Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2007/12

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

[edit] Image:Carlos-Ghosn.jpg

(copy of commercial image http://www.nissannews.com/multimedia/people.shtml ) --Tatoute 00:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete : The terms of the site clearly forbid commercial or personal use without the prior permission from the copyright owner. Image is unsuitable for Wikimedia Commons. Nick 02:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

• Deleted Giggy\^Talk 06:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Merchandising-x-files.jpg

I don't think the Flickr uploader is the copyright owner. Giggy\^Talk 06:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete This one's a little complicated, but the image is a copyright violation in almost every conceivable set of circumstances. If the trading cards are official authorised memorabilia, then they will be protected under copyright, and any photographs are considered derivative works (there's no incidental inclusion here, the subject of the image is copyright material). I've never come across those particular trading cards before, so there's the possibility the trading cards are unofficial, but in that case, since they're using screenshots or other promotional artwork which belongs to whoever owns the rights to the X-Files these days, the cards are derivative works and that has the knock-on effect of making this image a derivative work. There's no option but to delete the image I'm afraid. Nick 14:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

• Please note that there is a whole Category:Merchandising of The X-Files with currently 9 images. Lupo 08:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• They're now listed for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Merchandisig-mulder.jpg. It seems someone has nominated some but not all of the images for speedy deletion about a week ago, so they're mentioned in the deletion discussion, along with the category which will also require deletion. Nick 10:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Deleted RedCoat 11:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Jessika Gedin.JPG

this is a psychopicture --80.216.80.66 10:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The fact that a picture is not aestethicly pleasing (from the viewpoint of the person on the picture) is not a reason for it to be deleted... MiCkE 10:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

If she wants it gone, then I'll, as the photographer who took it, not stand in her way. As I see it, the bad picture of Jessika got us a good picture of her directly from the horse's mouth (so to speak), so we won't be without Jessika's image at all.//Hannibal 20:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

In that case, I do not object. MiCkE 21:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 13:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete She's donated another picture to the public domain, we have no reason to keep a non-flattering one (although I don't think it's that bad). Caesar 19:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Deleted as a matter of courtesy, as per Caesar. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 10:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Kelch-Heilig-Kreuz.jpg

The picture doesn't have a free license (see received OTRS mail).

Veröffentlichung der Fotos ohne Veränderung

means that it's not allowed to make any changes on the picture. This does not go under a GFDL-license. --my name 18:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I am afraid that I have to accept this delition request. I did what I could to convince the owner of the picture that he shouldn't be worried about modifikations but a catholic priest has a special oppinion about religious items. So the article has to live without this foto. I accept your deletion request. --BBKurt 09:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Bursa_013.JPG

What does this image show? Out-of-focus cherries? Bad image quality, I cannot see any encyclopaedic usage for it. Seems to be unused, even in the project where it originated. Rosenzweig 18:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom --Simonxag 00:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:MTRC System Map.png

False licence. The original author(zh:user:Sdee) has objected this. See zh:user_talk:Billytanghh, zh:user:Sdee said,"本人製作的港鐵路線圖被你上載上公共領域之前無得到本人的同意下進行，本人表示強烈的反對." (In English, "You do not have my permission before uploading the MTR map which I made. I myself am strong discontented with your action.") Also, zh:user:Sdee says that there is some problem with the map and needs to be updated. --CDIP No.150 repair meter 18:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, as per above. Also the style of the map is not consistent with MTR. --Minghong 18:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
• Oh, the author has just misunderstood something. I have found that the map has been already in PD at zh.wikipedia since earlier time. However, this del request can't be cancelled until the map is corrected. --CDIP No.150 repair meter 19:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
• i hope it can be deleted ASAP so that i can upload with the new and correct version to here. Thank you for all.--202.86.155.199 17:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I think you can log in or create a new account in order to update the picture. --CDIP No.150 repair meter 19:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, as updating does not require deletion. - Keithorz 08:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Kept. The license seems in order. The corrected map can be uploaded over this; no reason to delete. Rocket000 19:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:CarteSiutationAbidjan.svg

Wrong name, can't rename it + I'll upload a better one immediately. Sorry. Christophe Dioux 21:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete (nominally) - Image has now been tagged as a duplicate image and should be deleted shortly. Nick 00:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Rossi_Pietro.jpg

no license for 11 days Jacopo 21:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

 CommentJust to clarify, the image was uploaded under a claim of having been licensed under the GFDL licence, but there is no evidence of permission having been received and logged on the OTRS system to this effect. Is that why you've nominated the image for deletion ? Nick 00:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Deleted by S1 (In Category:Unknown as of 20 November 2007, missing or bad information on author and/or license and/or source). Jastrow (Λέγετε) 11:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:PS3.jpg

Obviously made by sony, obviously not free license - Ssolbergj 15:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

That image was not made by sony how do you know yours is a copyright image to- - The luigi kart assasions 12:40' 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I made the vector image myself. This one has however an information box that clearly says that Sony is the author, and that it is from http://www.vincentabry.com/images/techno/2007/janv/. (a page that clearly contains only commercial photos) This image will be deleted from commons, unless a guy working at Sony shows us an official Sony website that says that this image specifically has a free lisence - which would be unusual for Sony. - Ssolbergj 00:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Who took the photo? Rocket000 20:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted as highly probable copyvio (author quoted as Sony, mention "permission: none"). Jastrow (Λέγετε) 18:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Nukupu'u.JPG

looks like a derivative Rettetast 13:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. -- Bryan (talk to me) 15:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Akohekohe_2.JPG

looks like a derivative. Problem uploader on en. Rettetast 13:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. -- Bryan (talk to me) 15:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Leekster hoofddiep.png

