Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2007/05

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

[edit] Image:Handley_Page_Hampden.jpg

Claims "Photographer not identified, so UK Copyright contended to have lapsed 50 years after publication." {{PD-UK-unknown}} says the cutoff is 70 years, not 50. -- Davepape 00:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Deleted /odder 06:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Fairey_Fulmar.jpg

Claims "Photographer not identified, so UK Copyright contended to have lapsed 50 years after publication." {{PD-UK-unknown}} says the cutoff is 70 years, not 50. Published in 1940 - not before 1937. -- Davepape 01:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. /odder 06:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Pochuetam.JPG

This picture is same as Image:Pochuetam1.JPG --Simon Shek 03:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. Please use {{badname}} next time. Siebrand 09:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:PIC 0026 調整大小.JPG

error name,please delete it. --Jasonzhuocn 12:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. Siebrand 12:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:PIC 0034 調整大小.JPG

Error name,please delete it.Thanks --Jasonzhuocn 12:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Delted. Please consider using {{Badname}} Siebrand 12:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:P1010358.JPG

Wrong destination filename (sorry, was my first contribution). -- Sebastian.Kraft 12:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

deleted, --Polarlys 16:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:No-ber2.png

unused image, there's no utility for this kind of images; in it.wiki it creates only more flames -- piero tasso 15:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

deleted, --Polarlys 16:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:No-ber.png

unused image, there's no utility for this kind of images; in it.wiki it creates only more flames (same as up) -- piero tasso 15:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

deleted, see Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Uncle bush.jpg. --Polarlys 16:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Uem2.JPG

apparently copyrighted from a user uploads copyrighted logos for this university always and license them as this one (gets speedy deleted) -- Mido 11:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. --Dodo 15:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Tools_nicu_buculei_01.svg

Picture is not from Openclipart/ it can't be found there -- DieBuche 14:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

They have restructured the site and the clipart on the old site haven't been transfered yet. The creator has a page there at http://openclipart.org/media/people/nicubunu // Liftarn

OK, I remove the deletion request --DieBuche 14:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

As per DieBuche I am hereby closing without taking any action. --|EPO| 16:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Frantisek_Votruba_1952.jpg

States "owner of original artwork". Owning the painting does not confer copyright. Vojtech Stašík died in 1978, so the painting is not likely to be PD. -- Davepape 01:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

deleted, --Polarlys 16:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Intel_pentium_pro_retail_package.JPG

Derivative work. No permission from Intel. -- Siebrand 12:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

deleted, --Polarlys 16:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Christo gates.jpg

Very low quality --A.J. 13:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

•  Delete Low quality, not used anywhere. Quadzilla99 04:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

deleted, --Polarlys 16:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Alanis morissette live in munich april 2005 2.jpg

Derivative work shot from a screen --Flominator 16:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC) --Flominator 16:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

 Keep. The author of the image released the image under GFDL. The photo is taken from a concert - a public apperance - and qualifies Freedom of Panorama. The screen itself is in public.--Anupamsr 13:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The screen is copyrighted. --Flominator 10:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

deleted, --Polarlys 16:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Alanis morissette live in munich april 2005 2 crop.jpg

Derivative work shot from a screen, see Image:Alanis morissette live in munich april 2005 2.jpg --Flominator 16:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC) --Flominator 16:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

deleted, --Polarlys 16:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Alanis morissette live in munich april 2005 3.jpg

Derivative work shot from a screen, see Image:Alanis morissette live in munich april 2005 2.jpg --Flominator 16:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

deleted, --Polarlys 16:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Alanis morissette live in munich april 2005 1.jpg

Derivative work shot from a screen, see Image:Alanis morissette live in munich april 2005 2.jpg --Flominator 16:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

deleted, --Polarlys 16:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Category:Tents in nature

useless, former content (erosion shaped pinnacles in Kasha-Katuwe Tent Rocks National Monument, New Mexico) moved to useful categories --h-stt !? 06:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

deleted, --Polarlys 16:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Sfnew.jpg

Unlikely that User:Outematic owns the copyright to the Sinn Fein logo. --Jkelly 22:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

•  Delete logo. Wooyi 21:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Sfnew.jpg

Derivative work, cannot be licesed PD without Sinn Féin's permission. -- Siebrand 09:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusing over this image. I created the Sfnew.jpg image and it was loaded into en.Wikipedia by me, another editor then uploaded the image without my knowledge into wikimedia commons, I have no problem with the image being included on wikimedia commons. The other issue is the fact that this image is a Derivative work of the image used by the Sinn Féin party, to this I would say that the current image used by the party is also a Dirivative work of a design I created around 1980/81 as part of a idea for a recruiting poster for Dublin Sinn Féin, the idea was later used by the party as a badge/logo.--Padraig3uk 10:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

deleted, --Polarlys 12:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:AinSalaam-Brummana-w.jpg

Duplicate with AinSalaam-Brummana.jpg --MHM-com 11:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete It's smaller and a duplicate of Image:AinSalaam-Brummana.jpg --Digon3 13:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. MECU≈talk 16:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:P4280024 Kumano shrine Tehiro sacred arch.JPG

Uploaded with incorrect file name. File with correct named was already uploaded.KMR 19:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Deleted please use {{bad name}} in the future. MECU≈talk 16:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Zasanie_Synagogue.jpg

Deathcamps haven't copyright to this photo and there is no evidence that's pd-PRL -- Herr Kriss 11:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect license and/or info. Deleted. Siebrand 10:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:ORAS_fractie_06-07.jpg

Adresses and email of the ORAS student council is far too specialistic to be on wikipedia! -- 83.86.10.239 12:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

 Keep This appears to be a high quality document. As this is not Wikipedia and because of the high quality, I think there is no reason for deletion. Siebrand 10:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Kept. Siebrand 10:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Salzburg-P7113948.jpg

This image was definitly not taken in Salzburg, probably in Rothenburg ob der Tauber. I'm living in Salzburg, this is not Salzburg. --MatthiasKabel 18:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I have now geocoded this, and it's in Rothenburg ob der Tauber indeed. Other sites have reference photos that show the same area. --Para 10:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Kept. Please add {{rename}} for these cases. Siebrand 10:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Salzburg-P7113953.jpg

This image was definitly not taken in Salzburg, probably in Rothenburg ob der Tauber. I'm living in Salzburg, this is not Salzburg. --MatthiasKabel 18:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Then, should it be renamed instead of deleted? --Javier ME 21:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

If someone can confirm it's Rothenburg ob der Tauber. MatthiasKabel 09:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Look at the sign on the building to the right in the picture Image:Salzburg-P7113948.jpg. It says "Kunstausstellung des Rothenburger Künstlerbundes e. V.". --88.134.140.64 12:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Right. I have now geocoded this, and it's in Rothenburg ob der Tauber indeed. Other sites have reference photos that show the same area. --Para 10:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Kept. Please add {{rename}} for these cases. Siebrand 10:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Salzburg-P7113947.jpg

This image was definitly not taken in Salzburg, probably in Rothenburg ob der Tauber. I'm living in Salzburg, this is not Salzburg. --MatthiasKabel 18:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The Flickr page doesn't mention where it was taken; the author is from Dormagen. It would be best to figure out where it is and fix the description, but unless it gets re-uploaded under a more accurate name,  Keep. No reason to delete until {{badname}} can apply. Carl Lindberg 15:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't find the exact location of this place, but it's in the middle of the photographer's other Rothenburg ob der Tauber photos, so it's from somewhere there. --Para 10:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Kept. Please add {{rename}} for these cases. Siebrand 10:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Schlossanlage Pfäffikon SZ-1.jpg

Image was taken from Website David 23:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

There's a permission e-mail which is incompletely at the moment (ticket 2007050210004827). I've asked the uploader for further information. – Pill _{→ talk} 13:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Missing permission info. Deleted. Siebrand 10:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Salzburg-P7113945-P7113946.jpg

This image was definitly not taken in Salzburg, probably in Rothenburg ob der Tauber. I'm living in Salzburg, this is not Salzburg.--MatthiasKabel 18:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't find the exact location of this place, but it's in the middle of the photographer's other Rothenburg ob der Tauber photos, so it's from somewhere there. --Para 10:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Kept. Please add {{rename}} for these cases. Siebrand 10:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:KaartDeinze.png

Wrong name, not needed, unconventional layout (so not used on wikipedia). It's name "KaartDeinze" means "Map of Deinze": this is wrong and misleading: this image:DeinzeMap.svg is the original map of Deinze. Secondly: it seems this map was created somehow to show the location of the village of Gottem. Well, this image:GottemLocation.svg shows the location. And third: we have hundreds of maps to show villages in a uniform layout, this is NOT a clean and conventional way; an infobox with the SVG image shown before does the job. As this image is wrong and redundant, it may be deleted to clean things up and avoid confusion. --LimoWreck 23:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. Not used in any Wikimedia project. Thuresson 21:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Deleted by Thuresson: Commons:Deletion requests/Image:KaartDeinze.png

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

[edit] Image:Gterra.jpg

Lincense is not clear and the author death date was not informed. -- Dantadd✉ 22:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

No license. Deleted. Siebrand 10:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Bberres.jpg

Lincense is not clear and the author was not informed. -- Dantadd✉ 22:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

•  Delete Source is useless for verifying the license. Quadzilla99 04:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Missing info. Deleted. Siebrand 10:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:4-Chlordehydromethyltestosterone.png

incorrect chemical structure --Edgar181 18:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

deleted (uploader request) --ALE! ¿…? 10:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:D01454cK.jpg

it's not my work --OrrOz 12:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC) Its content does not have some sense, if draft of rows of text or pure vandalism.

• 'Deleted, no free licence, request of uploader. -- Infrogmation 17:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:14974.jpg

it's not my work --OrrOz 12:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC) Its content does not have some sense, if draft of rows of text or pure vandalism.

• Deleted, no free licence and per request of uploader. -- Infrogmation 17:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Mecamyamine structure.png

misnamed, reuploaded as image:mecamylamine structure

--Edgar181 16:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

deleted, --Yonatan ^talk 18:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Apicofwtc.jpg

fair use. --rtc 20:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• Agree, it was long time ago when I've uploaded this file.  Delete. Julo 20:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

deleted, --Polarlys 20:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Boydtinsley.jpg

Source states a CC-NC license. We do not allow images that cannot be used for non-commercial purposes only. This image was undeleted, but should be deleted again. -- Siebrand 11:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• It can be deleted at will, IMO. / Fred Chess 17:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• As the uploader of the image, I now understand why it was initially deleted, and it should be deleted again. –Crashintome4196 18:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• Gosh, of course you're right. Deleted. /odder 07:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Delta_before_after_orig.png

Logo violation -- Markie 22:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• • Even more than that, it is screenshots of websites which contains copyrighted photos.  Delete Carl Lindberg 02:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• My apologies – I found out that Wikinews has a separate upload area for fair use images.  Delete --Omaryak 04:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Deleted by Bryan: copyvio

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

[edit] Image:000000000.jpg

Created by sockpuppet en:User:Trish86, probably not actually taken by the original uploader, and even if it were it should be uploaded to the local wiki - it's out of scope here. Also orphaned, low quality, useless name. --Dcoetzee 23:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 14:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:590-522-050207SCASD2 photo.standalone.prod affiliate.42.jpg

Copied from this Centre Daily Times webpage. The CDT's Copyright notice states that "Any copying, redistribution or retransmission of any of the contents of this service without the express written consent of The Centre Daily Times is expressly prohibited." The photograph was clearly taken after 1923, so "public domain" does not apply. Thanks, GChriss 04:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, seems a clear and obvious coyright violation to me. -- Infrogmation 17:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, im sorry, terribly my fault, i misread what copyright i was putting it under, delete by all means, truly sorry-- Riot Sauce

Deleted by Bryan: copyvio

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

[edit] Image:Graffiti_in_tunis.JPG

Pokémon Chaos Black -- 125.63.132.180 09:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, derivative work of copyrighted image. —Angr 20:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

deleted, --Polarlys 16:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:IMG 2817.JPG

see: Image:Genova-Basilica Santa Maria Assunta di Carignano-IMG 2817.JPG --「Twice^28.0 · contributi · talk」 04:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Deleted, duplicate of Image:Genova-Basilica Santa Maria Assunta di Carignano-IMG 2817.JPG Michelet-密是力 04:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Metro_7_Place_d_Italie_quais.JPG

Mistake between name (PORTE d'Italie) and subject (PLACE d'Italie) -- Babskwal 07:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

•  Keep : in fact NO MISTAKE, should be kept in Commons !!! --Babskwal 08:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Kept. Name and description are correct. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 18:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Brancusi_group.jpg

same as Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Bird in space.jpg where Lupo stated the author died in 1957 -- Yonatan ^talk 21:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Where's the {{delete}} tag? The MOMA says Brancusi died in 1957.[1] Lupo 22:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
    •  Delete The "delete tag" was deleted by the uploader, whom I had notified. I put it again at its place. --User:G.dallorto 13:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• Also, Image:Coloana fara sfarsit.jpg, no evidence of freedom of panorama in Romania. Yonatan ^talk 21:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Added to COM:FOP (our list there is incomplete). Romania has only non-commercial freedom of panorama. Lupo 22:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks, I tried looking for it on google but didn't find it. I'd appreciate it if you could give me the website(s) you use to find this sort of information. By the way, if it's non-commercial freedom of panorama I suppose it should still be deleted. Yonatan ^talk 23:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
      • See COM:L#Weblinks, which I have expanded a bit now. I thought these sources had already been added there, but apparently not. The Romanian law I found at CLEA. Lupo 07:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
        • BTW, the CLEA fiche is also the second hit in the Google search for +Romania +"copyright law" :-) Lupo 21:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
          • I suppose I didn't search for the right thing ;) Yonatan ^talk 22:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

whay the hell should you want to Delet this pic? i took it in a public space? Talmoryair 04:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

•  Delete speedy. --rtc 21:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

deleted, --Polarlys 00:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Austria satellite-Sbg SL.png

wrong name --Emx 14:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

What's the corrected image name? We won't delete this unless the same image has already been re-uploaded with a better name... Carl Lindberg 03:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Right image name is Image:Austria Sbg SL +satellite.png. --Emx 10:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

right, my fault, I should have placed a {bad name}, I didn't know that that time.. really sorry, please delete, its my image - thanks --W!B: 22:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. howcheng {chat} 00:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Boreczek postcard 1899.jpg

