Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2007/11

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

[edit] Image:Bebung.ogg

own work, but faulty - thats no Bebung Reinhard 19:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Remover — you can just use {{speedydelete}}. --Boricuæddie 20:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleted by Zirland: In category Other speedy deletions; not edited for 1 days

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

[edit] Image:Alvaro Uribe and Bill Gates.jpg

This image was moved here from en.wp, where the original source (now in a deleted revision) notes that the photo is from here. Nowhere on the photo section of the Colombian government web site is there an indication that the photo is in the public domain, and indeed, the photo was speedily deleted from en.wp as a copyright violation on 22 Aug 2007. RG2 07:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete Indeed, the source page contains a specific copyright notice. -- Infrogmation 22:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete as above. --[[Anonymous Dissident]] 06:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleted false licence, no indication of actual free license. -- Infrogmation 15:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Thiel.jpg

Speedily deleted on en.wp in Sept 2007 as an image lacking sources or licensing information for more than seven days. Clearly, there's not enough indication that this is a public domain image for the Commons, either. RG2 07:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 09:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Vijaya_Karnataka.jpg

Taking a photo of newspaper and calling it free is akin to taking a photo of a book, of a television screen, or even of another photo and calling it free, in that none of these actually are. RG2 09:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Says who? Where is the policy that supports your assertion/interpretation? Sarvagnya 23:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Commons:Derivative works. --Boricuæddie 23:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Remover — {{derivative}} --Boricuæddie 20:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Care to elaborate? Sarvagnya 23:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
    • See above. --Boricuæddie 23:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - point to policy or keep. —the preceding unsigned comment was added by Sarvagnya (talk • contribs)
  • [ Points ] --Boricuæddie 23:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete A newspaper page is a copyrightable work. A photo of a newspaper page is therefore a photo of a copyrighted work and, hence, is an unlicensed derivative work. Commons does not permit the uploading of derivative works of works which are still in copyright, so this picture should be deleted. -- Arvind 00:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete (Unless the newspaper shown was also released under GFDL, in which case attribution should go to the newspaper author.) Seems clear case of derivitive work. -- Infrogmation 02:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 09:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Vilhoaskola.jpg

No date of publication given. Vilho Askola died 1994 (fi:Vilho_Askola) GeorgHH 14:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - sloppy licensing by uploader. Patstuart 07:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 09:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Mekozi.jpg

non-encyclopedic + insufficient description --oscar 16:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

and not used afaik. oscar 16:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom --Simonxag 19:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 09:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Mazzarone.svg

Bad name, right name is image:mazzarrone.svg Skyluke 19:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Remover — {{bad name}} --Boricuæddie 20:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleted by ALE!: (incorrectly named) duplicate of image:mazzarrone.svg

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

[edit] Image:Letter.jpg

Personnal picture, I don't need it anymore. 28. Okt. 2007 Deadhoax

 Oppose This image is used in four wikimedia projects. --GeorgHH 13:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep Uploaded to Commons under a free licence. I saw it on 5 different Wikimedia projects, so clearly it has been found useful. -- Infrogmation 17:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Kept Patstuart 07:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Catedral_de_San_Juan,_Argentina.jpg

The uploader is not the author of the photo. ALE! ¿…? 17:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete, false PD-self (one of many by this uploader despite multiple warnings). No evidence of free licence on source website. Speedy delete ok. -- Infrogmation 17:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleted per nom. -- Cecil 14:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Paris_hilton_universal_photo_retouched_(vertical_black_line).jpg

Unused and most likely out of the project's scope. 32X 01:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete A simple modification of the original work which can be recreated should it evr be needed. --Simonxag 19:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC) Delete per nom. Silliness not appropriate for Wikimedia projects. -- Infrogmation 03:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleted out of scope. Deadstar (msg) 09:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Paintings of Nicolae Dărăscu

Romanian painter; worked in Romania, France, and Italy. Died 1959 - not PD-old. From Category:Nicolae Dărăscu:

• Image:Nicolae Darascu - Calea Victoriei pe ploaie.jpg
• Image:Nicolae Darascu - Case in Venetia.jpg
• Image:Nicolae Darascu - Chioggia.jpg
• Image:Nicolae Darascu - Cimitir tatarasc din Balcic.jpg
• Image:Nicolae Darascu - Flori.jpg
• Image:Nicolae Darascu - Hanul Pasalacu.jpg
• Image:Nicolae Darascu - Moschee in Balcic.jpg
• Image:Nicolae Darascu - Palat venetian.jpg
• Image:Nicolae Darascu - Peisaj cu nori violeti.jpg
• Image:Nicolae Darascu - Peisaj de port, Chioggia.jpg
• Image:Nicolae Darascu - Peisaj din Arges.jpg
• Image:Nicolae Darascu - Peisaj dobrogean.jpg
• Image:Nicolae Darascu - Piata la Venetia.jpg
• Image:Nicolae Darascu - Vedere din port.jpg

--Davepape 15:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. -- Infrogmation 17:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 09:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:1679875768_ddd9f616f2.jpg

Unusable due to intrusive watermarking. Dodo 19:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom; also watermark suggests "self-made" claim to be highly dubious. -- Infrogmation 21:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I find no evidence of free license at apparent source of http://simonepedacos.multiply.com/ -- Infrogmation 21:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I see that is a blog with same name as uploader. Still unclear if that is the original source; in any case per nom the big water mark is too problematic on its own. -- Infrogmation 21:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Is the name coincidence enough to prove anything? It seems pretty easy to register here with a random name, doesn't it? --Dodo 09:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete - it's been a week. If uploader wishes to release under a compatible license, s/he can upload it without the watermark. Patstuart 07:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleted per nom: Unusable due to intrusive watermarking. Deadstar (msg) 09:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:C11-M_IMAGE.jpg

EFE fotos are not under a CC license, see: http://www.20minutos.es/licencia_20_minutos/ ALE! ¿…? 13:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

This also applies to:

• Image:Felipe Pérez Roque - UN.jpg --ALE! ¿…? 14:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Just wondering... How did you make out Image:Felipe Pérez Roque - UN.jpg was from EFE? I perfectly knew that EFE's photos weren't under 20 minutos's license. Nonetheless, I didn't find a statement that in fact it was EFE's photo. In fact, in the piece of news, it never credits EFE as author of the photo, so I guessed it was from 20m... - Julian's Rock ^{(tell me)} 21:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC) (PS: Besides, EFE's photos are usually better... xD)

Oh. BTW, it doesn't credit EFE either on the photo page: [1] - Julian's Rock ^{(tell me)} 21:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry my mistake, withdrawn. --ALE! ¿…? 09:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem :). The other photograph is a copyright violation (img. caption says "Paco Campos / EFE", so as for sure is a copyright violation per 20m's licence...) I recommend a speedy delete... - Julian's Rock ^{(tell me)} 19:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleted by Bryan: Copyright violation, see Commons:Licensing

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

[edit] Image:Index.jpg

copyrighted logo uploaded under generic filename ˉ^anetode╦╩ 23:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete Can't find the logo on the website (but in that case is it useful?). The comment translates as "Pi Jiwang promotes the plan freely", but I think we'd need something a little more convincing in the way of permission if we were to keep this. --Simonxag 11:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Could this be {{PD-textlogo}} ? --ALE! ¿…? 09:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't think so - it's not purely text, and not in a "common" typeface. Giggy\^Talk 11:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. Lupo 13:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Fellatio_Isis_Osiris_modified.jpg

is not genuine 70.20.139.119 00:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

...says who? The only discussion relating to this image is de:Diskussion:Fellatio/Archiv2#Historische Abbildung (from June 2006), where the conclusion appears to be that the image may not show the act of fellatio. But the authenticity of the image itself is not questioned. Lupo 12:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep I'd like more source information to put the picture in context, but I don't think this looks like a copyright violation. As for genuineness, the Ancient Egyptian religion was very sex-positive, so it could well be for real. What became of the original image? I can't find it's deletion. Was it deleted as a fake, because it was of poor quality or because it was "pornographic"? --Simonxag 19:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

See the deletion log. Lupo 20:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - so it was deleted because it was superseded by this. --Simonxag 23:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep Seems to be like you said. I see no reason to delete it. --AM 17:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment I can confirm that the image is an exact b/w copy of plate 6 of the and that it has not been altered to show something that's not in the original. In other words, the image is not a fake. However, It's not fellatio; this scene is represented many times in ancient Egyptian books of the dead and I've never seen one show the woman with her lips up to the mummy quite like this one. If anything, the image needs to be retitled if possible, so it's not misleading. For the record, nothing in the current image title is correct: the mummy is that of Ani, the woman is his wife Tutu; a priest in a mask holds the mummy. (For more, see here) Jeff Dahl 03:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Kept. Lupo 13:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:P Rakevet.png

This "free" image contains the israel railway company logo which is not in public domain --84.108.112.10 19:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The free image is fine now. Watch: Category:With trademark. Gridge 22:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC).