Uploader unsure where he got the satellite image from, he suspects it might have been google. If that is the case, unfortunately we can't keep the image. --Deadstar (msg) 14:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Verwijderd -- Bryan (talk to me) 15:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Laurak bat.jpg

Derivative work --Ecemaml (talk to me/habla conmigo) 22:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

•  Comment I can't read Basque. Wouldn't the banner be PD-ineligible? Jastrow (Λέγετε) 08:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep PD-ineligible. Rocket000 19:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Kept: not eligible for copyright. -- Bryan (talk to me) 15:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Konstantin_Pats1939.jpg

Note - Image:Johan_Laidoner1939.jpg is nominated for deletion for similar reasons. Nick

Not an official symbol of the state. Raul6 09:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Disagree with the Deletion request. the image is a government publication, published by an institute of the Estonian government in 1939 and represents the President of the Republic of Estonia

•  Comment Pictures created/published before 12 December 1992 in Estonia are not protected by copyright according to the younger than 70 years rule! Please see a commentary at juridica.ee by Heiki Pisuke, Professor of Institute of Law, concerning the retroactivity of authors and related rights: The 1992 text of the Copyright Act did not provide a direct answer to the question of whether works created before the entry into force of the Act (12 December 1992) are also protected under copyright. The 1999 amendments make it clear: (§88) that such works are protected under copyright within the whole term of copyright which, as a rule, is the life of the author plus 50 years after his or her death. -related rights are protected during the entire term of protection (as a rule, for fifty years).-- Termer 11:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note FYI: I've notified the nominator [3] that the procedure for deletion is not completed since the image has not being added onto the log. --Termer 07:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Deleted: As per Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Johan Laidoner1939.jpg: Estonia has a 70 years copyright term since it joined the EU. -- Bryan (talk to me) 12:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC) I did not realize that it was already 2008. -- Bryan (talk to me) 12:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Kept --Tom (talk - email) 23:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Lumsk Troll.jpg

This has an emailed permission but I'm not sure the copyright holder has understood the full meaning of GFDL. I find it hard to imagine he'd give permission to freely use the cover of a record that was commercially released just a few years back. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 10:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete This is not a valid permission. In such cases the author gives permission to upload the image and not to license under the GFDL. This permission would not have been accepted at OTRS. -- Bryan (talk to me) 15:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep How do you determine whether a person has understood the meaning of the license or not? This is just calling the licensee stupid, which I'm sure isn't the case. --Pred 22:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep I would say the conditions has been presented to him and he has accepted them. If he's not in the mood for reading the conditions for use, he is only cheating himself. --|EPO| ^da: 18:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Kept --Tom (talk - email) 23:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Lots_of_heads.jpg

Authenticity of this image is unclear. See talk. Legionarius 14:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

 Comment the reason provided is not a copyright issue. --ALE! ¿…? 12:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment: This image helps students such as i learn about the brutality of the Rape of Nanking. it contributes to our learning

Kept. MichaelMaggs 07:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:DSC02361.JPG

It looks like the only purpose of this image is to advertize the uploader himself, it it not used anywhere in Wikipedia --Denniss 00:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC) Denniss 00:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Moonian 13:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Commons is not monster.com -- Avi 00:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. -- Infrogmation 06:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:DSC00353.JPG

It looks like the only purpose of this image is to advertize the uploader himself, it it not used anywhere in Wikipedia. --Denniss 00:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC) Denniss 00:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Moonian 13:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for being advertising. If the uploader would want to use this image on his personal page, it could be kept (without the spiel in the description). Deadstar (msg) 16:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Deadstar --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Commons is not monster.com -- Avi 00:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per all above.--F3rn4nd0 22:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Deleted, out of project scope, unused on any user page. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 15:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Adriana_Sage_2007.jpg

I don't think the uploader is the copyright holder - it's on an "adult entertainment shows" photostream, so it could be a screenshot or something. Opinions? Giggy\^Talk 01:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I took a look at the image on the source page and it's properly tagged as being Creative Commons licensed. Additionally, the image in question has EXIF details present at the Flickr site (seeable here, which indicates that it was indeed taken by a camera and is NOT a screenshot. Finally, a look at the profile of the photographer says this: "Just a budding photographer." Tabercil 02:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The image is on an "Adultcon 2007" photostream, Adultcon being one of those USA convention things where members of the public meet adult film stars, can take their photographs, get autographs and such. The EXIF data ties in very well with the quality of the photograph and the aspect ratio and original image size is all wrong for a screenshot. I've written some help for spotting Flickr copyvios here Nick 14:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Michael_Chang_(1).jpg

bit-for-bit copy of Image:Michael Chang.jpg Spyder Monkey 01:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: You may use template {{duplicate}} in such cases. --217.186.138.26 01:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Deleted as a duplicate. Nishkid64 (talk) 02:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Maan.jpg

The uploader first claimed self—the preceding unsigned comment was added by Jusjih (talk • contribs) 03:05 (UTC), 2 December 2007

• Well, the uploader has once replaced the original image with the one bearing the text "Deleted", as well as the whole desc page with a copyvio tag. Maybe she/he just wish to speedily delete the file? --Moonian 13:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment See User talk:Jellobie at the bottom, and also Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#User:Jellobie. Lupo 08:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Deleted as a matter of courtesy (low usefulness, unused), please refer to links above for the specifics. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 15:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Cercle_trigo_deg_rad.svg

