Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2007/02

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

[edit] Image:Persian invasion Mycale.png

Reasons for deletion request: My mistake, I uploaded the wrong image. It is already available in Commons: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Persian_invasion.pngAmizzoni 05:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• deleted Julo 12:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. Initiating deletion procedure. Dick107 23:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:FTsystMapNoStrts.jpg

Creator of image would not sign a release. In order for the creating organization to sign the boilerplate release with an embedded reference to the Wikipedia/Wikimedia location of their image, I uploaded the image. My intent was to not reference the image until the organization had submitted the release form. Although they had initially sent me the image, further review by higher management determined that they were uncomfortable signing the release. In speaking to this person, I stated that I would remove the image. --Dick107 23:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC) --- Deleted, pfctdayelise (说什么?) 04:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Hdtv-no.jpeg

Seems to be made by Reuters. See far right of the image. Yann 01:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

•  Delete. This user has a number of obvious copyright violations in their contributions list. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio, deleted. Yann 15:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:59310047 Whore and her guest, in bed.JPG

The pictures contains identifiable people. There is no evidence to show that the lady is indeed a prostitute or that the gentleman is paying her for their sexual encounter. The image is therefore likely to be libelous in addition to the violation of personal image rights. --WJBscribe 03:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

•  Delete. Possible libel. Yann 04:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
•  Delete because of the pejorative and possibly defamatory title. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted because of the pejorative and possibly defamatory title. Yann 02:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Restored. If you have any doubts about this picture, you should ask the uploader first. --Fb78 11:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

And closed afterwards again by Fb78 --ALE! ¿…? 13:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Vlajka obce Broumy.gif

superseded by Image:Flag of Broumy.svg --slady (o.o) 22:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC) --slady (o.o) 22:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

deleted, please list superseded images at Commons:Deletion requests/Superseded next time --ALE! ¿…? 13:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Vlajka obce Horní Nětčice.gif

superseded by Image:Flag of Horní Nětčice.svg --slady (o.o) 22:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC) --slady (o.o) 22:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

deleted, please list superseded images at Commons:Deletion requests/Superseded next time --ALE! ¿…? 13:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Vlajka obce Chodov.gif

superseded by Image:Flag of Chodov.svg --slady (o.o) 22:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC) --slady (o.o) 22:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

deleted, please list superseded images at Commons:Deletion requests/Superseded next time --ALE! ¿…? 13:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Image765.gif

identical to Gray765.png --Lipothymia 22:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

deleted, please tag as {{duplicate}} next time and do not list these here --ALE! ¿…? 13:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Image794.gif

identical to Gray794.png --Lipothymia 22:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

deleted, please tag as {{duplicate}} next time and do not list these here --ALE! ¿…? 13:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Atual First World Map.PNG

The "First world" cannot be defined using a singular definition, use Image:HDImap2006.png instead. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 23:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Procedural listing, no vote.--Nilfanion 23:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Atual_First_World_Map.PNG is not used anywhere, deleted 

Julo 18:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Fundação Joan Miró1818.JPG

The photograph is a derivative work of the painting of Joan Miró (1893-1983). Thus the CC license for the photo is invalid. This is also true for Image:Fundação Joan Miró1815.JPG /Lokal_Profil 01:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted by Zirland: In category Derivatives of copyrighted works; not edited for 3 days

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

[edit] Image:Aage Niels Bohr.jpg

The picture is marked as {{no rights reserved}}, but no reason for it is given. The source is presented as [1], but I see no copyright information there. I do not speak Portuguese nor Turkish (or what is the language), so I might be mistaken. Please note the talk page of the uploader and some of his his other contributions which might be copyvios, too. (There are some outstanding deletion requests already.) Mormegil 17:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

 Delete, bogus licence, and unless someone can explain how to get a larger, less tightly cropped version from a smaller, more tightly cropped version, I'd say bogus source as well. The Nobel foundation claims the copyright for this photo with no indication of relinquishing any of their rights. —LX (talk, contribs) 02:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. I plan to look at other suspicious contributions of this user. --Mormegil 18:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Template:PD-BrazilGov

Keept, but text on Template:PD-BrazilGov is changed. Lugusto • ҉ 18:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Law linked appears to apply to trademarks - not images, thus it's misleading and wrong. Megapixie 05:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The law is about industrial property, and in that trademarks as well. It just says you can't register flags, weaponshields etc. etc. as a trademark. So this law doesn't mention anything specific about the intellectual property in such.

According to some on ptwiki concerning this matter in the past, there are a couple of laws in the Brazilian system which comes into play; Lei 9.610, de 19 de fevereiro de 1998: (Lei dos Direitos Autorais) (english translation) article 6 says the government doesn't have any intellectual property for merely subsidized work. The problem is then establishing whether a work is subsidized or not!? I would think this article can't be used for many of the affected works we are talking about using this template (flags, weaponshields and more). And furthermore, it just means that the government doesn't get any rights, but the original author still have all the rights..

In Chapter IV, article 48, there is however a very interesting passage: "Works permanently located in public places may be freely represented by painting, drawing, photography and audiovisual processes.". I would think this would allow for some possibilities for many works.

In general, all weaponshields, flags etc. are described in such a way that it is possible to reproduce them without having to have an existing reproduction (or original) as the base. These descriptions are then (i would suspect) put into official laws, acts or similar. When it enters these official documents, we are on a path to the public domain.

The main problem is then finding a law saying explicitly that the work is not covered by copyright law, and this proves to be difficult. I have done some searching, but can't find anything to this extent. There should be some kind of "All work by the Brazilian government is in the public domain", but we'll have to find it first..

There are several people at ptwiki who are very confident that the work of the government is in the public domain, but I need to see the laws they cite first, and so far the laws they cite seems very dubious and not applicable to the work in question. -Stigmj 13:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

 Comment The only thing made by any governmental sphere on Brazil in Public Domain is the texts of treaties or conventions, laws, decrees, regulations, judicial decisions and other official enactments (article 8, IV from the 9610/98 above). Due to the 9979/96 on the {{PD-BrazilGov}} + the above quoted text (all coats and flags for cities and states from Brazil are released as a attachment from a law) is supposed to any flag and coat of arms from any city and any state on Brazil is under no copyrights. Brazil don't have a clear law releasing any coat of arms or falgs in public domain, neither copyrighting them. Lugusto • ҉ 17:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I knew there would be such a paragraph somewhere, but I didn't see it at first. If we now can assume that all flags, shields, banners, insignias etc. from the government of Brazil is described in some sort of official enactment which applies to this article 8 in the 9610/98 law, then I think this could be the solution. Now it's just a matter of getting the opinion of an attorney or judge on this matter. I do believe these works are in the public domain anyway, so it's just a matter of finding the right laws which permits this use. There should be other laws protecting these works from being altered disgracefully, so we should be on safe grounds. --Stigmj 22:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know exactly what you're talking about but the article 124 says
Article 124: The following are not registrable as marks: I. official, public, national, foreign or international escutcheons, coats of arms, medals, flags, emblems, badges and monuments, as well as the respective designations, figures, or imitations;.

I think then if there is a law that says it's official, so it's in Public Domain.Thiago R Ramos 17:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

That law is about marks, i.e. trademarks, not copyrights. These are two different issues. The article 124 your're quoting is not from the 9.610 law on copyrights, but from the 9.279 law governing "industrial property". Just because a work is exempt from trademark does not mean it's not copyrighted or in the public domain.

The "freedom of panorama" (which exists in Brazilian law, but not US) doesn't necessarily abrogate copyright on anything, it's just the sensible idea that anything visible in public may be photographed, painted, drawn, etc. and that representation freely reproduced by its author. It doesn't mean that if, say, a flag with a copyrighted design is flying in public that you could automatically make and distribute that flag. It does mean that you could take a photo of (for instance) a new sculpture in a park and release it under a free license.

There may well be some Brazilian law that puts all work of their government into the PD, but if there is I haven't seen it. (And I'm not capable of research in Portugese.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Art. 191. Reproduzir ou imitar, de modo que possa induzir em erro ou confusão, armas, brasões ou distintivos oficiais nacionais, estrangeiros ou internacionais, sem a necessária autorização, no todo ou em parte, em marca, título de estabelecimento, nome comercial, insígnia ou sinal de propaganda, ou usar essas reproduções ou imitações com fins econômicos: Pena - detenção de um a três meses ou multa.

The reproduction of official insignia is permitted and is not protected by copyright. Though, it is forbidden to reproduce or imitate insignias to intentionally cause misunderstanding (use a police badge to identify yourself as a policeman or use a state's coat of arms to pretend you have some kind of authority etc.). Dantadd✉ 00:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Something's not getting through here. The text you quote above is the part of the industrial property law that imposes penalties for misuse of insignia and trademarks. Nothing in that law says anything about copyright. Please stop quoting it; it doesn't apply to the issue of public domain.

You say that official insignia is not protected by copyright. Please show where it says that. Copyright, not mark. You will not find it in Law #9.279. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it might work:

"Lei 9.610, de 19 de fevereiro de 1998: (Lei dos Direitos Autorais)

Art. 6º Não serão de domínio da União, dos Estados, do Distrito Federal ou dos Municípios as obras por eles simplesmente subvencionadas."

A produção de obras (incluindo logos) de instituições públicas (federais, estaduais ou municipais) é subvencionada por elas. Sendo o titular (da obra subvencionada) a própria instituição pública, e como esse domínio lhes é negado por lei, não há nestes casos um titular que possa reclamar direito autoral.

It's from the copyright law of Brazil. And says that the nation, the states and all cities DOES NOT have copyright (in portuguese Direitos Autorais) of any work made by them. Wich means, that they are released in PUBLIC DOMAIN. 201.13.215.194 06:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

No, that's not what it says in either English or Portugese, and you don't have to be a Portugese speaker to see that. It says they don't own the copyrights to subsidized works, not works "made by them". This is about publicly funded art, not works made by government employees in the course of their jobs. That's why it says "simplesmente"; the government had nothing to do with producing the art other than to fund it. Considering the rest of the law (see Cap. II) it means that the artists retain copyright in that case. This was already discussed above. Please read the earlier discussions so we don't have to keep repeating ourselves. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I just cannot see how might someone claim for one's copyrights, since every municipal blason and flag is defined by the respective municipal law -- which would be the alternative to represent the flag of that city then? It is clear that when a civic symbol is adopted, it is considered to be in public domain. --Tonyjeff 22:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, as it appears that Megapixie is simply correct about this, while TCC is simply correct about the other claims being raised here. We've either gotten this one wrong or, at the very least, cannot demonstrate that it is right. Jkelly 17:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, but Change - I propose to change the text in the template as I have made an example of here. I have gotten at least one positive answer at ptwiki on this. --Stigmj 01:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, but Change - I support Stigmj's proposal. Waldir 18:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, but change - It seems Stigmaj's proposal is correct, according to brazilian law.--Gaf.arq 20:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Stigmaj with the propopsed change. I note that there may be some works now bearing this tag that should not, such as Image:Sarney.jpg, since Art. 8 does not mention photographs. (Although it seems to me it should not have had the tag under its original form either.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep with Stigmaj changes, as these symbols are clearly in public domain. --Tonyjeff 22:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Legal consultation

After consulting with a Brazilian lawyer on this subject, I have a few points to make:

• The Brazilian Constitution and Brazilian laws do not directly discuss the copyrights of Brazilian official symbols;
• Even though they do touch on official symbols in the following passages: Art. 13, § 1º of the CONSTITUIÇÃO DA REPÚBLICA FEDERATIVA DO BRASIL DE 1988 and Art. 6º of the LEI Nº 9.610, DE 19 DE FEVEREIRO DE 1998, what is said on the subject is implied by what the law doesn’t spell out. In the case of article number 6 of the Lei dos Direitos Autorais, what is implied is that, even though art SIMPLY financed by the Brazilian Government does not belong to it, art which SYMBOLIZES it DOES belong to it;
• As is the case of any Constitution and any law in the world, that, which is not prohibited by them is therefore ALLOWED by them;
• As was already quoted above in Capítulo IV, Art. 191 of the Lei de Propriedade Industrial, it IS ALLOWED to COPY and REPRODUCE any Brazilian official symbols in private (brand) logos or, therefore, in any other case, WITHOUT any sort of PERMISSION by the government. This implies that the GOVERNMENT(União) HANDS TO PUBLIC DOMAIN the copyrights of such official symbols because it is itself allowing the use of such symbols WITHOUT permission from ANYONE (not from the artist who created it and not even from the government itself) unless there are illegal intentions behind the copying and reproducing of such official symbols;
• Therefore, BRAZILIAN OFFICIAL SYMBOLS ARE PUBLIC DOMAIN.

Regarding what I have read here, I have to make the following remarks:

• Even though I understand the good intentions of all the non-Brazilians involved in this discussion, some of you have, throughout this conversation, ignored the opinions of those who know the Brazilian Constitution the closest, i.e., the Brazilian editors who have given their inputs here.
• More so, the inflexible position of having to find some passage in the Brazilian Constitution and laws that says exactly that "official symbols are public domain" is anthropocentric in the sense that you should not analyze the Constitution of another country with the same eyes you would analyze the Constitution of your own country in your own culture. The same can be said about some editors here who DEMAND only be brought up passages of the Constitution and laws that discuss COPYRIGHTS. As you know, “copyright” is not a Portuguese word nor is it used in Brazilian legislation.
• Such editors are also being anthropocentric and misunderstanding when demanding that clarifications on the subject of copyright be brought from the Lei dos Direitos Autorais and not from other laws such as the Lei de Propriedade Industrial. Brazilian laws should be considered as a whole and not as separate bodies that rule independently from one another.
• As you can all see, “copyright” issues were not discussed in the Brazilian Constitution, but only a decade later in the Lei dos Direitos Autorais. This law does not discuss official symbols directly because these have always been assumed to be PUBLIC DOMAIN.
• The template as proposed here is simply incorrect. The passage of the Lei dos Direitos Autorais to which it alludes discusses pieces of texts released by the government and governmental acts. Brazilian official symbols cannot be considered neither.
• The new template should say something in the lines of: According to the Brazilian Law on Copyright and Neighboring Rights (LEI Nº 9.610, DE 19 DE FEVEREIRO DE 1998; See translation), Chapter IV, Article 191, Brazilian official symbols are Public Domain because they can be copied and reproduced without any permission from the Brazilian government or anyone else unless they are being copied or reproduced with foul intentions.
• There should be the option of this template in the licence bar when one uploads images.

I hope this sheds some light on the topic. I would again recommend caution when interpreting the Brazilian Constitution and Laws when one is 1-not a specialist and 2-unfamiliar with Brazilian Constitution and Laws and with Brazilian culture. Take care. DuqueVisconde 08:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

 Comment As I said earlier: "Now it's just a matter of getting the opinion of an attorney or judge on this matter. I do believe these works are in the public domain anyway, so it's just a matter of finding the right laws which permits this use", so I am happy we finally got a decent answer. But, there are a few holes in your logic; "As is the case of any Constitution and any law in the world, that, which is not prohibited by them is therefore ALLOWED by them". You seem to forget that the Direitos Autorais already gives the right to the authors and this could imply that the government in fact does possess all rights reserved... article 6 just limits the governments rights when it comes to subsidized work..

I agree it would appear that there is a assumption implied in the laws cited (L9.279/96 Art. 124 and 191) that these works are in fact in the public domain. It's just that this assumption is hard to grasp immediately for other nationals which may or may not have more specific laws in their own countries. Although there are some details in Art. 191 which gives me some other doubts; It is prohibited to use such marks for economic purposes. I would guess this is to protect it from being used improperly and should not pose a problem for commons. My template-proposal was done after getting a positive (and none negative) response from a Brazilian national for this at ptwiki. Your proposal though refers to one law and cites a different one.. this should be fixed. --Stigmj 13:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Stigmj, please do not disqualify the others opinion, indirectly tagging their answer as "indecent". Dantadd✉ 14:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify: Stigmj accepted the opinion DuqueVisconde, but - indirectly - he qualified all previous answers as indecents, including mine. Dantadd✉ 16:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

 CommentI think we must consider also the jurisprudence, the uses of the people. Never ever Guilherme de Almeida or his descendants received royalties for the creation of the coat of arms of the city of São Paulo, in 1917, appart the prize of R$6,448.00 (in actual currency), neither the creators of any other municipal symbol. This could fill some of the gap left by the lack of a specific law about the theme. In fact, these symbols are used for private economic purposes, since anyone may sell stickers with such insignias, for instance. As Stigmj said, it´s just a way to protect them from being used improperly. --Tonyjeff 02:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Stigmj, you're right. I did mix the laws in the text of my proposed template. Here it is, fixed:

According to the Brazilian Law on Industrial Property (Lei 9.279 de 14 de maio de 1996; See translation), Chapter IV, Article 191, Brazilian official symbols are Public Domain because they can be copied and reproduced without any permission from the Brazilian government or anyone else unless they are being copied or reproduced with foul intentions. Hence it is assumed that this image has been released into the public domain. See Recursos no domínio público. Note: The usage of coats of arms and flags is governed by legal restrictions, independent of the copyright status of the depiction shown here.

