Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2007/08

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

[edit] Image:Bacino_Medau_Zirimilis.svg

Map based on satellite photos not free gian_d 07:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Speedily deleted per uploader request as an apparent copyvio. --Tom (talk - email) 15:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Bacino_Medau_Zirimilis.jpg

Map based on satellite photos not free gian_d 07:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Speedily deleted per uploader request as an apparent copyvio. --Tom (talk - email) 15:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Alexhsu.jpg

not source Allenlin1979 08:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Not sufficient reason for deletion. --FSHL 14:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Note that it is the uploader themselves who is requesting deletion. -- Infrogmation 15:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Speedily deleted per uploader request as an apparent copyvio. --Tom (talk - email) 15:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Silvio Berlusconi 20040318a.jpg

not PD, check source image Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Silvio Berlusconi and Rick Perry.jpg --Trek00 08:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete Source clearly says "Commercial use of any reproduction of any portion of this website is strictly prohibited." -- Infrogmation 15:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Speedily deleted as permission is required for use. --Tom (talk - email) 15:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Topch.jpg

no proof of copyright expiration TigranMets 03:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Not sufficient reason for deletion. --FSHL 14:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Deleted by Rama: insufficient data, uploader refuses to answer

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

[edit] Image:Efratgosh.jpg

Original Flickr image is CC-NC Magnus Manske 09:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete CC-BY-NC-ND is not accepted on Commons Pimke 09:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: Per nom. --Yegoyan 00:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Axed; license is not allowed on Commons. Licenses are also non-revocable. (→O - RLY?) 07:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Deutsche_See-Logo.JPG

Derivative work of a (most likely unfree) logo Lokal_Profil 16:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Copyrighted logo. grendel|khan 22:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Deleted by D-Kuru: copyvio - {{logo}}

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

[edit] Image:Fallen_Heroes_Memorial.jpg

No source, no license. TigranMets 03:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: Per nominator. --Yegoyan 00:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

tagged as nld --ALE! ¿…? 12:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Baden-powell.jpg

I noticed this image on the en:wiki featured article for today. This image seems to have been uploaded on the assumption that the author died 70 years ago, which cannot be proven. Baden-Powell died in 1941, which means if the photographer was born in 1921 (for example), they could still be alive today and the photo copyrighted. There is no indication this is a public domain image; in fact, it was taken from a commercial magazine's website [1]. --Tom (talk - email) 15:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete I seen no evidence presented that this is public domain; it clearly shows Baden-Powell in his old age. -- Infrogmation 15:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete imo it is not pd-old --Szczepan talk  18:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete Yes, there's no evidence that this is in the public domain - it doesn't even appear particularly likely. Note that I was notified of this deletion request on my en talk page after I edited the local copy of the image description page. Haukurth 20:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

You have no proof it's copyrighted either. It's all over the internet on all sorts of pages, free and non-free sites. Can you prove it's copyrighted?68.10.192.194 20:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevent. Commons is intended as a repository of free licenced images, not "hell if we know what the proper status is" images. -- Infrogmation 20:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete Anyway there are free images of him available on commons Madmax32 03:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Deleted as its copyright status has not been verified. --Tom (talk - email) 16:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Karabakh_Horse.jpg

from http://shusha.aznet.org/images/karabakh-horse-today.jpg TigranMets 03:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: Copyvio. --Yegoyan 00:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 08:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:South_Azeri_documents.jpg

no source TigranMets 03:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Not sufficient reason for deletion. --FSHL 14:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - as the document is published by a short-lived government that was declared illegal and destroyed, it is highly doubtful they can any longer claim use of the copyright. Patstuart 17:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep image appears legit. -N 23:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

kept --ALE! ¿…? 08:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Topher Grace 2006.jpg

Photo of a conference broadcast, in my experience these have been removed from wp:en. Derivative work. It appears from Tostie's work that day that he attended the conference, but shot the photos of a video screen there from a bad angle, rather than shooting photos of the speakers directly, thus violating the copyright of the cameraperson shooting the video.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 11:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I remember reporting over a dozen other screenshots to "Editor at Large" here. It looks like I missed some. The photo was taken at the San Diego Comic Con where they have a large screen that broadcasts people live on stage. I uploaded it back when I didn't know that those type of shots are derivative works. So yes, these can be deleted. Spellcast 13:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 08:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Kirsten Dunst 2006.jpg

Photo of a conference broadcast, in my experience these have been removed from wp:en. Derivative work. It appears from Tostie's work that day that he attended the conference, but shot the photos of a video screen there from a bad angle, rather than shooting photos of the speakers directly, thus violating the copyright of the cameraperson shooting the video.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 11:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I remember reporting over a dozen other screenshots to "Editor at Large" here. It looks like I missed some. The photo was taken at the San Diego Comic Con where they have a large screen that broadcasts people live on stage. I uploaded it back when I didn't know that those type of shots are derivative works. So yes, these can be deleted. Spellcast 13:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 08:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Matasgbig.png

Because I don't need it (It's my logo) --Matasg 11:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Delete, no possible encyclopedic use except for user page. grendel|khan 22:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 08:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Nirvana album cover.jpg

Is this cover of a music album really not eligible for copyright? --|EPO| ^da: 12:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is my case for ineligibility:

1. The foreground of the image is the word "NIRVANA" in a common-looking typeface, probably Bodoni or maybe Onyx. It forms nothing pictorial.
2. General abstract typefaces, which show the letters in a way we all know them, are ineligible for copyright. See en:WP:PD#Fonts.
3. The word "nirvana" absolutely cannot be copyrighted in itself.
4. The background is plain.

Therefore, the album cover is not copyrightable in part or whole. --Hautala 13:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete arrangments of letters, even in common typefaces, and even if they spell out common words, can be artistic because the choice of color and of the background (even if a solid color) requires artistic decisionmaking. Further, this is a commercial product and we have a policy about album covers in general. The argument is without merit that this is not copyrightable. What matters is whether it's possible to take a freely licenseable image of a copyrighted item. For album covers the answer appears to be no, but it may not be so for other things. ++Lar: t/c 20:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I fully understand the arguments of why it should be without copyright and I suppose that is what German Wikipedia is doing with their logos. But personally I see it as taking advantage of a loophole in the law, which I am no big fan of.

Also I fear that artists (for albums) or companys (for logos) will not follow the argumentation, but see their items of fully protected, which may result in lawsuits against Wikimedia projects. Not sure if there has been a discussion regarding this topic at the Village Pump, but I think the discussion seems more appropriate there. --|EPO| ^da: 08:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure discussion of album covers is needed, it has been policy for a long time, I believe. I would have speedied this one myself, actually... ++Lar: t/c 10:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Artistic decision-making doesn't make anything copyrightable. For example, using a red circle, a black square or the letter "G" as a trademark or insignia is an artistic decision, but that doesn't mean red circles, black squares or the letter would then be copyrighted. There is no policy that all album covers are to be deleted. So far, all have been deleted because they have been copyrightable works, but this cover is very exceptional in that measure (not the only one, see en:The Black Album (Prince album)). --Hautala 17:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

kept --ALE! ¿…? 08:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Roman Legion.jpg

Looks like a screen shot of a film, tv show, or game; "take picture" is not a source --Infrogmation 15:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete As above. Use {{screenshot}} for next time. --Digon3 ^talk 18:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 08:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Coquimbo_Region.png

Derivative work of (most likely unfree) logo Lokal_Profil 16:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

deleted (no COA) --ALE! ¿…? 08:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Halle Berry ComicCon podium.jpg

Photo of a conference broadcast, in my experience these have been removed from wp:en. Derivative work. It appears from Tostie's work that day that he attended the conference, but shot the photos of a video screen there from a bad angle, rather than shooting photos of the speakers directly, thus violating the copyright of the cameraperson shooting the video.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 16:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Agreed. grendel|khan 22:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 08:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Sam Jones III and Allison Mack at comics convention.jpg

Photo of a conference broadcast, in my experience these have been removed from wp:en. Derivative work. It appears from Tostie's work that day that he attended the conference, but shot the photos of a video screen there from a bad angle, rather than shooting photos of the speakers directly, thus violating the copyright of the cameraperson shooting the video.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 16:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Agreed. grendel|khan 22:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I'm not sure if he took this one from a TV screen, you can see other people in front, it's not a close up like the others Madmax32 04:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 08:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Allison Mack w mic crop.jpg

Photo of a conference broadcast, in my experience these have been removed from wp:en. Derivative work. It appears from Tostie's work that day that he attended the conference, but shot the photos of a video screen there from a bad angle, rather than shooting photos of the speakers directly, thus violating the copyright of the cameraperson shooting the video.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 16:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Agreed (crop of one of the other pictures). grendel|khan 22:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 08:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Sam Jones III at comics convention crop.jpg

Photo of a conference broadcast, in my experience these have been removed from wp:en. Derivative work. It appears from Tostie's work that day that he attended the conference, but shot the photos of a video screen there from a bad angle, rather than shooting photos of the speakers directly, thus violating the copyright of the cameraperson shooting the video.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 16:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Agreed (crop of one of the other pictures). grendel|khan 22:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 08:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Alfred Gough at comic convention.jpg

Photo of a conference broadcast, in my experience these have been removed from wp:en. Derivative work. It appears from Tostie's work that day that he attended the conference, but shot the photos of a video screen there from a bad angle, rather than shooting photos of the speakers directly, thus violating the copyright of the cameraperson shooting the video.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 16:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Agreed (crop of one of the other pictures). grendel|khan 22:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 08:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Schleifring-neu.jpg

author is missing, why GFDL? --Chaddy 21:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 08:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Olave_St_Clair_Soames.jpg

--Szczepan talk  23:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• jeśli mam z tobą dyskutować pisz jeszcze po polsku ok ? Szumyk 09:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless a proper source of the image is given. --Moonian 11:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete no source, no basic information, unsafe PD-old / wersja dla Szumyka - brak źródła, brak podstawowych informacji, PD bardzo niepewne Szwedzki 12:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• This site - http://bovec1.skavt.net/skavtstvo/skavtstvo.html - identifies the image as being from 1917. I can't find anything saying that it was published in the US at that time, though. --BigDT 12:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 08:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Sevin-jakub.png

probably it is not pd-old -- --Szczepan talk  23:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, for that claim to be true, the photographer would have to have died before Sevin turned 55 (because Sevin was born in 1882). Given the subject's apparent age in the photo, that seems unlikely. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete No source given. --Moonian 05:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 08:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Emin_bey.jpg

no source or author for months TigranMets 03:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep PD-Russia applies. -N 19:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Image is PD —the preceding unsigned comment was added by Grandmaster (talk • contribs)
• Keep - Not valid reason for deletion – isn't necessary for {{PD-Russia}} --FSHL 15:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Kept. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 20:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:PeterFurler.jpg

License appears to be incorrect - likely was not changed, but incorrectly attributed in the first place. Many substitutes exist: [2]. --Patstuart 19:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what happened, but I uploaded a picture of Peter Colman and this picture from the same guy on Flickr. The one of Colman was also found under a nonfree license and was deleted awhile ago (I assumed this one had been tagged too, see User talk:Quadzilla99#Peter Colman). I'm assuming that I made a mistake in uploading the images and that they probably weren't free, so I would agree that deleting it is the right course of action. ShadowHalo 00:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Deleted by Lumijaguaari: unfree Flickr license

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

[edit] Image:Azerbaijan_Portal.jpg

he claims he took all except maiden tower but has no source TigranMets 03:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Not sufficient reason for deletion. --FSHL 14:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - quite sufficient reason. It's very doubtful he took all these photographs and assembled them. Patstuart 17:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - This collage was created for Portal:Azerbaijan in wikipedia, the author has a permission to use those images. Also, I would like to ask the admins to check the actions of the nominator and his tagging of Azerbaijan related images only. --Grandmaster 10:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Permittion is given, deletion tag is added by a user who purposefully targets Azerbaijan-related files. Parishan 11:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

