Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2007/04

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

[edit] Image:Yt_woman.jpg

Uploader claims to be the auther, image is from http://yorktownindustries.com/_images/_history/woman_machine-sm.jpg -- Tarawneh 04:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio, deleted. Yann 21:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:SPEEDprof.jpg

It is written that this is an "official image" which could mean that it is copyrighted -- Meno25 10:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Press image, copyvio, deleted. Yann 21:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:CapelaNSCarmo.jpg

No evidence of GFDL licensing from the source Jusjih 13:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio, deleted. Yann 21:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:01 12 05JoseResendeBienal.jpg

Press photo --88.134.140.64 16:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

All the other uploads of this user seem to be press photos too. --88.134.140.64 16:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. Yann 21:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:22ponz21.jpg

"free download" is not the same as a free license. --88.134.140.64 16:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio, deleted. Yann 21:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:23ponz22.jpg

"free download" is not the same as a free license. --88.134.140.64 16:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio, deleted. Yann 21:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Inzamam-ul-Haq.jpg

no evidence of CC licence. William Avery 17:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't provide evidence because i scanned this into the computer and then cut out the other people in it. I didn't take the photo but I was given a copy the photo and I have the permission to put it on here.--Thugchildz 19:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The image appears to be clipped from http://www.flickr.com/photos/cricket/17304431/ which is "© All rights reserved". I am having problems believing that you "scanned this into the computer". William Avery 20:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio, deleted. Yann 21:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Playa Médano.jpg

Apparent copyvio from http://siriux.net/photos/reisen/teneriffa/p8296462.jpg.html William Avery 18:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio, deleted. Yann 21:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:CatedralLaLaguna.jpg

Apparent copyvio from http://www.ojodigital.net/showphoto.php/photo/1171 William Avery 18:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio, deleted. Yann 21:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:RecintoFerial.jpg

Apparent copyvio from http://www.rinconcitocanario.com/SantaCruz/fotosemana/fotosemana.htm William Avery 18:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio, deleted. Yann 21:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:TeatroGuimerá.jpg

Apparent copyvio from http://www.rinconcitocanario.com/SantaCruz/fotosemana/fotosemana.htm William Avery 18:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio, deleted. Yann 21:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Rahul Dravid.jpg

no evidence of CC licence. Looks like a screen dump William Avery 17:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

 Delete Copyvio, delete. Yann 21:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

 Delete--Thugchildz 22:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio, deleted. Yann 19:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Plan tram stetienne par irkeos2006.jpg

This document contains copyrighted and licensed unfit for use logotypes from http:www.sncf.com Captain Scarlet 13:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Deleted by Yann: copyvio

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

[edit] Image:RobJames.jpg

License can not be verified  : Copyright owner, Rob James. Permission granted under CC-by-SA 2.5. and author site is down. -- Tarawneh 04:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. I do have a licensing confirmation email from Rob James, which is being sent to permissions. Can we give these things more than a few minutes before immediately tagging them for deletion? --Elonka 05:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Since deletion requests are usually only closed a week (if not more) after they're submitted anyway, it doesn't really matter. Yonatan ^talk 08:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Kept, permission received. — Timichal 22:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Flamingwater.jpg

This picture was put up for deletion again, this time by creator of the image. I have requested user put a reason in for the deletion request, and he answered on my talkpage. This is the user's band's logo, not meant for import to Commons. It was only used on his userpage. He does not want someone to take the logo and bandname and run with it, and would like to see it removed. As this is request is based new information, I reopen the debate. Deadstar 07:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

•  Keep - Not relevant for a deletion request. --FSHL 16:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Flamingwater.jpg

The description reads: "it is not allowed to misuse this image, save it or remove it. It is, however, allowed to view :)" This is not compatible with PD, as claimed license Tjipke de Vries 14:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

 Comment Hmm, what to do with this? Both the permission and the license have been formulated by the creator. Should the broader or the narrower permission prevail? In case of the former:  Keep, in case of the latter:  Delete. How is this usually handled on Commons? Siebrand 16:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

•  Keep {{PD-textlogo}} --Rtc 13:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Nah, it does definately not solely consist of a simple font. This deletion debate is about which permission provided by an uploader should prevail in case license template and written permission differ: the broadest or narrowest. Siebrand 13:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
    • It is certainly a very simple font, far below anything that could be copyrighted. For something that could be copyrighted, see [1] or [2] .A font is non-simple only if it consists of more than mere design of existing letters. --Rtc 13:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Then many of the large publishing clients I work for must be very stupid to be paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for the simple fonts they are using... I'll let them know they might as well not pay the licensing fees to Adobe e.a. Siebrand 18:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
        • They are paying for scalable vector fonts, which some consider to be copyrighted as computer programs, because of hinting and other elements. The typefaces as such are not copyrighted. They can be restricted by design patent law, but that only applies to the font as such, not to text written with it. So speaking correctly, a font can be copyrighted (under some circumstances; pixel fonts are not copyrighted for example), but not the typeface. This picture does not contain a font, though, only letters written in a typeface. --Rtc 08:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Kept -- Bryan (talk to me) 19:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:07112006171204 Mika 1 small-copyright-jarno.saari.jpg

"granted for the use on Wikipedia" is not free enough for commons. --88.134.140.64 16:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Deleted -- Bryan (talk to me) 19:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Muileann gCearr canal 01.JPG

Public domain claim not proved Jusjih 14:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

User edited the picture, took off the template and added: "Je suis le déteneur de l'originale de cette prise; et je donne mon accord." And thus gives the consent to use the picture. I have since added in another template as there is still no copyright template on the page. Deadstar 14:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Deleted by MECU: no license

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

[edit] Image:Jules Verne Trophy.jpg

Same reason as Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Cricket World Cup trophy.png; in violation of Commons:Derivative works. Thugchildz 23:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

 Delete per nom.--Thugchildz 08:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

 Keep drinking vessel or dish → industrial machine made utility article → not copyrighted --LimoWreck 22:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

This clearly isn't as a drinking vessel nor a dish, from dictionary.com- drinking vessel noun a vessel intended for drinking and this clearly isn't intended for drinking and per Commons:Derivative works- Photographs of three-dimensional objects are always copyrighted. Even if the object itself is in the public domain. If you didn't take the photograph yourself, you need permission from the owner of the photographic copyright (unless of course the photograph itself is in the public domain). And the photograph can not be public domain because By taking a picture, you create a new, copyrighted work (i.e. the photograph). At the same time, the rights of the original still exists and don't go away. By publishing the picture, you do something only the original copyright holder is allowed to do. That's why you won't be able to use your own photography of a copyrighted work (except as fair use) unless the creator of the original gave you permission to do so. It must be deleted.--Thugchildz 03:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

COM:DW#Isn.27t_every_product_copyrighted_by_someone.3F_What_about_cars.3F_Or_kitchen_chairs.3F_My_computer_case.3F --LimoWreck 17:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

And what is the exact point your saying from the link? I'm pretty sure this is copyrighted and is neither a dish nor a drinking vessel.--THUGCHILDz 02:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

•  Keep or close Commons as there are thousands of pictures featuring 3D objects for which copyright still applies (cars, buildings, electronic devices, etc.) inisheer 11:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Those are not copyright-able. Please read the links provided above. Also as before if there is pictures of 3rd stuff on commons that are copyrighted than those should be deleted too and you can nominate those yourself.--THUGCHILDz 06:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

•  Keep : object of no obvious artistic value. Possession of an item grants to right on its representation. Rama 12:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure it's still copyrighted unless you can show otherwise and so it should still be deleted.--THUGCHILDz 06:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

•  Keep : Je ne vois pas le problème. Ludo 10:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Kept. I see no evidence that this object contains artistical features; i.e. you cannot copyright a cube, a rhomb or similar. / Fred Chess 14:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:PicassoandFriends.jpg

I doubt this picture was first published in the United States and it most likely isn't in the public domain in its country of origin (probably Spain or France) -- Yonatan ^talk 08:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

•  Delete According to [3], the photo was taken by Jean Cocteau (1889 - 1963) in 1916 in Paris. Lupo 14:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
•  Keep According to [4] it is PD in the USA. Yann 19:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • But it's not a U.S. work... Lupo 21:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

 Comment Jean Cocteau is French, so we must follow French copyright law here. Wooyi 15:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

 Delete I say delete.

Deleted, per above / Fred Chess 14:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Audi collage.jpg

An unlicensable collage. Besides the fact that Image:Audi A8L.jpg failed Flickr review, some of the source images are only available under GFDL (e.g. Image:AudiS6av.JPG), while some others are only CC-BY-SA (e.g. Image:Audi S4 Cabriolet.jpg). The two competing "viral" licenses are effectively at a standoff. --Davepape 01:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

•  Delete AS per Davepape --Tarawneh 15:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment I don't see why it should be impossible to combine the GFDL with a cc license. If it is impossible to combine images of different licenses, we might as well close down Commons. How can otherwise a GFDL licensed article use a CC licensed image? However, it should be noted next to each image on the image description page what license it is under and who the author is, for attribution. Furthermore, I have deleted the two images that came from flickr, so those images must be removed or replaced from the collage. If someone is willing to do these things, I will keep the image. Otherwise I will delete it. / Fred Chess 14:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete - Used 2 images that were non free. GFDL and CC can live together, but we still don't take non-free content. MECU≈talk 17:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:SMS cartridges.jpg

The covers seem to contain copyrighted material. Conspi^ration 10:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I have uploaded this picture over a year ago, and was not aware it wasn't allowed to place a picture of box of a videogame on commons. Go ahead and delete the picture, i will remove it from the article i have placed. thanks, SanderK 20:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry for this, I think it would qualify as fair use in english Wikipedia though. --Conspi^ration 14:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Deleted per above. MECU≈talk 17:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:André Weil 5.jpeg

"We do not own the copyright to the images used on this website. We believe that most of the images are in the public domain and that provided you use them on a website you are unlikely to encounter any difficulty." - The author en:Paul Halmos died in 2006, so there's no proof that the image is indeed public domain. --88.134.140.64 17:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