There are, however, no holes in my argument. The part of article 191 that says that it is prohibited "usar essas reproduções ou imitações com fins econômicos" is referring to the misuse of the authority behind such symbols, not to the use of the images themselves. I can paint as many Brazilian flags as I want and sell them for billions. I won't be sued. I hereby consider this discussion finished and would like to vote on the topic of my proposed template. Prolonging this discussion is fruitless, not to say a waste of time. The images discussed here have ALWAYS been considered Domínio Público and it won’t be up to anyone here say they are not. I have no intention of discussing this ad infinitum, talking about every aspect of the Leis dos Direitos Autorais or, worse, every paragraph and every article. Our discussion and questions won’t ever go beyond common sense. None of us is a specialist on Brazilian law. Therefore, can we start voting on the new proposed template? Who’s first? DuqueVisconde 05:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, but change according to DuqueVisconde's proposal. --Stigmj 10:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, but change according to DuqueVisconde's proposal. --Tonyjeff 10:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, but change according to DuqueVisconde's proposal. --Waldir 20:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, but change according to DuqueVisconde's proposal. DuqueVisconde 00:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, but change according to DuqueVisconde's proposal. -- Srfortes 22:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

 Comment Unsure - The template should make it clear that user created versions of the flags are public domain - however random flag images on the internet are not - right ? Just because the actual flag design is ineligable for copyright doesn't mean that someones painting of one isn't. Megapixie 03:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Megapixie, that is exactly the issue we have been discussing here. Brazilian official symbols simply cannot be copyrighted. I don't care if Portinari painted it. It would not be copyrighted. The template is very clear about this when it says that Brazilian official symbols can be reproduced without any permission from anyone. If Picasso painted it, I could xerox his painting and do whatever I wanted with it. The opinion I transcribed above is that of a specialist on Brazilian law. You have no authority to question it since I believe you are not a specialist on Brazilian law yourself. Stop trying to further complicate this discussion. DuqueVisconde 00:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Megapixie, according to L9.610/98 Art. 5º VIII-g, Art. 7º XI and Art. 29 III, derived works are eligible for copyright, but they must of course be more than mere copies. I don't think we need to specify anything in this regard as this is 'common practice' and in most cases an expressed law in most other countries as well.

DuqueVisconde, you should probably get the opinion of your advogado on this, but I think I am more or less right on this. You can't copy a impressionistic painting of the flag of brazil just because the flag itself is in the public domain. --Stigmj 10:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Stigmj, you're right. Like you said, mere copies of Brazilian official symbols cannot be copyrighted. Even an impressionistic painting of the Brazilian flag would not be copyrightable unless the Brazilian official symbol were just a theme in the piece of art, and not its main [unchanged] content. The brush strokes would have to change significantly the symbol - the artist would have to make it "his own". An example of this is the billions of times one sees the Brazilian flag in bathing suits and beach towels. They are there and may even form a design due to the superimposition of the images of themselves, but those "designs" cannot be copyrighted because the flag is still mostly intact. Now, if you made a cubist painting using the Brazilian flag to the point where the symbol was considerably changed by you, the artist, that you could copyright. But, then, it wouldn't be the symbol anymore - and therefore, it should not be our question here. If people on the internet or anywhere say that their [unchanged] "version" of a Brazilian official symbol is copyrighted, it means they don't know what they are talking about - it doesn't mean the law is wrong. I hope this has clarified the topic. If Madonna paints the Brazilian flag and Michael Jackson signs it, it still is not copyrightable. Brazilian official symbols are not copyrightable unless you have changed them to the point that they are not [just] a symbol anymore. DuqueVisconde 01:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Stigmj, this is the exactly same situation for {{PD-old}} works and theirs derivatives. Lugusto • ҉ 02:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm still unsure about this all - especially the blanket application to images created worldwide. While exact reproductions of Brazilian symbols may be inelligable for copyright in Brazil (and on Brazilian websites) - if I produce and publish an image in the US (with a modest degree of creative input - say a coat of arms drawn (rather than traced) from a photograph of a coat of arms), then someone uploads that image to a commons server without my consent, surely US copyright law would apply ?

This is not slavish reproduction (in the same way producing a diagram of a plane from a 90 year old photograph is not slavish reproduction).

This is a conflict of laws - and I'm fairly sure that US law would apply in this case (and thus would be copyright). Why would Brazilian copyright law apply to an image created and published in the US ?

Let me reduce this to absurdity. If the Brazilian government declared that all movies staring Clint Eastwood were public domain - would this law apply in the US ?

See also Commons:Licensing#Interaction_of_United_States_copyright_law_and_foreign_copyright_law Megapixie 08:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

You are making this much more complicated than needed. The Brazilian laws puts the Brazilian official symbols, flags etc. in the Public Domain, and that is all we should be discussing right here and now. This template should therefore only be used on faithful reproductions and not derived work which would be copyrightable in most countries. As Lugusto replied, this is not a new scenario. Now, the distinction about whether a work is a reproduction, derived work or even a reproduction in a country where the law gives the author of the said reproduction all rights, is not up for debate here, that should be taken somewhere else. This is a discussion whether the template should be deleted or not, and which modifications should be applied to make it ineligible for deletion. I think the modifications proposed by DuqueVisconde is the right solution, and we should end this discussion as soon as possible and return to work again. --Stigmj 14:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Megapixie, please read the Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-Italy. If something isn't PD on the USA this need to be deleted as copyvio. Lugusto • ҉ 18:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Charimkotan.jpg

Images from oceandots are 'enhanced'. The site operator has indicate that he does not like our usage of images from his site. --Gmaxwell 20:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Now superseded by high-res version direct from NASA (Image:Kharimkotan - ISS005.jpg). --Davepape 21:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• •  Delete copyvio. A derived work of a public domain work is not necessarily a new public domain work. [2]

Deleted by MesserWoland: Dupe of Image:Kharimkotan - ISS005.jpg

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

[edit] Image:DSC07712.JPG

This picture seems to have been taken from the web page http://www.csetnekicsipke.hu/csipke.html . There is no indication the pictures of that web site are public domain. -- Hehkuviini 22:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• I have found evidence that the uploader is related to the website [3] and that the image is uploaded as advertizing.  Keep / Fred Chess 14:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Kept. Appears to be own work. Samulili 14:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Apotres.jpg

Images on oceandots have been 'enhanced'. Site operator is not happy with our use of images from his site. --Gmaxwell 20:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted --Davepape 04:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Paramushir.jpg

Images from oceandots have been 'enhanced'. The site operator is not happy with our use of content from his site. --Gmaxwell 20:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

•  Delete copyvio. A derived work of a public domain work is not necessarily a new public domain work. [4] -- 11:00, 2 February 2007 Siebrand
• I agree with Siebrand that under United States copyright law, mere enhancement of a public domain image does not result in a copyright. --70.57.246.220 17:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• On Oceandots copyright page they are careful not to claim copyright in their images. --Bejnar 18:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

see here --Gmaxwell 02:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Based on that request, it would be better to replace oceandot images when possible, but not mark them as copyvio. --Bejnar 01:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Er, how many pages must I discuss this on? :) They contact us and were pretty irate sounding see here. --Gmaxwell 03:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted --Davepape 04:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Antsiferova.jpg

Images from oceandots are 'enhanced'. The site operator has indicate that he does not like our usage of images from his site. --Gmaxwell 20:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

•  Delete copyvio. A derived work of a public domain work is not necessarily a new public domain work. [5]

Deleted --Davepape 04:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Ekarma-satellite.jpg

Images from oceandots are 'enhanced'. The site operator has indicate that he does not like our usage of images from his site. --Gmaxwell 20:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Also wrongly identified. Original NASA source [6] says it's Matua Island, not Ekarma. --Davepape 21:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

(I take that back. Having checked Landsat imagery, I'd say it's JSC that got the identification wrong. Image should still be deleted, though. --Davepape 15:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC))

•  Delete copyvio. A derived work of a public domain work is not necessarily a new public domain work. [7]

Deleted --Davepape 04:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Nixportrait.jpg

1. Permission on cited page says "for use by the media", not for "anyone"; 2. this photo doesn't actually appear on that page; 3. it's questionable whether Villanova would even own the copyright to this photo of Robert N. C. Nix, Jr., which was clearly taken when he was a judge, not a Villanova student --Davepape 03:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether Villanova owns the copyright to this photo, although it was taken when he was a Justice, I believe that the photo was taken as part of Villanova's alumni process. But in any event, if the permission on the Villanova page is inadequate, as you say (and I take your word for it, being fairly new to Commons), then I wonder whether the image is usable as an Historic Photo. JCO312 16:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted -- Bryan (talk to me) 10:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Azadi.jpg

doubt in licensing. see also en:User talk:Iraninafilmstar --Avatar 08:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted -- Bryan (talk to me) 10:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Magnettelowjpg.JPG

Border, watermark, and lack of metadata make me think this image is a copyright violation. --Conscious 11:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:MG Magnette ZB.jpg appears to be the same image. // Liftarn

PD-self was definitivly wrong I therefore changed it to {{PD-user-en|Jeremyh1}}. --ALE! ¿…? 13:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Both deleted -- copyvio suspected. -- Bryan (talk to me) 10:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Sossusvlei desert in Namibia afrika.jpg

SXC is a bad source because all images are distributed under an unacceptable agreement. It's up for featured status, but we'll have to delete unless someone gets a release from the photographer under a free license. :( I have emailed him but have not yet had a reply as of yet. --Gmaxwell 23:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted: suspected source, cannot contact author / A.J. 13:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Florence_Nightingale.jpg

Low quality version of Image:Florence Nightingale.png. -- howcheng {chat} 22:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. Duplicate. Yann 15:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Shotgun Kinshot.jpg

This picture is unusable, and just for joke. See ko:User:Kempires1111. --Luciditeq 12:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted by Yann: copyvio

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

[edit] Image:Maria Flachsbarth.jpg

Images from http://www.cducsu.de/Abgeordnete.aspx aren't public domain (see here). Another photo of Maria Flachsbarth with a correct license has been uploaded. --Torsten Bätge 12:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted by Yann: copyvio

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

[edit] Image:Samsbuecher Paul Maar.jpg

Obvoius copyvio. Photograph of recent bookcovers. --Taxman^(de) 14:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted by AndreasPraefcke: clear copyvio

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

[edit] Image:Pontevedra.png

This picture is unusable --Charlesthebest 17:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted by Yann: no source

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

[edit] Image:Chevrolet_Vectra_1997.JPG

And other images from Category:EuroNCAP. These images were deleted once (no source justified GFDL).

Most likely taken from official report/website. -- EugeneZelenko 16:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted by Yann: no source

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

[edit] Image:Algerita in Carlsbad Caverns National Park-1.JPG

I uploaded this my mistake. It is not cropped and not the best image in the series. --Maveric149 23:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted by Jastrow: uploader's request, see cropped picture Image:Algerita in Carlsbad Caverns National Park.JPG (parasite elements removed)

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

[edit] Image:Parabola only.png

A vector version of this file is now available --Jack · talk · 03:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

•  Delete, looks like a clear-cut supersession to me. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

SVG replaced, PNG deleted 

Julo 18:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Category:National Register of Historic Places in Florida

I created this category. Later I realized it was inconsistent with the categories for the other states (which were all Category:Registered Historic Places in (statename). Made a new category with a consistent name as the others, and moved all pics and pages and categories associated with this one to that one. To finish the cleanup, just need this to go away. --Ebyabe 17:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted by Odder: empty category - ReindDeel33t

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

[edit] Image:Hdtv-no.jpeg

Seems to be made by Reuters. See far right of the image. Yann 01:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

•  Delete. This user has a number of obvious copyright violations in their contributions list. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio, deleted. Yann 15:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Brazilian film and TV rating system.svg

SVG version is not working, replaced by a PNG one --Ikescs 04:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Heh, that would be because the SVG version isn't a vector image at all, but a series of embedded GIF images, and the PNG thumbnail generator barfs on that. Delete or redo the SVG properly. —LX (talk, contribs) 07:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 09:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Trosky Columbie.jpg

While certainly a famous and symbolic image, there's no evidence that it's free. The summary for this image states that it was taken by an amateur photographer, and that the rights were subsequently purchased by The Associated Press. Therefore, it's a copyrighted media image, certainly not appropriate for the Commons. Rebelguys2 05:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. However I uploaded this picture, I don't speak english very well so I can't help you. --Eryn Blaireová 14:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. Not PD-NASA, and no evidence for any other free license has been given. --Davepape 04:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:EliCohen.jpg

Law in Israel stats that pictures are protected for 50 years from the day the picture was taken. This picture will have to wait another 8 years -- Tarawneh 08:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. Source site says "all rights reserved", not "public domain". Copyrighted through 2015, per {{PD-Israel}}. --Davepape 04:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Beethoven-Pathetique.ogg

The music is full of errors. Wrong notes. Horrible interpretation. ----ßøuñçêY2K 01:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

•  Delete. Too many mistakes to give an accurate idea of the music. --Leonard Vertighel 16:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Clearly better than nothing. Raul654 05:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Then I'd suggest to upload the Mutopia MIDIs instead. Hard to call them "music", but at least the notes are right... --Leonard Vertighel 08:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

•  Keep. Sure there are plenty of mistakes. Brendel and Rubinstein do a much better job. Still it provides a much better idea of the piece than a "perfect" computer generated midi file. I'd say replace it when a better human performed version when available. Janderk 11:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Not donewithout listening to the file, *some* version is better than no version. Yonatan ^talk 03:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Images of The Edge

Fansite copyvios --Edub 11:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The webmasters of fansites gave use permission but obviously they are not the creators and/or sole owners of the exclusive copyright of images. For example, Image:Diego_Maradona_NOB.jpg appears in http://www.epidemialeprosa.com.ar/maradona16.jpg and http://www.alientosiparlanteno.com.ar/D10S/Diego024.jpg.

Also, I received a message from epidemialeprosa@ciudad.com.ar, he said to me that he was not the author of the images. Sorry for my english--Edub 11:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Gallery of user The_Edge --Edub 11:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Hola, soy quien ha subido las imagenes.

El procedimiento que segui fue el solicitado:

1. solicitar al webmaster del sitio su autorizacion para utilizar las imagenes
2. solicitar que asegure ser el dueño y/o creador
3. envio de mail a permissions (autorizados por el usuario Drini)
4. incorporar las imagenes a las paginas de wikipedia en español

Luego, segun solicito Edub, agregue el link exacto de donde proviene cada imagen (algunas no llegue a hacerlo porque cuando me disponia surgio este tema)

Si las imagenes estan en dos sitios es seguramente porque se las pasan de webmaster a webmaster, pero yo las he solicitado al dueño y/o creador de las mismas. Por ej, la imagen Image:Diego_Maradona_NOB.jpg que comenta Edub la tome de www.alientosiparlanteno.com.ar con previa autorizacion de su webmaster y verificacion de autoria. Si el la ha cedido tambien a otro fansite no es relevante.

Respecto al mensaje de Edub que comenta "Also, I received a message from epidemialeprosa@ciudad.com.ar, he said to me that he was not the author of the images", la imagen Image:Diego_Maradona_NOB.jpg no es autoria de el, como postee en la pagina de la imagen y en el mail enviado a permissions, esa imagen es tomada y autoria de www.alientosiparlanteno.com.ar

Solicito no se mezclen las imagenes cedidas por cada sitio, si son dos sitios diferentes debemos ver cada caso por separado, ya que al generalizar se mezclan enlaces, sitios webs, etc.

Aguardo.

Saludos.

The Edge 19:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

All deleted: The fansite webmasters are clearly not the authors of the images. -- Bryan (talk to me) 10:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Template:Superseded/el

Vandalism--Bdamokos 14:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

deleted by User:Herbythyme --ALE! ¿…? 20:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Moonlight Sonata opus 27.ogg

This performance is full of mistakes and does in no way adeqately represent the music. --Leonard Vertighel 16:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree "This performance is full of mistakes and does in no way adeqately represent the music." --198.103.184.76 19:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Kept. Yes it is full of mistakes, but it is used on many Wikipedias and it is quite possible that they like it. It is being kept for now. I've added a clean-up tag to it. / Fred Chess 12:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Pron at Suc.PNG

Unnecesary after "Pron_at_Suc2.PNG". I am the actual creator and uploader of this item. Thanks. --Lascorz (Charrez-me) 02:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• done Julo 19:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Pren at Suc.PNG

Unnecesary after "Pron_at_Suc2.PNG". I am the actual creator and uploader of this item. Thanks. --Lascorz (Charrez-me) 02:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• done Julo 19:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Time.jpg

blurred, does not serve any purpose --80.63.213.182 18:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

•  Delete Yann 18:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Not in COmmons scope. Deleted. Yann 18:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Easti-E.JPG

 Delete - This image is the logo of East Japan Railway series E491. LERK (Talk / Contributions) 21:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

deleted by User:Yann --ALE! ¿…? 08:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Louis de FUNES.jpg

Wrong licence --PieRRoMaN ¤ Λογος 14:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• delete. screenshot from one of his films, isn't it ? Darkoneko 22:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
• delete. The same picture was already at leace once loaded on commons under title File:Louis de Funes.jpg and was deleted for copyvio on 14 December 2006. Touriste 22:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted, copyvio. Yann 12:05, 12 February 2007 (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 [8]?--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:Order of Smile.svg

The picture was tagged as {{GFDL}}, which I changed to {{PD-ineligible}}. Now User:Bawolff claims that the picture would be copyrightable. Either the original picture was PD, then this reproduction cannot be copyrighted either, or the original was copyrighted, then this reproduction is a copyright violation. It needs to be decided whether this picture is copyrightable and needs to be removed, or if it is not, and thus can stay as {{PD-ineligible}}. (The option that User:Bawolff wants, that the original is PD but the reproduction is GFDLd, cannot be upheld; it is in contradiction to {{PD-art}} etc.) --Rtc 05:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

It is entirely possible to create a derivative, copyrighted, copyleft-licensed work based on a public domain image, provided the modifications to the original work are of a copyrightable merit. On what grounds is the original image claimed to be in the public domain, though? —LX (talk, contribs) 11:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

It is not possible, given the goal to create a reproduction and not new original elements. --Rtc 16:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

My knowledge of copyright law is limited (So I may be wrong). I always though that PD meant that other people are allowed to put restrictions on it. Bawolff 01:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