Actually, when I think about it, I'm not sure the author's death + 70 yrs applies. Divide 19:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC) --Divide 19:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

If the author of the drawing is unknown, the rule is year of creation + 100 years. So it should be ok. --ALE! ¿…? 14:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Kept. PD-old because 100+ years old. Siebrand 10:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Baldungamor.jpg

(wrong file, black and white) Artfan 09:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. B/w dupe of Image:Baldungamorc.jpg. Siebrand 10:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Bietschhron nassenPletschen.JPG

Reasons for deletion request: see image already exists on Bietschhorn2.jpg Aaron87 17:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Closed. Please use {{duplicate|Image:Bietschhorn2.jpg}} in this type of cases. Siebrand 10:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Richard Réti.jpg

image from 1922, we can’t prove that the author (who is not mentioned here) is dead for 70 years now Polarlys 21:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

•  Keep Keep, pre-1923 work, author unknown. Yann 15:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Why? “Richard Réti (…) was an Austrian-Hungarian, later Czechoslovakian chess player” --Polarlys 01:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

That's the person pictured, {{Anonymous-EU}} refers to the photographer being anonymous. Yonatan ^talk 00:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Kept. Thuresson 04:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

(deletion request reopened by User:Fred Chess)

Deleted: Unknown author, no indication for PD. --GeorgHH 19:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Richard_Réti.jpg

There is no reason to assume that this photo from 1922 is public domain. Reti was not from the US. Photos from 1922 are not public domain as a general rule, except if the author has been dead for over 70 years, and this photo has no information of its original source -- Fred Chess 08:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Yann was referring to {{Anonymous-EU}}, I'm a bit skeptical as to what constitutes anonymity for this legal claim. I'm not so sure that us not being able to find who took the picture in a random google search is enough to constitute anonymity and therefore the use of {{Anonymous-EU}}. Yonatan ^talk 00:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not. "I can't find the author" is not the same as "the author could not be identified."  Delete —LX (talk, contribs) 11:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Deleted: Unknown author, no indication for PD. --GeorgHH 19:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Evita en Madrid 03.jpg

photo was taken in Spain, not in Argentina. Template PD-AR-Photo not applicable. In addition the date and media of first publication is not mentioned.

The same goes for: Image:Evita en Madrid 02.jpg and Image:Evita en Madrid 01.jpg.

--ALE! ¿…? 08:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

And are take for a citoyen of Spain or Argentina? For a magazine/newspaper of Spain/Argentina/another? First release at?. If Spain (or international press agency), yes. But if Argentina, not. For example, if you (German, correct?) make a turism to Libia or another country with less time under (C), take photos and release this at Mexico (100 years from death of creator for PD) in a turist guide, who are the copyright legislation to apply? If not bad remember, Mexican if you not release this in another country; if yes, European for image and country-specific for any book/guide/etc as collective work. --museo8bits 12:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I could not follow your arguments. Please try writing in Spanish. --ALE! ¿…? 22:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

=Is the picture taken by a spanish or argentinian citizen? and was it published in Sapin, Argentina, or elswhere?

The source information is missing, we need at least the country of first publication to determine the copyright. But without source, the image should be deleted. Michelet-密是力 04:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

La foto fue publicada en la Argentina, que es lo que dice la ley que da derecho a usarla públicamente. --Hinzel 02:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

La plantilla dice: "Advertencia: debe indicarse la fecha y fuente de una publicación anterior a 20 años de modo que pueda ser verificado por terceros, y darse clara evidencia de que la imagen fue tomada hace más de 25 años." Vos puedes probar que la foto fue publicado primero en Argentina? En que revista y en que numero? --ALE! ¿…? 21:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Evita visited Spain in the summer of 1947. My opinion is that it's nearly impossible to trace the original publication of most of these histroical images of Eva Peron. Hope this helps. -- Andrew Parodi

Deleted: No source, does not fulfil requirements by license tag. -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:King Bhumibol Adulyadej (Rama IX).jpg

The Bureau of the Royal Household allows use according to CC-By-NC-ND 2.5, which is not accepted by the Wikimedia Commons. --Paul_012 ^(talk) 15:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Note that the Copyright Act of B.E. 2537 states that governmental documents (specifically, ระเบียบ ข้อบังคับ ประกาศ คำสั่ง คำชี้แจง และหนังสือโต้ตอบของกระทรวง ทบวง กรม หรือหน่วยงานอื่นใดของรัฐหรือของท้องถิ่น and คำพิพากษา คำสั่ง คำวินิจฉัย และรายงานของทางราชการ) are ineligible for copyright. This likely does not include photographs and such works which do not constitute part of said documents. Paul_012 ^(talk) 02:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

If that's the case, then Template:PD-ThaiGov should probably be modified. --Delirium 19:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. It's indeed a BY-NC-ND 2.5 license.[2] Lupo 08:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Beryl-Cúpula_de_Transparente.png

copyvio. Agent Smith in the background is from the movie Matrix III. (also wrong license: GFDL-opengeodb can only be used for images generated by OpenGeoDB (maps)) -- BLueFiSH 02:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

deleted, --Polarlys 10:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Psilocybe caerulipes spores.jpg

(uploaded with wrong name, these are a different kind of spore) --Alan Rockefeller 04:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Deleted, please use {{Bad name}} in the future. --GeorgHH 19:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Gollum.PNG

no licence - no source - may be a movie capture -- Nilx 12:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

now {{speedy}} --D-Kuru 13:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Speedy. --GeorgHH 18:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Cerkiew-szczecin-wawrzyniaka.JPG

author's mistake during the loading... excuse newbie :) -- Michał T. 13:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Speedy, please use {{duplicate}} in the future. --GeorgHH 18:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Estacionleon1.jpg

taken from: http://www.frado.net/fotoalbum/estacionleon1.jpg --Porquenopuedo 09:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

deleted, --Polarlys 23:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:DererkwyattMP.jpg

A dubious {{self}} claim - may be a copyright violation (see [3]). Uploader used this image to vandalize various articles on the English Wikipedia[4]. --Muchness 11:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

•  Delete: copyvio. --GeorgHH 12:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

deleted, --Polarlys 23:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Comodidad_tecnologica.jpg

copyvio, pictures from http://www.sxc.hu/ can not be used. also wrong (-> missing) license: GFDL-OpenGeoDB is not suitable. -- BLueFiSH 11:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

•  Delete: Clear copyvio. See also Commons:Bad sources. --GeorgHH 18:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

deleted, --Polarlys 23:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:CINERGIA.pdf

Es un archivo de texto y no una imagen. Fue un error subirlo. --Karina.avellan 17:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
-~- Translated by Hellotheworld 17:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC) : This is a text archive, not an image. This was an error to download it.

Deleted by Drini: Commons:Criterio para inclusión : http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Criterio_para_inclusi%C3%B3n#Otros_proyectos

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

[edit] Image:USSR - Argentina soccer match 1961.jpg

if the author is unknown, how do we know that he was argentinian and that the PD-AR-Photo template can be applied? --ALE! ¿…? 07:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Match was playing in Argentina. Sidik iz PTU 12:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Well it still could have been a soviet photographer. Has the image been published in Argentina? When and in which media? Without this data the image can not be kept. --ALE! ¿…? 13:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete it. Now I know that it's Soviet photo. Sidik iz PTU 09:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 09:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Category:Birds from Tanzania

Another same category exist Category:Birds of Tanzania --Rémih 13:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate category hereby deleted. --|EPO| 10:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:DerStürmer Mutter Europa.jpg

Rupprecht died in 1975 --Polarlys 22:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 22:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Philipp Rupprecht Der Giftpilz.jpg

Rupprecht died in 1975 --Polarlys 22:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 22:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:DerStürmer Europa am Schächtmesser.jpg

Rupprecht died in 1975 --Polarlys 22:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 22:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:DerStürmer Wer ist der Feind.jpg

Rupprecht (cartoon) died in 1975 --Polarlys 22:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 22:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:MIA index.jpg

seems to contain picutures that are not PD, or are PD only under the dubious Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-Soviet. See also Commons:Deletion requests/MIA pictures not PD-old --rtc 20:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

•  Delete Like the others: Previous e-mail contact with marxists.org, let to the conclusion that they randomly ripped of their images from the web. As such, their CC claims are invalid. The email is archived in Commons:OTRS under Ticket#2007010810008052. -- Bryan (talk to me) 18:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

deleted, --Polarlys 00:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Josh Hancock.jpg

This image is not Josh Hancock, rather, it is Brandon Claussen. This can be proven because the Reds logo is flipped around and is backwards, and it shows the pitcher throwing right handed in the image, which means that this pitcher is left handed when you reverse the image back to it's original position. --68.56.180.115 21:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

•  Keep This is Josh Hancock. Proof is at Image:Baseball_pitching_motion_2004.jpg, the source of the image, which clearly displays the number "43", not reversed, not altered. The number "43" belonged to Josh Hancock during his tenure with the Cincinnati Reds. This is Josh Hancock. It should not be deleted. Zachary ^talk 21:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
•  Keep The number 4 is clearly visible on the guy's shirt, unreversed. The proposed basis for deletion is fantasy. --Brianmc 21:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
•  Keep Clearly not a fake, and cleary and properly sourced. DragonFire1024 21:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

WAIT: Notice the Reds logo on the uniform, it is backwards. The Reds have NEVER worn a backwards C with the word "SDER" (in backwards letters) on the left side of the chest in their uniform. I believe the "3" and "4" were photoshopped, as Claussen wore "34" when on the Reds.

There's the image in its proper form, the only thing incorrect is the number, which appears to have been edited.

http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/6669/claussenrx3.jpg

--68.56.180.115 21:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Also notice the "Reds" logo is on the right on their now old home uniform. In the image, it's on the left. Can anyone explain this? Or am I just fantasizing again? [5] --68.56.180.115 22:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Apparently you are, I took the time to put the image in photoshop. The logo is illegible, even at 300% magnification. The frame looks right in the link provided by Zachary, and if this image is a fake you should also be nominating this one. --Brianmc 22:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I swear to God I am not doing this for shits and giggles....notice that the Reds logo in the image is on the LEFT. The Reds logo has always been on the right in their uniforms. [6] [7]

In the image, the logo is on the LEFT. --68.56.180.115 22:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, notice this fact: If you brighten the image, you can clearly tell the C is reversed, and all's you need is a pair of eyes to tell that the logo is on the left. --68.56.180.115 22:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Forgot I had an account here....all IP edits here were made by me. --CFIF 22:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I can see this clearly as well. The image (and its base image) have been manipulated. Look at the logo closely and compare it with a photo of the actual uniform and logo as provided in those links - it's been flopped backward. The original image should be deleted as well. FCYTravis 22:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

THANK YOU! This is the point I've been trying to make. --CFIF 22:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Should be deleted. It's reversed, and the "4" is Photoshopped on, poorly, probably because whoever did the retouching wasn't skilled enough to make the "4" contour to the body. - Nunh-huh 22:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that this has been manipulated...the Reds logo is backwards and 4 is obviously overlaid on the real image. We definitely shouldn't be claiming this is Hancock. Christopher Parham 23:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

•  Remove - blatantly manipulated image - Alison ☺ 16:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

deleted, --Polarlys 00:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:DSCN0510.JPG

Do you have person consent? -- EugeneZelenko 16:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

deleted, nonsense--Polarlys 11:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:00002.JPG

Bad name, and easily replacable using math tags, which are preferable as they're easier to edit. --Dcoetzee 00:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I have now replaced this image with markup on es:Medidas_de_dispersión. Dcoetzee 01:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

has been replaced with markup for editability on es:Medidas_de_dispersión. Deleted. Siebrand 10:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:00003.JPG

Bad name, and ought to be converted to markup, for editability. --Dcoetzee 00:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I have now replaced this image with markup on es:Medidas_de_dispersión. Dcoetzee 01:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

has been replaced with markup for editability on es:Medidas_de_dispersión. Deleted. Siebrand 10:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:00006.JPG

Bad name, wrong format, should be replaced with math markup for editability. --Dcoetzee 00:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I have now replaced this image with markup on es:Medidas_de_dispersión. Dcoetzee 01:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

has been replaced with markup for editability on es:Medidas_de_dispersión. Deleted. Siebrand 10:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:00007.JPG

Bad name, wrong format, should be replaced with math markup for editability. --Dcoetzee 00:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I have now replaced this image with markup on es:Medidas_de_dispersión. Dcoetzee 01:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

has been replaced with markup for editability on es:Medidas_de_dispersión. Deleted. Siebrand 10:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:00009.JPG

Bad name, wrong format. Should be replaced with markup for editability. --Dcoetzee 00:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I have now replaced this image with markup on es:Medidas_de_dispersión. Dcoetzee 01:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

has been replaced with markup for editability on es:Medidas_de_dispersión. Deleted. Siebrand 10:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:00010.JPG

Bad name, wrong format. Should be replaced with markup for editability. --Dcoetzee 00:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I have now replaced this image with markup on es:Medidas_de_dispersión. Dcoetzee 01:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

has been replaced with markup for editability on es:Medidas_de_dispersión. Deleted. Siebrand 10:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:00015.JPG

Bad name, wrong format. Should be replaced with markup for editability. --Dcoetzee 00:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I have now replaced this image with markup on es:Medidas_de_dispersión. Dcoetzee 01:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

has been replaced with markup for editability on es:Medidas_de_dispersión. Deleted. Siebrand 10:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:00008.JPG

Bad name, wrong format, has been replaced with markup for editability on es:Medidas_de_dispersión. --Dcoetzee 01:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

has been replaced with markup for editability on es:Medidas_de_dispersión. Deleted. Siebrand 10:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Baseball pitching motion 2004.jpg