•  Keep for now. The uploader quoted from the website. It's very rare that they would lie about the copyright status. Wooyi 19:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. The notice continues: if you wish to use them in any other way -- in "paper" publishing or on a CD for example -- we cannot guarantee that there may not be outstanding copyright problems. That does not good at all. / Fred Chess 14:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:BoNM - Lithouania2.png

Superseded by Image:BoNM - Lithuania2.png. Ling.Nut 17:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Deleted (you can use {{badname}} for deletion requests of this sort). / Fred Chess 14:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:As6_line_drawing.jpg

The Airplane was designed in the 1930's, probably by de:Arthur Sack. PD-old not appliable. "life of the author plus 70 years" is wrong in any case. -- BLueFiSH 01:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. In general, the design of machines such as this is not covered by copyright. The drawings themselves are, of course. Otherwise, no photograph of any created object from the 20th or 21st centuries, pretty much, could be taken. The copyright issue here is not that of the plane, but because the drawing is unattributed and no justification for the copyright status is given. Morven 08:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

deleted, --Polarlys 21:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Gavia101.JPG

derivative of a copyrighted trophy, please do not close early as this image is currently on the Hebrew Wikipedia main page -- Yonatan ^talk 08:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

deleted, --Polarlys 21:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Panneau parc national du Djurdjura.jpg

the true author is the park or the author of this information board Damouns இ 18:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

•  Delete License is non-commercial, which is incompatible with our license. Wooyi 19:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment, maybe Algeria has Freedom of panorama. If you speak French, could you take a look a http://lexinter.net/DZ/ordonnance_relative_aux_droits_d%27auteur_et_aux_droits_voisins.htm ? / Fred Chess 14:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

ARTICLE 9 : Les oeuvres de l'Etat rendues licitement accessibles au public peuvent être librement utilisées à des fins non lucratives sous réserve du respect de l'intégrité de l’œuvre et de l'indication de la source.: does it mean that if I change the licence for a "CC-BY-2.0", the picture will be usable in Commons? Damouns இ 23:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I forgot the "non-lucrative" obligation. So I confirm that we can't use this photo. Damouns இ 23:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

deleted, --Polarlys 21:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:WINTER MILKY WAY AT STAR HILL.jpg

Copyvio, scrolling down to the bottom of the given source page shows that the image is the "property of Drew Evans and [...] not to be used without permission. Copyright © 1997-2007 All rights reserved. 124.178.25.90 03:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Uploader claims to have obtained permission. Therefore please use {{subst:npd}}. --|EPO| 11:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Old highway shields

Image:WA blank.png

Image:WA-blank.gif

Image:US164.png

Image:US366.png

Image:Wa 520 shield.gif

Image:US370.png

Image:US80N.png

Image:US77A.png

Image:US90A.png

Superseded by or redundant to (in order) Image:WA Blank.svg (x2), Image:US 164.svg, Image:US 366.svg, Image:WA-520.svg, Image:US 370.svg, Image:US 80N.svg, Image:Alternate plate.svg, Image:US 77.svg, and Image:US 90.svg. When the above images are deleted, Category:Washington Highways and Category:Highway signs in the United States will become empty and should be deleted as well. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 00:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete superseded/unused per nom.  V60 ^{干什么？ · VContribs} 03:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

All but one deleted. Siebrand 11:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Immodinova C. images (2007-04-01)

1. Image:Adbulkosimi Firdousi.jpg
2. Image:Abuali Sino Avicenna.jpg

Critical copyright information is missing. No info on date of death of author "Immodinova C." has been made avalible -- Cat ^chi? 00:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. Missing source info.

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

[edit] Image:Little prince multilingual.jpg

Copyrighted picture, copyrighted covers :( --Flominator 16:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. Lennert B 19:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Was deleted as copyvio by [[Lennert B]]. Siebrand 11:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Leka kontor

This is a page about a children's book & I take it the image is copyrighted. Text looks like an ad? Someone with Swedish please check? Deadstar 14:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

 Done out of project scope. Yonatan ^talk 15:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Memory-alpha-cropped.png

The front page of Memory Alpha, of which this is a screenshot, contains (in this particular image) nine individual copyrighted (unfree) images. Secondarily, Memory Alpha content is licensed under the "Creative Commmons 'Attribution-NonCommercial' license version 2.5", not the GFDL (as the uploader purports) , and is therefore doubly incompatible with Commons. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 14:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

 Done - source says cc-by-nc. Yonatan ^talk 15:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Chapter House, York Minster.jpg

Unused. Too low resolution to be useful. Lokal_Profil 22:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

 Done VIGNERON * ^discut. 12:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Bg-movement.png

No longer used. I uploaded this to work around a rendering problem with the SVG version, which I have since fixed. Ptkfgs 03:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

deleted

Julo 14:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. LOC doesn't indicate copyrighht status, and shows a different picture anyway. This reproduction appears to be a crop from this one. No author given anywhere. The image is from the 1930s, it was distributed as a postcard in Germany on the occasion of the return of Legion Condor in 1939, see here. Note that the "New York World Telegram" claim is bogus, the LOC doesn't mention anything like that. Delete unless it can be shown that the photographer died more than 70 years ago. Lupo 08:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

deleted, --Polarlys 22:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. "life of the author plus 70 years." - published in 1935, author is surely not dead for 70 years -- Notschrei 16:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

•  Delete The argument is correct; pictures published anonymously before 1995 are restricted 70 years pma in Germany, regardless of whether it is actually possible to identify the author or not. --Rtc
  • This argument always struk me. And how do we know when it will be PD if we don't know the author? Yann 19:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
    • 70 years after publication? Kjetil r 02:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
      • 70 pma, not 70 years after publication. Only works published anonymously after 1995 are PD 70 years after publication. This is because the new regulations from the EU directive did not shorten existing protection. We cannot know when it will be PD. 150 years after publication, it can be assumed safely that the work is in the public domain; 100 years after publication, it can be assumed reasonably until indications of the contrary. The new rule for anonymous works being PD 70 years after publication will be relevant in Germany for the first time not until 2065. --Rtc 08:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
        • Rtc is misleading. For photographs isn't the pre-1995 exception not valid --Historiograf 21:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
          • These are not photographs. --Rtc 14:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Please also add the following pictures belonging to the same series:

1. Image:AndernachNeuwied.jpg
2. Image:AssmannshausenLorch.jpg
3. Image:BoppardOsterspai.jpg
4. Image:BreisigSinzig.jpg
5. Image:EltvilleHeidesheim.jpg
6. Image:GisenheimWinkel.jpg
7. Image:GoarGoarshausen.jpg
8. Image:KoblenzMosel.jpg
9. Image:KoelnDeutz.jpg
10. Image:MainzKastel.jpg
11. Image:RuedesheimGeisenheim.jpg
12. Image:StolzenfelsLahnstein.jpg
13. Image:WesselingRheidt.jpg

Hope I didn't miss any. --Begw 03:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. If there appear any other images after this deletion debate I will speedydelete them.--Notschrei 05:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

deleted, --Polarlys 22:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Buchma_grave.JPG

seems to have been created in the Ukraine which doesn't have freedom of panorama -- Yonatan ^talk 15:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear Yonatan, Ukraine has freedom of panorama. There is no direct implication of this concept in the legislative documents but it is widely recognized by the court practice. The most close legislative provision is provided by Article 21(4) of the Law on copyright and related rights.

This rule provides that "it shall be permitted without the consent of the author (or other copyright holder) and with mandatory indication of the author's name and of the source of borrowing: ... to reproduce, in order to highlight current events by means of photography or cinematography, to carry out public notification or other public communication of the works seen or heard in the course of such events to the extent justified by the informational purpose".

See this link for more details.

Best regards, --Gennadiy Kornev 09:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

That's not freedom of panorama. It's a "fair use"-like provision limited to "informational purposes" for information about "current events". It's a fair use provision for news reporting. Such provisions exist in many other copyright laws around the world: it's an implementation of Article 10bis(2) of the Berne Convention. Lupo 13:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

deleted, --Polarlys 21:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Private scouting and school images

[edit] Image:1788.jpg

Do you have permissions from all filmed persons? -- EugeneZelenko 15:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Summary

Uploaded by:

• Beeyan (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log • upload log)
• Djama (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log • upload log)
• Jabbar (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log • upload log)
• Mappase (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log • upload log)
• Smpl02 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log • upload log)
• Smpl03 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log • upload log)
• Smpl06 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log • upload log)
• Smpl09 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log • upload log)

All deleted. All images above have been deleted by a number of users (including myself) for not being inside project scope. Uploaders have been blocked for being sockpuppets. -- Cat ^chi? 17:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Images from Palio di Siena

Images/Symbols of Palio di Siena and its Contrade are trademarked [5] Cruccone 15:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Image:Siena Palio-Fahnen 20030815-360.jpg
• Image:Plaque territory Aquila Siena.jpg
• Image:Siena-Chiocciola.JPG
• Image:Chiocciola-IncolaeVici.JPG
• Image:Chiocciola-elezioni.JPG
• Image:DragoProvaGenerale.JPG
• Image:Drummers Lupa Siena.jpg
• Image:Lupa San Sebastiano Siena.jpg
• Image:People scarves Pantera.jpg
• Image:Flag bearer Pantera Campo.jpg
• Image:Flag bearer Pantera Campo n2.jpg
• Image:Street lamp Pantera Siena.jpg
• Image:Plaque territory Pantera Siena.jpg
• Image:Palio - Siena.jpg
• Image:Contrade soppresse.JPG
• Image:Gonfalonieri dei Terzi.JPG
• Image:IM000729.JPG
• Image:Il palio.JPG
• Image:Palio - Carica dei carabinieri.JPG
• Image:Palio - Carrocio.JPG
• Image:Palio - Cavallo scosso.JPG
• Image:Palio - Civetta.JPG
• Image:Palio - La carriera.JPG
• Image:Palio - Manifesto.JPG
• Image:Palio - Masgalano.JPG
• Image:Palio - Nicchio.JPG
• Image:Palio - Onda.JPG
• Image:Palio - Selva.JPG
• Image:Palio - Tartuca.JPG
• Image:Palio Torre.JPG
• Image:Vessillifero del comune.JPG