No person can place restrictions on a work—only the copyright law can! Either you do not have exclusive copyrights on a work, then you cannot create them by declaration anyway, or you do have, and then all you can do is lift these restrictions otherwise imposed by copyright, by means of terms and conditions, also called a 'license'. If you take a PD picture and reproduce it, no new copyrights are produced, since there are no new creative and original elements. Only if you create something new (for example make a caricature of a PD work), you introduce creative and original elements for whose use copyright law grants you new exclusive rights, but they always only extend to your modified work as a whole plus your new elements; not to the original PD work. To claim restrictions on a PD work or a reproduction of a PD work is called copyfraud --Rtc 05:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we should bring this up with the original unloader then? Bawolff 08:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Faithful representations of (two-dimensional) PD works do not meet the standards for copyright protection in most jurisdictions, but I thought the SVG interpretation deviated from what I saw on the page linked from the description, possibly enough that it might merit protection of its own (provided that it doesn't infringe upon the rights of the original author). I see now that Xorx's SVG version is derived from Image:Order of Smile.png, which was originally uploaded by Kpalion, claiming an unspecified {{PD}} licence with no source or rationale for PD status. (The PD tag on the PNG version was removed by Red devil 666 in April 2006 without explanation, and the image has been unlicensed since then.) The SVG doesn't seem to introduce any copyrightable modifications vis-à-vis the PNG version, so if it can be shown that the PNG version was legitimately in the public domain, I agree that the SVG version should not have a more restrictive licence. I still, however, wonder what the rationale for claiming that the original logo, which was created in 1967, is in the public domain (which it would have to be for the PNG to be). If this can't be demonstrated, both the SVG and the PNG have to go. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I must admit that I did not add any creative work to the PNG-Version of the image, when I created the SVG. I may have added some "information" in the compute science sense that I made a high resolution SVG from a low resolution PNG, but that was all. I made the SVG believing that the PNG was free. If this is not the case, it has to go. -- Dr. Schorsch 08:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Even if you had added creative work, it would still not make the result legal if the original is copyrighted. "Creative work" is a concept completely different from computer science "information": A completely random sequence has high information content in the sense of computer science, but it is not a creative work and not copyrightable. Although the PNG wasn't labelled correctly, you should be more critical about the licensing information in pictures, since they are regularly incorrect. --Rtc 07:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

To clear the copyright state of the Image:Order of Smile.png - which is what we need to do first here - I wrote a direct request to the secretary of www.orderusmiechu.pl. I hope to get an answer soon. -- Dr. Schorsch 08:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I also asked the original uploader of Image:Order of Smile.png, w:en:user talk:kpalion to support the diskussion with additional informations. -- Dr. Schorsch 09:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I must admit that I didn't have a good understanding of intellectual property laws at the time when I uploaded the image on Wikipedia. I assumed it was in PD, but didn't really have any sound information about its status, so my assumption might have been wrong. I'm glad to read that a question to the Chapter's secretary has been sent; hopefully this will resolve the issue. Sorry for the problem. Kpalion 10:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Kpalion for your information. I wrote my inquiry to the Chapter's secretary in english and did not get an answer yet. Maybe a polish letter would be more successfull. Could you - as a nativ speaker - assist with that? I will send a copy of my email to you via your en-Account. Thanks in advance -- Dr. Schorsch 14:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I just sent an email to the Chapter's secretary in Polish. Kpalion 21:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I got an answer from Ms Ewa Chrobak-Szota, the author of the order's design (according to our article) and Secretary of the Chapter. Here's what she wrote:

1. The design of the Order of Smile is copyrighted.
2. The Chapter of the Order of Smile is the sole owner of the design.
3. We may ask the Chapter in a written form (which, I assume, doesn't include emails) for permission to use the image in Wikipedia.
4. The image that is currently visible in Wikipedia is similar but not identical to the actual design.
5. Some information in the article (it's not specified whether it applies to the article in Polish, English, or both Wikipedias) is not accurate, e.g. the list of knights includes people who are not actually knights of the Order of Smile. The Secretary also asked for a way to update or correct the information in Wikipedia.

I haven't responded yet. Kpalion 13:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid permission granted only to Wikipedia isn't sufficient for the image to be part of Wikimedia Commons. Images on Commons must be licensed freely, so that they can be re-used by others (see Commons:Licensing). Images on Commons which are limited to use by Wikipedia or other Wikimedia projects are tagged with {{Permission}} and deleted. Such images are also not accepted on most Wikipedia projects. It may be possible to justify uploading locally and using with reference to fair use provisions for Wikipedia editions that permit this. As for editing information in Wikipedia, that can be done by anyone. There's not even a need to register. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

That's unfortunate, its a good happy face picture. oh well. Bawolff 03:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

@Kpalion: Thanks for your letter to the chapter! As I see it, we need to delete both versions of the picture (Image:Order of Smile.png and Image:Order of Smile.svg). But maybe you could encourage the chapter to edit the wrong or missing information. -- Dr. Schorsch 09:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious about what the Secretary wrote about our image (which is actually taken from the Order's official page) not being identical with the actual Order. I responded to the Chapter with a question aksing them who and how should request their permission to use the Order's image in Wikipedia, and about the legal status of the image we currently have. I also advised them that they can correct or expand the article themselves or leave their comments on the respective talk page. Kpalion 21:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted :( -- Bryan (talk to me) 10:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Dietcokecherry.jpg

This image is a derivative of a copyrighted work (the design of a coke can) and is therefore ineligible to be covered under the CC-BY-SA 2.5 license. Jeffness 18:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

•  Keep "…simply because photographs are in this colloquial sense 'derived' from their subject matter, it does not necessarily follow that they are derivative works under copyright law. . . .[U]tilitarian object[s (such as the Skyy vodka bottle) are] not protected by copyright." (Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits, Inc., 225 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2000)) —LX (talk, contribs) 11:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• Hi LX. Firstly, I want to thank you for pointing me to a very useful and informative case law about this. I didn't know about it previously and it is very interesting. However, in reading the case opinion, I found a flaw in using this case as a reason to justify keeping the photos of cans and such. This case found derivative works of Sky Vodka bottles to be OK because the sky vodka arguement was that their shape was copyrighted. In the opinion, it states in section C, part 2"The bottle is not copyrighted" that the district court found: "In this case, the district court did not identify any artistic features of the bottle that are separable from its utilitarian ones.". Certainly you'll agree that a coke can has artistic features that are seperate from its utilitarian features. This case does not seem to apply in our scenario here.--Jeffness 15:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• My interpretation of that passage is that the court found that the Skyy vodka bottle's label and other features were not copyrightable. Looking at the image in the WP article, I must admit I am somewhat surprised at how high they've set the standard. It might be that the label is considered incidental to the depiction of the package, much like a billboard which would be copyrighted on its own would be permissible as an incidental inclusion on an image of Times Square, but I am speculating here. It's also possible that the court only considered the spatial characteristics of the bottle and not the features of the label, if that was the literal meaning of Skyy's position. It's not a clear-cut matter, and this is probably why copyright lawyers manage to earn quite a decent crust. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• Well, I guess I disagree with your interpretation. They ruled that the SKY Vodka bottle "did not identify any artistic features". If you look at a sky vodka bottle, all it is is the shape and a plain typeface that says "Sky Vodka". I read it to mean that the court decided that was not art. Coke bottles, though, are more than just a typeface. They're a graphical artwork.

Regarding the incidental arguement, that's called de minimis, i learned recently thanks to someone smarter than I am from Wikipedia. The problem is the inclusion of the label artwork isn't incidental, it's the primary reason for the photo.--Jeffness 20:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

•  Delete A clear copyright violation of the artistic design printed onto the can. This is fundamental to the image, not merely incidental. --MichaelMaggs 20:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

•  Delete. After further consideration, I think the level of creativity in the artwork on the product and the focus placed on it by this depiction is sufficient to distinguish from the Skyy case. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted -- Bryan (talk to me) 12:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Coca Cola Cherry.jpg

Derivative work. Ineligible for licensing under CC. Jeffness 19:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

•  Keep "…simply because photographs are in this colloquial sense 'derived' from their subject matter, it does not necessarily follow that they are derivative works under copyright law. . . .[U]tilitarian object[s (such as the Skyy vodka bottle) are] not protected by copyright." (Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits, Inc., 225 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2000)) —LX (talk, contribs) 11:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
•  Delete A clear copyright violation of the artistic design printed onto the can. Nobody is suggesting there is copyright in the shape of the can itself: it's the unlawful copying of the artistic printed design that's the problem. --MichaelMaggs 20:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
•  Delete. After further consideration, I think the level of creativity in the artwork on the product and the focus placed on it by this depiction is sufficient to distinguish from the Skyy case. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted -- Bryan (talk to me) 12:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Dr Pepper Can.jpg

Derivative work. copyright violation. Jeffness 19:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

•  Keep "…simply because photographs are in this colloquial sense 'derived' from their subject matter, it does not necessarily follow that they are derivative works under copyright law. . . .[U]tilitarian object[s (such as the Skyy vodka bottle) are] not protected by copyright." (Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits, Inc., 225 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2000)) —LX (talk, contribs) 11:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
•  Keep I agree, I don't see anything which is copyrighted in this picture (the photo is probably pd-old and the logo is far to small and clearly not the subject) -- Gorgo 15:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

 Delete your're right about the text I was too much focused on images. -- Gorgo

•  Delete Not only is this a copyright violation of the logo and image of the original Dr. Pepper (perhaps that may be a PD-old image), but it is also a textual copyright violation. The back label has a history of Dr. Pepper, and that is reproduced entirely. This wouldn't even qualify as a valid fair-use exception under any circumstance, although textual copyright violations are certainly unusual for Commons. It doesn't matter that the text has been rendered in the form of a jpeg file, as that is irrelvent. --RHorning 20:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
•  Delete A clear copyright violation of the artistic design and the text (a 'literary work') printed onto the packaging. Both are fundamental to the image. --MichaelMaggs 20:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
•  Delete. Whilst I believe the portrait displayed on the can is rather likely to be in the public domain and inclusion of the logotype is de minimis, I agree that there is infringement of the literary work displayed on the can. I think the level of creativity in the text and the focus placed on it by this depiction is sufficient to distinguish from the Skyy case. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted -- Bryan (talk to me) 12:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Diet-pepsi-jazz-blackcherry-french-vanilla.jpg

Derivative work. Copyvio. Jeffness 23:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

If the license is not appropriate, I am willing to get rid off CC. The image is intended to be used as illustration for Pepsi products in Pepsi articles. I fully respect the rights of Pepsi. ReneS 23:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

•  Keep "…simply because photographs are in this colloquial sense 'derived' from their subject matter, it does not necessarily follow that they are derivative works under copyright law. . . .[U]tilitarian object[s (such as the Skyy vodka bottle) are] not protected by copyright." (Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits, Inc., 225 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2000)) —LX (talk, contribs) 11:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

•  Delete like xyzzy said below, this basically only shows a (copyrightable) logo/artwork and can be considered derivative. -- Gorgo 15:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

•  Delete Obvious copyvio of the packaging design. The Skyy case has nothing to do with it. --MichaelMaggs 20:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

•  Delete. After further consideration, I think the level of creativity in the artwork on the product and the focus placed on it by this depiction is sufficient to distinguish from the Skyy case. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted -- Bryan (talk to me) 12:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Pepsi cappuccino.jpg

Derivative work. Copyvio. Jeffness 23:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

•  Keep "…simply because photographs are in this colloquial sense 'derived' from their subject matter, it does not necessarily follow that they are derivative works under copyright law. . . .[U]tilitarian object[s (such as the Skyy vodka bottle) are] not protected by copyright." (Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits, Inc., 225 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2000)) —LX (talk, contribs) 11:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
•  Delete per McKeown’s opinion in Ets-Hokin v. SKYY Spirits. For reference, the bottle discussed in that case can be seen here. McKeown cites 17 U.S.C. section 101, according to which a normally utilitarian object (in both cases, a bottle) is a work in the sense of copyright law ‘only if, and only to the extent that, such design incorporates pictorial, graphic, or sculptural features that can be identified separately from, and are capable of existing independently of, the utilitarian aspects of the article’. She then comments on the shape of the SKYY bottle, which ‘is essentially a functional bottle without a distinctive shape’.
  This is also the case here; McKeown goes on to discuss the label, as we should, and finds that the SKYY label is not copyrightable because ‘[t]he label on Skyy's vodka bottle consists only of text and does not include any pictorial illustrations.’ In my (layperson’s) opinion, there is a stark and crucial difference in this point between the SKYY bottle and the Pepsi bottle, in that the latter’s label is extensively and elaborately decorated with images and using a layout which is clearly due to artistic process and therefore a work under copyright law (besides the additional protection as a trademark).
  But wait, there’s more! According to McKeown, the court ‘need[s] not, however, decide whether the label is copyrightable because Ets-Hokin's product shots are based on the bottle as a whole, not on the label’, while the photograph in question here is clearly of the label and even omits the rest of the bottle. In my opinion, this makes our photograph a derivative work of the label, itself a copyrightable and hence presumably copyrighted work, and therefore not free. While the cited case was decided to the opposite, I think McKeown’s reasoning applies here unambiguously to an effect opposite her decision in that case.
  Parenthetically, in reference to a similar discussion at en:WP:PUI, since the labels on cans, as opposed to bottles, cover the entire side of the can, most photographs of cans with elaborate and recent labels will be non-free, as well. IANAL, though. —xyzzy_n 00:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I should further mention that Nelson’s dissent in the case would give even greater protection to the subject of the photograph. Thanks to LX for the interesting read. —xyzzy_n 00:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  •  Delete, I'm swayed by that argument, perhaps particularly with respect to the exclusion of the rest of the bottle, which I overlooked before. —LX (talk, contribs) 06:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
•  Delete, label is copyright-protected. —Angr 23:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
•  Delete Obvious copyvio of the label design.--MichaelMaggs 20:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted -- Bryan (talk to me) 12:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Category:Fittipaldi

I can't understand the necessity and the intention of the category. Should we put everyone who has the family name, Fittipaldi? I think it is a strange category. --Morio 02:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

•  Keep It's an important Italian-Brazilian family and also an extinct racing team. You can change the name of the category, but it's not the case to deleted it. Dantadd✉ 16:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Question: Why is this meta-category needed? Is the family related to the racing team? --Benn Newman 20:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, the family Fittipaldi owned the racing team and in Brazil the members of the family are widely known. I created this category in order to put media related to all members of the family and to the racing team, instead of creating separate categories for each one of them. Dantadd✉ 21:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

kept, is an approriate category for members of the family and the team mebers. --GeorgHH 18:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Mikveh Israel Cemetery sign.jpg

Copyright held by the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission. A note and explanation left on uploader's talk page. Thanks, GChriss 21:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• Out of curiosity, where do you see that the PHMC owns the copyright? I see where their website says they are trademarked (probably the design of the sign, not the content), but that is quite different than copyright. Carl Lindberg 00:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
•  Keep I am interested in knowing where this information is as well. When I called the PHMC I was told verbally the signs were in the Public Domain. --Evrik 19:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Update: I am waiting for an email from the PHMC giving wikipedia permission to use the files, and officially releasing them into the public domain. --Evrik 16:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• Category:Plaques in the Pennsylvania

I was just about to do that myself -- I am curious as to their response. Thanks, GChriss 21:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• I got an email from them giving us permission. I forwarded it to the permission people to see if it will be okay. --Evrik 16:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Great! Does this include all roadside markers? (Also, was the permission open-license friendly?) Thanks, GChriss 02:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• • OTRS has no email received, see talk User_talk:MECU#OTRS_check and User_talk:GeorgHH#OTRS_check. --GeorgHH 14:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment http://www.phmc.state.pa.us/bah/DOH/contactus.asp says Historical markers are a registered trademark ® of the PHMC. --GeorgHH 14:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Kept, marked {{Trademarked}}. --GeorgHH 14:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Satterleesign.png

Copyright held by the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission. A note and explanation left on uploader's talk page. Thanks, GChriss 21:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• Out of curiosity, where do you see that the PHMC owns the copyright? I see where their website says they are trademarked (probably the design of the sign, not the content), but that is quite different than copyright. Carl Lindberg 00:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
•  Keep I am interested in knowing where this information is as well. When I called the PHMC I was told verbally the signs were in the Public Domain. --Evrik 19:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Update: I am waiting for an email from the PHMC giving wikipedia permission to use the files, and officially relasing them into the public domain. --Evrik 16:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I was just about to do that myself -- I am curious as to their response. Thanks, GChriss 21:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• I got an email from them giving us permission. I forwarded it to the permission people to see if it will be okay. --Evrik 16:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

A reply. GChriss 02:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• • OTRS has no email received, see talk User_talk:MECU#OTRS_check and User_talk:GeorgHH#OTRS_check. --GeorgHH 14:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment http://www.phmc.state.pa.us/bah/DOH/contactus.asp says Historical markers are a registered trademark ® of the PHMC. --GeorgHH 14:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Kept, marked {{Trademarked}}. --GeorgHH 14:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Pron At.JPG

Unnecesary after "Pron_at_Suc2.PNG". I am the actual creator and uploader of this item. Thanks. --Lascorz (Charrez-me) 02:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

deletd. --GeorgHH 14:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Monocordiogeometria.jpg

duplicate image --Grosasm 16:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted by uploader request. Yann 18:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Davos.gif

Copyright violation, photographic reprodiuction of a copyrighted graphic --Bertilvidet 17:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. Copyvio. Yann 18:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Organistrumsantigoeditado20060618.png

duplicate image --Grosasm 17:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted by uploader request. Yann 18:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Banini1000 P.JPG

error in file name --Registro bandini 17:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted by uploader request. Yann 18:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Wiki Jeep With Reporter.jpg

Appears to be a derivative work and so not eligible for GFDL license. Rmhermen 02:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted by Fb78: copyvio

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

[edit] Image:Wiki washington post jeep jpg.jpg

Appears to be a derivative work and so not eligible to be GFDL-licensed. Rmhermen 02:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted by Fb78: copyvio

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

[edit] Image:Отцы_и_дети_(Англоязычная_версия).jpg

Although the text of the book itself was written in 1862 and probably in public domain, the book cover art, including the publisher "Penguin Classics" logo, is probably less than 20 years old because this is from a relatively new reprinting -- and therefore copyrighted. -- Zzyzx11 11:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• {delete} - obvious copyvio Julo 17:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. Copyvio. Yann 02:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Escudo petrer.jpg

No copyright information. --Jarke 19:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

No source, no valid licence. Deleted. Yann 02:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Thorne-frz.jpg

unusable image, clanspam --Magadan 00:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

•  Delete, Commons:Scope. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

deleted, out of scope --ALE! ¿…? 11:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Frz small.jpg

unbrauchbar --Magadan 00:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

•  Delete, Commons:Scope. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 11:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Ngl-finals-frz.jpg

unusable image --Magadan 00:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