Image has been manipulated by being flopped from its original orientation. The Cincinnati Reds logo is clearly reversed from its correct orientation. --FCYTravis 22:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete or fix. --CFIF 23:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I have a feeling the flip was done so that the pitch would be in the same direction as the progression of images. Regardless, the image was clearly altered. -- tariqabjotu 23:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per reasons above. Cla68 00:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. So the image has been flipped left-to-right. Does that make it any less accurate an illustration of the motions involved in a baseball pitch? --Carnildo 00:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Yes, it does, because all the motions are the reverse of what they should be. Furthermore, we are being fundamentally dishonest by hosting photographs that purport to be of historical events yet lie to the viewer. Such an act would not be acceptable in any major newspaper or magazine, and it shouldn't be acceptable on the Commons either. We're not talking about a piece of Photoshop artwork here, we're talking about what amounts to a series of doctored news photographs. Even the jersey numbers have been 'shopped. FCYTravis 01:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Is this a photograph of a historic event, or is it a photograph of the motions involved in pitching a baseball? And is there any difference between the motions of a left-handed pitcher as viewed from the right side of home plate, and the motions of a right-handed pitcher as viewed from the left side of home plate? --Carnildo 18:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, I'm not exactly sure what has been done to make the C reversed, but I don't think something should be deleted for that. I mean, I agree with FCYTravis, but I take that as a reason to avoid its usage (or make explicit explanation of what was done to the photo) in articles, not for deletion from the commons. It can be a valuable image here and what was done to it should be explained. gren 05:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - It's not just the "C" that has been reversed. The entire image is flipped, and incorrect numbers have been photoshopped in. This came up because the photo was purported to be an image of a now-deceased pitcher (w:Josh Hancock). It's not. The photo is doctored and unsalvageable unless we have the original photos. FCYTravis 08:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I have added Template:retouched. Feel free to add to the description of what has been retouched. I see your point, but since there are no copyright issues I think a description of what we know was retouched (and what we are unsure of) should suffice. gren`
• Delete'. Sadly, the image hasn't merely been flipped. A number was added to the chest. When flipped back, the image is obviously doctored. 67.186.190.207 15:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The original sequence of images (of Brandon Claussen) is now at Image:Baseball_pitching_motion_2004r.jpg. The change in orientation was merely an aesthetic thing; nothing more sinister than that. The hive can decide where to go with it from here; I have no opinion. Rdikeman 21:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, absolutely! As an illustration for conveying to the reader what a baseball pitch looks like, it's excellent. It was obviously flipped just to show a natural left-to-right progression...nothing sinister or dishonest about it. And that flipping doesn't matter in the least...it's not puporting to document a historical event. If it were a hand-drawn or computer-generated cartoon, showing four stages in a baseball pitch, I don't think anyone would have a problem with it. This is an equivalent thing...an area where some artistic license is permissible. Consider it an artist's illustration based on real photographic source material. Now if it were presented as an actual series of photographs of the subject pitcher, or of his 25,000th pitch, that would be inappropriate. But as an illustrative tool for the pitching article, it's superb. 134.131.125.49 16:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Image kept. Obviously a use photo that is used in 62 articles in various projects. Thuresson 12:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:36dd.jpg

Within the project’s scope? Advertising? --Polarlys 23:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

•  Delete I don't see any encyclopedic value in it... we have pictures of breasts and pictures of cleavage, and probably even pictures of ripped shirts if that's what is needed. This particular one seems more like advertising to me. -- Editor at Large • talk 01:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
•  Keep Those are not reasons to delete. Since it's a free picture you could ofcourse edit out the text if you'd want to. // Liftarn
•  Delete Agree with Editor at Large. Isn't it odd that her torn top displays an url..? --|EPO| 16:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. Not used in any Wikimedia projects and the original uploader has made several problematic uploads. Thuresson 17:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Blason ville fr Le Croisic alternatif(Loire-Atlantique).svg

same image as Image:Blason ville fr Le Croisic (Loire-Atlantique) alternatif.svg // Bad name convention for this image. Should have been called image:Blason ville fr Le Croisic (Loire-Atlantique) alternatif.svg. Thx ;) --Hellotheworld 17:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

tagged with {{duplicate}} --ALE! ¿…? 09:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Gletscherspalte.jpg

why should this image be in the public domain? There is surely a known author (maybe not known to us), so PD-old does not apply. --ALE! ¿…? 14:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 14:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Unix.png

Terribly outdated. Not used. Superseded by superior format (SVG). Spelling errors--Ysangkok 16:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

•  Keep:Outdated is no reason for deletion. And the superseded procedure will go on if we have consensus about it. --GeorgHH 18:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
•  Keep:Please don't delete. Outdated is an opinion. The alternative that is being referred to, although more accurate in technical details, is unsuitable for a thumbnail in a Wikipage. Can't someone just update the info without all the highlighting?-Rafael

  Why does the other picture fit better? SVG's ought to scale better because the text can be rendered at the size it should be. And how can outdated be an "opinion"? Take a look at http://kernel.org/ . Here you will see that the latest Linux kernel version is not 2.6.12.5. --Ysangkok 22:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• "Outdated" is flatly incorrect. The picture is dated 2005, only two years ago, and provides an excellent overview of the 35-some-year development of the UNIX family. If the precise version numbers are important to you, please edit the picture and upload the updated version. --Tony Sidaway 18:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I've already done that: Image:Unix_history.svg :P. Also, I think it makes a difference if the Linux version is 2.6.12 or 2.6.21. It's not just "off-by-one". --Ysangkok 18:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Kept. --MichaelMaggs 17:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Template:PD-Denmark50

(see also the related debates for Template:PD-Finland50 and Template:PD-Sweden-photo)

w:Directive on harmonising the term of copyright protection contained a clause for unifying the demarcation for protection as photographic works (photos are "to be considered original if it is the author's own intellectual creation reflecting his personality, no other criteria such as merit or purpose being taken into account", in direct contradiction to this template). There are court decisions in Germany[8] and Austria[9][10][11] that have decided this uniform demarcation to be very low, such that basically only mug shots and reproduction photography, where the outcome is more or less determined by the task, would remain as simple photographs. Even if, for some reason, this uniform demarcation has not been received the same way in Denmark (but I cannot find a court decision contradicting it), the directive would still cause the works to be protected in other EU countries that agree with the German/Austrian interpretation, because the the EU-wide anti-discrimination laws. When Copy-Dan writes that "Since no established legal practice exists in this field, drawing the line between photographic works and photographic images can be difficult"[12], it seems not to have noticed the German and Austrian court cases, and when it writes that a photograph is non-simple "if the image has the necessary independent / artistic merit. In practical terms it will often be taken into account if the person in question had taken a professional education as a photographer and / or if he had this occupation for a living" ([13], p.5), it seems not to have noticed the clause in the EU directive that, since it was implemented, must be taken as the binding interpretation of any remaining unclarity. Please someone who can speak danish write to copy-dan informing them about these mistakes. --rtc 17:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

As we have seen in the PD-Finland50 case, there is some scope in interpreting the "author's own intellectual creation", "personality" etc. Anyhow, I have a strong reservation regarding those "simple photograph" licenses because people don't exactly know about the limitation unless there are some legislative clarifications or exemplary case law. Based on my experience i think that such templates are highly misused and cannot be maintained with reasonable costs. Therefore i think it should be deleted.--Wiggum 18:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

"Please someone who can speak danish write to copy-dan informing them about these mistakes." Who sad it is a mistake. Just because a german and austrian decision has been mad doesn't make it law in Denmark. (Last time I checked EU is still a collection of independent states). Just because you want the same rules on copyright in every country and your main goal on Commons apparently is deleting as many photos as possible doesn't make it right. --Broadbeer 21:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to waste my time on German law anymore. I've wasted too much of my life on it last time this template was nominated for deletion, and this is turning into a perpetuum mobile. However, I will say publicly that a German judge has no authority outside of his own nation, and rulings by German courts will very likely not be a deciding factor in a Danish court of law, as Danish legal traditions are based on Danish law with inputs from Scandinavian law, Common law and Roman law, in that order (source: Peter Schønning: "Ophavsretten med kommentarer"). But it is kind of interesting to see that the deletionist rampage isn't applied with the same rigour everywhere. We have a ton of images tagged with {{PD-Coa-Germany}}, and they might very well be PD there. but I don't believe for a second that any image using this tag is PD in Denmark or anywhere else where they don't hold any official status. {{PD-art}} images are PD in Germany and the US, but not in many other nations. If the idea is that images on Commons must be free to use for everybody, then these images are disqualified as well. If there is a higher meaning in these deletion nominations, I can't follow it. Valentinian ^(talk) 09:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Quite outside of the EU regulations, the threshold of originality varies amongst countries, and such "simple photographs" from Denmark are eligible for copyright as "photographic works" in other countries where the threshold of originality is low (such as the U.S.). Therefore, I do not consider such "simple photograph" exceptions useful here at the commons; such photos may be protected only for a short term in Denmark, but may well be works with a long copyright term outside of Denmark. Such images are better hosted at the Danish WP. Lupo 10:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • (On PD-Coa-Germany: COAs in Germany are PD by virtue of having been published in official legislative documents (which is madated by GErmany's administrative laws), and many countries including the U.S. exclude such official legislative documents from copyright. Furthermore, this tag here is not about official works. On PD-Art, please see COM:ART.) Lupo 10:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Also see §5(2) of the Berne Convention: copyright in a country "shall be independent of the existence of protection in the country of origin of the work." Lupo 10:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I am aware of the laws of both Germany and other countries regarding heraldic images (although I still need to check most of Western Europe [14]), but outside of Germany, these images are merely works of art with no special status, so that must make the actual rendition of an foreign insignia a work of art copyrighted for the life of the author + 70 years. {{PD-USGov}} is a false parallel as it applies solely to works made by the US federal government, it doesn't even apply for the governments of US federal states, so it cannot apply for images produced in Germany. I just find it curious that many of these deletion requests are based on the argument that the image X must be free to use in Germany and Austria = an argument that Wikipedia practice must be harmonized on the most restrictive level, not on the level used in the country of origin. However, if this has become the rule, then said rule must be applied both ways, PD-Coa-Germany is merely a case in point. Regarding the current deletion request, I don't see any reason to add further to what I stated the last time. Have a nice day. Valentinian ^(talk) 11:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Anyway, since most of these images refer to World War II, this webpage from Denmark's National Museum suggests to me that the rigid standard demanded here is not applied in Denmark. Valentinian ^(talk) 11:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
        • First, you brought Germany into this debate, not I. Second, I said nothing about PD-USGov. I was talking about "legislative documents". That's two different issues. Many governments, even where they can hold copyrights, explicitly exclude "legislative documents" and such from copyright. Third, my argument for deletion had nothing to do with either, nor with Germany, nor with Austria, nor with any EU regulation, but with the different thresholds of originality in different countries, which IMO severely limits the usefulness of these "simple photograph" templates. Lupo 22:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and for more arguments, see the related discussions regarding Finland and Sweden.

I think it's quite sad the way quotes a Danish document like this: "-- -- a photograph is non-simple 'if the image has the necessary independent / artistic merit. In practical terms it will often be taken into account if the person in question had taken a professional education as a photographer and / or if he had this occupation for a living' ([6], p.5)". So doing Rtc leaves out the next sentence: "but in principle (?) an amateur can also create a photographic work" ("men i princippet kan også en amatør frembringe et fotografisk værk"). Samulili 15:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep for the same reasons as in the related discussions regarding Finland and Sweden. --C.Thure 12:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - The German courts do not have authority in Denmark and until the Danish courts rule these must be considered PD. If they are not usable in Germany the template should carry a disclaimer similar to the one on {{PD-US}}. -N 14:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• KeepAs per discussion above. --Alien life form 13:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep

the whole discussion about PD-Finland-50, PD-Dennmark, and PD-Sweden is useless for obvious reason, that we all have to respect the regulations of Finnish, Swedish or Dannish law, and the only valid interpretation is F, S. or D. court interpretation of common law, not private German opinions is (or even verdicts of German Courts - there are suitable only on the territory of FRG, not abroad.

Is anyone (brave Viking) in whole Scandinavia to conclude and close these discusssions or there will be disputed without conclusion to the end of the world ;)

Freedom First - every limitation has to be justify in detail. Andros64 10:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

kept; as German court has no jurisdiction outside Germany. Danish laws regargarding copyrights have not changed anything regarding photographic images. When the law is changed we can discuss this template. --|EPO| ^da: 14:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Template:PD-Sweden-photo

(see also the related debate Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-Finland50 and Deletion requests/Template:PD-Denmark50)

The first part of this tag is invalidated by w:Directive on harmonising the term of copyright protection#Copyright restoration. Concerning the second part: The directive contained a clause for unifying the demarcation for protection as photographic works (photos are "to be considered original if it is the author's own intellectual creation reflecting his personality, no other criteria such as merit or purpose being taken into account"). There are court decisions in Germany[15] and Austria[16][17][18] that have decided this uniform demarcation to be very low, such that basically only mug shots and reproduction photography, where the outcome is more or less determined by the task, would remain as simple photographs. Even if, for some reason, this uniform demarcation has not been received the same way in Sweden (but I cannot find a court decision contradicting it), the directive would still cause the works to be protected in other EU countries that agree with the German/Austrian interpretation, because the the EU-wide anti-discrimination laws. --rtc 17:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

None of those court cases dealt with images tagged with this template. The German government or German courts do not have jurisdiction in Sweden or the following countries: The Netherlands, Belgium, Luxemburg, France, Austria, Denmark, Norway, Poland or Czechoslovakia. But don't take my word for it. You have claimed: "Since I strongly suppose that it is not the case "that the Austrian and German cases are also significant for other EU members", you are of course right that "showing it individually for the other EU member countries" is the only way to find out.". Thuresson 15:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - I recommend a careful study of Henry Olsson's "Svensk och internationell upphovsrätt", 7th edition, 2006, and Kerstin Ahlberg's "Din upphovsrätt och andras", 3rd edition, 2006. Thuresson 18:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry, that's not an argument. What do they say in there? --rtc 18:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
    • To avoid repeating wellknown arguments, may I ask which literature on Swedish copyright you have read? Mr. Olsson is a wellknown doctor of law and vice president of "Svenska föreningen för upphovsrätt". His book on Swedish copyright is required reading for anybody interested in the subject. Mrs Ahlberg is a wellknown trademark attorney who has written an acclaimed book on copyright for journalists. Thuresson 00:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
      • I do not care who these people are, I want to know what they have written that you think applies to the context of this deletion request. I have not read anything by them. If they are still describing old demarcation criteria from times before the EU-Directive came into effect in the book, then you should mail them, point out their error and ask them to fix that. --rtc 00:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Thank you for your quick reply. Which works on Swedish copyright law have you read? Are you familiar with Katarina Renman Claesson? Thuresson 01:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
          • I have actually not read any work at all on Swedish copyright law, and I don't think that there is any need for that as long as we are discussing EU-wide regulations. If there is anything in these books that talks explicitly about effects of EU directives, please tell me the details. If not, then these books are all irrelevant for this discussion. --rtc 04:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
            • By your own admission you are unfamiliar with the copyright act. Thuresson 15:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

 Comment

A while ago the template PD-Soviet was discussed. There, the United States court interpreted the Russian copyright law in deciding that an image was protected by copyright in Russia, and thereby also in the U.S.

