Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2007/10

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

[edit] Image:Det genmodificerede paradis madonna.jpg

Pictures of statues in Denmark cannot be used commercially under the protection of freedom of panorama. Fingalo 14:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC) --Fingalo 14:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Deleted by Majorly: not covered by law

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

[edit] Image:Det genmodificerede paradis adam.jpg

Pictures of statues in Denmark cannot be used commercially under the protection of freedom of panorama. Fingalo 14:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC) --Fingalo 14:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Deleted by Majorly: not covered by law

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

[edit] Image:Det genmodificerede paradis havfrue.jpg

Pictures of statues in Denmark cannot be used commercially under the protection of freedom of panorama. Fingalo 14:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC) --Fingalo 14:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Deleted by Anna: Danish copyright law does not allow commercial use of photos of public sculptures.

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

[edit] Image:Det genmodificerede paradis maria magdalena.jpg

Pictures of statues in Denmark cannot be used commercially under the protection of freedom of panorama. Fingalo 15:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC) --Fingalo 15:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Deleted by Anna: Danish copyright law does not allow commercial use of photos of public sculptures.

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

[edit] Image:Gemeente_Borger-Odoorn_verkiezingen.png

the same as Image:Gemeente Borger Odoorn verkiezingen.png Gouwenaar 18:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Deleted as duplicate. -- Cecil 22:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Images of ElC

Commons:Scope - Some of these pictures are really nice, but most of them are not usable for any of the wikimedia projects. This seems to be a private image collection. --Cecil 21:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC) Additional information: the few pictures which are already missing where speedily deleted because they were pur nonsense. Those were pictures where the animals were faster than the camera and they where either a flash or not even on the picture or hiding.Just for clarification (since right now it's part of the discussion below and probably be overlooked): I don't request ALL of these pictures to be deleted. I just want them to be sorted through so that only the useful ones stay. I can't see the usefullness in about 50 pictures of a chipmunk feeded with nuts from the perspective of the viewer, especially since these animals are not shown in their natural surrounding. -- Cecil 09:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• One of the image is used in the Chipmunk article. The rest are linked from it through the commons template. It has been my sincere hope that those who read that article could benefit from having access to these high-quality, unique images, and that this would further enhance their experience of and exposure to the English Wikipedia, and by extension, Wikimedia Commons. Thank you for your consideration. ElC 00:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• As for the speedy deletions, since if we're going to have a deletion debate, I'm not certain I see the point of having both. Also, as I explained to the nominator on his/her talk page, I'm not sure how judicious all his/her speedy deletions of the images I donated have been: for example, this image depicts a chipmunk closing its eyes while being petted. I think it is rather unique and wotrhwhile for our readers/viewers. Is it so implausible to conceive a Wikimedia project that may find use for this hitherto speedy-deleted image (or is even doing so now)? I donated these images in goodfaith, thinking they enrich the experience of those who come across Category:Tamias. ElC 00:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Server space is cheap and these are all free use...what more can we ask?--MONGO 05:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Just because something is free or cheap it doesn't mean it should be wasted. After all this is still a project for which we need donations. -- Cecil 08:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. What's wrong with readers of the Chipmunk article being able to view further unique chip images? For my part, I've never seen a chipmunk in Real Life—I live in a part of the world where they don't exist—and having access to this whole gallery certainly told me more about them than just reading the article by itself. (Same goes for the images of American squirrels included in the gallery—never seen a real one.) After all, Commons contains lots and lots of images of tigers (and very nice too)— why can't it have a good-sized collection of chipmunks, too? Bishonen 07:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC).

I should have made it more clear: I didn't mean that we should delete them all, but sort through them and look if and how and how many of the pictures of tame animals (not shown in their normal surrounding) are useful. But I can't see the good in things like these: I'm sure you like Image:Wait,_I_wanted_to_pet!.jpg, Image:Chimunk aka the flash.jpg, Image:Chimunk aka the flash2.jpg, Image:This is camera.jpg, Image:Welcome to hand5.jpg, Image:Two hidden squirrels.jpg, Image:Transformers, chipmunks in disguise!.jpg, Image:Oh wait, yes it is (it was pealed).jpg, Image:Hidden squirrel.jpg, Image:Nice jump!.jpg, Image:Nodding-chip.jpg, Image:Don't drop that peanut.jpg, Image:Diving into a sea of grass2.jpg, Image:Chipetting13.jpg, Image:Okay-bye-then.jpg, Image:Handfed-chip-flying.jpg, Image:Handfed-chipetted6 (flying, again!).jpg, Image:Circlingwater.jpg, Image:Searching for the peanut source.jpg, Image:Say hi to camera!.jpg, Image:Chipscape route.jpg, Image:Chipretreat!.jpg, Image:Chipetting gone amiss.jpg, Image:Nice-chipass!.jpg, Image:Leap-from-hand-of-chipfriendship.jpg or Image:Handfed-chipetted2.jpg. Just to name a few examples. -- Cecil 08:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, you should have. Why didn't you? You must have some newcomer-friendly policy/ies here (you still haven't responded to my query about that - why is that?) I'm just not sure why you're picking on me. This is the greatest tragedy in the history of petting chipmunks. I am of the opinion that the majority of my images would enrich the experience of many readers/viewers, even if the quality of some may not be as high as others. And why do you care if they're are not in their "normal surrounding"? (although they are, that's the forest; but why even mention that? what does that have to do with anything?) ElC 09:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't know if there are any policies, maybe some guidelines, but you are here since more than three month month, so you hardly count as newbie. The argument with the "normal surrounding" came because of the Chipmunk-article at en.WP: The temptation to pick up or pet any wild animal should be strictly avoided, however. and Are we looking to encourage hand feeding of wild animals? to just cite it. We have lots of pics of tigers, as mentioned up there, for each species some. The most pictures are there for Panthera tigris altaica (about 40). They show a lot of different situation, wildlife and zoo. They are different and don't show only the feeding and touching of a wilde animal, which was tamed. -- Cecil 09:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Look, do you not know how to indent? I keep having to fix that for you. Three months is not a lot of time. As for that do-not-pet guideline, that probably should not be in the article. We do not structure our articles as instruction manuals, and that assertion is open to debate. And these are wild/tame animals. But why are you projecting so much of your personal taste to this debate? Why have my pictures become some sort of cause célèbre for you, as they seem to have? ElC 09:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow, who is getting personally now. To cite the deletion request information: In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Obiously you took it personally. This deletion request is not a cause célèbre for me, I just try to answer your questions. But I can stay silent too, but then you will accuse me of ignoring you. -- Cecil 10:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Once again, I keep fixing your indentations; please just look at how I do it for future reference. I'm getting the impression that you are projecting your hostility toward the English Wikipedia (which you claim you care not to edit, yet quick to cite as both an authority here as well as assert which pictures should appear there - claiming the one currently in place is not good enough). It's just difficult to keep you grounded on-usefulness-topic, I find. ElC 10:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

What has the English WP to do with this discussion? And just to answer your off-topic-question: Yes, I know how to do indentations. I just don't do enumerations, so stop altering my discussion entries. -- Cecil 10:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• I don't know, you're the one who keeps raising it (how you'd never edit it and so on); and now you've mis-indented your comment, again, are you trying to provoke me? And I asked you on your talk page what the EOD abbreviation(?) stands for and you used administrative rollback?(!) What is going on here? ElC 10:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

