Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2007/03

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

[edit] Image:TexasLonghorn.jpg

The image is actually tagged {{cc-by-nd-2.0}} at Flickr not {{cc-by-2.0}} as tagged here. This is not acceptable for use on Wikipedia. --[[User:Nv8200p|Nv8200p]] 12:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy  Delete as an obvious unfree license. Also, you might wanna fix your signature. ;) Yonatanh 02:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Deleted by Herbythyme. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 14:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Ennio_Morricone.JPG

I doubt that the uploader is the author of this picture -- Hedwig in Washington 17:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

•  Delete most probably a copyvio. --ALE! ¿…? 09:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio - see this one, for example. --Dodo 12:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Design_Review_Process_Team_Draft_Charter.JPG

useless scan, probably a copyvio, cause seems like an off. doc. Speeddelete? -- Hedwig in Washington 18:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Deleted by MesserWoland: In category Unknown as of 1 March 2007; not edited for 7 days

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

[edit] Image:Chicago Video art face fountain 1.jpg

Obviously not PD-old, no freedom of panorama for sculptures in the USA. See also Image:Chicago Video art face fountain 2.jpg. --Jastrow (Λέγετε) 11:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

•  Delete per nom. Yonatanh 02:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
•  Neutral, but if you delete this, then check out the whole Category:Video art: the same logic should apply. In which cae, it might be useful to place a warning on the category page saying that only this or that kind of pic will be allowed. – Tintazul ^talk 13:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• Good point. Image:Escupidor.JPG & Image:Millennium-park-wall-squirt-in-chicago-ill-usa.jpg represent the same work of art. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 13:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I do not understand the reason for deletion, what does "no freedom of panorama" mean exactly? Thanks. Regards--Sergio 21:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Freedom of panorama is a legal concept existing in some countries which allow you to take a photograph of a copyrighted building/artwork standing on public space (which is the case here) without infringing the architect/artist's copyright. Unfortunately, this concept does not apply for sculptures in the USA. Thus, Image:Chicago Video art face fountain 1.jpg and the other pictures representing the same work of art are copyvios. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 09:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification! Therefore, I understand that Image:Escupidor.JPG needs to be deleted as well (sad news, I am the author and liked that picture a lot....but such is life). Regards!--Sergio 16:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

All deleted -- Bryan (talk to me) 10:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Janosch-Rosenheim.jpg

Copyrighted cartoon characters, no free licensing possible --89.56.212.12 21:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

•  Delete derivative work --ALE! ¿…? 09:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
•  Delete See above, and there is no permission of the creator of the poster either. (BTW: These are not comic or cartoon characters.) --80.129.91.187 12:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Deleted by Bryan: derivative work

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

[edit] Image:Armauer Hansen.jpg

GFDL isn’t a correct licence here, PD on de.wp but also no reason for this licence --Polarlys 22:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The stamp seems to be from 1873 so it seems like it's old enough to be in the PD and I suppose GFDL is the license given to the scan\photo of the stamp (this license might not be valid if measured up to creativity standards in some countries such as the US but it doesn't mean it isn't valid). If the uploader scanned the stamp himself, if he changes it to GFDL-self I see no reason for deletion. Yonatanh 01:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it's not from 1873, but from 1973 (look at the bottom border of the stamp). --88.134.140.64 13:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

It’s from 1973. Stamps from the 19th century don’t look that way and this stamp was done in remembrance of Hansen’s work (identification of Mycobacterium leprae in 1873). Scanning an artwork in the public domain, „releasing“ it under GFDL is copyfraud. --Polarlys 14:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks like you're probably right so the artwork isn't in the public domain so the copyfraud argument is irrelevant anyway. Releasing the scan of a public domain work probably wouldn't be considered copyfraud IMHO as even though somebody could probably use it without acknowledging its GFDL status as a 2D depiction of a public domain work of art in the US, in many other countries the GFDL status would hold and either way it's a close call so I don't think it'd be considered copyfraud. Yonatanh 19:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

This stamp is from 1973. No Scandinavian stamps looked even remotely like this 100 years ago. The image is copyrighted and the rights belong to the Norwegian Mail. Unless we have permission from those: delete. Valentinian ^(talk) 23:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] Photographs showing Cadillac Ranch

First, please forgive my bad English, as my mother tongue is French.

This request concerns :

• Image:2006-08-22 - United States - Texas - Amarillo - Cadillac Ranch - Graffiti.jpg
• Image:Amarillo Texas Cadillac Ranch1 2005-05-29.jpg
• Image:Amarillo Texas Cadillac Ranch2 2005-05-29.jpg
• Image:Amarillo Texas Cadillac Ranch3 2005-05-29.jpg
• Image:Amarillo Texas Cadillac Ranch4 2005-05-29.jpg
• Image:route66 126.jpg
• Image:route66 127.jpg
• Image:route66 128.jpg

Cadillac Ranch is a sculpture that was created in 1974 by three artists who were a part of the group Ant farm. These pictures, therefore, violate Ant Farm's copyright.

On its official website, Ant Farm claims that it has pursued legal protection of its copyright in numerous cases in which photos of Cadillac Ranch were used in advertising: it means that commercial use is not free, which is not compatible with Commons' policy. /84•5/1.03.2007/02:22 UTC/

All deleted: derivative work, no freedom of panorama. -- Bryan (talk to me) 10:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Ambient_Noise.ogg

Why should a German Gov./Military Office give there data away as pd? They don't license under GNU-GFDL -- Hedwig in Washington 18:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

File is currently pending permission via OTRS [1]. If copyright holder agrees to terms file will be kept. If copyright holder does not agree it will be deleted. --|EPO| 16:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Category:Climate W+L diagrams of the USA

old, unused category, new climate chart cats are already added --Hedwig in Washington 17:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted by Herbythyme: content was: '{{speedydelete|old, unused category, new climate chart cats are already added}}}' (and the only contributor was User:Hedwig in Washington)

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

[edit] Category:Leif Juster

empty category --Hedwig in Washington 17:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. Kjetil r 04:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Tri.PNG

The page was blanked by uploader which could mean that he wants to delete the image -- Meno25 19:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't find the original but it seems to be a logo of some sort that was made in 1971 which would make it a copyvio, that is, if it isn't PD-ineligible as it's a fairly simple design. Yonatanh 21:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. Not in use. Assume uploader wants it deleted.--MichaelMaggs 17:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:300px-Delaunay ChampDeMars.jpg

The deleteion was originally from january but has not listed here. The artist Robert Delaunay died 1941 so the picture is Copyvio. --Rlbberlin 09:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Deleted -- Bryan (talk to me) 10:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Picasso pablo.jpg

Licensing section uses {{PD-old}} but there is no information about the person who made this image. How can we be sure that the photographer died before 1937, which should allow the condition of "with a copyright term of life of the author plus 70 years"?
Image seems to be used, now, on only 5 Wikimedias projects: WP-FR, WP-JA, WP-PT, WP-ES and WP-BG
Hégésippe | ±Θ± 20:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

•  Delete Dantadd✉ 23:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC) - The picture should have been taken between 1910-1920, but the author could have died in 1970...

deleted, --Polarlys 13:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:That's why my mom always told me to cross my legs when I wore a skirt.jpg

not within the project’s scope --Polarlys 16:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I already applied to delete it herebefore I noticed its from the commons. -- DarkScipio IP:172.183.39.192 19:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Commons:Project_scope says The Commons may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive. Commons:Deletion_guidelines says The file/page is not potentially usable by any current or future Wikimedia project. The picture is used on it.wikipedia and was used on de.wikipedia until DarkScipio removed it. I don't see a reason why this picture should be deleted. Therefore keep. --84.141.2.174 20:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

To illustrate miniskirt other images are more applicable. --Polarlys 18:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree too--Rottweiler 16:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest a crop of the image, but that is pointless in a deletion debate. Regardless, this is a keeper in my book. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 23:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, the file could use a rename to something like "Miniskirt at Dodger Stadium (date goes here).jpg." User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 23:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

 Keep --217.224.116.209 15:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. --Petronas 20:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

•  Delete. No encyclopedic value and a violation of "Compromising or embarrassing images of non-public people taken without their * knowledge are often problematic." Regards, Ben Aveling 04:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• So  Keep --Rottweiler 15:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Kept. --GeorgHH 20:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Moved from Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Coat of arms of the Soviet Union.svg --Cat ^Chi? 21:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Renominating. Is based only on Wikipedia's images - i.e. actually unsourced. And contains multiple errors (see [2]). None of them were fixed since the previous nomination and widely spread with this image over some 50 interwikis, good PD version is available --Cmapm 16:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer a vector (svg) version to a pixel (png) version. --UV 22:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

We have sourced and free (public domain) PNG available. Which may be converted to SVG by/for someone who prefers it. The question is: why should we keep highly erroneous (it contains more than 20 errors) and unsourced image, no matter whether it's png, svg, jpg, whatever? Cmapm 01:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I also would prefer the .svg to the .png. It's clearer and conforms with the other .svg maps and diagrams of the pages on which this would be placed. The language errors are a major issue, asthetic disputes much less so (a thick border?), but for its purposes a simple notice of its inaccuracies on the description page could not hurt. Would the original uploader be able to update the .svg to correct his errors? I'm sure, based on the quality of that emulation, that the artist is profiecient enough to know to save files with layer information. a l τ o n .ıl 08:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I should prefer .svg to .png too. I notified the uploader of the possible deletion, but they don't take part in the discussion and therefore aren't interested in correcting their errors. There is already a notice on the description page, that the image is erroneous and a link to place where errors are listed. But people who upload the image to other interwikis don't always include description in English there. And if they include, usually they don't translate it to the interwiki's language. But even if the description is included and translated, not all people look into image description page.