330° and 315 ° are wrong ! I uploaded a new (but png) version Nicostella 11:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Speedily deleted per uploader request ~ Riana ⁂ 16:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Central_Park_Reservoir.jpg

Another image with the same title is in en.wp BlastOButter42 12:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

 Comment rename it --Simonxag 12:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Deleted: 3 December 2007 User:Siebrand deleted "Image:Central Park Reservoir.jpg" ‎ (Dupe of Image:Central Park Reservoir-Jussi.jpg)

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

[edit] Image:GAM Genova-DSCF6709.JPG

This bust looks from the 20/30s. We need to know the authorship of this bust to know whether its author died more than 70 years ago or not --GeorgHH 13:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know the name of the author of this work. So, delete the picture. --「Twice^29.0 · contributi · talk」 08:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete per poster's reply --User:G.dallorto 16:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 15:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:NGC 6745.jpg

Identical images (Image:NGC_6745HSTFull.jpg) Eleferen 12:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

•  Comment The files have different sources and license tags. --GeorgHH 13:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and then Image:NGC 6745HSTFull.jpg, put it for deletion.--F3rn4nd0 22:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Kept. Deleted Image:NGC_6745HSTFull.jpg instead (better quality). Rocket000 19:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Rotterdam_begraafplaats_Crooswijk_baarhuisje.jpg

error in filename; this is not "het baarhuisje" Wikifrits 16:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

 Comment What is it then? Is there a duplicate file with a correct name? Deadstar (msg) 16:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Today I managed to identify the actual "baarhuisje" and I uploaded the correct file. I also identified the existing picture as "het drenkelingenhuisje", so I created a file with that picture. The deletion request can now be cancelled. Wikifrits 17:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Kept, request withdrawn. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 16:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Ingrid_Betancourt_HotelVilleParis.jpg

Derivative work because it shows an unfree photograph; FOP does not apply 82.228.89.180 17:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep Panorama freedom may apply. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 13:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

In France?? Lupo 08:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete There is no FoP in France. The monument is PD-old, but the picture hung on it is definitely not, no matter who hung it. guillom 12:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete Even if there were FoP in France, it wouldn't apply as the image is not attached to the building permanently. --rimshot^talk 18:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 16:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Camaron_y_tomatito.JPG

screenshot 86.92.243.235 17:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Deleted: 4 December 2007 User:Infrogmation deleted "Image:Camaron y tomatito.JPG" ‎ (cv)

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

[edit] Image:RUTA-DEL-CAMARON.jpg

from http://www.guiadecadiz.com/images/Image/RUTA-DEL-CAMARON.jpg 86.92.243.235 17:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Deleted -- Infrogmation 05:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:San_Fernando2.jpg

stolen from http://www.pa-sanfernando.org/5San_Fernando2.jpg Michiel1972 17:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deleted, copyviol, false source/license. -- Infrogmation 05:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:3381-9314.jpg

the user only uploads stolen material Michiel1972 17:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 16:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Hp.JPG

given users previous uploads not own work Michiel1972 17:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deleted by S1 with following reason: "in Category:Unknown as of 4 December 2007; still incomplete information on source/license/author/perm". Jastrow (Λέγετε) 16:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Moajemelibadia.jpeg

Copyrighted book cover. No indication that the uploader is the copyright holder of that book and has released it under a free license. Meno25 17:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

tagged with {{cover}}--OsamaK 14:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deleted by ChristianBier. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 16:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Tete du défilé du 1er mai.jpg

dubious claim of self-creation ~ Riana ⁂ 18:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC) (Note: procedural nomination from me, 66.212.73.116 did not complete the deletion request)

Deleted as per nom. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 16:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:PC020278.jpg

Uploaded with bad filename; nothing links to it Makaristos 19:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. --Boricuæddie 21:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Kalanchoe sp.jpg

poor quality, unrecognizable species, small file, out of focus WayneRay 18:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)WayneRay

This image is uploaded for being identified in the German Wikipedia's "Bestimmungsseite", where unidentified species can be identified by users. If it has done it's work there, I have nothing against deleting the image.--Heinz3 17:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: Image quality is too poor. ––Gepardenforellenfischer 10:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Very poor quality. --MichaelMaggs 07:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Deleted, discussion on de: is now closed and archived. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 16:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:CALPOLYSEAL.PNG

This is a copyrighted logo. See this page. No indication that the uploader has the authority to release it under the GFDL. Esrever 19:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The image qualifies for Fair Use in the United States but should not be on Wikimedia Commons.--Curtis Clark 01:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Deleted-- Infrogmation 06:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Caritas_Francis_Hsu_logo.jpg

No indication on the school's website that this logo is free for use under CC. Esrever 20:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. -- Infrogmation 06:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Deleted, as per nom. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 16:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Chernigivska ViewFromSocMistechko.jpg

and Image:Chernigivska OldView.jpg, Image:Chernigivska ViewFromBratyslavskaSt.jpg.