One of the images contain no source it should be deleted. As stated in the image description. --TigranMets 13:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. One of the images was unsourced per image description, so I'm afraid the whole collage has to go. PatríciaR ^msg 16:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:MEResulzade_(10).jpg

no source or author TigranMets 03:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 13:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:349dy1k.jpg

no source or author named TigranMets 03:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Needs source or author, given the year. grendel|khan 22:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Source has been added. Parishan 20:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Info: The source page has a photo of Mohammad Amin Rasulzadeh, but it's not the same as the photo that we're talking about here. grendel|khan 13:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Not sufficient reason for deletion – no copyright infringement... --FSHL 14:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Question: What sort of reason are you looking for? If we don't know who took the picture, then we have no way of knowing if it's in the public domain or not; if we don't have a way of knowing if it's in the public domain or not, it may very well be copyright infringement--the burden of proof is on us to show that it's not. grendel|khan 13:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 13:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Kenan Comic Con 2006.jpg

Photo of a conference broadcast, in my experience these have been removed from wp:en. Derivative work. It appears from Tostie's work that day that he attended the conference, but shot the photos of a video screen there from a bad angle, rather than shooting photos of the speakers directly, thus violating the copyright of the cameraperson shooting the video.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 11:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I remember reporting over a dozen other screenshots to "Editor at Large" here. It looks like I missed some. The photo was taken at the San Diego Comic Con where they have a large screen that broadcasts people live on stage. I uploaded it back when I didn't know that those type of shots are derivative works. So yes, these can be deleted. Spellcast 13:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This one looks perfectly fine. It does not seem to have been taken from a screen. --ALE! ¿…? 08:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps this one is ok, I thought I saw some artifacts. Anyway, I uploaded the original size, so you may want to take another look.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment To be honest, I can't tell whether this is from the screen or not. Spellcast 01:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I withdraw my nomination - the original size shows no artifacts.

kept --ALE! ¿…? 13:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Cathy_O'Dowd02.jpg

"Image used by arrangement" with subject depicted in photo. What exactly does that mean? No OTRS confirmation either. howcheng {chat} 18:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete the person shown on the photo is not the person how to took the image. So she can not give the permission. --ALE! ¿…? 08:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 12:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Brasilian_Integralism_Flag.svg

Wrong colors and proportions. A right-colored version is available at Flag of Ação Integralista Brasileira.svg. --LipeFontoura 22:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• unfortunately not really a reason for deletion. Please put your comments on the description page of the wrong image. --ALE! ¿…? 08:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

kept --ALE! ¿…? 12:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Petersburgmetromap2005.png

Taken from [3]; site which says [4] that works can be borrowed and shared as long as they are informative and not used for commercial purposes. Syrcro 08:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Images on Commons must be free for commercial purposes Pimke 08:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment The links provided lead to a parking domain. --Tom (talk - email) 15:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment This may prove profitable. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 07:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep the original website is lost, I have re-tagged the image as PD-RU exempt, as Saint-Petersburg Metro is a Russian state organisation, and this is an official map that can be used for non-commercial purposes. --Kuban kazak 22:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete with Image:Petersburgmetromap2006.jpg. Don't see a reason why municipal transport organization can't copyright transport map. Somebody should read fine print in actual map. Anyway there are self-made SVG maps in Category:Saint Petersburg Metro maps that could be used instead. --EugeneZelenko 14:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I disagree, the 2005 map was actually updated by me personally, and improved, besides the 2006 map is of worse quality, and not so favourable dimensions. Besides the map is widely available in the Russian print, and no attribution licenses are ever noted. Self-made maps are crap (the ones we have so far). --Kuban kazak 20:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Official site contains near same image and note Петербургский Метрополитен Все права защищены, 2005. Images discussed here are clear derivative works of official map. I think will be good idea to ask metro administration what is copyrights status of their map. --EugeneZelenko 14:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No one ever released any rights to this map and it is created by the Metropoliten of St. P – thus by default it retains all rights to it. The fact that it's "widely available" means absolutely nothing. As EugeneZelenko points out, the St. Petersburg Metropoliten website specifically even says that "All rights are reserved, 2005".

Axed; commercial reuse and derivative works are not allowed. (→O - RLY?) 20:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Allison Mack at comics convention.jpg

Photo of a conference broadcast, in my experience these have been removed from wp:en. Derivative work. It appears from Tostie's work that day that he attended the conference, but shot the photos of a video screen there from a bad angle, rather than shooting photos of the speakers directly, thus violating the copyright of the cameraperson shooting the video.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 16:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Agreed. grendel|khan 22:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment I am not sure with this one, as it shows a different angle than the others. --ALE! ¿…? 08:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Cameraman/woman's copyright has been violated, so this is subject to deletion. (→O - RLY?) 20:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Utriculariapraelonga1web.jpg

Uploaded from Wikipedia at the direction of a "Upload to Commons" template and didn't check image source until now--states non-commercial use and unaltered use only - photo is both altered and its license is incorrect. Rkitko 18:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Incompatible license. grendel|khan 22:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Incompatible licensing; axed. (→O - RLY?) 20:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Jmgz.jpg

no proof for description entered TigranMets 03:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Not valid reason for deletion. --FSHL 14:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per FSHL. Parishan 11:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete no information about the author of the photograph. Therefore we can not proof that the image is PD-old. --ALE! ¿…? 13:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Deleted. No proof of being PD-old or PD-anonymous. Samulili 08:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Ksszm.jpg

no proof for license TigranMets 03:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Not sufficient reason for deletion. --FSHL 14:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - since when do we require proof that someone is the author of an image? By its very nature, that's unprovable. Patstuart 17:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep We don't have any reason to suspect the license unless we see someone else claim copyright of the image. Until then, no need to delete. Althepal 20:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete in doubt delete. Maybe the author could upload a version in a higher resolution as a proof of authorship? --ALE! ¿…? 08:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Kept. MichaelMaggs 21:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Persian_Cossack_Brigade.jpg

no author TigranMets 03:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Not valid reason for deletion – isn't necessary for {{PD-Iran}} --FSHL 14:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - it's pd-old. Author is unnecessary. We don't need authors for pd images (otherwise, we'd have deleted half the old images out there). Patstuart 17:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep - Copyright has expired, none of the requested is needed. Parishan 11:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Kept. MichaelMaggs 21:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Aslanov.jpg

No author TigranMets 03:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Not valid reason for deletion – isn't necessary for {{PD-Russia}} --FSHL 14:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Aslanov died in 1945, so the image is pre-1954. And I have a reason to suspect that the nomination was made by user permanently banned in Wikipedia. --Grandmaster 10:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per FSHL and Grandmaster. Parishan 11:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete {No source, therefore the location and dates of publication are unknown. Unless a special Commons rule about unknown dates of publication, we have no reasons to assume that it is prior to January 1, 1950, assuming that this Russian licence is the correct one.}: this reason will be invalided if a suitable publication date is added to the page.
  The licence doesn't clearly specify if it suits in the unknown author case. --Juiced lemon 19:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Please check the article about Aslanov, [5] this person died in 1945, so the photo could not have been taken after 1945. --Grandmaster 12:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I have already checked that. The photograph may even have been taken before the Soviet-German War (1941). However, the licence mentions the date of publication, which is different than the date of the photograph.

I wish to keep this picture, but I vote according to current Commons rules. --Juiced lemon 12:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

It was taken during the Battle of Stalingrad (when Aslanov was awarded Hero of Soviet Union, you can see him wearing the decoration) and was first published in Krasnaya Zvezda newspaper in 1942. --Grandmaster 13:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Comments

I propose to freeze this deletion request, and any deletion request with this licence:

• condition #1: It was published before January 1, 1954 => cannot be established if the source is unknown, or undated.
• condition #2: the creator (if known) died before that date => not fulfilled when the author is unknow (either, this is a bad wording)

We must clarify our copyright policies about related issues, and it will take us at least two months. --Juiced lemon 11:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep because Grandmaster posted when it was first published it is using the right copyright template Madmax32 20:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Kept - old discussion. Likely work of the Soviet government: Works belonging to the former Soviet government or other Soviet legal entities published before January 1st, 1954, are also public domain in Russia. Patstuart 21:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Ctp.JPG

copyvio --Rifleman 82 13:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Speedy-delete as copyright violation. grendel|khan 16:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

deleted, obvious copyvio --Polarlys 18:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Images of User:Fcb981

• Image:RoseGardenArenaS.jpg
• Image:Portland Convention Center 1.jpg
• Image:Hawthorne Bridge 0.jpg
• Image:Portland Night panorama.jpg
• Image:Fireworks PDX 1.jpg
• Image:Bay Checkerspot f1.JPG
• Image:Bay Checkerspot f2.jpg
• Image:Orange Rose1.jpg
• Image:Orange Rose2.JPG
• Image:Image-Orange Rose1.jpg

Commons:Licensing#Acceptable licenses explicitly states that:

Commercial use of the work must be allowed

The user's attribution requirements (User:Fcb981/attribution) says:

Because required attribution is the only way that I can prevent commercial use of my photos I require strict attribution procedures, fail to meet them and you are breaching copyright law.

This user's intentions is to make attribution requirements ("The text of the attribution must be of an area at least 50% that of the reproduction size") so insanely large that no one would ever use his image anywhere but on WMF projects (all of his attribution rules are waived for the WMF). So, technically, commercial use is not restricted but his attribution requirements effectively do restrict any and all commercial use. His intentions are clearly in disagreement with the spirit of commons "freeness" requirements. Waiving these attribution requirements for the WMF effectively limits use to wikimedia, which is also against commons policy.

Furthermore, as pointed out in Commons:Village pump#Are we allowed to do this?? the actual legalese of the CC-BY-2.5 license says that attribution must be "reasonable to the medium" and that the "Licensor shall not be bound by any additional provisions that may appear in any communication from You." Taking up 50% of the photo for attribution is not reasonable. Appending strict provisions to the license is also not allowed.

In short, his attribution requirements void the spirit of commons licensing "freeness" and contradicts the license itself. Cburnett 06:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Nomination withdrawn per license change that nullifies the nomination. Cburnett 23:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, because the user did not really (want to) license images with cc-by-2.5, but with something he thought was cc-by-2.5. Samulili 10:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Info: We should probably get the user's opinion on this; if he understand that he can either license the pictures for use without the sort of restrictions he wants to add, or not to license them at all, he may choose to license them under a Share-Alike license to avoid commercial exploitation rather than take his marbles and go home. (The '-NC licenses considered harmful' essay might be of interest here.) grendel|khan 17:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Can you explain how Share-Alike prevents commercial expliotation. If I feel they are the best option I would be happy to use them. -Fcb981 02:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The licenses are supposed to be compatible with the GNU regardless of which 'free' license they are Madmax32 18:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, unless the user would be willing to amend his policies. --Tom (talk - email) 18:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• As the nominator, I would hastily rescind my nomination if the user put the images under a reasonable license that jives with policy. If not, then it's his choice to not "play by the rules" and his only recourse is to "take his marbles and go home". Regardless, the outcome is his choice. Cburnett 19:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• Hi everyone, I'd like to prevent the deletion of my pictures, I would also like to prevent the unrestricted commercial use, if the latter is impossible, I will allow the pictures that I think have commercial value to be deleted and upload new files of much lower resolution. If retaining some of my commercial rights is possible under another liscense (I was under the impression that it isn't) then I will gladly relicense. If share-alikes prevent commercial use then I'd be glad to use them. I will do a bit more research tonight and hopefuly come to a decision by tomarow. In any event, this has got to be the golden age for someone wanting stock photos. what used to cost money is now being offered for free. The only losers... me, and photographers like me, who want to donate a bit of knowlage to anyone who needs it. It turns out, the donation is a bit more than a few photos: it is any and all of the compensation that any of us photographers could have hoped to have gotten for any stock photos into the future. -Fcb981 02:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, cc-by-sa won't prevent commercial use, and cc-by-nc and cc-by-nc-sa are not allowed in Commons... --Moonian 05:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't really want to give advice that is detrimental to commons, but you might like this The GFDL is not practical for images and short texts, especially for printed media, because it demands that the full text of the license be published they along with [[6]], so I guess licensing images under the GFDL only could make commercial use less likely depending on the way it's used Madmax32 14:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Fcb981, the only way to definitely stop commercial use is to use a license with a NC condition. But using a license with a sharealike requirement (GFDL, CC-BY-SA) is generally considered to discourage commercial use, especially if you think about e.g. an advertisement. An ad that uses an image would be a derivative work of the image, usually, so it has to have the same copyleft license. The thinking goes along the lines that commercial companies wouldn't be willing to do this, especially because they couldn't put their copyrighted logo on the poster.