The main my point is that erroneous image is spreading over interwikis, and I can't tolerate the situation, where more and more folks have the reason to say: "those stupid Soviets were not able to write even four words correctly in my language". Cmapm 14:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so based on the information posted at the image page, the file was done in Inkscape. I am using this program now and there is no way we could type in the various characters and accent marks without leaving stuff out. I still need to see if the order of the text is at least correct, then I will try and fix up the text to the best to my ability. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 18:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

If you can explain the errors I'm quite sure that I can modify the file and fix them. --F l a n k e r 13:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

PS: the vantage of the vector format (SVG) is not only that is a format not subdued to the resolution, but also that is highly and easily editable.

For language errors, there is a table showing correct inscriptions. If you believe, that explicit exact list of language errors should be more helpful, I can try to compile it.

Other necessary fixes follow from the comparison with the sourced .png version: sickle should be with cogs, grains of ears should be without black strokes, globe border should be as thin as meridian/parallel lines; colours should be like on the .png version, especially needs to be fixed: colour of ribbons, colour of the hammer/sickle, of the sun and of the ears. Cmapm 14:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Mhm! A lot of work, eh? OK, I've managed to fix the sickle, now preceding to modify the ribbon. As I said is a lot of work, (I've redone from scratch the ribbon) so I've need a couple of day to do all the corrections. Thanks for the suggestions, is perfect to copy/paste all the inscriptions. Cheers, F l a n k e r 15:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've fixed the inscriptions (I hope!). Please tell me if they are correct now. Redone also the sickle, the ribbon, the sun, the earth (border thickness and meridians, that now are connected), modified the colors, removed the spikes from the wheat and done some minor improvements. And now the arms are nearer. What do remains to do? F l a n k e r 20:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks pretty good Flanker, good job. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 22:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Watching the similar images in the same category give me some other details: I must disconnect the meridians of the globe. Than the shadows on the lower part of the ribbon are asymmetric. And, at last, in the original images the wheat can be seen through the ribbon. --F l a n k e r 00:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

 Done It is good enuogh to be saved from deletion? --F l a n k e r 01:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

 Keep I believe so. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 03:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

 Keep This version looks much better. Strange how memory can deceive you; I remembered the landmass as outlined in black. Apparently that's not the case. Valentinian ^(talk) 18:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Update. I've tried to compare the ribbons with the list at [3]. Would you mind rechecking the Armenian text? The last letter looks like a Latin "f" and according to the FOTW page, the Armenian version doesn't use the exclamation mark. The rest of the ribbons look ok to me, but I haven't tried to verify the rest of the Armenian text, since I'm very unfamiliar with the lowercase forms in this alphabet. Is it correct that the Armenian text isn't all uppercase forms? Please also double check the Belarusian version. The text on the description page spells "proletarians" as "Пралетарыі", but the upper-case version is shows two identical letters at the end of this word. Zach, do you know enough about Belarusian ortography to check this one? Valentinian ^(talk) 19:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

If we compare with the version here the Armenian text should be upper-case forms. There is also a typo in the Romanian / "Moldovan" text. The word "УНИЦИ‑ВЭ" is misspelled (the second "И"). Valentinian ^(talk) 19:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I've checked the JPG version of the seal, and yes, the Armenian don't have the exlamation mark, so I'm going to delete it and make all the text uppercase. For the Byelorussian text the world is ПРАЛЕТАРЫІ (the uppercase і is an I, you can compare the page you have just linked). --F l a n k e r 19:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC) (PS: correcting also the Moldavian! I have copied and pasted the text in the table of the original PNG image.)

 Done and thanks for the suggestions, --F l a n k e r 20:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

According to the blown up image of the BSSR arms I have, the text that is on the image now is correct. It looks like two I's, but it looks perfect now. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 04:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

 Keep, it's good enough. —Nightstallion (?) 21:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Cmapm, what do you thinking about? --F l a n k e r 00:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. I think this is a great work, thank you! And at the same time it's a pity, that the original uploader was so disrespectful to the insignia of my country. Cmapm 12:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

 Keep Looks very close to the original now. Cmapm 12:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much! --F l a n k e r 13:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Kept, this is a work of art now. nice collaborative effort there :) --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 14:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Font-button.png

useless for commons & wikipedias -- Hedwig in Washington 17:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Deleted (unused), pfctdayelise (说什么?) 15:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Jadernyhrib-button.png

useless for commons & wikipedias -- Hedwig in Washington 17:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it is useful, I began to use it on cs.wikipedia in my custom edit toolbar. --Aktron 18:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Kept, pfctdayelise (说什么?) 15:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Upravit-button.png

useless for commons & wikipedias -- Hedwig in Washington 17:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, this one is not good, you can delete it. --Aktron 18:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Deleted, pfctdayelise (说什么?) 15:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Vjazyce-button.png

useless for commons & wikipedias -- Hedwig in Washington 17:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it is useful, I began to use it on cs.wikipedia in my custom edit toolbar. --Aktron 18:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC) Me too. --Japo 08:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Kept, pfctdayelise (说什么?) 14:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Images of Canadian Banknotes

I have found at [4] that in order to use the images of the banknotes, we must obtain permission from the Bank of Canada, the authority that issues the notes, before we can use their likenesses. Granted, the website that hosts the images of the currency, the Bank of Canada, does have a copyright status of "Copyright © 1995 - 2007, Bank of Canada. Permission is granted to reproduce or cite portions herein, if attribution is given to the Bank of Canada." However, based on the additional reading I have done, I do not believe we can use the banknotes under the policies set by the Bank, and eventually, we cannot host them ourselves since we cannot host educational use only images anymore. Thoughts? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 04:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

 Delete They have too many restrictions, not only the permission part but also the reproduction. IMHO, this is the most important point (but IANAL). PatríciaR ^msg 21:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

 Comment: Canadian organizational copyright lasts for 50 years since publication.  Delete all images if still copyrighted. We should carefully think of a tag for older Canadian banknotes warning that counterfeiting is a very serious non-copyright crime.--Jusjih 15:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I just find that all Canadian tire money images under this category are obvious copyvios.--Jusjih 15:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

If the images are 50 years old (so pretty much nothing with HM Queen Elizabeth II except in her early reign), then we can save those, but there are many we just taken from the Bank of Canada, so we need to delete those. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 23:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Kept the category while older notes can be added here. Meanwhile, I am adding Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2007/Images of Canadian coins less than 50 years old while newer coins would also be copyrighted.--Jusjih 15:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:4punktsmodell.jpeg

Vector version is available --De.Nobelium 14:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

deleted Julo 19

14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Smithonite.jpg

bad name Vassil 01:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. In the future, please use {{badname}} --Davepape 15:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:20pesos.jpg

is self PD? --Shizhao 03:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Deleted, derivative. -- Bryan (talk to me) 10:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:4th_Gen_Grand_Am_GT_Sedan.jpg

Very blurry image, unsuable, delete. -- Siebrand 17:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Get that shit off here. 24.192.164.65 00:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

While I agree to delete, please be civil. Cchan199206 17:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

•  Delete --norro 23:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. Kjetil r 04:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:American buffalo proof vertical edit.jpg

This image is currently a featured picture at the English Wikipedia but its copyright status is unclear. The concerns are explained at w:Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/delist/American_Buffalo_Gold_Coin (starting at trialsanderrors' first comment). KFP 22:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I emailed them for clarification. ~ trialsanderrors 04:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks! --KFP 12:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
    • To copy the pertinent quote from the email exchange with the counsel from the Mint: "We provide attorneys and other persons asking for this kind of information with whatever factual information on the design we have reasonably available, and the requester discusses those facts with her or her legal adviser and comes to a legal conclusion based on the facts we provided." In other words, the ultimate evaluation whether the usage might be copyright infringement is up to the user, the Mint does not provide this kind of information. If someone wants to pursue this further, the phone number is listed in the en.wiki thread above. My opinion is that there are no indicators that unexpired copyright claims exist. The listed engraver for the 2006 edition is the same as the one for the 1916 coin. ~ trialsanderrors 08:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep also per my comments here. --Dschwen 09:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Kept. Near identical replica of a PD work (PD old from 1916) is still PD. No indication of a copyright renewal or any other indication of a copyright. -- Cat ^chi? 13:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Gies-Adler

relisted from October 5 in order to get some more input. --ALE! ¿…? 14:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

This deletion request applies to:

• Image:Fette Henne.svg
• Image:Bonn Bundeshaus old Plenary Chamber.jpg
• Image:Bonn Wasserwerk Plenarsaal.jpg
• Image:Bundesadler1992.jpg
• Image:Bundesadler2004.JPG

It seems to me that according to this decision by the BGH (German supreme court), Ludwig Gies' eagle is protected by copyright. --Phrood 19:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I found threee more.