Non-free --Ahonc 20:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

From http://www.metropoliten.kiev.ua: Copyright © Вадим Дзыгун 2000-2007. Использование материалов сайта возможно только с согласия автора. (Usage of materials are possible only with author's permission). GFDL is not mentioned. --EugeneZelenko 16:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 09:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Tyske-orden.jpg

There is the same image here in SVG version:Image:Coat of arms of the Teutonic Order.svg, no links to this page Karelj 20:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Kept Superseded is not a reason for deletion. Deadstar (msg) 16:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Blackbearwarning.JPG

There is little context to this image and it is unused. -N 21:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete Handwritten sign that without context is out of scope. Deadstar (msg) 12:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. MichaelMaggs 22:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Drunter_und_Druber_1.jpg

Copvio of design on box and game board MichaelMaggs 22:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep Not a copyo, just an image of the boardgame. Why this campaign against boardgame's picture ? We need images to present boardgames on Wikipedia. Rsalen 12:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete Please read Commons:Derivative works. --EugeneZelenko 16:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep. a simple foto of a simple game. not good and not bad. whats wrong with it ? are you iconoclasts ? --Peng 17:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep Not a copyo, just an image of the boardgame. Jedudedek 09:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

2007 (UTC)

•  Comment Contibutors who turn up to say "Not a copyvio, just an image of the boardgame" might like to read Commons:Derivative works. The game has a prominent printed design on it which is copyright. The owner of that copyright has not given consent to a reproduction. This image is a reproduction which is intended to show the design, and hence is a copyright infringement. --MichaelMaggs 18:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Obvious copyvio of a copyrighted cover as well as game board. --rimshot^talk 18:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep keep I agree with Jedudedek and Piotr [4] . --Nolanus ✉ (C | E) 00:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete as a derivative work of a copyrighted game design. -- AlNo (discuter/talk/hablar/falar) 11:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete My understanding is that everything on Commons has to be either PD or released under a free licence. Having read Commons:Derivative works, I don't see how someone who takes a photo of a boardgame would have the right to release it under a free licence, to be copied, adapted, and sold. Cowardly Lion 13:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted, derivative work. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 20:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Monopoly_Junior.jpg

Copyvio of game board design MichaelMaggs 22:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep Not a copyo, just an image of the boardgame. Why this campaign against boardgame's picture ? We need images to present boardgames on Wikipedia. Rsalen 05:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete Please read Commons:Derivative works. --EugeneZelenko 16:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep It s a carpet, a simple carpet. Are you iconoclasts ? --Peng 17:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Please be civil and avoid name-calling. These deletion requests are not to be taken personally, and they are not a "campaign". There are many people that believe they need some class of non-free images to use in Wikipedia, but please understand that Commons cannot ignore copyright laws based on perceived needs. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep Actually there is indeed an artistic work included in the carpet (the drawing of children in a fun fair) but its inclusion is clearly incidental to the purpose of the picture, which is to represent the game board as a whole. A game board as such is an industrial model, and as such can be photographed. Michelet-密是力 16:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Info: Sorry, but the drawings are by no means incidental. Your last sentence is just plain wrong. --MichaelMaggs 07:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

No, the sentence is simply arguable... ;o) the purpose of that specific photograph is to represent the board, not the two drawings (one being upside down, tw). Michelet-密是力 19:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Two problems with your argument:

1. The board layout is intellectual property that belongs to Hasbro/Parker Brothers. So if the point of the photo is to show the represent the board, then it's copyvio.
2. The point of the photo appears to show a Monopoly Jr. board, as opposed to the original Monopoly board. In that case, the design in the center becomes an integral part of what the photographer is trying to represent. 98.204.112.111 05:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

You are making a confusion between artistic property (Berne convention) and industrial property of designs (Paris convention). There is no "copyvio" for layouts and designs as long as no artistic creativity is demonstrated. Ubi lex distinguit, distinguere debemus.Michelet-密是力 06:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

That is... something to think about. Rocket000 01:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it's just completely incorrect. The Paris convention is irrelevant: it regulates registered intellectual property rights such as patents and registered designs. Whether or not this object has been protected in some countries by way of a registered design doesn't matter. It doesn't affect the owner's copyright which still subsists. --MichaelMaggs 09:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete The carpet itself is copyrighted design, a commercial design at that. Clear cut case of Commons:Derivative works. 98.204.112.111 06:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep Not a copyo, just an image of the boardgame. Jedudedek 09:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Even if the original Monopoly design wouldn't be copyrighted anymore, this one is pretty new, and certainly creative enough to be copyright. The photo is a derivative work. --rimshot^talk 19:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

If there would be a baby, sitting on this carpet, what would this be ? If this is not kept, you 'll never again can have an image of a game. So keep it. --Peng 12:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete indeed, it's just an image of the boardgame, which is copyrighted. Commons does not accept images of copyrighted, non-free works. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep keep I agree with Jedudedek and Piotr [5] . --Nolanus ✉ (C | E) 00:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete as a derivative work of a copyrighted game design. -- AlNo (discuter/talk/hablar/falar) 11:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC) Delete Pretty obvious derivative of copyright material. Rocket000 20:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to think about this more. Are all images that contain copyrighted material (like the artwork in here) automatically a copyvio ? Or would it similar to something like pictures of beer bottles which contain some copyrightable material? Rocket000 01:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep picture of a carpet. I agree. -N 01:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete It's not that it's a carpet; it's that the carpet has a design which is obviously copyrighted, so that the photo of it is a derivative work. Something like this could be used instead. Cowardly Lion 14:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Spongebob Squarepants doesn't become Free culture the moment he's printed onto a t-shirt, backpack, or carpet. Neither does a copyrighted monopoly board. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted, derivative work. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 20:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Funkenschlag_table.jpg