Yes, now it's ok, I'm changing my opinion to Keep 84.108.112.10 23:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Kept. Lupo 13:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Jacinta_Francisco_Lucia_Fatima.jpg

PD doubtful: it is not known whether the photographer died before 1937 or not 85.214.91.152 11:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• If the photographer is unknown, then {{Anonymous-EU}}. Lack of source is problematic there: who states, that this work is anonymous? A.J. 13:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

This is really complicated. This is very likely a press photo from 1917. It's featured in a gazillion places, but of course only Wikimedia makes some sort of effort to correctly state sources :P. I'll try to dig a bit more into this; if it is a press photo, it's unlikely that we can find out who was the author, so {{Anonymous-EU}} would be applicable. Patrícia ^msg 23:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Kept. Ecemaml (talk to me/habla conmigo) 22:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Sunbeam Nautilus.jpg

No indication author died 50 years ago; it is irrelevant, as this appears to be UK, in which case we'd have no indication author died 70 years ago --Patstuart 22:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I took the image over from the English wikipedia with all its information. There is no indication that this photo was taken in UK (most probably ist was taken in the USA). It is stated in the origianal image text that the author died at least 50 years ago. --MartinHansV 08:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Brookslands Racetrack, England (where the photo claims to be taken). Sunbeam Car Company, UK. Louis Coatalen, French. There is absolutely no evidence that this was taken in the US, and the statement directly says it was taken in the UK. Patstuart 16:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

It is most probably done in the UK, but is the author known? Otherwise, it's public domain because of date of publication. Patrícia ^msg 14:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Kept. Ecemaml (talk to me/habla conmigo) 22:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Category:Galleria Nuova (Novara)

The shopping mall in this category looks very recent. Italy has no freedom of panorama. --User:G.dallorto 05:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

 Comment I guess you're referring to the images and not the category itself, though this would be rendered useless after image deletion. I'm inclined to delete, since the main focus of the images is architectural aspects, and indeed there is no freedom of panorama in Italy. Patrícia ^msg 22:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I learned that the Gallery is less than 10 years old. Therefore I changed this request into a {{copyvio}} one. --User:G.dallorto 16:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Category was already empty; page deleted. -- Bryan (talk to me) 21:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:John1-150.jpg

• Also Image:John-gilmore.2001.1536x2048.jpg and Image:John-gilmore-2005-bm.jpg. I joined the three discussions, since they have all the same rationale and all images are from the same site. Patrícia ^msg 22:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Source says this image is "Free-for-commercial-use." However, we have no information on other use, restrictions on modification, and such. RG2 07:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Inclined to Delete, there is indeed no information about other restrictions. Would it be worthwhile to contact the author, though? He seems to be involved in the GNU movement - perhaps he would agree licensing his photos with a copyleft license. Patrícia ^msg 22:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. -- Bryan (talk to me) 21:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Public_Domain_Image_Andrea_Yates.jpg

License status unclear, unknown source. The stated page gives www.fdch.com to order the video, if following you comes to http://orders.voxant.com/store/cart.php?m=product_list&c=3 which says *Business Use videos include necessary copyright licenses for non-broadcast, non-duplication, non-Internet posting, business use of videos for training, R&D, corporate archives, and client presentations.

GeorgHH 09:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep-Please notice that all objections made by GeorgHH have been rectified on the image page. The license status is now clear with the removal of the GFDL tag and retaining of the PD because tag. The rationale and description sections have been revamped with clarifications to eliminate confusion over ownership of the video source and include a link to the Texas Public Information Act that documents why the reporter in the cited CNN interview would professionally used the phrase "public domain" when refering to materials released by the Attorney General of Texas. Thomas Anderson 19:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

GeorgHH,

You hastily misunderstood the free use rationale and the video source of the Yates image. The image of Yates did not come from a CNN video of one of their broadcasts. It came from a public domain video not belonging to CNN.

The www.fdch.com link is for -CNN- owned video transcripts of -their- programs. The Yates jail psychiatric interview video is not property of CNN. The CNN article was only cited to prove the video of Yates (state's evidence) was released by the Texas DA into public domain. As such, a frame grab of a public domain video falls under the terms of free use and should be allowed for use in Wikipedia.

Yates was not interviewed by CNN. The image was not part of their video which falls under their copyright terms described in the links you provided above. The links are not associated with state's evidence video released into public domain.

You clearly miscomprehended the rationale and source of the video. Please reconsider as there is no reason for the deletion tag. Thank you. Thomas Anderson 06:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete - uploader is not understanding the definition of "public domain". Public domain doesn't mean many people are using it, it menas that anybody can use it for free, for any purpose, without needing to worry about copyrights. Patstuart 07:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Rescinded, this is becoming too complicated and making my head hurt. I can't figure out what's "public domain" and what's not. Patstuart 19:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Patstuart, you are assuming I do not understand the definition of public domain,. When the state of Texas places a document into public domain, it means anyone can use it freely according to their freedom of information policy. My rationale was never "because many people are using it." Where do you see that? The CNN reporter Hemmer described the Yates video as released into the public domain when he asked if -more- documents regarding the case will be released into the public domain. I'm taking my definition from the CNN reporter who is professionally accustomed to the most techincal meaning of "public domain" in the copyright sense. His usage of the terminology as a professional defaults its meaning to the professional definition.Thomas Anderson 07:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide access to the document claiming this is in the public domain? Patstuart 18:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It has always been available on the image page for the PD rationale:

This file is in the public domain', because The District Attorney's Office of Houston, TX had the Attorney General release the states evidence video of this uploaded screenshot into the public domain according to the following CNN article:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0206/20/ltm.15.html

It is one of two videos mentioned in the article. Lucy Puryear is the psychiatrist interviewing Yates.

IMPORTANT: The jailhouse psychiatric interview of Yates is not property of CNN and therefore does not fall under the copyright terms of CNN owned video transcripts of its programing. The CNN Article was only cited here to prove the state of Texas released this states evidence video of Yates into public domain, and as such a frame grab is also public domain and qualifies for free use in Wiki.

Certain information, such as state's evidence is excluded from public access according to the Texas Public Information Act until the Attorney General authorizes its release. When it is released, it becomes "public domain" by said policy, and the gov't is specifically restricted from asking how that material shall be used and cannot refuse its use. http://www.oag.state.tx.us/opinopen/og_faqs.shtml#pia A copyright holder has the right to ask how material is used and restrict who uses it, meaning the state of Texas no longer retains the copyright of material it has authorized for release under the Public Information Act of Texas.

Clearly, the documentation of the first two items mentioned in the article (which specifically includes the video of the frame grab), around the third or fourth sentence, are "released." Further down the CNN article page, the CNN reporter Hemmer asks the state prosecuter Odom if any more such documents (other evidence described by Odom as "additional videos") will be released into the "public domain." Hemmer is a professional reporter and uses such terms as "public domain" with their professional meaning.

