copyvio. Humus sapiens 03:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
•  Keep Speedy keep, actually. Since when do we honor Nazi copyrights? Crzrussian 03:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • We do honor Nazi copyrights. --ALE! ¿…? 07:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

kept --ALE! ¿…? 07:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Pyramides âges France 2005.gif

Was listed at Speedy Delete with the following reason: "Image comes from the INED web site (www.ined.fr). See this page for copyright notice." I don't speak French, don't know what it says. / Fred Chess 13:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

 Delete It's a copyright statement saying reusing the material without permission constitutes a copyright violation, but that pedagogical use in the classroom is allowed provided the source is mentioned. Angr 14:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• I'll fix it - the data itself is indeed public domain. The copyright discussion is at most upon its graphic representation, which dosen't realy qualify as an "oeuvre de l'esprit" (creative work) according to French Law (at least, the case would be unclear). Give me 24H, it's just a matter of re-drawing the graphic with Excel, and the matter will be settled. Micheletb 04:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• OK, fixed, the new image is my own work. 5 minutes on Excel... (the data is public domain) Micheletb 06:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
•  ??? apparently the upload didn't work, I'll fix this at home this evening. Micheletb 12:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• OK, the new image has no copyright. Micheletb 06:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• I'll close this now. The copyviolation has been deleted. / Fred Chess 07:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Cruz.JPG

superseded by Image:Cruz.svg --jed 21:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 12:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:L-1011L.jpg

seems to be a copyright violation

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 13:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:BanderaTorrelavega-Cantabria.gif

superseded by Image:BanderaTorrelavega-Cantabria.svg --jed 08:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

•  Delete--Ultratomio 04:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
•  Delete--slady 18:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 14:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Bandera-bilbao.jpg

superseded by Image:Flag of Bilbao.svg --jed 08:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

•  Delete--Ultratomio 04:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
•  Keep bordered --Himasaram 11:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 14:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Banderaapartadó.PNG