You are allowed to use a non-free license as long as dual-license with a free license. So you may for example dual-license GFDL with CC-BY-SA-NC. If people use the GFDL, they have to have a copy of the entire license text next to the image. This is usually too prohibitive for print, especially for a single image. Then you still have the CC-BY-SA-NC option for others. (If you do this, you can't use a template for the non-free license - you have to just manually write in a line about the license.)

Another thought it that you may simply want to upload your work to Flickr under a NC license. Then it is available to 'anyone who needs it'. Not everyone has the same goals as Wikimedia, and that's OK. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 16:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, per what Tom wrote. I Concur with pfctdayelise's thoughts above. -Mardus 00:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Move to close I have re-licensed all of the photos under GDFL, no crazy terms added. Thanks for being understanding of my position while still in disagreement. This is how wiki should work. If there are any questions. responding here is fine. -Fcb981 05:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep as the license has been changed. --rimshot^talk 12:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as the license has been changed.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep; no licensing problems remain. grendel|khan 19:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete due to the method of licensure. Please see Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Fcb981c for details.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 20:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • That is an entirly different matter and should be handled seperatly. This nomination, on this topic (breaking the spirit and letter of the creative commons license), has been withdrawn. -Fcb981 02:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Withdrawal is not within the established guidelines. The discussion continues here, as no Administrator has closed it.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 10:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep there is no copy-vio. A deletion request is en effect for a template which, if it succedes, would create an issue where I have to stick individual license tags on the pictures. Not a big deal, this nom is not about my meathods, Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Fcb981c is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fcb981 (talk • contribs) at 15:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Kept. Fcb981 was kind enough to change the licensing to plain GFDL which Commons accepts. Samulili 17:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:TS Dalila 2007 0800Z July25.jpg

No longer used. Replaced by better image Image:Dalila 25 july 2007 2100Z.jpg --Keith Edkins 15:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Not valid reason for deletion. And both pictures aren’t identical... --FSHL 16:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep speedy keep :-). Completely different images from different satellites of the same object, no reason at all to delete. --Tony Wills 12:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep Not a duplicate --Digon3 ^talk 20:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:LusoFlag.png

not in use and little encyclopedic significance 82.155.151.94 11:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Not valid reason for deletion. --FSHL 13:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• {{copyvio}} 11:57, 2 August 2007 User:Eupenso
  • And what is violated? Ah, it seems that you made and uploaded this image. Not sure what you really mean then. --Moonian 05:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Not valid reason for deletion. --Moonian 04:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Deleted by Siebrand: In category Copyright violation; no source

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

[edit] Image:Blumenwiese-2.JPG

the same as Image:Blumenwiese-Kissingen.JPG. --Seeteufel 19:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I agree that there is no need to have duplicates. Althepal 20:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• next time use {{duplicate|existing image.jpg}} template ;) Pimke 19:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 12:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Klimadiagramm-Marienleuchte (Fehmarn)-Deutschland-metrisch-deutsch.png

redundant, other version: Image:Klimadiagramm-Fehmarn(Marienl-)-Deutschl--metrisch-deutsch.png

 Comment Deletion request of 9th October 2006 by the uploader. Seems that it has been forgotten to have been put on the respective deletion log page, so I have put it now here. -- JörgM 21:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 13:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Bordeaux_Elite_Team_2007.jpg

Out of scope; unencyclopedic. grendel|khan 16:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It could potentially be used to illustrate articles on cheerleading. However, Delete because it misuses several licensing templates including {{PD-Art}} (twice), {{PD-JORF}}, and {{PD-JORF-nor-conso}}. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Concur with LX. Nothing inherently wrong with image subject, but Delete due to obviously false licence. -- Infrogmation 20:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete no doubt Pimke 20:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

deleted for wrong licensing --ALE! ¿…? 12:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Company_B_Cheerleaders_1994.jpg

Out of scope; unencyclopedic. grendel|khan 17:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree; it could be used to illustrate articles on cheerleading. However, Delete because it misuses several licensing templates including {{PD-Art}} (twice), {{PD-JORF}}, and {{PD-JORF-nor-conso}}. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree with LX -- There is nothing wrong with the image per se were it properly copyright tagged, but as it isn't, delete unless it is promptly retagged with a proper sourced free licence. -- Infrogmation 20:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep but only if the image gets a correct license. --ALE! ¿…? 12:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

deleted for wrong licensing --ALE! ¿…? 12:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Imagen_521.jpg

Poor quality image. Alx 91 19:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Agree, no use for this image. Althepal 20:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I would have thought so too, but it is actually in use on en-wiki. Carl Lindberg 06:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep Clearly no reason to delete. It has been demonstrated that it has potential use, so even if it goes out of use for a period it would not be sufficient reason to delete. --Tony Wills 12:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• Agree to Tony Wills - Not sufficient reason for deletion. --FSHL 19:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

kept, image is used --ALE! ¿…? 12:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Kim Young-sam, 1998-Jan-5.jpg

Incorrect description. This is the photo of another South Korean president, en:Kim Dae Jung. 12:25, 30 July 2007 ChongDae

• Question: Are you certain? The date on the photo is in January 1998; Kim Dae Jung wasn't President until the end of February (according to en:Kim Dae Jung), and he belonged to the opposition party. The caption on the photo specifies the President of South Korea, which would have been Kim Young Sam at that point. Also, if you want to rename images instead of deleting them, you can use {{rename}} to flag them for renaming. grendel|khan 17:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I don't think U.S. military has been mistaken about who this person is (See the source). --Moonian 04:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Not sufficient reason for deletion. --FSHL 15:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

kept (in any case please use {{rename image}} ) --ALE! ¿…? 07:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Liels gerbonis.gif

Orphaned, superseded, scales down poorly and is useless. --Reinis 19:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Agree, no need to have two versions, and GIF is not the proper format. Althepal 20:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 11:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep This deletion request attempts to bypass the suspended Commons_talk:Deletion_requests/Superseded discussions. Wait for that discussion to conclude, or better still help conclude the discussion by participating. --Tony Wills 12:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Not sufficient reason for deletion – is still in use and as an elementary result of this trivial fact definitively not useless... --FSHL 17:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

It's no longer in use.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

deleted, (bad gif, not used, png replacement available) --ALE! ¿…? 07:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] {{PD-MNGov}}

• Image:Minnesota state seal.png
• Image:Minneapolis I-35W bridge map.svg
• Image:Minneapolis I-35W map1.JPG

The quoted statute is a public records law facilitating public access to records. It does not say they are in the "public domain", merely that they are "public", ie a member of the public can get a copy of them. A copy of such a record may still be copyrighted, and unless the state specifically disclaimed the rights, the license would still have reserved rights (most probably commercial use (other than publication) and derivative works would still be outlawed.) -N 19:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Agree; delete. --NE2 20:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• Unfortunately (as discussed at Commons talk:Licensing#Minnesota Public Domain) and to my chagrin, as I set this template up hastily this morning to support Wikinews activity based on the reference the original uploader gave, I think N is correct, and the template (which I created) makes an invalid claim, and needs to go. (at least this opinion which User:Clindberg found shows that the state feels that way)... I was drawing an invalid parallel with {{PD-FLGov}} which makes a similar assertion. As to the images covered by it, the maps would need to be recreated without copying. Map information is not copyrightable, only specific representations. It would be really nifty if someone could do so quickly, as those maps are being used in a breaking story on Wikinews. The seal however may not actually be copyrightable, check out many of the seals in category:State seals of the United States which all seem to assert that seals are PD. ++Lar: t/c 20:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Most of the seals come from a US embassy website, and are PD since they are done by the USGov State Department. We could upload the Minnesota seal from this page as an alternative to the one here. There seems to be a special {{US state seal}} template used to source seals from that site. Getting a particular bitmap of a seal from the state's website may not be OK but that one should be. Carl Lindberg 00:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
    • We could replace the image of the seal with the one from the US embassy, and change the license on the seal. The rest have to go though, unfortunately. ++Lar: t/c 14:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Did this, see below. ++Lar: t/c 00:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: Read the agreement. They are DOT which is a US government agency. DragonFire1024 20:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • No, they're a Minnesota state agency. --NE2 22:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Each state has their own DOT (in this case, Mn/DOT), which is separate from the U.S. Department of Transportation, and thus their works are not necessarily public domain (unless there is a state law about it). Their websites seem to have copyright notices on them. Carl Lindberg 00:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete There's even a note from the state AG explicitly stating that works of the state are copyrighted. grendel|khan 21:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep the media files. This deletion request is incorrect, because the deletion of a licence template don't involve the deletion of any file with this licence template. The licence template have to be deleted in first, and only in that case, deletion templates can be added to the files without proper template. --Juiced lemon 11:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
  • The license template is invalid. It's not a valid claim of a license (I realise that now, on further investigation). Therefore the template needs to go, it's not useful and could be confusing or misleading. Also, anything licensed under it does not have a valid license and is also subject to deletion unless a different license can be shown to apply. But these are all works of the MN state government which asserts copyright and does not provide a free license. So they're all deletion bait too. ++Lar: t/c 14:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• Agree to Juiced lemon - Not sufficient reason for deleting the media files. --FSHL 17:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
  • If you think the files have some sort of valid license attached to them, please re-tag them as necessary. If they have no license--as they won't after this deletion request goes through--then they'll be fair game for deletion. Did you see something that's allowable under some other license somewhere? grendel|khan 19:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I have taken Carl's suggestion and went to the US embassy to de: site and replaced the state seal with the one from there. Therefore I removed the deletion tagging from Image:Minnesota state seal.png as it no longer is licensed under the license we are discussing. ++Lar: t/c 00:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Cool. I changed the license to {{PD-USGov-DOS}} since that is more accurate (I don't think PD-US applies), and also added the {{US state seal}} template as that seems used for images sourced from that site. We may want to delete the old revision of the seal, the one that came from the Minnesota state website. As to the other images, this template was created to formalize the reasoning used to upload the two images in the first place; if the template is invalid (and without a court decision saying otherwise, I think it is) then the two images aren't valid either, so it seems reasonable to consider them as a group. Carl Lindberg 18:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems pretty clear to me that this material needs to be deleted. It has been over 7 days since the discussion started, and I am the original creator of the template. The two affected maps are no longer used on english Wikinews so are ok to delete without impacting a breaking story... (They are used on other wikis so will need replacing...) Close debate and I will delete all remaining items: {{PD-MNGov}}, Image:Minneapolis I-35W bridge map.svg, Image:Minneapolis I-35W map1.JPG ( Image:Minnesota state seal.png was reuploaded and correctly licensed so is kept) ++Lar: t/c 00:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Later note (copied from the template talk page): --MichaelMaggs 16:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