It is indisputable that the video is public domain, and the only reason this image was originally challenged was because GeorgHH mistakenly understood the states evidence video, which was released by the Attorney General, was property of CNN, followed the link at the bottom of the page in regard to CNN transcript videos of their original broadcasts and errantly concluded that CNN copyright policy regarding videos had domain over a public domain video released by the state of Texas. Thomas Anderson 22:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Concerning the statement at the bottom of the CNN transcript page: "TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com" This statement only applies to the CNN broadcast scripted above it, not the videos discussed in the transcript. If it applied to videos discussed during the broadcast, the statement would read: "TO ORDER A VIDEO DISCUSSED IN THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com" Therein lies GeorgHH's misunderstanding and basis for thinking the Yates Psychiatric interview video was restricted by CNN copyright stipulations of video transcripts of their broadcasts.Thomas Anderson 03:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

You can see from several pages of CNN transcripts that the same statement for ordering a video transcript exists at the bottom of the page (and all such pages) but in these three examples, there is no video mentioned in the article. Therefore, one can only conclude that the statement is for a recorded copy of the CNN interview, and not any videos mentioned in the article. I don't even know why this was even brought up. It is commonly understood that such statements are for ordering transcripted copies of the broadcasted program, not videos mentioned in the article.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0206/20/ltm.14.html

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0206/20/ltm.11.html

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0206/20/ltm.09.html —the preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.64.52.26 (talk • contribs)

Could someone with a little expertise remove the GFDL tag from the Yates photo page? I only intended the PD because tag. When I uploaded the frame grab, I may have chosen the incorrect path of what was then a new and unfamiliar procedure to me designed by Wikipedians to prevent the use of certain fair use images. GeorgHH was uncertain of licensing because of this error. Once this is fixed, there should be no issues remaining with the licensing or rationale. Thanks. Thomas Anderson 00:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I've done this. Never mind. Thomas Anderson 03:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

 Comment I cannot understand how "right of access to information" means "public domain" in the sense that the produced material is not copyrighted or does not, at least, have any type of restrictions in its use (note use as opposed to access), whether in the sense of using it commercially or producing derivative work from it. If I failed to see the link between the two concepts, please do enlighten me; otherwise, I'm inclined to Delete. Patrícia ^msg 23:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Patricia, there are no restrictions governing the use of such material according to the Texas Public Information Act. Therfore anyone, newspapers, TV, publishers and Wikipedia can use the material however they choose. The cited article of the CNN reporter talking with state officials refers to such material being released into the "public domain."

May a governmental body ask me why I want the records?

No, a governmental body is forbidden from inquiring about the purpose for which the records will be used.TX PIA Clearly, the state of Texas has surrendered its right to govern the use or purpose of such materials. In this case, the Attorney General had to authorize the video before allowing it to fall under the terms of the PIA, but the cited article from CNN makes it clear that has already happened for the video.72.64.47.146 02:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, unfortunately. I think that Anderson is confusing public record with public domain. While the Texas Attorney General may not claim a copyright on documents released into public record, it has no legal authority to release already copyrighted works into the public domain. The copyright to these tapes is held by the state psychiatrist responsible for making them or by the state of Texas. The only way to ascertain the copyright status of this tape, or to request an explicit release, is to contact the relevant governmental body. ˉ^anetode╦╩ 16:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep, Anetode, I'm not the one who confused terms. If anyone did, then it was the professional journalist of CNN. Please read the cited CNN article. He didn't say "public record" he said "public domain," and he said it to a Texas D.A. who didn't object to that word usage. I don't think these professionals are mistaken about their word selections. I believe they meant "public domain" when they said it.

While I agree that if a clearly copyrighted work becomes "public record" under the PIA, a Harry Potter book for example, because it was evidence in a case, the copyright is still valid according to the Texas PIA. Now please think about this for a moment. That tape was made by the defense attorney's hired psychiatrist, Dr. Lucy Puryear. If it was made by her, then she would own the copyright or the defense team who paid for it would. Notice that ATTY Parnham wanted to supress the release of the video by the State of Texas because taken out of context by the media, it could create the wrong impression and alter public opinion against his client in a negative way. If Parnham or Puryear owned the copyright, they wouldn't need to surpress the release of the video to the terms of the PIA through the court, they would simply refuse that anyone could publish it in part or even in whole to any of the media who would first require their permission. That alone proves they don't have the copyright. That leaves only Texas who could hold the copyright if indeed one exists, and that would give them power to control the how the public intends to use of the video, but the Texas PIA clearly states that they have surrendered this control.Thomas Anderson 07:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The CNN transcript records an informal interview, not testimony, so I doubt the D.A. would have made sure to correct the reporter either way. Note also that in the very next question after the reporter says "public domain" he uses "public record" instead. Now consider copyright law, if the tape was made by Puryear, then she owns the copyright. In order to substantiate the public domain claim, you need either a) an explicit release from Puryear; b) verification of release into the public domain from the Attorney General's office; c) clear reference to public domain in the language of the relevant statute, or d) proof that the taped interview does not contain copyrightable content. Without any of these, we are left to assume public domain status based only on faith. ˉ^anetode╦╩ 22:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Public domain is a subset of public record. Driver's licensing and other such personal information on individuals is public record, but not public domain. You are only assuming he corrected himself. There is no evidence of such in the transcript. He can refer to the video being in both categories and still be correct. You also ignored my argument that Puryear could not own the copyright. If she did, then as part of the defense team she could simply refuse to allow anyone to broadcast it, as the defense team desired in their seeking to block this "public record" document's release into the "public domain."72.64.37.16 05:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

It's true that I am assuming that the reporter corrected himself, much like you assumed that he was correct in mentioning public domain in the first place. This is the problem with using passing mentions from media interviews to attempt to prove copyright. The argument that Puryear could not own the copyright is likewise fraught with assumptions and lacking in any substantial evidence. Puryear could own the copyright, and there is no explicit release, ignoring your own statements, to prove that she does not. Again, we need better proof than "if, then" assumptions. ˉ^anetode╦╩ 15:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

This whole deletion process was started with errant assumptions initiated by a German speaking editor who assumed CNN owned the video. When that editor was shown his error, he didn't remove his deletion request. It was followed up by an assumption by another that I didn't understand the definition of "public domain" and a Portugese editor who assumed "public domain" isn't a subset of "public record." I'm surprised and baffled you haven't caught on to that yet. My sources aren't if/then assumptions, but people who know the ownership of the copyright, and they refered to it as "public domain."

The following email proves at least Dr. Lucy Puryear, whom the CNN article proves made the video, does not own the video. So hold your "delete horses" and let me follow up on her request. Of course I'm assuming Dr. Puryear knows she doesn't own the copyright when she says so.

> Name: Tom

> Email:

>

> Comments:

>

> Who owns the copyright to the video interview you made of Andrea

Yates

> shortly after her incarceration?

>

> If it is "public domain" and has no copyright, I would appreciate

knowing

> that as well.

>

> Thank you

>

I believe it is "public domain", but you would need to check with her

attorney, Mr. George Parnham.

----- Original Message -----

From: <admin@lucypuryear.com>

To: <contact@lucypuryear.com>

Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 11:47 PM

Subject: Message from LucyPuryear.com>72.64.37.16 16:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for following up with the contact. This is the sort of proof I was talking about. Are you going to e-mail Parnham? If so, please forward the exchange to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Someone at OTRS will file a ticket to verify the licensing details. After that, the whole deletion discussion will be moot. ˉ^anetode╦╩ 22:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Great, the Portuguese editor, and I guess the German one too, will be grateful to see that permission. BTW, I have OTRS access, I can close the request with a permission as soon as you get it and send it. Regards. Patrícia ^msg 22:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I asked Parnham through his paralegal if he owned the copyright. He responded in a round about way. First he thanked me for the help I provided his Private Investigator during the case, but he said the video was a "psychiatric interview," and as such "requires authorization," then he asked me to understand. He didn't say from whom the authorization should come (Dr. Puryear didn't express any need for authorization from her) or whether or not he owned the copyright. This is consistent with his desire expressed in the CNN transcript for the video not to be released by the State of Texas, and I think he was using court room speak tactics to stop the use of the video without having the copyright authority to do so. Maybe he does own the copyright, but he could have clearly said he did, and that he doesn't want to authorize its use in this case. I wrote again asking for clarification on who owns the copyright, but in reflection, since he seems concerned that any use of the video is not beneficial to his client, I'm inclined not to use it since it was only my intention to convey how sick the woman was (which I thought was consistent with his own purpose). Therefore, please delete the image promptly. I apologize for having wasted your time over this.72.64.42.106 02:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry it didn't work out ˉ^anetode╦╩ 07:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Deleted -- Bryan (talk to me) 13:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:ENERGIZER.jpg