• Image:Germany Bundestag east door with Bundesadler 4.jpg
• Image:Germany Bundestag Bundesadler 4.jpg
• Image:Germany Bundestag Bundesadler 5.jpg

--Rtc 15:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

__________________

Well, the decision actually permits the depiction of the Gies-Eagle extracts of the decision:

• "Das Berufungsgericht hat einen urheberrechtlichen Unterlassungsanspruch der Klägerin verneint."
  The court of appeals has negated the proprietary claim of omission of the suitor.

• "Auch wenn das Urheberrechtsgesetz die beanstandete Verwendung des Gies-Adlers nicht gestatte, sei sie doch durch das Grundrecht der Pressefreiheit gerechtfertigt."
  The basic law of the Freedom of the press justifies the use of the Gies-Adler, even if the copyright law does not allow the said use of the Gies Eagle.

• "Der aufgrund seiner exponierten Plazierung im (früheren) Bundestagsgebäude in der Bevölkerung überaus bekannte Gies-Adler sei für die meisten politisch interessierten Menschen mit dem Wappentier der Bundesrepublik identisch. Ihnen sei nicht bekannt, daß es sich lediglich um ein dem Wappen angenähertes Kunstwerk eines privaten Schöpfers handele. Der Gies-Adler sei somit zu einem Symbol für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland geworden und müsse auch in der Form einer unfreien Bearbeitung verwendet werden dürfen, um den Staat symbolisch darzustellen. Die Beklagte könne auch nicht auf eine andere Darstellung des Bundesadlers – etwa auf eine Adler-Darstellung, wie sie sich auf Geldmünzen befinde – verwiesen werden. Die Abwägung zu Lasten der Nutzungsberechtigten sei im übrigen gerechtfertigt, weil der Künstler durch seine Zustimmung dazu beigetragen und es bewußt in Kauf genommen habe, daß die Bevölkerung sein Werk mit dem Wappentier gleichstellen werde."
  Because of its infamous placement in the Bundestag the Gies-Adler is recognized as identical to the Federal Eagle by most politically interested people. Most people are unconcerned that the Gies-Eagle is an artwork made by a private artist similar to the Federal Eagle. Therefore the Gies-Adler has become a symbol for the Federal Republic of Germany and may be used also in this form, to represent the state in a symbolic way. The accused can further not be obliged to use a different depiction of the Federal Eagle - for example the depictions on the coinage - The decision on account of the suitor is incidentally justified since the artist (Ludwig Gies) contributed with his personal consent to the fact that the population would equate his Eagle-Design with the Federal Eagle and consciously accepted it.

Further the "Panoramafreiheit" and the right of quote (Zitatrecht) applies.

--David Liuzzo 21:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

We do not apply the Zitatrecht here (that would correspond to something like fair use). Panoramafreiheit only applies to pictures taken from public streets or places. If I understand correctly, the BGH confirms the copyright status of the Gies-Adler and also confirms the suitor's right to sue copyright violations:

"Keinen rechtlichen Bedenken begegnet zunächst die Annahme des Berufungsgerichts, die Klägerin sei aufgrund des abgeschlossenen Wahrnehmungsvertrages berechtigt, im Falle einer Verletzung des den Erben des Künstlers Ludwig Gies zustehenden Urheberrechts auch Abwehransprüche geltend zu machen."

However, in this case the depiction of the Gies-Adler was freie Benutzung because the Focus used a copy of it that was sufficiently different from the original:

"Der für eine freie Benutzung erforderliche Abstand zu dem benutzten Werk kann – selbst bei deutlichen Übernahmen – dadurch gegeben sein, daß das neue Werk zu den entlehnten eigenschöpferischen Zügen des älteren Werkes einen deutlichen inneren Abstand hält und deswegen seinem Wesen nach als selbständig anzusehen ist."

It does not seem clear to me how this decision can be extended to other uses of the work. --Phrood 07:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

•  Delete The cited court decision relates to the use of a caricature/parody of the Gies Eagle by Focus, Germany's second largest news magazine. The images are no parody, so the court decision simply does not apply. The court decision also mentions that Panoramafreihet does not apply (the Eagle is inside the Bundestag).
  Zitatrecht is fair dealing/fair use, which is not allowed on Commons. Well, the later is not completly true; I think we could  Keep Bonn Wasserwerk Plenarsaal.jpg and Image:Bonn Bundeshaus old Plenary Chamber.jpg and - with a different name - Bundesadler1992.jpg as these images show enough other details. -- ３２４７ (talk) 14:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I suppose you mean that we could consider the work as "Beiwerk" on those pictures? --Phrood 20:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I had been thinking about citations. But it might qualify as Beiwerk, too. (It seems that no written exception to copyright in Germany's copyright law fits exactly; you probably have to interpret them in the light of the Grundgesetz here because the photos are interior views of the German Bundestag.) -- ３２４７ (talk) 16:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

please also read this where publishing pictures of another artwork inside the Reichstag were prohibited. -- Gorgo 22:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• 'delete all pictures incl. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Bonn_Bundeshaus_old_Plenary_Chamber.jpg. Panoramafreiheit soes'nt apply nor does it Beiwerk. The Fette Henne is on all photos main subject which one cannot think away --Historiograf 18:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Bonn_Bundeshaus_old_Plenary_Chamber.jpg is a photograph permanently exhibited on the "Weg der Demokratie" and was taken from a public road. That qualifies as Panoramafreiheit, doesn't it? But I agree with you and disagree with User:3247 regarding the other images, the eagle is not Beiwerk and we do not accept citations. --Phrood 23:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

No, Panoramafreiheit does not result in that sort of "privilege escalation". If you are allowed to quote something, you can also put the quoting work on public display in the streets. But that still does not give you the permission to take the quoted work out of context and claim Panoramafreiheit. However, it is an indication that you are allowed to display the image without explicit permission from the Eagle's artist.

It does not make sense to accept Beiwerk but no citations. I think we need a permission and an excuse. The permission comes from the law and determins whether we can accept an image; it does not matter where this permission came from. The excuse is for our policy, which determins wheter we want to accept an image. The excuse is not in legal categories (like "Beiwerk" or citations) but it is an assertation that the image is still "free enough".

That said, Commons does not allow images, which, as a whole, can only be shown as of a quote. Being a separate media archive, Wikimedia Commons can't rely on legal exceptions that require context (no permission) and the image lacks essential freedoms if it can only be used in a certain context (no excuse).

That's different with images that merly contain quotes: The image already provides enough context to invoke fair use/dealing (permission) and you can do a lot of things with the image that do not infringe the copyright of the small part that is quoted (excuse).

It's often the case with photographs that they have some part for which there's no explicit permission. But it's still ok if they are shown in context. -- ３２４７ (talk) 21:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

•  Keep. Frivolous request. Mindelen 03:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Deleted the two images that only showed the eagle. It appears that the eagle is a copyrighted artwork and its use is restricted by a sort of fair use clause. But I feel unsure about deleting the other photos. It would be like censoring out McDonalds logos on McDonalds buildings. I suggest  Keep the remaining pictures. Of course one cannot "think away" the Bundesadler on those pictures (quoting Historiograf), but it should be noted that the decision by the BGH concerns independant use of the Eagle in a newspaper, not a picture of the Bundestag. / Fred Chess 23:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
•  Delete The gies adler is by no means mere beiwerk on these pictures. --Rtc 17:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

•  Keep. Bundesadler 4 was created by Sir Norman Foster and in the Image:Germany Bundestag east door with Bundesadler 4.jpg the eagle is to be seen from outside of the Reichstag. It is fixed there and not presented for only a short time. --Arnoldius 20:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The result of the debate is keep, deleting these would - as Fred Chess points out - be like removing the McDonalds logo from McDonalds buildings, something which is not going to happen. Lcarsdata 23:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Reopened, because the argument is incorrect. The McDonalds logo is, contrary to the Gies adler, 1. not restricted by copyright (only by trademark law), 2. even if it were, it is still permanently placed outside of the building, so subject to panorama freedom. 3. even if it were not, on a photo that displays "McDonalds logos on McDonalds buildings", the logo is not contral to the picture as the gies adler is here, and one can "think away" it in this sense. --Rtc 17:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, there is no reason to reopen the discussion. To start with the initial argument of the deletion request: The mentioned decision of the German Supreme Court (BGH) is qouted incorrectly by pointing out parts of the case summary sheet (Tatbestand) —esp. points of the party that lost the suitcase— but not the Court's opinion (Entscheidungsgründe). At the end of the day this decision only deals with the right of a newspaper to publish a burlesque of the Gies-Adler as this is a work of art itself (caricature).