 Delete. Could be used to illustrate an article like en:LAN party, but there's no source and the licence is incomplete and incorrect (claiming that the photograph is a screen shot of free software). —LX (talk, contribs) 11:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. No author or source, no valid license. --Davepape 04:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:CocaCola C2.jpg

Derivative work. Copyvio. Jeffness 00:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

•  Keep "…simply because photographs are in this colloquial sense 'derived' from their subject matter, it does not necessarily follow that they are derivative works under copyright law. . . .[U]tilitarian object[s (such as the Skyy vodka bottle) are] not protected by copyright." (Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits, Inc., 225 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2000)) —LX (talk, contribs) 11:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep (as uploader) per LX. howcheng {chat} 16:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
•  Delete A clear copyright violation of the artistic design printed onto the can. This is fundamental to the image, not merely incidental. --MichaelMaggs 20:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• I doubt the C2 merits copyright protection, leaving the Coca-Cola logotype as the single artistic element. It is my understanding that John Pemberton, the creator of the Coca-Cola logo, died in 1923, so the logo (whilst still subject to trademark protection) is probably in the public domain. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Kept -- Bryan (talk to me) 22:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Leavitt aavso.jpg

Tagged with {{db}} by Jjvaca on 25 December 2006 without completing the deletion request. The reason given was licence incompatibility, non-commercial use: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Leavitt_aavso.jpg --—LX (talk, contribs) 09:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

•  Comment: I don't see any limitation of commercial use here. On the other hand, I don't see any statement on the AAVSO website granting free use, either. On the third hand, AAVSO was founded when Leavitt was over 40, and she appears to be younger than that in the photograph, so I doubt AAVSO has any legitimate copyright claim at all. The question then is whether the photographer could be identified (my efforts failed, but that doesn't mean that it's impossible to identify the photographer). If not, the image is {{PD-Old}} because it was unquestionably taken before 1936, since the subject died in 1921. If we assume the photographer could be identified, he or she must have died no later than 1936 for the image to be PD-Old. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

•  Keep This is most likely a faculty photo portrait from when she was at Harvard; she is listed as an "honorary member" of AAVSO but not an actual member so they are unlikely to have had the original photo done. In either event it almost certainly would have been published before 1923 and so at the very least would be PD-US. I found a larger version here and another version here indicating it was scanned from a book. It would be interesting to see if the original book had any further photo credits, but finding the photographer is probably an exercise in deciding between PD-US and PD-Old (and Harvard University probably held the copyright anyways). Carl Lindberg 07:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Kept, hires uploaded, source and likely publication date added. -- Bryan (talk to me) 22:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:CocaCola Blāk.jpeg

Derivative work. Copyvio. Jeffness 00:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

•  Keep "…simply because photographs are in this colloquial sense 'derived' from their subject matter, it does not necessarily follow that they are derivative works under copyright law. . . .[U]tilitarian object[s (such as the Skyy vodka bottle) are] not protected by copyright." (Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits, Inc., 225 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2000)) —LX (talk, contribs) 11:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
•  Delete A clear copyright violation of the artistic design printed onto the bottle. This is fundamental to the image, not merely incidental, and the design is non-trivial and hence capable of copyright protection. --MichaelMaggs 20:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
•  Delete. After further consideration, I think the level of creativity in the artwork on the product might be sufficient to distinguish from the Skyy case. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

deleted, --Polarlys 00:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Threepennyopera 1929.gif

Copyvio: not an anonymous poster as claimed - it's the cover of an issue of Illustrierter Film-Kurier, with what looks like a still from the 1931 Georg Wilhelm Pabst film version [9] --Davepape 16:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

 Delete derivative work of a still copyrighted film --ALE! ¿…? 11:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

deleted, --Polarlys 00:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Vanilla coke.PNG

Derivative work. Copyvio. Jeffness 00:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

•  Keep "…simply because photographs are in this colloquial sense 'derived' from their subject matter, it does not necessarily follow that they are derivative works under copyright law. . . .[U]tilitarian object[s (such as the Skyy vodka bottle) are] not protected by copyright." (Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits, Inc., 225 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2000)) —LX (talk, contribs) 11:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
•  Keep as above Notwist 12:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
•  Delete A clear copyright violation of the artistic design printed onto the can. This is fundamental to the image, not merely incidental. Can't these be speedied? --MichaelMaggs 20:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
•  Delete. After further consideration, I think the level of creativity in the artwork on the product and the focus placed on it by this depiction is sufficient to distinguish from the Skyy case. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

deleted, --Polarlys 19:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Jose_Chinchilla_p.jpg

Is it just me or my monitor, or is this image really out of focus? -- Zzyzx11 11:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The image is used on es.wikipedia.org . Until we have a better image:  Keep --ALE! ¿…? 11:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

kept, whenever it’s really bad quality --Polarlys 19:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Can-pacific-banff.jpg

Unclear copyright status. GeorgHH 17:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

deleted, --Polarlys 19:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Republic of Mehabad

Useless gallery, there are no free images available from the Republic of Mehabad --Cat out 17:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

kept, --Polarlys 19:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Ixthuluh_love_pain.ogg

Insufficient permission. Claimed to be "Own recording of Ernst Matscheko", but I can't find that he is affiliated with the band. -- Fred Chess 18:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• Please  Keep this file. As you can read in the wikipedia article, Ernst Matscheko is the drummer of the band Ixthuluh. Furthermore I had a conversation of six emails to assure that he is authorised to release this into public domain. Have a look at the image talk page. norro 19:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

deleted, “permission” insufficient--Polarlys 19:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Layo_Crisipo_y_Pelope.jpg and Image:Rapto19-1-.jpg

copyvios: can't be PD-old because the photo is surely recent, and PD-Art can't apply because it is a 3D object. -- Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 22:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

 Comment that seems to be a 2D work of art to me... Yonatan ^talk 03:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

These are kraters, so 3D. There is a good job of the photographer to get such a result (flat rendering, no reflect)... Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 13:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

deleted, --Polarlys 19:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:FPÖ.jpg

unfree image, panorama freedom not applicable. -- BLueFiSH 01:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

And why is panorama freedom (whatever that is) not applicable? There are other election placards on commons. --Alex1011 10:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

It does not fall under feedom of panorama because it is not permanently installed. --Matt314 21:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. No photo of election posters should be uploaded here. They are usually not PD. --Fb78 19:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Juliapress.jpg

All images from same editor are deleted from English wikipedia, unlikely Public Domain. See [10] --Garion96 11:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. Yann 02:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Kmines 3BV 19.png

it's 20,not 19.Technical error. --Pixel ;-) 18:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

deleted (you could have used {{badname}}) --Matt314 21:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Crítico.jpg

This image is a derivative work. -- Matt314 21:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

deleted by User:Yann --ALE! ¿…? 16:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Rodham_family_portrait.jpg

This is not a work of the USGovernment. Currently it has no license tag at all. -- Fred Chess 00:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

If it has no license tag, it appears to need one. It is also not a work of the Lesotho government. no need to delete it, just find the origin. --71.138.143.1 00:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

delete It's not our job to find origins of possible copyvios. This has to be done by the uploader --Ikiwaner 18:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted by Duesentrieb: no license

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

[edit] Image:Vulpes zerda dozing.jpg

The source website http://schmode.net/ restricts usage of the pictures, they are not PD. Distribution and commercial use is not allowed (see copyright stuff): For re-publication on the web including stuff such as usenet posts, file sharing services, blogs or e-mail stationery, please ask me beforehand because the zoo the picture was taken in may require prior information of your project. For the same reason, commercial use of my pictures is not allowed without my prior consent[...]--Wiggum 18:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

First of all, there are more pictures of this series, see Vulpes zerda (every picture except the last one), so if this will be deleted, the others should go, too. Actually, there are even more images from the same source, see Special:Linksearch/http://schmode.net/. There's also this link. Apparently, Ralf Schmode changed the wording on his homepage, disallowing commercial use of his photographs. This was not the case when these images were uploaded, so I don't know if we should keep or delete these pictures. I'd really be a shame if we had to delete them tho, they're great pictures. --Conti|✉ 20:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I closed this request because there is a pending request to obtain a release of the pictures. I will reopen it, if it fails.--Wiggum 08:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Vulpes_zerda_dozing.jpg

http://schmode.net/ states, among others: commercial use of my pictures is not allowed without my prior consent -- Siebrand 08:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Also deletion requests for the following images that are from the same source:

• Image:Elenantilope.jpg
• Image:Vulpes zerda sitting.jpg
• Image:Vulpes zerda front view.jpg
• Image:Vulpes zerda yawning.jpg
• Image:Nyala m.jpg
• Image:Sitatunga w.jpg
• Image:Young leopard.jpg
• Image:Lying cheetah.jpg

I've asked User:Wiggum if he got any updates on the pending request he mentioned above. --Conti|✉ 16:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Deleted. No response from the author. Samulili 11:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Kabul City in 2005.jpg

Image is double (Image:Residential View of Kabul City.jpg). I'm the uploader, I request deletion of Image:Kabul City in 2005.jpg. thanks!--Freestyle 23:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

deleted (please use {{badname}} in the future, thanks!) --Matt314 21:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Cabeco gordo.jpg

Images from oceandots are 'enhanced'. The site operator has indicate that he does not like our usage of images from his site. Also, someone else complained on the image page: "la fotografia es erronea. Esta volteada horizontalmente. The photography is erroneous. The photography turned horizontally" --Gmaxwell 20:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted --Davepape 04:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Walpole Island.jpg

oceandots.com site operator not happy with use of enhanced images on wikimedia --Davepape 20:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Note - I believe this is the last of the oceandots images. Commons now has properly free replacements for all the images. --Davepape 20:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted --Davepape 04:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Hitlerjugend.jpg

Why this picture should be PD? --DaB. 14:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'm the uploader. I copied the image from either DeWiki or EnWiki (can't recall) and didn't dig into the details, but it definitely had a PD tag on the original. I guess because it came from the National Archives and Records Administration...?

But honestly, it does look fishy.

-- nyenyec ☎ 15:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The Author of this Photo is (or was) an German. Also it can't be PD --Marcela 06:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

There is a specific U.S. law making some captured WWII material public domain, which explains why the NARA can make it available. However, this applies in the U.S. only (and maybe the UK which had a similar law), but not anywhere else. Thus, it is not free enough for commons.  Delete. Carl Lindberg 17:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

FYI, the original picture on de: has been deleted. --Mdangers 08:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Voting is the only way to solve this. It's for educational benefit, btw. Flammingo 18:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Completely all the same whether the picture for the training is useful - it does not have a valid license and is not free. --Marcela 21:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons is not only for "educational benefit", it is for images that also can be used commercial and not for images that only can be used for educational purposes. --BLueFiSH 19:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

deleted, --Polarlys 00:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:EuroConstLarge.png

SVG version available and inserted in all non-talk pages of all wikipedias --80.202.19.184 22:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Kept: deletion of superseded images discussed elsewhere A.J. 13:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Matchstall.gif

contains copyrighted logos --Bongoman 01:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted by Bryan: copyvio

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

[edit] Image:Pericles.jpg

Original uploader , en:User:Uri, had this to say about his uploads: To all the people who've been harassing me about picture sources: I really can't be bothered to follow all this up. All the piccies I uploaded are from websites where there was no copyright notice, [..] en:User_talk:Uri#Picture_Concerns. -- Fred Chess 16:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

•  Delete, the discussion on the uploader's talk page is most instructive :-( There is no lack of really free pictures of Pericles in Category:Pericles. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 16:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

No source, no valid licence. Deleted. Yann 02:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:OrphanBot.JPG

This was deleted once before as an attack image against OrphanBot on Wikipedia [11], and has been recreated by uploading it to here. It's also unencyclopedic. --AAA! 06:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 11:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:CageN02.jpg

Image is a violation of original copyright of wax sculpture, regardless of the freeness of the image. Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass ^demandez 18:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

 Delete per nom Yonatanh 10:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 11:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Category:Mola mola

(empty category) --85.47.132.98 12:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. Yann 02:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Pompeii0076.jpg

User:G.dallorto put here template {no source since} and asks: Who is the author? When did he die? --Julo 12:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

See Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Pompeii0075.jpg, too.

First, I put here template {anonymous work}, because I know this postcard was bought during one of two trips of my grandpa to Napoli, in 1920 or in 1923. Next, User:G.dallorto put here template {no source since}. In my the discussion with User:G.dallorto I said, that this work is definitely anonymous, and definitely older than 70 years. He says I had to put here exact date, not rough 1920-23. We did not agree, let other Wikipedians decide. Julo 12:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

•  Keep Author unknown, 1923 was more than 70 years ago. Julo 12:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
•  Keep Same reason. Yann 02:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
•  Keep Agree. And there's no obvious way of finding out who the author was, assuming it's not listed on the back. MichaelMaggs 20:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Pompeii0075.jpg

User:G.dallorto put here template {no source since} --Julo 12:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

See Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Pompeii0076.jpg, too.

Other pictures from this series:

• Image:Pompeii0065.jpg
• Image:Pompeii0064.jpg
• Image:Pompeii0073.jpg
• Image:Pompeii0072.jpg
• Image:Pompeii0071.jpg
• Image:Pompeii0070.jpg
• Image:Pompeii0069.jpg
• Image:Pompeii0066.jpg
• Image:Pompeii0067.jpg
• Image:Pompeii0068.jpg

First, I put here template {anonymous work}, because I know this postcard was bought during one of two trips of my grandpa to Napoli, in 1920 or in 1923. Next, User:G.dallorto put here template {no source since}. In my the discussion with User:G.dallorto I said, that this work is definitely anonymous, and definitely older than 70 years. He says I had to put here exact date, not rough 1920-23. We did not agree, let other Wikipedians decide. Julo 12:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

•  Keep Author unknown, 1923 was more than 70 years ago. Julo 12:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
•  Neutral. While I'm hesitant to judge whether this is actually PD or not, it seems a bit overzealous to require an exact date of publication. --TOR 14:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
•  DeleteOnly because someone bought this postcard in the 1920s, it doesn't mean that they are anonymous work. Anonymous work means that the author never revealed himself to any other person, it doesn't mean that just we don't know the author. I don't see any evidence for this, and I think the publisher surely knew where he got the photos. So it's not PD. --88.134.44.28 19:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

  It is wrong argument. See here: Carlo Romanò portrait, Carlo Rovelli portrait, beer tray or Durruti portrait. As in our case, the authors of these anonymous works were well known to the publishers.
  Anonymous work - as I understand - means the author is impossible to identification. In our case the only identificable information is the name of publisher Edizione Domenico Trampetti.
  Julo 21:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

•  Comment I think the "anonymous" bit of copyright law is generally meant for books, pamphlets etc. where the author wishes to remain anonymous, and uses a pseudonym (and often the publishers knew the real author's name there too, but they are still "anonymous" until the general public knows who the author really is). With photos that is much harder, as there is not a typical place to put an author's name, so they are more "unknown" than "anonymous", and usually commons is very careful with those images. If these are postcards though... you would expect that there was a place for the author's name on the back, especially if there was a place to mention the publisher, so if no author is mentioned then this may very well qualify for "anonymous". I don't think the lack of a specific year is a problem, provided that it is still PD even when using the last possible year. You may want to elaborate on the year (mention your grandfather's trips) in the "Source" section though. Carl Lindberg 05:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

  On backside of postcard is nothing except name of publisher. Details available about these postcards I placed in description under the picture. Julo 08:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

•  Comment

  Berne Convention, article 2:

  (1) The expression “literary and artistic works” shall include every production in the literary, scientific and artistic domain, whatever may be the mode or form of its expression, such as books, pamphlets and other writings; lectures, addresses, sermons and other works of the same nature; dramatic or dramatico-musical works; choreographic works and entertainments in dumb show; musical compositions with or without words; cinematographic works to which are assimilated works expressed by a process analogous to cinematography; works of drawing, painting, architecture, sculpture, engraving and lithography; photographic works to which are assimilated works expressed by a process analogous to photography; works of applied art; illustrations, maps, plans, sketches and three-dimensional works relative to geography, topography, architecture or science.

  Berne Convention, article 7:

  (1) The term of protection granted by this Convention shall be the life of the author and fifty years after his death.

  (2) However, in the case of cinematographic works (...)

  (3) In the case of anonymous or pseudonymous works, the term of protection granted by this Convention shall expire fifty years after the work has been lawfully made available to the public. However, when the pseudonym adopted by the author leaves no doubt as to his identity, the term of protection shall be that provided in paragraph (1). If the author of an anonymous or pseudonymous work discloses his identity during the above-mentioned period, the term of protection applicable shall be that provided in paragraph (1). The countries of the Union shall not be required to protect anonymous or pseudonymous works in respect of which it is reasonable to presume that their author has been dead for fifty years.

  (...)

  According to other rules, word "fifty" above should be replaced with "seventy".