• Fancy that. I am not well-versed in industrial property rights, so I cannot check if the Consorzio's claims hold actually any substance but in doubt, we'll probably have to  Delete the whole lot. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 15:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC) On account of new evidence. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 21:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• keep - we don't care for trademark, but copyright only. --h-stt !? 19:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
•  Keep with {{Trademarked}} --Rtc 13:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
•  Keep with {{Trademarked}} --cerrigno 08:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
•  Keep --Historiograf 21:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
•  Keep could someone translate the "palio di Siena" entry here? It seems to me that the court of Milan decided in 1992 that the city of Siena was not entitled to a copyright on images of the Palio. Whether their trademark claim holds up is anyone's guess. Lupo 21:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The ruling is dated 1992 and basically says that "Comune di Siena" does not hold copyright on the Palio symbols and that the Palio is old enough that participants cannot add enough originality to be relevant for copyright law. However, symbols of the contrade are trademarked, the application was filed on 22 April 2003 - well after the court ruling, take into account that in Italy a court ruling does not make a law as in the US or UK (applications are RM2003C002269 to RM2003C002287 in [6]) Cruccone 23:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. So I did not misunderstand. When an Italian court decides that Siena has no copyright on the Palio, then Siena has no copyright on the Palio. (Unless the decision were overturned on appeal). Reminds me of that story about trying to copyright the whole Tuscany.[7][8] (No idea whether that is an urban myth or actually true.) As to the trademark issue:

• RM2003C002269 is described as "un quadrato intorno al quale campeggia la seguente scritta in caratter e maiuscolo: sul lato sinistro "consorzio", sul lato alto "per la tute la del", sul lato destro "palio di siena". all'interno di detto quadra" (seems to be something missing. In any case, a square with the words "CONSORZIO" on the left, "PER LA TUTELA DEL" at the top, and "PALIO DI SIENA" at the right.)
• RM2003C002287 is given as "un cerchio bordato, con elemento decorativo a forma di corda a segnarn e la circonferenza all'interno di detto cerchio e' rappresentato un tr iangolo equilatero i cui lati sono segnati da un bordo, le punte di de" (again, cut off). That's a triangle within a circle with a rope along the circumference.

I don't see those two trademarks anywhere on any of these images, on which neither the community of Siena nor the Consorzio per la Tutela del Palio di Siena have any copyrights. Lupo 10:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

WTF, if an Italian court states that Siena has no copyright on the Palio, that does not necessary imply that Siena has no copyright on the Palio, we follow Roman right, not Anglo-Saxon right, so each court ruling only applies to that specific case. Image:Plaque territory Aquila Siena.jpg is exactly RM2003C002270, Image:Siena-Chiocciola.JPG contains RM2003C002272 and so on. 69 to 87 means 69, 70, 71, 72, ..., 85, 86, 87 Cruccone 20:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't care, but am very flattered to be one of the authors of the controversial Palio pictures (Image:Siena Palio-Fahnen 20030815-360.jpg). Of course, if the people who contest my right to take and publish pictures taken in Siena during the Palio season (when you can see the flags of the different contrados (?) everywhere) should win this battle, photographers can go elsewhere (at the worst outside the whole of Tuscany) to take pictures. The property of pictures taken in public places is private only to the photographer. And the Roman versus Anglo-Saxon law controversy is ridiculous if not utter nonsense. Court decisions are not irrelevant as long as they haven't been reversed on appeal. Don't forget that even in Italy Berlusconi doesn't control everything. The world including Siena does not belong to trademarkers. (I'll trademark this statement immediately all over the world.) --wpopp 20:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, this is not my battle, I would be very happy if images can stay, I just want the situation to be clarified. And BTW, Berlusconi is no more Prime Minister, so you can take your anti-Italian statement elsewhere! Cruccone 11:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

If it's not your battle, whose is it. And I don't see anything anti-Italian in my statement. It's rather pro-Italian, since I said B. doesn't control everything. Ok? --wpopp 13:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Just trying to clarify the situation. Occasionally people write to Italian OTRS with such claims. Cruccone 22:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

•  Keep I see no motivations to delete those pictures. ----ßøuñçêY2K 13:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Kept. MECU≈talk 17:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Dajak mitStiftahnen die mitBronzestuckchen inSternform ausgelegt sind.jpg

(reason for deletion) TuaiRumah 19:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

This is the WRONG Image to Potray the Dayak, and for WIKIMEDIA purposes this should be removed immediately in the interest of fairness and not Misuse --TuaiRumah 19:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

This is the WRONG Image to Portray the Dayak.

Dayak is many tribes. And this image is 100 years old.

See a other tribe: Image:Gruppe_vonLand-Dayakfrauen.jpg--haabet 06:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

This is irrelevant. The image is completely useless. It is a picture of an Eskimo for all we know. Please remove this image. It is not a Dayak. TuaiRumah 12:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

show a link to a image of a Eskimo by teeth like these.

Again that comment is irrelevant. Is this image meant to be an example of someone's teeth? if so, then it is in the wrong category.

TuaiRumah 14:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The copyright on this, and other Buschan photos on Commons, needs to be clarified - according to an obituary on JSTOR, Georg Buschan lived from 1863 to 1942. If he took the photos himself, they should still be copyrighted until 1 Jan 2013. --Davepape 13:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The book is first published before 1923, as Commons has any copyright-problem. In other country, other copyrights. But it is rare by copyright on Photo from before WW2--haabet 21:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

FYI, "pre-1923 = PD" only applies to work first published in the U.S., which I doubt Buschan's Die Sitten der Völker was. However, you've now identified the photo as being by W. H. Furness (which Nature confirms); Furness appears to have worked and published in Philadelphia, so {{PD-US}} would apply. --Davepape 01:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The law of U.S.A. only be effective in U. S. A. and The server of commons is in U. S. A., but in other states other laws. As PD image from U.S.A. can have copyright in other states. But a image have need of both copyright in the homeland and copyright in USA, before it have valid copyright.haabet 21:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

There are some U. S. works of the same type as "Die Sitten der Völker", can you see in your libraries for that image? The Images was few at that era. And some U. S. works was bigger as "Die Sitten der Völker" other is perhaps a translation or is "Die Sitten der Völker" a translation from English? U.K. had a empire in that time. "Die Sitten der Völker" is dominate of images from english colonys.haabet 21:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

COPYRIGHT ISSUE

The Image in question, and indeed all the other images in the category possess in their entirety,some Copyright Issue. It appears that these have been scanned in and uploaded to WIKIPEDIA COMMONS without any prior permission sought from the Publishers.

Buschans book on this and WH Furness Nature article, when marketed and published in the US and other Countries, were substantively Copyright protected. I am certain the publishers then and those who inherited the Copyright now retain the interest.

For the benefit of WIKIMEDIA, I suggest that this image is removed or recommended for speedy deletion, because it's use now in WIKI, appears to contravene certain Copyright obligations. The other images in the category will have to reconsidered in light of this now.

If anything, other original images can be made or are available from other sources. And for some incoherent reason, the image is that of a unindentified Male, allegedly of some vague link to the Dayak??? It currently serves no purpose whatsoever to WIKIMEDIA or even WIKIPEDIA. I fail to see why it has been uploaded. Please Delete  Delete

TuaiRumah 14:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, my opinion is  Keep - from what I've found, William Furness III was a University of Pennsylvania anthropologist active circa 1900-1920 (Folk-Lore in Borneo (1899), The Home Life of Borneo Head-hunters (1902), etc); this photo is almost certainly PD-US. Given that his work is still cited after a century, it would appear to at least have value in the history of anthropology. The caption could perhaps be expanded to address TuaiRumah's concerns, situating it as an historical artifact (similar to how we wouldn't delete everything in Category:Blackface minstrelsy). --Davepape 19:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't follow what you're saying. William Furness III was an anthropologist from a distant period.I am most certainly interested in reading those books you have just mentioned, but, as you know, copying and pasting the text from those books, constitutes an Editing NO NO in WIKIPEDIA. And how does plagiarism differ from uploading Images of those books here??? Moreover, to what purpose does this photo serve???

It's use here is certainly a COPYRIGHT Infringement.

Also, must WIKIMEDIA COMMONS be a repository for each and every redundant still image??? And what specific value would this image have to do with the Dayak of today or for some obscure chapter in a history of South East Asian Anthropology???

There just seems to be more confusion from what you've just written. The Caption could easily be tagged as "Example of Bad Teeth". There is just no coherence there. It's an empty statement. Apart from the very obvious racist statement "show a link to a image of a Eskimo by teeth like these. ", the uploading of this image to that Dayak category is just plain condescending prejudice personified.

To be fair, it is highly likely that the Book and Image in question could be used in a University Course title "A History of Racism". If anything, should this image be kept, I suggest this be recategorised as "Examples of early 20th Century Racism".

I have read the WIKIguide and there is a very, very good reason to replace this image altogether. Uploading Images for some unspecified, vague historical artifact collecting reason is probably best served by keeping this in a Library somewhere.

The more I questioned the uploading of this image, the more I feel this should be removed. I say DELETE  Deletethis IMAGE.

22:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

TuaiRumah 22:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Kept: There appear to be no copyright problems and censoring is not a reason for deletion. Commons is not censored. -- Bryan (talk to me) 18:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:PJLW.jpg

I uploaded my image named with my initials PJLW. When I previewed it on my english Wikipedia page it was another image and not mine. I received no warnings that said not to. I need it deleted so I may rename it and reupload it. Paloma Walker 06:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. This is a case of namespace conflict: the English-speaking Wikipedia already has a local file named Image:PJLW.jpg which gets the priority over the one on Commons. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 07:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 07:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:MontrealDVD.jpg

DVD cover?! -- Meno25 06:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deleted. Please use {{speedy}} for obvious copyvios such as this one. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 06:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Praça São Miguel 7.jpg

User has been playing with the image, does not seem to depict anything. Don't think there's use for this one, so out of scope. Deadstar 13:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

deleted

Julo 18:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Estatua Praça M Evaristo.jpg

This picture has been altered, and it did not improve it. I don't think the picture can be used for anything in this state, and propose deletion. Deadstar 14:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

deleted

Julo 18:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Praça São Miguel 6 .jpg

This picture has been worked on with photoshop, and if there was a subject, it is no longer clear. As this cannot be used for anything, it is outside the scope of commons. Deadstar 14:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

deleted

Julo 18:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Pça S Miguel 8.jpg

reason:Poor quality image, not clear what the subject is. Cannot be used for anything so outside of scope. Deadstar 14:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

deleted

Julo 18:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Seahawks-4thPreseason-game105.jpg

This is a (fairly poor) screenshot taken from TV. Very likely that this is not in the public domain. Deadstar 15:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

See also:

• Image:Seahawks-4thPreseason-game104.jpg
• Image:Seahawks-4thPreseason-game106.jpg
• Image:Seahawks-4thPreseason-game110.jpg

Copyvio, deleted. Yann 19:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:576px-Anthraxnote2.jpg

• Author not dead for 70 years, FBI or any other government source is not the Author ALE! ¿…? 08:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• The author is anonimous and the picture was released by the FBI in this site http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel01/102301.htm. As Commons claims "this picture is the public domain because This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States Federal Government under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the US Code". If this picture is not in the PD, most of the near thousand pictures categorized in Category:Government of the United States should be also deleted. --Roblespepe 13:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

No, because the FBI most certainly didn't create the letter which this photo is a derivative of. Yonatan ^talk 19:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what is the argument for the deletion proposal. It's a photo taken by an anonimous FBI's photographer released by the FBI and ruled by the American law that says all federal documents/photos/movies are PD. Are you saying that the anonimous terrorist who wrote the note is the copyright holder? --Roblespepe 16:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

•  Keep American Administration officer's (anonymous or known, doesn't matter) work --> {{PD-USGov}}. Julo 18:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
•  Keep Photo taken by the FBI. Yann 19:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• ALE, do you still have doubts? If not the banner can be taken off. --Roblespepe 01:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • It is an derivative work (photo by the FBI) of a copyrighted work (letter) by an anonymous author (terrorist). So the photo can not be in the public domain although it was taken by the FBI. The only thing we could discuss here is whether the copyrighted work (letter) is ineligible for copyright because it is to trivial to reproduce. --ALE! ¿…? 07:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
•  Keep; ALE, it cannot be considered a work of art; and anyway, let the guy (or gal) come forth and claim copyright! ^_^ And Yonatan - are you sure it isn't a work of the FBI? (don't bother answering, I don't care either way) – Tintazul ^talk 14:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• The argument sustain by ALE is not serious (with all respect for him), and suggest also that the FBI is violating "the copyright of the terrorist letter". --Roblespepe 22:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• I suspect the FBI could make a number of fair use and the like cases. However that does not apply to us. The image is not free.Geni 12:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. A lot of FBI photos have been deleted before, eg. Osama bin Laden's photo. Thuresson 06:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Pterois zebra

Incorrect scientific name, correct page under Dendrochirus zebra. User:Bricktop, 09:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Turned into redirect , in case there is a page on Wikipedia linking to it. / Fred Chess 14:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. it's a poster most likely on a Litfaßsäule (Morris column) in Germany (Kassel) and not permanent installed (en:Panorama_freedom#Permanent_vs_temporary). -- BLueFiSH 19:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

 Keep No, it was in an exibithion. It's really hard to tell now, because it was probably the documenta 8, I took this photo, but as far as I rembember it was inside the AOK-building, where an overview of the history of the art exhibitions of Kassel was shown. -- AM 21:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

when it was in an exhibition, panorama freedom can not be applied (now less than ever). --BLueFiSH 04:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

 Keep. it is outside--Delorian 03:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

a morris column is in earnest outside. --BLueFiSH 04:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

 Delete The argument is correct. --Rtc 13:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

 Delete – Tintazul ^talk 14:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

deleted, --Polarlys 22:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. I can't find any permission at the named web site that the copyright owner allows use of this image. Thuresson 20:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

•  Delete – Tintazul ^talk 14:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

deleted, --Polarlys 22:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Akatsuki_cloud.jpg

and Image:Akatsuki_nube.jpg

Derivative work -- EugeneZelenko 14:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean with derivative? the shape is almost the same, but it's only an interpretation...

There is also this one http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Akatsuki_nube.jpg that is very similiar to my work, and it isn't going to be deleted...

Xander

See Commons:Licensing#Derivative works. --EugeneZelenko 15:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

But this isn't a photo taken by the manga or by the anime... it hasn't even been traced, it's only an interpretation... then I think that this isn't a derivative work, only an interpretation... Xander

•  Delete an interpretation is always a derivative work. --Rtc 08:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
•  Delete – Tintazul ^talk 14:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

•  Keep As interpretations, are you going to delete everything that there is at the Naruto page, then? ¿Interpretation=Derivative work? I don't agree with that. Sometimes it may be true, but with something as this cloud... I don't even think he (Masashi Kishimoto, the author) can copyright that cloud, because it a very common thing on japanese traditional drawings. Ilfirin 06:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
•  Keep --Xander 21:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

deleted, --Polarlys 21:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:IMG 1794.JPG

The design for this van is a derivative work of the design of the original Mystery Machine, which is copyrighted by Hanna-Barbera. ShadowHalo 04:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Closed as deleted. --Gmaxwell 05:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:EvaInCREnding.jpg

Screenshot MB-one 23:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. Please tag such images as {{screenshot}}. Kjetil r 02:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Category:Photos of Interstate Highway shields

Images moved to more specific categories  V60 ^{干什么？ · VContribs} 21:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Deleted by Odder: empty category - ReinDeel33t

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

[edit] Image:Bilingual supermarket sign, Jersey.jpg

As this is the name of a supermarket, it is more than likely copyrighted. Propose deletion. Deadstar 15:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

•  Keep names cannot be copyrighted. Propose {{PD-textlogo}} {{trademarked}}--Rtc 08:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• As it's my upload, I thought it within the rules (but I'm biased). The supermarket name is certainly trademarked as a registered business name, but would that give rise to copyright in the sign? If it were considered that supermarket names were unacceptable, it would appear that Category:Supermarkets would be in trouble. Not to mention Category:Logos. Man vyi 12:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Kept, per Rtc, as it is believed that text in a normal font cannot be copyrighted, and neither can a name. / Fred Chess 15:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. Derivative work --88.134.140.64 01:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

deleted, --Polarlys 22:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Connexion by Boeing 737.jpg

planephotoman removed the cc-by licence from this image on flickr after I uploaded it here. We cannot prove it was ever cc-by. planephotoman does not answer my flickr mails. --JuergenL ✈ 06:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC) JuergenL ✈ 06:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I have compared an archived version of planephotoman's Flickr pages at archive.org with [9] and [10]. It certainly shows that planephotoman has changed licensing from CC-BY-2.0 to "All rights reserved" on other photos. It is not unreasonable to assume that this particular photo was CC licensed earlier. Thuresson 08:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

He changed the license of all his photos in early October 2006, from cc-by to all rights reserved. I made a list of his images once and later User:Kelly Martin deleted most of them because of the license change. --Para 13:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

If we can prove that they were cc-by when I uploaded them we don't have to delete them. --JuergenL ✈ 06:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

If we can prove that they were cc-by when I uploaded them we don't have to delete them. Kept. Siebrand 11:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] User:Nevit's personal galleries

As I was and still am somewhat uncertain about this, I discussed this at the on the village pump. I also informed this user after the discussion, but haven't gotten a response.

These particular galleries and the images contained within do not appear to have an education use, but are being used as an art gallery. They do not fall within the scope of the Commons and are more suited to a site like deviantart or such.

I'm not sure about the animation gallery, nor the fractal gallery, but am listing them here for good measure. Consumed Crustacean 16:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

•  Delete in contradiction to COM:PS. Note also that the user incorrectly claims copyright on non-creative images. These have been rendered by a computer from non-creative input, not created by a human. --Rtc 08:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

  Right, at least the Gimpressionist gallery should be deleted. Those images are derivated work from photos we don't know anything about. — Xavier, 12:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

•  Keep some, for instance Image:Dcp7323-Edirne-Eski Camii Allah.jpg (encyclopedic) – Tintazul ^talk 14:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
•  Delete some, for instance Image:08913-Perspective Run.jpg (non-encyclopedic). Just make sure the user understands the reasons well before deletion; in the ideal case the uploader would nominate his own non-Commons pics for deletions himself – Tintazul ^talk 14:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
•  Keep definitely, they all do have encyclopedic purposes, mostly. Those that do not can also be utilized on Wikibooks, WikiVersity, and lots of these different projects of the Foundation, some of them do use art pictures. Wooyi 19:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

all kept (I have not browsed through all images. But most of which I saw was within the project scope considering it in a wider sense.) --ALE! ¿…? 08:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Mene.JPG

already exists: Image:Mene.jpg Dryke 01:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

•  Delete   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 11:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
•  Delete – Tintazul ^talk 14:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

 Done VIGNERON * ^discut. 18:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Osteosynt - folder.jpg

spam? Greudin 22:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Deleted by VIGNERON: copyvio, Commons:Deletion requests

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

[edit] Image:Zeme-herbas.png

copyvio EncycloPetey 00:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

How? Why? // Liftarn

As I noted on the discussion page for this image:

This image was scanned from the 2005 book "Heraldry: past to present". The illustrator in that book is creditted as Algis Kliševičius, who is not the person who uploaded this image. This looks like a copyvio. --EncycloPetey 00:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

--EncycloPetey 14:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

•  Keep, unless you can prove that that image does not fall into {{PD-LithuaniaGov}} – Tintazul ^talk 14:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

While the arms depicted may not be under copyright, the specific illustration does fall under copyright. Any individual artist's work that is copyrighted should be protected, even if the subject of his work is not copyrighted. --EncycloPetey 22:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

This image was not scanned, but redrawn after the image mentioned. A vector format version is available, but I will have to find it.--65.85.181.201 15:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

•  Keep As the previous user stated, it's a not-copyrighted coat of arms and it is redrawn, not scanned. Wooyi 02:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Kept -- Bryan (talk to me) 19:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. Not the official flag. Wrong picture of the eagle. SVG with correct eagle available. Image has been unliked from all WP. Markus1983 08:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

•  Delete – Tintazul ^talk 14:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
•  Delete change to the correct picture. Wooyi 02:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

deleted, --Polarlys 22:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. No source and author given, PD doubtful Phrood 13:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