•  Comment Hm, I think we should try to start this one over again. Right now the only file that's tagged for deletion (as far as I could tell) is ElC - the user page, and that's certainly not an issue here. I agree that some of these images might not be very useful (I'm thinking about images where the squirrel is so blurry due to movement that you can't really see what it is), but there are also a lot of good images. I would like to ask the uploader to look through these images again and concider if some of them could/should be removed. It's not a question about server-capacity, but information overload - it's harder to find the good images when we have to browse through so many images of various quality to find them. Finn Rindahl 09:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to do mark them an other way. I tagged the page and not the pictures, because it was impossible for me to decide which one are the most unnecessary. So it was either tagging all the pictures or the page, so that people can get an overview. -- Cecil 09:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not finding this an inviting place. I have already gone through the selection process upon uploading the images (what you call blurry was something I found artistic merit in, or I wouldn't have uploaded them). I'm not sure why the metagallery bothers you so much? It's not harming anyone. Other commons editors have already worked on categorizing the pics themsleves. But now that I've criticized Cecil who has shown zero regret (not to mention remorse), it seems clear that he will never let it go and will make it a point to see em gone. ElC 09:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but why should I feel regret or remorse for a deletion request? -- Cecil 10:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Because you didn't make it clear, initially, that you are not nominating all the images for deletion; and your now-retracted speedy-deletions were a bit redundant, since we're having this debate, anyway. But now that I evidently gotten you are angry about this, I significantly reduced my chances of seeing the images retained, so I lose. ElC 10:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I've retracted the speedy deletion so that other users can see what exactly you see as useful contributions to Commons (not en.WP). And I'm not angry, I just try to answer your questions. I'm not moody enough to from one minute to the next feel remorse, than anger, and then whatever the next step should be. And could we please stay at the topic: the usefullness of your pictures. -- Cecil 10:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• You're not angry yet you use administrative rollback to revert a question I pose... ElC 10:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• I keep fixing Cecil's misformatted indentations, so that the comments flow better visually, and he reverts it with the edit summary (until now, he reverted it once without an edit summary): stop altering my contributions, it's unpolite and could be considered as vandalism, and I've decided to not answer off-topic questions here anymore. So, upon asking Cecil why he used administrative rollback to revert my question (what EOD stands for, which I still don't know); why he keeps mentioning the English Wikipedia and how it's of such low quality compared to the German one, that he'd never be caught editing it; how it's human to feel regret when one upsets another person, and that it may not necessarily be a vice, or "moodiness" to feel this; suddenly, unemotionally and dispassionately of course, opts to not answer my questions. And end with an insinuation that I am committing vandalism upon fixing his format errors (and that's the 1st time he objects, insinuating vandalism with his very 1st objection). First experience with a commons admin. And it's ... not good. ElC 11:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Since you can't stop to attack me, on last time an answer: I have not accused you of vandalism, I just informed you that it could be considered as vandalism if you edit the contributions of others. I have several hundred contributions at en.WP. And EOD comes from en.WP, you can find it there on most discussion pages (End of discussion). And since you didn't respect my request there I made a revert. -- Cecil 11:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I have not attacked you, once; I take exception to that accusation. You continue to be unresponsive and hostile. ElC 11:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

And I did not edit your contributions, I just made your indented response to my bulletpoint an indented bulletpoint, so that the indentation is not so minor that the two comments can be, visually, mistaken to be one at a glance. What is going on here? Is this normal for commons discussions? ElC 11:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. I'm not in favour of using Wikipedia server space to make a home page for some teenager who wants to store all their images there, and promote themselves without making any useful edits. But that's not the case here. This is a productive and respected administrator, who has contributed a lot to en:wiki. Some of the images seem very useful; others are less so. But frankly, we can afford to allow a tiny bit of server space to be wasted (if it is being wasted, though I'm not committing myself on that) because the good done by the uploader more than compensates. The importance of keeping a good-humoured, pleasant, collaborative working environment means that when very productive editors occasionally use a bit of Wikimedia's server space for something that does not seem to be directly serving the project, we can assume that it's indirectly helping. ElinorD 11:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep pr nomination, but I still believe a stricter sorting of these images would make this contribution even more valuable to our project(s). That discussion does not belong here, at least not until another attempt of dialogue with the uploader has been attempted. I also stronly urge that the ongoing discussion about how these images were nominated etc etc is not brought any further here, it's not to the topic of keeep/delete as it is now. Finn Rindahl 11:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment I should like to echo Finn Rindahl's request, "I would like to ask the uploader to look through these images again and concider if some of them could/should be removed. It's not a question about server-capacity, but information overload - it's harder to find the good images when we have to browse through so many images of various quality to find them." It seems to have been partially lost in the discussion above. EIC says that s/he used a selection process for the images; however, I'm not sure it was informed by Commons:Scope. I agree with both Cecil and Finn Rindahl that "[s]ome of these pictures are really nice" and "there are also a lot of good images". I'd invite EIC to consider if en:Flikr, for example, might be a more suitable repository for images that do not seem to fall within the scope of Commons. Commons:Featured pictures provides an indication of how some Commons editors evaluate images. I agree with Cecil that most of the images are not usable for any of the wikimedia projects. However, I think Image:Groundhogpeanut2.jpg, for example, is potentially usable and I thank EIC for his/her efforts. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 12:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Since the discussion gets to much of topic this way I will try to make the deletion request for the worst pictures somehow else. -- Cecil 11:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Tibetan chakra.jpg

Same deal and same situation as with Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Wheel life 01.jpg: Author of the work photographed and photographer are obviously not identical and there is no indication that the original artist (painter of the picture that was photographed by Roelli) has given Roelli the permission to publish derivations of his work under GNU-FDL. --Melanom 05:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The picture shows one of the murals, which are painted on the wall of the Khang Tshan Temple in the Sera Monastery and dates back to 15/16th century. Thus it's probably a little bit difficult to get permission from the artists since they are dead for about 500 years. Maybe a seance could help, but until then Keep. -- Cecil 13:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• this is stupid. The author did release the image, I uploaded it as he stood next to me saying "do it". He just couldn't be bothered to create an account and do it himself. I mean, if I uploaded it claiming it was my own photograph, how would you have verified that? And how is the claim that the author personally gave me permission any different in terms of verifiability? This is just a holiday snapshot, and there is no way to prove who pressed the button now. Dbachmann 16:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

kept, --Fred J 07:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Fil_min.ogg

The background music is uncredited and probably copyrighted.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 21:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The background music is credited by Low (Fair-use) and Russian Low --Pogrebnoj-Alexandroff 12:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete You seem to misunderstand the basis of this site (Commons) whose goal is to provide only free (as a speech) content. Fair use is explicitely not permitted. Fair use may be allowed on ru: (check it first) and you may deposit fair use content on that WP but not here. (This said, using a copyrighted music as the background of your speech is a derived work and I'm pretty sure this doesn't fall under fair use, but this doesn't matter here.) — Xavier, 14:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• You the judge, the lawyer or well know the international laws?))))) You seem to misunderstand the basis of this site! )) Still recently someone argued with me about the russian state badges. So, what? Where their arrogance now? --Pogrebnoj-Alexandroff 21:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • See Commons:Deletion requests/Uploads of Pogrebnoj-Alexandroff.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

07:35, 18 October 2007 Lupo (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:Fil min.ogg" ‎ (fair use: not allowed; see COM:L)

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

[edit] Image:SouthSlavs.jpg

Map purporting to be an historical ethnographic map of the Slavs in the medieval Balkans. Lacks source information (not in the sense of copyright, but in the sense of verifiability of academic content), hence a danger of OR and possibly POV-pushing. Also, even if the map is self-made, it was evidently made on the basis of a pre-existing template showing the geographical details, and as such is quite likely a copyvio. A request for clarification on the uploader's talk page ([1]) was ignored. --Future Perfect at Sunrise 22:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello everybody, I am consenting to statements expressed here. Without any reference on source (whatever quality this source may be of) this map is useless except for unsourced fueling the dispute about distribution of populations in the balkans at whatsoever point of time. Conclusion: Delete. Greetings Christaras A 18:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Kbh Christian IX 1.jpg