  Julo 12:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

•  Keep Yann 02:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Ion Antonescu und Hermann Goering.jpg

No evidence that it's PD. From 1941; Library of Congress page just says "Rights status not evaluated." --Davepape 02:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. PD status has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt. Samulili 22:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Esztergom map (no text).PNG

• This is my own picture, but I uploaded a newer version. No wikimedia links to this version. Villy 23:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I allready requested deletion of this image, but for some reason it wasn't deleted. Nobody replied, so I think it must have been forgotten. So once again: I uploaded another picture, there is no need for this one Villy 16:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Question: what is this "another picture"? If it is the same picture with different name, use {{badname}} instead Julo 16:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Well this picture was made for a template for the hu:wiki, but it was never used. In the end I made the template with the Image:Esztergom map (simple).PNG file, but it is not entirely the same, so I didn't want to use "badname". Villy 18:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Done Julo 17:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Paul Bril 002.jpg

This painting is not by Paul Bril. Check the discussion page for more information. --198.86.93.254 19:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

deleted (wrong title, copyvio) --ALE! ¿…? 09:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Parodypictures.jpg

Лична снимка на никому неизвестна групичка / Personal photo of an obscure fun-making group. -- Zlatko + ^(talk) 15:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

deleted by User:Yann --ALE! ¿…? 16:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:MikeNess.jpg

And many others from http://cablemodem.fibertel.com.ar/

• Image:Pistols old.jpg
• Image:Sex pistols 01.jpg
• Image:Social Distortion-Young.jpg
• Image:Dave vanian.jpg
• Image:Captainsensible.jpg
• Image:Clash old.jpg
• Image:Clash.jpg
• Image:Heartbreakers.jpg
• Image:Johnny thunders.jpg
• Image:Damned live.jpg
• Image:Damned.jpg

Unlikely that a cable modem user in Argentina owns the copyright to all these PR-type photos of punk bands. Note that Image:MikeNess.jpg even has a copyright watermark on it, for Jeanne Rice (see [12]) --Davepape 16:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

what do you suggest would be the best way to tag the image? under wich copyright? —the preceding unsigned comment is by Spikedude44 (talk • contribs)

Copyvio. Deleted. Yann 00:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Kerry beagle suche.png

Image contains personal informations. New Image under "Kerry suche" --Freiermensch 17:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Kerry suche.png --Tout ^(Diskussion) 18:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. Yann 02:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Frusciante johny.jpg

License doesn't look right. Does a magazine really allow unrestricted commercial use of this image? --ksfan 22:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC) Yep, you're right, I'll delete it and I;ll find an other picture :)

Deleted. Yann 02:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Img00031.jpg

The file/page is not potentially usable by any current or future Wikimedia project (e.g. art by unknown artist). -- Yonatanh 22:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

If it's the uploader, and the uploader is a contributor, we generally permit a limited amount of personal images in userspace. Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass ^demandez 02:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Kept. Used by uploader on his cs: user page. NielsF|talk/overleg/discussion/discussione 03:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Torre de Belém by xdsgn.jpg

Fake License. Scanned postcard image. The copyright belongs in fact to DINTERNAL, LDA. --Barao78 04:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I can't belive this. Please have a look on the photographer gallery. Maybe DINTERNAL, LDA use this picture to make a postcard. Petrus 19:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

You should believe in this. This picture is about 15 years old. It's copyrighted to Dintertal, LDA, a postcard company, and it didn't released its rights neither to that site, neither to wikipedia.

If they find out, they might have a case.

"Maybee's" are not enough. Sorry.

Barao78 20:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted by Zirland: In category Copyright violation; not edited for 2 days

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

[edit] Image:Neanderthaler-Woman.jpg

1) No license. 2) This picture shows a modern woman (Homo sapiens) with a heavy make-up. It cannot be considered as a representative view of a Neandertal woman. See w:en:Talk:Neanderthal for details. 3) This picture is not neutral. It misleads Wikipedia readers and should be replaced with well-balanced picture made by scientists. --Vugluskr 14:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• The photo is taken from this article, in particular this page. The URL given in the image page, while technically correct, was misinterpreted by the web server and so didn't show anything. If you replace the escape sequence "%2F" with the original character "/" the URL works. On the page, the license is given as cc-by-2.5 (and the image was tagged cc-by-2.0 prior to the deletion request). The photo is by "Bacon Cph", with makeup by "Morton Jacobsen". The terms of cc-by were not being followed, as there was no photo credit on the image page, but that is fixable. It's possible that the image was taken from elsewhere, but there is no indication of a separate license on the source page, and I didn't find another source in an image search. I have no comment on issues 2 and 3, other than that may be a matter of more accurate descriptions or a better filename. It may not be an accurate reconstruction (or even close), and I can definitely understand making sure it's not misrepresented as accurate on wiki pages, to but to say it's useless is a stretch IMHO. It is in fact used on many wikis... possibly with very bad captions, but used nonetheless. Additional, and more accurate, image uploads would be best of course if they are better suited for the wiki articles, but that is still not a reason to delete this one.  Keep. Carl Lindberg 06:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
• Per Carl Lindberg's argumentation -  Keep. Regarding (3) - "neutrality", commented as "the point of view of modern civilians" in picture's description - it is rather simple to add there a comment "idea of Morton Jacobsen" and a link to Public Library of Science and the article there. Julo 18:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Changed to regular {{No source since}}. The name of the photographer and the make up artist are still missing as is a working link to a page which shows that the image is licensed as cc-by-2.0. Samulili 11:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• Reopened. I recognize this - it comes from this web page and is unquestionably a copyvio. I'd suggest speedy deletion. -- ChrisO 17:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

deleted by User:Samulili --ALE! ¿…? 08:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Cobbaert PS1.jpg

Owning a painting of Jan Cobbaert (1909–1995) doesn't mean you have the copyright of it. The artist died only 11 year ago so it is not in Public Domain. Claiming to be the author of this painting is obviously incorrect --Robotje 11:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• Looks like a pretty obvious delete. --Doc glasgow 16:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. Derivative work. --Davepape 04:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Charlesportrait2.gif

Source is [13]. Published 1927, Library of Congress gives no solid evidence that it's PD. Also extremely low resolution. --Davepape 01:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted, per above. — Timichal 08:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Bloc2ferte1940.jpg

The picture being taken during WWII usually means that it's copyrighted. No source either. -- Prince Kassad 17:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

This picture has been taken in 1940 by the federal government of the United-States of America, that means it's in the public domain. Martial75 22:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. No source and author, so no indication for PD. --GeorgHH 16:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Files by Box agencia (talk · contributions)

No information about source, author or licence found at the given link. We have no indication that the uploader is the copyright holder or a actual representative of box. GeorgHH 16:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted In the meantime all files was speedydeleted by various admins. --GeorgHH 16:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Blue_Screen_of_Death.jpg

afaik, since the Blue Screen of Death is generated by Microsoft Windows, and Microsoft Windows is a copyrighted unfree program, then this technically is a copyvio and not allowed on Commons because it is essentially a screenshot of an unfree program. Or am I interpreting it wrong? -- Zzyzx11 00:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio. Deleted. Yann 02:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Mmm_yes.JPG

The file/page is not potentially usable by any current or future Wikimedia project (e.g. art by unknown artist). -- Yonatanh 01:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. Yann 02:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Sun-Jan-14-02-46-12-UTC-2007.png

From "Investigation of the Death of Colonel James Sabow, USMC" by Bryan R. Burnett [14] (PDF file) --ERcheck 01:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully my additional documentation regarding the provenance and rights has cleared up the matter. Thanks for your vigilance! JPatrickBedell 01:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. Yann 02:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:205 Gleisdreieck.jpg

source: here. There is not written that the image IS gnufdl. But here (same website) is written Alle Bilder, die nicht anders gekennzeichnet sind, sind von mir, Ken Wegener und dürfen nur mit ausdrücklicher Genehmigung von mir für andere Dinge verwendet werden. - so permission by Ken Wegener is reqired. ...Sicherlich ^Post 10:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

deleted - obvious copyvio 

Julo 13:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Maneki neko.jpg

Reasons for deletion request

1. Duplicate of Image:Manekineko1003.jpg
2. Summary information states "Date=XVII century" (the actual photograph dates from 2005)
3. Summary information states "Author=unknow" (I took the photo).

Fg2 05:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 11:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:TaipeiGameShowOpening-3.jpg

Reasons for deletion request Rico Shen ^contact... 15:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• Uploaded wrong file name with Image:TaipeiGameShowOpening-3.jpg, so I've uploaded the same image with right name Image:2007TaipeiGameShowOpening-3.jpg. Please delete the image with wrong name.
• Another question, if I uploaded file with wrong name, can rename be available?

Deleted, images cannot be renamed, please reupload the image and add {{badname}} to the first image. -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:FIGURE 11 A a5cd1064fb7502e6a9e10b1dfe54ea5872c3279f.jpg

Copyright violation from "Investigation of the Death of Colonel James Sabow, USMC" by Bryan R. Burnett, page 16, figure 11 A. On web here. [15] (PDF file) --ERcheck 04:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Grisly. But if these really were taken by a Navy employee as it says, which is rather plausible as they look like autopsy photos, then they are in the public domain. Mr. Burnett was free to use them in his book, and Wikipedia is free to use them as well. Carl Lindberg 04:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The editor uploaded them on Wikipedia as well, and there asserted that they were taken by the county coroner. (see [16]) ERcheck 04:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Note that a news report indicates that the autopsy was conducted by the county coroner, not the Navy. The county coroner photos would not be public domain as they are not body of the U.S. Government. ([17]) ERcheck 04:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Hm, yeah, the image is badly tagged then. However I think that state/local autopsy photos are part of the public record in California. The current Public Records Act exempts them from required disclosure to the public, but since they have been disclosed, that's moot. I'm not entirely sure what the copyright status would be. Carl Lindberg 18:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted by Yann: copyvio

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

[edit] Image:FIGURE 11 B f1992ff75a9c82108c08c27e207879b8115fc9bf.jpg

Copyright violation from "Investigation of the Death of Colonel James Sabow, USMC" by Bryan R. Burnett, page 16, figure 11 B. On web here. [On web here. [18] (PDF file) --ERcheck 04:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC) --ERcheck 04:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted by Yann: copyvio

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

[edit] Image:FIGURE 11 C 3ae8ad0330aeba8d5250813b471dc58c7a248e9e.jpg

Copyright violation from "Investigation of the Death of Colonel James Sabow, USMC" by Bryan R. Burnett, page 16, figure 11 C. On web here. [On web here. [19] (PDF file) --ERcheck 04:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC) --ERcheck 04:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted by Yann: copyvio

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

[edit] Image:FIGURE 11 D 01a7643f8be9bba398884328685cab1213114258.jpg

Copyright violation from "Investigation of the Death of Colonel James Sabow, USMC" by Bryan R. Burnett, page 16, figure 11 D. On web here. [20] (PDF file) --ERcheck 04:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC) --ERcheck 04:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted by Yann: copyvio

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

[edit] Image:Sétif Algérie.jpg

copyvio from http://www.yannarthusbertrand.com/yann2/affichage.php?reference=TVDC%20194_ALG&pais=Algerievueduciel --P-e 20:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. Yann 16:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Armenian Genocide memorial images

• Image:Tsitsernakaberd.jpg uploaded by User:Aivazovsky
• Image:Yerewan war memorial.jpg uploaded by User:Roger Zenner
• Image:Yerewan war memorial inside.jpg uploaded by User:Roger Zenner

Armenia has a restrictive (non-comercial only) freedom of panorama hence these images are violating copyrights. --Cat out 14:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

If we start applying every possible law in the world, Commons is dead. Can Wikimedia be sued in an Armenian court? I don't believe so. --AndreasPraefcke 17:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The reason for my nomination is I feel Armenian law is legally binding as per international treaties. That is why we do not allow pictures of the Eiffel Tower at night. --Cat out 19:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Er, what do you call this? -- Aivazovsky 00:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

•  Comment. Given that these were photographed in Armenia, I believe the law completely applies. Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass ^demandez 19:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless it can be shown that the war memorial is not subject to copyright (may be one of the few occasions when myself and Cool Cat agree, so lap it up guys — pun intended) :) - FrancisTyers 19:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• Question: are you sure, has Armenia a restrictive only freedom of panorama? On Armenian page about Armenia we see Image:Yerewan architects monument.jpg, and it seems they do not want to remove it. Julo 02:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

 CommentWell, unfortunately it seems that users in many of the small wikipedias just don't know (or care) enough about copyrights and use whatever pictures are available. So I wouldn't take that as evidence that freedom of panorama is allowed by armenian law. --88.134.44.28 13:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

There are restrictions on panorama freedom in Armenia. See Copyrights law of Armenia, Article 16 (Russian). Text are same as in copyrights laws of Belarus and Russia. Translation: you can't make photos of copyrighted work without permission of author, if copyrighted work is main subject of image or image will be used commercially. --EugeneZelenko 16:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep I agree with the foresaid that we need to adhere to the law of the country where the picture was taken. However, from the English translation I understand the Armenian copyright law to allow non-commercial use of an image regardless of the copyright of the building itself: "images of architectural works, [...] that are permanently located in publicly accessible places may be published only for non-commercial purposes [...]" (see [21]. As publication in wikipedia of the picture is non-commercial, that publication itself would not violate Armenian copyright laws. The picture would not be available under the GNU/PD license, but that is an entirely different issue. (note however that the translation that I quote is substantially different than EugeneZelenko's translation, which seems to suggest that any use of a building as the main subject is forbidden, regardless whether it is used commercially or not. On first sight that appears to be so restrictive that it is likely wrong, given also the explicit mentioning of publicly available places in the law text. Frederik Beuk 04:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Delete Please read Commons:Licensing: images must be available for commercial purposes. About main subject - please try to translate from Russian: за исключением случаев, когда изображение этого произведения является основным объектом такого воспроизведения или трансляции и когда изображение произведения используется для коммерческих целей --EugeneZelenko 15:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. The images are fine what so ever. --TigranMets 04:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep read Article 25.[22] Use of Works Located in Open for Attendance Places

Without the consent of the author and without remuneration it shall be permitted to reproduce, broadcast for non-commercial purposes works of architecture, photography or figurative arts located in open for attendance places. 76.81.219.191 20:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but {{noncommercial}} is not acceptable on Commons. See Commons:Licensing for details. --EugeneZelenko 16:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per User:Frederik Beuk. -- Aivazovsky 00:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Has to be deleted if Armenia has no freedom of Panorama regulation suitable for Commons. Make sure Wiki projects using these images have the chance to upload them locally under fair use. --Denniss 21:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Deleted because Armenian copyright law restrict the use of these images for non-commercial purposes only. Samulili 12:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Raia da Atalaia Fernando de Noronha 05.jpg

Noncommercial Phrood 16:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

 Comment The license was changed from CC-BY in early October 2006. --Para 20:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

 Comment I asked the author, if he would change the license to something without "nc" and he answered:

Sounds weird that Wikimedia requires a Commercial license ! That would be leaving the door open for anyone to use the picture and make money out of it, without the author getting anything ! If this is the case, please indeed remove my photo. Thanks for the tip :-)

Enricopedia ⇄ 20:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

 Comment The author, Hugo*, has 1900 photos on flickr and obviously this one is not the only one here. If he doesn't change his mind, we have to delete some more. Enricopedia ⇄ 22:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

CC licenses are not revokable, so if Para's script shows that the license was indeed cc-by at one point, they may still be OK. However if the original license was simply a mistake on the user's part, it may not be as clear. The user could also license them with cc-by-sa or GFDL, which restricts some commercial use but does not preclude it. Carl Lindberg 18:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

CC licenses are irrevocable. I don't like the idea of deleting images because of license change almost a year after publishing. By doing it, we're putting "downstream" users of the image who may have downloaded it from Commons into trouble. Flickr doeasn't show license changes, proofs that the license was ok are located here, and if the image is deleted, links to them are lost. --Wikimol 00:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. Cc-by-nc-nd-2.0. The author would not change the licence to a free version (see comment here), so the image is not free usable since this statement. --GeorgHH 17:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Mura.jpg

The given source (Urad vlade za informiranje) states: »© Government Public Relations and Media Office«. However, it also states: »Royalty free press material - Public Relations and Media Office is offering you different images of Slovenia that can be used for promotional purposes free of charge. You are only asked to name the photographer and the source.« [23]I think the use of this image is limited to the promotional purposes and so should be deleted as not being free. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 10:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Deleted: promotional-type license / A.J. 14:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Zgrzebniok.jpg

no reason for PD given. no date provided, de:Alfons Zgrzebniok himself died 1937 so it is easily possible that the autor is not dead since 70 years ...Sicherlich ^Post 14:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• I couldn't find any information about author, neither in printed books. I judged that author is unknown so decided to put this licence tag. If you think it's not enough delete this picture. Pilecka 18:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• I think it can be kept if the author is really unknown (proof of research needed) and the photo is more than 70 years old (quite possible in this case). Yann 19:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• it could be {{anonymous work}} if picture made not later, than 31.12.1936. If in 1937, we have to wait until 01.01.2008. Julo 23:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted: Copyright status unsure / A.J. 10:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Bandini Maserati motore.jpg

my error --Registro bandini 03:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC) --Registro bandini 03:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted 

Julo 22:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Cannabis-bcard-2007-01-10 000001.png

Doesn't belong to Commons. The only purpose is self-promotion (see also [24]). guillom 13:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted by User:Rama --Cat out 13:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Derren Brown - The Heist.jpg

This is a screenshot of a copyrighted TV show. ~ BigrTex 18:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted as copyvio. NielsF|talk/overleg/discussion/discussione 05:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:BunkerH.jpg

Duplicate of Image:USS Bunker Hill hit by two Kamikazes.jpg TomTheHand 19:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted 

Julo 22:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Category:Harikalar Diyari

it's all derivative work --Rtc 08:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

But there is freedom of panorama, I think? --Grandy02 08:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure there is, but it does not apply to these pictures, since what they show is not "located on public ways, streets or places" but in a park. "Public" does not mean owned by public institutions, but it means open to the public without restrictions such as admission. --Rtc 18:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what the law says in Turkey, but in the UK freedom of panorama is not restricted even if there is an admission fee. It specifically incudes 'a place to which the public has access'. --MichaelMaggs 20:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

On the page of this picture and on the category page, the uploader Nevit added the information "Public Amusement Park". --84.188.112.81 22:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

'has access' means access without restrictions such as admission. Adding "public" to "amusement park" won't change anything about the situation. Please stop to try to find ways to circumvent copyright; there is no such way. And no, it doesn't matter whether Mickey Mouse is printed on a T-shirt, which you bought with your own money and which is worn by yourself while you're walking in a public place, loudly reciting the GFDL. That doesn't at all give you the right to take a picture of the T-shirt, cut out Mickey Mouse and upload it as "free" material. Nothing you'll ever do, whether you draw Pikachu with your own crayons or sculpt a giant Sailor Moon figurine, will ever lead to the point where you magically turn copyrighted material into "free" material. (COM:DW) --Rtc 09:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

And if you can go in and out every time without admission (and it isn't closed in the night)? I don't know about that park, Nevit should take part in this discussion and tell what he does mean with "Public". By the way, the park has its own site [25]. --Grandy02 15:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't care if the photo's are deleted or not, but to clarify the situation the park is govermantal owned, installed by municipality of Ankara, open 24/7 and admitted publicly without a fee. --Nevit 06:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

This is simply not the usual panorama freedom like a permanently installed statue on the streets. Go ahead if you want to research the issue further about opening hours etc., but please keep in mind that even if it is open 24/7, this is still a corner case. --Rtc 15:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

•  Delete the Smurfs and the Flintstones. I don't know where all the characters come from, it should be sorted out. For example Rotkäppchen is public domain, no? / Fred Chess 10:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • The character is in the public domain; yet of course to make a statue out of it results in a new copyright (on the statue, not the character), since it clearly introduces new creative elements beyond the character as such. --Rtc 15:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

withdrawn. --Rtc 15:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Kirill_turovskiy.jpg

Most likely taken from random website. Original uploader didn't claim authorship. -- EugeneZelenko 16:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted: thumbnail, no source, no licence, probable copyvio. Yann 09:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Scharnhorst-8.jpg

according to the given description, the picture is copied from a contemporary publication and therefore seems not be be taken by US-Gov --schlendrian •λ• 23:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Please discuss this issue at Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Scharnhorst-26.jpg --ALE! ¿…? 14:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussed elsewhere / A.J. 14:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Category:Estação Litoral da Aguda

Rename into English --Dryke 11:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

•  Keep That is the name of this institution. --ALE! ¿…? 10:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

kept --ALE! ¿…? 21:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Category:Policarboxylic acids

move to Category:Polycarboxylic acids --Dryke 11:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 09:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:CerizAy City Chart.jpg

Insufficient evidence of GFDL licensing --Jusjih 07:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. No indication for GFDL. --GeorgHH 17:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Category:Canadiens de Montréal

This is a doubled category to Category:Montreal Canadiens. Since all Icehockey categories of Northern America are named in English, we should use here only the ENGLISH one. --Xgeorg 16:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

 Comment as Montréal is a city in Québecq, at least this should be a redirect, if not the main category. NielsF|talk/overleg/discussion/discussione 05:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

 Comment As I learned, redirecting categories is not possible on commons. Am I wrong? --Xgeorg 07:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Automatic redirects, in the sense we would like, are not possible. That is, if you put items in Category:Canadiens de Montréal, they won't be magically put into Category:Montreal Canadiens. Nonetheless category RDRs should be used when there is a likelihood that if the category is deleted, it will be recreated. For example Category:Cars RDRs to Category:Automobiles, but we keep Category:Cars as a RDR to try and make people aware that they shouldn't use it. If people never visit the category page itself they won't ever realise this, but we can use bots to "move" things like this.