•  Delete; all that moiré hints of a book scan, and books are usually not clear about copyright issues in the images they use. – Tintazul ^talk 14:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

deleted, --Polarlys 22:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. Artist died in 1973. Panoramafreiheit does not apply because the interior of the church is not considered a public street or place. Phrood 14:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

deleted, --Polarlys 22:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:2006-08-12 Fujitsu-Siemens Lifebook T3010 Convertible Animation.gif

Contains advertising (website link), scribbled ungainly on the last frame and completely spoiling the image.--219.88.79.244 05:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

deleted, because of advertising --Polarlys 21:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Slakfa.jpg

It's a derivative work: we need permission from Śląkfa statue author. A.J. 11:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

•  Delete – Tintazul ^talk 14:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

deleted, --Polarlys 21:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Rose Bowl.JPG

from Go to maps.google.com and put in Rose Bowl. Select satellite and zoom in to the second closest magnification. The picture here, Image:Rose Bowl.JPG was certainly a derivative work from the Google image. 198.203.175.175 17:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Note, since I added the Copyright notice on the Wikipedia page in March 2007, the picture on Google taken near January 2005 has been replaced with one taken after the January 2006 Rose Bowl. The angle is still the same. 198.203.175.175 17:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

•  'Delete'delete I concur that this copyright image fails fair use tests. It is NOT needed in the article for scholarly reasons, and is easily replaceable by a free image. OK, maybe a satellite view of the stadium isn't easily replacable, but anyone with a camera can go up to the stadium itself and take a picture that would serve the purpose this one is. --Jayron32 18:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

•  Comment Google uses some public-domain government sources. Thus, that a satellite or aerial image can be found on Google Maps is not proof it is copyrighted. Note that this is not proof it's PD either, but I don't think the issue is settled yet. Morven 07:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
•  Delete The image does not actually name how the picture was aquired, only the assertion that it is US government copyright. 76.17.130.55 23:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

deleted, --Polarlys 21:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Steinway ArtCase No.394a.jpg

No licence, no proof of PD status Wikipeder 17:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

•  Keep just for now, we need to ask the uploader about it first. It looks very old. Wooyi 19:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• It's been the uploader himself who asked for deletion of these images (see here). The image (as well as the others) has been tagged {{nld}}, the uploader cannot supply the missing information. --Wikipeder 13:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

deleted, --Polarlys 21:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Steinway ArtCase No. 375a.jpg

No licence, no proof of PD status Wikipeder 17:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

deleted, --Polarlys 21:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Steinway ArtCase No. 453a.jpg

No licence, no proof of PD status Wikipeder 17:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

deleted, --Polarlys 21:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Medal-Kurdistan1.gif

• Image:Medal-Kurdistan1.gif
• Image:Medal-Kurdistan2.gif

Copyvio, derivative work. The "kurdistan" map used is from [11] which is not a free source. -- Cat ^chi? 18:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

:That is absolutely unacceptable. Cat uses his Admin rights for his POV. Please read this [[12]], [[13]] talk page. Thanks. --Bohater 11:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Nominating images do not require admin access. This process is to establish copyrights and there is nothing "unacceptable" about it. -- Cat ^chi? 20:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete all--Info about Copyright is Fake and cannot be condone, required actions should be taken for Authors. Also User:Bohater's tone/speech and accusation for an admin is subject to another punishment.Makalp 12:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete obvious derivative work. Make a better effort next time. - FrancisTyers 22:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete ok, it should be delete it. --Bohater 08:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

deleted, --Polarlys 21:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Paintings by Gaston Bogaert

This applies to:

• Image:Bogaert Gaston House.jpg
• Image:Bogaert Gaston Pavillon.jpg
• Image:Bogaert Gaston Province.jpg

Copyvios Phrood 00:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Do not take pictures from professional photographers or artists; they're tained and from the very interests of the rights holder factually never under a free license. --Rtc 08:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Hinweis: bitte diese Diskussion beachten. --Phrood 11:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete – Tintazul ^talk 14:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment who is this "artist" and where is those pictures come from? What kind of art is it? Wooyi 02:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

See w:Gaston Bogaert. Frinck51 said that he knows the painter and that he owns these paintings. --Phrood 09:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Then is he telling the truth? Wooyi 21:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

deleted, --Polarlys 21:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Rod Fuller.jpg

There is a unclarity on this page about whether this is public domain or not. IP-user has (on 27 March 2007) added in address for requesting permission, so I assume it is not PD. Deadstar 15:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

•  Delete, see OTRS Ticket#: 2007031210005801, copyvio--Shizhao 15:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

deleted, --Polarlys 22:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Bayrou2007.jpg

Abusive licensing, poster from the official campaign, no authorizations. Tieum512 09:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

deleted by User:Yann (copyvio) --ALE! ¿…? 10:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Image-N&i-butane-zh.png

wrong file name -- Chanueting 10:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC) was replaced by Image:N&i-butane-zh.png Chanueting 10:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

deleted by User:LERK (duplicate) --ALE! ¿…? 10:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Works by Bernd Josef Bartolome

Unless we have an OTRS mail from the artist and/or the VG Bild-Kunst or, in the case of Image:Bernd Josef Bartolome.jpg, the photographer, these images should be considered copyvios Phrood 14:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

•  Delete don't accept pictures of works of professional artists; don't accept photos of professional photographers. If you do, you are guilty at least morally just as much as someone is guilty if he is buying a stolen car for which he must see that he couldn't get it for that price legally. We should not accept any such works except if rights have been bought properly for the appropriate price (at least several dozens of grands per work, usually). --Rtc 22:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

deleted by User:Polarlys --ALE! ¿…? 10:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Huqngg.jpg

copyrighted by Chiang Kai-shek, not PD Shizhao 03:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

•  Keep, unless it is the case that Chinese calligraphy can so distinct as to be considered a copyrightable form of art. Yet, this should be uploaded as a PNG, to avoid JPEG artifice. – Tintazul ^talk 14:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
•  Delete, Chinese calligrapher sues Dow Jones for copyright infringement and wins. —Tokek 16:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

deleted--Shizhao 06:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Cricket bat.jpg

Moved from Commons:Undeletion requests -- Bryan (talk to me) 08:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Cricket bat.jpg was deleted supposedly for copyvio. This is my bat and I took the picture but it is being said that since the design is said to be copyrighted it was deleted without even having a discussion 1st. And I don't think falls into Commons:Derivative works because its not a 3d object. It isn't a copyvio of a 2d copyright object either because the picture isn't reproduction of just the design, it was of a bat. Plus if it warrant discussions it shouldn't be deleted with under speedy deletions because it doesn't fall into that.--Thugchildz 21:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

•  Delete I deleted it as an obvious copyvio of the prominent printed designs on the face and rear of the bat, and suggested that the user should blank those out and re-upload an image of just the bat itself. That would be fine.--MichaelMaggs 21:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

moved from MichaelMaggs's talk page

It doesn't show "some wood as well" it shows the bat and the design on it as well. And the design isn't reproduced, its not a picture of the design! If your use you logic than why is there pictures like this- and and and and ? They all have copyrighted design/logos on it and believe me I could find a lot of things like these on here, should you delete those too?--Thugchildz 21:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The balls are like almost full of the logos and the bats have about five or six copyrighted logos on them which is a big part of the picture if you add them up. How are those not a significant part of it while the design of the bat is?--Thugchildz 21:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

It shows, in my opinion clearly the logos of "CA", and not de minimis. I am not a lawyer however, and these are difficult cases to decide. I think that any problems can be solved by just removing the logos from the picture. Is that ok? -- Bryan (talk to me) 08:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

That would just ruin the look of the bat and it isn't fair because there are so many pictures of balls or other stuff that has its logos. Come on think about it every name brand sports equipment has its logo on it and so I think that's its really unfair to target a cricket bat and let other ones stay.--Thugchildz 19:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

•  Keep {{PD-textlogo}} {{Trademarked}} --Rtc 08:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
•  Keep – Tintazul ^talk 14:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• {{PD-textlogo}} and {{Trademarked}} aren't tags that authorise us to infringe copyright. The first is for use when the printed design is too simple to attract copyright protection (not so here); the second is informational only. --MichaelMaggs 18:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it is pretty simple- triangles, circles is what it all is.--Thugchildz 21:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

•  Keep As I said every name brand sports equipment has its trademark, so why is this being targeted?--Thugchildz 18:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
•  Delete It's possible to get a picture of each of those items without a logo on it. We don't need that specific cricket bat, we need a cricket bat. Since we can get an image without the logos on it, delete all these items. There isn't a need to infringe on someone's trademarks when we don't have to. There was an OTRS case where a rugby ball manufacturer complained our "free" image infringed on their copyrighted design. MECU≈talk 13:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

This isn't an infringement of someone's trademark as it's not a picture of a trademark otherwise you wouldn't have half the pictures on here because basically most things are trademarked and there's no policy to deny trademarks because of the simple common sense that most things we use nowadays are trademarked. If this picture was to go, most of the images on wikimedia commons has to, even a picture of a street contains trademarks, because building, cars, advertisements etc are all trademarked.--THUGCHILDz 16:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

kept --ALE! ¿…? 08:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Money of Angola (2007-03-25)

Money of Angola is copyrighted G.dallorto 21:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Could you please specify the files? --ALE! ¿…? 10:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Category:Coins of Angola (NB: the files in this category not the category. --ALE! ¿…? 08:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)) but I did not make the request myself, i only created the deletion page since the deletion request was incomplete. --User:G.dallorto 11:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we should be careful not to be too hasty in claiming that images on wikipedia violate copyrights, if this cannot be substantiated. If G.dallorto believes that a violation of copyright has taken place, I think it would be fair to ask him (you) to explain, 1) if we are talking about a violation of any rights of the original artist or rights of the Central Bank of Angola, 2) whether this applies to the pre-independence or the post-independence coins (as these two groups are clearly designded by different artists and de facto issued by different banks), and 3) if, and in what way, uploading of such images on wikipedia constitutes a violation. 05:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Reading before talking could be useful, sometimes. As I wrote, I think nothing. I just completed a deletion request which was incomplete. That's all. --User:G.dallorto 17:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep No evidence presented of the coins being copyrighted. / Fred J 16:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

kept --ALE! ¿…? 11:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Safghkufgzdszra.jpg