Copvio of design printed on gameboard and box MichaelMaggs 22:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep Not a copyo, just an image of the boardgame. Why this campaign against boardgame's picture ? We need images to present boardgames on Wikipedia. Rsalen 05:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep A game on a table in a garden with shadows on the picture. Whats wrong with it ? I took it with a tool from french wiki to here. Keep it. Thanks. --Peng 11:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete Please read Commons:Derivative works. --EugeneZelenko 16:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete derivative work --Szczepan talk  00:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep Not a copyo, just an image of the boardgame. Jedudedek 09:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

2007 (UTC)

•  Comment Contibutors who turn up to say "Not a copyvio, just an image of the boardgame" might like to read Commons:Derivative works. The game has a prominent printed design on it which is copyright. The owner of that copyright has not given consent to a reproduction. This image is a reproduction which is intended to show the design, and hence is a copyright infringement. --MichaelMaggs 17:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete Derivative work. --rimshot^talk 19:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep keep I agree with Jedudedek and Piotr [6] . --Nolanus ✉ (C | E) 00:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete as a derivative work of a copyrighted game design. -- AlNo (discuter/talk/hablar/falar) 11:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete Derivative work. Cowardly Lion 14:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted, derivative work. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 20:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Focus_1.jpg

Copvio of design printed on gameboard and box MichaelMaggs 22:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep Not a copyo, just an image of the boardgame. Why this campaign against boardgame's picture ? We need images to present boardgames on Wikipedia. Rsalen 05:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete Please read Commons:Derivative works. --EugeneZelenko 16:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep Its a game, and NOT a toy (like it is described in the Derivative works. --Peng 10:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep Not a copyo, just an image of the boardgame. Jedudedek 09:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

2007 (UTC)

•  Comment Contibutors who turn up to say "Not a copyvio, just an image of the boardgame" might like to read Commons:Derivative works. The game has a prominent printed design on it which is copyright. The owner of that copyright has not given consent to a reproduction. This image is a reproduction which is intended to show the design, and hence is a copyright infringement. --MichaelMaggs 17:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete Derivative work. --rimshot^talk 19:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

•  Comment Contibutors who turn up to say "derivative work" must explain the difference between Image:Focus 1.jpg, Image:Focus 2.jpg and Image:Focus 3.jpg. They ask for the first one to be deleted and not for the second and third. Why ? This is a nonsense. These 3 images are just images of boardgames, not "derivative works". Rsalen 13:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep keep I agree with Jedudedek and Piotr [7] . --Nolanus ✉ (C | E) 00:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete as a derivative work of a copyrighted game design. -- AlNo (discuter/talk/hablar/falar) 11:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete Derivative work. Cowardly Lion 15:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted, derivative work. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 20:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Auf_Achse_3.jpg

Copvio of design printed on gameboard and box MichaelMaggs 22:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep Not a copyo, just an image of the boardgame. Why this campaign against boardgame's picture ? We need images to present boardgames on Wikipedia. Rsalen 05:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete Please read Commons:Derivative works. --EugeneZelenko 16:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep Its a game, and NOT a toy (like it is described in the Derivative works. --Peng 10:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep Not a copyo, just an image of the boardgame. Jedudedek 09:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

2007 (UTC)

•  Comment Contibutors who turn up to say "Not a copyvio, just an image of the boardgame" might like to read Commons:Derivative works. The game has a prominent printed design on it which is copyright. The owner of that copyright has not given consent to a reproduction. This image is a reproduction which is intended to show the design, and hence is a copyright infringement. --MichaelMaggs 17:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete Derivative work. --rimshot^talk 19:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

•  Comment can you explain why you want to delete this image : Image:Auf Achse 3.jpg and not these images : Image:Auf Achse 1.jpg, Image:Auf Achse 2.jpg, Image:Auf Achse 4.jpg. If you delete the first one, there is no reason to keep the others. So, you can delate ALL the games' pictures. Your request is unreasonable. Rsalen 12:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

We're not concerned in this request with the others, although several do appear to be untenable. If the primary subject is a copyright work (of the box, gameboard or whatever) the image must go. But if the copyright work is merely incidental to another subject it is OK. We can deal with the others if someone proposes them for deletion.--MichaelMaggs 19:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep keep I agree with Jedudedek and Piotr [8] . --Nolanus ✉ (C | E) 00:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete Derivative work. Cowardly Lion 15:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted, derivative work. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 20:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Cants_07.jpg

Copvio of design printed on box MichaelMaggs 22:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep Not a copyo, just an image of the boardgame. Why this campaign against boardgame's picture ? We need images to present boardgames on Wikipedia. Rsalen 05:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete Please read Commons:Derivative works. --EugeneZelenko 16:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep Its a game, and NOT a toy (like it is described in the Derivative works. And the foto is not really perfect, is it ? --Peng 10:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep Not a copyo, just an image of the boardgame. Jedudedek 09:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

2007 (UTC)

•  Comment Contibutors who turn up to say "Not a copyvio, just an image of the boardgame" might like to read Commons:Derivative works. The game has a prominent printed design on it which is copyright. The owner of that copyright has not given consent to a reproduction. This image is a reproduction which is intended to show the design, and hence is a copyright infringement. --MichaelMaggs 17:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment Contributors who want to delete Image:Cants 07.jpg and keep Image:Cants stop Asmodée.jpg must think about what appens if we delete ALL the games pictures. It is unreasonable to delete one and keep the other. Rsalen 13:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