Now, the German copyright law says that it applies to people in all countries of the E.U. (correct me if I'm wrong), so I understand that forum shopping is possible there. Which is what happened to the Italian music/opera that was found to be copyrighted in Germany.

How many countries say that they allow their own copyright law to supersede the copyright law of the country it was created in? For example, the Swedish copyright law would give no reason to do so -- it says in its article 60 that it only apply to works published in Sweden or published by Swedes. [19] And Sweden actually has ratified the EU directive on harmonization of copyright (you can see it being referenced in article 61a). So, I do not think that forum shopping would be possible in Sweden, for example.

So in which countries are forum shopping possible? If it is only possible in Germany then it is better to keep the template with a note that it can't be used on German Wikipedia.

Fred Chess 20:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Forum shopping is possible in all countries (except those which signed no copyright treaty at all, but that can change at any moment, and the Foundation has stated that we do as if there were such treaties, anyway). Swedish copyright law applies to works of all countries with which Sweden has signed treaties. That is, swedish copyright law protects all EU works without consideration of rule of the shorter terms, and it protects external works with rule of the shorter term. The copyright law of the country it was created in is basically completely irrelevant except in rule oft the shorter term calculations. And it is really only this calcuation. Whether the work passes threshold of originality, whether it is a simple photograph, whether panorama freedom applies etc. is always determined by the law of the country in which the restriction is sued for, not by the law of the country in which the work has been created. --rtc 22:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The clause in the directive which to unifies the demarcation for a "work" is the same that has been in use in Sweden for decades before the directive. What Rtc fails to understand time after time, is that the one simple line in directive can be interpreted in many ways—and is interpreted in many ways. Samulili 09:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The EU directive is very clear that photos are "to be considered original if it is the author's own intellectual creation reflecting his personality, no other criteria such as merit or purpose being taken into account", and the German court has said that this means it's original as soon as the photographer chooses the position freely and presses the button by his own choice. This is so broad that hardly any picture remains that is not a photographic work. --rtc 16:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you understand the difference between European Union directive and European Union regulation? --Pudeo 20:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The directive dictates the result, and the result is very clearly described in the directive. We know the result that had to be achieved. Unfortunately, w:Directive_on_the_coordination_of_certain_rules_concerning_copyright_and_rights_related_to_copyright_applicable_to_satellite_broadcasting_and_cable_retransmission#Implementation lists the implementation in Sweden as unknown. --rtc 21:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't you mean en:Directive harmonizing the term of copyright protection#Implementation? Sweden implemented 93/98/EEC in 1995, when they joined the EU. Lupo 10:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, of course. Sorry. --rtc 17:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The EU directive is very clear that photos are "to be considered original if it is the author's own intellectual creation reflecting his personality, no other criteria such as merit or purpose being taken into account". And you know what? This is what the Swedish law says about photos, too. Samulili 12:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Good, then we agree that Sweden implemented the directive in exactly the same way as Germany. --rtc 17:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Quite outside of the EU regulations, the threshold of originality varies amongst countries, and such "simple photographs" from Sweden are eligible for copyright as "photographic works" in other countries where the threshold of originality is low (such as the U.S.). Therefore, I do not consider such "simple photograph" exceptions useful here at the commons; such photos may be protected only for a short term in Sweden, but may well be works with a long copyright term outside of Sweden. Such images are better hosted at the Swedish WP. Lupo 10:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Also see §5(2) of the Berne Convention: copyright in a country "shall be independent of the existence of protection in the country of origin of the work." Lupo 10:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep The copyright harmonization directive rtc brings out does not apply to the photos considered here. This template considers photos which are not "author's own intellectual creations reflecting his personality", so they are covered by a related right, not copyright. The German courts demarcate the level of intellectual creation differently from Finland or Sweden and there is no Union-level jurisprudence. The views of German or Austrian courts do not bind Swedish courts or the courts of European Union. The final say on whether Swedish Copyright law provides photos with the protection required by the Copyright directive rests with the Court of European Communities. Before that court issues judgement, nobody knows. However, we should not be overcautious. So, you can get into trouble with these pictures if you use them in Germany or Austria, but outside them, there is no use to restrict the use of these images. --MPorciusCato 13:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

User:rtc agrees with you. In September rtc wrote: "Since I strongly suppose that it is not the case "that the Austrian and German cases are also significant for other EU members", you are of course right that "showing it individually for the other EU member countries" is the only way to find out.". Thuresson 16:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

If this template considers photos which are not the "author's own intellectual creation[s] reflecting his personality", then it is simply misapplied completely. Only reproduction photography, mugshots etc., where the technical goal determines the outcome, cannot be considered "author's own intellectual creation[s] reflecting his personality". As soon as the photographer can in principle choose the position freely and press the button arbitrarily, it is the "author's own intellectual creation reflecting his personality" The German court case is well significant for the other EU members insofar as they give a well founded opinion on how the directive's "author's own intellectual creation reflecting his personality" is to be interpreted. The Austrian court cases shows that this German court case is cited even by non-German courts, as a uniform demarcation to be applied EU-wide. If you publish a allegedly, but not really simple photograph in Sweden, and I sue you there, do you think the court there would ignore it if I pointed them to the German decision? --rtc 17:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

That you say that principle is completely misapplied is an opinion, not an argument. I think that the misapplication has taken place in Germany/Austrian. This, too, is an opinion, ie. just another stinking asshole...

And sure, someone in Finland(/Sweden/Denmark) could bring up the case in Germany/Austria. But it is immensely more likely that they will ask the opionion of the Finnish copyright council which will bare immensely more weight and whose opinion we also know. Furthermore, it doesn't really reflect well on the German/Austrian attitude, if the opinions of these two countries are set up as the model for the whole Europe when, in fact, the opinion of the Court of European Communities is the only one which has any significans accross borders. Samulili 18:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

What I say is not "an opinion", it is a fact. There has been no misapplication in Germany/Austria. The judgement was well based and the judge was well aware of the former law of Germany which was the same as the old law in Sweden, and which set high requirements for photographic works. But this was the old law, and it has changed since the implementation of the directive. According to your standards, I'd say that whatever you say or whatever the copyright council says is "just an opinion". A wrong opinion is not any better just because it is held by some alleged authority. There is still the pre-directive interpretation of the law floating around, and courts, copyright offices and so on are all not yet completely aware of the change and judge according to the old standards. However, this is the past. --rtc 19:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

What did the old law of Germany say and what do you think that the Swedish law says? The Swedish law: "Anyone who has created a literary or artistic work shall have copyright in that work, regardless of whether it is -- -- a photographic work -- --." ("Den som har skapat ett litterärt eller konstnärligt verk har upphovsrätt till verket oavsett om det är -- -- fotografiskt verk -- --.") Samulili 19:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The old German law was interpreted as artistic merit or purpose being necessary for a photo to be protected as a photographic work. Since the EU directive has been implemented, this has changed, since it explicitly rejects that criterion ("no other criteria such as merit or purpose being taken into account" -- there can be no misunderstanding about that, and it's simply quite ridiculous that people are simply ignoring it) What does the cited part of the swedish law have to do with our discussion? --rtc 19:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

You claimed something about old and new Swedish law, so it's relevant to know just what stands in the law. Mind you, there is no old or new Swedish in this respect. What I quoted has stayed the same for 47 years. You also write: "The judgement was well based and the judge was well aware of the former law of Germany which was the same as the old law in Sweden." Then you write: "The old German law was interpreted as artistic merit or purpose being necessary for a photo to be protected as a photographic work." Swedish law does not require that a photo has artistic merit or purpose for a photo to be protected as a work. It never has required. Samulili 19:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Then we agree that the criterion is not artistic merit or purpose, but choosing position and pressing the button? (in contrast to mugshots, satellite photos etc. where it is predetermined by the task and no personality reflected). We also agree that the template is certainly valid, but all pictures uploaded under it are actually photographic works? --rtc 19:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

You want to know my asshole? It is that photos that reflect personality are to be considered works. My asshole also says that choosing position and the moment of pressing the button reflect personality only when choosing the position and the moment of pressing the button reflect personality. The template is certainly valid and, no, the pictures that are using it, are not works. Samulili 19:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The pictures that are using it are all works, since they were shot by choosing the position and the moment of pressing the button. You can recycle this template for reproduction photography. It covers the same range of photos as Template:PD-art, just for sweden. --rtc 20:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Blah, blah, blah. Repeating something won't make it more true. Samulili 21:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

That's correct. It was already as true as it can get from the very beginning. --rtc 21:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Quote: "I have actually not read any work at all on Swedish copyright law" and "I strongly suppose that it is not the case "that the Austrian and German cases are also significant for other EU members". Thuresson 13:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Nothing of this contradicts my arguments for deleting this tag. --rtc 19:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I have made an argument on Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-Finland50 [20] why I believe that many photos tagged with this or the related Finland and Denmark templates are actually OK in the US. If my reason is correct then vote Keep for this template, for the time being. If other wikipedians than German and English would like to have this and related templates deleted, they should come forth and say so. I do not approve of a user who claims to have no juridical background speaking on behalf of them, pretending to be able to interpret various laws based on "common sense", as though such a thing existed in the juridical world. / Fred Chess 16:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Just because X says Y, and X has property Z, does not have as a necessary consequence that Y is false (for example if Z="no juridical background") or that Y is true (for example if Z="Professor in law"). Critical examination is necessary, and I gave some hints on how to do that (writing an email to the FCC about the issue, pointing to the court decisions and asking them about what they think about it). --rtc 21:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - German and Austrian law does not apply directly to Sweden. If this was more broadly accepted by EU nations, then it might hold more water. --PhantomS 12:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - As per discussion above. Huggorm 19:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete EU regulations take precedent, if you deleted the PD italy and related tags, this has to go too Madmax32 02:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

This is not about EU regulations. Do you comprehend the difference between European Union directives and European Union regulations? Thuresson 12:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I briefly read your links, it seems that because of legal precedent, EU directives are indeed binding and enforceable for member states, this marginalizes your claims that is acceptable to ignore the EU directive. Also I am not from Europe, but since you like to operate based on international law here on commons, the quote from lupo about the Berne convention seems relevant 'Also see §5(2) of the Berne Convention: copyright in a country "shall be independent of the existence of protection in the country of origin of the work." ' Swedish law has no business on here, not to mention these servers are not hosted in Sweden. Madmax32 08:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

"Notwithstanding the fact that directives were not originally thought to be binding before they were implemented by member states, the European Court of Justice developed the doctrine of direct effect where unimplemented directives can actually have direct legal force and in Francovich v. Italy the court found Italy liable for their failure to implement a directive."[21] and 'Direct Effect' [22] 'In Comet v. Produktschap (Case 45/76) [1976] ECR 2043, the European Court of Justice established that the procedural rules of each member state generally apply to cases of EC law.' That seems plausible that the Swedish copyright law in question could be challenged easily in a court, it's on shaky grounds at best. Madmax32 09:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

That's all very well, but the question here is not whether EU directives or regulations take precedent over national legislation or not. Samulili 09:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Your claim that Swedish copyright law could easily be challenged in court seem to be a misunderstanding. The directive was implemented into Swedish law in 1996. Thuresson 18:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Specifically the PD-Sweden, potentially a creator of a work could challenge the swedish law using the case law example set in Germany, this template is really just a liability and should go Madmax32 21:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Please specify. Just like in Germany, most works are protected by Swedish copyright law for life + 70 years. Thuresson 21:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

As rtc pointed out, the German interpretation sets a case law example, a Swedish citizen could challenge the 50 year law used for tagging certain images here in a court, since it offers them less intellectual copyright protection than those in other EU member states, this tag has the same problems as the deleted Italy PD template Madmax32 21:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

First of all, a Swedish citizen could not challenge the 50 year regulation, but they could challenge the interpretation on what is a "fotografisk verk" and what is a simple "fotograf". Secondly, he could do that even if there never was any case in Germany. And thirdly: We can all be sued whether we are guilty or not – but at least we're innocent until proven guilty, not vice versa. Oh, and a fourth thing: equal treatment in EAA regardless of nationality means that every citizen of a EAA state has the same rights in Sweden. They also have equal rights in Germany. That, however, does not mean that they will have the same rights in Sweden as they have in Germany (unless required by a directive or regulation). Samulili 22:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

first of all US law makes no distinction between "fotografisk verk" a simple "fotograf" as you say, so those Swedish images are problematic since they may still be copyrighted in the US (70 years after death of author), this is the same reason the Italy-PD tag was deleted, but you are ignoring this point Madmax32 01:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring it. I've said before that we have a lot of PD-licenses (and other free licenses) used for images which are not PD in the US. But that is a different discussion and is discussed elsewhere. Samulili 12:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - As per discussion above. Mikael Lindmark 19:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - The German courts do not have authority in Sweden and until the Swedish courts rule these must be considered PD. If they are not usable in Germany the template should carry a disclaimer similar to the one on {{PD-US}}. -N 14:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep As per discussion above. --Alien life form 13:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• This deletion request is based on EU Council Directive 93/98/EEC. However, that directive was repealed in 2006 and replaced with Directive 2006/116/EC which states about photographs that are not works: "The protection of other photographs should be left to national law." National law in this case states that photographs that are not works are protected for 50 years if published after 1968. Photographic works and simple photographs that had become public domain in 1994 when the copyright act was changed did not have their copyright revived (Law 1994:190). Thuresson 19:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep

the whole discussion about PD-Finland-50, PD-Dennmark, and PD-Sweden is useless for obvious reason, that we all have to respect the regulations of Finnish, Swedish or Dannish law, and the only valid interpretation is F, S. or D. court interpretation of common law, not private German opinions is (or even verdicts of German Courts - there are suitable only on the territory of FRG, not abroad.