My feeling is that category RDRs almost always help, and they cost next to nothing. The only categories I delete are nonsense ones and uncommon typos. Everything else, I just make a RDR. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 04:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

So we'll have categories in more than one language with the same media? If this is okay to you, I'll agree to have a RDR ! --Xgeorg 11:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Huh... What is a "RDR"? :) HawkFest 08:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

KeepThis a NAME, as incorporated (or registered, whatever). The actual official name is Club de Hockey Canadien, or Canadien de Montréal (no "s" at the end, it should not be used as a plural adjective as if players nationality or allegiance were involved, since the term "Canadien" at the time of the team's conception, was solely used to name Quebec's francophones within a colony where inhabitants were still considering themselves as subjects of England's kingship). Thus it is not an attribute, but a name, as we will not use the english translation of "Canada" which is a north-american indian word for "Long House", nor "Notre-Dame" translated as "Our Lady", nor "New York Rangers" translated as "Gardes Forestiers de New York" in any french litterature material... Add to this fact that it also was the very first NHL hockey team in North America, we should not really care if every other teams were then after using an English name (which is normal, Montréal being the only francophone city in the NHL). Actually it is the translation that should be removed (since it is the official NAME), IF you want to remove something... So thanks for keeping it. HawkFest 08:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Kept: Canadiens de Montréal is the official name, see http://www.canadiens.com/. All files now in Category:Canadiens de Montréal. Also redirect from Category:Montreal Canadiens to Category:Canadiens de Montréal. --GeorgHH 19:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Convertibilidad.jpg

I am not sure if the two bills are in the PD --ALE! ¿…? 10:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I took de dolla image from commons and the peso image is mine. I think, the new inçmage is a free image. Tell me if i worng. I'm sorry but my english is poor. --Mandrake33 23:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

in doubt keep --ALE! ¿…? 20:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:600px-Starbucks Coffee Logo.svg.png

I can't believe that this logo can be used in any purpose, there is neither proof nor reference. It is based on a copyrighted image (as stated in source) so it does not seem to have any sense at all. --BeŻet 12:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted by WarX: copyvio

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

[edit] Image:Dehoopschefferpowell2.jpg

I accidentally uploaded the wrong image --Jacoplane 19:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

deleted 

Julo 18:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Nazi_Party_Rally_at_Nuremberg.jpg

How can this have been "created by the United Kingdom Government", as the template states? -- Fred Chess 11:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Copyright was likely extinguished in the UK due to the War Powers Act, but that's only valid within the UK, not anywhere else (which would consider it a copyrighted German photo). Carl Lindberg 19:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

•  Comment Keep if the author is not known. Yann 09:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

 Delete According to the source website the photo was taken by en:Heinrich Hoffmann. He died in 1957, so the image doesn't become PD until January 1st, 2028. --88.134.44.28 13:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Deleted. Samulili 11:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Sabre pic 4.jpg

No proof of copyright released. Website uploader used to acquire this picture has copyvio images from sports illustrated and encyclopedia britannica on it. This is obviously a professional photograph, no source infromation is given and due to the practices of the website, is most likely copyvio. --Pschemp 20:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• Deleted. Samulili 11:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Het Bildt flag outline.png

PNG superseded by SVG version --De.Nobelium 12:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 10:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Vista Upgrade Paths.jpg

(replaced with Image:Vista Upgrade Paths.png) --Majestic 12:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 10:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Sabre flunge.jpg

No proof of copyright released. Website uploader used to acquire this picture has copyvio images from sports illustrated and encyclopedia britannica on it. This is obviously a professional photograph, no source infromation is given and due to the practices of the website, is most likely copyvio. --Pschemp 20:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. Obvios copyvio. --GeorgHH 19:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Article 72 UrhG

• Image:Dziecko.jpg
• Image:Ulica w Charkowie 1932.jpg
• Image:Kon z czasow glodu.jpg
• Image:Napis-tu kategorycznie zabrania chowac sie ludzi.jpg
• Image:Kolektywizacja-kon.jpg
• Image:Rozkułaczanie2.jpg
• Image:Kolejka po chleb za dewizy.jpg
• Image:Stalin-Ribbetropp.jpg
• Image:Guderian, Kriwoszein.jpg
• Image:Ribbetropp, Stalin Mołotow.jpg
• Image:Mołotow Ribentropp, Himmler 1940.jpg
• Image:Mołotow Hitler 1940.jpg
• Image:Mołotow, Goring 1940.jpg
• Image:Katyn12.jpg
• Image:Katyn11.jpg
• Image:Katyn14.jpg
• Image:Wehrmacht-Red Army 091939.jpg
• Image:Allies in Katyn.jpg
• Image:Katyn15.jpg
• Image:Katyn16.jpg
• Image:HeinrichMuller.jpg
• Image:KSchleicher.jpg
• Image:Schwerin von Krosigk1.jpg

From the image descriptions: "This file is in the public domain, because This is a German photograph now well over 50 years old. Under Germany's copyright law, Article 72, this means that any copyright has expired" - Thats not true - photographs are always protected for at least 50 years, but these photo would qualify as "Lichtbildwerke" so they would be protected 70 pma ( § 64 UrhG (Germany's copyright law): Allgemeines - Das Urheberrecht erlischt siebzig Jahre nach dem Tode des Urhebers.). Ebenda 10:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Answer : Full text of art.72 UrhG (German copyright law) - according to photos

UrhG § 72 Lichtbilder

(1) Lichtbilder und Erzeugnisse, die ähnlich wie Lichtbilder hergestellt werden, werden in entsprechender Anwendung der für Lichtbildwerke geltenden Vorschriften des Teils 1 geschützt.

(2) Das Recht nach Absatz 1 steht dem Lichtbildner zu.

(3) Das Recht nach Absatz 1 erlischt fünfzig Jahre nach dem Erscheinen des Lichtbildes oder, wenn seine erste erlaubte öffentliche Wiedergabe früher erfolgt ist, nach dieser, jedoch bereits fünfzig Jahre nach der Herstellung, wenn das Lichtbild innerhalb dieser Frist nicht erschienen oder erlaubterweise öffentlich wiedergegeben worden ist. Die Frist ist nach § 69 zu berechnen.

Source: bundesrecht.juris.de/urhg

Commentary: Article 72nd UrhG is "lex specialis" (strict definition according to photos) in contrary to article 64 UrhG which is "lex generalis" ( general rule of copyright apart exlusions such like art. 72 )

Andros64 14:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Art 72 UrhG in official English translation:

Section II Protection of Photographs

Article 72

(1) Photographs and products manufactured in a similar way to photographs shall be protected, mutatis mutandis, by the provisions of Part I applicable to photographic works.

(2) The right afforded by paragraph (1) shall belong to the photographer.

(3) The right afforded by paragraph (1) shall expire 50 years after publication of the photograph, or if its first permitted public communication took place earlier, after the latter, but 50 years after its manufacture where the photograph has not been published or legally communicated in public within such period. The period shall be calculated in accordance with Article 69.

Source :[26]

Da Du das UrhG so gut verstehst, sprech ich Dich mal auf Deutsch an: Das UrhG unterscheidet zwischen (einfachen) Lichtbildern und (qualifizierte) Lichtbildwerken. Wie aus § 72 Abs 1 UrhG ersichtlich ist, gelten für Lichtbilwerke die Vorschirften des Teils 1 des UrhG (§§ 1-69g); festgestellt wird dies übrigens positiv in § 2 Geschützte Werke:

"(1) Zu den geschützten Werken der Literatur, Wissenschaft und Kunst gehören insbesondere: [...] 5. Lichtbildwerke einschließlich der Werke, die ähnlich wie Lichtbildwerke geschaffen werden; [...]" - festgestelllt, damit gilt für Lichtbildwerke die Schutzfrist des "§ 64 Allgemeines - Das Urheberrecht erlischt siebzig Jahre nach dem Tode des Urhebers."

und nicht die Frist des § 72 UrhG, die nur das dem Urheberrecht verwandte Schutzrecht an einfachen Fotografien schützt.

Der Maßstab, ob ein (einfaches) Lichtbild oder ein (qualifiziertes) Lichtbildwerk ist seit der de:Schutzdauerrichtlinie/Council Directive 93/98/EEC of 29 October 1993 harmonizing the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights der EU in dieser einheitlich zu bestimmen: zur Auslegung das oberste Gericht der Republik Östterreich "Für den einfachen Lichtbildschutz verblieben demnach (von Zufallsfotos infolge eines versehentlichen Auslösens der Kamera abgesehen) nur technische Fotos, bei denen jeder Fotograf mit denselben Fähigkeiten und Kenntnissen dasselbe Ergebnis, nämlich eine technisch einwandfreie Wiedergabe, erzielen müsse (also etwa Reproduktionen von Gemälden, Fotos von Maschinen, Fotos für die Verbrecherkartei, kartografische Luftaufnahmen und - im Regelfall - Passbilder aus Fotoautomaten)." (Eurobike (Beschluss vom 12. September 2001, 4 Ob 179/01d)). Eine ähnliche Auffassung vertrat das oberste Deutsche Gericht, der BGH, (Az.: I ZR 55/97) bereits 1997. für eine gute Zusammenfassung kannst Du mal de:Lichtbildwerke lesen. Alle oben genannten Fotos erfüllen die Vorraussetzungen an eine Lichtbildwerk, daher sind sie URV und bitte unterlasse das Löschen der Löschwarnung aus den Dateien.--Ebenda 14:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Answering the detailed questions

You have considered quite correctly, that it is two kinds of photographs  ; the first one ( common, or amateur) , which is depicted in German law in UrhG Art.72 , its terms and conditions of expiring copyrights (Abs.3), and the second one : the art or commercial photography , which is described in common regulations of UrhG Art.64 .

The photos, we are talking about we shall divide into two groups :

1.The first one are the amateur ( secret made) photos documenting Soviet crimes in 1932 in Ukraine , and amateur private Polish photos made in Katyn Forrest in 1943 ( published by German DNB in 1943 too)

2.The second one are various official photos of governmental ( civil and military) photographs of Nazi-Germany ( between 1933 and 1945) ( workers of Deutsches Nachrichten Buro ). Every copyrights for intellectual property of State Nazi Propaganda Institutions such like DNB , Reichsministerium für Volksaufklärung und Propaganda and so on without individual restricted copyrights were expired the 8th. of May 1945 with the fall of the IIIrd Reich and was made public property in definition.

3.Internal definitions of the Supreme Court in Austria has nothing in common with this case , particularly Austrian Court cannot deal with questions of adoption of internal law of BRD in the whole area of EC.

4.Finally , UrhG Art. 72 Abs 3. is in effect for the subject of our conversation . There is no basis to acknowledge amateur photos documenting genocide crimes in 30.-ties an 40-ties as Lichtbildwerke. And an official intellectual property of State Nazi Propaganda Institutions is copyfree from 1945. ( What would you like to do with the photos of Nazi or Japan crimes in WW II ?) I hope it is unquestionable.

5.And of course - the sense of Art.72 Abs 3. is that , there are not photos for private use only, but common or amateur photos ( not art or commercial) - published or unpublished.

With best wishes:

Andros64 16:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Postscriptum Documents of EC

Council Directive 93/98/EEC of 29 October 1993 harmonizing the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights

Article 6

Protection of photographs

Photographs which are original in the sense that they are the author's own intellectual creation shall be protected in accordance with Article 1. No other criteria shall be applied to determine their eligibility for protection. Member States may provide for the protection of other photographs.

Comment: European Law describes protection of art and commercial photographs only. It is an exactly expressed (formal) ban for wider court and legislate interpretation of copyright protection in this area.

Best greetings:

Andros64 19:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

same Document EC same source

"(17) Whereas the protection of photographs in the Member States is the subject of varying regimes; whereas in order to achieve a sufficient harmonization of the term of protection of photographic works, in particular of those which, due to their artistic or professional character, are of importance within the internal market, it is necessary to define the level of originality required in this Directive; whereas a photographic work within the meaning of the Berne Convention is to be considered original if it is the author's own intellectual creation reflecting his personality, no other criteria such as merit or purpose being taken into account; whereas the protection of other photographs should be left to national law;"

Das ist der explizide Ausschluss einer Einschränkung auf Kunst- oder Kommerz- Fotos. Aber das weißt Du sicher selber. PS: Polnische Fotos aus der Ukraine unterliegen nicht dem Deutschen sondern den polinischen und ukrainischen Urheberrecht. Deine Lizenzen sind Blödsinn. GrussEbenda 21:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete these images are obviously copyrighted, the laws cited above are only valid for very basic images taken by automated processes -- Gorgo 01:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment It is not quite obvious, as Gorgo said above. Some of these pictures (first seven small photos, about Great Famine in Ukraine in 1932-33) were taken and published before 1936 (i.e. more than 70 years ago) and it's authors are anonymous. In these cases {{anonymous work}} can be used - 70 years after publication. Julo 12:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Autor : Engineer А. Wineberger (Germany) 1933 = anonymous???

Autor: probably ( person officialy unknown )- it was photos secret made for obvious reasons

•  Comment Pictures whom the author is not known can be kept if more than 70 years old (taken before 31-12-1936). Yann 08:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Appendix

The cited #.17 of Directive confirmes "expressis verbis" that no other reasons then only"the author's own intellectual creation" from #.6 of the same Directive may be considered as basis for acknowlegment photos as art or commercial kind ( and broadening basis for strict copyright protection ). It means only that the basis for this acknowlegement work as photoart are the internal characteristic features of photo ( not external - such like purpose of work ). It means also, that members of EC may secure OTHER ( common) photos ( like in UrhG Art 72) on their own internal basis ( so - "common" photos are not deprived ANY copyright protection , but this protection shall be limited and described in internal regulations of countries of EU ). In commons in such situations ( cases for protection of copyrights before Directive ) has been in effect previous stipulations of Berne (Bern) Convention text.

Regulations of UrhG Art 72 Abs 3. according "common" photos ( fifty years of protection of copyrights from date of publishing , or making work ) are identical with Art.7 p.4. Berne Convention.

Best regards Andros64 09:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

And for previous voice - there is no such thing like obviousrights in law. Any right in any case should be described in detail and confirmed on detailed law basis by those, who present his standing to the case.

Andros64 09:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

what I meant with 'obvious' is: e.g. Image:Ribbetropp, Stalin Mołotow.jpg says "Author: Deutsches Nachrichten Buro 1939" so obviously there is an author and he was working for some german agency, this means:

• • the license is simply wrong because it's no simple "Lichtbild" but a "Lichtbildwerk" (because it is complex enough and not a simple standardised image)
  • the claim "without individual restricted copyrights were expired definitely the 8th. of May 1945" is wrong because according to german copyright law, copyright cannot get lost nor is it transferable, it always sticks to the author
  • the author is not anonymous (because he's was known to the agency and did not choose to publish it anonymously)
  • the author cannot already be dead for > 70 years

-- Gorgo 19:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Answering

Deutsches Nachrichten Buro was an official ( state, NOT PRIVATE) agency of IIIrd Reich. All materials signed by DNB was copyrighted by Buro as an juridical person owned exclusively by the state - the IIIrd Reich, was the subject of state property. Materials of DNB like materials of Reichsministerium für Volksaufklärung und Propaganda were not a subject of individual private intelectual property of workers (f.e. photographers) of this state agencies.

The IIIrd Reich have come to an end in May 1945 and has not any legal successors at all. BRD is not a legal succesor of the IIIrd Reich as a state ( see - Constitution of BRD). The Four Occupied Allied Powers officially declared that the former German State (The IIIrd Reich) ceased to exist. This attitude is described in constitution of BRD and accepted by Bundesregierung.