RE: Image:Germany Bundestag east door with Bundesadler 4.jpg; Image:Germany Bundestag Bundesadler 4.jpg + ~5:
The general practice of the Court applying the German Copyright Act (UrhG) is that it is legal to take pictures of exhibited and exponent public artwork and in a second step the pictures taken may be copyright-protected artworks themselves, Zitatrecht & Beiwerk rules do not apply. As we see for the visitor pictures taken by User:Arnoldius even this last point is okay as he put them into the public domain. --Calvin Ballantine 11:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The court has clearly stated that the Gies-Adler is protected by copyright ("Die urheberrechtliche Werkqualität des in Rede stehenden Kunstwerks steht außer Zweifel.") Panoramafreiheit does not apply because none of the works are displayed on "public ways, streets or places". --Phrood 11:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure, and no one disputes this point, but in a second step you should go deeper. The claims under scrutiny there —and the whole decision at last— are not relevant for the present Wikimedia discussion. --Calvin Ballantine 08:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Deleted: As Phrood points out the Gies-Adler is copyrighted and Panoramafreiheit does not apply, and as the images are clearly being used to depict the Gies-Adler, this is by no means Beiwerk. -- Bryan (talk to me) 10:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are so right, and as Phrood points out the parliament building is definitely not a public place, esp. not since they enabled broad public access ;-) Nolo contendere... --Calvin Ballantine 09:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Kafka_aprox1917_small.jpg

aswell: Image:Kafkafelicebauer1917.jpg

no proof that the photographer is dead for more than 70 years and image is not older than 100 years -- Frumpy 21:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

and????????

 Oppose Simple logic will solve this, I guess... The picture shows Franz Kafka in 1917, which is 90 years ago. Granted, the exact date the picture was taken is hard to verify, but since Kafka died in 1924 it would, at the very least, be 83 years old. The chances of the photographer being alive as of 2007 is, of course, extremely small. -- [[User:FoaT}} 11:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• Not deleted. /odder 11:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Albanian money

Albanian money is copyrighted --Cat ^Chi? 22:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the money older than 70 years, what does Albanian law say about that? Anyway, deleted all recent money. -- Bryan (talk to me) 10:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

wrong conclusion, see above

I hope with my posts, now the situation is clear also for Cool Cat and Bryan. Sorry, because of my bad English--Decius 23:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

unproofed wrong statement, the facts are shown with quotation from the albanian law. --Decius 23:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

1. Image:100 Franka Albania (1926).jpg before 1992 no copyright law in Albania! (the text of the new albanian law from 2005, that knows only one older Law about this problem, this of 1992!)
2. Image:Albania 2006 circulating coins.jpg (The same juridical situation as with bills, see beyond.)
3. Image:Zog frang ar coin back.jpg (before 1992 no copyright law in Albania!the text of the new albanian law, that refers about this fact!)--Decius 23:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
4. Image:Zog frang ar coin front.jpg (before 1992 no copyright law in Albania!the text of the new albanian law, that refers about this fact!)--Decius 23:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
5. Image:25Leke(1964).jpgThis file is in the public domain, because according to Albanian law, Albanian currency is exempted from copyright (albanian Law Nr. 9380 about copyright, 28.4.2005 (alb. LIGJ Nr. 9380, datë 28.4.2005 PËR TË DREJTËN E AUTORIT DHE TË DREJTAT E TJERA TË LIDHURA ME TË) § 9, ç currency are explicite excepted from copyright. Quotation: Nuk janë objekt i të drejtës së autorit dhe nuk gëzojnë mbrojtje nga ky ligj:...
   

ç) mjetet e pagesës ...
Link: [5]--Decius 23:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

1. Image:100Leke(1996).jpgThis file is in the public domain, because according to Albanian law, Albanian currency is exempted from copyright (albanian Law Nr. 9380 about copyright, 28.4.2005 (alb. LIGJ Nr. 9380, datë 28.4.2005 PËR TË DREJTËN E AUTORIT DHE TË DREJTAT E TJERA TË LIDHURA ME TË) § 9, ç currency are explicite excepted from copyright. Quotation: Nuk janë objekt i të drejtës së autorit dhe nuk gëzojnë mbrojtje nga ky ligj:...
   

ç) mjetet e pagesës ...
--Decius 23:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Link: [6]

1. Image:200Lek-Qemali.jpgThis file is in the public domain, because according to Albanian law, Albanian currency is exempted from copyright (albanian Law Nr. 9380 about copyright, 28.4.2005 (alb. LIGJ Nr. 9380, datë 28.4.2005 PËR TË DREJTËN E AUTORIT DHE TË DREJTAT E TJERA TË LIDHURA ME TË) § 9, ç currency are explicite excepted from copyright. Quotation: Nuk janë objekt i të drejtës së autorit dhe nuk gëzojnë mbrojtje nga ky ligj:...
   

ç) mjetet e pagesës ...
Link: [7]--Decius 23:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per Decius. --Chochopk 07:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Kept: Next time an administrator makes a wrong decision based on lack of information, please first provide the information and then start screaming at them instead of the other way round. Anybody with Albanian knowledge, please create {{PD-Albania-exempt}}. -- Bryan (talk to me) 12:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Brazilian money

1. The copyright of money on Brazil is a quite imprecise (IANAL but I can't find anything related to copyright on this).
2. The {{PD-BrazilGov}} used on some images does not apply to this situation.
3. The Image:37 5.JPG, Image:X reis 1816.jpg, Image:Cemcruzeiros-pedroII.JPG, Image:Dezcruzeiros-getulio.JPG, Image:Doiscruzeiros-caxias.JPG, Image:Umcruzeiro-marques.JPG images may be a valid {{PD-Brazil-media}} ones, but..... Lugusto • ҉ 02:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

In accordance with André Koehne (here), the images of the Brazilian money are in public domain, therefore they are defined by law. Without the law, the money would not have value. (sorry for English). Lugusto, veja o que o André falou e explique melhor do que eu (:S) por aqui. -- Mateus Hidalgo 14:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd appreciate if you could try to explain what you said in a different way as I wasn't really able to understand it. Yonatanh 14:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

 Comment This subject is now in discussion at the Village pump of Portuguese Wikipedia (pt:Wikipedia:Esplanada/geral#VDA em cédulas e quejandas). I post back to here if it result in anything useful to this deletion debate. Lugusto • ҉ 15:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The coin itself which is what is copyrighted in those pictures doesn't seem to fall under "audiovisual and photographic works" although it may be in the public domain if the author has been for 70 years (assuming that's the limit brazilian law imposes) so even the pictures in #3 should be deleted. Yonatanh 14:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

 Comment up today no one on Portuguese Wikipedia has found any valuable information for this and the last reply is from yesterday. The possibility of all of these images gets deleted is large due to the lack of information. Lugusto • ※ 20:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Real11.jpg

Hallo. Please look this new Image:Real12.jpg, it is better? If yes, please delete the old version Image:Real11.jpg -- Magellan ^@_/" 09:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The country's laws regarding images of money are not the problem here, what is the problem is the fact that photographs of the money are derivatives of copyrighted work making the photographs unfree. Yonatanh 14:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I have written over "Specimen", does this not reach at all? Thus it would have to be sufficient. (?) -- Magellan ^@_/" 14:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Please read it here. {PD-BrazilGov} is perhaps not so bad. --Magellan ^@_/" 04:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I know this site but I don't understand how it helps. The {{PD-BrazilGov}} says official symbols (coat of arms and flags from brazilian cities and states, only it). Lugusto • ※ 14:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The {{PD-BrazilGov}} is ok, we have no other Templates. My Portuguese language is = 0, sorry but if here nothing stands about bank notes and her use (see Wikimedia), what then? --Magellan ^@_/" 17:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

No information about copyright status means delete. -- Bryan (talk to me) 10:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Hallo Bryan, maybe an inquiry on in Portuguese? Then we know it more exactly. --Magellan ^@_/" 12:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The Banco Central do Brasil isn't the copyright holder. Anyway, this page denys all commercial and derivative works usages from images and texts on their website. I think the Casa da Moeda do Brasil is the owner, but I'm very very doubt if it releases these images with no copyrights or under a free content license. And unfortunately the ptwikipedians haven choosed to talk about another subjects and missed this one. I'm closing this deletion debate as all images containing a Brazilian money that don't have at least 70 years of original release needs to be deleted. If anyone finds any new information, simply request a restore for the really free images and/or start a deletion debate for the kept images. Lugusto • ※ 19:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Hallo Bryan / Lugusto. The Banco Central do Brasil is the copyright holder. The Casa da Moeda do Brasil is the printer and mint for notes and coins, but don´t have any copyright because the money is made as a rendering service asked by Banco Central do Brasil.

The Banco Central do Brasil web site says that is allowed the total or parcial reproduction if the source is reported and with no gain intencion. Is also permited inserts of links on other sites (like Winkipedia) but is not allowed use the mark of Banco Central do Brasil. More Informations about that is at site of BCB - [8] (Link in portuguese)

With this information, The Winkipedia / Winkimedia can use Image of any coins and notes issued on Brazil. --- Ola Bryan e Lugusto. O Banco Central do Brasil é o proprietário dos direitos autorais. A Casa da Moeda do Brasil é o impressor / cunhador de notas e moedas, mas não possui nenhum direito autoral pelo fato de ser uma prestação de serviço pedida pelo Banco Central do Brasil.