Wrong license. In the japanese Wikipedia it is tagged with {{PD}} which is not wanted here without the specific reason for PD. ALE! ¿…? 13:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleted No source and author given at japanese wikipedia. --GeorgHH • talk   13:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Tylocephale.jpg

Deleted from English Wikipedia as copyvio--Superm401 00:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deleted. Copyviol (http://internt.nhm.ac.uk/ ) per discussion on en:Wikipedia where it was already deleted. -- Infrogmation 02:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Penebeibi.JPG

it's offensive por one person—the preceding unsigned comment was added by Chabacano11 (talk • contribs) 25 October 2007

• Delete looks like a child's drawing & might even be libelous. --Simonxag 23:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This image is hardly within the project scope. Samulili 16:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

No tiene sentido y me ocasiona problemas. No es util --81.9.221.244 00:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per Samulili - out of scope. Deadstar (msg) 13:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Deleted. Samulili 13:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Rông house, interior1.jpg

Duplication, wrong filename. --Nguyễn Thanh Quang 00:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate of what? --ALE! ¿…? 12:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Kept for now, please tag the image with {{duplicate|other file}}. Patrícia ^msg 23:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Rông house, interior2.jpg

Duplication, wrong filename. --Nguyễn Thanh Quang 00:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Kept for now, please tag the image with {{duplicate|other file}}. Patrícia ^msg 23:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Princearthurdukeconnaught.png

There is no author given. It may still be copyrighted, since the subject died in 1942. --Superm401 01:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It has been deleted from en.wikipedia (see [2], so I'd say Delete, too. Patrícia ^msg 23:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. - BanyanTree 11:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:BugleRock Dr.Raj.jpg

Deriviative. Photo has no point other than reproduction of likely copyrighted commercial work. --Infrogmation 02:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Remover — unauthorized derivative of a copyrighted commercial work. --Boricuæddie 03:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, per above. RG2 06:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleted, see COM:DW. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:UNAM.png

This picture was uploaded from the English Wiki where is a copyrighted logo Estoymuybueno 08:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Si en Wikipedia en inglés, el escudo de la máxima casa de estudios, la UNAM, está autorizado para publicarse ¿cual es el problema? ¿El permiso? ¿que Wikipedia no es la misma en todos los idiomas? pues sino fuera así ¿entonces porque el donativo se va para una misma cuenta? Aclárenme esta confusión que a todas luces es inaudita e inadmisible. --Guarniz 05:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Por favor, lea Commons:Sobre las licencias#No se acepta material bajo el supuesto de uso legítimo. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleted, {{copyvio}}. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Bob gorog katolikus templom.jpg

copyright:http://marosvasarhely.lap.hu --Fransvannes 18:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. Copyright statements at source website do not mention GFDL. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Kulturpalota varoshaza.jpg

copyright:www.marosvasarhely.lap.hu --Fransvannes 18:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleted by ALE! (talk • contribs): copyvio

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

[edit] Image:Autobus in Marosvásárhely.JPG

copyright:http://mures1.lx.ro/tgmures090307/index4.html --Fransvannes 18:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleted by ALE! (talk • contribs): copyvio

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

[edit] Image:Oradea Building.jpg

from Flickr, but without a compatible licence --Fransvannes 18:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom --Simonxag 18:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleted per nom. No valid license. Deadstar (msg) 16:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Une_fois_que_tu_es_né.jpg

seems to be a copyrighted wallpaper Christian Nurtsch^TM 22:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleted by Infrogmation. --Christian Nurtsch^TM 10:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:2007_07_15_do_18_kaczynski_USA_30.jpg

Repetative image to Image:Nancy Reagan Lech Kaczyński July 17, 2007.jpg Happyme22 03:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

For exact duplicates you can use {{duplicate|Image:example.jpg}} instead of a full deletion request. But in this case the two are not quite identical Image:Nancy_Reagan_Lech_Kaczyński_July_17,_2007.jpg has a slightly larger file size than Image:2007 07 15 do 18 kaczynski USA 30.jpg which might imply some editing? Image Image:2007 07 15 do 18 kaczynski USA 30.jpg is identical (binary comparison) to the current version on the cited website. I would tend to keep the identical one unless someone can work out the difference (if the file has been re-compressed when saving there may be generational artefacts) --Tony Wills 08:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Kept, the other image was deleted as a duplicate of the proposed one. Patrícia ^msg 14:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Blason_dpt_fr_Manche.svg

deja exisatant Yannpassays 14:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

This is a duplicate of which other file? --ALE! ¿…? 12:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Kept, no original file given as source for claim. Please use the {{duplicate}} template when you find it. Patrícia ^msg 14:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Kant.jpg

obviously copyvio from http://www.kant-gymnasium-boppard.de/bilderbogen/klein/kant.jpg uploaded by student ---- Gerolsteiner91 (blubb?) 17:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

deleted. --Matt314 16:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Samina_vista_dos_Alpes_(Liechtenstein).jpg

Looks like a picture of Google Maps, because it's the typic Google Maps quality and perspektive and see at right bottom: Looks like a edited logo. Alkab 21:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete. The colours are slightly different from http://maps.google.com/maps?cd=2&ll=47.128316,9.540306&t=k&z=18, and Google doesn't place a logo in the place where the image has been manipulated. However, it has the exact same zoom level, so it was most likely taken from the same copyrighted satellite data. Image:Vale de Samina visto de Triesenberg.jpg and Image:Vale de Samina visto dos Alpes.jpg should also be considered in the scope of this deletion request. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I have asked for some feedback from the uploader, he edits pt.wiki regularly. Patrícia ^msg 15:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I got an answer. In short, Tiago found those photos printed among his personal belongings and thought they were from a previous trip, promptly scanned them and uploaded them; only after uploading, he realized maybe they were from Google Earth, and agrees now with the deletion. Tiago takes a lot of photos, and is a good contributor; I have no reason to doubt it was an honest mistake. I'll close this as delete. Patrícia ^msg 16:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Deleted (all three photos). Patrícia ^msg 16:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Nsa_logo_1.gif

GIF-duplicate of a local SVG-version. Christian Nurtsch^TM 23:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

 Comment The source is missing for nearly two weeks now. --Christian Nurtsch^TM 18:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. This is unused file, a duplicate of both a PNG and a SVG version, and it's a GIF, a file format that should only be used for simple animations. Patrícia ^msg 15:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Shenao_coal_train.jpg

"Image donated by author" Author: Ku Ting-wei(古庭維, the chief editor of Railfan magzine RailNews in Taiwan. Is there OTRS permission available? Deadstar (msg) 14:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course. See the album of author - http://www.wretch.cc/album/show.php?i=kutrain&b=10&f=1704511706&p=2.--Koika 19:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

 Comment I only see a GFDL license on the page, not a CC-by-SA-1.0. Patrícia ^msg 23:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Kept, license changed to GFDL. -- Bryan (talk to me) 13:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Pyranja_11_klein.jpg

No permission via OTRS, "for Wikipedia", no Creative Commons license mentioned in the "permission", no appropriate source (who is the photographer?) Polarlys 19:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Kept as OTRS permission now available. Deadstar (msg) 16:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Pyranja_11_klein.jpg

Still wikipedia only, please check the permission, the uploader placed it in the description not the person from OTRS. Polarlys 00:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Deleted Insufficient permission: No explicit license given, using allowed for wikipedia only. OTRS ticket was checked by User:Lar, see [3]. --GeorgHH • talk   11:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Pyranja_10_klein.jpg

No permission via OTRS, "for Wikipedia", no Creative Commons license mentioned in the "permission", no appropriate source (who is the photographer?) Polarlys 19:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Kept OTRS permission now available. Deadstar (msg) 16:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Pyranja_10_klein.jpg

Still wikipedia only, please check the permission, the uploader placed it in the description not the person from OTRS. Polarlys 00:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Deleted Insufficient permission: No explicit license given, using allowed for wikipedia only. OTRS ticket was checked by User:Lar, see [4]. --GeorgHH • talk   11:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Pyranja_9_klein.jpg