Is anyone (brave Viking) in whole Scandinavia to conclude and close these discusssions or there will be disputed without conclusion to the end of the world ;)

Freedom First - every limitation has to be justify in detail.

Andros64 10:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Kept as laws of Germany does not apply for Sweden. Copyright law has not been changed. Make a new discussion when the law gets changed. --|EPO| ^da: 00:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Template:PD-Finland50

(see also the related debate Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-Sweden-photo and Deletion requests/Template:PD-Denmark50)

This is a utterly useless license. While i do not dispute the 50 years for non-work photographs this case is similar to the PD-Italy-problem. The limits for works are very low, in case of Finland, Commons:Licensing#Finland states that only photographs in which the "[...] photographer had no control over the composition or lighting of the picture can not be concidered works of art.". I checked some pictures which where tagged with PD-Finland50, not a single one of them was a non-work under the described circumstances. The reason for deletion request on the template and not on the single picture: I can't imagine that there is a photograph which complies with the quoted requirements on "simpleness" and is of any use on commons. Actually Germany has the same requirements for simple photographs and i don't remember to have seen a useful simple photograph ever.--Wiggum 14:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep Once again these Germans come all over Europe to tell what to do. I tell you something, this is a Finnish law, and the Finnihs copyright council has given a decision that this image is not a work so you claims of not-simpleness are bollocks. -Samulili 22:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a very astonishing example, i didn't know it before. Actually, with this picture being a simple work, COM:L is pretty wrong or at least extremely misleading. The photographer has "control over the composition or lighting of the picture" when he uses a simple photocamera (you know, diaphragm, exposure, film speed, used photographic lens, moment when he triggers the shutter etc.pp.), so this is a wording which applies to the example image you provided. If this "copyright council" (what is it?) is correct, the wording should be: "Virtually any photograph is a simple photograph. A picture is only considered as a photographic work when the following criteria apply: ...".

This leads me to the next consideration. There should be a testable distinction to use the template reasonable. I would like to see a picture which is considered a photograpic work or much better i would appreciate to see the hard criteria for photographic works.

Finally, with PD-Finland50 we have the same international implications like we had with PD-Italy before. Since each country has it's own definition of what is a "simple photograph" and the rule of shorter term isn't applicable within the EU, the pictures are still protected in a number of countries, in detail in all countries which have a very low limit for photograpic works (i.e. Germany and Austria) and in all countries without a distinction between simple photographs and works. Lupo kindly provided an overview on this issue: User:Lupo/Simple Photographs.--Wiggum 09:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Wiggum, I deeply respect your calm tone and I apologize for being such a jerk. I see how you were mislead by the text on the licensing page. I changed the text so that it is clear that the image is only an example. There were further problems on the page, too. The reasoning given was that of the other party in the dispute while the reasoning of the Copyright council was: "Council sees that the photograph -- -- is despite its historical importance a regular photo of current events. The photograph does not demonstrate original and personal contribution from the photographer and so it can't be considered to be -- a photographic work." The Council also says that the "threshold of originality" is typically considered to be quite high.

The Copyright council is a council set by the copyright law and whose purpose is to Ministry of Education in copyright questions and to give statements on the application of the law. It consists of parties from copyright holder, users of copyrighted material and legal experts.

It is my understanding that the legal experts in Finland agree that nobody really knows where the threshold of originality exaclty lies and why it is there. The council does not give legally binding statements and it doesn't create general rules but only handles individual cases. As it probably has the best experts of the field, its statement will nevertheless have a lot of influence in court. -Samulili 12:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The definition of "the control over the composition or lighting of the picture" is not supposed to mean the usual technical changes made on the camera to produce a good image. It is supposed, in the context of Finnish law, to mean that the author specifically has chosen the overall composition or lighting in a way designed to produce an artistic quality to the picture. Most importantly, this applies to studio photos. Not a single person in Finland has ever tried to claim that a news image or a common family portrait would not fall under "simple photograph". The only persons having qualms over this are here, on the Commons. Let us not have a holier-than-thou attitude. --MPorciusCato 07:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete. This has exactly the same issues as {{PD-Italy}}, namely that (a) we don't know where to draw the line between "simple photographs" and "photographic works", (b) that line would be different in any other country, so works that might be "simple photographs" in Finland would be "photographic works" in many other countries, and (c) we don't know precisely what the effects of EU directive 93/98/EEC with regards to that line (threshold of originality) are. Even if (c) should turn out to be a non-issue, (a) and (b) mean IMO that the template is unsuitable for the commons. It may make sense at the Finnish Wikipedia, but hardly on other Wikipedias. Lupo 13:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

c) I think it's a non issue when, in fact, we have nothing that would strongly indicate that the license is not good. Innocent before proven guilty, not the other way around.

b) If it is a general line that we can't approve of country specific PD-licenses, then we should first discuss that line and only afterwards delete ~100 country specific licenses.

a) How come we don't know where to draw the line in case of PD-Finland but we seem to know where to draw it in case of logos and we have {{PD-ineligible}}? -Samulili 09:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

 Comment Well, Directive 93/98/EEC defines what a photographic work is, so the point where the line has to be drawn is now the same in all Member States. -- ３２４７ (talk) 15:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Definitions will always have to be interpreted by courts. EU countries have different court systems which may make (and probably do make) different interpretations, and the final word – as I understand it – can only come from en:Court of First Instance or en:European Court of Justice. -Samulili 11:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep – I do not see a point starting separate discussions for single licenses. According to Commons:Licensing#Country-specific_laws, I do not need to take German law into account when uploading a Finnish picture from Finland. If you think that this guideline should be changed, discuss it there. This is the wrong way and only disrupts work. --ThePeter 08:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • You have to take german law into account when you are sued in Germany.--Wiggum 11:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete When will commons see that rule of the shorter term does not apply within the EU? --Rtc 17:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

 Comment re article six in the directive: Copyright protects photographs that are "the author's own intellectual creation". What does this mean? On what qualifications do 3247 and others interpret what it means? / Fred Chess 08:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

On the qualification that "no other criteria such as merit or purpose [are to be] taken into account". Germany and Austria have given a very strong interpretation of this. Even if you assume that the directive has been received differently in different EU countries and even under the presupposition (in contradiction to the German and Austrian courts interpretation of the directive) that Italian simple photos still exist, this does not make Italian simple photos free after 20 years for example in Sweden, where (under the same presupposition) they will be restricted for at least another 30 years. Sweden photos will be restricted for 70 pma in Germany, Austria, and surely other countries who follow their interpretation. There is no rule of the shorter term within the EU. Forum Shopping is possible. --Rtc 16:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, we most of the World isn't in Germany. -Samulili 16:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

What about the other EU countries? Can you prove that the picture is not restricted the rest of the EU countries? --Rtc 01:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

 Comment Rtc, there is a misunderstanding between us. I want to know, on what premise you and 3247 know what an "intellectual creation" refer to? According to Commons:Licensing the Finnish Copyright Council (in 2003?) considered this photo public domain because "-- despite its historical importance it is a regular photo of current events. The photograph does not demonstrate original and personal contribution from the photographer and so it can't be considered to be a photographic work." This is what I consider an interpretation by qualified people. If you say the Finnish Copyright Council is acting against E.U. directive, could you provide material by qualified people to support that claim? / Fred Chess 19:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

That's not the point. The point is that even if the picture might be free in Finland, it is only free according to the finnish law. Since there is no rule of shorter term within the EU, it would need to be free in each EU country to be legal, which it is for sure not, since it is illegal at least in Germany and Austria (where we know for sure) and many other EU countries (rights holder can try one after another...) Because of forum shopping, the picture may not be kept. If the Finnish rights owner does not succeed in Finland, he can go to a German court with the desired success. You are all somehow ignoring the many new possibilities european citizens have within Europe, including the possibility of forum shopping. We have a proof that forum shopping happens and that it works: a photo that was legal by Austrian panorama freedom and that was shot legally inside Austria and was sued for in Germany, because Germany has stricter panorama freedom rules. Successfully. I do not understand why we are discussing. --Rtc 01:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Why should we care that it may not be used in Germany? Our licensing instructions say "Consequently any licence to use the material should apply in all jurisdictions relevant". No offence, but Germany is not a relevant jurisdiction. -Samulili 07:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

If it would only be Germany i would agree that we should ignore it. Actually, the issue concerns more than one country, please see the list made by Lupo. --Wiggum 12:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

They are no more relevant than Bambustan even if some of them are G8 members. These images have nothing to do with Germany. -Samulili 12:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Well ok, I agree that it is probably better to start to remove images with PD-Finland, PD-Denmark50, and PD-Sweden-photo. They should be uploaded to those Wikipedias that thinks it is safe to use them. This might also mean that images from e.g. Germany who are copyright protected in Germany could be uploaded to e.g. Finnish Wikipedia as public domain under some circumstances.

Fred Chess 12:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Samulii: the problem as I see it is that the states of the EU

• if they have signed w:Directive harmonizing the term of copyright protection (which many have), they can for themselves define the protection of non-creative photos. This means that:
  • they need to have a clause in their copyright law that defines non-creative photos. As you can see from User:Lupo/Simple Photographs not many countries have such a clause.

As a result, there are too many states that (as far as we know) do not have lesser protection for simple photographs.

Fred Chess 12:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per above keeps --Pudeo 15:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

* Keep ditto. Scoo 10:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per above. MoRsE 12:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep KEEP IT, if it is finish law that it is PD then it is legal. --Ar-ras 03:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Keep. Islander 01:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC) (It is my favourite!)
• Keep Keep. It is ridiculous to claim that we would be compelled to obey German law, while no part of this activity takes place on German soil. Old photographs are routinely used in Finnish historical texts without any qualms --MPorciusCato 13:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Keep --Brattås 23:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

 Comment Keep in mind that cheerleading votes must be ignored - if you don't make comment about copyright status or laws, it is pointless to vote --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 15:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

What kind of a rule is that "Because they vote against you, ignore them"?! There is a clear majority for keep here. MoRsE 19:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The comments disrespectful to others like those by Pfctdayelise must be ignored. --Irpen 21:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Pfctdayelise is right. It is in the Commons rules that we do not count votes – for or against. They only may indicate which side has provided better arguments, but in the end, only arguments matter. -Samulili 14:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I can imagine that a column of {{vd}} had been more accepted then... To the point: I could very well have paraphrased some of the above discussion, yet I chose to say simply "ditto" to indicate that I've checked the nomination and rebuttal and agree with those wanting to keep the template. As I've earlier said on COM:DEL, I'm quite the layman when it comes to these issues. But I can't imagine a situation where say an heir of a Finnish photographer would go to court in Germany or any other nation and challenge the Finnish law. Until we have a precedent that show that that chapter 5 and other parts can be ignored, keep the template and images correctly associated with it. Scoo 16:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, and be mindful of m:Copyright paranoia. Does any country's altering its copyright laws obliges the commons to delete images? Suppose tomorrow some remote island nation accepts the copyright law that would say life of the author +300 years? So keep and direct the wannabe copyright lawyers here to some productive activity like, you know, adding content. --Irpen 21:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • When reading User:Lupo/Simple Photographs you will notice that this case is not about "some remote island nations". Besides, the productive activity here is adding free content. --Wiggum 22:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Personal opinions of Lupo are just that and have as much weight as those of anyone else. Lupo is notorious for his original research and interesting interpretations of copyright law. Fortunately, he is not a justice of any court entitled to make sense of the copyright laws by interpreting the. As for the productive activity, I agree with you. And an unproductive activity is attempting to present free content as unfree in order to justify deletion of perfectly legal material. --Irpen 22:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Any German court case has no relevance under Finnish law. If the German Wikipedia choses to exclude some images which a German judge claims is not free in Germany, then so be it. Germany may interpret laws like it sees fit. Finland has the same right, and so has the United Kingdom, Italy or any other member of the European Union. What if Iran or Sudan outlaws all images tomorrow? Or the Islamic courts in Somalia? I believe French law outlaws images of a lot of buildings. Ok, does that mean that we should remove all images of buildings because of this French law? Why not all images, just in case somewhere implements shari'a law tomorrow? Any such attitude is only counter-productive. Should any Finnish judge overturn an existing law or demand it interpreted in a new way; then we'll have a new situation. However, no proof has been presented that this should be the case, so let us take Finnish law at face value instead of trying to rival professional international lawyers. I see no strong evidence presented to suggest that Finnish copyright experts don't know what they are talking about, and unless such is established, I place my trust in the Finnish experts. They know their own language, so they can read the law, and they no doubt have more insight in Finnish legal traditions than most of us. Valentinian ^(talk) 21:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. This is a country-specific template (Finland), used for photos taken in Finland by Finns. EU laws are irrelevant, because only some of the Wikimedia-projects are EU-related (edited by EU citizens, written in European languages etc.). Photos with this template are important material for Wikimedia-projects; it would be a disaster if they couldn't be used. --PeeKoo 11:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• How long do we have to wait for an adminstrative decision? This debate has been inactive for almost two weeks and the voting has been going on for months. Admins, please end this discussion so we can go back to adding material. --MPorciusCato 13:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

With the risk of being reverted, I will close this debate as a keep. During the months since it was opened, I have been waiting for comments from representatives from other larger Wikipedia projects, such as the Spanish, Portugese, and others. As there are no comments from users from such countries, it appears that only users from German Wikipedia want this template deleted, leading it to appear that it should be deleted only because they can't be hosted on German Wikipedia. That must be inappropriate.

Since it wasn't deleted, you may, if you want to, add a warning to the template saying that the images can't be hosted on German Wikipedia.