You're right Image:Cants stop Asmodée.jpg is a copyvio as well.--MichaelMaggs 18:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep keep I agree with Jedudedek and Piotr [9] . --Nolanus ✉ (C | E) 00:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete as a derivative work of a copyrighted game design. -- AlNo (discuter/talk/hablar/falar) 11:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete Derivative work. Cowardly Lion 15:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted, derivative work. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 20:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Caylus_3D_-_1.jpg

Copvio of design of gameboard and box MichaelMaggs 22:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep Not a copyo, just an image of the boardgame. Why this campaign against boardgame's picture ? We need images to present boardgames on Wikipedia. Rsalen 05:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete Please read Commons:Derivative works. --EugeneZelenko 16:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep Its a game, and NOT a toy (like it is described in the Derivative works. And this a self-made oversized board, not the game vou can buy in stores. It was shown on the fair in Essen. --Peng 10:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep Not a copyo, just an image of the boardgame. Jedudedek 09:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

2007 (UTC)

•  Comment Contibutors who turn up to say "Not a copyvio, just an image of the boardgame" might like to read Commons:Derivative works. The game has a prominent printed design on it which is copyright. The owner of that copyright has not given consent to a reproduction. This image is a reproduction which is intended to show the design, and hence is a copyright infringement. --MichaelMaggs 17:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep keep I agree with Jedudedek and Piotr [10] . --Nolanus ✉ (C | E) 00:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete as a derivative work of a copyrighted game design. -- AlNo (discuter/talk/hablar/falar) 11:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete Derivative work. Cowardly Lion 15:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted, derivative work. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 20:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:GameCon_2007_in_Pardubice_-_Dorn_1.jpg

Copvio of design printed on gameboard MichaelMaggs 22:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep Not a copyo, just an image of the boardgame. Why this campaign against boardgame's picture ? We need images to present boardgames on Wikipedia. Rsalen 05:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete Please read Commons:Derivative works. --EugeneZelenko 16:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep Its a game, and NOT a toy (like it is described in the Derivative works. And here, the game is only half to be seen and hands are on the table. Why this campaign ? --Peng 10:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete. If you think images of toys are the only ones that can be affected by the copyright of the subject, then you've read Commons:Derivative works in a very creative way. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep Not a copyo, just an image of the boardgame. Jedudedek 09:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

2007 (UTC)

•  Comment Contibutors who turn up to say "Not a copyvio, just an image of the boardgame" might like to read Commons:Derivative works. The game has a prominent printed design on it which is copyright. The owner of that copyright has not given consent to a reproduction. This image is a reproduction which is intended to show the design, and hence is a copyright infringement. --MichaelMaggs 17:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep keep I agree with Jedudedek and Piotr [11] . --Nolanus ✉ (C | E) 00:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete Derivative work. Cowardly Lion 15:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted, derivative work. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 20:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:GameCon_2007_in_Pardubice_-_Space_Walk1.jpg

Copvio of design printed on gameboard and box MichaelMaggs 22:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep Not a copyo, just an image of the boardgame. Why this campaign against boardgame's picture ? We need images to present boardgames on Wikipedia. Rsalen 05:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete Please read Commons:Derivative works. --EugeneZelenko 16:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep Its a game, and NOT a toy (like it is described in the Derivative works. A game situation, a gamer in full action. So what ? --Peng 10:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep Not a copyo, just an image of the boardgame. Jedudedek 09:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

2007 (UTC)

•  Comment Contibutors who turn up to say "Not a copyvio, just an image of the boardgame" might like to read Commons:Derivative works. The game has a prominent printed design on it which is copyright. The owner of that copyright has not given consent to a reproduction. This image is a reproduction which is intended to show the design, and hence is a copyright infringement. --MichaelMaggs 17:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep keep I agree with Jedudedek and Piotr [12] . --Nolanus ✉ (C | E) 00:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Derivative work. Cowardly Lion 15:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted, derivative work. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 20:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Starfarers_of_Catan_1.jpg

Copvio of design printed on gameboard and box MichaelMaggs 22:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep Not a copyo, just an image of the boardgame. Why this campaign against boardgame's picture ? We need images to present boardgames on Wikipedia. Rsalen 05:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete Please read Commons:Derivative works. --EugeneZelenko 16:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep Its a game, and NOT a toy (like it is described in the Derivative works. --Peng 11:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep Not a copyo, just an image of the boardgame. Jedudedek 09:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

2007 (UTC)

•  Comment Contibutors who turn up to say "Not a copyvio, just an image of the boardgame" might like to read Commons:Derivative works. The game has a prominent printed design on it which is copyright. The owner of that copyright has not given consent to a reproduction. This image is a reproduction which is intended to show the design, and hence is a copyright infringement. --MichaelMaggs 17:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep keep I agree with Jedudedek and Piotr [13] . --Nolanus ✉ (C | E) 00:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Derivative work. Cowardly Lion 15:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted, derivative work. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 20:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Starfarers_of_Catan_2.jpg

Copvio of design printed on gameboard and box MichaelMaggs 22:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep Not a copyo, just an image of the boardgame. Why this campaign against boardgame's picture ? We need images to present boardgames on Wikipedia. Rsalen 05:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete Please read Commons:Derivative works. --EugeneZelenko 16:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep Its a game, and NOT a toy (like it is described in the Derivative works. And even fuzzy. --Peng 11:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep Not a copyo, just an image of the boardgame. Jedudedek 09:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