A página da internet do Banco Central do Brasil diz que é permitida a reprodução total ou parcial de qualquer conteúdo do sítio, desde que com indicação das fontes e sem fins lucrativos. Também permite insersão de links em outros sites(como Winkipedia) mas não permite o uso da logomarca do Banco Central do Brasil. Mais informações no site do BCB - [9] (Link em portuguese)

Baseado nesta informação, a Winkipédia e a Winkimídia pode usar imagens de qualquer moeda e cédula emitida no Brasil.

Leandro Brito 17:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your attempt, but all media files on Wikimedia Commons needs to allow derivative works and commercial redistribution. Please see the Commons:Licensing page. Obrigado por sua tentativa, mas todas as mídias disponíveis no Commons necessitam de poderem receber derivações ou uso comercial. Veja mais sobre isso na Commons:Licenciamento. Lugusto • ※ 20:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Canadian money

"The Bank of Canada is the registered copyright owner of all design elements of Canadian bank notes [...] [T]he Bank's written permission for the reproduction of bank note images must be obtained before the image is reproduced." [10]-- Editor at Large • talk 23:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Deleted, Canadian money is clearly copyrighted and not licensed with a free license.

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

[edit] Turkish money

Turkish money is copyrighted Yonatanh 23:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. No evidence of a "free license" is given. -- Cat ^chi? 13:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Wikisource-trans 135px ohne text.png

Completely replaced by Image:Wikisource-logo.svg and no official logo of anything anymore. Schaengel89 23:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

deleted, --Polarlys 13:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:BerlusconiNoGrazie.jpg

only use currently is on a user page on the italian wikipedia and this use will probably be eliminated very soon as it's political campaigning on user pages. The picture itself is unlikely to be used on any wikimedia foundation project so unless someone sees an article or something of the sort it can be used on it should be deleted. Just as an aside, this picture is probably against Italian law (this by itself of course isn't a reason for deletion). -- Yonatanh 16:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

 Remove moreover it represents an offensive and an abusive content --F l a n k e r 11:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

 Keep ----ßøuñçêY2K 22:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Why? --F l a n k e r 17:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

 Keep:do not remove,this picture is not against Italian law--Lupo rosso 08:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• I don't really care whether it's deleted or not but either way being against Italian law isn't a valid reason for deletion. Yonatan ^talk 10:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

 Keep:--Piper90 16:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

•  Keep--Emanuele Saiu 18:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
•  Remove -- Sannita 16:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
•  Remove --Pietrodn · talk with me 16:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
•  Remove--Olando 16:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
•  Keep keep keep keep 1000 times keeep --dario vet (talk) 16:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

You need to explain why you're voting keep or remove, just adding a vote doesn't matter as the closing admins takes into consideration the different arguments. Yonatan ^talk 17:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

•  Remove this image can be used only for political campaign in user pages --Jaqen 15:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete: outside project skope, no possible usage except in political campaign / A.J. 15:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Aut_40_&_15.jpg

Out of focus image. Unusable -- Siebrand 16:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

•  Delete --norro 23:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Deleted / A.J. 15:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Poland Lublin castle2.jpg

Duplicate of Image:Poland_Lublin_castle.jpg --Wojsyl 19:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• odlinkuj zdjęcie (zamień odwołania na zdjęcie oryginalne) i skasujemy wersję *2. Inna rzecz, że to trochę obciach z Twojej strony usuwać z opisu autora modyfikacji, ale co tam. // tsca [re] 12:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry, juz nie pamietam, ale wydaje mi sie, ze te wersje, ktora jest teraz poprawialem ja, ale moze sie myle. W kazdym razie dzieki bo wiem ze poprawiales ktoras wersje, bo ta pierwsza byla juz zupelnie fatalna, robiona pozyczonym kompaktem. Wojsyl 20:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

•  Keep - so someone could make even better retouch. A.J. 15:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

•  ??? They are identical. Wojsyl 23:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Deleted by Siebrand: Dupe of Image:Poland Lublin castle.jpg

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

[edit] Money of Armenia

Money of Armenia is copyrighted. -- Cat ^chi? 23:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep {{PD-AM-exempt}} --Chochopk 01:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

  Do we know for certain that money falls under this?
  Also, please do not transclude license templates to discussions.
  -- Cat ^chi? 13:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Searchme 02:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep see the armenian law

Besides I do not understand why it is okay, that user Cat can make an apodictic statement like Money of Montenegro is copyrighted probably without any knowledge of the special situation. I think a better way would be to ask before hectically setting dozens deletion requests for money pics. 18:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)--Decius

• Keep all — None of this is copyrighted, this is just ridiculous. – Zntrip 04:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Closed: Keep / A.J. 11:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:HartaSatuNou.png

Better SVG image: Image:Satu Nou.svg --Alex:D 15:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

tagged with {{superseded}} --ALE! ¿…? 15:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:HartaDumbravita.png

Better SVG image: Image:Dumbravita.svg --Alex:D 15:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

tagged with {{superseded}} --ALE! ¿…? 15:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Rosa_sericea_Pteracantha2.jpg

License GFDL cannot be verified -- Siebrand 08:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 15:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Rosa_sericea_pteracantha1.jpg

GFDL license cannot be verified -- Siebrand 08:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 15:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:RYAN command center.gif

Not certain it's a US gov public domain image, see copyright notice on image --Garion96 20:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 15:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Potentilla_nitida1LEST.jpg

cc-by-sa-2.5 license cannot be verified. OTRS verification required. -- Siebrand 08:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Permission-email from Leif Stridvall has ben sent to Wikipedia twice. I don't know why it hasn't been registred. May because this permission text is in Swedish... however i got no reply at all. This covers all imeas uploaded by me ending .LEST - Leif Stridvall.

epibase 06:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Kept: OTRS permission received: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image%3APotentilla_nitida1LEST.jpg&diff=5155361&oldid=4904525 --GeorgHH 18:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Potentilla_nitida2LEST.jpg

cc-by-sa-2.5 license cannot be verified. OTRS verification required. -- Siebrand 08:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Kept: OTRS permission received: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image%3APotentilla_nitida2LEST.jpg&diff=5155366&oldid=4904507 --GeorgHH 18:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Anthericum_liliago1LEST.jpg

cc-by-sa-2.5 license cannot be verified. OTRS verification required. -- Siebrand 08:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I will send the permission email from the copywright holder to Wikipedia again. epibase 12:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Kept: OTRS permission received: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image%3AAnthericum_liliago1LEST.jpg&diff=5155357&oldid=4904498 --GeorgHH 18:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Pulsatilla_halleri1LEST.jpg

cc-by-sa-2.5 license cannot be verified. OTRS verification required. -- Siebrand 08:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

kept (OTRS ticket number added by uploader) --ALE! ¿…? 11:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Pulsatilla_halleri2LEST.jpg

cc-by-sa-2.5 license cannot be verified. OTRS verification required. -- Siebrand 08:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

kept (OTRS ticket number added by uploader) --ALE! ¿…? 11:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:117_&_40_Directions.jpg

Blurry and dark image, delete -- Siebrand 17:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 11:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Money of Azerbaijan

Money of Azerbaijan is copyrighted. -- Cat ^chi? 23:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep {{PD-AZ-exempt}} --Chochopk 01:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

  Do we know for certain that money falls under this?
  Also, please do not transclude license templates to discussions.
  -- Cat ^chi? 13:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Searchme 03:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep RossBaku --88.106.121.233 19:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The coins and banknotes from Azerbaijan are not the subject of copyright. There is loss in translation of term "денежный знак" (Russian) as "banknote" (English), the "monetary symbol" (or something similar) is more appropriate. This is commonly loss in translation for Category:PD-exUSSR-exempt license tags. Alex Spade 13:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Sahmeditor 19:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

KEPT 

Julo 18:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Cestrum_fasciculatum1MTFL.jpg

cc-by-sa-2.5 license cannot be verified. OTRS verification required. -- Siebrand 08:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I have sent the permission email from Bernard Loison to permissions@wikimedia.org again. Covers all images uploaded by me ending .MTFL epibase 07:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

This is ticket 2007030310008021. I see that the OTRS staff replied with a request for clarifying the license of the images - and it has remained unanswered. // tsca [re] 16:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Could someone check this please so we can get rid of this and the following requests? --ALE! ¿…? 07:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

 Delete Ticket 2007030310008021 was marked as 'closed succesfully' by Jareth on 20 March 2007. It was a forwarded email containing the question "I write articles about cacti for the Wikipedia and came across your wonderful images. Could I get permission to use some of them for future articles?". The reply contained the text "It's okay by me, but do not forget to cite my website address and my name please." by the copyright holder. I am inclined to deny this as a permission. Specifications of source material and a proper free license are missing. Siebrand 07:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

deleted and all the similar cases below --ALE! ¿…? 13:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Cestrum_elegans_Smithii1MTFL.jpg

cc-by-sa-2.5 license cannot be verified. OTRS verification required. -- Siebrand 08:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

deleted (reason see: Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Cestrum fasciculatum1MTFL.jpg) --ALE! ¿…? 13:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Cestrum_elegans1MTFL.jpg

cc-by-sa-2.5 license cannot be verified. OTRS verification required. -- Siebrand 08:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

deleted (reason see: Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Cestrum fasciculatum1MTFL.jpg) --ALE! ¿…? 13:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Cestrum_aurantiacum1MTFL.jpg

cc-by-sa-2.5 license cannot be verified. OTRS verification required. -- Siebrand 08:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

deleted (reason see: Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Cestrum fasciculatum1MTFL.jpg) --ALE! ¿…? 13:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Paradisea_lusitanica1BanwyValley.jpg

cc-by-sa-2.5 license cannot be verified. OTRS verification required. -- Siebrand 08:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

deleted (reason see: Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Cestrum fasciculatum1MTFL.jpg) --ALE! ¿…? 13:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Eremurus_stenophyllus1KUST.jpg