No permission via OTRS, "for Wikipedia", no Creative Commons license mentioned in the "permission", no appropriate source (who is the photographer?) Polarlys 19:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Kept OTRS permission now available. Deadstar (msg) 16:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Pyranja_9_klein.jpg

Still wikipedia only, please check the permission, the uploader placed it in the description not the person from OTRS. Polarlys 00:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Deleted Insufficient permission: No explicit license given, using allowed for wikipedia only. OTRS ticket was checked by User:Lar, see [5]. --GeorgHH • talk   11:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Pyranja_3_klein.jpg

No permission via OTRS, "for Wikipedia", no Creative Commons license mentioned in the "permission", no appropriate source (who is the photographer?) Polarlys 19:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Kept OTRS permission now available. Deadstar (msg) 16:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Pyranja_3_klein.jpg

Still wikipedia only, please check the permission, the uploader placed it in the description not the person from OTRS. Polarlys 00:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Polarlys... See User_talk:Lar#OTRS_check... my read of the OTRS ticket (which is in German... I pasted the content (except the email addy) of the email received on my page so others can comment) is that no license was granted. "OK to use on wikipedia" is not a sufficient grant. Try again to get a better license, and if not, then delete ... (note, this applies to all 4 images mentioned) ++Lar: t/c 17:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted Insufficient permission: No explicit license given, using allowed for wikipedia only. OTRS ticket was checked by User:Lar, see [6]. --GeorgHH • talk   11:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

In particular, see this revision as I do archive my talk page from time to time. ++Lar: t/c 18:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Celso_Charuri_(1981).jpg

it is not on free licence 201.27.210.179 05:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC) Keep The uploader has added CC share alike licence tag that indicates they were the creator of the image. Have you any evidence that this is not so? --Simonxag 19:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• it is copyrighted 201.43.91.111 05:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
• and I am confused. --Simonxag 13:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
• OK, I misunderstood the deletion procedure. Well, I uploaded this images. But now I've checked with the owners and now I know it is copyrighted. So I ask to delete it, and I'm sorry for this mistake. Tomlobato 4 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete OK, so I change my vote to delete --Simonxag 20:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
• Please! Someone delete this file. It has 5 days I asked to delete, include delete and copyvio tags and til now its there. I changed the file to a blank image since it is not removed from commons. How can I speedy this process? Tomlobato

Deleted. Sorry for the delay; we have a big backlog and not enough administrators. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Madeleine_McCann_MB.jpg

Derivative work of copyrighted photograph 81.169.183.122 13:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom --Simonxag 19:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep because it is the most used photo of maddy on all pages.--217.209.116.113 15:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Remember, this is not a vote, only arguments count. And if it's a copyright violation, it must go, no matter how widely used is. On the other hand, what's the copyrighted image from where it was taken? -- Drini 15:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, 217.209.116.113 has been creating MMCann pages across a lot of small wikis without content, only the picture, and he is the responible of the image being widely used (he posts it on almost any wiki).

However, the nominator doesn't provide proof the image it's a copyright violation, until it's done, I'm refraining to take a position. -- Drini 16:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - If it can be demonstrated that the image breaches copyright then, as said above by Drini, it must go but the alleged source must be produced to substantiate this. I have had a good search through Google images and a possible culprit that I could find is here. However, there is no indication that I could see that shows that the Commons picture was taken from that source rather than vice versa. What bothers me is the discussion at User talk:StaraBlazkova#Image:Madeleine McCann information.JPG which seems to contain a confession that she didn't take the original picture. BlueValour 16:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding the discussion. Isn't User:StaraBlazkova asking whether she can truly claim that the photo was self-made, regardless of who took the photo displayed on the poster itself? Thincat 13:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The main problem, the one that makes this a derivative work, is the girl's photo in the middle. This is copyrighted, because all UK works are, by law and without any action needed on the part of the artist or publisher. It's no good talking about "freedom of panorama" or "de minimis" or whatever: the central photo is what this image is about, this is a derivative image of that photo. Unless the central photo of Madeleine has been released under a free license, then this image is not under a free license and it has to be removed. The girl's family have released the picture for a specific purpose (and hence with an implicit license), but have they really released it for any purpose? Any purpose?. It can be used as "fair use" but not on the Commons. --Simonxag 02:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

deleted, the photo is clearly a derivative work of the photo shown on the poster. The poster is a non-permanent istallation and therefore is not covered by freedom of panorama. --> delete --ALE! ¿…? 09:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Okay Airways

This is an empty page with non-exist file (i've checked with search button). - Dmitry-spb 15:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleted by ALE! (talk • contribs): empty page

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

[edit] Image:Les_Danaïdes.jpg

The author died in 1949. Accordingly, the artwork is not in the public domain (see http://home.arcor.de/fhy/boever.htm and http://www.artnet.de/Artists/ArtistHomePage.aspx?artist_id=554618&page_tab=In_upcoming_auctions) Christian Nurtsch^TM 15:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom --Simonxag 19:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Yep, own erroneus upload from the early days. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 05:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• Deleted. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 05:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:SRIHADI-KSATRIA.jpg

"Permission to be used publicly for any purposes related to any wiki projects including Wikimedia Commons" is {{permission}}, not {{GFDL}}. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deleted per {{permission}}, since it was uploaded after the uploader was notified that the permission is insufficient (see Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Lempad-Watugunung King.jpg), which they've had ample time to address instead of uploading more problem images. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:LoveBug53.png

"to use in Herbie articles" is a clause which is incompatible to GFDL. --Flominator 17:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, how can we rephrase it to be compatible to the GFDL? The author gave me permission to upload it to Wikipedia and someone else transferred it to Wikimedia Commons. I apologize for not doing it correctly! -HotWheels53 02:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I think User:Flominator is complaining that that phrase tacked on the end, "to use in Herbie articles", may imply it can't be used for other purposes. So removing that clause (if that's ok with David Evans) would solve that problem. But I expect you would be best to get some correspondence from "David Evans" as evidence that he has indeed given permission for its release under GFDL (or other license), and file it in the OTRS system. --Tony Wills 07:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

deleted (unfree use: "to use in Herbie articles", we need permission for any (!) purpose.) --ALE! ¿…? 09:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Underwear.jpeg

From commercial website, copyrighted. http://www.ukswimstore.com/images/lenman.jpg 128.239.194.142 22:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deleted. Obvious {{copyvio}}, bogus licensing. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:RedTara4.jpg

not owners to release as PD, belongs to the nepalese artist Secretlondon 06:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete I think the idea might be that this is an old painting in the uploader's pssession. But if that is the case they mus say so, say just how old it is and give their reason for this belief. --Simonxag 19:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

How old though? Any ideas? Patrícia ^msg 15:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Deleted, no evidence of free status. -- Infrogmation 03:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Sofia_Marikh_2.jpg

Image is obviously copyrighted by the named website. Christian Nurtsch^TM 11:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

 Comment Bigger version without license information found at http://www.melody4arab.com/pic/en_pic_212_0.htm --GeorgHH 13:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

 Comment The provided images are also framed and seem to be copyrighted by http://www.melody4arab.com/. --Christian Nurtsch^TM 13:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleted Copyvio from http://www.melody4arab.com/ Deadstar (msg) 16:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Asmaa_allah.JPG

It's scan for a copyrighted book OsamaK 13:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleted by Zirland as a copyright violation. Please use {{copyvio}} for obvious copyright violations. Patrícia ^msg 15:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:1000_rupii_indyjskich.jpg

Wrong license, no describtion Alkab 14:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom --Simonxag 19:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleted, obviously false license. -- Infrogmation 03:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:AntonNilson.jpg

"Certainly before 1969" is not a valid photographer died before 1944 license --Patstuart 15:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

"For photographic pictures (fotografiska bilder), such as images of the press, the image is public domain if created before January 1, 1969" so it's the creation date that is an issue. // Liftarn

Ah. Well, that helps out a lot (I was dearly confused). But may I ask, how does one distinguish between photographic pictures and photographic works? Patstuart 16:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