Author was Anne Marie Nielsen ((1863 - 1945) Pictures of statues in Denmark cannot be used commercially under the protection of freedom of panorama. Fingalo 14:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC) --Fingalo 14:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:The onlookers.jpg

Pictures of statues in Denmark cannot be used commercially under the protection of freedom of panorama. --Fingalo 15:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:DeFireVinde01.jpg

Per freedom of panorama rules for Denmark - The article 24 of the Danish copyright law permits panorama freedom for buildings. This, however, does not extend to the works of art that are located in public places. They cannot be commercially published when they constitute the central element of the picture. Fingalo 16:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC) --Fingalo 16:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. -- Infrogmation 17:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:DeFireVinde02.jpg

Per freedom of panorama rules for Denmark - The article 24 of the Danish copyright law permits panorama freedom for buildings. This, however, does not extend to the works of art that are located in public places. They cannot be commercially published when they constitute the central element of the picture. Fingalo 16:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC) --Fingalo 16:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. -- Infrogmation 17:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Egtved - Eventyrtræet1.jpg

Per freedom of panorama rules for Denmark - The article 24 of the Danish copyright law permits panorama freedom for buildings. This, however, does not extend to the works of art that are located in public places. They cannot be commercially published when they constitute the central element of the picture. “Skulpturen er lavet i elmetræ og skabt af en russisk billedskærerkunstner i 1997.” Fingalo 16:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC) --Fingalo 16:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Deleted, per Fingalo's argumentation (no freedom of panorama for sculptures in Denmark). Patrícia ^msg 23:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Egtved - Eventyrtræet2.jpg

Per freedom of panorama rules for Denmark - The article 24 of the Danish copyright law permits panorama freedom for buildings. This, however, does not extend to the works of art that are located in public places. They cannot be commercially published when they constitute the central element of the picture. “Skulpturen er lavet i elmetræ og skabt af en russisk billedskærerkunstner i 1997.” Fingalo 16:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC) --Fingalo 16:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. -- Infrogmation 17:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Esbjerg - Mennesket Ved Havet.jpg

Per freedom of panorama rules for Denmark - The article 24 of the Danish copyright law permits panorama freedom for buildings. This, however, does not extend to the works of art that are located in public places. They cannot be commercially published when they constitute the central element of the picture. Skulptur by Svend Wiig Hansen 1995. Fingalo 16:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC) --Fingalo 16:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Deleted, per Fingalo's argumentation (no freedom of panorama for sculptures in Denmark). Patrícia ^msg 00:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Fuglen-Jonathan.jpg

Per freedom of panorama rules for Denmark - The article 24 of the Danish copyright law permits panorama freedom for buildings. This, however, does not extend to the works of art that are located in public places. They cannot be commercially published when they constitute the central element of the picture. Fuglen Jonathan" by Palle Mørk 1999. Fingalo 16:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC) --Fingalo 16:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Deleted -- Infrogmation 17:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Heraklesoghydraen.jpg

Per freedom of panorama rules for Denmark - The article 24 of the Danish copyright law permits panorama freedom for buildings. This, however, does not extend to the works of art that are located in public places. They cannot be commercially published when they constitute the central element of the picture. Rudolph Tegner (1873-1950) Fingalo 16:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC) --Fingalo 16:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. -- Infrogmation 17:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Pillar of Shame - Mexico.jpg

Per freedom of panorama rules for Denmark - The article 24 of the Danish copyright law permits panorama freedom for buildings. This, however, does not extend to the works of art that are located in public places. They cannot be commercially published when they constitute the central element of the picture. Article 85.-(1) The provisions of this Act concerning copyright shall apply to works of persons who are nationals of or who have their habitual residence in a country Fingalo

Keep The sculpture is by a Danish artist, but the sculpture is in Mexico, not Denmark. If there is a problem under Mexican law with this photograph, please site it, otherwise no valid reason for deletion has been made for this. -- Infrogmation 16:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Kept, this falls under COM:FOP#Mexico, so freedom of panorama applies to this image. Patrícia ^msg 00:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Løgumkloster præst og gøglere1.jpg

Consolidated Act on Copyright 2006: Art. 63. The copyright in a work shall last for 70 years after the year of the author’s death. She is living. Fingalo 19:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC) --Fingalo 19:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Deleted -- Infrogmation 17:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Løgumkloster munk.jpg

Consolidated Act on Copyright 2006: Art. 63. The copyright in a work shall last for 70 years after the year of the author’s death. She is living. --Fingalo 19:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Deleted, per Fingalo's argumentation (no freedom of panorama for sculptures in Denmark). Patrícia ^msg 00:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Løgumkloster præst og gøglere.jpg

Consolidated Act on Copyright 2006: Art. 63. The copyright in a work shall last for 70 years after the year of the author’s death. She is living. --Fingalo 19:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Deleted, per Fingalo's argumentation (no freedom of panorama for sculptures in Denmark). Patrícia ^msg 00:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Skulpturen Ploven af Bent Hagedorn-Olsen.jpg

Consolidated Act on Copyright 2006: Art. 63. The copyright in a work shall last for 70 years after the year of the author’s death. Bent Hagedorn-Olsen is living. --Fingalo 19:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Deleted, per Fingalo's argumentation (no freedom of panorama for sculptures in Denmark). Patrícia ^msg 00:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Ulsted vandkunst.jpg

Consolidated Act on Copyright 2006: Art. 63. The copyright in a work shall last for 70 years after the year of the author’s death. Erik Heide is living. --Fingalo 19:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Deleted, per Fingalo's argumentation (no freedom of panorama for sculptures in Denmark). Patrícia ^msg 00:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Ravnsbjerg-Ravnen.jpg

Consolidated Act on Copyright 2006: Art. 63. The copyright in a work shall last for 70 years after the year of the author’s death. Erik Heide is living. --Fingalo 19:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Deleted, per Fingalo's argumentation (no freedom of panorama for sculptures in Denmark). Patrícia ^msg 00:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:PillarofShame1.jpg

Per freedom of panorama rules for Denmark - The article 24 of the Danish copyright law permits panorama freedom for buildings. This, however, does not extend to the works of art that are located in public places. They cannot be commercially published when they constitute the central element of the picture. Article 85.-(1) The provisions of this Act concerning copyright shall apply to works of persons who are nationals of or who have their habitual residence in a country within the European Economic Area; (Jens Galschiøt * 1954) Fingalo 18:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC) --Fingalo 18:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

 Comment Is this in Denmark, or in Mexico like the image above? Unclear. -- Infrogmation 17:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Kept for now, but tagged {{nsd}}. Once we know where this comes from and where it was taken, we can re-evaluate this. Lupo 08:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Herningkirke6-krucifiks.JPG

Consolidated Act on Copyright 2006: Art. 63. The copyright in a work shall last for 70 years after the year of the author’s death. Erik Heide is living. --Fingalo 19:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

 Comment Could you please provide some evidence that Erik Heide is the author of this object? Patrícia ^msg 00:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. [2] mentions that the Church of Herning was offered a crucifix by Erik Heide for its centennial, made in oak and with gold leaf. Lupo 08:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Somaliland_map.png

Collision, uploading to new location Ingoman 03:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

deleted, please use {{bad name|bettername.png}} next time --ALE! ¿…? 13:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Puntland_map.png

image collision Ingoman 03:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 13:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:DomingoJay1.jpg