It doesn't look like a self-work... -- Leafnode 09:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Obvious copyvio. Deleted. --Dodo 10:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Lloyd.jpg

there is already another photo with the same title "Lloyd" Kameraad Pjotr 11:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

yes: I was unaware of that when I uploaded it. That's why I requested deletion of "Lloyd.jpg", to avoid confussion. —Cesar Tort 15:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. Replaced by Image:Lloyd deMause.jpg; in the future use {{badname}} for this. --Davepape 20:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Little_rouge_book.jpg

Copyvio, derivative work of en:Image:Little red book.jpg -- Iamunknown 15:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. --Panther 10:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Gardens21.jpg

I am the uploader and don't want an actual name associated with file under file history; will reupload after deleted. Thanks. Bluedog423 19:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. --Panther 10:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Kurdistana Sor.jpeg

Image is a potential copyvio. There is no evidence that Mehrdad R. Izady (creator) released the image with a free license. The uploader (in en.wiki) wasn't able to assert a copyright either [15] -- Cat ^chi? 20:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

•  Delete Definitely , get a free license evidence for this map then keep it. --Tarawneh 22:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Copyright info —the preceding unsigned comment is by 195.174.134.251 (talk • contribs)

Which reads "Copyright © 1995 - 2004 Kurdistan Web Org. All rights reserved." -- Cat ^chi? 09:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Deleted Copyright info for site states "use of such Documents from this Server is for informational and non-commercial or personal use only". NC licenses are not permitted. -- Editor at Large • talk 15:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Allersberg-Express.jpg

the very same file as been uploaded at Allersberg-Express_NALB.jpg. Since this file here is not in use, it should be deleted. --Bigbug21 05:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Deleted by Notschrei: duplicate, not used

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

[edit] Image:Ph tagalog.jpg

Delete - Not used. Not needed. Wtmitchell 02:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

kept, that this file is unused, is no valid reason for a deletion request. --GeorgHH 20:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. The uploader received this image from a webmaster of a page where this image was uploaded. There's no proof that the author ever gave his permission to use it commercially or create derivative works. 88.134.140.64 00:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

deleted, --Polarlys 22:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. No permission of the author. That the uploader got no answer from the website where he found it doesn't mean the author releases it under a free license. --88.134.140.64 00:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

deleted, --Polarlys 22:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. There's no reason why the movie from 1942 is in the public domain. --Noddy93 20:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

•  Delete not PD. --Rtc 22:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
•  Keep You should have followed the link to its original source: http://www.archive.org/details/1942-01-07_Gen_Adolph_Takes_Over. If you look on that page, you will see that the movie has the CC - no rights reserved label. The movie was put into the public domain by Universal Studios. I'm shure that if they did, they knew very well that the material can be released on public domain. It's Universal Studios not just an appartament company, they have good jurists. --Alex:D 14:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Invalid argument from authority. --Rtc 15:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Sorry? I mean, it's absurd to discuss such problems here since Universal Studios released that material... Do you know if they do/don't own the copyright? Did they brought it? Is there someone from us, wikipedians who are (their) jurists, to tell wether their decision is right or not? Nonsense. (Plus, there is a chance that a material from 1942 could in the public domain. For example, in Romania, if the owner died before 1946, that material is PD.)--Alex:D 16:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
      • It is simply factually not in the public domain. I do not see what we need to discuss further. I say that their decision is wrong. It must be wrong because the author is not yet dead for 70 years. We have a lot of movies and pictures from nazi germany, and it's the same discussion each time, and it's also the same answer each time: The picture is going to be deleted because it isn't PD. PS: The copyrights from romanian works of authors that died before 1946 were resurrected when they joined the EU, so what you say is incorrect now. --Rtc 16:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  • The fact that someone of archive.org has put the public domain label on the page doesn't prove that Universial Studios released the film into the PD. Apparently parts of Riefenstahl's "Triumph of the Will" are used, which is definitely not PD. --Noddy93 16:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• So be it, you have more experience here. However, what you are saying, Rtc, is very interesting. Could you give me something to read further about the resurrected rights? Because it would mean a lot of work for us, on romanian WP. I really hope you're not right:D...--Alex:D 17:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  • See w:Council Directive 93/98/EEC of 29 October 1993 harmonizing the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights (online version). The causes for resurrected rights are a little bit tricky. First of all, the implementation of this directive is mandatory for each EU member and states that works are protected 70 years post mortem auctoris. Now suppose there is some old work A from your country for which copyright in your country had already expired before it joined the EU. Now your country joins the EU, with all EU-anti-discriminatory laws in effect (that is, you as a citizen of your country must not be discriminated against citizens from other EU countries.) Assume there's some spanish work B that was protected in Spain all the time. By implementation of the EU directive, the spanish citizen enjoys copyright for his work B in your country 70 years pma, too. Now if the work A with previously expired copyright was protected in Spain still at the time your country joined the EU, its author must not be discriminated against the spanish citizen, that is, the EU anti-discriminatory laws prohibit the spanish guy to get better protection in your country for his work B than a citizen of your country for his work A despite the fact that both works A and B fulfil the same premises, namely protection of the work in Spain at the time your country joined EU. But since the directive forbids the spanish guy's copyright for work B to be denied or shortened, it follows that the copyright of work A is resurrected to enable justice, such that A and B get equal protection for their equal premises. Again: If a spanish citizen gets a copyright in your country for 70 pma because his work was protected in Spain that long, then you must not be discriminated to get less than 70 pma in your own country if your work is protected in Spain in exactly the same way. Sure, it's a little bit complicated; I hope you understood the line argumentation. (And why is Spain relevant? Because it had the longest protection periods of all EU countries.) See also w:WP:PD#German_World_War_II_images about the issue. (It's about a parallel case in German law; it should apply vis à vis to Romania.). --Rtc 18:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• About Universal Studios: Universal City Studios gifted Universal Newsreel to the American people, put the newsreels into the public domain, and gave film materials to the National Archives in 1976. Surviving materials from the entire collection are available at the National Archives and Records Administration in College Park, Maryland.--Alex:D 15:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
•  Keep It's said that the company released it into public domain, so it definitely has been into PD, no further argument needed, this is an explicit release into PD, no doubt. Wooyi 03:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • "It's said that the company released it into public domain", "explicit release into PD" - Please provide references to this! --84.145.223.67 10:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
    • This source page says the license is public domain, so it's pretty certain that it is. Wooyi 20:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
      • It is not. Just because someone claims it is so does not mean it is acutally so. It is actually not so! Gen. Adolph Takes Over consists entirely of movie material that has been taken from w:Leni Riefenstahl's w:Triumph of the Will. There are some mistaken views that claim that works from nazi germany are in the PD now. these views are incorrect. The fallacies involved are explained and refuted at w:WP:PD#German_World_War_II_images. This movie won't be PD until 2074! --Rtc 21:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
        • You think the movie company's corporate lawyers would lie in that matter even at the expense of their career? Also I don't think their lawyer would be that ignorant either. Wooyi 19:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
          • Triumph of the Will (and other captured WWII material) is PD in the US and the UK due to specific laws (Alien Property Custodian and War Powers Act respectively). This explains why U.S. companies can use it, and declare it as PD, and why archive.org can host it. Their claims are not mistaken, but they apply inside the U.S. only. However, it is still copyrighted in Germany (and therefore the rest of Europe I would think) so it is probably not free enough for commons. It could likely be uploaded and used locally on en-wiki though. Carl Lindberg 02:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
            • Interesting piece of information. But why isn't it free enough for Commons? Is there any place in Commons where this poijnt is explaioned? I mean, I would say that as long the copyright laws of both the uploader and the place where the servers are located are respected, it is OK, but I do not know if any clear rule exists in Commons on such cases. Bradipus 09:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
              • Commons is for media which can be freely used by any Wikimedia project, not just the Wikipedias, and should be usable in all countries (or at least most of them). If media is only usable in one or two countries, then we are putting users in other countries at risk if they use the material there, since it would be a copyright infringement for them. If media is hosted on a non-U.S. server, then Wikimedia itself might be at risk. So, I think it's safer to not have them on commons. Carl Lindberg 17:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
              • That is gross nonsense, as has been discussed several times before. Alien Property Custodian and War Powers Act concern property rights, not copyrights, despite repeated claims of the contrary. At most, Triumph of the Will material has been used under fair use here, and fair use is not permitted on commons. If they can release anything under PD, then it is the additional copyright they gained on the result of their work. Many US and UK companies use this material illegally because of the common fallacies described at w:WP:PD#German_World_War_II_images. WWIII material is copyrighted by international copyright treaties and may not be used --Rtc 13:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
                • I do not think talking about gross nonsense adds any meaningfull information to your message. The information on w:WP:PD#German_World_War_II_images is very useful. Because of the derivative and original nature of the use of the apparently copyrighted material, it would be thus at least a very strong fair use. It might even be considered under US law as a completely original work of art, but it is not clear enough to be allowed on Commons. BTW, let us stick to WWII material, we will see about the WWIII material in due course) ^_^ Bradipus 14:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
                • Gross nonsense? It is written into U.S. copyright law (17 U.S.C. §104A(a)(2)) as an explicit exception to the URAA restorations on foreign copyrights. The intention was to be sure that Holocaust evidence and the like could not be suppressed through copyright games. As for the UK, I meant the Enemy Property Act, not War Powers Act. That apparently "extinguished" copyrights, so they were not restored by the EU copyright harmonization either (see [16] and [17]). Carl Lindberg 17:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
                  • Yes, gross nonsense. The clause you cite contains the restriction "in which the restored copyright would be owned by a government or instrumentality thereof". This applies to almost none of the WW2 works, and those for which it applies would be PD in almost any case, anyway. It is the similar for the clause "in which the copyright was ever owned or administered by the Alien Property Custodian", since, in the first place, copyright of WWII works was, in contrast to their property, never owned or administered by Alien Property Custodian. I doubt that this law has anything to do with the intention you suggest, and if it is, then it is a) inappropriate, b) in contradiction to treaties, c) not fulfilling its purpose. Copyrights cannot be extinguished in a way such as to make them excluded from restoratzion by the copyright harmonization. --Rtc 17:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
                    • Any works owned by the Nazi party (NSDAP) would now be owned by the German government (or Transit Gmbh, its instrumentality); any Nazi Party works seized by the U.S. during WWII would fall under the exception, meaning the German government cannot claim copyright in the U.S. In fact, a German court ruled that Triumph of the Will was NSDAP property and not Leni Riefenstahl's, and so the German government controlled its copyright. The Alien Property thing has been part of U.S. court cases too; see w:Heinrich Hoffmann, whose seized photographs were ruled to be PD in the U.S. The exception was written into the international treaty (URAA) so it's not in violation of it. There is some background info here. As for the UK "extinguished" copyrights, see the two links I posted above. I'm not sure if that has even been part of a court case but those two articles seem to imply that. Carl Lindberg 18:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
                      • Your argumentation not valid, as long as you do not correctly distinguish between property and copyright, which are entirely separate and independent. I assume that there is no German court ruling, if you think so, please give reference so I can check what's actually in there. The case about Hoffmann pictures does not talk about copyright at all. As far as I understand it, it merely rejected the demanded appeal outright because of formal reasons (time limitations of two years for appeal exceeded). Did I get it right that the plaintiff demanded licensing fees from the NARA? If that is true and the judgement attempts to say that copyrights were sized and would fall within the scope of appeal within due time, it is simply wrong. Such a position would be valid concerning property rights, but not concerning copyrights, since none have been or could even in principle be seized. Even if the judge ruled so, incorrectly, then it would still imply only a gap in law has been found that permits NARA, and only NARA, to distribute these photos without realistically facing sanctions. Copyright can still be enforced against any other people who make use of such pictures. We cannot accept pictures that are merely based on "cannot be sued for copyright violation realistically" instead of "they are truly without copyright" even if these come out as the same in practice. Not to mention that copyright on these pictures is obviously still accepted in many other countries outside the US. After all, what you do is just the old argumentation on this issue; it has been discussed mayn times and each time we determined that such pictures must be rejected outright. w:WP:PD#German_World_War_II_images holds perfectly. It is not the purpose of commons to exploit some loopholes in existing practical circumstances of law. That said, US has no right whatsoever to seize German copyrights. Even if the US has illegally put laws into place to try to achieve that, it would still fall under the wikimedia foundation's amnesty for works that have been denied copyright without legitimation, as for Iran and similar countries. --Rtc 19:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
                        • I'm not arguing to keep the photos here; I don't think commons should hold anything US-only (or UK-only) for the reasons you state. en-wiki is probably a different story, but not commons. At any rate, you may be right about Hoffman -- I may not have looked closely enough. However, under previous U.S. law, almost all WWII material had lapsed into the public domain because either it was not registered with the U.S. copyright office originally or was not re-registered after 28 years. When the U.S. was a signing party to the URAA, almost all foreign copyrights were restored and given terms under the new law... with the exception of these Alien Property Custodian Property materials, which were simply not restored and thus remained public domain in the U.S. They are still subject to the U.S. copyright law in place during WWII, I assume, which was 56 years maximum and then only if registered. Carl Lindberg 23:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
                        • Oh, and for the German case; [18] states: "Transit included Triumph of the Will in its catalogue. Leni Riefenstahl was still not giving up her copyright claim over the film, and took Transit to Court in Germany, claiming that the rights were hers. The Court of first instance held that the rights were with Transit. Leni Riefenstahl appealed, and the German Federal Supreme Court of Karlsruhe ruled on 10 January 1969 that the copyright was not vested in Leni Riefenstahl but in the former Nazi party (NSDAP -- the National Socialist German Workers' Party), that under German law the German state was heir to the assets and obligations of the former NSDAP, and administration of the copyright had been delegated by the German State to the state owned company Transit-Film GmbH of Munich." Carl Lindberg 15:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
                          • Unfortunately, I could not find anything at all concerning this court case. But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, of course. After further checking and discussion with Lupo, what you say about copyrights being 'seized' seems to be correct at least a restricted form which roughly matches what you describe. But I assume that we agree that if we could speak of PD or Quasi-PD within the US or perhaps the UK, the works would still be protected about anywhere else, and hence not suitable for commons? --Rtc 17:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
                            • Yes, I agree they are not suitable for commons for those reasons. I was mostly responding to your comments that the works were not in the public domain anywhere :-) It is very reasonable for a U.S. company or NARA to claim PD on such material; it's just that that claim is limited to the U.S., which commons is not. BTW, the "seized" status of the works is likely irrelevent; they were public domain in the U.S. by virtue of standard U.S. copyright law of the time, and the "Alien Property Custodian exception" just means that copyright was not restored for those works when most other foreign works were, meaning they remain public domain. I was originally referring to the exception to restoration in the URAA treaty, not any potential seizure of copyrights during WWII which were administered by the Alien Property Custodian (and mostly returned I think; I have little idea about the details of that). Carl Lindberg 06:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
                        • Whatever you say, I don't believe you are smarter than U.S. corporate lawyers. I don't think those big companies want to illegally use copyrighted material to get them sued by a foreign government. It states it is PD, so it is, we are not lawyers, but the PD statement is written by a lawyer. A lawyer's view on copyright trumps what you say. Wooyi 21:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
                          • No, it's simply not the case. That's an dogmatic w:argument from authority, and it's invalid. Just because the lawyer says it does not mean it is so. I have claimed that it is wrong, if my understanding of it is correct (which remains to be doubted, as I do not have access to the ruling but only some rather unclear comments on it), and I have given arguments for that position. --Rtc 21:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