Fred Chess 02:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I reopened the deletion request, since this is by no means a Problem of Germany only. As Lupo has nicely listed on User:Lupo/Simple_Photographs, most EU countries do not even make a distinction between simple photographs and photographic works. Thus, such photos will be protected at least in the countries listed as "Normal copyright rules apply", as rule of the shorter term doesn't apply within the EU (see also w:Directive on harmonising the term of copyright protection#Copyright restoration). For the remaining countries where it is not the case that "Normal copyright rules apply": We have court decisions refering to an EU-wide, uniform demarcation not only in Germany, but also in Austria. I do not see any indication for why it wouldn't apply to other countries, uniformly, too. --rtc 19:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Why are you beating a dead horse? You have already brought out all your arguments, and lost. --MPorciusCato 10:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I have not "lost". The discussion will go on until you will see, or perhaps you won't see. But the pictures will be deleted, there can be no doubt about that. --rtc 16:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

It was establsihed in the discussion that the law of Germany or that of Bambustan are irrelevant. The laws of Austria or France or whatever are irrelevant as well. The only other country, whose law matters, is the US, and that discussion is on-going and still open. Samulili 18:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

They are absolutely not irrelevant. Pictures must be free to use everywhere, with only casual exceptions permitted. However, these pictures are not free in the whole of Europe. --18:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Why this is needed again? Take it to the village pump instead of pushing your original research here, PD-Sweden, Italy, Poland and Denmark etc..? --Pudeo 18:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Finnish military photos should definately be deleted, but this is a valid license template. --Jannex 10:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep As this senseless discussion has apparently started and will not be ended immediately, as it rightly should be, I will reiterate my position: The copyright harmonization directive rtc brings out does not apply to the photos considered here. This template considers photos which are not "author's own intellectual creation[[s]] reflecting his personality", so they are covered by a related right, not copyright. (In Finnish law, this related right is equated with copyright but has a different term.) The German courts demarcate the level of intellectual creation differently from Finland and there is no Union-level jurisprudence. The views of German or Austrian courts do not bind Finnish courts or the courts of European Union. The final say on whether Finnish Copyright law provides photos with the protection required by the Copyright directive rests with the Court of European Communities. Before that court issues judgement, nobody knows. However, we should not be overcautious. --MPorciusCato 13:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

You may be right (though I don't think so). Yet, as Lupo has nicely listed on User:Lupo/Simple_Photographs, most EU countries do not even make a distinction between simple photographs and photographic works. Thus, such photos will be protected at least in the countries listed as "Normal copyright rules apply", as rule of the shorter term doesn't apply within the EU (see also w:Directive on harmonising the term of copyright protection#Copyright restoration), even if the pictures were PD in Finland (which they are not). --rtc 16:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

What are simple photographs? They are photographs which are not works. Surely countries which do not recognize simple photographs recognize that not all photographs are works? Those countries which do not recognize simple photographs just don't give simple photographs any protection (droits voisins). And yes, these images are PD in Finland. Before you claim otherwise, why don't you read some literature on Finnish copright. I personally recommend "Tekijänoikeus ja lähioikeudet" (Copyright and related rights) by Pirkko-Liisa Haarmann, "Oikeus valokuvaan" (Rights to a photograph) by Rainer Oesch and statements by the Finnish Copyright Council ("Tekijänoikeusneuvosto]"). Samulili 12:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Please read what I wrote. Yes, countries listed as "Normal copyright rules apply" recognize that all photographs are works. --rtc 17:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect. "Normal copyright rules apply" means for most countries that "probably threshold of originality applies". Thuresson 18:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

And the implmentation of the EU directive has set the uniform demarcation for threshold of originality such that originality is sufficient as soon as the photographer expresses his personality, for example by choosing the camera position and by choosing the moment of pressing the button deliberately. Only technical photos (mugshots), satellite photos and photos shot accidentally fall below this threshold. --rtc 19:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Not only do you contradict yourself in your two previous comments ("all photographs are works" vs. "technical photos are not works"), you also set condition (camera position, pressing moment) which are not from the directive on which you build your case. Samulili 19:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, "all photographs are works" was wrong, I checked it again. You were right about that. The condition is well from the directive: "it is necessary to define the level of originality required in this Directive; whereas a photographic work within the meaning of the Berne Convention is to be considered original if it is the author's own intellectual creation reflecting his personality, no other criteria such as merit or purpose being taken into account; whereas the protection of other photographs should be left to national law;"[23] emphasized by me, "2. Das Berufungsgericht hat es abgelehnt, einen Urheberrechtsschutz der Anzeigen aus den verwendeten Fotos herzuleiten. Es ist dabei davon ausgegangen, daß den Fotos urheberrechtlicher Schutz als Lichtbildwerken im Sinne des § 2 Abs. 1 Nr. 5 UrhG nur zukommen könne, wenn sie eine eigenschöpferische Prägung und Gestaltung aufwiesen. Bei einem Gesamtvergleich mit den vorbestehenden Gestaltungen müßten sich schöpferische Eigentümlichkeiten ergeben, die über das Handwerksmäßige und Durchschnittliche deutlich hinausragten. In den Fotos offenbare sich jedoch kein besonderes fotografisches Können. Bei dieser Beurteilung ist das Berufungsgericht von Anforderungen an die Schutzfähigkeit von Fotografien ausgegangen, die jedenfalls seit dem 1. Juli 1995 nicht mehr gelten, d.h. dem Zeitpunkt, in dem die Richtlinie 93/98/EWG des Rates zur Harmonisierung der Schutzdauer des Urheberrechts und bestimmter verwandter Schutzrechte vom 29. Oktober 1993 (ABl. Nr. L 290/9) nach ihrem Art. 13 Abs. 1 umzusetzen war und auch durch das Dritte Gesetz zur Änderung des Urheberrechtsgesetzes vom 23. Juni 1995 (BGBl. I S. 842) umgesetzt worden ist (Art. 3 Abs. 2 des 3. UrhG-ÄndG). Nach Art. 6 der Richtlinie sollen Fotografien geschützt werden, wenn sie individuelle Werke in dem Sinne darstellen, daß sie das Ergebnis der eigenen geistigen Schöpfung ihres Urhebers sind (vgl. dazu auch Erwägungsgrund 17 der Richtlinie). Eines besonderen Maßes an schöpferischer Gestaltung bedarf es danach für den Schutz als Lichtbildwerk nicht (vgl. Schricker/Loewenheim, Urheberrecht, 2. Aufl., § 2 Rdn. 33, 179; Schricker/Vogel aaO § 72 Rdn. 21; Nordemann/Vinck in Fromm/Nordemann, Urheberrecht, 9. Aufl., § 2 Rdn. 74; Hertin ebd. § 72 Rdn. 2; Heitland, Der Schutz der Fotografie im Urheberrecht Deutschlands, Frankreichs und der Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika, 1995, S. 60 ff.; Platena, Das Lichtbild im Urheberrecht, 1998, S. 233 ff.; A. Nordemann/Mielke, ZUM 1996, 214, 216)."[24] (emphasized by me), "Fromm/Nordemann (Urheberrecht 9 § 2 dUrhG Rz 74; ihm folgend Ciresa, Österreichisches Urheberrecht, § 3 Rz 7) halten nach Umsetzung der Schutzdauer-RL [that means 93/98/EWG (rtc)] als Lichtbildwerke alle Fotos für geschützt, die einem bestimmten Fotografen in dem Sinne persönlich zugerechnet werden können, dass sich sagen lässt, ein anderer Fotograf hätte möglicherweise das Foto anders gestaltet, also den Blickwinkel, den Ausschnitt oder die Beleuchtung anders gewählt, einen anderen Geschehensmoment festgehalten, die abgebildeten Personen anders gruppiert usw (zu den einzelnen Gestaltungsmitteln einer Fotografie im Detail siehe Nordemann, Die künstlerische Fotografie als urheberrechtlich geschütztes Werk 135 ff). Nach Fromm/Nordemann (aaO) werde sich das auch für Amateurfotos und Schnappschüsse fast stets feststellen lassen. Für den einfachen Lichtbildschutz verblieben demnach (von Zufallsfotos infolge eines versehentlichen Auslösens der Kamera abgesehen) nur technische Fotos, bei denen jeder Fotograf mit denselben Fähigkeiten und Kenntnissen dasselbe Ergebnis, nämlich eine technisch einwandfreie Wiedergabe, erzielen müsse (also etwa Reproduktionen von Gemälden, Fotos von Maschinen, Fotos für die Verbrecherkartei, kartografische Luftaufnahmen und - im Regelfall - Passbilder aus Fotoautomaten)."[25] (emphasized by me). --rtc 19:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep There is well defined cases in which this tamplate can be used and there is no reason to remove it. --Joonasl 12:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep It looks like that those who want to delete the template don’t know much about the Finnish Copyright Law. As far as I know, at least most of the photographs using Template:PD-Finland50 are PD in Finland. – Nysalor 13:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The binding interpretation of the finnish Copyright law changed substantially when the EU directive was implemented and came into effect. Courts, experts, copyright offices have a very hard time to see that, even in Germany, and you see many mistaken incorrect claims, based on the old understanding fo the law from the time before the directive. Many have not yet noticed that something was changed substantially. But the Federal Court of Justice of Germany and several Austrian courts eventually made very clear and unambiguous statements about this EU-wide unified demarcation. See my post above. Please do not ignore the facts and please do not believe some minor courts, copyright experts or copyright offices that are still speading false pre-directive information because of unawareness of the EU directive's effect. Please point any copyright expert, any copyright office and anyone else who still holds the incorrect old position in some EU country to the ruling of the Federal Court of Justice of Germany and the Austrian OGH and point out to them the general applicability of the reasoning of this ruling to all of Europe. --rtc 01:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Basically, you have a stricter interpretetation of the threshold of originality than the rest of us. The German courts agree with you. Finnish law does not, so you are claiming that the Finnish law violates the Union directive. However, the German rulings do not have any effect on Union law. Only the rulings of the Court of European Communities are Union-level prejudicates. In fact, in the Finnish law, a foreign judgement on a related case is considered only tertiary source of law (acts, Union regulations, decrees and custom of the country are primary sources, directives, prejudicates and legislative documents secondary). As such, a German court opinion is at par with Finnish legal literature and can be only used as help on reasoning (see fi:oikeuslähde). Forcing German rulings on the whole Union is not acceptable. --MPorciusCato 05:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

This is not a German ruling forced on the Union, it is a EU directive. What I say is not "a interpretation" of threshold of originality, it is the actual threshold of originality for all EU countries. I am not claiming that the Finnish law violates the Union directive. The Finnish law is completely correct, and it is the same about threshold of originality as Germany or any other EU country. If the Finnish legal literature is still based on Pre-Directive-Opinions, please contact the respective authors immediately and point out to them their mistake. --rtc 19:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Could you please give me an extract from the directive saying what exactly is the threshold of originality according to this directive? I could find nothing about technical photos or like, at least from the Finnish translation. – Nysalor 20:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

"(17) Whereas the protection of photographs in the Member States is the subject of varying regimes; whereas in order to achieve a sufficient harmonization of the term of protection of photographic works, in particular of those which, due to their artistic or professional character, are of importance within the internal market, it is necessary to define the level of originality required in this Directive; whereas a photographic work within the meaning of the Berne Convention is to be considered original if it is the author's own intellectual creation reflecting his personality, no other criteria such as merit or purpose being taken into account; whereas the protection of other photographs should be left to national law;" (emphasized by me) Please see my posting 19:59, 7 May 2007 above for further discussion of the effect of this definition, as recognized by several european copyright scholars, and adopted by German and Austrian courts. Technical photography are not covered by the convention, but are "left to national law", and of course this tag is valid for technical photography. However, hardly any picture at all is technical photography, and, in fact, all photos tagged with this template are not technical in this sense. Technical photography is only given if the content, angle etc. of the photo is completely determined by the task, such that the photo is not "reflecting [the] personality" of the photographer anymore. Think of reproduction photography (this photos which would fall under Template:PD-Art in the US), think about mugshots, about satellite photos, about the usual case of photo booth photos. --rtc 21:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I think ”reflecting his personality” is a key for this case. The Finnish Copyright Council (Tekijänoikeusneuvosto) says that the photo Paavo Nurmi sytyttää olympiatulen 1952 “doesn’t especially express the original and personal contribution from the person taken the photograph, and thus it can not be considered a photographic work protected by TekijäL 1 §” [translated and emphasized by me]. On my opinion, it means about the same than “reflecting his personality”. The statement isn’t based on “other criteria such as merit or purpose”: The Finnish Copyright Council especially states that it’s just a photo regardless of the fact that it’s historically important and the only photo taken when Paavo Nurmi lit the Olympic Flame.