This photo is given with written permission to be published for promotional purposes only. GeorgHH 07:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I never post photos of any celebrities in my life nor do I bother to ask permission for it except for Domingo because I believe he deserves to have good photos in all Wiki Family. I wrote there as promotional because I thought that is how it should be written based on what I saw many people doing it in Wiki. The photos are given with unconditional permission straight from the PR in Placido Domingo office that hold all the events, publicities, his official website etc. The PR never state any terms and condition at all (except noted that the credit to the photographer for this photo must be displayed). When I requested for permission, I sent e-mail through the e-mail BOX in Placido Domingo official website, not from some agents or recording companies because I believe the consent should come from the company of the singer itself. I was expecting people here to advice me on what to write in the remarks or at least discuss with me if I have done or write anything wrong. I never expect the admin could easily come up to the conclusion for the photos to be deleted as soon as I uploaded it. The PR as a matter of fact, didn’t give me photos that I asked because according to her, all the photos that I asked have copyrights. She then, sending me photos approved by her company for various purposes including promotional etc to be published. So, it is still wrong to publish in here? I would love to hear your reply - Whjayg 09:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The remarks have been changed to unconditional permission. - Whjayg 10:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Deleted: 05:12, 5. Okt. 2007 Davepape (Diskussion | Beiträge | sperren) hat „Image:DomingoJay1.jpg“ gelöscht ‎ (uploader request; uncertain license status). --GeorgHH 18:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Domingo_OtelloJay2.jpg

This photo is given with written permission to be published for promotional purposes only. GeorgHH 07:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I never post photos of any celebrities in my life nor do I bother to ask permission for it except for Domingo because I believe he deserves to have good photos in all Wiki Family. I wrote there as promotional because I thought that is how it should be written based on what I saw many people doing it in Wiki. The photos are given with unconditional permission straight from the PR in Placido Domingo office that hold all the events, publicities, his official website etc. The PR never state any terms and condition at all. When I requested for permission, I sent e-mail through the e-mail BOX in Placido Domingo official website, not from some agents or recording companies because I believe the consent should come from the company of the singer itself. I was expecting people here to advice me on what to write in the remarks or at least discuss with me if I have done or write anything wrong. I never expect the admin could easily come up to the conclusion for the photos to be deleted as soon as I uploaded it. The PR as a matter of fact, didn’t give me photos that I asked because according to her, all the photos that I asked have copyrights. She then, sending me photos approved by her company for various purposes including promotional etc to be published. So, it is still wrong to publish in here? I would love to hear your reply - Whjayg 09:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

@Whjayg, to me the problem seems to be your commentary in the description: This photo is not to be used for any other personal purposes except as part of Wiki articles only. That means actually, the image can only be used for Wikipedia articles. So far that's fine. But all the media here at Commons have to be useable not only for Wikipedias but by everybody for anything and even for commercial purposes. So if your above mentioned statement is still valid, you should upload that image directly onto any Wikipedias where it is of use. But here it has to go. -- Túrelio 10:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I know that was the mistake I made and hoping if any of you could ask (at least), so then I can re-write in a proper manner - not suggesting for deletion like what what GeorgHH does. The photos were given without any terms and condition (unconditional). So, if you could tell me what I should do now? Shall I change the remarks or just wait for the photos to be deleted - Whjayg 10:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The remarks has been changed. It is not for promotional - Whjayg 10:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Deleted: 23:41, 5. Okt. 2007 Majorly (Diskussion | Beiträge | sperren) hat „Image:Domingo OtelloJay2.jpg“ gelöscht ‎ (user request). --GeorgHH 18:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Kolberg Dom.jpg

Low quality, blurry and superseded -- 25 September 2007 User:JDavid

template fix Deadstar (msg) 10:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

kept, low quality is not a good reason for deletion --ALE! ¿…? 13:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:KallurGotenborg.jpg

obvious copyvio, to take this image you must have press credentials and if you have press credentials you do not upload images to wikipedia --30 September 2007 User:83.227.73.78

template fix + agree that this is likely copyvio. Deadstar (msg) 10:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Not a proven copyvio - seems to be two pieces of original research here! Still, prima facie case for seeking clarification.--Londoneye 12:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41417000/jpg/_41417583_kallur416.jpg. Maybe someone would like to template User:AGSV for uploading it (I don't know how). Patstuart 16:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

deleted by User:Davepape --ALE! ¿…? 09:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:KnutSteen.1.jpg

ACT No. 2 of 12 May 1961 Relating to cpyright in Literary, Scientific and Artistic Works etc.: § 45 c. Photographs of a person shall not be reproduced or publicly exhibited without the consent of the subject of the picture. Fingalo 13:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC) --Fingalo 13:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• 1) the picture are used in an article about the painter in Norwegian Wikipedia.
• 2) I have taken the picture and asked him if it was ok to use the picture in Wikipedia and he confirmed it. The photo is taken for use in wikipedia. ---Nina- 16:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I have absolutly no reason to distrust this user in this matter. Unless there are a very clear statement from the depicted person I think the case can be closed without further discussion. Jeblad 17:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Kept. No reason to assume that this photograph was taken without consent. Finn Rindahl 17:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:KnutSteen.2.jpg

ACT No. 2 of 12 May 1961 Relating to cpyright in Literary, Scientific and Artistic Works etc.: § 45 c. Photographs of a person shall not be reproduced or publicly exhibited without the consent of the subject of the picture. Fingalo 13:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC) --Fingalo 13:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• 1) the picture are used in an article about the painter in Norwegian Wikipedia.
• 2) I have taken the picture and asked him if it was ok to use the picture in Wikipedia and he confirmed it. The photo is taken for use in wikipedia. ---Nina- 16:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I have absolutly no reason to distrust this user in this matter. Unless there are a very clear statement from the depicted person I think the case can be closed without further discussion. Jeblad 17:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Kept This nomination does not make any sense. Finn Rindahl 17:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Tatoo.jpg

Doppelt/double Kgberger 13:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

deleted, please use {{bad name|bettername.jpg}} next time --ALE! ¿…? 13:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Östermalm-Skulpturengruppe.jpg

The Swedish Copyright Legislation: Article 43. † 2003.) --Fingalo 14:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep Commons:Freedom of panorama#Sweden, citing the Swedish copyright law on litterary and artistic work states that there is freedom of panorama in Sweden. These sculptures are permanently placed on the thoroughfare. PatríciaR ^msg 14:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Speedy close, withdrawn by nominator. PatríciaR ^msg 16:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Willy Gordon protonmolekyl bobe.JPG

The Swedish Copyright Legislation: Article 43. † 2003. Fingalo 14:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC) --Fingalo 14:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Speedy close, withdrawn by nominator. PatríciaR ^msg 15:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Willy Gordon malm vatten bobe.JPG

The Swedish Copyright Legislation: Article 43. † 2003. --Fingalo 14:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Speedy close, withdrawn by nominator. PatríciaR ^msg 15:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Leda och svanen-1.jpg

The Swedish Copyright Legislation: Article 43. Fingalo 14:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC) --Fingalo 14:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Speedy close, withdrawn by nominator. PatríciaR ^msg 16:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:MannyForGallery.jpg

I changed my mind and do not want my picture in the Commons. --Aeky1 14:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete Blurry shot of the dog, redeye. Out of scope Deadstar (msg) 11:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Sunrise off the coast of Lovina 01-08-2007.JPG

Sorry, I've replaced this image with a more appropriately labelled version. --1 October 2007 User:Currawong 276

Other image is Image:Lovina - Sunrise off the coast on dolphin trip 01-08-2007.JPG -I think I prefer the original name! Deadstar (msg) 15:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 13:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Felt_800.jpg

a clone of Image:Felt cloth.jpg Mintz l 15:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

tagged as a {{duplicate}} --ALE! ¿…? 10:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Roma-san_giovanni10.jpg

Represents a copyrighted work: this door was made for the Jubilee of 2000 (see this page). Italy has no Freedom of panorama. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 18:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 13:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Tiananmenflagwaver.jpg

Unfortunately, this one has a noncommercial, no derivs license at Flickr. Butseriouslyfolks 19:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deleted, copyvioFinn Rindahl 22:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Location Serbia.PNG

Reasons for deletion request --AnyFile 20:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC) Even if the file is not identical, it is very very similar to Image:LocationSerbia.png .