A previous version of this template was deleted based on a discussion here: Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-MNGov ... which concluded that there was no PD for Minnesota goverment works. Subsequently a diligent user discovered a direct statement that makes all MN works PD unless explicitly stated otherwise. Yaay! ++Lar: t/c 00:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Christian Bypass.jpg

"Submitted by James Enloe, Sunnyvale CA" sounds like a copyvio to me. No proof of licensing. The uploader of this file at en.wiki only has 3 edits[7] (one deleted, as the local copy of this image was deleted). Could someone with admin access over there check the original licensing? I suspect it was not "self" as the Commons version has. ---N 01:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• You have no actual good proves of that, besides just the name. Object to deletion —the preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.126.153.25 (talk • contribs) 13:34, 3 August 2007
• Info: The license on en was the same as it was here. Do we have a good reason to suspect something's amiss? grendel|khan 22:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• KeepWhat is it with so many "I'm suspicious, so delete" requests? A users past activity (or lack of activity) may make one suspicious but that's hardly a basis for deletion - just a make work request to get others to prove/disprove. How about a little actual evidence first (assume good faith) ? --Tony Wills 12:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I was the one that copied the image over to the Commons, and I have no reason to believe that there was anything unethical being done. AGF. --Elonka 07:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I have to agree with N, if the uploader is not the creator of an image there is no proof of permission for the licensing shown, must be forwarded to OTRS, however in this case there isn't any proof either way that the uploader was not James Enloe Madmax32 01:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep There is no copyright in a street sign. — EliasAlucard|Talk 07:45 27 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

Kept. WjBscribe 17:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:SEPTA_Rapid_and_Commuter_Rail_System_1980.png

Image is almost an exact replica of the map shown in this image, which violates copyright law since derivatives are prohibited. Dream out loud 18:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep It is never a copyright violation to redraw a map, as the raw information in the map is not copyrighted. -N 19:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete because unlike a real map which is representational of ground features, this is stylised/artistic and appears to be an exact copy. See {{NYC_Subway_map}} for rationale about why real maps are not copyrightable, and note that the London Underground (see London Underground geographic maps maps which are similar to this SEPTA map in being stylised, also carry copyright, which is why we do not have them, we have geographically accurate ones instead. Perhaps the process used to create those could be used here as well? ++Lar: t/c 20:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Agree to N - No copyright infringement... --FSHL 16:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

•  Comment I know that the information within a map cannot be copyrighted (rail line, stations, etc.), but a design can be copyrighted. This image is almost an exact copy of the actual map (shown in the linked photo), therefore it violates copyright law. If the map had a different design, but still retained the original stations and rail lines, that would be perfectly acceptable. –Dream out loud 20:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. This is why the NY subway maps were OK and the London ones not (as I said above). ++Lar: t/c 02:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Deleted. Exact copy and very unlikely own work. So unless the original image is in the public domain, this is a copyvio. Samulili 08:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Mustafa_Kemal_at_Gallipoli.jpg

No source information. Kertenee 00:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Not sufficient reason for deletion. --FSHL 13:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• But it has indeed no source to prove that it's really {{PD-TR-Gov}}. --Moonian 05:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

•  Comment to Moonian - In dubio pro reo – without hard facts no condemnation... --FSHL 15:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete No source provided. --Moonian 05:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Nominator only has 2 edits on en.wiki, I smell bad faith. I have adjusted the license to PD old. -- Cat ^chi? 07:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• Question: But still no source specified ? --Tony Wills 12:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
• Info: There are a number of versions of this image, [8], [9] [10] . But the size and proportions of this one doesn't correspond to any of them (most of them are larger, higher-res). The Australian War Memorial copy (AWM A05319) has a note 'LENT FOR COPYING BY THE TURKISH EMBASSY' so there are probably other versions direct from the Turkish government. So the AWM copyright assertion is probably not actually valid (asserting they own rights to something that they have simply reproduced). Anyone know what rights the Turkish government grants on such images? --Tony Wills 13:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
• Info: Seems to be a cropped version of [11], [12] which brought me right back in a circle to Image:Turkish trenches at Gallipoli.jpg. From what I can see the cropped versions are from AWM, the fuller version is more common on Turkish websites. --Tony Wills 23:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
• Info: Tada! a coloured version with links to some copyright info! en:Image:GMK_Gallipoli.jpg --Tony Wills 23:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Colored version is a new work, a painting, based on PD work. The creator of the image is anonymous - probably a random war photographer. In such cases image is PD 70 years after first publish which expired decades ago. -- Cat ^chi? 12:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• According to messages left at [13] the copyright expires after 70 years on most Turkish images Madmax32 03:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Yann 21:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment Would anybody be willing to add some information to the page, such as an approximate date? I personally have no idea when it was taken. -- Bryan (talk to me) 21:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

All web sources of this image (including the AWM) and the uncropped versions are dated as 1915 --Tony Wills 00:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

deleted, no source, no author --ALE! ¿…? 11:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:IBM_logo.svg

This image is fair use and should rather be located on Wikipedia (here). It is a copyright logo and may be used under fair use. The reason claimed for this being not-copyrighted is that it is text in a general typeface. However, this is not the case, as the text has been greatly modified (repeatedly slashed) and is owned by IBM. Althepal 20:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete However, this is a trademark. Disclaimer, I work for IBM. ++Lar: t/c 20:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Not valid reason for deletion. No copyright infringement... --FSHL 16:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• Could you provide some backing for that argument? This is not a standard typeface. It IS a logo and I think we have a more general question about logos looming. ++Lar: t/c 17:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

•  Comment to Lar - That’s IMHO definitively a standard typeface just striped... --FSHL 20:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• Please provide a cite that this typeface, with stripes, is a standard font. My searches of internal documents reveal that IBM considers it a special typeface (called the "IBM Logo Font") which is seperately protected. Therefore, the argument that it is text in a general or standard typeface is invalid. You need instead to make the argument that corporate logos, in general, are not subject to restriction here and are licenseable under a free license... Disclaimer: this is not an official statement of IBM, it is my personal opinion and if you want an official statement of IBM you will need to seek it through official channels. I am not authorised to provide official statements on this matter. ++Lar: t/c 20:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• Very good, Lar. This is not a standard typeface. Even if it would be in font Arial, the repeated strips are not standard and would qualify the logo as an independent piece of art. Althepal 21:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

•  Comment to Althepal - Not Arial – I’d say that’s just unspectacular Times New Roman... --FSHL 13:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• The typeface is City Medium. Just like it says on the image description page. And trademarking is not a reason to delete anything from Commons. --Hautala 17:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep I think. Typefaces are not copyrightable in the U.S, even when custom designed (the standard may well be very different for non-U.S. logos though). The stripes are not enough of a variation either; I think there needs to be a lot of ornamentation separate from the shape of the letters themselves. This link gives many examples of what is copyrightable and what is not. One passage: The copyright claim cannot be based solely upon mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring. Likewise, the arrangement of type on a printed page cannot support a copyright claim. Carl Lindberg 06:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

This logo is more than ornamentation variation. It is a company font written in a VERY unique way. Althepal 04:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

What they've done with the word "IBM" is print it in City Medium typeface, divided it in 15 parallel lines and then made every even line invisible. Although simple, this is clever because the horizontal stroke width in City Medium is one fifth of the height of the letters (examine the logo closely). However, this is not unique at all. There are even entire fonts that consist of parallel lines: for example Maximus BT, Synchronous AOE, UNDA Horizontal, Telecast, Rub On Lite and Interlace Single. --Hautala 17:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

This logo is far less than ornamentation. Even if it was a custom typeface, it is not copyrightable in the U.S. And as noted above, it is a standard typeface. The stripes are not a remotely copyrightable change -- that would imply that anyone else using similar stripes on any other background image would be a copyright violation. Obviously the stripes help make it trademarkable, but that is completely different than copyright. Companies normally couldn't care less about the copyright status of a logo; the trademark status is what is important (and indeed, it does limit us to using the logo only on articles directly about the company). I think Wikimedia may need to worry about the copyright status though as a technicality; that is a problem for many logos but not this one. Carl Lindberg 18:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I think we need wider discussion somewhere about what the implications are of an image we deem OK to have here , but not OK to use 'just anywhere' because it has other restrictions. That seems to contravene the notion that things here are freely usable. ++Lar: t/c 01:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

It has been discussed... our use of "free" is related to the copyright status only. This is also noted at Commons:Licensing#_note-0 as a qualifier on the "by anyone, for any purpose" statement... maybe that note should be emphasized more. Many images have other use restrictions, sometimes significant, such as logos, government insignia, and photos of people. To me, it doesn't seem helpful to disallow copyright-free images which are quite usable for Wikimedia projects just because some (or many) usages externally are barred. Carl Lindberg 22:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• KeepI agree with Carl Lindberg that typefaces like this do indeed exist therefore we can interpret the rulings that typefaces are ineligible for copyright as widely as we want Madmax32 03:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, as per above. --Minghong 05:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Kept. Ineligible for copyright. O₂ (息 • 吹) 07:52, 05 November 2007 (GMT)

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

[edit] Image:Estadio_ilha_do_retiro_google_earth.jpg

Copyvio ZorroIII 17:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Speedy-delete; copyvio. grendel|khan 21:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Deleted, {{copyvio}}. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

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

Deleted by Thuresson: Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Bbc.jpg

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

[edit] Image:Bb-08_01.jpg

a new version has been posted ... this is obsolete Ronald.branson 22:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Another misplaced {{badname}} request - duplicate of Image:USS Alabama (BB 8) with Great White Fleet Officers.jpg --Tony Wills 02:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Deleted by Micheletb: uploader's request and unused

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

[edit] Image:Bsod w2k.jpg

A clean PNG version is available. --Fant0men 03:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete already superseded Pimke 19:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Yecch, artifacts. grendel|khan 21:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I agree with Fant0men. --Dezidor 02:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Deleted /--Fanghong 09:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Ferrari_360_bonnet.jpg

As a derivative work of Image:Ferrari 360 front.jpg, according to the source [14] this image is copyrighted and has its own terms of non-commercial use. The derivation should not be readily freely usable. Jusjih 07:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Improperly licensed; uploader had no right to make the derivative work. grendel|khan 21:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete (as uploader) At the time my modifications were made, the copyright status on Image:Ferrari 360 front.jpg made it appear it was properly licensed. The image hasn't been used for a while (on enwiki, it was removed a year ago due to questions about its accuracy, and was replaced by Image:Sonett-mk2-flipfront.jpg and Image:Sonett-mk2V4-powerbulge.jpg), so it may be able to be speedy deleted? --Interiot 19:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Deleted / --Fanghong 10:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Arkadenbau-Mai 2007.JPG

Similar to my other picture Image:Arkadenbau-Juli2007.JPG. --Seeteufel 07:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep Yes similar, but taken some time apart of the same scene. No reason at all to delete. --Tony Wills 11:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Not valid reason for deletion. --FSHL 17:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - No good reason for deletion. --Dezidor 02:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

kept --ALE! ¿…? 13:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Images-2-.jpg

Bad licence and no source TaraO 10:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Should just mark it with {{nsd}} and {{nld}}. grendel|khan 21:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Deleted by Siebrand: In category [[:category:Unknown - August 2007|Unknown - August 2007]]; no source

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

[edit] Image:Macintosh_128k.jpg

Too bright. 71.244.154.110 12:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Not valid reason for deletion. --FSHL 16:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

kept --ALE! ¿…? 13:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Category:Coats of arms of families of Brazil