By the way, can you find any personality or creativity from the photo? If I had been there in 1952, could I have taken a photo quite similar to that photo? Finally, I must say that my German is poor – maybe a bit better than your Finnish, though :) –, and I can’t read the German and Austrian texts you gave. – Nysalor 23:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

For "reflecting [the] personality" of the photographer or a photo being his "original and personal contribution", nothing is needed except that a different photographer could in principle have shot the photo differently, and that is well the case here. That is what the texts say about the EU directive, clearly and unambigously, and based on several law scholars. The copyright council is not aware of that and should be contacted immediately about it, pointing out the German and Austrian cases as soon as possible. Please do, since you are right that I can't write finnish. --rtc 00:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Every writing, drawing or photo made by a human being isn’t a work, that’s the Finnish point of view. As far as I know, “reflecting [the] personality” doesn’t mean ‘made by a human being’, it needs some personality in a photo. If the directive would really mean that every photo taken by a human being is a work, I think it would be mentioned clearly. In Germany and Austria, this may be understood in a other way than in Finland or in Sweden or Denmark, and you should accept this or give more convincing evidence. I rather trust the Finnish Copyright Council with excellent specialists than in the pseudonym Rtc or German texts I can’t understand – especially concerning the Finnish PD. – Nysalor 20:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

It is exactly the same in Germany as it is in Finland. Not every photo made by a human being is protected, only if a different photographer could in principle have shot the photo differently. This is not the opinion of a user with the pseudonym Rtc, but the result of research by reputable scholars of european law, which is completely correct, which the courts refer to, and who certainly have more background knowledge about the EU directive than the Finnish copyright council, which still bases its opinion on the situation before the directive and didn't notice something had changed. You can ignore the facts, but that won't change them. --rtc 21:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I haven’t read those “the result of research by reputable scholars [names?] of european law”, and I know nothing about their background. We follow the Finnish Law in Finland, not statements from German or Austrian courts. Please inform the European Commission, if you think that Finland doesn’t follow the directive. – Nysalor 22:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Finland follows the directive and has inplemented it correctly; it is just the copyright council that has not yet noticed the change. --rtc 23:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

But the statement of the FCC is based on the present Finnish Law! According to the Finnish Law, a photo is protected for 50 years from the time of creation (TekijäL 49 a §). Those photos don’t “especially express the original and personal contribution”, and if other person took them in the same situation, they would be quite similar. Paavo Nurmi sytyttää olympiatulen 1952 don’t reflect the personality of the photographer. That’s what the FCC states, and there is no contradiction between this statement and the directive. The directive can undoubtedly be interpreted in many ways. – Nysalor 00:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The law in Finland is exactly the same as in Germany in that regard since the implementation of the EU directive. The Olympia photo well reflects the personality of the photographer according to the scholar's (Schricker, Loewenheim, Vogel, Nordemann, Vinck, Fromm, Hertin, Heitland, Platena, Mielke, Ciresa) results, the FCC simply is not aware of that and has not noticed yet the effet of the EU directive and the decisions. Make them aware of that. There is no room for interpretation, and anyone going to court and pointing the judge at the German and Austrian court rulings and the scholarship they are based on will be successfull. --rtc 01:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Please do not pretend like you know how Finnish copyright law says or how its interpretation has changed. You already made a fool of yourself in that way when you made bogus claims about old and new Swedish law. And yes, I will believe Finnish experts in the case of a Finnish picture and I don't give a flying about your Deutschland, Deutschland überalles attitude. Samulili 12:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not need to know Finnish copyright law to know that they implemented the EU directive and thus the uniform EU demarcation for photographic works. I know of course how its interpretation has changed, because it has changed the same way as in German and any other EU country. You are making yourself a fool because you are ignoring these facts. And you are making yourself even more a fool by argumentation such as your last sentence. In fact, I am arguing pro Finland if I affirm that finnish photographers have the same rights as German ones. I guess if the finnish experts would be pointed out their error and directed at the BGH ruling, they would immediately acklowedge that what I say is true. Unfortunately I don't speak finnish. Perhaps you can write these experts an email. --rtc 19:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

You said, “even if the pictures were PD in Finland (which they are not)”. I would like to know some reasons why you think the pictures are not PD in Finland, based on the Finnish Law. The threshold of originality may be different in Finland compared to Germany or Austria, but there is no point in claiming that the German or Austrian one would surely be the interpretation of the whole EU. – Nysalor 20:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Before the directive, the threshold of originality in Germany/Austria was the similar to what people here mistakenly claim still to be valid in Finland (basically, that artistic value or merit are necessary for protection as a photographic work). The court rulings argued explicitly that this has changed because of the implementation of the directive and its uniform demarcation criteria. There is no difference in theshold of originality for photos anymore within the EU, since the Directive explicitly required a uniform level to be implemented. Do you see my posting above with lots of text in bold letters, 19:59, 7 May 2007? Please read it. I do not wish to repeat myself again. --rtc 21:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The directive was given in 1993, and the Finnish Copyright Council gave their own statement in 2003. No “artistic value or merit” is taken into account in their statement. – Nysalor 23:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Then the copyright council is wrong, and I guess that is so, because it does not yet know the German and Austrian court decisions and the research they are based on, and still bases its opinion on the pre-directive situation. We had that in Germany too, even by courts, until the federal court corrected them. Please write to the copyright council and point out their error to them as soon as possible, referring them to the rulings I cited. I think this is important so they can correct their error soon and noone gets successfully sued who based its decision on the copyright councils incorrect example. It would be a great loss of prestige for the council... --rtc 00:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Why should we think that German and Austrian courts would be right and the Finnish Copyright Council wrong? The FCC has surely the best specialists of copyright in Finland. If you would like to contact the FCC, you can find their contact information here. I’m sure they understand English. – Nysalor 20:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Because the German aud Austrian courts explicitly discuss the problem concerning the effect of the implementation of the EU directive, which the Finnish copyright council seems not to be aware of it at all. FCC has not more authority than any other person in the world, and is hence as fallible as anyone else. It is not an authority, it is merely an institution. I am sorry, I cannot speak Finnish, and I would need that to cite the correct places in their publications etc. I again beg you to do it. There is nothing to loose for you. Are you afraid of the truth? Why do you look away and close your eyes? Test your position for correctness and write them an email! If you are right, that shouldn't be a problem for you. --rtc 21:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Please note that the German and Austrian courts only interpret what they think the directive means: there is no “only if a different photographer could in principle have shot the photo differently” in the directive. It’s just their opinion, if they think so which I don’t know for sure because of my bad German. “Are you afraid of the truth?” – I think I can ignore irrelevant questions like that. If you like, you can send an email to the FCC, but I’m not going to tell them what an anonymous (German?) person claims about the Finnish PD. If you can convince them, I will gladly change my opinion to delete. Meanwhile, I trust the FCC. – Nysalor 22:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

It is ridiculous to claim that the careful judgement of the German court, adopted several times by Austrian courts, and backed by reputable law scholars and real arguments, is "just their opinion". You know that I have no chance to do this given that all sources are in Finish. It is dishonest und irrational to deny your help to find out more about the issue; and it is a crime against reason and the autonomy of the individual to trust a state institution or any other alleged authority (be it scientific, religious or social) instead of questioning and criticizing the correctness of what it says. The question "Are you afraid of the truth" is a very relevant one. You do not refer to what I say, you can refer to the German and Austrian court decisions I cited above. --rtc 23:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Only you tell me that the judgement of the German court is “careful”. Concerning the Finnish PD, I trust more in the Finnish copyright experts. I’m not a copyright expert, so I have to consult an institution, and the FCC looks like reliable, much more reliable than German statements I can’t read. In addition, the facts you have told me about the interpretation of personality by German and Austrian courts look like quite questionable and problematic. – Nysalor 00:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

In any matter of public concern, trust is a crime, and there is no such thing as "realibility" (or "authority", which is a different word for that). Please ask the FCC what they think about the issue. Even if you fallaciously trust in their erroneous statements, that does not imply that you must not make them aware of the German/Austrian court rulings. --rtc 01:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Reading this discussion which is on and on about the scope of photographic works and simple photographs respective ist very exhausting. Even if rtc is wrong we have a situation where pictures are free in some countries because they use a higher treshold of originality approach while the same pictures are not free in other jurisdictions because of a lower treshold of originality limit. We have to make a decision considering the concurring regulations. Usually we require a picture to be free in the country of origin and in the US.--Wiggum 13:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

That is crucial guideline we need to follow in this case also. We have a warning in the template to not use it in Germany already. I don't really see why this original research of an EU directive should be pushed here. But, if copyright paranoia wins in Commons, can those images be moved to Finnish or English Wikipedia, so the work that lasted for years won't be for nothing? As far as I remember, when the Italian template was removed, all the work was wasted, which these people seem to aim for. --Pudeo 14:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

That's what it says in the policies, yes. But we infact have an ongoing discussion regarding a) whether we actually follow that rule (as there are tens of approved templates that break it) and b) whether we ought to follow it. Samulili 13:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm addressing Wiggum and Lupo. If the images must be public domain in the US, they should comply with certain formalities (such as being published with a copyright note). Except if the w:Uruguay Round Agreements Act applies, which it does if a works was still covered by copyright or neighbouring rights in its source country on January 1, 1996. However, it has effectively been proven in this discussion that a wide number of photographs are not subject to the pma 70 copyright, but to a 50 years after being created, whereafter they enter the public domain in its country of origin, Finland. So if an image was created before January 1, 1946, its copyright would have expired in Finland by January 1, 1996, and hence its copyright would never be restored in the US. / Fred Chess 15:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

It has not been proven that a wide number of photographs are not subject to the 70 pma copyright. The contrary is the case, as far as it seems, except a very narrow range of photos, every photo is now protected by 70 pma. --rtc 21:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

 Comment After people have refused to do so, I have myself taken the initiative to write an email to Niklas Bruun about the issue. Please do not complain that I am not 'neutral' enough to do this. You had the opportunity to do it yourself. --rtc 23:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

“You know that I have no chance to do this given that all sources are in Finish. It is dishonest und irrational...” -- rtc. Somehow your lame excuse did not stop you from writing the same letter to someone else. That's dishonest and irrational. Samulili 13:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

It is not. I have no idea about Finnish at all, and had to write about a text which I do not understand at all and for which I can only guess what it says. --rtc 21:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it matters what you say, you are truely a distruptive troll with 14 bans in the German Wikipedia [26]. Then moved to Commons, eh? So much for the letters.. --Pudeo 08:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

As I already said: “Rtc was blocked on de.wikipedia.org once for participating in an edit war, every other block was a misunderstanding or at the request of Rtc.” --Polarlys 21:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

 Comment: Could we have an administrative decision on this matter? The discussion has died out and it is unlikely that any new points will be raised. In case that the template is deleted, could we have a grace-period of a couple of days to back up the images and their descriptions for use in Finland, where the use of these images is considered legal. In any case, I believe that Fi-Wikipedia will be using these images regardless of Commons decision, waiting for an order by the Foundation to remove the content. --MPorciusCato 09:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

This and similar "discussions" with arguments going on ad nauseam from certain zealous parties is one of the chief causes I lost faith in the project and opted to remove myself via self requested ban. Now to my point, please do keep the template and files where it is correctly used. Speculation that the project may or not be harmed by keeping files under said license amounts to nothing but copyright hysteria from my point of view. Ultimately, what's the point of the Wikipedia project at any rate as human civilization might end via any means any moment now or at some distant point in the future... Hope you got my somewhat off-topic point. Scoo/85.131.31.4 18:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Now, I understand the need to be careful in copyright issues. But the law is clear on this matter and in all other instances the use of Finnish photgraphy in the ways that the law allows is commonplace and indiscriminate. I do not see why Wikimedia should selfrestrict itself from a use that no other media worries about. Because of the fear that maybe someday thorugh some weird loophole in a foreign law someone might maybe consider Wikimedia to be infringing on copyrights? Well if that happens, let's take them away then. I suspect that it's never going to happen because in that case the use of these photos in all literature and other medias would instantly become such a huge problem that a law or a decree would be given to extend the right to use them again. Until such time we should be happy that the Finnish law allows the use of these photos and that, as any other media everywhere does, so can Wikimedia us them for its noble purposes. Please do not delete important historical pictures due to legalist hysteria that is not founded on any precedent in the case of these photos that are explicitely pronounced usable in the law. --Tungsten 08:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep We have {{PD-US}} that carries a warning that the images may not be usable in some countries. Why can we not have similar templates for other unusual cases in the law? We can avoid the copyright paranoia and let at least some of the projects have these files. -N 13:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• KeepAs per discussion above. --Alien life form 13:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

•  Comment (and opinion: Keep) Just wanting to post what Thuresson posted at Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-Sweden-photo "*This deletion request is based on EU Council Directive 93/98/EEC. However, that directive was repealed in 2006 and replaced with Directive 2006/116/EC which states about photographs that are not works: "The protection of other photographs should be left to national law." --Pudeo 22:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Of course the restriction of other photographs is left to national law. It has been that way with 93/98/EEC; and nothing at all changed here. It has nothing at all to do with my argument! Please stop using the Chewbacca defense. --rtc 23:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

And in which way exactly do your blunt "shoot first, ask questions later" (actually more along the lines of "delete now before we see any court case pertaining to Finland that might change status quo") differ? 85.131.26.46 17:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• keep per N and ThePeter M@rcin Suwalczan [talk] 14:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The whole discussion about PD-Finland-50, PD-Dennmark, and PD-Sweden is useless for obvious reason, that we all have to respect the regulations of Finnish, Swedish or Dannish law, and the only valid interpretation is F, S. or D. court interpretation of common law, not private German opinions is (or even verdicts of German Courts - there are suitable only on the territory of FRG, not abroad. Is anyone (brave Viking) in whole Scandinavia to conclude and close these discusssions or there will be disputed without conclusion to the end of the world ;) Freedom First - every limitation has to be justify in detail. --Andros64 10:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Kept as laws of Germany does not apply for Finland. Copyright law has not been changed. Make a new discussion when the law gets changed. --|EPO| ^da: 00:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Scoubidouknot.jpg

becauase i cant do them -- 210.8.54.32 00:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Not a valid reason for deletion -- Editor at Large • talk 00:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Logo ceslcam.jpg

Reasons for deletion request Manchego 07:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Please tag such images {{copyvio}} next time. That will be a lot easier and fast for all parts. As this is a non-free logo it has now been deleted. --|EPO| 10:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Arsenal.gif

Copyrighted - even has c logo in bottom left -- Markie 15:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

deleted by User:Bryan (copyvio) --ALE! ¿…? 22:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Greek_lc_lamda_thin.svg

Needs to be removed. I created this work -- Monkeyblue 09:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok.. But why does it need to be removed? --|EPO| 10:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikimedia changes the font depending on the size. When viewed as any .png then the stems of the Lambda are cut off. When this happens it is of no use.203.87.39.30 02:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC) which is Monkeyblue not logged in.

I fixed the image by converting the text to a path to prevent the font from changing. -- Editor at Large • talk 02:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Can this deletion request be closed or does uploader have any other comments? --|EPO| 12:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Closed. Monkeyblue 13:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Kept, problem solved -- Editor at Large • talk 17:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:NREAGANKISSCASKET.jpg

Copy vio AP- i uploaded this when i was new here, didnt no what Common's rules were, and although i have permission, im going to upload it onto wikipedia where it is copyrighted. Happyme22 04:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Deleted -- Bryan (talk to me) 13:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Stub.JPG

uploaded erroneously, don't need -- Ebyabe 14:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

•  Delete - completely unecessary — H92 (t · c · no) 14:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

What's the use of this page, when I set {{speedy}} earlier and when The uploader worte: "Error uploading, please delete" ?