I actually do not know which is the better to take and which is better to delete. I can only understand that, to follow the name scheme used by similar file in category Locator maps of countries, the name Image:LocationSerbia.png is more appropriate. -- AnyFile 20:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

tagged as a {{duplicate}} and CommonsDelinker is running --ALE! ¿…? 13:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Volcano_HMCS_Toronto.jpg

Commercial use seems to be prohibited [3], not in line with the acceptable licenses at Commons Matt314 07:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I just read about that. I still don't understand, why. I did not find an explanation for that on acceptable licenses, only why fair-use is not allowed. Well, go ahead and delete it then... --Vertigo-1 07:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete Per Vertigo-1.--Londoneye 12:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete noncom. Patstuart 15:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. MichaelMaggs 17:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Per Kirkeby

• Image:Kirkeby Groningen 01.JPG
• Image:Kirkeby Groningen 02.JPG
• Image:Kirkeby Groningen 03.JPG
• Image:Kirkeby Groningen 04.JPG
• Image:Kirkeby17.jpg
• Image:Kirkeby22.jpg
• Image:Per Kirkeby.JPG
• Image:Muenster Kirkeby Backstein 6737.jpg
• Image:Recklinghausen-Kirkby-Sculpture.JPG

Per freedom of panorama rules for Denmark - The article 24 of the Danish copyright law permits panorama freedom for buildings. This, however, does not extend to the works of art that are located in public places. They cannot be commercially published when they constitute the central element of the picture. Kirkeby is alive. Fingalo 07:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Do the FOP rules for Denmark apply when the building is in the Netherlands? (the Groningen ones are). Deadstar (msg) 10:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Most those images are taken outside of Denmark - the first 4 and number 7 are in the Netherlands, the bottom two are taken in Germany. Only Kirkeby17 and Kirkeby22 are taken in Denmark. Deadstar (msg) 10:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Art. 85.-(1) The provisions of this Act concerning copyright shall apply to 1. works of persons who are nationals of or who have their habitual residence in a country within the European Economic Area; (2) works first published in a country within the European Economic Area, or first published simultaneously in a country within the European Economic Area and in another country. Fingalo 11:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

In the Netherlands FOP rules from the Netherlands apply. The Nationality of the artist in question is of no interest at all.

Danish artist who create sculptures in the Netherlands fall under Dutch law. What applies in Denmark goes far beyond this discussion.--Gerardus 13:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Who doesn't violate Dutch right can nevertheless violate Danish law. Fingalo 14:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't see the point--Gerardus 14:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The danish law dsnt work in Germany. The picure in Muenster was made on a public place: -- Rüdiger Wölk 14:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep Danish FoP only works in the Danish jurisdiction. Art without expired copyright installed permanently in public areas in the Netherlands or Germany can be photographed and licensed with a free license. The nominator has clearly misunderstood this. I propose to close this deletion request with keep. Cheers! Siebrand 08:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep We'd get in an awesome mess if we tried to apply one country's laws to pictures taken elsewhere.--Londoneye 12:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Kept. Inaccurate deletion request. -- Infrogmation 17:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Figure-of-eight knot.png

double upload (see image:Schotstek1.png), which hadn't been detected due to lack of categorization. After changes in wiki projects, this file is not in use anymore. Thanks for deleting it, Ibn Battuta 18:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

 Comment This image is not a double of Image:Schotstek1.png. I think Ibn Battuta means Image:Achtknoten2.png.

For that case Delete. --GeorgHH 19:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

 Comment You can try {{duplicate}} from here on. Patstuart 15:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep , this upload is older than Image:Achtknoten2.png. This latter one should be deleted then. Patrícia ^msg 00:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Kept -- Infrogmation 04:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Kunsthalle Kiel-Skulpturengarten.jpg

Breivik, Lechner, Kirkeby is alive. --Fingalo 11:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Kiel is in Germany - Freedom of Panorama! --194.48.128.75 13:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The German freedom of panorama permits “to take pictures of publicly visible buildings and sculptures and publish them commercially”. --VollwertBIT 08:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Are these sculpture accessable without entering the Kunsthalle's premises? If yes: Keep; if no: Delete --ALE! ¿…? 13:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Is the Kunsthalle a public building? (I believe it is.) If so, they are publicly visible even if only visible from within the Kunsthalle.--Londoneye 12:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

On inquiry at the Kunsthalle administration: the park belongs to the city Kiel. --VollwertBIT 14:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

So does that mean this is within German Freedom of Panorama law or not? -- Infrogmation 17:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

According to my information, it is a public place. Therefore, it is within the German Freedom of Panorama law. --VollwertBIT 14:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Kept -- Infrogmation 22:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Skulpturen Ulven af Palle Mørk .jpg

Per freedom of panorama rules for Denmark - The article 24 of the Danish copyright law permits panorama freedom for buildings. This, however, does not extend to the works of art that are located in public places. They cannot be commercially published when they constitute the central element of the picture. Fingalo 11:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC) --Fingalo 11:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete per Fingalo.--Londoneye 12:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Deleted -- Infrogmation 17:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Rudolf Tegner-dionysos2.jpg

Consolidated Act on Copyright 2006: Art 63.-(1) The copyright in a work shall last for 70 years after the year of the author’s death. Fingalo 11:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC) --Fingalo 11:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete per Fingalo.--Londoneye 12:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. -- Infrogmation 17:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Fritz Røed 2.jpg

ACT No. 2 of 12 May 1961 Relating to copyright in Literary, Scientific and Artistic Works etc.: § 24: Works of art and photographic works may also be depicted when they are permanently located in or near a public place or thoroughfare. However, this shall not apply when the work is clearly the main motif and the reproduction is exploited commercially. § 40: Copyright shall subsist during the lifetime of the author and for 70 years after the expiry of the year in which the author died. Fingalo 12:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC) --Fingalo 12:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete per Fingalo.--Londoneye 12:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Freedom of Panorama rules in such case seem to rule out commercial work, so not free, deleting. -- Infrogmation 17:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleted -- Infrogmation 17:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Hånd i vannet.jpg

ACT No. 2 of 12 May 1961 Relating to copyright in Literary, Scientific and Artistic Works etc.: § 24: Works of art and photographic works may also be depicted when they are permanently located in or near a public place or thoroughfare. However, this shall not apply when the work is clearly the main motif and the reproduction is exploited commercially. § 40: Copyright shall subsist during the lifetime of the author and for 70 years after the expiry of the year in which the author died. --Fingalo 12:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete per Fingalo.--Londoneye 12:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Deleted, Fritz Røed died in 2002, no freedom of panorama. Patrícia ^msg 01:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Fritz Røed Barnevask.jpg

ACT No. 2 of 12 May 1961 Relating to copyright in Literary, Scientific and Artistic Works etc.: § 24: Works of art and photographic works may also be depicted when they are permanently located in or near a public place or thoroughfare. However, this shall not apply when the work is clearly the main motif and the reproduction is exploited commercially. § 40: Copyright shall subsist during the lifetime of the author and for 70 years after the expiry of the year in which the author died. --Fingalo 12:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete per Fingalo.--Londoneye 12:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Deleted -- Infrogmation 17:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:The monolith.JPG