There is no coat of arms for families in Brazilian nobility. The titles were not inherited, apart for the imperial ones. This category was created to insert just one image, which is a coat of arms of a principality and may be well placed in the main category (Category:Coats of arms of Brazilian nobility) --Tonyjeff 12:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

•  Oppose. If the imperial family have inherited titles and coats of arms, there are indeed “coats of arms of families of Brazil”. Therefore, since this category is the only one correctly named in its structure, it is obvious that it can be reused later, even by accident. So, as long as it remains empty, this category will be a redirection. --Juiced lemon 09:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

There is a clear difference between the coat of arms of a family and the coat of arms of a title, which, indeed, not all the members of the Brazilian imperial family inherited (neither the blasons, nor the titles). Anyway, it may be better as a redirection, since this category might be recreated by mistake. --Tonyjeff 12:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• To me the question is indifferent, but please keep in mind that contrary to what the motivation seems to imply, coats of arms were commonly used by non-nobles families too. Coats of arms were a way to mark and to sign objects in an age when almost everybody was illitterate. --User:G.dallorto 10:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

•  Comment the category is empty and could be deleted just for that. --ALE! ¿…? 10:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

“Empty” is not a valid reason for deletion. A category can be empty only because a vandal has removed its contents. --Juiced lemon 11:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any other arguments? If not, I say that empty categories are usually deleted unless there are good reasons to keep them. (E.g. to put a notice to prevent paintings to be uploaded, when the painter did not die more then 70 years ago.) --ALE! ¿…? 12:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 12:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:289845481_222e608b18_o.jpg

Unuesd image from flickr, Now we don't need it OsamaK 23:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep Who is the 'we' that doesn't need it? Unused is no reason for deletion --Tony Wills 02:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• Agree to Tony Wills - Not valid reason for deletion. --FSHL 13:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Sorry, that's wrong by me.--OsamaK 14:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

kept --ALE! ¿…? 12:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:SphinxDuLiseron2.jpg

taxonomic mismatch JihemD0 11:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Not sufficient reason for deletion. --FSHL 16:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Find out what it is, then mark it for renaming. grendel|khan 21:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep speedy keep :-) --Tony Wills 11:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Grendelkhan wrote the reason. --Dezidor 02:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

kept (in any case use {{rename image}} ) --ALE! ¿…? 07:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Hermine schoenaich wilhelmII.jpg

They were married in 1922, the painting can’t be older. It was done between 1922 and 1941. No artist given, so why PD? --Polarlys 21:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC) (BTW: Historical paintings without additional information (technique, artist, date of creation, location of original, …) are useless. Independent from this file: There are a lot of reproductions where we don’t even know if the portrayed person is the person of interest) --Polarlys 21:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Artist unknown; copyright tag not valid. grendel|khan 21:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Taken from .de wikipedia, but your arguments are convincing. Dryke 07:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete the original uploader made his last edit over one year ago. We will never find out who painted this image. --ALE! ¿…? 13:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't a de.wikipedia admin email the original uploader?   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 09:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

No valid mail address, no activity on de.wp. --Polarlys 12:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. Lupo 10:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Totem-screenshot.jpg

This screenshot contains an image from a copyrighted movie trailer. --91.65.124.74 21:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Can be easily recreated with free media, maybe even something from the Commons. grendel|khan 21:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Info: There's now a free Totem screenshot at Image:Totem splash screen.png. grendel|khan 14:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete next time please use {{screenshot}} template Pimke 22:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 07:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:AggieMuster.jpg

Please delete the first version of the file, as I have uploaded the wrong picture (pic of a friend) --Blueag9 14:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• could you give a link to the second image ? Pimke 07:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's the second image: Image:AggieMuster.jpg

old revision deleted --ALE! ¿…? 12:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Images from Supremo Tribunal Federal

According to http://www.stf.gov.br/noticias/imprensa/fotos/default.asp?tip_foto=FMIN#, images may be used freely (as in "without having to pay a fee"-freely but has no mention of possibility of derivative work or allowed commercial use. I think this is another case of images that are intended solely for press or educational purposes. PatríciaR ^msg 16:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• Image:08celso.jpg
• Image:09joaquim.jpg
• Image:08gilmar.jpg
• Image:09pelluso.jpg
• Image:Elleng3.jpg
• Image:09britto.jpg

Delete PatríciaR ^msg 16:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete sadly. the license is plainly "gratis" and not "libre" (distinction is very plain in Portuguese). -N 21:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Deleted: No permission for derivatives or commercial use. WjBscribe 18:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Photographs of illustrations in "le guide d'identification des poissons du Canada Atlantique de 1972."

Appear to be derivative work from a book published in 1972. Actual first date of publication of the pictures and the artist is not given. Image:Myoxocephalus-scorpius.jpg, Image:Tautogolabrus-adspersus.jpg, Image:Hemitriptere-atlantique.jpg, Image:Myoxocephalus-aeneus.jpg, Image:Hemitriptere-atlantique.jpg, Image:Baudroie-d-amerique-2.jpg, Image:Sebaste-atlantique.jpg, Image:Fletan-atlantique.jpg, Image:Turbot-de-sable.jpg, Image:Plie-grise-canada-est.jpg, Image:Fletan-du-groenland.jpg

Image:Sebaste-atlantique.jpg has text in the image. Some, such as Image:Plie-grise-canada-est.jpg assert only that the photo was taken by the uploader. William Avery 21:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete, no evidence that the uploader holds the copyright, and the uploader does not seem particularly trustworthy. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 13:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. 1972 Canadian or French publication cannot be out of copyright. Lupo 07:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:The_Pahlavis_stamp.jpg

Moved from English Wikipedia but without proof being in the public domain Jusjih 12:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Iranian monarchy didn’t exist anymore... --FSHL 16:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

If copyright was originally owned by the old monarchy, copyright would now be owned by the Iranian government I guess (successor in interest). Or if the portrait artist held copyright, then that would still be the case. How long does copyright last in Iran? Carl Lindberg 06:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• Template:PD-Iran says copyright on photographs and movies lasts 30 years from the date of publication or presentation; and copyright in other images lasts for the life of the creator plus 30 years. Madmax32 01:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Hm. The stamp is from 1975 or 1976 (50th anniversary), so the copyright on the original photograph has expired then. Only question is if the stamp itself is a new copyright or not... and what would "life of creator" be if the creator is the government. I say Keep since 30 years have passed. Carl Lindberg 00:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Kept. Lupo 09:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Thailand Coup 2006 announce.jpg

It is currently unclear if this image is copyrighted or not, as the original deletion request had an unclear consensus of keeping, plus with an undeletion request when Nard pointed out that one person doesn't overrule consensus. Hence this relisting, though I currently do not have an opinion on this. (→O - RLY?) 13:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep There appears to be no evidence that it is a copyright violation, only an assumption that TV = copyrighted. Does anyone dispute the nature of the broadcast and the validity/applicability of COPYRIGHT ACT B.E. 2537 (1994)? --Tony Wills 11:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep the coup announcement appears to fall under the copyright exception in Thai law. -N 01:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I raised this issue with the forum at Thai Department of Intelectual Property and finally got an answer [15]. The laws about copyright exemption only applies to word in the announcement. They say video and sound are still subject to copyright by the coup. -- Lerdsuwa 09:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete I disagree that any of the provisions in Chapter 1, Section 1, Article 7 of the Thai Copyright Act of B.E. 2537 (A.D. 1994) apply to this image. Further, our friend Lerdsuwa asked an IP forum about it, and they said, "No." (That said, I cannot read Thai, so I cannot verify his claim.) I think this iamge should be deleted. --Iamunknown 21:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Rest in peace. O₂ (息 • 吹) 07:59, 05 November 2007 (GMT)

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

[edit] Image:Evolutionary_theory_sex_Effects.svg

Last version is OK, all old versions can be deleted Sashag 23:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Info: So to be clear, you do not actually want the page nominated for deletion deleted! Just the earlier faulty revisions of the image. --Tony Wills 11:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The image appears to be a copyright violation of http://www.geodakian.com/en/31_Effects_summary_en.htm, which is copyrighted to S. Geodakyan. Website link can be seen on the first version of the image, cropped out in later versions. TimVickers 19:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

deleted, http://www.geodakian.com/en/31_Effects_summary_en.htm has "copyright 2005, all rights reserved" so it can't be GFDL. --Fred J 16:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Template:Coat of Arms

This template is used on many pictures as a possibility to evade copyright laws. (Examples: an Austrian COA; an Luxembourgish COA; Full list: [16]) I see no reason why the definition and the representation should be two different things. One covered by copyright law the other not. Copies of the representation of a COA are derivative works and therefore copyvios if the COA is not old enough. --ALE! ¿…? 08:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The definition and the representation just happen to be two different things, in heraldry, and that's that, but the reason is a bit technical if you are not familiar with heraldry. (You may want to increase your knowledge by looking at en:Heraldry). The "derivative work" notion simply dosen't apply in that case.

There are various reasons why the description usually can't be copyrighted: it is often a legal definition, most of the time a very old creation, there is little artistic creativity in it, and it is an abstraction, not a definite realisation.

The contested luxembourgish CoA is a good example: for recently created ones, the "blason" (description / composition) is a legal definition (therefore public domain, being a legal production), but the image used in the city's website (artistic representation of the definition) is a separate creation with a separate copyright. When a new CoA picture is made, it is a "derivative" of the (PD) description, not of the website's (copyrighted) image, hence the copyright regime is simply that of a self-made picture.

Some CoA are indeed copyrighted, but this is very rare, and this is a nonexistent situation for city CoA. The main problem with CoA is not to upload private (copyrighted) images "found on the net", but CoA drawn afresh are OK. Michelet-密是力 09:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the images I listed as examples is however, that they have no license tag and thus have to be deleted. This tag is used as replacement for a proper license. Maybe it has to be reworded to make the point more clear. --ALE! ¿…? 10:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... (1) This kind of discussion should be held on Template talk:Coat of Arms or Commons talk:Licensing, a deletion request of the template is at best premature. (2) Where are the examples, anyway? the link is missing ;o) (3) See the template page, that states explicitely "This is not a valid copyright tag as such, it must be completed with the copyright tag associated to the picture creation.". The template itself reads "Please provide licence information for the coat of arm representation". Isn't that point clear enough? (4) If you have problems with specific images, then the discussion has nothing to do with Template:Coat of Arms. What is your point, exactly? Michelet-密是力 10:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