2007 (UTC)

•  Comment Contibutors who turn up to say "Not a copyvio, just an image of the boardgame" might like to read Commons:Derivative works. The game has a prominent printed design on it which is copyright. The owner of that copyright has not given consent to a reproduction. This image is a reproduction which is intended to show the design, and hence is a copyright infringement. --MichaelMaggs 17:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep keep I agree with Jedudedek and Piotr [14] . --Nolanus ✉ (C | E) 00:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Deleted, derivative work. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 20:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Starship_Catan_2.jpg

Copvio of design printed on gameboard MichaelMaggs 22:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep Not a copyo, just an image of the boardgame. Why this campaign against boardgame's picture ? We need images to present boardgames on Wikipedia. Rsalen 05:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete Please read Commons:Derivative works. --EugeneZelenko 16:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep Its a game, and NOT a toy (like it is described in the Derivative works. A game situation with coffee on the table - how else you can show a game ? --Peng 11:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep Not a copyo, just an image of the boardgame. Jedudedek 10:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

2007 (UTC)

•  Comment Contibutors who turn up to say "Not a copyvio, just an image of the boardgame" might like to read Commons:Derivative works. The game has a prominent printed design on it which is copyright. The owner of that copyright has not given consent to a reproduction. This image is a reproduction which is intended to show the design, and hence is a copyright infringement. --MichaelMaggs 17:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep keep I agree with Jedudedek and Piotr [15] . --Nolanus ✉ (C | E) 00:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete Derivative work. Cowardly Lion 15:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted, derivative work. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 20:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:The_Market_of_Alturien_1.jpg

Copvio of design printed on gameboard MichaelMaggs 22:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep Not a copyo, just an image of the boardgame. Why this campaign against boardgame's picture ? We need images to present boardgames on Wikipedia. Rsalen 05:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete Please read Commons:Derivative works. --EugeneZelenko 16:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep Its a game, and NOT a toy (like it is described in the Derivative works. You even can't see the whole board. --Peng 11:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep Not a copyo, just an image of the boardgame. Jedudedek 10:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

2007 (UTC)

•  Comment Contibutors who turn up to say "Not a copyvio, just an image of the boardgame" might like to read Commons:Derivative works. The game has a prominent printed design on it which is copyright. The owner of that copyright has not given consent to a reproduction. This image is a reproduction which is intended to show the design, and hence is a copyright infringement. --MichaelMaggs 17:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep keep I agree with Jedudedek and Piotr [16] . --Nolanus ✉ (C | E) 00:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep per other users. (and I see that here is no consensus for deletion.) --Dezidor 15:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Derivative work. Cowardly Lion 16:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted, derivative work. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 20:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Trivial_Pursuit_Game.jpg

Copvio of design printed on gameboard MichaelMaggs 22:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep Not a copyo, just an image of the boardgame. Why this campaign against boardgame's picture ? We need images to present boardgames on Wikipedia. Rsalen 05:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete Please read Commons:Derivative works. --EugeneZelenko 16:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom; derivative of copyrighted work. -- Infrogmation 05:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep Its a game, and NOT a toy (like it is described in the Derivative works. On the floor and fuzzy ? Ridiculous. --Peng 11:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep Not a copyo, just an image of the boardgame. Jedudedek 10:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

2007 (UTC)

•  Comment Contibutors who turn up to say "Not a copyvio, just an image of the boardgame" might like to read Commons:Derivative works. The game has a prominent printed design on it which is copyright. The owner of that copyright has not given consent to a reproduction. This image is a reproduction which is intended to show the design, and hence is a copyright infringement. --MichaelMaggs 17:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep keep I agree with Jedudedek and Piotr [17] . --Nolanus ✉ (C | E) 00:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete Clearly a derivative work. Cowardly Lion 16:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted, derivative work. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 20:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Ulysses_2.jpg

Copvio of design printed on gameboard MichaelMaggs 22:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep Not a copyo, just an image of the boardgame. Why this campaign against boardgame's picture ? We need images to present boardgames on Wikipedia. Rsalen 05:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete Please read Commons:Derivative works. --EugeneZelenko 16:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep Its a game, and NOT a toy (like it is described in the Derivative works. Hands and Coffeepots on the table and you can read nothing - this is never copyrighted. --Peng 11:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep Not a copyo, just an image of the boardgame. Jedudedek 10:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

2007 (UTC)

•  Comment Contibutors who turn up to say "Not a copyvio, just an image of the boardgame" might like to read Commons:Derivative works. The game has a prominent printed design on it which is copyright. The owner of that copyright has not given consent to a reproduction. This image is a reproduction which is intended to show the design, and hence is a copyright infringement. --MichaelMaggs 17:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep keep I agree with Jedudedek and Piotr [18] . --Nolanus ✉ (C | E) 00:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC) Delete Derivative work. Cowardly Lion 16:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted, derivative work. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 18:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:War_of_the_Ring.jpg

Copvio of design printed on gameboard MichaelMaggs 23:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep Not a copyo, just an image of the boardgame. Why this campaign against boardgame's picture ? We need images to present boardgames on Wikipedia. Rsalen 05:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete Please read Commons:Derivative works. --EugeneZelenko 16:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep This is not a toy , this is a game. Derivative works is about toys, not games. Keep it. --Peng 17:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep Its a game, and NOT a toy (like it is described in the Derivative works. The perspective is horrible - never derivative. --Peng 11:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep Not a copyo, just an image of the boardgame. Jedudedek 10:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