And even if we can say for sure what "picture" and "work" mean, can we be sure which this is? If it's a press photo it's presumably OK, but I've looked at the source website and there's no indication there of the circumstances in which this image was produced. --Simonxag 19:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it boils down to the purpose of the picture. As I understand it if the purpose was artistic it's a photographic work (fotografiskt verk), but if the purpose is to show and illustrate the subject it's a photographic picture (fotografisk bild). // Liftarn

Well, he would be 82 years-old in 1969, hence the "certainly before 1969". I'll close this as keep. Patrícia ^msg 15:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Kept. Patrícia ^msg 15:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Concordefire01.jpg

Image was not created by the uploader, it's a fair use image at best. Megapixie 02:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deleted, {{copyvio}}, bogus licensing. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Oscar Sanchez Office.jpg

Orphan, personal photo of nn person --80.203.16.4 11:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom --Simonxag 13:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 11:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Category:Village of Concarneau

Category not used any more. Moved to “Category:City of Concarneau” --Bhogi 14:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Redirect to Category:City of Concarneau. Non-admin closure. --Boricuæddie 17:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Family_Convertor.jpg

Appears to be straight reproduction of box art, links do not appear to refer to this, and in any case copyright (and permission) would lie with the company who originally produced the product, not the person who simply photographed the box. Yottanesia 18:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok to delete, its one of my first uploads, i didn't know rules. ptit Raizin °^° 18:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 11:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Image-Wikipedia-microbar-hu-2.png

mistyped name Tgr 19:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Should have been speedy, of course... the nomination javascript is a bit trigger-happy. --Tgr 19:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleted as a duplicate of Image:Wikipedia-microbar-hu-2.png. --Kjetil r 14:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Фастов_(Fastov)_-_телефонный_справочник.rar.gif

This is a RAR archive containing two Excel sheets with some names and local phone numbers. Out of project scope. Lupo 22:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete Not used anywhere. File format not welcome on Common. Possibly private data that should be speedy deleted IMO. — Xavier, 10:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. --EugeneZelenko 15:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Prince-NYC_Webby_Awards-20060613.jpg

Copyvio. The large majority of this photograph is a video screen showing an image of Prince. The videographer, not the photographer, holds the copyright. See also COM:QFI.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• Hi, Jeff G. I received three items on my talk page from you about these photos. The template says, "We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry" which is here. While many years ago I had an interest in copyright that was too long ago to be of any assistance, sorry. -Susanlesch 03:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I tagged this image db-author for speedy deletion because of a comment I saw somewhere. Nothing to do with copyright of the video which is a separate topic. I asked about that on the Commons Licensing page and don't see any replies yet here or there. If anyone would like to reply on this or that thread, please leave a note on my talk page if you would, as I don't plan to revisit this page otherwise. Best wishes. -Susanlesch 06:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I replied on Susan's talk page.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

This image was uploaded to Flickr by nick farnhill from London, UK http://www.flickr.com/people/57749032@N00.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

deleted (derivative) --ALE! ¿…? 11:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Prince-Webby Awards NYC 20060613.jpg

Copyvio. The large majority of this photograph is a video screen showing an image of Prince. The videographer, not the photographer, holds the copyright. See also COM:QFI.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• Hi, Jeff G. I received three items on my talk page from you about these photos. The template says, "We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry" which is here. While many years ago I had an interest in copyright that was too long ago to be of any assistance, sorry. -Susanlesch 03:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I tagged this image db-author for speedy deletion because of a comment I saw somewhere. Nothing to do with copyright of the video which is a separate topic. I asked about that on the Commons Licensing page and don't see any replies yet here or there. If anyone would like to reply on this or that thread, please leave a note on my talk page if you would, as I don't plan to revisit this page otherwise. Best wishes. -Susanlesch 06:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I replied on Susan's talk page.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

This image was uploaded to Flickr by nick farnhill from London, UK http://www.flickr.com/people/57749032@N00.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

deleted (derivative) --ALE! ¿…? 11:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Category:Ägydiuskirche

There are (at least) two churches of this name in Vienna, with a category for each of them --wg 23:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

this seems to be solved --ALE! ¿…? 11:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:KionViFarasPorEvitiTion.jpg

La afisho estas tro moderna por PD-Art Error 00:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Figura3esperanto.jpg estas identa. --Error 00:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The latter was deleted with the following comment: "09:55, 5 November 2007 Cecil (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Image:Figura3esperanto.jpg" ‎ (Dupe of Image:KionViFarasPorEvitiTion.jpg)" --ALE! ¿…? 11:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

In the German Wikipedia, the image is described as being from ca. 1937 (Gebrauch des Esperanto, Geschichte des Esperanto). Unless there's a source to support this, Delete. Patrícia ^msg 16:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

It is from 1936-1939. If the copyright owner is the painter, he would have to have died in 1936 (1937 if Wikipedia allows it to remain unlicensed until next 1st January) to keep the 70-years rule. If the owner is an organization, I think it would be legal from 1st January. The Spanish Ministry of Culture tags it as anonymous (1936-1939). I don't remember when Barcelona fell to the Nationalists. That would be the end of the possible dates. In one instance the rights are claimed by The Imperial War Museum--Error 01:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. Spanish law states 80 nor 70 years. Ecemaml (talk to me/habla conmigo) 22:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Jan_Larmann.jpg

a passport photograph - copyright lies normally by the photographer, not by the depicted person BLueFiSH.as 03:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep Please correct me if I'm wrong, but if you hire someone to take a picture for you, you generally own the copyright. That's why the photographer gives you the negatives (because they have no rights over the image). --Simonxag 02:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Where I live, one usually does not get the negatives, and the copyright is with the photographer. I don't know whether such portraits would count as "works made for hire" in the U.S. Lupo 10:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

A few countries indeed do have the rule that the copyright on a photo is bound to the negatives, and is passed along when the negatives are given away. Italy once had that rule, and Chile still does, AFAIK. Most countries, however, do not have that rule at all. And anyway it appears that this is neither an Italian nor a Chilean nor a U.S. work. It's a German work (at least the subject is German), and in Germany the copyright indeed is with the photographer. Delete Lupo 09:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Where I live, the copyright stays with the photographer. One can not automatically assume that the copyright is transfered. --Kjetil r 14:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment - a) how do you know this is a passport photo? b) before deleting the image, we ought to make sure that passport and government photos in the said country are not in fact free. Patstuart 17:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

it does not matter what type of photo it is. The depicted person never can be the copyright holder. --BLueFiSH.as 05:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but the government, which releases it into the public domain, can. Patstuart 07:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. No info on source. It's up to the uploader prove that licensing and author claims are right. Ecemaml (talk to me/habla conmigo) 22:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Charpentier_-_Super_Flumina_Babylonis.ogg

submitter is just the recorder of someone else's performance. they cannot grant into PD Secretlondon 06:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete, no evidence that all copyright holders (namely the performers) approved the licence stated. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom --Simonxag 13:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. Patrícia ^msg 16:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Monteverdi_-_Orfeo's_Lament.ogg

submitter is just the recorder of someone else's performance. Secretlondon 06:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete, no evidence that all copyright holders (namely the performers) approved the licence stated. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. Patrícia ^msg 16:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:FBC-1.jpg

List on PUI on en.wikipedia. Seems unlikely the uploader created the photo themselves, making it a copyvio of some off web source. Megapixie 13:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete A lot of people have the opportunity to take a picture of the Eiffel tower. Few people get the opportunity to witness a fighter firing a rocket. Samulili 19:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

What's PUI? Patrícia ^msg 16:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Possibly unfree images ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PUI ). Megapixie 09:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• Deleted. Samulili 10:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Diem dead.jpg

given the time the photo would have to have been taken and the fact the image appears to have first appeared on sale to the media it is unlikely to be the work of the US gov --Geni 14:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment It is specifically labeled as US govt on the caption next to the picture in the book. Blnguyen 23:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep No reason to delete it.

• what is the wording?Geni 21:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The image in the book is marked as being taken from the collections of the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), a part of the U.S. federal government. --Strothra 00:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

  That doesn't mean that everything in the archives was produced by the goverment (if you think it was produced by the US goverment an explantion as to how would be of interest and would probably involve rewriteing our current history record).Geni 14:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

ADD: there were two attempted coups by u.s. what makes us REALLY doubt it was us. cause we dont want our hands dirty.