ACT No. 2 of 12 May 1961 Relating to copyright in Literary, Scientific and Artistic Works etc.: § 24: Works of art and photographic works may also be depicted when they are permanently located in or near a public place or thoroughfare. However, this shall not apply when the work is clearly the main motif and the reproduction is exploited commercially. § 40: Copyright shall subsist during the lifetime of the author and for 70 years after the expiry of the year in which the author died. (Vigeland † 12. März 1943 in Oslo) --Fingalo 12:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete per Fingalo.--Londoneye 12:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, derivative work of a copyrighted sculpture. Kjetil r 12:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. Patrícia ^msg 01:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Frogner Park, sculpture 01.jpg

ACT No. 2 of 12 May 1961 Relating to copyright in Literary, Scientific and Artistic Works etc.: § 24: Works of art and photographic works may also be depicted when they are permanently located in or near a public place or thoroughfare. However, this shall not apply when the work is clearly the main motif and the reproduction is exploited commercially. § 40: Copyright shall subsist during the lifetime of the author and for 70 years after the expiry of the year in which the author died. (Vigeland † 12. März 1943 in Oslo) --Fingalo 12:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete per Fingalo.--Londoneye 12:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. Patrícia ^msg 01:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Frogner Park, sculpture 02.jpg

ACT No. 2 of 12 May 1961 Relating to cpyright in Literary, Scientific and Artistic Works etc.: § 24: Works of art and photographic works may also be depicted when they are permanently located in or near a public place or thoroughfare. However, this shall not apply when the work is clearly the main motif and the reproduction is exploited commercially. § 40: Copyright shall subsist during the lifetime of the author and for 70 years after the expiry of the year in which the author died. (Vigeland † 12. März 1943 in Oslo) --Fingalo 12:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. Patrícia ^msg 01:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Frogner Park, sculpture 03.jpg

ACT No. 2 of 12 May 1961 Relating to cpyright in Literary, Scientific and Artistic Works etc.: § 24: Works of art and photographic works may also be depicted when they are permanently located in or near a public place or thoroughfare. However, this shall not apply when the work is clearly the main motif and the reproduction is exploited commercially. § 40: Copyright shall subsist during the lifetime of the author and for 70 years after the expiry of the year in which the author died. (Vigeland † 12. März 1943 in Oslo) --Fingalo 12:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete per Fingalo.--Londoneye 12:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. Patrícia ^msg 01:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Monolith in Frogner Park.jpg

ACT No. 2 of 12 May 1961 Relating to cpyright in Literary, Scientific and Artistic Works etc.: § 24: Works of art and photographic works may also be depicted when they are permanently located in or near a public place or thoroughfare. However, this shall not apply when the work is clearly the main motif and the reproduction is exploited commercially. § 40: Copyright shall subsist during the lifetime of the author and for 70 years after the expiry of the year in which the author died. (Vigeland † 12. März 1943 in Oslo) --Fingalo 12:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete per Fingalo.--Londoneye 12:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. Patrícia ^msg 01:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Statue-Vigeland.jpg

ACT No. 2 of 12 May 1961 Relating to cpyright in Literary, Scientific and Artistic Works etc.: § 24: Works of art and photographic works may also be depicted when they are permanently located in or near a public place or thoroughfare. However, this shall not apply when the work is clearly the main motif and the reproduction is exploited commercially. § 40: Copyright shall subsist during the lifetime of the author and for 70 years after the expiry of the year in which the author died. (Vigeland † 12. März 1943 in Oslo) --Fingalo 12:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete per Fingalo.--Londoneye 12:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. Patrícia ^msg 01:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Vigelandpark Oslo.jpg

ACT No. 2 of 12 May 1961 Relating to cpyright in Literary, Scientific and Artistic Works etc.: § 24: Works of art and photographic works may also be depicted when they are permanently located in or near a public place or thoroughfare. However, this shall not apply when the work is clearly the main motif and the reproduction is exploited commercially. § 40: Copyright shall subsist during the lifetime of the author and for 70 years after the expiry of the year in which the author died. (Vigeland † 12. März 1943 in Oslo) --Fingalo 12:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete per Fingalo.--Londoneye 12:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 16:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Vigeland entrance to bridge.jpg

ACT No. 2 of 12 May 1961 Relating to cpyright in Literary, Scientific and Artistic Works etc.: § 24: Works of art and photographic works may also be depicted when they are permanently located in or near a public place or thoroughfare. However, this shall not apply when the work is clearly the main motif and the reproduction is exploited commercially. § 40: Copyright shall subsist during the lifetime of the author and for 70 years after the expiry of the year in which the author died. (Vigeland † 12. März 1943 in Oslo) Fingalo 12:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC) --Fingalo 12:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete per Fingalo.--Londoneye 12:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom - this image will not be free until 1 January 2014.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. Patrícia ^msg 01:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Russian Premier League map.png

This image was re-uploaded under "Russian Premier League 2007 map", and all pages linked to this image now link to that one, so this one is orphaned. --Artyom 12:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Link to the re-uploaded image, just in case: Image:Russian Premier League 2007 map.png. Artyom 17:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Support, especially because older version is at Image:Russian Premier League 2006 map.png. Conscious 11:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Redundant.--Londoneye 12:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

 Comment This image is not orphaned. Please substitute the old instances with the new upload and tag this image as {{duplicate}}. Patrícia ^msg 01:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleted as duplicate. All uses changed to Image:Russian Premier League 2007 map.png. --GeorgHH 14:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Sinnataggen.JPG

ACT No. 2 of 12 May 1961 Relating to cpyright in Literary, Scientific and Artistic Works etc.: § 24: Works of art and photographic works may also be depicted when they are permanently located in or near a public place or thoroughfare. However, this shall not apply when the work is clearly the main motif and the reproduction is exploited commercially. § 40: Copyright shall subsist during the lifetime of the author and for 70 years after the expiry of the year in which the author died. Fingalo 13:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC) --Fingalo 13:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Where is this sculpture located? Patrícia ^msg 01:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

In Vigeland Park, Oslo, Norway. Please also note Image:Gustav Vigeland - monument in Frogner Park.jpg, also in Oslo. Fingalo's quotes above are from the Norwegian copyright law. Lupo 09:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. -- Infrogmation 21:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Gat garden01.jpg

I wonder whether the text of this historical explanation might be copyrighted. --User:G.dallorto 13:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Add {{FOP}}, and keep the photo. Gridge 23:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC).