GFDL license cannot be verified. OTRS verification required. -- Siebrand 08:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

deleted (reason see: Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Cestrum fasciculatum1MTFL.jpg) --ALE! ¿…? 13:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Eremurus_stenophyllus2KUST.jpg

GFDL license cannot be verified. OTRS verification required. -- Siebrand 08:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

deleted (reason see: Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Cestrum fasciculatum1MTFL.jpg) --ALE! ¿…? 13:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Money of Austria-Hungary

Money of Austria-Hungary is copyrighted. -- Cat ^chi? 23:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep {{PD-old}} --Chochopk 01:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

  The work may be created over 70 years ago but did the creator die at least 70 years ago?
  Do not transclude license templates to discussions.
  -- Cat ^chi? 13:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep older than 70 yrs Searchme 03:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment Who is (or was) copyright holder? A.J. 09:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment Minting A-H (and Imperial) coins was privilege of a mint (in Vienna and/or Krems, I think) and in at least one case (Marie-Therese tollars, still very popular during 20th century in Ethiopia) this privilege officially lasted until early 1930's (it was ignored since early 20th century by Ethiopia and then Italy). The banknotes were issued by private National Bank of Austria-Hungary. I do not think that artists in this region could claim copyright on banknotes/coins/state symbols/flags/etc (at least that was case in Czechoslovakia who inherited most of legislative from A-H). Pavel Vozenilek 20:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC) (Btw, deletion of banknotes and coins feels a getting more popish than a pope, IMO).
  • Not at all. New polish banknotes are copyrighted by National Bank of Poland. A.J. 15:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep all — None of this is copyrighted, this is just ridiculous. – Zntrip 04:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• all images older than 100 years were tagged as PD-old by me. Please decide on the rest now. --ALE! ¿…? 13:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• As this money was used only until 1918, it seems to me that it is safe to keep all images. --ALE! ¿…? 07:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

kept --ALE! ¿…? 07:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I will change all licenses to {{PD-old}}. --ALE! ¿…? 07:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Money of Montenegro

Money of Montenegro is copyrighted -- Cat ^chi? 16:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep {{PD-old}} --Chochopk 01:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

  Do we know for certain that money falls under this?
  Also, please do not transclude license templates to discussions.
  -- Cat ^chi? 13:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep older than 70yrs Searchme 03:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Money of the old montenegrin state (1878-1918) can not be under copyright, because it has not exist any copyright law in Montenegro during this period --Decius 17:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Besides I do not understand why it is okay, that user Cat can make an apodictic statement like Money of Montenegro is copyrighted probably without any knowledge of the special situation. I think a better way would be to ask before hectically setting dozens deletion requests for money pics. --Decius 17:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep thats PD-old. -- Rüdiger Wölk 04:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep all — None of this is copyrighted, this is just ridiculous. – Zntrip 04:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

kept --ALE! ¿…? 08:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Money of Austria

Money of Austria is copyrighted. -- Cat ^chi? 23:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Some qualifies {{PD-old}} --Chochopk 01:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

  The work may be created over 70 years ago but did the creator die at least 70 years ago?
  Do not transclude license templates to discussions.
  -- Cat ^chi? 13:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep older than 70yrs Searchme 03:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep all — None of this is copyrighted, this is just ridiculous. – Zntrip 04:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep
•  Comment I think the whole copyright thing on currency is silly. We must take a step back and remind ourselves the ultimate reason why the concept of "copyright" exists. It exists because people that make money from creativity, like writers, actors, composers, or even computer programmers can actually make a living without worrying about their output being copied without getting their due profit. Now, if I copy the images of currencies 1000 times, does that hurt whoever the engravers/designers are? NO! The state paid them already and that's it.

Providing encyclopedic content should be the first priority. Copyright is only a constraint, not a goal. Everyone knows about {{PD-old}}. The nominator, of all people, should be even more aware of it. By nominating something as old as 1888 suggests that the nominator is confused about what our priorities are here on Wikipedia. --Chochopk 09:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep no reason to get copyright paranoid. -N 21:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Why my graphes has been requested for deletion. Exchange Rate is copyrighted? I think this is a indiscriminate deletion request. --Monaneko 09:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep abbildungen von österreichischen münzen unterliegen NICHT dem copyright, der löschantrag entbehrt jeglicher rechtlicher grundlage !!! --Oke 19:38, 02. July 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment: Whom does the Austrian law give money design copyright to? Individual or organization? Works for hires are usually copyrighted by organizations.--Jusjih 16:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The talk page of wikipedia:de:Österreichischer Schilling quotes an answer from the National Bank of Austria (in German) stating that there are no legal objections against publishing images of Austrian Schilling notes or coins. The deletion request is based on a false assertion and totally unjustified. Jossi 20:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Kept; no major copyright issues here. (→O - RLY?) 18:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Dominican money

Dominican money is copyrighted --Cat ^Chi? 23:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

•  Keep all — None of this is copyrighted, this is just ridiculous. – Zntrip 04:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

•  Comment I think the whole copyright thing on currency is silly. We must take a step back and remind ourselves the ultimate reason why the concept of "copyright" exists. It exists because people that make money from creativity, like writers, actors, composers, or even computer programmers can actually make a living without worrying about their output being copied without getting their due profit. Now, if I copy the images of currencies 1000 times, does that hurt whoever the engravers/designers are? NO! The state paid them already and that's it.

Providing encyclopedic content should be the first priority. Copyright is only a constraint, not a goal. Everyone knows about {{PD-old}}. The nominator, of all people, should be even more aware of it. By nominating something as old as 1888 suggests that the nominator is confused about what our priorities are here on Wikipedia. --Chochopk 09:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Kept; {{PD-old}}. (→O - RLY?) 00:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Argentinan money

Argentinan money is copyrighted --Cat ^Chi? 22:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

•  Comment I think the whole copyright thing on currency is silly. We must take a step back and remind ourselves the ultimate reason why the concept of "copyright" exists. It exists because people that make money from creativity, like writers, actors, composers, or even computer programmers can actually make a living without worrying about their output being copied without getting their due profit. Now, if I copy the images of currencies 1000 times, does that hurt whoever the engravers/designers are? NO! The state paid them already and that's it.

Providing encyclopedic content should be the first priority. Copyright is only a constraint, not a goal. Everyone knows about {{PD-old}}. The nominator, of all people, should be even more aware of it. By nominating something as old as 1888 suggests that the nominator is confused about what our priorities are here on Wikipedia. --Chochopk 09:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

 Comment Some of the money above is older than 70 years old and should be safely in the public domain. One question to Cool Cat: Can you provide a source where it states that Argentine money is copyrighted? I could not find something like that. --ALE! ¿…? 07:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I will try to read the Argentine copyright law this week, to see whether there is something about public works. But at least for some works {{PD-AR-Anonymous}} could work. --ALE! ¿…? 21:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I could not find anything on public / governmental works. So I think the same rules apply like in general. I will tag some images accordingly. Probably the rest has to be deleted. --ALE! ¿…? 07:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

if the other money scans are kept (see below), these should also be kept --ALE! ¿…? 13:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Money of Australia

Money of Australia is copyrighted. -- Cat ^chi? 23:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep the coins (except the $1, $2 in Image:Australia 2006 circulating coins.jpg which could be cropped out). It is only copyrighted if the designs were made after 1 May 1969. [11] The 1c, 2c, 5c, 10c, 20c, 50c, and the pennys, shillings etc. date to before this. also, nos. 9) and 10) are graphs, why are they nominated? --Astrokey44 01:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep older than 1969 Searchme 03:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deletion request by a gone wild bot (see: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category%3AMoney_of_Australia&diff=4929968&oldid=3270781 ), which was now blocked by me for three days. --ALE! ¿…? 11:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

•  Comment I think the whole copyright thing on currency is silly. We must take a step back and remind ourselves the ultimate reason why the concept of "copyright" exists. It exists because people that make money from creativity, like writers, actors, composers, or even computer programmers can actually make a living without worrying about their output being copied without getting their due profit. Now, if I copy the images of currencies 1000 times, does that hurt whoever the engravers/designers are? NO! The state paid them already and that's it.