--D-Kuru 15:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Deleted by Siebrand: In category Other speedy deletions; not edited for 2 days

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

[edit] Image:Free-speech-flag.svg

This is a risky legal move; Wikipedia's servers are in the US, where the en:Digital Millenium Copyright Act forbids the distribution of tools to circumvent copyright. This could be interpreted in this way since this file encodes a key that can be used to circumvent en:AACS encryption. This is hardly a violation of 'free speech' if it's potentially against the law. I'm new to Commons, but this image does not appear to be used on any article pages on EN (not sure about others?). Mithent 23:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

•  Comment You can use CheckUsage to see which Wikimedia projects are using this image. Thuresson 12:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Except, of course, on English Wikipedia, where the toolserver database has not been updated for quite some time - David Gerard 19:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• On the contrary, the image is used by a couple of user pages and its inclusion in the main en:AACS encryption key controversy article over on the English Wikipedia is currently in active dispute (see en:Talk:AACS encryption key controversy#Flag). It's also quite debatable whether this is a DMCA violation. See en:User talk:Jimbo Wales#Official Office/WMF response to HD-DVD key controversy where Jimbo states that there's no clear case to be made either way and that the Wikimedia Foundation has received no threats and takes no position at this time. Finally, the reason the file is titled "Free-speech-flag" is simply because that's what the original source file was titled. Bryan Derksen 00:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• I agree with Bryan Derksen's comments. —Lowellian (talk) 08:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Oh come on, this is hilarious! These are just colours, it's not an explanation how to crack a HD-DVD! It is certainly NOT a DMCA violation, since we neither EXPLAIN HOW TO USE THE CODE to crack the technology, nor showing it on the picture. Wake up kids. BeŻet 09:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• On the contrary, BeZet it is explained how to get the key from the image on the en:AACS encryption key controversy page. And the key itself could be considered part of a circumvention device as defined by the DMCA, and thus illegal to possess or distribute in the USA. --65.31.193.187 13:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Well, the explanation may be removed and consequently the image is legal. It's like I told you how to extract those digits from the wikimedia commons logo by adding numbers to the ASCII values of the letters (wikimediacommons is 16 letters - 16 bytes - the length of the code;). Would the logo be illegal then? BeŻet 14:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep This is absurd. If you delete that, then where do you stop? The number 9 could be considered forbidden, because its use "could be used to circumvent copyrights" as the number 9 is a part of the code. 70.63.55.18 16:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep If the tons of links that point to the exact code on other sites from wikiedia does not cause a problem then this won't. it's a flag. 99% of the population, myself included would have no idea how to extract anything usefull from this.. instead we would run a google search for one of the 300,000+ pages that have the code in plain text. 71.106.236.141

Actually, its 1,520,000+ BeŻet 17:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. AFAIK, no "cease and desist" notice from MPAA, AACS LA or their satellites has been received by the Foundation. Hiding information "just in case" is plain nonsense. Cinabrium 17:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. It's a work of art and a political protest all rolled into one. If you ask me, the guy should've released it under a non-commercial license and kept the commercial rights to his artwork. Selling fine-art prints would be a good way to raise funds for victims of wrongful DMCA lawsuits. Davidwr2 17:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, he still has commercial rights. BeŻet 18:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

It's my understanding he placed the work in the public domain. Nobody controls it. Sure, he could sell prints, but so can anyone else, reducing their value as a fund-raiser. Davidwr2 19:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course, I agree with you. However, on the other hand, claiming copyrights for the image would be controversial, don't you think? BeŻet 20:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

If it were just a flag with vertical-striped colors, yes. The "+C0" in the lower-right shows some element of creativity, and a "free if you don't charge" license would probably be non-controversial. Davidwr2 22:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Strong and Immediate Keep. This is such a hypocracy. This image CAN NOT BE USED to crack anything. hell, taking out every 1000th symbol of this discussion might probably be used to crack something too? What the hell. Kirils 18:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep. Don't be silly - David Gerard 21:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Strong and Speedy Keep. The image does not tell you how to crack the encryption, therefore it does not pose a credible legal risk to the foundation under the DMCA. Disavian 23:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Yann 23:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Watching Penn and Teller its apparently legal for women to bear their breasts in the context of a protest and be protected by the 1st amendment even if it is illegal in any other context. This image is clearly a work of art directed at political protest for freedom of speech and should be granted the same 1st amendment rights as any other work of art. If Wikipedia doesnt take a stand right now then its credibility will further suffer.

• Strong Keep. Shall be ban the alphabet while we are at it, as it can be used to write copies of someone's code? Someone needs to take the WikiLawyers and Book Burners out into a dark alley....... 71.204.133.75 03:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep If my vote is discounted because I don't have an account please reply to me and I will. I am MrMacMan on english wikipedia. 148.100.209.218 03:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - it's an image of a bunch of colours, is all. Nothing to see here, move along folks - Alison ? 07:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment Anonymous votes have been striked out. Lcarsdata 07:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Why? Please cite the policy allowing YOU to do this. Do YOU require everyone to register now? I long abandoned my account to stop a WikiStalker, does that make me a second class wiki editior? 71.204.133.75 08:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Striking them out is common sense, since you could be a sockpuppet of someone who has already voted and may not understand the copyright policies and principles behind the Wikimedia Commons. I suggest you register a new account if you would feel a need to vote (although this will probably be kept anyway) to aid in the infrastructure of the community. I have also noticed these are your first edits to the Wikimedia Commons. Perhaps you don't understand why this should or shouldn't be deleted. If it makes you happy I am speedy keeping this deletion request. Lcarsdata 08:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

•  Comment perhaps if the image does indeed get deleted this should serve as an incentive to establish an entity seperate from the wikimedia foundation outside the US to which would host materials that violate US law but aren't in any way wrong. --212.76.33.108 08:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• Bollocks and keep. Rama 08:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Speedy keep, unanimous keep voting. Lcarsdata 08:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Shin11.jpg

Not own work. Derivative from http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/images/ezine/0610_ShinKoyamada.jpg -- Siebrand 08:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• • Right, delete it! Used commonshelper to get it from en:Image:Shin11.JPG, because someone wanted to use it at the dutch wikipedia. en:Image:Shin11.JPG and en:Image:Shin Koyamada 1.JPG should be nominated for too for deletion too. Multichill 09:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. Siebrand 20:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:ElsassCola.jpg

Derivative work --88.134.140.64 13:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

deleted, --Polarlys 00:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Iarnród Éirann advert.jpg

Derivative work --88.134.140.64 13:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

deleted, --Polarlys 00:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Carte_du_Beleriand.gif

As far as I remember Middle Earth maps were deleted as derivative works. -- EugeneZelenko 14:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

deleted, --Polarlys 00:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Wall1.png

A snapshot from tv is a copyright violation --Herrick 13:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Its a old request who i found in making a categorisation of Category:Golfers. And that is a problem. Because if that foto is a bad licensed - most of images of Golffan will be that. And that is something about 700 images. And that will be bad day for a golfers.--Pmgpmg 21:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh my god. :-( Could some people confirm this suspicion? I checked several dozen images: Snapshots from tv. --Polarlys 22:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh yuck. He claims "private snapshot" on most/all of them, from what I see. He either travels constantly to see tournaments in both Europe and the U.S., gets to the same angles that the TV cameramen do, and takes cell-phone-camera-resolution pictures (with cell phones and cameras being banned at golf tournaments), or ... these are TV snapshots. And I'm sure lots of them are used on wiki pages. Carl Lindberg 05:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

That doesn’t matter … --Polarlys 12:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete all and block the user, nothing else remains to be done, unfortunately.--Wiggum 12:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

deleted, user blocked. --Polarlys 13:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Calors femme.jpg

no reason for PD given --Polarlys 17:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

If copyright status of that photo has not changed, then its copyright holder is afp. (see http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/03/24/1079939711526.html) 85.178.254.79 23:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your hint. So it’s an obvious copyvio. --Polarlys 01:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

deleted, copyvio --Polarlys 01:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Picture_Sims_Long_Way_To_Go.jpg

screenshot of copyrighted program -- Winterheart 19:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Deleted by Bryan: copyvio

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

[edit] Image:Carlos terro.jpg

no reason for PD given --Polarlys 17:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. Unlikely that the uploader holds the copyright to this photo, particularly when it says "AP" (Associated Press) in the lower right corner. Thuresson 17:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Abbey_Road_Street_Sign_Sander_Lamme.jpg

own work, poor quality,not used -- Rapturerider 20:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

•  Keep Those are not reasons to delete. // Liftarn
• I am the author of this work and want it deleted // Rapturerider
  • That is no reason for deletion. // Liftarn
    • What is the reason for keeping it?// Rapturerider
      • It's a free image. // Liftarn

kept --ALE! ¿…? 14:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Kweekreactot_Kalkar_PM07_06.jpg

mistaken spelling -- Pelikana 18:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

request closed, please provide the correct name or use simply the template {{rename|new name}} --ALE! ¿…? 21:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:SVD_Lena_Approximation.GIF

This work is created from the Lenna image, which is fair use -- Sylenius 19:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 09:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Twin_Towers_New_York_Sander_Lamme.jpg

own work, better version uploaded -- Rapturerider 20:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• Then you can just use {{superseded}} instead. // Liftarn

kept --ALE! ¿…? 08:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Hungary vs USSR (1957).jpg

copyvio, the image is only 50 years old --ALE! ¿…? 09:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

If there is no objection, I will delete the image tomorrow --ALE! ¿…? 08:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 09:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:USSR national football team.jpg

copyvio, the image is only 45 years old --ALE! ¿…? 09:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

If there is no objection, I will delete the image tomorrow --ALE! ¿…? 08:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 09:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Vava scoring to USSR.jpg

image is only 50 years old, author is unknown, so why should he be Swedish? --ALE! ¿…? 09:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The same goes for:

• Image:Gusarov in action.jpg
• Image:Valentin Kozmich Ivanov after scoring to Sweden.jpg
• Image:Tchislenko.jpg
• Image:Yashin after missing.jpg

--ALE! ¿…? 09:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it was my mistake to upload this files here. --Sidik iz PTU 13:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

If there is no objection, I will delete the image tomorrow --ALE! ¿…? 08:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 09:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Melbourne 1956 football standings.jpg

to use this license tag, the image has to be older than 1955 --ALE! ¿…? 09:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

If there is no objection, I will delete the image tomorrow --ALE! ¿…? 08:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 09:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:TomLawton.JPG

if the author is unknown, why should he be soviet? --ALE! ¿…? 09:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The same goes for:

• Image:StanleyMatthews.JPG
• Image:RogerLivesey.JPG
• Image:Elizabeth and actors.JPG
• Image:JackHolden.JPG
• Image:TomFinney.JPG

--ALE! ¿…? 09:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

It was published before January 1, 1954, and the creator (if known) died before that date. But creator is unknown and it was published in Soviet newspaper Британский союзник (see source). --Sidik iz PTU 13:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry again, how do you know, that the unknown (!) creator was a soviet citizen? The images were taken outside the CCCP, weren't they? --ALE! ¿…? 15:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

In Soviet Russia there were not strange reporters in newspapers. --Sidik iz PTU 16:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

No rule without an exception? They never used press agency photos? --ALE! ¿…? 22:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Hardly. It was era of Stalin and begining Cold War. Iron Curtain was a barrier too. --Sidik iz PTU 07:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

It looks like even if it's PD in Russia, it's not in the U.S., because the critical date for that would be 1946 (must have been PD in Russia by 1996). Since our servers are in the U.S., we usually require that works be PD in both their country of origin and in the U.S., which this work, being from 1947, fails. So I'd say delete, unfortunately. --Delirium 18:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but the US argument is nonsense otherwise we would have to delete a whole bunch of {{PD-AR-Photo}} images. --ALE! ¿…? 22:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we unfortunately must delete a whole bunch of such images. Please see Commons:Licensing#Interaction_of_United_States_copyright_law_and_foreign_copyright_law, which is official policy. We really have no choice about this, because our servers are in the U.S. so we cannot ignore U.S. copyright law. --Delirium 04:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I really do not agree with you. Why should we then accept {{PD-US}} images? They might be still protected in other countries. --ALE! ¿…? 17:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

If there is no objection, I will delete the image tomorrow --ALE! ¿…? 08:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 09:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Milano Palazzo Cova 1.jpg

As Adolfo Coppedè died in 1951, and Italy has no Freedom of Panorama, copyright will expire only in 2021. --User:G.dallorto 11:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

 Delete Changed into copyvio --User:G.dallorto 12:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Category:Karl Begas

Category:Karl Begas is misleading and should be deleted, because there are Carl Joseph Begas (or Carl (Joseph) the Elder, a painter) and Karl Begas (or Carl Begas), his son, a sculptor. see: de: Carl Joseph Begas and de: Karl Begas. Greetings Mutter Erde 20:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: All the images are paintings from the Elder, and the Elder is linked (not the younger), so it's only used to refer to the Elder. Should the category name be changed? To what? Quadell (talk) 04:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

use {{category redirect}}, --ALE! ¿…? 22:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:RWHollywoodBowl1-cover.JPG

derivative work --Polarlys 22:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• Please ellaborate what you mean by derivative work and how you know it is derivative work. Darth Skynyrd 02:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Also, isn't this just a modification of a picture that's free to distribute modify under the GNU Free Documentation Licence? Darth Skynyrd 02:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Commons:Derivative works. Which picture should that be? The original cover? --Polarlys 10:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• Okay... the original cover is copyright, but this isn't the original cover. This is a prop used during a concert, which Faulkie 1788 took a picture which is available to distribute and modify under the GNU Free Documentation License, and was then modified by Kocio, as it is allowed under the GNU Free Documentation License.

I think we should  Keep this picture. --Darth Skynyrd 15:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

•  Keep this picture, as it is a picture from a concert and not the DSOTM cover; therefore not bound by copyright. Ka5hmir 12:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
•  Keep not a derivative --ALE! ¿…? 09:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Delete this picture is a derivative work (the prop is a copyrighted work and the image is too similar with original cover).--Trixt 22:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
•  Keep If this is picture is deleted, then by the same logic we should delete all photos taken by anyone during a concert. To Trixt: the prop is a copyrighted (industrial) work, but this is not the prop — it is a photo of the prop. The Chrysler Building is a copyrighted (architectural) work and the iMac is a copyrighted (industrial) work, but if you take a photo of either of them you are free to distribute it any way you like.

kept, --ALE! ¿…? 22:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] image:Siam Paragon1.jpg and image:Bangkok by night.jpg