The problem is that this is not a reproduction of a view which includes a panel, it is a closeup of the text of the panel, whose only purpose is to allow people to read the text. This is quite as uploading a photocopy of a text. The photocopy may be free, but the text in it could be copyrighted. Here we are talking about text copyright, not about image copyright. There is no such a thing as "freedom of panorama" for texts, only "quotation right", better known as "fair use", which is not allowed on Commons. --User:G.dallorto 16:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. Israeli FOP does not cover texts, see §2(1)(iii) of the Israeli copyright law. Note to Giovanni: in other countries, FOP may cover texts, too. For instance in Germany or Switzerland: a plaque on a public place reproducing some poem would be covered by FOP there. Lupo 09:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

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

• COM:FOP#Israel is for architectural work, a work of sculpture or work of applied art : you can't use it for the texts. Teofilo (talk) 10:39, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know this had already been nominated last year, but afer reading what was said, I still think that the picture should be cropped so that the texts are removed. Therefore this uncropped version must be deleted. Teofilo (talk) 10:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I have uploaded a cropped version with the same title. The original picture still needs deletion. Teofilo (talk) 11:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

 Keep There is no reason to suspect that texts are not included in Israeli FOP. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

There is every reason to suspect it, because the text of the Israeli FOP law is "architectural work, a work of sculpture or work of applied art", which clearly excludes texts. Teofilo (talk) 11:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

It would be surprising if these signs were not either "applied art" or ineligible. Please provide a court decision for your opinion. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

•  Keep PD-ineligible and covered by FOP. You have presented no new arguments not raised in the last deletion request. -Nard the Bard 20:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Request Please undo Teofilo's mutilation of this photo. It is an infringement on User:Avi1111 moral right as an author. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC) I did this now (after Teofilo had given me directions to the right button.) /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no need to present new arguments. The arguments by the initial nominator G. dallorto are powerful enough. Teofilo (talk) 22:23, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

•  Keep "work of applied art" - The text is part of the momument as a whole. If this was just an image of the text, then I'd agree, but this is a picture of the whole work. J.smith (talk) 23:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Applied art refers to the application of design and aesthetics to objects of function and everyday use. : en:applied arts. Teofilo (talk) 04:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I suppose you are right. Text is litterary works, not artistic work. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. Copyvio of the text on the signs. Copyright law calls text a "literary work", and so far as I can see there is no FOP in Israel for literary works. There is freedom for "works of applied art", but text is not a work of applied art, and the prominence of the text, and its quantity, means that we cannot ignore this as de minimis. MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Georgakis monument in Corfu.JPG

Is there a freedom of panorama in Greece? The monument was made after 1970 --User:G.dallorto 14:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

What exactly is freedom of panorama? And what does it have to do with the freedom of taking any picture you want and releasing it under the GFDL? If this is a joke please end it. Dr.K. 02:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

And how do you list a picture for deletion without knowing if Greece has this kind of Law or not? Chances are Greece does not have this restrictive law. Dr.K. 02:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

You can read here --> what Freedom of panorama is. Freedom of panorama laws are not restrictive law, but quite the opposite: they are laws that allow to publish images featuring works of arts whose author died less than 70 years ago (which is our case, since the monument was made after 1970). Therefore to keep this image we need to know whether in Greece it is legal to use the "freedom of panorama" exemption clause or not. If not this image should be deleted. As you see, no joke, but a very serious problem, affecting not only your picture but any other picture of any work of art displayed in Greece, whenever it was created by any artist who has not been dead for at least 70 years. Sorry: my country, Italy, has no Freedom of panorama, and that's a problem for me too. --User:G.dallorto 10:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

You could check out how the European directive 2001/29/EG was adapted by Greek law. This directive states in article 5, section 2:

Member States may provide for exceptions or limitations to the reproduction right provided for in Article 2 in the following cases:

[...]

(h) use of works, such as works of architecture or sculpture, made to be located permanently in public places;

This looks promising but it is unfortunately an optional clause only. Even if implemented it could be restricted to non-commercial usage etc. Hence, it would be quite helpful if we could learn more about the current Greek copyright law in regard to the panorama of freedom. --AFBorchert 14:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the advice. I'll read it and let you know. Just in case you want to check it out as well here it is in pdf. Take care. Dr.K. 16:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

We should also consider that this sculpture may not be a work of art, but rather a monument commissioned most probably by the Greek state to commemorate a Greek resistance hero against the junta. As such it may be public property. Dr.K. 23:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I point your attention to the fact that this sculpture has a commemorative plaque which refers to the incidents surrounding his death in Italy and I provide it here for your convenience. Therefore it is a monument that commemorates Kostas Georgakis. If I am not mistaken the Greek Municipality of Corfu commissioned it. Dr.K. 00:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The inscription reads:

Kostas Georgakis Student Kerkyra 1945-1970 Genova He self immolated in Genova (sic) Italy on 19 September 1970 for Freedom and Democracy in Greece. And in the lower part of the engraved stone his words are inscribed:

I cannot but think and act as a free individual--Kostas Georgakis

It is clear, therefore, that this is a memorial to Georgakis as opposed to a work of art.

I quote from the definition of work of art from Wikipedia:

In fine art, a work of art (or artwork or work) is a creation, such as a song, book, film, print, sculpture or a painting, that has been made in order to be a thing of beauty in itself or a symbolic statement of meaning, rather than having a practical function.

This monument has a practical function; To commemorate Kostas Georgakis and it explicitly does so by incorporating elements such as engraved plaques mentioning his birth and death places and dates.

Therefore it is a work of applied art, meant to have a practical function. The Greek copyright law in pdf above states that: Such rights are not applicable to architectural works and works of applied arts..

To recap:

• This monument may well be public property as I am almost certain that it was commissioned by the Corfu City Hall to commemorate Georgakis.
• It is a work of applied art.
• In either or both of these cases its copyright is not restricted. Dr.K. 13:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not at all sure that you're using "applied art" or "practical" in the way intended, but the way to approach this is to consult Greek copyright law, as opposed to making guesses. The government of Greece has made some unusual copyright claims regarding public monuments, so I'm not optimistic. Jkelly 17:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide an example of such unusual copyright claims? Dr.K. 18:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Hallo Dr K., the problem with copyright laws is that the copyright is owned as a rule by the artist, not tby the person who paid for the monument and/or physically owns it. The payer obviuously in our test-case wanted the work to be on public display and to have it reproduced as much as possible: this is the purpose of any monument indeed. Yet the sculptor still owns the copyright, and can legitimally oppose the reproduction of the work, UNLESS some exhemption stands in the Greek laws books. Since I cannot read modern Greek, I need the help of native Greek speakers such as you to settle the issue.

What JKelly refers to is to the claim made some time ago by the Greek Minister of Culture pretending that every and any reproduction of any works of art in Greece - including the ancient Greek ones - ought now pay to them a royalty, "for the preservation of ancient monuments". This claim is groundless, as is any request of royalties for works that are in the Public Domain, however this precedent does not induce us in thinking that the attitude of the Greek government be favourable to free reproduction of works of art: quite the opposite.

Eventually, as per your distinction between art and applied art, I am not aware of such a distinction in the International copyright laws. Italy used to have such a distinction, e.g. for photography, but it disappeared with the new round of copyright laws, so I suppose the same is true for Greece, if Greece used to have such laws. We agree on the fact that copright laws are becoming fascist laws. But unless we want to pick up a gun and start a revolution, we have to obey them until we succed in changing them. Now the point is therefore only in knowing whether Greece has or not a "freedom of panorama" clause in its copyright laws. --User:G.dallorto 02:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi G.dallorto. I agree with many of your points but I don't have a definitive answer yet. I do believe however that the conditions surrounding this particular monument are unique and its status belongs in a grey area. The definition of a work of art does not apply in my opinion to this work and the law as I mentioned above does make exceptions for architecture and applied arts. We have to get a legal opinion not only on the law itself but on the status of the monument as a work of art or not. The linked pdf file does not appear to be the complete document of the law. I will enquire after the weekend and if anyone can come up with a copy, even in Greek, send it to me and I'll translate it. Ciao. Dr.K. 03:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