Providing encyclopedic content should be the first priority. Copyright is only a constraint, not a goal. Everyone knows about {{PD-old}}. The nominator, of all people, should be even more aware of it. By nominating something as old as 1888 suggests that the nominator is confused about what our priorities are here on Wikipedia. --Chochopk 09:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep no reason to get copyright paranoid. -N 21:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep regarding copyright of money, it exists (if it even does) to prevent forgery. As such the exact laws that I'm generally aware of (of course it varies from country to country) is that you are allowed to make copies, but they either are not allowed to be high enough resolution to be used as forgeries (which none of these images could be used for) or the can be of very high resolution/quality but it must otherwise be clear they are not real (for instance I have a million dollar note, obviously nobody could seriously believe this note is real! Thus it is fine, even though it is copied elements from real notes). Mathmo 11:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep as per discussion above. Yann 15:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Chile money

Chile money is copyrighted --Cat ^Chi? 23:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

•  Keep all — None of this is copyrighted, this is just ridiculous. – Zntrip 04:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

•  Comment I think the whole copyright thing on currency is silly. We must take a step back and remind ourselves the ultimate reason why the concept of "copyright" exists. It exists because people that make money from creativity, like writers, actors, composers, or even computer programmers can actually make a living without worrying about their output being copied without getting their due profit. Now, if I copy the images of currencies 1000 times, does that hurt whoever the engravers/designers are? NO! The state paid them already and that's it.

Providing encyclopedic content should be the first priority. Copyright is only a constraint, not a goal. Everyone knows about {{PD-old}}. The nominator, of all people, should be even more aware of it. By nominating something as old as 1888 suggests that the nominator is confused about what our priorities are here on Wikipedia. --Chochopk 09:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

•  Comment Reproduction of coins and banknotes in circulation without Central Bank of Chile consent is prohibited --Yakoo 23:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

•  Keep regarding copyright of money, it exists (if it even does) to prevent forgery. As such the exact laws that I'm generally aware of (of course it varies from country to country) is that you are allowed to make copies, but they either are not allowed to be high enough resolution to be used as forgeries (which none of these images could be used for) or the can be of very high resolution/quality but it must otherwise be clear they are not real (for instance I have a million dollar note, obviously nobody could seriously believe this note is real! Thus it is fine, even though it is copied elements from real notes). Mathmo 11:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep as per discussion above. Yann 15:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Colombian money

Colombian money is copyrighted --Cat ^Chi? 22:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

•  Keep all — None of this is copyrighted, this is just ridiculous. – Zntrip 04:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
•  Keep all — per aboveF3rn4nd0 19:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

•  Comment I think the whole copyright thing on currency is silly. We must take a step back and remind ourselves the ultimate reason why the concept of "copyright" exists. It exists because people that make money from creativity, like writers, actors, composers, or even computer programmers can actually make a living without worrying about their output being copied without getting their due profit. Now, if I copy the images of currencies 1000 times, does that hurt whoever the engravers/designers are? NO! The state paid them already and that's it.

Providing encyclopedic content should be the first priority. Copyright is only a constraint, not a goal. Everyone knows about {{PD-old}}. The nominator, of all people, should be even more aware of it. By nominating something as old as 1888 suggests that the nominator is confused about what our priorities are here on Wikipedia. --Chochopk 09:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

On Wikimedia Commons our top priority is copyrights which comes even before Commons:Project scope. Just because the state bought them doesn't mean images aren't copyrighted. Certain government images such as coat of arms are copyrighted depending on local law. -- Cat ^chi? 00:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, what question must a user ask him/herself first when participating Wikimedia Commons:

1. What can I do to eliminate non-copyright free images?
2. What can I do to produce more copyright free images?

And your answer is 1? --Chochopk 13:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

As a matter of fact both are necessary. -- Cat ^chi? 17:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

•  Keep regarding copyright of money, it exists (if it even does) to prevent forgery. As such the exact laws that I'm generally aware of (of course it varies from country to country) is that you are allowed to make copies, but they either are not allowed to be high enough resolution to be used as forgeries (which none of these images could be used for) or the can be of very high resolution/quality but it must otherwise be clear they are not real (for instance I have a million dollar note, obviously nobody could seriously believe this note is real! Thus it is fine, even though it is copied elements from real notes). Mathmo 11:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep as per discussion above. Yann 15:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Money of Jamaica

Money of Jamaica is copyrighted. -- Cat ^chi? 17:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep all — None of this is copyrighted, this is just ridiculous. – Zntrip 04:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

•  Comment I think the whole copyright thing on currency is silly. We must take a step back and remind ourselves the ultimate reason why the concept of "copyright" exists. It exists because people that make money from creativity, like writers, actors, composers, or even computer programmers can actually make a living without worrying about their output being copied without getting their due profit. Now, if I copy the images of currencies 1000 times, does that hurt whoever the engravers/designers are? NO! The state paid them already and that's it.

Providing encyclopedic content should be the first priority. Copyright is only a constraint, not a goal. Everyone knows about {{PD-old}}. The nominator, of all people, should be even more aware of it. By nominating something as old as 1888 suggests that the nominator is confused about what our priorities are here on Wikipedia. --Chochopk 09:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep all — I agree with Zntrip. None of this is copyrighted anymore than are the images of coins from other countries (images which are all freely displayed on the internet, unlike notes). I wonder if the nominator just happened to come across some bit of info somewhere that the coat of arms or the design of "money" (without the distinction being made between paper money and coins) is copyrighted and just decided that all these images must therefore be copyright violations. A glance at the nominator's user page also shows that he/she has never even been to the place and obviously not the country's central bank.72.27.29.152 05:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per m:Avoid Copyright Paranoia. -N 20:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep regarding copyright of money, it exists (if it even does) to prevent forgery. As such the exact laws that I'm generally aware of (of course it varies from country to country) is that you are allowed to make copies, but they either are not allowed to be high enough resolution to be used as forgeries (which none of these images could be used for) or the can be of very high resolution/quality but it must otherwise be clear they are not real (for instance I have a million dollar note, obviously nobody could seriously believe this note is real! Thus it is fine, even though it is copied elements from real notes). Mathmo 11:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep as per discussion above. Yann 15:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Money of Iraq

Money of Iraq is copyrighted -- Cat ^chi? 16:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep all — None of this is copyrighted, this is just ridiculous. – Zntrip 04:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

•  Comment I think the whole copyright thing on currency is silly. We must take a step back and remind ourselves the ultimate reason why the concept of "copyright" exists. It exists because people that make money from creativity, like writers, actors, composers, or even computer programmers can actually make a living without worrying about their output being copied without getting their due profit. Now, if I copy the images of currencies 1000 times, does that hurt whoever the engravers/designers are? NO! The state paid them already and that's it.

Providing encyclopedic content should be the first priority. Copyright is only a constraint, not a goal. Everyone knows about {{PD-old}}. The nominator, of all people, should be even more aware of it. By nominating something as old as 1888 suggests that the nominator is confused about what our priorities are here on Wikipedia. --Chochopk 09:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep regarding copyright of money, it exists (if it even does) to prevent forgery. As such the exact laws that I'm generally aware of (of course it varies from country to country) is that you are allowed to make copies, but they either are not allowed to be high enough resolution to be used as forgeries (which none of these images could be used for) or the can be of very high resolution/quality but it must otherwise be clear they are not real (for instance I have a million dollar note, obviously nobody could seriously believe this note is real! Thus it is fine, even though it is copied elements from real notes). To do with Iraq money specifically, this is old money that has images of Saddam Hussein on it, is it even legal tender any more? I certainly do not believe it is being printed any more! Mathmo 11:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep as per discussion above. Yann 15:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Money of Iran

Money of Iran is copyrighted -- Cat ^chi? 16:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep all — None of this is copyrighted, this is just ridiculous. – Zntrip 04:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment I think the whole copyright thing on currency is silly. We must take a step back and remind ourselves the ultimate reason why the concept of "copyright" exists. It exists because people that make money from creativity, like writers, actors, composers, or even computer programmers can actually make a living without worrying about their output being copied without getting their due profit. Now, if I copy the images of currencies 1000 times, does that hurt whoever the engravers/designers are? NO! The state paid them already and that's it.

Providing encyclopedic content should be the first priority. Copyright is only a constraint, not a goal. Everyone knows about {{PD-old}}. The nominator, of all people, should be even more aware of it. By nominating something as old as 1888 suggests that the nominator is confused about what our priorities are here on Wikipedia. --Chochopk 09:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Yeah, the complainant did not indicate any specific law or regulation that says that pictures of money from that country are copyrighted. If the complainant cannot provide details then we can only assume that he is misinformed. Easyplex 05:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep as per discussion above. Yann 15:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Israeli money

Israeli money is copyrighted --Cat ^Chi? 23:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

•  Keep all — None of this is copyrighted, this is just ridiculous. – Zntrip 04:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

•  Comment I think the whole copyright thing on currency is silly. We must take a step back and remind ourselves the ultimate reason why the concept of "copyright" exists. It exists because people that make money from creativity, like writers, actors, composers, or even computer programmers can actually make a living without worrying about their output being copied without getting their due profit. Now, if I copy the images of currencies 1000 times, does that hurt whoever the engravers/designers are? NO! The state paid them already and that's it.