• Strong Keep Public domain. 69.242.90.133 20:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Could you please explain why? Thanks! -- Infrogmation 04:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

•  Comment So what are the possibilities for this image and the evidence? Either a US government, or news photographer work, or what? Wondering, -- Infrogmation 04:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. No evidence on PD. Ecemaml (talk to me/habla conmigo) 22:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• Overturned - Source (Jones, Howard (2003). Death of a Generation. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-505286-2.) provides enough information and justification for {{PD-USGov}}. Ecemaml notified, gave consent. — Giggy 03:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Beeymotorcycle.com

• Image:Beeymotorcycle.com front view.jpg
• Image:Beeymotorcycle.com side view.jpg

Awfull watermarks that make the image useful only for marketing Beeymotorcycle.com, a business that Commons is not in. --Samulili 19:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, enough watermarks to make it unusable. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 06:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. -- Infrogmation 15:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:CassetteSingle2.jpg and Image:CassetteSingle2.jpg

Copyvio. This is a photo of compact audio cassette single of Tina Turner's GoldenEye, from the movie of the same name. The card container / box and its contents and graphics were all produced in the US 1995 and are all copyrighted by Parlophone, EMI, MGM/UA, or their employees until 70 years pma, or at least until 1 January 2066.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm the uploader. I'm surprised that this sort of image qualifies as a Copyvio. Would a picture of a cornflake box also qualify as copyvio? Perhaps you can direct me to a policy which discusses how pictures of products qualifies as a copyright violation. In any case, I won't object to the deletion since it's better to be safe than sorry.--89.100.136.14 22:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I was surprised, too, with the results of Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Israel 6 035.Israelic Adultmovies.jpg (despite the results of Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2006/02#Image:Israel_6_035.Israelic_Adultmovies.jpg). It all boils down to whether or not the source of the derivative work is protected by copyright; covers of containers for audio media such as these are protected by copyright per "Definitely not OK ... Photographs, drawings, scans and other reproductions of objects that are copyrighted by someone other than yourself like the following: ... CD, videogame and movie covers, posters, Newspapers and magazines of less than 70 years (covers and interiors)." at COM:L#Checklist. I added Image:CassetteSingle3.jpg, a photo of just the box (with the cassette inside), for the same reason. Also, the graphics include copyrighted photographs of Tina Turner and Pierce Brosnan.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 00:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

speedy delete blatant copyright violation --Simonxag 02:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleted, derivative of copyrighted work. -- Infrogmation 15:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Rocket_comparison.png

The image can be found at http://www.nasa.gov/lb/worldbook/rocket_worldbook.html, where the caption says, "Image credit: World Book illustrations by Oxford Illustrators Limited". So, unfortunately, it is doubtful that this image is in the public domain as a work of NASA. Iamunknown 22:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete Possibly unfree. -- RedCoat 12:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. -- Infrogmation 15:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Luftgrader.png

Originally from en.wp, and deleted there as a derivative work with no information on original source. RG2 12:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom --Simonxag 13:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

This picture was uploaded to no.wp on 27. jan 2004 kl. 04:06 and the source is marked on the picture page as originating from no.wp not en.wp as claimed in the deletion request. It may be that the request is correct and that the upload to no.wp was copyvio by the uploader who claims (from the deleted version of the no.wp-picture page as of 27. jan 2004 kl. 03:07) that: "Laget fra scratch av meg selv." (made from scratch by myself). Othervise this is a pourly researched deletion request. Haros 17:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, I meant that while the image was originally from no.wp, the en.wp version was nominated for deletion as a derivative work with no information on the original source. And as an admin only on en.wp, we couldn't verify the original no.wp image description. RG2 01:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep I don't see why this image should be deleted. Maybe it wasn't well "transwikied" to en.wiki from no.wiki, but it was properly done here on Commons. Patrícia ^msg 16:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• Kept. Samulili 07:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Bevölkerungsentwicklung St. Petersburg en.png

Information in graph appears to contradict census data for Saint Petersburg. Image is superseded by SVG version Image:Saint Petersburg population history.svg which has source data and references --Dgies 19:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• Deleted. Samulili 07:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Img 0003 medium.jpg

The photo shows a military area (sv:Robotförsöksplats Norrland). The yellow sign on the fence seems to be a standard sign on Swedish military installations, saying that photographing of the area behind the fence is prohibited for military reasons. Although the picture probably doesn't show the most critical part of the complex, a protected military object is still a protected military object. --Essin 21:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The yellow sign (wich originate from WW II!) says it's prohibited to take pictures of any activitets without permission while you are inside the fence, not outside! That interpretation have allready been tested in court. This picture shows a decomissioned robot put on a pole for a public, very static display, for everyone and anyone to see, and nothing else! You can take as many pictures as you want of it, and the fence, and the sign, and no one could care less if you also get the house in the background in it too! A matter of fact is that the entire RFN base is not the top secret place it use to be anymore. It's more of a commercial business with foreign customers on an almost weekly basis. Deleting this picture would do nothing but ridicule Swedish Wikipedia! That goes for the entirely RFN article too! --Towpilot 02:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

 Keep Does this mean that the picture is itself illegal or just the activity that produced it? Is holding or using this picture illegal under some jurisdiction? Is this a problem? I thought that the only criminal law that applied was US. (Iranian anti-porn and pro-religious laws might very awkward if we have to obey them). --Simonxag 02:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I e-mailed Curt Löwfenberg who took the picture. He is not to fluent in how to discuss things directly here, so I will forward his information. Not only is the picture taken where anyone can legally take a random pic, but he do in fact have a special permisson to take pictures even inside the area! This means that this very picture have by default been scrutinized and approved by authorietes for publishing anywere! So question now is, who will remove this ridicules note of deletion ASAP?--Towpilot 21:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Towpilot, please {{be civil}}. There's no such thing as "ridiculous" deletion requests - there was a honest doubt about the legality of the picture and the matter is under discussion. Now, can anyone tell me the exact wording on that sign (in Swedish)? Patrícia ^msg 16:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• Kept. Samulili 07:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:21ARCAcar.jpg

not potentially usable by any current or future Wikimedia project - the wrong #21 car was uploaded. No usable images of the other #21 car is available. Nominated for deletion by User:Royalbroil, the photographer and original uploader. The error was discovered after uploading. --Royalbroil 04:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• Additional comment Note that the car is not an ARCA race car, but rather a car in the Mid American Stock Car Series. ARCA is nationally known and nationally televised series. Mid Am is a regional and not televised series. This car is not even a representative car from the Mid Am series - it was the car's only race during the season from a non-notable driver. Royalbroil 04:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - An apparent derivative work.guerreritoboy 05:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean it was a derivative. I never should have uploaded this image. It was a car from the wrong series that raced at that track that day. It's not usable since it a non-notable car from a non-notable driver. Royalbroil 05:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Keep, keep! This is a reasonable-quality photo of a certain kind of race car; edit the description rather than deleting it. There's no reason to think it will never be used. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 06:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliment about the quality of the image! I will go through the {{badname}} process since keep is likely the outcome of this discussion. Royalbroil 14:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. This driver is not well-known even within this series. For the record, images of more well-known drivers in the series are [7], [8]/[9], [10], and [11]. Royalbroil 15:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

16:19, 12 November 2007 Siebrand (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Image:21ARCAcar.jpg" ‎ (Dupe of Image:MidAmericanStockCar21TimWarner.jpg)

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

[edit] Image:Bob_Esponja_e_Patrick.JPG

Derivative of copyrighted work. guerreritoboy 05:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 08:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Soboa_senegal_Logo.gif

I may be wrong, as I cannot read German, but on this image's source page on the German wikipedia, it is identified as the logo of an association of breweries, and is also claimed to be licensed under a Creative Commons license. I presume that this is an error, as logos of commercial organizations are rarely licensed in such a fashion. Seidenstud 05:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Source: Self scanned. Author: unknown. If the user doesn't know the author, how do they know the image is licensed with cc-by-sa-2.0? Delete Samulili 08:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete Unknown source, but I presume it's fair use. Nishkid64 (talk) 17:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete Fair use probably. Ρх₥α 03:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 08:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Die Pfarrkirche in Fulnek und das Mariabild am Hochaltar