(2=OK, I've found the link.) Probably all the files linked to {{coat gaertner}} are problematic, they apparently have been picked from some kind of CoA deposit here but the copyright status of the pictures is unclear. But this has nothing to do with CoA, this is a classical "no source" issue. Michelet-密是力 11:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Fahnen Gärtner is apparently a company selling flags and the like. I'm not quite certain why they have those coats of arms on their website, maybe for special orders. The quality of the images looks good and reading the original version of that template and Fahnen Gärtner's apparent release letter (talk page of the original template) these images are claimed to be copyright Fahnen Gärtner, I'm uncertain what kind of license they intended to grant... In any case this is a separate issue from keeping or deleting the coat of arms template which fullfills a useful role and is not intended as replacement for a valid license.--Caranorn 18:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep No valid reason to delete template --Tony Wills 11:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep Michelet's explanation was very clear in my opinion. Nothing to add. Bruno 12:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• Agree to Michelet-密是力 - Not sufficient reason for deletion. --FSHL 17:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete I simply don't see the point of this template, and i do know the diference beetween the non-copyrighted blasoning and the copyrighted interpretation of it. The main reason for why I don't see the point of this template is because it is way to general. "The composition of coats of arms are generally public domain" translates into this is usually the case but it might not be for this image so please ignore it. Also this templates sugests that it's impossible to make derivative works of CoAs which is incorrect.Lokal_Profil 18:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, let's put it the other way 'round, if you understand heraldics: have you ever seen a copyrighted CoA definition? I know one or two examples, made for private personal use, and non having the slightest chance of being found on commons. Maybe I was too honest and detailed in my warning formulation, after all, the big picture is: you have no chance of ever finding a copyrighted blasoning in this encyclopedia. Michelet-密是力 20:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The end result is a template which tries to combine {{insignia}}, {{no source}} and some general explanation on why some CoAs are free. I'd say it's better to put this info on a page such as Commons:Coat of Arms and then make sure that all CoAs have a source and license.Lokal_Profil 18:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. The approach you suggest has been used on {{PD-Coa}} -Have a look and you'll see that (1) it has a warning "Please note: This is not a copyright tag. A valid license is needed in addition to this tag" (2) It has thoroughly been used as a copyright tag nevertheless, simply because of the "PD" formulation that had been included. It has been a historical error to formulate it that way, and the result is the present mess about CoA copyrights. This is why a change to {{Coat of Arms}} is needed: the template itself states that a separate copyright tag is needed, and the change of template (and the corresponding changes of categories) allows us to check whether this copyright information has been validated or not, in order to clean up the present mess. Michelet-密是力 20:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The suggestion for a dedicated Commons:Coat of Arms to explain the CoA subtelties is a good one, though, I'll do that. OK. Michelet-密是力 08:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Also why replace {{coat gaertner}} with this template instead of just the {{no source}}/{{ no license}} template? /Lokal_Profil 18:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

This is historical: the deletion discussion has been made on an erroneous approach of the {{PD-Coa}} meaning, and to be coherent with the discussion, the conclusion had to be "keep" (the template) though the files themeselves were lacking the requested copyright information. This is why I created the Coat of Arms template, in order to eventually solve that problem. The solution is simple, though, just add a {{copyvio}} template, indeed - my mistake. All these {{coat gaertner}} files will eventually have to be deleted anyway. But once again, this has nothing to do with the CoA warning itself. Michelet-密是力 20:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Coats of arms to be deleted form this template

Whatever the outcome of the copyright discussion, the template should not include the category:Coats of arms :coats of arms, once classified, should no longer appear in that upper category. Havang 11:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• Kept — Giggy 22:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Microformat logos

• Image:Microformat_Square.svg
• Image:Hcard-microformat-button.png
• Image:Hcard.png
• Image:Hcal-microformat-button.png
• Image:Geo-microformat-button.png

The copyright status of these logos is not clear. One of these images was tagged on the English Wikipedia as a fair use logo, following a deletion discussion. The source pages for the button mention various licenses, but they are all derivative works of the logo. The logo seems to have been designed by Dan Cederholm [17][18] who reserves all rights according to the bottom of his page. The microformats community offers the logo on their page http://microformats.org/wiki/logo#Logo with the CC-BY-NC-SA-2.5 license, where it was vectorised from the original by Rémi Prévost [19] after a confused query for the logo's copyright status and a single use permission which nobody appears to have answered. That would make it an unauthorised derivative work with an incompatible license. Can anyone offer more insight? --Para 16:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Original logo is copyrighted and not properly licensed; delete derivative works. grendel|khan 21:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Logo was clearly created by Dan Cederholm. There no statements on his site (http://www.simplebits.com) that specify a license for the logo. There is no evidence that copyright was transferred to a "microformats organisation" since no such formal organisation exists. Rémi Prévost's vectorisation is probably also a copyright violation, unless copyright was transferred or licensed to him. Dan Cederholm does not appear to have licensed the logo to anyone, nor clearly released it to public domain, hence the only option would be fair-use, which would preclude it being used in most of the places it is currently being used on wikipedia. --Ozhiker 22:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I contacted Dan Cederholm about this as follows:

Hello,
There is a discussion currently happening on Wikimedia Commons about the use of the microformats logo.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Microformat_logos#Microformat_logos
If you could provide some information about licensing of the logo on your website, or point us to where to this information, it would be greatly appreciated.
Regards,
Evan

----

Hi Evan,
Thanks for the note.
It's a good question. I have a query into a few of the other microformats folks. And I'll post something definitive asap.

Cheers,
Dan

--Ozhiker 22:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

All nuked; CC-BY-NC-SA is not compatible with Commons. 哦， 是吗？(User:O) 21:41, 12 December 2007 (GMT)

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

[edit] Smartphone

empty --MB-one 13:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Deleted by ALE!: ''content was: '{{delete|empty}}'''

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

[edit] Image:Pont Saint-Nicolas 04.jpg

The artist seems to be still alive, so it can't be PD-old. --91.65.124.74 11:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 10:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:HK416.jpg

Image is from firearms manufacturer Heckler & Koch which is not related in anyway to the U.S. Government. Rettetast 11:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Not sufficient reason for deletion. U.S. Government also used this armament – therefore the given license is valid... --FSHL 13:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Without any source proving that this image was indeed taken by an employee of the US government, we can't assume that this is PD. --91.65.124.74 16:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - It is very obvious that this was not taken by a soldier, the weapon has only been in very limited U.S. service recently. This image was uploaded to WikiCommons before U.S. Delta Force adopted the weapon. It is also clear that this was taken in a studio, and this image was originally on the official Heckler & Koch website. (The quality of this image has been lowered, however.) There is also no source, and I doubt there will be one. 211.28.163.149 01:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. Lupo 11:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Insigniamundialscout.JPG

copyright Scouting logo, this is not PD --Rlevse 00:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

It was my matter... erase it please, the license is incorrect. --Netito777 19:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 12:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Texturemap_ar.jpg

None enough information, maybe this program is copyrighting OsamaK 14:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I generated this image in a legal copy of 3dsMax8. What other information do you say is missing? وسام البهنسي 15:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Not sufficient reason for deletion. No copyright infringement... --FSHL 17:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC) وسام البهنسي shall first ask for permission... --FSHL 19:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - I don't think there are any copyright problems regarding the 3dsMax8 software, but the Wikipedia logo is not free. William Avery 18:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - But the logo is also used in this wikipedia article

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texture_%28image_de_synth%C3%A8se%29 and no one said that the picture is illegal. Anyways, if the usage of the Wikipedia logo is illegal, I can replace that with another legal picture and update the image. No need to delete it. What do you think? وسام البهنسي 11:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep if the foundation doesn't want us to use these pictures, they'll let us know. In the meantime they've been mum about it. -N 21:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Just to stay away from trouble, I've updated the image to not use the Wikipedia logo. The new image is a public domain one found also on Wikimedia Commons. I believe now everything is legal, so administrators can close this deletion request. I still of course find the original version more fancy, so if someone believes that it is ok to use it, then feel free to revert to the first version. Otherwise, this is just fine. وسام البهنسي 18:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Kept revised version, using PD image rather than Wikipedia logo. --Davepape 16:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Su-35 colour image.jpg

It does not appear to be in the public domain. --Physchim62 10:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC) To expand on that (I'm not used to doing deletion requests on Commons!), the source for the image is the website of the Federation of American Scientists here. The entry page of that site clearly states "All Rights Reserved" in the bottom left-hand corner, and there is no indication that the (many) aircraft images have been released into the public domain (see index page for aircraft images, which has no mention of sources or copyright). Physchim62 10:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete as per nomination. No evidence of PD status. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 11:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. Lupo 08:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Thiel_Gallery.jpg

Ferdinand Boberg died only in 1946. William Avery 19:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

This should be enough with Swedish copyright rules. May also be reeuploaded with {{PD-Sweden}}? user:boberger Boberger 19:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The painting is a work of fine art. Life of author plus 70 years applies. William Avery 20:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. Lupo 08:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Groucho dumont.jpg

Permision is fair use, so it's unsuitable for commons. Besides, Animal Crackers is not in the public domain yet --Alex:D 21:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete For the above mentioned reasons. Copyright owners are the Universal Studios. --Alex:D 22:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. According to en:Animal Crackers (film), Universal Pictures renewed the copyright in 1957. Lupo 08:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Zeus-crest.png

Official crest of Zeus Rock band from Slovenia -> {{logo}} ?? D-Kuru 23:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

This is official logo of our band. The trademark is owned by me personally (mzupanc). I consider myself a rookie and a beginner on wikimedia so I beg your pardon if I did not set license the way I should. That's because I don't know how. There are so many license types that I'm a little bit lost. All images that I uploaded are my personal work and I just want to share them with the rest of the world. Which type to pick? Beats me. Please help... User:mzupanc 0:14, 28 August 2007 (CET)

If you need any help with licences and so on you can ask on Commons:Help desk and Commons:Village pump

The problem is that it is a logo and that there is no fair use clause on commons.

--D-Kuru 02:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• Kept. Licensed with GFDL by the author. Samulili 08:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Resica Falls 1971 camp patch.png

BSA holds copyright to all its images, this is not PD, it's a logo --Rlevse 11:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC) BSA holds copyright to all its images, this is not PD, it's a logoRlevse 00:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• An email was forwarded from the council to permissions@wikimedia.org. I don't know why the ticket was never posted. Would someone please check the OTRS. Evrik 01:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep. OTRS. --MichaelMaggs 18:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Badges03.jpg

BSA holds copyright to all its images, this is not PD, it's a logo --Rlevse 00:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the information but it is part of my collection of scout badges when I was a Scoutmaster, should every single badge be deleted? There are a lot of them I and others uploaded. Perhaps I can put the copyright information on the image pages of all my uploads. Keep is my vote. WayneRay 22:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)WayneRay

It's not a question of whose collection it is in, it's a question of who owns the copyright and as I understand it all BSA patches are copyrighted by BSA. It doesn't matter that you took the picture. Copyrighted material is not allowed on WikiCommons at all. Rlevse 00:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok but what of the other dozen or so BS badge photos, shall they all be deleted? WayneRay 05:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)WayneRay

The ones that are BSA on the Merit badge page I tagged, except for one I wasn't sure of. We're trying to find out the copyright status of one from other countries. Which badges are you referring to? Now in the case of you take a pic of some scouts on campout, then that is yours and you can make it PD/GFDL. The difference is that the patches are logos.Rlevse 11:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Deleted by MichaelMaggs: per Deletion requests/Image:Badges03.jpg

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

[edit] Image:Edvard Benes with his wife in 1934.jpg

“This applies to the United States, Canada, the European Union and those countries with a copyright term of life of the author plus 70 years.” --Polarlys 14:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete He died in September 3, 1948. Therfore, in 2018, it will be eligable for PD. --Digon3 ^talk 18:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment: The death of the photographed person doesn’t matter. --Polarlys 18:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I don't know what to decide when there is no author given (just the creating organization) Madmax32 03:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I scanned it personally from newspaper Mladá Fronta Dnes issued on 8 Nov, 2004, where is stated that picture was made by Czechoslovak Press Agency (ČTK). The copyright has expired after 70 years and that is why it was published in the late 2004. When the image was made for the state press agency then the 70 years passed in 2004. On request I can e-mail you the scan of whole newspaper page with copyright specifications. As for the time of creation please take a look for example at the shoes of Beneš on the picture - such specific design was typical for era from 1925-1935, in late 30's it was no longer in the fashion. Also his wife's dress is typical for late 20's and early 30's. His shoes and her dress were no longer worn in late 30's or early 40's. And also Czechoslovak Press Agency no longer exists. Now only Czech Press Agency exists. Former Czechoslovak Press Agency was state owned or national organisation and such organisations do encourage the use of their products in non-profit educational or encyclopedic organisations such as Wikipedia, as it helps to fullfill their mission in publicizing the history and presidents of state or nation that established them and owns them. And Edvard Beneš was the president of state of Czechoslovakia that established and owned the Czechoslovak Press Agency. Beneš was also scholar and teacher who supported encyclopedic works and would agree that his images made by state agency would be publicized in non-profit free worldwide encyclopedias such as Wikipedia. Therefore please reconsider the necessity of deletion of the image and also please take into consideration possible remedial measures other than deletion. Thank you. --Bluewind 08:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