• According to the Greek Copyright law, article 26, "freedom of panorama" appears to be restricted to "occasional reproduction and communication" by the "mass media". See the new section COM:FOP#Greece. That wouldn't be free enough and make Greece a no-FOP country for us. And of course a sculpture is a work of the fine arts. See article 2 of the said law: copyright applies to "... works of fine art, including drawings, works of painting and sculpture, engravings and lithographs, ..." (and also to "works of architecture" and to "works of applied art", mentioned later). Hence Delete. Lupo 13:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep I disagree. If it is stated that: occasional reproduction by the mass media... etc., this is so vague, I think it is essentially meaningless and certainly not as restrictive as the debate above indicated. For sure with phraseology like that the Greek State indicates no real intention for a serious challenge. I don't see the point for such extreme caution. Given, however, that this is a grey area I can understand the caveats expressed and I retire from this debate. Dr.K. 23:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Given the quotation, we may not keep this kind of pix. Commons has in fact a permanent display, not an "occasional" one. Dr K., don't take it personally. There is nothuing personal here. You may still move this kind of pix to other sites with a less strict observation of the law, such a Flickr. --User:G.dallorto 01:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern Giovanni. I don't take it personally. Far from that. I tried to project my points but given the uncertainty I will understand if they don't prevail. (BTW: I just happen to think Flickr is a tad exhibitionist for my taste). Anyway all the best. Arrivederci. Dr.K. 04:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per Lupo and G.dallorto. That it is a memorial does change the fact that it is also an artwork. -- Infrogmation 04:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. Lupo 11:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Pluto.jpg

Not PD-NASA - primary author listed on APOD page is from SwRi [5], who do not appear to freely license their work [6]. Davepape 15:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It can be used

All materials appearing on the SwRI® website or related file servers may not be reproduced or stored in any retrieval system without prior written permission of the Institute, except for attributed noncommercial educational purposes. Material available through this site may not be used for any commercial purposes without the express prior written permission of the copyright holder. The previous unsigned comment was added on 3 October 2007 by User:189.141.35.254

Delete I think IP user is contradicting him/herself, it clearly states it may NOT be used for commercial purposes, and as such the license is unsuitable for commons. Deadstar (msg) 10:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• If it is going to be deleted, please hold it a couple of days, as it is currently on the English Wikipedia's Today's Featured Article. Titoxd^(?!?) 03:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Too many paranoid copyvio regulators running amok. This is certainly an educational and noncommercial use. 71.110.158.173 03:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

  It doesn't matter how it's being used by Wikimedia. If the image is not free, then it doesn't belong on the Commons and should be hosted by the individual projects, such as Wikipedia, iff they allow it to be used there. 17Drew 09:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Secondary APOD credit given to NASA. Has this no weight? ec 75.84.196.101 04:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. AS per above, NASA has a primary credit as well and allows this use. In addition, the copyright rationale quoted above appears to apply specifically to material sourced from the SwRI website. This image did not come from there, it came from NASA. (Furthermore, if this is still deemed unsuitable for Commons, it should not be deleted from EnWiki as fair use would allow it there.) --24.85.206.144 05:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
• Move. As commons has to allow commercial use then this image should be simply moved to Wikipedia. If it is merely deleted then the educational value will be lost and the people will be denied knowledge due to, IMO, a petty copyright discrepancy. 84.9.55.54 11:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
• Move - Wikimedia Commons doesn't take non-commercial images, and this is one of them. Move over to Wikipedia EN. Husky ^{(talk to me)} 13:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • EN doesn't accept non-commercial images either, generally. Someone could try making a fair use argument for it there, though. --Davepape 19:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Is this image creative enough to be able to be copyrighted? If it is, wouldn't it be trivial to create a free version based on the factual data this image conveys? R. Koot 22:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep pending further information to the contrary. The nominator's link concerns generic legal terms for information found on the SWRI website. That does not imply that nothing ever produced by an SWRI employee can ever have a different license. The double-credit to NASA strongly suggests that the research project that produced this image was funded by the U.S. government, and that it is therefore not subject to copyright in the first place. (This assumption is not meaningfully contradicted by a generic website copyright statement). Furthermore, even ignoring the works-for-government doctrine, it is doubtful whether meets the creativity requirements for copyright to arise. If the image is what it is claimed to be, no creative choices were made during its production, and it does not appear to fall under the protection for non-creative photographs that some jurisdictions recognize. At the very least, an effort to contact the author should be made to ask whether he or SWRI claims a copyright on the image. w:user:Henning Makholm / 85.81.19.235 22:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
• The papers published about the image indicate the scientific creativity involved in making it; that this is not simply a sphere texture-mapped with a photo from NASA or something [7] [8] (full copy of second paper at [9]). The authors (and data sources) are all from private institutions; NASA's involvement appears to be solely in providing a grant to fund the work, which does not make it PD-NASA. --Davepape 01:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, choices were made, but they were scientific choices, not expressive choices, and only the latter category of choice is protected by copyright. Any U.S. federal funding for a research project is usually considered to preclude copyright claims on the works produced by the project. (At least this is held to be true in computer science, to the extent that scientific publishers generally waive their demand to have copyright assigned for such works, even though they require all other authors to transfer copyright to the publisher. I don't see why it would be different in astronomy. Do you have any evidence that it is?) There is no particular "NASA" exemption from copyright; it is a "United States government" exemption, and includes private organization working under contract with the U.S. government. w:user:Henning Makholm / 85.81.19.235 22:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

"PD-NASA" simply refers to the specific license template used on this image. The "United States government exemption" applies only to federal government employees, not grant recipients at private institutions (having been both, I've run into this issue before). See OMB Circular A-110, section 36 - grant recipients may copyright work developed under an award; the federal government has royalty-free access to the results, but this does not extend to the rest of the world. (Perhaps you've misread a form; ACM, IEEE, and Elsevier, at least, only waive the copyright transfer for government employees.)

Although it's true that copyright is supposed to protect only expressions of ideas, not basic facts, in practice U.S. laws and courts tend to allow nearly anything to be copyrighted. For comparison, note that automated, seemingly unexpressive satellite imagery from private companies such as DigitalGlobe is considered copyrighted and not allowed here. --Davepape 03:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• Query: Can we contact them and ask? 129.215.149.98 07:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep This is educational/noncommercial use. The image is freely available in any case.
• Sounds like a Move to me, unless further information is sourced from NASA or SWRI. A fair use argument could relatively easily be made, I'd say. Ingolfson 10:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• Deleted. Non commercial restriction makes it insufficently free for use on Commons. This is a discussion per guidelines, not a vote. The local copy on en:Wikipedia has been restored with a notification of the licensing problems per here. -- Infrogmation 18:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:GoogleDocs Screenshot.png

"I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby release it into the public domain. This applies worldwide." I think the copyright holder is Google and not a Commons-user... --Michael Reschke 14:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. --EugeneZelenko 14:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:PICT0293.JPG

personal photograph without appropriate use --24 September 2007 User:Steerpike

Delete deletion fix. Out of scope. Deadstar (msg) 10:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Rodro.jpg

vandalismo Bigsus 13:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete out of scope Deadstar (msg) 10:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:De Gaulle-OWI.jpg

I'm not so sure this is a free image. Though one website says it's an OWI photo, the LOC doesn't. I can't find any other websites that say it's OWI that aren't derived from that website or from us. The LOC gives no indication of its copyright status, and only has a tiny thumbnail, which ordinarily means it's copyrighted. --Calliopejen 12:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

If this is deleted can someone replace all instances of this image with Image:De Gaulle shot0063.png or something similar that shows the same thing? I would hate for this image to leave so many gaps, at en.wiki especially. Calliopejen 13:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The link on the Library of Congress is here. This page does not contain the mention "RIGHTS INFORMATION: Publication may be restricted. " that copyrighted works usually have here for instance. We have serious sources crediting the Office of War Information, and none stating otherwise; I'd say let's not invent problems that we don't have. Rama 13:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - (nom withdrawn) - I nominated this because normally the LOC explicitly labels all OWI photos, but this one is not. However, it does have a prefix that matches the OWI collection (prefixes are specified on at http://lcweb2.loc.gov/pp/pphome.html). Calliopejen 15:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)