 Keep Alex:D tells us that Universal City Studios put the newsreels into the public domain, what appears to be confirmed by This source page. Even if that film used parts of other films, we are authorised to assume that Universal lawyers made their job and to believe that it is PD unless somebody would come up and argue that he holds some rights in that film. Bradipus 16:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

 Delete - See discussion: fair use, not allowed on Commons. Bradipus 14:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

 Delete still protected. Universal Studios never owned the copyright of this film (as they did not film this) so they can not release it into the public domain. Period. --ALE! ¿…? 07:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)  KeepI don't want it to be deleted.

deleted, --Polarlys 22:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Dajak mitStiftahnen die mitBronzestuckchen inSternform ausgelegt sind.jpg

(reason for deletion) TuaiRumah 19:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

This is the WRONG Image to Potray the Dayak, and for WIKIMEDIA purposes this should be removed immediately in the interest of fairness and not Misuse --TuaiRumah 19:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

This is the WRONG Image to Portray the Dayak.

Dayak is many tribes. And this image is 100 years old.

See a other tribe: Image:Gruppe_vonLand-Dayakfrauen.jpg--haabet 06:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

This is irrelevant. The image is completely useless. It is a picture of an Eskimo for all we know. Please remove this image. It is not a Dayak. TuaiRumah 12:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

show a link to a image of a Eskimo by teeth like these.

Again that comment is irrelevant. Is this image meant to be an example of someone's teeth? if so, then it is in the wrong category.

TuaiRumah 14:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The copyright on this, and other Buschan photos on Commons, needs to be clarified - according to an obituary on JSTOR, Georg Buschan lived from 1863 to 1942. If he took the photos himself, they should still be copyrighted until 1 Jan 2013. --Davepape 13:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The book is first published before 1923, as Commons has any copyright-problem. In other country, other copyrights. But it is rare by copyright on Photo from before WW2--haabet 21:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

FYI, "pre-1923 = PD" only applies to work first published in the U.S., which I doubt Buschan's Die Sitten der Völker was. However, you've now identified the photo as being by W. H. Furness (which Nature confirms); Furness appears to have worked and published in Philadelphia, so {{PD-US}} would apply. --Davepape 01:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The law of U.S.A. only be effective in U. S. A. and The server of commons is in U. S. A., but in other states other laws. As PD image from U.S.A. can have copyright in other states. But a image have need of both copyright in the homeland and copyright in USA, before it have valid copyright.haabet 21:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

There are some U. S. works of the same type as "Die Sitten der Völker", can you see in your libraries for that image? The Images was few at that era. And some U. S. works was bigger as "Die Sitten der Völker" other is perhaps a translation or is "Die Sitten der Völker" a translation from English? U.K. had a empire in that time. "Die Sitten der Völker" is dominate of images from english colonys.haabet 21:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

COPYRIGHT ISSUE

The Image in question, and indeed all the other images in the category possess in their entirety,some Copyright Issue. It appears that these have been scanned in and uploaded to WIKIPEDIA COMMONS without any prior permission sought from the Publishers.

Buschans book on this and WH Furness Nature article, when marketed and published in the US and other Countries, were substantively Copyright protected. I am certain the publishers then and those who inherited the Copyright now retain the interest.

For the benefit of WIKIMEDIA, I suggest that this image is removed or recommended for speedy deletion, because it's use now in WIKI, appears to contravene certain Copyright obligations. The other images in the category will have to reconsidered in light of this now.

If anything, other original images can be made or are available from other sources. And for some incoherent reason, the image is that of a unindentified Male, allegedly of some vague link to the Dayak??? It currently serves no purpose whatsoever to WIKIMEDIA or even WIKIPEDIA. I fail to see why it has been uploaded. Please Delete  Delete

TuaiRumah 14:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, my opinion is  Keep - from what I've found, William Furness III was a University of Pennsylvania anthropologist active circa 1900-1920 (Folk-Lore in Borneo (1899), The Home Life of Borneo Head-hunters (1902), etc); this photo is almost certainly PD-US. Given that his work is still cited after a century, it would appear to at least have value in the history of anthropology. The caption could perhaps be expanded to address TuaiRumah's concerns, situating it as an historical artifact (similar to how we wouldn't delete everything in Category:Blackface minstrelsy). --Davepape 19:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't follow what you're saying. William Furness III was an anthropologist from a distant period.I am most certainly interested in reading those books you have just mentioned, but, as you know, copying and pasting the text from those books, constitutes an Editing NO NO in WIKIPEDIA. And how does plagiarism differ from uploading Images of those books here??? Moreover, to what purpose does this photo serve???

It's use here is certainly a COPYRIGHT Infringement.