•  Comment - Compromise proposal : - Just in case that user Polarlys and other respected administrators and editors would not be satisfied by the facts, proofs and evidences that I presented above then I am ready to accept that the current image resolution would be reasonably reduced and as such would be further kept here under same name but with statement that "This work is copyrighted and unlicensed. It does not fall into one of the blanket fair use categories listed at Wikipedia (Fair use Images). However, it is believed that the use of this work in the article "Edvard Beneš" to illustrate the subject in question on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement.". Then I politely request experienced user Polarlys to define sufficient reduced resolution of image (in pixels) and advise me what is the most suitable copyright template and I will fully respect that and as fast as possible I will execute smooth conversion of existing image. Thank You for your kind help and advice. --Bluewind 10:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Commons does not accept fair use. Do not ask. -N 22:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Czech copyright law[20] does not specify copyright ownership by someone working for a legal entity. The "author" is always the natural person taking the picture. It also states that for a work to be anonymous (and thus expire 70 years after publication, rather than after the author's death, "the identity of the author whose work has in accordance with the expression of his will been made public without the indication of his name (anonymous work) or under a code name or under an artistic signature (pseudonymous work)" The uploader claims that there is no photographer credited on the original publication (which is MANDATORY under Czech law, otherwise it is treated as an anonymous work). Perhaps we should ask the uploader to verify the original captioning and any previous publication of the image. -N 22:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

•  Comment - I do confirm that the newspaper Mladá Fronta Dnes (MfD) I copied it from states in small print that the copyright of the image is owned by Czechoslovak Press Agency (ČTK) - in this form "(© ČTK)" and no author is credited. Successor of Czechoslovak Press Agency is Czech Press Agency - both have the same abbreviation - ČTK. Generally in many similar cases of historic images that ČTK has at its website "photobank" there is not credited any author and only year of captioning is presented. And that is exactly the case of this disputed image of "Edvard Beneš with his wife in 1934" (there was even mistake in the year of captioning ...actually it is 1933 and not 1934 as I got previusly from newspaper - please see the same identical image at official Photobank of Czech Press Agency [21]. So therefore it is proven beyond reasonable doubt by mentioned photobank details that disputed image was captioned in 1933 by unknown author who was probably employee of former and now defunct Czechoslovak Press Agency, whose successor Czech Press Agency inherited its photobank. Then it can be reasonably presumed that such fine picture was published for the first time at least from 1933 until August 1937 - so its copyright is already expired after 70 years and thus there are no reasons for deletion. I will only correct the year of caption (actually 1933 and not 1934). --Bluewind 07:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Hm. And what does their "rights&restrictions" page say? Don't they claim copyright and say that users of the image bank may not republish any images from the database without prior written consent by ČTK...? Lupo 14:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
    •  Comment But the picture I uploaded is not exactly from that photobank, it is scanned from newspaper as I mentioned above. You can clearly see that the picture in photobank is stamped with the logo of ČTK. Rules/retrictions presented by ČTK are very general and are attached to all - both very new and old images, and they are not very detailed and they don´t cope with specific situation when image was made by unknown employee of ČTK more than 70 years ago in 1933. - Their rules/restrictions can't change the fact that ČTK already lost its copyright when the 70 years passed since the first publication. Whatever may they claim in their general rules/restrictions - it can not evade "the 70 years expiration rule". Therefore there is no longer reason for deletion. --Bluewind 16:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Yann 21:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC) This is no voting. You should know that. --Polarlys 21:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Anonymous work older than 70 years. --Dezidor 02:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment ČTK has many fake copyrights information. For example they declare that they have rights to this picture but it is false. --Dezidor 02:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Kept - anonymous work with expired copyright. A.J. 09:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Template:PD-Coa

• This "two in one" licence tag favors a confusion between the CoA drawing (which may or may not be PD) and the CoA composition (which is generally PD indeed, and justifies a legal restriction). The template should be superseded by the {{Coat of Arms}} tag together with the licence tag appliable to the drawing instead.
• This template has already been proposed to deletion, for other reasons (see Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-Coa/Archive).

Please do not hasten to delete the tag, anyway, since the licence status of the corresponding images must be examined on a case-by-case basis anyway (~400 to go). Once this is done, a redirection on {{Coat of Arms}} will probably be needed, waiting for all the commons:copyright tags pages to be corrected... Michelet-密是力 13:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• The main problem is that this template mixes up the legal usage limitations on a CoA and the copyright issues. I don't see {{Coat of Arms}} as being a permanent solution either. Instead all the images should have a proper license, a proper source and a {{insignia}} tag (or a similar tag at national level). The previously deletion discussion stoped on the fact that there are to many images using this tag already. For this reason I'd recomment to dissallow new uploads using this license, that way we at least limit the damage. /Lokal_Profil 18:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The {{PD-Coa}} should clearly be disallowed, this is why I made this warning about its being redirected to {{Coat of Arms}}+licence tag. The main difference between the two templates is that {{PD-Coa}} has been (erroneously) used as a stand-alone licence tag, whereas {{Coat of Arms}} explicitely requires a complementary licence tag. Given that there has been a long standing misconception about what is PD in CoA, the mess will eventually have to be fixed, so let's get to it. Michelet-密是力 19:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Please don't retag with {{Coat of Arms}} until it has been agreed that this should be done. /Lokal_Profil 19:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, you missed the point: the {{Coat of Arms}} is used right now to check which files of {{PD-Coa}} have been examined, to see if a licence tag was needed for the graphical representation (and "copyvio" and "no sources" are flagged accordingly). Basically, they are ment to be used on the same population (ie, CoA), but one means the picture has been through the review process and the other not. The "too many images" is not that much, I've reviewed 25% of {{PD-Coa}} in a couple ouf hours... It's just a matter of having the work be done, that's all. Once the review process has been done, a template modification / substitution is just a matter of programming som bot for the job, that's all. Michelet-密是力 19:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

What a nonsense. There is no difference between CoA drawing and CoA composition cause they have to be the same otherwise they display two different insignia. This is the same as saying that a scanned book is my own copyright. Every 2-dimensional reproduction does not generate own copyright. Please read Commons:Licensing. Arnomane 00:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

That's not how it works. A CoA is defined by the blasoning (i.e. words) the words leave lots of scope for different interpreatations and realisations of the final image. All different (heraldicly correct) interpretations of the blasoning are also equally valid versions for the CoA. Do not confuse a CoA for a logo (which is defined by how it's realised). /Lokal_Profil 01:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Kept, but deprecated. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 21:12, 24 December 2007 (GMT)

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

[edit] Image:Lospajaros2006.jpg

Looks like a logo -- has the logo owner really given his permission? Fred J 22:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Decision. Fair use image, image deleted. Axxgreazz (talk) 01:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:-1989-06-04-NewsFlash-2007-07-10 18-22-59.jpg

FAIRUSE --Billytanghh 02:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete screenshot + copyright information on the source web site = copyvio Pimke 07:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as appears to have improper lic information since the image is from a screenshot and the uploader users newsflash as the source. This source specifically does not claim ownership of the videos, instead stating that "all videos are properties of their respective owner." FloNight 19:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Deleted by Shizhao: copyvio

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

[edit] Image:Line12.jpg

fairuse --Billytanghh 03:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Deleted by Shizhao: copyvio

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

[edit] Image:Taepodong.jpg

出典ならびにライセンスに疑問があるため。AuthorをNorth Koreaとしているが、Sourceは、North Koreaとの関係が不明なページである。さらにライセンスとして{{PD-USGov}}とあるものの、米国政府機関へのリンクが存在しない。219.97.100.201 04:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

This file is not PD-USGov. suspicion of fair use. 219.97.100.201 11:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I think so too.--KENPEI 05:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Deleted / --Fanghong 08:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:EMule_v0.47c_VeryCD_Build_070418.png

parts of Windows XP (copyrighted), wrong license (eMule is GPL) Kameraad Pjotr 11:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep but change license tag; the "parts of XP" (just the titlebar) is unimportant. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 11:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC) (comment recanted, see below)

Delete It is stated in several places on Commons that screenshots containing non-free elements can not be used. Pafcu 11:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete My contention was that the elements of XP are irrelevant for copyright purposes; however, the program in question is also embedding a non-free web page (verycd.com), which makes it problematic. Therefore, delete it. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 15:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete there is no Microsoft logos shown and it's not a copyright violation to show a simple GUI, however it does show copyrighted movie posters Madmax32 00:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Deleted / Including copyrighted movie posters,only one used.--Fanghong 09:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Noel1961.jpg

Found at [22] with the statements: "All site content © www.renaf.org" "This site is powered by phpWebSite © Appalachian State University. phpWebSite is licensed under the GNU LGPL and GNU GPL". Even though the site is powered by free-use licenses, I am afraid that the image is not freely licensed. Jusjih 16:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete no licence & copyvio Pimke 17:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Deleted /no licence & copyvio--Fanghong 09:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Perrea_vitoco,_perrea.jpg

Poor quality image. Unused in any Wikimedia project and unlikely to be used. Falls outside of Commons:Project Scope JeremyA 16:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Uploading editor likely doesn't fully understand the purpose of Commons (I'm not assuming bad faith, that's just the impression I get from their userpage). This is well outside scope. EVula // talk // 05:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete delete his userpage too, myspace type spam with links to youtube videos Madmax32 04:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete agree with Madmax32. -- Infrogmation 12:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Deleted by Polarlys: see [[Commons:Project scope]]

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

[edit] Image:Chateau_aladin.jpg

photo of a recent art work (building) Amine Brikci N 09:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The building ("Chateau Aladin") seems to be located in the town of Tlemcen in Algeria. According to Commons:Freedom of panorama Algerian law allows Freedom of Panorama, so that's no reason to delete it. But the image still lacks information about author, source and license - and that's a reason to delete it if the uploader doesn't provide that information. --91.65.124.74 12:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

didn't know that... thank you for the information, although it seems strange for me to allow the publishing of someone's house without asking its owner first... (And this house has nothing to do with Aladdin, it's just an excentric rich man's home !) --Amine Brikci N 14:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Deleted by Siebrand: In category [[:category:Unknown as of 4 August 2007|Unknown as of 4 August 2007]]; no source

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

[edit] Image:Superoxide.png

superseded by SVG version DoSiDo 15:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Not valid reason for deletion. --FSHL 14:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

kept --ALE! ¿…? 10:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:G unit group photo.jpg

Highly unlikely the uploader took the photo himself. This was previously uploaded as a nonfree image in Wikipedia. This was almost certainly taken from a website. --Spellcast 10:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 00:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• I am not so sure it is a copyvio. It looks like a self-taken image to me, and the uploader has taken the time to cut out separate people from this image. Under what name was it uploaded to Wikipedia? / Fred J 00:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

What about the low resolution, the lack of Metadata, all the redlinks in the uploader's upload log, and the different licensing for the crops Image:Lloyd banks.jpg, Image:Tony yayo.jpg, and Image:Young buck.jpg (all of which I'm adding to this request)?   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 02:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Yep, it's definitely a copyvio of http://www.g-unitgallery.com/details.php?image_id=2552&sessionid=uqml363rpmsvqln9cao6n8nri3 with virtually the same file size and dimensions. Spellcast 12:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree: exactly the same dimensions; look exactly the same; filesize is only off by 8%, perhaps due to differences in compression.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - I found this as a copyvio image and i saw it on the main pic of tony yayo's myspace. - w:User:Football97 —The preceding incompletely signed comment was added by 81.216.183.206 (talk • contribs) at 10:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Why hasn't this been deleted yet? Things seem a heck of a lot slower here in Commons. Spellcast 08:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Deleted by Zirland (Talk | contribs) 14:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC).   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 05:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:TinyRowlands.jpg