Not sure why there is a German-Czech dictionary here? Delete or move to userspace - this page is out of scope where it is now. Deadstar (msg) 12:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC) --Deadstar (msg) 12:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The book uses some old, dialectal words, some of them are very hard understandable today. Therefore, I have added an german-czech dictionary (I cannot speak German well, thus I think it is better to create a correct de-cs dictionary, than a explanatory german one, but full of mistakes). --PAD 12:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete – the subtitle says: small german-czech dictionary. I can't see any sense of keeping something like that in a separate page. --my name 13:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 08:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Img.nuju.jpg

Blurry photo of a toy - out of scope. Easy to get a better one. Unused. Deadstar (msg) 15:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete Unused— and unusable. Samulili 07:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 08:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:MandalorianFanArt.jpg

derivative work of copyrighted material : see Commons:Fan art --Teofilo 15:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Here (http://corranfett.deviantart.com/art/Gladus-Tite-Mandalorian-42372821) we see Cc-by-nc-nd. Speedy delete. ~ bayo or talk 13:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

deleted (non commercial) --ALE! ¿…? 08:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Botonblancodelamuerte.jpg

I doubt that this image could be useful. EugeneZelenko 15:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete Agree. Samulili 07:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, not used, and I doubt that it could be useful in the future. --Kjetil r 14:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 08:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Nantou government building.jpg

Possibly false license. The source [12] has stated that "Copyright 2006-2008 NanTou.Gov.cn All rights reserved".--CDIP No.150 (repair) 16:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

deleted--Shizhao 03:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Heilbronn Regimentsordnung 1552.jpg

redundant to Image:Heilbronn Regimentsordnung1 1552.jpg, but with a lower quality. --Schaengel89 16:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't say which one has better quality. Samulili 06:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

image kept, none is really better than the other --ALE! ¿…? 12:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Hurricane-Noel-2007-over-Canada.png

I have inputted a corrected version of that image at Image:Hurricane-Noel-2007-over-Canada 3-4november.png. So this one should be deleted. I am the conceptor of both images--Pierre cb 20:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Speedily deleted per uploader request. ~ Riana ⁂ 03:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Moya piano middle.jpg

Contains nothing, used nowhere, before was used in self-advertisement in ru-wiki --MaxiMaxiMax 21:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete useless image --Simonxag 22:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Also problems with source/author/permission. Samulili 06:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 08:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Stargard Pfarrhaus.jpg

copyvio: www.stargard.pl --Fransvannes 23:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. {{No permission since}} Samulili 06:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 08:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Manos Tatuadas.JPG

Very low quality, the image cannot tell anything words (fifty or thousand) can't tell. --Samulili 08:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep That's the only tattooed mummy we have. Platonides 17:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete The photo is unused and has a really bad quality. --ALE! ¿…? 08:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete Unusable. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 18:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete I hate voting for deletion on a free image but I agree that it's of such poor quality that it's unusable. Furthermore, it's retakeable. Patrícia ^msg 16:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. Ecemaml (talk to me/habla conmigo) 22:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Bieito_romero.xcf

This is not a GIMP source but some word processor file containing text about Bieito Romero, member of the Galician folk group es:Luar na Lubre. Untouched since March 2007. Out of project scope; should rather be an article at the Spanish WP (maybe). Lupo 10:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. Out of project scope. — Xavier, 22:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Versandkosteninfowiki1.gif

No permission, but may be PD-ineligible.Code·is·poetry 10:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

This image was uploaded to spam the German Wikipedia. All edits by the user are deleted already. Please delete this image too. --TM 20:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

You're right. licensing doesn't matter in this case anymore. Code·is·poetry 07:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. -- Infrogmation 15:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Bronze_in_Kunst_und_Kunsthandwerk_in_Deutschland_heute_06610.sxw

OpenOffice document containing German and English advertising text for a business. Out of project scope. Lupo 11:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. Ecemaml (talk to me/habla conmigo) 22:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Asteoides_cometas_e_meteoritos.sxw

OpenOffice document containing a school project (?) about asteroids, comets, and meteors; with several images of unknown provenance. Lupo 11:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. Ecemaml (talk to me/habla conmigo) 22:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Ayaka_Ohishi.jpg

Appears to have come from [13]. Could a Chinese speaker please translate the uploader's comments at the image description page? Lupo 12:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Looks like a professional photo, the low resolution supports this, too. --my name 13:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Description of this image has written clearly "cannot use for commercially", anyone can't distribute it with free licenses. And it has to concern about rights violation of portrait. --cory talk/hist/gallery 20:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment Just a translation, please see here. --cory talk/hist/gallery 20:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleted -- Infrogmation 04:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Gabriel bianco tichy.ogg

• Image:Gabriel bianco à tichy.Ogg

Certainly copyvio. The user may have recorded this but can't have played all the instruments. I doubt (s)he has composed the music either. — Xavier, 14:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Obvious copyvio: composer Mario Castenuovo-Tedesco (1895-1968) and performers (among them Gabriel Bianco) own the copyright. I changed this deletion request to a {{copyvio}}. — Xavier, 14:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. Ecemaml (talk to me/habla conmigo) 22:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Baloo.JPG

Blurry picture of pluche animal - from the description "baloo", which could be copyrighted through Disney (but too blurry to know for sure). Out of scope. Deadstar (msg) 15:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Unusable. And maybe copyright problem. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 18:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. -- Infrogmation 15:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Lautaro (de Pedro Subercaseaux).jpg

Pedro Subercaseaux died in 1956, not 70 years ago:. The {{PD-Chile}} tag may not apply. However, he did die before 1962, and appears to be have been died a divorced man es:Pedro Subercaseaux (at least according to my reading of the page; the position is unsourced): dying unmarried is one of the possible conditions (does divorce apply?). If this image is thus free, these images should all be so marked.

Also:

• Image:Pedro Subercaseaux.jpg
• Image:Cabildoabierto-Subercaseaux.jpg
• Image:Battle of Chacabuco.jpg
• Image:Carga de O'Higgins.jpg
• Image:Primera misa de Chile.jpg
• Image:Batalla de Maipu.jpg
• Image:Ultimos Momentos en Rancagua.jpg
• Image:Descubrimiento de Chile por Diego de Almagro.jpg
• Image:Mujeres de la Colonia.jpg
• Image:Baile de Santiago Antiguo.jpg
• Image:Ramón Subercasseaux.jpg
• Image:Bernardo O'Higgins.jpg
• Image:ASOCFILE120030520034642.JPG
• Image:Mvc-001s.jpg
• Image:JuraIndependencia.jpg
• Any others anyone else can find (the search box does not seem to be finding them all). --Patstuart 16:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Pat Stuart,

I can't follow you. Do you want to delete the works or to correct the license?

I repeat. The usa-license is irrelevant. The Chilean one applies to this case. I look Template_talk:PD-Chile

• if the author died before September 16, 1962, without a surviving spouse. (he died 1956).
• he divorced from her (former) wife (Elvira Lyon Otaégui) with authorization of the pope. (So he had no wife as he died.)

Under Chilean law this works are free for us.

If you want to correct the license, go on. But if you want to delete the works, you are wrong.

Saludos,

Antipatico.

Where does this "died before 1962 without a surviving spouse" come from? The Spanish text of the 1970 law given at Template talk:PD-Chile says "respecto de sus herederos, legatarios o cesionarios" (heirs, legatees, or assignees). The spouse bit was introduced only in 1992. Lupo 08:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

• there was a law: Ley Nº 17.336, sobre Propiedad Intelectual, de 2 de octubre de 1970 (->30 years protection)
• law 19.166 changed this law =>Ley Nº 17.336, tras la modificación de la Ley Nº 19.166, del 17 de septiembre de 1992:
• this day (17 de septiembre de 1992) finished the 30-years protection of the works whose creator died before (1992-30years)=16 de septiembre 1962. Those works are free.