Also, must WIKIMEDIA COMMONS be a repository for each and every redundant still image??? And what specific value would this image have to do with the Dayak of today or for some obscure chapter in a history of South East Asian Anthropology???

There just seems to be more confusion from what you've just written. The Caption could easily be tagged as "Example of Bad Teeth". There is just no coherence there. It's an empty statement. Apart from the very obvious racist statement "show a link to a image of a Eskimo by teeth like these. ", the uploading of this image to that Dayak category is just plain condescending prejudice personified.

To be fair, it is highly likely that the Book and Image in question could be used in a University Course title "A History of Racism". If anything, should this image be kept, I suggest this be recategorised as "Examples of early 20th Century Racism".

I have read the WIKIguide and there is a very, very good reason to replace this image altogether. Uploading Images for some unspecified, vague historical artifact collecting reason is probably best served by keeping this in a Library somewhere.

The more I questioned the uploading of this image, the more I feel this should be removed. I say DELETE  Deletethis IMAGE.

22:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

TuaiRumah 22:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Kept: There appear to be no copyright problems and censoring is not a reason for deletion. Commons is not censored. -- Bryan (talk to me) 18:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Birkenau2.jpg

Because of new better version in better resolution Image:Auschwitz-Birkenau2.jpg Chmee2 12:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• Deleted. Not entirely the same but very much and very small in resolution. Samulili 11:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Auschwitz - fence.jpg

Because of new better version in better resolution Image:Auschwitz-Birkenau1.jpg Chmee2 12:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Auschwitz - fence.jpg Image:Auschwitz - fence.jpg

Image:Auschwitz-Birkenau1.jpg

•  Delete nominated image is 171 × 114 and even though these two images are not really similar, I think it should be deleted. Siebrand 12:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

deleted, --Polarlys 20:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Birkenau camp.jpg

Better picture like Image:Birkenau 06.jpg Chmee2 12:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

kept (no reason for deletion) --ALE! ¿…? 07:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:2007 FJR1300A Color Red-Sky prv tcm27-140184.jpg

No authorisation. Dédélembrouille 12:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC) Yamaha Motor france web site says : "Toute représentation totale ou partielle de ce site par quelque procédé que se soit, sans l'autorisation expresse de l'exploitant du site web est interdite et constituerait une contrefaçon sanctionnée par les articles L.335-2 et suivants du Code de la propriété intellectuelle."

Deleted by Polarlys: In category Copyright violation; not edited for 0 days

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

[edit] Image:Auschwitz I Stammlager 2001 12 Galgen für Höß.jpg

Worse quality of very similar Image:Auschwitz - Gallows.jpg Chmee2 12:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

kept (no reason for deletion) --ALE! ¿…? 10:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Auschwitz I Stammlager 2001 10 Gaskammer.jpg

Worse quality of the similar Image:KL Auschwitz I Crematorium I gaschamber.jpg Chmee2 12:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

kept (no reason for deletion) --ALE! ¿…? 10:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Auschwitz II Birkenau Leichenfeld.jpg

Because of new better version in better resolution Image:Auschwitz-Birkenau6.jpg Chmee2 12:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

kept (no reason for deletion) --ALE! ¿…? 10:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Papilloma.JPG

Duplicate content in File:Angela Giannattasio.JPG. Btw the content is just a CV in Italian with no enciclopedical meaning: maybe we should delete both.Massimo Finizio 16:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• Both images deleted. /odder 19:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Sans_titre_1333.jpg

does not meet COM:SCOPE, not educational or encyclopedic -- MECU≈talk 22:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• Right. Deleted. /odder 18:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Sans_titre_01.jpg

does not meet COM:SCOPE, not educational or encyclopedic -- MECU≈talk 22:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• Right. Deleted. /odder 18:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Sans_titre_1001.jpg

does not meet COM:SCOPE, not educational or encyclopedic -- MECU≈talk 22:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• Right. Deleted. /odder 18:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Sans_titre_100.jpg

does not meet COM:SCOPE, not educational or encyclopedic -- MECU≈talk 22:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• Right. Deleted. /odder 18:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Flohwalzer3.mid

not needed anymore --Larf 23:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

right, not needed! I had put it in because I thought that a previous upload had not worked --SteyrerBrain 16:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• All right, then. If the uploader agrees with deletion, I see no reason not to delete it. Additionally, this media is not used anywhere around Wikimedia projects. Deleted. /odder 18:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Flohwalzer2.mid

not needed anymore Larf 23:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

right, not needed! I had put it in, because I thought that a previous upload had not worked. --SteyrerBrain 16:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• All right, then. If the uploader agrees with deletion, I see no reason not to delete it. Additionally, this media is not used anywhere around Wikimedia projects. Deleted. /odder 18:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Flohwalzer.mid

Not needed anymore Larf 23:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

This file should be replaced by Flohwalzer1.mid. Can Flohwalzer1.mid be renamed to Flohwalzer.mid? Flohwalzer1.mid is not referenced anywhere, but Flohwalzer.mid is (on the german page about the Flohwalzer). --SteyrerBrain 16:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

As you wish. I've uploaded the Image:Flohwalzer1.mid to Image:Flohwalzer.mid. Everything should be fine now. Image:Flohwalzer1.mid will be deleted. /odder 19:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Leni Riefenstahl editing Triumph of the Will.gif

Not PD. --Rtc 16:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

•  Delete --Polarlys 19:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
•  Delete, no source. Kjetil r 22:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
•  Delete, [19]: "Rights status not evaluated". No reason for PD --Davepape 16:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

deleted (copyvio) --ALE! ¿…? 14:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Leni Riefenstahl

It’s not within the project’s scope to link fair use images (en) or copyvios. The works of Leni Riefenstahl are in the public domain in 2073. This empty page (all images: requests for deletion) encourages further copyvios.--Polarlys 19:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per w:WP:PD#German World War II images. --Rtc 20:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Polarlys & Rtc. Kjetil r 22:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

kept partially with "do not upload works by Leni Riefenstahl" notice --ALE! ¿…? 14:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Caracalla_bust2.jpg

Bridgeman vs. Corel doesn't apply to 3D works of art -- Yonatan ^talk 19:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I've already removed that PD claim and tagged the image for deletion if the original Dutch Wikipedia uploader (for whom I posted the standard Dutch-language warning message) doesn't provide valid source/licensing information within seven days. This was discussed directly above the warning that you added to the talk page of Siebrand (who merely moved this image from the Dutch Wikipedia). —David Levy 20:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Deleted by Szczepan1990: In category Unknown as of 7 April 2007; not edited for 8 days

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

[edit] Category:Vogtsburg im Kaiserstuhl

no images or files Klemen Kocjančič (Pogovor - Quick response) 10:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Category redirect -> Category:Vogtsburg im Kaiserstuhl, Germany. --GeorgHH 15:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Margot04.jpg

copyright violation, see http://morganea.free.fr/copyright.html , which states that all files on that webiste are copyrighted --Fossa 18:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. --DaB. 19:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Deleted by DaB.: Copyvio

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. Derivative work Melkor23 04:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Two points here:

1. The resolution has been deliberately kept down to a level where the images are barely legible. If this is a "derivative work", I submit that so is any photo in which (for example) someone is visibly drinking a Coca-Cola or wearing a logo T-shirt. This is, after all, not a picture zooming in on and detailing a particular action figure. This is no more a copyright infringement than it would be to take a photo of an aisle of a supermarket, or the stacks in a library.
2. Shawna Iverson at Archie McPhee (who I've known for years, and I assure you that she has a quite good understanding of both intellectual property rights and copyleft considerations) actively encouraged me to take this picture. In fact, see http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/archiemcphee/: they have a sign in the store actively encouraging people who take photos to upload a copy there. The store actively encourages photography and distribution: they simply view it as good publicity.

I don't routinely participate in this sort of issue on Commons, so if someone wants to engage me in discussion on this, please do "ping" my user talk page (either on Commons or the English Wikipedia) so that I know to check here again. - en:Jmabel | talk 05:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Action figures are only toys. I don't think a photo of a toy, a playmobil, a car or a balloon is a derivative work. Anne2 16:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

deleted, --Polarlys 22:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. Derivative work Melkor23 04:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think a photo of an action figure (or other toys) is a derivative work because this is not art (like a painting or a sculpture), but this is an usual object (like a car, a balloon or a playmobil).--Anne2 16:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

 Delete it is a derivative work. Same thing for others hereabove and below. Bradipus 16:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

deleted, --Polarlys 22:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. Derivative work Melkor23 04:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think a photo of an action figure (or other toys) is a derivative work because this is not art (like a painting or a sculpture), but this is an usual object (like a car, a balloon or a playmobil).--Anne2 16:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

deleted, --Polarlys 22:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. Derivative work Melkor23 05:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Action figures are only collectible toys. I don't think a photo of a toy, a playmobil, a car or a balloon is a derivative work. Anne2 16:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

 Delete Yes, a photo of a toy or a playmobil is a derivative work. These are sculptures of fine art as far as copyright is concerned. A car is not copyrighted because it is an utility article. A balloon is not copyrighted because there's no creativity involved. --Rtc 20:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

deleted, --Polarlys 22:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. Derivative work Melkor23 05:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think a photo of an action figure (or other toys) is a derivative work because this is not art (like a painting or a sculpture), but this is an usual object (like a car, a balloon or a playmobil). --Anne2 16:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

deleted, --Polarlys 22:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Category:Anatomical pathology

Redundant category, already exists at Category:Gross pathology -- Serephine ♠ talk - 11:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Deleted by Polarlys: see request for deletion

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. No source, or source has been deleted

I am indifferent with this nom. I am merely quoting someone elses incomplete nomination -- Cat ^chi? 18:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I contacted a month ago, and he hasn't answered yet. Since I don't need this image, I wouldn't mind it being deleted.--Schreiber 10:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

deleted, --Polarlys 22:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Wolfgang Paul Nobel Prize.jpg

Permission only for wikipedia use. GeorgHH 10:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

deleted, --Polarlys 21:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Buata_Malela1.JPG

does not meet COM:SCOPE, unencyclopdic and not educational, does not appear to be famous person -- MECU≈talk 22:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

 Keep: fr:Buata Malela... (there was a dead image link, I changed it to this image) --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 07:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)