Derivative work from copyrighted bookcover. Matt314 15:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 12:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Qma yosen.JPG

the image is copyrighted by Konami. For reference, similar images [23] --Lusheeta 15:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete next time use {{screenshot}} Pimke 16:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 12:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Palataki.jpg

Replaced with image:Palataki2.jpg due to name clash with similarly named Palataki.jpg of English wikipedia. NSEpitropou 18:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete next time use {{duplicate|existing image.jpg}} template Pimke 17:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 12:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:St. Jakob Muenchen-2.jpg

derivative work, created 1956/57, interior, so no panoramafreiheit --h-stt !? 22:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 12:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Flyingcat3.jpg

I as the author would like to have it deleted --Affemitwaffe 09:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep once a valid licence is given there is no possibility to delete it Pimke 06:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Good image Madmax32 06:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

kept --ALE! ¿…? 07:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:OshoRajneesh.jpg

Has been found on http://www.geocities.com/osho1980/osho.jpg , but it is possible that they got it from us Fred J 23:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Not sufficient reason for deletion. --FSHL 14:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. First, the image is larger at http://www.geocities.com/osho1980/osho.jpg, and second, that site displayed the image already in 2004, two years before it was uploaded to the en-WP.[24] Additionally, it looks like a poor scan, so I don't think the external online source owns the copyright. Lupo 12:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:AQ00107.jpg

not really a work of the US federal government, but blocked property under US law Madmax32 01:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep w:Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is a prisoner at Guantanamo Bay. I'm fairly certain the US government has plenty of pictures of this individual, most of them probably not as flattering as this one. -N 21:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

this is actually his Kuwaiti state ID card or passport photograph, if it is PD it's clearly not a work of the US federal government. Madmax32 22:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't even qualify as blocked property then if what you say is true, as the photo on a government ID usually belongs to the government, and Kuwait is friendly with the US. -N 22:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

yes you're right about that, but still no work of the US federal government. Madmax32 00:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• I'm still looking for a copy of the Kuwaiti copyright law in English. -N 00:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I give up, all the sources on the net seem to want to charge for it. Probable copyvio however. -N 22:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Neither have I. Although it was notified to the WTO as a TRIPS Article 63.2 notification in document IP/N/1/KWT/C/1 on 2000-11-22 (and some revisions in document IP/N/1/KWT/C/1/Rev.1 on 2004-04-27), the documents available on-line at the TRIPS notifications page have the pages containing the text of the law removed. However, the original Arabic text is available at the U.S. Law Library of Congress as document GLIN ID 78542. Maybe User:Tarawneh could produce a translation? Or someone could ask the LOC. Or the IIPA, they reference the law several times in their Special 301 Report of 2003 on Kuwait. (And here's the 2007 report.) Lupo 14:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Deleted. No valid license provided. Samulili 08:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:StepMania_V_Heavy.jpg

The video game is under a free license, but its design has probably been ripped from Dance Dance Revolution Extreme, see link http://www.konami.jp/bemani/ddr/jp/am/extreme/images/m_nom04.gif . Might be copyvio Fred J 23:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC) Request also includes Image:StepMania-ingame.jpg and any other similar screenshots. / Fred J 23:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete for reasons above. Background art (in addition to interface design) has also been ripped from a nonfree game. - Chardish 02:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete If necessary, this can be replaced by the StepMania shot on the w:StepMania page.

Delete. Appears to be a copyvio. --MichaelMaggs 18:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:München - St. Jakob (Innenansicht).JPG

derivative work, created 1956/57, interior, so no panoramafreiheit --h-stt !? 22:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep the copyrighted artwork (cross) is not the main subject of the image (Beiwerk) --ALE! ¿…? 12:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not just about the cross - the whole architecture is protected and was created only after the war in reconstruction. Sorry, but I consider the pictur as such as a derivative work. --h-stt !? 05:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Deleted per h-stt. German FOP applies only to the exterior of a building. Lupo 09:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:TreapMaxHeap.png

duplicate upload mistake MegaHasher 00:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• use {{duplicate|existing image.jpg}} template Pimke 06:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deleted as dupe to Image:TreapAlphaKey.png.--Nilfanion 10:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Briana Banks 2.jpg

Probable copyvio - sorry, my bad, I forgot about Kamui, see Commons:Village pump/Archive/2007May#User:Kamui99_images for details.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 21:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. --Dodo 11:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:DisneySea_026.jpg

no source on nl: Kameraad Pjotr 15:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

deleted, no source. --Siebrand 18:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Category:Antwerpen Dam Train station

no subcat for each train station with only one picture --Arafi 09:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Not sufficient reason for deletion. --FSHL 14:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete bad name - train shlould be lowercase--Foroa 07:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Deleted by ALE!: empty category

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

[edit] Category:Antwerpen OostTrain station

no subcat for each train station with only one picture --Arafi 09:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Not sufficient reason for deletion. --FSHL 14:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete bad name - space missing between Oost and Train, train shlould be lowercase--Foroa 07:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Deleted by ALE!: empty category

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

[edit] Category:Binche train station

no subcat for each train station with only one picture --Arafi 09:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Not sufficient reason for deletion. --FSHL 14:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Not sufficient reason for deletion. --Foroa 07:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep- That's not part of the criteria for deletion. --Boricuaeddie 19:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Deleted by ALE!: empty category

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

[edit] Category:Zaventem Train station

no subcat for a train station with only one picture --Arafi 09:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Not sufficient reason for deletion. --FSHL 14:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete bad name - train shlould be lowercase--Foroa 07:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• That's a reason for moving not for deletion.--rimshot^talk 12:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and move to Category:Zaventem train station --rimshot^talk 12:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Deleted by ALE!: empty category

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

[edit] Category:Bornem Train station

no subcat for a train station with only 2 pictures --Arafi 09:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Not sufficient reason for deletion. --FSHL 14:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete bad name - train shlould be lowercase--Foroa 07:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Deleted by ALE!: empty category

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

[edit] Category:Aalst train station

no subcat for a train station with only 2 pictures --Arafi 09:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Not sufficient reason for deletion. --FSHL 14:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Not sufficient reason for deletion. --Foroa 07:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Deleted by ALE!: empty category

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

[edit] Category:Soignies train station

no subcat for a train station with only 2 pictures --Arafi 10:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Not sufficient reason for deletion. --FSHL 14:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Not sufficient reason for deletion. --Foroa 07:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Deleted by ALE!: empty category

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

[edit] Image:Carman-Christian-Vocalist.jpg

Derivative work --64.178.96.168 18:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• that is a bogus claim, and provided by an anonymous poster. It can't be seriously respected--Glen Allen 01:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• It's not a bogus claim - you did create that image, but it's a collage of copyrighted images, so you can't claim the copyright. Nor should my say be invalidated simply because I am anonymous. 64.178.96.168 17:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 12:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Metro-wykres2.svg

SVG file corrupted Adamon 19:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete the image doesn't open Pimke 09:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete Looks like someone messed up here (in the document source): 85.147.58.212 15:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

    sodipodi:absref="C:\Documents and Settings\Adam Malczak\Pulpit\metro-wykres2.JPG"

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 12:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Hesiodo.jpg

The sculpture is not a two-dimensional work. No proper source information (i.e. photographer, date) for photograph. William Avery 22:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 12:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

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

Deleted by Thuresson: Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Emelba 903.jpg

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

[edit] Image:Statue of Tripod.JPG

I don't think this statue, designed and built by Michael Condron in 1998, is in the public domain, so a photograph of it cannot be released into the public domain. --TomTheHand 17:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

According to COM:FOP#United Kingdom, it's legal in England to take photos of statues and publish it under a free license. --91.65.124.74 20:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

It is my understanding that there is no objection to publishing a photograph of a work of art. There is no breach of copyright. Gaius Cornelius 20:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Gotcha. I apologize, guys; I'm an American and I wasn't aware that UK law was different in this respect. TomTheHand 13:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Surely any statue in a public place, is by nature "in the public domain". keep the photo and soneone in the area get another one or two please!

Kept. Per FOP in UK. Does not apply in the U.S., though. Lupo 08:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Avrileneuropa.jpg

PD claimed but the photo appears to be taken from an unlikely angle for a fan photo. Also note that the uploader (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gabo_084) has a history of uploading copyvios over at the English Wikipedia. Jimmy Joe 22:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

•  Comment - With a telephoto would that be quite possible... --FSHL 23:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment An uncropped version of this photograph can be seen on this page. Perhaps it is Mr. Gabo's Website? -Indolences 02:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  •  Comment That blog uses images from all over the net. This image comes from http://img.verycd.com/ [25], which seems to be some chinese filesharing site. --91.65.124.74 08:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

•  Comment User Gabo 084 just emptied the page, with the summary I DELETED THIS PIC... IS A COPY OF A WEB PAGE NO IS MY I think he meant it is not his image. -- ReyBrujo 01:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. Lupo 08:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Klim gordel.jpg

Probable copyright violation. Seems to be a standard Petzl photograph of a Petzl Calidris Harness. Some Examples of other locations with an identical image are: [26], [27] and [28]. None of these seem to be copying from Wikimedia. The stated licence for this photo is somewhat suspicious since no source information is given. --Ozhiker 00:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. Lupo 08:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:GeoreOrwell.jpg

Not necessary in PD only because it is taken in 1933. Also, there is a statement in the "source". "Note All of these images are exclusive to this site. Reproduction without consent is strictly prohibited. ".
To admin: If you are going to delete this file, please delete the derivative work  :Image:1984.png. Chanueting 04:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 05:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• I have contacted the National Union of Journalists(here's why) to see if they can clarify who owns the copyright. -N 06:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply received:"Thank you for your email regarding the photo of George Orwell which I have been asked to reply to.

The card is an NUJ card, but I’m afraid, we do not know who owns the copyright in the actual photograph. George Orwell joined the NUJ in December 1943, and would have provided his own photograph for his membership card.

The actual picture is used on other websites and it is likely that a photograph dated 1943 or before is out of copyright but you should double check this with the George Orwell estate.

We have used the photograph of the NUJ card with the image in our new book and have marked it ‘NUJ collection’, with a note at the beginning of the book stating that photographs marked in this way are in the Union’s possession, but the copyright holders are not know, although every endeavour has been made to identify them. Any inadvertent errors or missing acknowledgements will, if brought to the attention of the publisher and the NUJ, be corrected in subsequent printings.

With best wishes,

Pamela Morton

Assistant Organiser - Freelance

National Union of Journalists"

Wasn't there an old rule for images before 1945 in the UK (but not widely used because of copyright restoration concerns). Would this image fall under any of them? -N 22:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

well for Image:Winston Churchill.jpg on commons it is PD because LOC says no copyright renewal for the 1941 image, but I'm pretty sure the photographers were British (J Russel & Son) Madmax32 08:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Mail from NUJ is good enough. Yann 21:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• The e-mail from the NUJ confirms that this is an orphan work: a work technically still copyrighted, but where the copyright owner is unknown and cannot be located through even through a diligent search. I trust the NUJ to have indeed tried to find out who owned the copyrights to this image. The big problem is that we have no established rules on such orphan works at all, and virtually all copyright laws I know of ignore this problem. Technically, the image is still copyrighted, though. (See this chart of UK copyright duration.) Lupo 12:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)