Providing encyclopedic content should be the first priority. Copyright is only a constraint, not a goal. Everyone knows about {{PD-old}}. The nominator, of all people, should be even more aware of it. By nominating something as old as 1888 suggests that the nominator is confused about what our priorities are here on Wikipedia. --Chochopk 09:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

•  Keep regarding copyright of money, it exists (if it even does) to prevent forgery. As such the exact laws that I'm generally aware of (of course it varies from country to country) is that you are allowed to make copies, but they either are not allowed to be high enough resolution to be used as forgeries (which none of these images could be used for) or the can be of very high resolution/quality but it must otherwise be clear they are not real (for instance I have a million dollar note, obviously nobody could seriously believe this note is real! Thus it is fine, even though it is copied elements from real notes). Mathmo 11:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep as per discussion above. Yann 15:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Money of Isle of Man

Money of Isle of Man is copyrighted. -- Cat ^chi? 17:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep all — None of this is copyrighted, this is just ridiculous. – Zntrip 04:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Actualy that engraveing of QE II is protected by copyright.Geni 22:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

•  Comment I think the whole copyright thing on currency is silly. We must take a step back and remind ourselves the ultimate reason why the concept of "copyright" exists. It exists because people that make money from creativity, like writers, actors, composers, or even computer programmers can actually make a living without worrying about their output being copied without getting their due profit. Now, if I copy the images of currencies 1000 times, does that hurt whoever the engravers/designers are? NO! The state paid them already and that's it.

Providing encyclopedic content should be the first priority. Copyright is only a constraint, not a goal. Everyone knows about {{PD-old}}. The nominator, of all people, should be even more aware of it. By nominating something as old as 1888 suggests that the nominator is confused about what our priorities are here on Wikipedia. --Chochopk 09:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep regarding copyright of money, it exists (if it even does) to prevent forgery. As such the exact laws that I'm generally aware of (of course it varies from country to country) is that you are allowed to make copies, but they either are not allowed to be high enough resolution to be used as forgeries (which none of these images could be used for) or the can be of very high resolution/quality but it must otherwise be clear they are not real (for instance I have a million dollar note, obviously nobody could seriously believe this note is real! Thus it is fine, even though it is copied elements from real notes). Mathmo 11:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep as per discussion above. Yann 15:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Moroccan money

Money of Morocco is copyrighted -- Cat ^chi? 16:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep all — None of this is copyrighted, this is just ridiculous. – Zntrip 04:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

•  Comment I think the whole copyright thing on currency is silly. We must take a step back and remind ourselves the ultimate reason why the concept of "copyright" exists. It exists because people that make money from creativity, like writers, actors, composers, or even computer programmers can actually make a living without worrying about their output being copied without getting their due profit. Now, if I copy the images of currencies 1000 times, does that hurt whoever the engravers/designers are? NO! The state paid them already and that's it.

Providing encyclopedic content should be the first priority. Copyright is only a constraint, not a goal. Everyone knows about {{PD-old}}. The nominator, of all people, should be even more aware of it. By nominating something as old as 1888 suggests that the nominator is confused about what our priorities are here on Wikipedia. --Chochopk 09:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep all - as per the above. -- FayssalF 23:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep regarding copyright of money, it exists (if it even does) to prevent forgery. As such the exact laws that I'm generally aware of (of course it varies from country to country) is that you are allowed to make copies, but they either are not allowed to be high enough resolution to be used as forgeries (which none of these images could be used for) or the can be of very high resolution/quality but it must otherwise be clear they are not real (for instance I have a million dollar note, obviously nobody could seriously believe this note is real! Thus it is fine, even though it is copied elements from real notes). Mathmo 11:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep as per discussion above. Yann 15:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Money of Mozambique

Money of Mozambique is copyrighted -- Cat ^chi? 16:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep all — None of this is copyrighted, this is just ridiculous. – Zntrip 04:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

•  Comment I think the whole copyright thing on currency is silly. We must take a step back and remind ourselves the ultimate reason why the concept of "copyright" exists. It exists because people that make money from creativity, like writers, actors, composers, or even computer programmers can actually make a living without worrying about their output being copied without getting their due profit. Now, if I copy the images of currencies 1000 times, does that hurt whoever the engravers/designers are? NO! The state paid them already and that's it.

Providing encyclopedic content should be the first priority. Copyright is only a constraint, not a goal. Everyone knows about {{PD-old}}. The nominator, of all people, should be even more aware of it. By nominating something as old as 1888 suggests that the nominator is confused about what our priorities are here on Wikipedia. --Chochopk 09:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep regarding copyright of money, it exists (if it even does) to prevent forgery. As such the exact laws that I'm generally aware of (of course it varies from country to country) is that you are allowed to make copies, but they either are not allowed to be high enough resolution to be used as forgeries (which none of these images could be used for) or the can be of very high resolution/quality but it must otherwise be clear they are not real (for instance I have a million dollar note, obviously nobody could seriously believe this note is real! Thus it is fine, even though it is copied elements from real notes). Mathmo 11:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep as per discussion above. Yann 15:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Uruguayan money

Uruguayan money is copyrighted --Cat ^Chi? 23:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

•  Keep all — None of this is copyrighted, this is just ridiculous. – Zntrip 04:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

•  Comment I think the whole copyright thing on currency is silly. We must take a step back and remind ourselves the ultimate reason why the concept of "copyright" exists. It exists because people that make money from creativity, like writers, actors, composers, or even computer programmers can actually make a living without worrying about their output being copied without getting their due profit. Now, if I copy the images of currencies 1000 times, does that hurt whoever the engravers/designers are? NO! The state paid them already and that's it.

Providing encyclopedic content should be the first priority. Copyright is only a constraint, not a goal. Everyone knows about {{PD-old}}. The nominator, of all people, should be even more aware of it. By nominating something as old as 1888 suggests that the nominator is confused about what our priorities are here on Wikipedia. --Chochopk 09:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

•  Keep regarding copyright of money, it exists (if it even does) to prevent forgery. As such the exact laws that I'm generally aware of (of course it varies from country to country) is that you are allowed to make copies, but they either are not allowed to be high enough resolution to be used as forgeries (which none of these images could be used for) or the can be of very high resolution/quality but it must otherwise be clear they are not real (for instance I have a million dollar note, obviously nobody could seriously believe this note is real! Thus it is fine, even though it is copied elements from real notes). Mathmo 11:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep as per discussion above. Yann 15:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Imagem2.jpg

The description says that the image is copyrighted but it is tagged with a free license -- Meno25 07:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Deleted by MesserWoland. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 11:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Imagem3.jpg

The description says that the image is copyrighted but it is tagged with a free license -- Meno25 07:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Deleted by MesserWoland. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 11:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Xicará de café.gif

Redundant GIF version created from Image:Taza de café.png. Now orphaned. --Dcoetzee 08:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

deleted Julo 10

11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:PetlyakovPe2.jpg

double:Image:Pe-2.jpg --Dryke 14:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

This can be speedy deleted as a duplicate. I have added the {{duplicate}} template as I cannot check usage due to toolserver problems ATM. Lcarsdata 19:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Ajax_seizes_Cassandra.jpg

Probable copyvio: this image is tagged PD-Art but it is actually a 3D object (hydria) photo which has been adapted. I don't believe PD-Art can apply. -- Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 02:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

•  Comment author of this 3-D object is probably died, and it was probably much more than 70 years ago... Question: who and when made this 2-D photo? Julo 10:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The matter is: no information. The source doesn't mention it. Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 16:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 18:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Crystal 128 forward gif.gif

Apparently a GIF version created from existing PNG Image:Crystal_128_forward.png. Orphaned. --Dcoetzee 05:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 11:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:PMAL-organograma.jpg

False license. I found the (unspecified) source, at http://www.pm.al.gov.br/intra/organograma.htm , but there is no copyright notice and I seriously doubt the Brazilian police release their charts under the GFDL. pd-self tag clearly erroneous. Dcoetzee 05:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC) --Dcoetzee 05:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 11:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Pmac-organograma.jpg

Probable false license. I found the original source at http://www.ac.gov.br/pmac/Organograma.htm and there's no sign of a license statement, nor are works of the Brazilian police public domain as far as I know. --Dcoetzee 06:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 11:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Pmro-novospms.gif

Probably false license. Closest image I can find to the source is http://www.pm.ro.gov.br/modules.php?op=modload&name=My_eGallery&file=index&do=showpic&pid=29&orderby=dateD, which is of the same subject from a slightly different angle. No sign of a license statement and I don't think Brazilian police images are in the public domain. --Dcoetzee 06:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 11:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:IMG 4298.jpeg

Deletion requested by the uploader - see User talk:Franz Xaver#please delete some photos. He argues that this shows an unknown moss which is impossible to determine. And yes, this seems to be correct. --Franz Xaver 12:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't think that is a good reason for deletion. And btw, GFDL is irrevocable. -- Bryan (talk to me) 19:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Deleted by MesserWoland: In category Against policy; not edited for 1 days

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

[edit] Image:IMG 0001 lamina.jpeg

Another deletion requested by the same uploader - see User talk:Franz Xaver#please delete some photos. Reason: unknown moss which is impossible to determine. --Franz Xaver 12:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Deleted by MesserWoland: In category Against policy; not edited for 1 days

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

[edit] Image:Person_picture_warning.png

Out of project scope and could easily be reproduced using CSS and other (already existing) symbols. -- Lcarsdata 19:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

•  Delete --norro 23:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

deleted, --Polarlys 13:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)