In consequence - all intellectual property of State Nazi Propaganda Institutions belongs to public domain, because the only owner of this rights have ceased to exist by international decisions and de facto, later confirmed in Contitution of Germany (1949). There is no legal successors of the rights of intellectual property of state propaganda institutions of the Nazi Germany.

Lichbild is a common photo - not a art or commercial photo (Lichtbildwerk). Definition of Lichtbildwerk is depicted strictly in international law : Berne Convention and Directive of EC from 1993. Definition of art (or commercial) photo shall not be adopted broader then a strict, precise definition. For this reason common photos (Lichtbilder) are protected by fifty years from publication or creation , and art photos (Lichtbildwerke) for seventy years pma.

In our case we deal with two sorts of photos.The first one are common photos from 1932 ( secret made in Ukraine) and from 1943 ,documents of genocide. I have just changed some licences, because photographs from 1943 are also the subject of Polish law. There arise a question whether the photos made in Ukraine in 1932 are the subject of German law.

In any case all photos of this group are the common photos in meaning of UrhG Art 72.

The second group of photos are these, which copyright is definitely expired with the end of existing the only owner of these rights - Nazi German state, which has not any successors in civil law.

You would be right in case of photos, made by individual German photographers, who has not worked in Nazi propaganda institutions, and who had not transferred their copyrights into possesion of these institutions.

However - every official photos of VIP -s in IIIrd Reich was made exclusively by state workers and the copyrights were transferred into property of State ( through Nazi state institutions like DNB).

Every photos such persons like Goring, Himmler, Ribbentrop,an so on , made in public, belongs to that category.

As you have seen - the photos I had presented were not the photos from private life of Nazi prominents, but their public life.

If you can present me any legal succesor of intellectual property of State Nazi Propaganda Institutions it will be pleasant for me.

For this reason public (official) photos from IIIrd Reich public activity were , and are published worldwide without any limits.

The exclusions are only, when it was made by foreign press agencies, photographers or German photograhers , who has worked on their own ( documenting f.ex. private life of Nazi officials). None of the photos presented belongs to that cathegory.

With best wishes:

Andros64 21:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

"In consequence - all intellectual property of State Nazi Propaganda Institutions belongs to public domain, because the only owner of this rights have ceased to exist by international decisions and de facto, later confirmed in Contitution of Germany (1949). There is no legal successors of the rights of intellectual property of state propaganda institutions of the Nazi Germany." This is not true, Germany is the legal successor of nazi germany, this means all current laws of Germany apply to the legal status of intellectual property. No copyright was transfered, which is also not possible under german law, thus copyright of these images still belongs to their authors.

The UrhG referes especially to that "Abschnitt 2 Übergangsbestimmungen § 129 Werke (1) Die Vorschriften dieses Gesetzes sind auch auf die vor seinem Inkrafttreten geschaffenen Werke anzuwenden, es sei denn, daß sie zu diesem Zeitpunkt urheberrechtlich nicht geschützt sind oder daß in diesem Gesetz sonst etwas anderes bestimmt ist. Dies gilt für verwandte Schutzrechte entsprechend." [27]. The KUG (KunstUrheberGesetz) was introduced in 1907 and replaced in 1965 by the UrhG. See [28] -- Gorgo 23:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Answering

You are wrong -because there are two different questions :

The first one - the existing ( and legal continuation) of German Civil Law ( like BGB, or cited by you KUG, replaced by UrhG) - it is unquestionable - and nobody questions the rights of private persons or communities (like cities, churches and so on) to their property and rights. And you have written just (and only) about this case.

However : all civil rights ( property, intelectual property and so on - depending on German Civil Code (BGB)) which were the property of IIIrd Reich as a state (subject of international and civil law) were definitely expired with ceasing the existence of this state as a subject of law - without any law successors.

Every rights of intelectual property which were transfered by physical persons to possesion of state institutions (juridical persons) like Reichsministerium für Volksaufklärung und Propaganda and its agencies (like Deutsches Nachrichten Buro) on basis of Zessionrechte of BGB (German Civil Code) in consequence were expired by law in 1945. These rights belong to public property.

And this is a matter of our discussion and the question quite different to the first one.

And in the end one more example:

This is photo made by anonymous war correspondent attached to the troops of SS-Brigadefuhrer Jurgen Stroop in Warsaw Getto in April 1943. The first was published in report of SS-Brigadefuhrer Stroop to SS-Reichsfuhrer H.Himmler in May 1943. Original of this photo is in possesion of Archive of Polish Institute of National Rememberance in Warsaw.[29] ( with all original report of Stroop to Himmler, made in one copy). All evidence is known : place, date of work,institution were the correspondent was attached, first publishing, actual place the only existing original copy of photo. (We don't know only the exact name of photographer - state worker of Nazi Germany).

According to your remarks above it should be strictly forbidden to publish this photo till April 2013 ( a least - we don't know date of death of photographer), without violating of copyrights of the photographer - unknown for us but very well known to his employers (DNB or SS or both)- govermental institutions of Nazi Germany.

According to your remarks ALL anonymous photos from resources of Nazi Govermental Institutions from the period of WW II (1939-1945) will be copyfree not earlier then in 2009 - 2015. This is practical conclusion of all your remarks in this case. And all questioned by you on this basis photos belonges to this category.

I hope you see - it is an absurd. I would like to finish this discussion with one small request : Bitte um die Ruhe about non-existing copyrights (and - in consquence - material claims) of anonymous workers ( Kulturtragern) of Reichsministerium für Volksaufklärung und Propaganda and all its agencies like Deutsches Nachrichten Buro, Das Reich, Volkischer Beobachter , anonymous war correspondents attached to Waffen SS or Wehrmacht troops and so on.. Please.

And in any case it would be easier ( and just) to consider, that regulations of art. 72 UrhG ( fifty years of protection of copyright in case of non-art photographs) are suitable to this case. Apart from it as I have previous written - there are strictly (and detailed) international regulations of idea of art-photographs (Berne Convention,and Directive of EC) with explicitly expressed ban for widening this term. So, you should present regularly jurisdiction from European Court in Strasburg,or at least exactly (detailed) jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of BRD to confirm your private views on UrhG 72 and the area it deals. Your personal view , that "common" photos are only the "automatic one" is in contrary with esence of copyright - automatic photos are just copyfree - because they has not any author in fact. UrhB Art.72 secures copyright for non-art photos for fifty years ( broadly than Berne Convention (25y.) and prieviously KUG (in acc with this Convention also 25 y. for all sort of photos)).

Let me reminde , that cited by you KUG for every kind of photos ( without categorizing) had secured ten years (1907-1940) , and from 1940 twenty five years of copyright protection (KUG Art.26) from a date of publication. The distinction between common and art- photos was made by international conventions in 1950-ties and 1990-ties . It doesn't mean however that every common photos (Lichtbilder) done ( and in particular - published) before 1950-ties were automatically transformed (reclassified) into art photos (Lichtbildwerke). The art photos are the special kind of photos ( with special original internal features depicted in conventions) and only for this features are distincted from the "common" ones.

In general there is in fact no question to discuss this question in connection with photos from 1930-ties and 1940-ties. There is also an old rule of Latin Civil Law :lex retro non agit (the law is not retroactive ). It has its limitations towards copyright law , but in fact not in this particular case.

Best regards:

Andros64 09:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

"There is also an old rule of Latin Civil Law :lex retro non agit (the law is not retroactive)." - The UrhG referes especially to that "Abschnitt 2 Übergangsbestimmungen § 129 Werke (1) Die Vorschriften dieses Gesetzes sind auch auf die vor seinem Inkrafttreten geschaffenen Werke anzuwenden, es sei denn, daß sie zu diesem Zeitpunkt urheberrechtlich nicht geschützt sind oder daß in diesem Gesetz sonst etwas anderes bestimmt ist. Dies gilt für verwandte Schutzrechte entsprechend." The UrhG is retroaktice.Ebenda 13:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

why do you think that the intelectual property of the images taken by people working for the government of the IIIrd Reich is owned by the state and not by that person. According to the UrhG this cannot be possible. Please refer to some specific article of the KUG if this was different at that time. Please also refer to some decisions by a german court that supports your opinion. Because I can't see how your view is supported by the UrhG. -- Gorgo 14:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] direct answer to Ebenda

I have written above There is also an old rule of Latin Civil Law :lex retro non agit (the law is not retroactive ). It has its limitations towards copyright law , but in fact not in this particular case.

Of course UrhG is retroactive in this area, where f.ex. prolongs existing copyrights.For this reason exactly art. 72.UrhG is simply repeating of regulations of Berne Convention according terms of protecting common copyrights. It does mean that the stipulations of KUG towards photos for 25 y. protection was prolonged to 50 years in common (Art.72 Abs.3), and for 70 y. in particular cases depicted in international conventions.

However nor UrhG, nor any other civil law has retroactive consequences to the acts of will , contracts, cessions, transfers of property between subjects of law , which were made before in different state of law (conditions) ( in Germany BGB in accordance with KUG ).

As you see I try to be precise. When you are quoting me, do it in all context , please

With best wishes: Andros64 14:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

And shortly for Gorgo - I have written, that Art.72 is in effect in this case.

When you are opposite - the subject of proof is on yours , not on my side. I am correct. In 1930-1940 as I have written above it was the subject of BGB in according with KUG, and all legal deeds made in that time are considered on this basis. When you would like to be an advocate of Reichsministerium für Volksaufklärung und Propaganda and all its agencies like Deutsches Nachrichten Buro and its workers - it's your right - but you have to confirm and prove your legal attitude. Best wishes:

Andros64 14:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nonsense, delete!

In the German Wikipedia we have with good reasons not to accept such a dubious exception. According to § 31 IV UrhG the copyright is now owned by the photographer and if he is not 70 years dead the pictures have to be deleted. No further arguments are needed, ask Lupo in the case you do nut trust me. --Historiograf 19:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anserwing to nonsense - Nonsense

Tranlate in detail into English the following text of German UrhG please, and comment , if you can in short words what does it mean:

UrhG § 72 Lichtbilder

(1) Lichtbilder und Erzeugnisse, die ähnlich wie Lichtbilder hergestellt werden, werden in entsprechender Anwendung der für Lichtbildwerke geltenden Vorschriften des Teils 1 geschützt.

(2) Das Recht nach Absatz 1 steht dem Lichtbildner zu.

(3) Das Recht nach Absatz 1 erlischt fünfzig Jahre nach dem Erscheinen des Lichtbildes oder, wenn seine erste erlaubte öffentliche Wiedergabe früher erfolgt ist, nach dieser, jedoch bereits fünfzig Jahre nach der Herstellung, wenn das Lichtbild innerhalb dieser Frist nicht erschienen oder erlaubterweise öffentlich wiedergegeben worden ist. Die Frist ist nach § 69 zu berechnen.

Source: bundesrecht.juris.de/urhg

And then try to explain the others, why should be photos from 1940 copyrighted longer then to 1990.

And than explain to non-German on what law basis you want to prolong the protecion of these Nazi official photos of 1939-1945.

Eventually Supreme Court of BRD verdicts very desired.

Thank you in advance

Andros64 20:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. See WP:PD#German World War II images. BTW, the legal successor of the "Deutsches Nachrichtenbüro" (DNB) appears to be dpa.[30] Furthermore, these photos are not simple photographs ("Lichtbild") but photographic works ("Lichtbildwerk"). The copyright term for works, including photographic works, is defined in §64-69 UrhG (70 years p.m.a.). Because these are works, §72 is not applicable anyway. And finally I note that all these images are lacking an immediate source, and some bear a © notice (which may be unfounded). Lupo 20:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Answering to Lupo

1. DPA is a new subject of law (juridical subject), not the legal succesor of BND ( which was govermental property of state -IIIrd Reich) and the only connection is in the same area of working.( The webpage you have quoted confirmes it). See - the solutions of Allied powers in 1945 and later (Potsdamer Conference and solutions of Allied Control Council), to the date of establihing BRD (October 1949). With legal dissolving of the IIIrd Reich as a state , all material rights (claims) of non-existing state ceased to exist, or were transferred to the possesion of Allied Powers. Thus in consequence is a difference beetween German public records of WWII and the private ones, and in particular oficial public records of the IIIrd Reich (diplomatic events, and so on). The same situation is in the case of property of NSDAP as a political party - and subject of civil law.

Between May 1945 ( arresting by British authorities Admiral Donitz as President of Germany and the whole last goverment of IIIrd Reich ( Reichsregierung ) ) and establishing BRD (October 1949) there was no any German State at all as a subject of international an civil law with all its consequences.

• Are you trying to assert that Germany (BRD) were not the (or a) successor state of the Third Reich? Also, please do not confound the issue by mixing "public domain", "public records", and "official governmental publications". Lupo 13:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

2. In consequence your attitude is correct towards private photographs ( and in cited NARA webpage there is strictly dictiction between public (govermental) - which are without any restrictions, and private, which were the subject of copyright. This is a consequence of legal deeds from #.1 . You exactly know , how strictly in the USA the subject of copyrights is treated. Would you like to tell (suggest) us , that US Federal Agency permanently violates international copyright law? No- Public records of govermental agencies of the IIIrd Reich are just copyfree ( for the reasons described in #.1). And NARA consequently put into public domain without restrictions materials of Auswartiges Amt( Foreign Office of Germany) , DNB, Deutsche Wochenschau ( work of DNB). Just visit the page of NARA and book a microfilms. I'm sure you well know about it.

• Wochenschauen are copyrighted, the copyrights are held by Transit Films GmbH, who have followed the U.S. procedures to be able to enforce their copyrights also in the U.S. See WP:PD#German World War II images. The NARA does provide access to some confiscated German WWII-era images under a rather special provision in 17 USC 104A, which did not restore copyright in the U.S. under the URAA in 1996 on items on which the German government was the copyright holder (17 USC 104A(a)(2)). Furthermore, note that copyrights on most seized materials were returned by the U.S. authorities to the foreign authors in 1962 (Pub. L. No. 87-846, 87th Cong., 2d Sess., 76 Stat. 1107). See Patry, W.F. Copyright Law and Practice, Introduction, "Trading With the Enemy Act". In that law, the U.S. retained the right "to reproduce, for its own use, or exhibit any divested copyrighted motion picture films." See Federal Register Vol. 63, No. 74 / Friday, April 17, 1998. That amounts to a compulsory, non-exclusive license for seized films on behalf of the U.S. authorities; but it doesn't make these works public domain. Finally, please note that all this applies only within the U.S. It does not apply anywhere else. Lupo 13:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

3.I don't know for what reason the detail rule of German Copyright Law depicted directly to photos ( art. 72 UrhG)( "lex specialis" ) ( it should be good translate into English - would you kind to do it yourselves , or shall I do?) shall not be in effect only on basis of private opinions, or voting on German Wikipedia. Does German law does not exit , or existing partly? In such case why was copyrights for photos strictly divided from the other ones ( Art 64-69 are general terms for every rights ( "lex generalis" ) ) . If Art. 72 UrhG is not necessary, it is easy way for Bundestag to repeal it ;).

• Are you aware of the distinction between a simple photograph ("Lichtbild") and a photographic work ("Lichtbildwerk")? Under German laws, virtually all photographs are "Lichtbildwerke". U.S. law doesn't even know the distinction. Both in the U.S. and in Germany, photographs that show only the tiniest bit of originality/creativity are copyrighted as works. See e.g. de:Schöpfungshöhe, or en:threshold of originality. Lupo 13:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

4. The only basis for apply the regulations of law is only direct meaning of law, and in disputable cases - verdict of Supreme Court of BRD in such case ( detailed interpretation of regulations - art. 72 UrhG)or European Court of Human Rights. Private opinions cannot and should not substitute it.

• There were cases confirming that WWII-era copyrights were restored by virtue of EU directive 93/98/EEC. See WP:PD#German World War II images, where the relevant links are given (OLG Hamburg 3.3.2004, 5 U 159/03). Lupo 13:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

5. In the end - I was wrong applying German licence to the photos made in Ukraine in early thirties, and Polish and unknown photos made in Katyn (Russia) in 1943. The licence towards Ukraine will be change after resuming this discussion (Polish was just changed). Such discussions as above are usefully just for correct the wrong views for everybody.

• Photographs of German nationals, or photographs first published in Germany (e.g. by the DNB) have Germany as a country of origin. See e.g. the Berne Convention, article 3. Note that the place where the work was created (or the photograph was taken) is not mentioned. Changing these to Polish or Ukrainian licenses is thus just wrong. Lupo 13:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

6. I can unterstand, that German art-photographers today are in interest to broadening interpretation of law :)) ( and take every photo as a piece of art). However, it is in no connection with possibity using worldwide ( this is Wikimedia Commons - not German Wikipedia) the public records from 30-ties or 40-ties of XX century with expired (in anyway) copyrights . As I have written above it should made impossible to present in public till 2009-2015 photos, which are present in public domain (public property) just now - and worldwide without any restrictions.

• The UK had the "Enemy Property Act" which "extinguished all German interests, both copyright and ownership, in all material belonging to former German enemies (whether individuals or businesses) which was brought into the UK between 3 September 1939 and 9 July 1951." [31] This act was repealed in 1976. [32]. For more info, see http://www.enemyproperty.gov.uk/ and the reports available for download there. That info applies only within the UK. Outside of the U.S. and the UK, German WWII-era works are copyrighted just like any other work. I am not aware of other countries having had rules akin to those of the U.S. Office of the Alien Property Custodian or to the Enemy Property Act in the UK. German WWII-era works are certainly not PD "worldwide". Lupo 13:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

7. Accidentaly I am an historian and lawyer by profession. I have presented my attitude very detailed and I will be very grateful - do not force any opinions without confirming in detail on proper basis.

With best wishes: Andros64 08:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Appendix

1. Are you aware of the distinction between a simple photograph ("Lichtbild") and a photographic work ("Lichtbildwerk") ? On what law basis you have to exclude "almost all" photographs from acting 72 UrhG ? I have not seen any legal definition in UrhG of this two sorts of works. In any case art photographs are exception to the general rule ( art.72 ). You had not presented any positive evidence against ( apart from private opinion) .The only one may be the verdict of Supreme Court of BRD or ECHR according to intellectual property.

• See de:Lichtbildwerk and de:Schöpfungshöhe. Lots of court decisions. Lupo 15:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• • "Lots" - 2 verdicts (one of SC of Germany , one from Bayern) , apart from this particular case Both confirmes the strictly distincton beetwen common and art photos.

2. Non-existing of any German state from 1945 to 1949 is out of discussion and you don't take it into account.

And in consequence you are talking all the time about private ( not state )property and - in this question - you are right

All your remarks are concerning this subject. But it is apart from essence of case. (NARA does provide access to some confiscated German WWII-era images under a rather special provision in 17 USC 104A, which did not restore copyright in the U.S. under the URAA in 1996 on items on which the German government was the copyright holder (17 USC 104A(a)(2))- yours). And we are talking just about it - about the property of former German State.

You have just confirmed my attitude towards this particular case. Thank you. Hier ist der Hund begraben.

• No. Two things: first, the NARA explanations were just intended to show to you why the NARA can, in the U.S., make accessible some German WWII-era works. It does not apply outside of the U.S. And second, there are two conditions for 17 USC 104A(a)(2) to be applicable in the U.S.: (1) the copyright on the item must have been administered by the Alien Property Custodian, and (2) the restored copyright would, as of January 1, 1996, been owned by a foreign government or its instrumentality. Both conditions must be true. But again: all this NARA stuff is not important here; these are not NARA images, and the NARA rules would apply only in the U.S.! Lupo 15:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

3. The photos we are talking in this particular case are not from Deutsche Wochenschau.

• I never said they were. You brought up the Wochenschauen, claiming these were not copyrighted. I pointed to sources that refute that claim. Lupo 15:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

4. Intelectual property of DNB as IIIrd Reich state agency is out of protection ( items on which the German government was the copyright holder) , and nobody is its legal successor ( if is - a positive evidence, please).

• Wrong. See above. If you think that copyrights on German WWII-era images had expired worldwide, as you claimed above, you have to provide proof. Proof, not just your unsourced private opinion. Lupo 15:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• • Wow. Again and again and again. I don't know who would hold the copyright on these works today—the original copyright owner surely was the photographer, but he might have transferred the exploitation rights to a legal person such as a state agency—but that is not so important in these cases. In any case the legal successor of the "Deutsches Nachrichtenbüro" (DNB) appears to be dpa (see [17]). As we know, copyrights on German WWII-era photographs did expire indeed, but were restored in 1995 by EU directive 93/98/EEC throughout the whole European Union. And furthermore, these are clearly photographic works ("Lichtbildwerke"), not simple photographs ("Lichtbild"). Lupo 20:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC) - :))
    • If you quote me, at least have the decency to read the quote. These copyrights were restored in 1995 by EU directive 93/98/EEC throughout the whole European Union. Thank you for your attention. Now, please, provide independent proof for your assertions. Lupo 16:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Exactly - it means,that copyright protecton towards German photos from WWII is 1. limited to the private photos ( not govermental ones ) 2. limited to private German photos only in the area of EU. ( so , f.ex. only in Europe - Switzerland, Norway, Ukraine, Croatia, Serbia,FYROM, Russia, Belorus etc are not suited to that interpretation). That's conclusion.

5. The anonymous photos from Ukraine , and from Katyn wasn't the property of DNB (the whole Europe was occupied by Germans - vis major ) , and if any - only the legal succesor can reclaim in the case.

• Well, for example on Image:Katyn14.jpg, you wrote: "Author:unknown, first publisher :Deutsches Nachrichten Buro 1943." And the photos from the Ukraine were sourced by you to a certain engineer A. Wineberger (Germany). See e.g. Image:Ulica w Charkowie 1932.jpg. Lupo 15:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

With best wishes:

Andros64 14:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Appendix - DPA

Ownership

dpa is a limited company with around 190 shareholders (newspaper and magazine publishers, publishing houses, public and private broadcasters). No shareholder may hold more than 1.5 per cent of its capital and the broadcasting corporations are limited to a maximum of 25 per cent between them. This prevents any one shareholder from exerting an undue influence on the company. The turnover of dpa Deutsche Presse-Agentur GmbH (excluding subsidiaries and holdings) stood at 94 million Euros in 2004.

At the shareholders meeting the shareholders (current figure) determine the guidelines for running the agency [33]

DPA is private corporation (legal subject), which has nothing in common with DNB (owned exlusively by German State) through Reichsministerium für Volksaufklärung und Propaganda (Reichsminister -dr Joseph Goebbels). DPA is not legal succesor of DNB.

Details:webpage as above

best wishes Andros64 15:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Ad 72 UrhG

§ 137a Photographic Works

(1) The provisions of this Law as regards the term of copyright shall also apply to those photographic works whose term of protection under prior law has not yet expired on July 1, 1985.

(2) Where a right of exploitation in a photographic work has been assigned or transferred to another person; such assignment or transfer shall not extend, in case of doubt, to the period of time by which the term of copyright in photographic works has been extended.

§ 137a Lichtbildwerke

(1) Die Vorschriften dieses Gesetzes über die Dauer des Urheberrechts sind auch auf Lichtbildwerke anzuwenden, deren Schutzfrist am 1. Juli 1985 nach dem bis dahin geltenden Recht noch nicht abgelaufen ist. (2) Ist vorher einem anderen ein Nutzungsrecht an einem Lichtbildwerk eingeräumt oder übertragen worden, so erstreckt sich die Einräumung oder Übertragung im Zweifel nicht auf den Zeitraum, um den die Dauer des Urheberrechts an Lichtbildwerken verlängert worden ist.

[edit] Article 137a UrhG

§ 137a Photographic Works

(1) The provisions of this Law as regards the term of copyright shall also apply to those photographic works whose term of protection under prior law has not yet expired on July 1, 1985.

(2) Where a right of exploitation in a photographic work has been assigned or transferred to another person; such assignment or transfer shall not extend, in case of doubt, to the period of time by which the term of copyright in photographic works has been extended.

§ 137a Lichtbildwerke

(1) Die Vorschriften dieses Gesetzes über die Dauer des Urheberrechts sind auch auf Lichtbildwerke anzuwenden, deren Schutzfrist am 1. Juli 1985 nach dem bis dahin geltenden Recht noch nicht abgelaufen ist. (2) Ist vorher einem anderen ein Nutzungsrecht an einem Lichtbildwerk eingeräumt oder übertragen worden, so erstreckt sich die Einräumung oder Übertragung im Zweifel nicht auf den Zeitraum, um den die Dauer des Urheberrechts an Lichtbildwerken verlängert worden ist.

Unfortunately, this is not applicable. See §137f: copyrights were restored for works that were still copyrighted in any one of the other EU member countries. Lupo 09:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

deleted, following the argumentation of Lupo, Historiograf and Gorgo. --Polarlys 10:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Vista Upgrade Paths.svg

"Replaced with Image:Windows Vista Upgrade Paths.svg. This file has never been used because some portions of it is not visible, therefore it is broken and cannot be used." --Majestic 00:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Deleted. Replaced by proper file Leafnode 09:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Vista Upgrade Paths.svg

replaced with Image:Vista Upgrade Paths.png --Majestic 12:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Why do you want to replace a SVG by a PNG? --ALE! ¿…? 10:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm surprised this file still hasn't been deleted. Why to replace SVG by a PNG? Because I could not successfully create a good SVG version with GraphViz. Not all of the stuff is visible in this svg version, so I created a PNG version. Can't you see it is not what it's supposed to be? The file is broken. --Majestic 23:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

kept --ALE! ¿…? 20:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Andriy Shvchenko Chelsea.jpg

likely copyright violation - the image description on Flickr says "from the net" --Ytoyoda 00:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio, deleted. Yann 16:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Fouhami.jpg

Appears to be a copyrighted image - cropped versions appear here and here --Ytoyoda 01:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio, deleted. Yann 16:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Cape Thick-knees - Houston Zoo.jpg

My own image. I didn't realize it was so blurry. -- Cburnett 05:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

deleted 

Julo 12:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Felix.jpg

No License. Chaddy 12:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC) --Chaddy 12:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Not in use, filename conflict with different pictures in Dutch, Hebrew and Russian wikipedias. Uploader's contribution: one upload in Commons, one vandalism in Norwegian Wikipedia, nothing more.
  Deleted Julo 12:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Thps screen010.jpg

Permission obtained from Gamespot, not actual copyright holder (producer/publisher of game) --Deco 14:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted, copyvio. Yann 16:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Turnstone DSC03074.JPG

2 times the same file with .jpg or .JPG, that one is not the good one --Daplaza 20:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

done 

Julo 03:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:DSC01286.JPG

problem about file name --Daplaza 20:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

done 

Julo 03:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:DSC01278.JPG

problem about file name --Daplaza 20:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• there was another picture with this name, uploaded before. It was a picture from Armenia uploaded @ 04:59, 20 VII 2006 by User:Gegman. But it seems to be unusal, to be deleted.

done 

Julo 03:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:DSC01271.JPG

problem about file name --Daplaza 20:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Lago di Coca.jpg

duplicated of [34] Yoruno 21:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

 Delete, please use the speedy delete template {{duplicate|duplicate_image_name.jpg}} next time. Yonatanh 03:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

deleted 

Julo 01:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:2g-ipodmini-back.jpg

I am requesting this photo be deleted because it is not my best work. My skill with a camera is not great, but improving. Because of the way this photo turned out, i've concluded my camera isn't good for shiny surfaces. Hoshie 23:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Requested by the uploader. Yann 08:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:RINGrid_participants_map.jpg

abusiv GNU license. on http://www.ringrid.eu/ nothing about free copy usage Oxam Hartog 01:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC) -- Oxam Hartog 01:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

 Delete : seems unfree. Oxam Hartog 01:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

•  Delete Cbrown1023 talk 17:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. --Panther 17:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:DeerFight.jpg

Was first tagged "unknown" on English Wikipedia. Then changed to "some web site", then changed to pd-self. You can see the first upload in the log there [35] If you are an admin, you can also see the other revisions. -- Fred Chess 14:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

delete. ++Lar: t/c 23:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

•  Delete per above. Cbrown1023 talk 17:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. --Panther 17:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Sbertalan_london_timessquare_2006.jpg

Derivative work from corporations logos -- EugeneZelenko 17:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• I uploaded this picture as an illustration for advertising. It is currently used as illustration in the Wikipedia German article about advertising. It represents a view of Picadilly Circus, London, one of the most famous urban locations in the world, a place that is characterized by extensive advertising. Therefore I consider that the image has its purpose here, although it shows corporate logos. -- Sebastian Bertalan 18:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• I uploaded a replacement for this file. It's the same picture, but with corrected caption and more adequate filename. Therfore this picture should be deleted. The replacement is Image:Picadilly_Circus_London_by_night_2006.jpg -- Sebastian Bertalan 19:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Should be Speedy Deleted per author request in second bullet. Cbrown1023 talk 17:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted as per uploader's request. --Panther 17:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Tram interior edit1.jpg

right of own photo? --217.88.148.183 14:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, what does this mean? howcheng {chat} 01:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I have written 217.88.148.183 a message asking them the same question but so far they have not replied. As the photographer I can assure you there is absolutely nothing "wrong" with this image but I have yet to find out what exactly it is that anonymous contributor objects to. KF 23:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the IP wants to ask if you have a permission from the childs parents to publish this photo. see de:Recht am eigenen Bild and fr:Droit à l'image. This is a complicated question for an international project. --Ikiwaner 13:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep non withstanding any strong assertation that this is not published under an approriate license. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
•  Keep Same as Xaosflux. Yann 08:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
•  Keep As above. Additionally, we should use our common sense: (1) this photo does not hurt anybody's personal rights - this girl's nor her parents'; (2) in practice, nobody knows the name of this girl; (3) she is now five years older than on this photo, and must seem quite different - I'm sure she is even not to be recognited. Julo 02:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
•  Keep This picture is now in competition for POTY 2006. Not a very good time for this question Alvesgaspar 09:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
•  Keep Manchot 17:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• Kept. --Panther 17:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Henrique Matos

He's not a notable painter, I couldn't find anything about him (COM:PS). This request applies to all his own paintings images and respective category: Category:Henrique Matos. --Dantadd✉ 19:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

•  Keep The copyright is OK, so I don't see why it should be deleted. "Wikimedia Commons is a media file repository" is enough justification for keeping this. Yann 08:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Kept as per Yann. --Panther 17:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Australian infantry small box respirators Ypres 1917 edit.jpg

Redundant duplicate used for feature picture nomination at w:Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Trenches of the Great War. Original image is at Image:Australian infantry small box respirators Ypres 1917.jpg --Gsl 21:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted by Zirland: Dupe of Image:Australian infantry small box respirators Ypres 1917.jpg

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

[edit] Image:Australian Infantry with Small Box Respirators Ypres 1917.jpg

Redundant duplicate used for featured picture nomination at w:Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Trenches of the Great War now moved over the original image at Image:Australian infantry small box respirators Ypres 1917.jpg. --Gsl 21:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted by Howcheng: duplicate image

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

[edit] Image:Germans pass by the broken shop window of a Jewish-owned business that was destroyed during Kristallnacht.jpg

Old incomplete deletion request of 7. April 2006. Reason: sorry -> Commons:Village_pump, license ok?. Besides, they switched from PD to "Copyright: USHMM" in the last 24h, funny business. --tickle me 00:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC) User:Tickle me.

See Discussion Commons:Village_pump_archive-27#Photos_related_to_the_Kristallnacht_-_license_ok.3F. --GeorgHH 18:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

deleted, --Polarlys 00:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:5_Wroclaw_014.jpg

who will use this pic with that obscene watermark (which i really don't think can be removed)? I don't see how this will be used on any wikimedia project. -- Yonatanh 03:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

 Delete All this disabled pics delete at once! --Wst ^question 07:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

deleted 

Julo 09:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

but there are still plenty of such photos of this author: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Shalom_Alechem

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

[edit] Image:FlagFigueras.gif

This photo was copied from www.vexilologia.es/gerona uploader had claimed own work Sonuwe 15:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted by Yann: copyvio

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

[edit] Image:LarryBirdStatue.jpg

Derivative work of a copyrighted statue. Indoor photograph. Lupo 20:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted as a copyvio. Please use {{derivative}} for such requests. Kjetil_r 21:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Khojaly Monument.jpg

This image has not been properly tagged and is POV. -- Aivazovsky 21:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The image was properly tagged {{PD-self}} before someone removed it with a bad deletion request. It looks like that user found a copy on answers.com and thought this was a copyvio, however answers.com regularly copies large amounts of content from wikipedia, including images, so in fact the copying went the other way. The original image description had a little bit of descriptive info that was also removed with the deletion request. Restore the original license tag and info, and  Keep. It could use a much better description and categories to be sure... it looks like nl-wiki uses this image on a couple pages, maybe that text would help. Carl Lindberg 05:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep, not a copyvio. Yann 17:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Khojaly_Monument.jpg

Azerbaijan has a restrictive (non-comercial only) freedom of panorama hence these image is violating copyrights. VartanM 02:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• The copyright law of Azerbaijan says:

Article 20. Use of Works Permanently Located in a Public Place

The reproduction, broadcasting or communication to the public by cable of architectural works, photographic works and works of fine art permanently located in a public place shall be permissible without the author's consent and without payment of remuneration, except where the presentation of the work constitutes the main feature of the said reproduction, broadcast or communication to the public by cable, if it is used for commercial purposes[36].

VartanM 02:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

VartanM, since when is Wikipedia - free online encyclopedia, is used for "commercial purposes"? And how come the monument to Khojaly Massacre victims is the only thing that again came to be your concern? Atabek 07:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

•  Keep since it's not a copyvio, and remove the 2 identical tags from the image page --Kimse 07:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment, I would bold the main feature of the said reproduction ... for commercial purposes. It seems this image does not go against Azerbaijan copyright law, as it is not the main feature of any reproduction, and is/will be used for illustrative purposes. However on the other hand, I wouldn't vote keep on this particular image, I'd like to see the original uploaded, without the "special" effects. Furthermore, is 209 × 344 really the highest resolution that you can upload, I would be suspicious of claims to ownership of the image in this case. - FrancisTyers 08:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Remove 209 × 344 is unlikely ownership resolution, as mentioned above. - FrancisTyers 09:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Note: I added this to the current day, as it is very old and hasn't been closed.

Deleted, this should have been done sooner. The monument is the main feature of the reproduction, and so this image can't be used for commercial purpose. Our licensing requirements are what they are. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 06:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Lyuli woman begging Kazan.JPG

The racist prejudices against Lyuli found their way also here. How could such photo be representative for a people? Plus, the figure of that person is unclear. --Desiphral 12:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Now there is agreement here with the author to change the name to Lyuli woman with child in Kazan, Russia. I think an administrator can do this. Thank you, Desiphral 00:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I created Image:Lyuli woman with child in Kazan, Russia.JPG, now Image:Lyuli woman begging Kazan.JPG should be deleted as duplicate. Desiphral 20:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Renamed, so deleted as duplicate. Yann 00:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Senegal2.jpg

1- This image is too small: the quality isn't enough in case of printing. Images should have a maximum of resolution. 2- Interest for projects: we can't see structure or decoration of huts which are so smalls Try to print it, we see anything in details. Where is the interest ? 3- A member of the community removed my speedy deletion tag. As explain in this tag, when someone disagree the tag should be replaced by a deletion request. It's what I'm doing. --Patricia.fidi 10:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

•  Keep Yann 11:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
•  Keep Atamari 20:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
•  Keep Julo 02:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
•  Keep "Bad quality" is not a speedy delete reason, and even for regular deletion, I think it would have to be very bad quality (i.e. not even useful on a web page at web resolution). This image is in use by several wikipedias (use the "check usage" tab on the image page to see), so by definition it is useful and would never be deleted for a "low quality" reason. If an equivalent image of better resolution is uploaded, with at least as good licensing terms, then this image could be replaced on wikis (and possibly deleted as redundant, if the new image is essentially the same). Obviously high resolution images are preferred, but low and medium resolution images are better than nothing, and would only be deleted if the same image at higher resolution has been uploaded first. Carl Lindberg 04:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
•  Keep Cbrown1023 talk 17:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)