2007 (UTC)

•  Comment Contibutors who turn up to say "Not a copyvio, just an image of the boardgame" might like to read Commons:Derivative works. The game has a prominent printed design on it which is copyright. The owner of that copyright has not given consent to a reproduction. This image is a reproduction which is intended to show the design, and hence is a copyright infringement. --MichaelMaggs 17:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep keep I agree with Jedudedek and Piotr [19] . --Nolanus ✉ (C | E) 00:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete Derivative work. Cowardly Lion 16:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted, derivative work. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 10:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Zombies!!!.JPG

Copvio of design printed on gameboard and box MichaelMaggs 23:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep Not a copyo, just an image of the boardgame. Why this campaign against boardgame's picture ? We need images to present boardgames on Wikipedia. Rsalen 05:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete Please read Commons:Derivative works. --EugeneZelenko 16:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep Its a game, and NOT a toy (like it is described in the Derivative works. Such a fuzzy foto is never derivative. --Peng 11:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how you arrived at the conclusion that COM:DW only applies to toys. No work that is primarily derived from another non-utilitarian creative work of the mind whose copyright has not yet expired can be licensed without the consent of the original copyright holder. Considerations of sharpness and image resolution might affect fair use considerations, but as long as it's not too blurry to illustrate its subject, it's detailed enough to infringe in contexts where fair use cannot apply. Delete. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep Keep. Per above, and I have used those various elements in creating this unique layout, which I further licensed under an open license.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that creating a unique layout does not authorise you to infringe the copyright of the game designer. This is a common misapprehension. --MichaelMaggs 22:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete derivative work. Megapixie 08:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep Not a copyo, just an image of the boardgame. Jedudedek 10:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

•  Comment Contibutors who turn up to say "Not a copyvio, just an image of the boardgame" might like to read Commons:Derivative works. The game has a prominent printed design on it which is copyright. The owner of that copyright has not given consent to a reproduction. This image is a reproduction which is intended to show the design, and hence is a copyright infringement. --MichaelMaggs 17:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The cover is purposely of low quality. The picture illustrates various elements of the game, cover is only a small part of it.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 05:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The cover is not the only copyrightable element. Again, if it's of good enough quality to illustrate the subject, it's clear enough to constitute copyright infringement. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

if it's of good enough quality to illustrate the subject, it's clear enough to constitute copyright infringement. That's a great quote, thanks :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

@Piotrus: That sounds like a fair use rationale. Rocket000 20:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep keep I agree with Jedudedek and Piotr. --Nolanus ✉ (C | E) 00:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep per other users. (and I see that here is no consensus for deletion.) --Dezidor 15:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete as a derivative work of a copyrighted game design. -- AlNo (discuter/talk/hablar/falar) 11:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC) Delete per AlNo. Copyright overrides consensus anyway. Rocket000 20:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

What I said is true. But now I'm unsure about these. Rocket000 01:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete Derivative work. Cowardly Lion 16:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete Of course it is a derivative work, how could it not be? The only two debatable possibilities would be if the copyrighted parts are only incidental to the image (they are not, the entire purpose of the image is to show the copyrighted works), and that the original work is not copyrighted at all (nobody even tried to argue that way here, AFAICT). And what is that “not a copyvio, just an image of the boardgame” thing? Is there also e.g. “not a copyvio, just a recording of a music” justification? --Mormegil 16:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted, derivative work. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 10:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:GAM Genova-DSCF6709.JPG

This bust looks from the 20/30s. We need to know the authorship of this bust to know whether its author died more than 70 years ago or not --GeorgHH 13:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know the name of the author of this work. So, delete the picture. --「Twice^29.0 · contributi · talk」 08:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete per poster's reply --User:G.dallorto 16:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 15:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:WW2-Holocaust-Europe.png

This map shows the Nazi concentration camps of the 40ies with the state boarders of today. Thus it is unhistoric and useless and should be replaced quickly. A historical map should show the state borders of 38 and the range of the German occupation. As it looks now it looks like Netherlands, France etc. have sent their Jews to Auschwitz. I said that on the user page 10 days ago without response. Darapti Darapti 23:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep I understand your concerns, but I see no reason not to show where holocaust victims came from in relation to the borders of present day Europe. It's potentially a very useful image when used together with a historically accurate map from the 1939-45 period. It has all manner of possible uses, such as examining areas where the Jewish populations never recovered using the latest census data. Nick 00:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep It helps modern day users relate to today's political borders. Rlevse 02:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep I created it and I agree completely with the two keeps above. Unhistoric and useless - I don't think so; it's a matter of taste. You suggest 1938 borders... why 1938 in particular? The Holocaust hadn't started in earnest then. Why not 1942? Nah, it's a matter of taste - I think present borders are fine, as it connects it with the present so viewers may see where the camps actually were located. And your note on Netherlands, France sending Jews. etc. Well, were not Jews deported from these (occupied) countries? My regards, --Dna-Dennis 16:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)--Dna-Dennis 16:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)--Dna-Dennis 15:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep Everyone who looks at this map will know that it refers to events of WW2 when most of Europe was occupied by Germany and its allies. No simple borders could be defined for that period since the situation was in continual flux. I do think 1938 borders would be better, but that's not sufficient to require deletion. However a statement that present-day borders are being used would be desirable. I don't know what Darapti means when s/he says that "As it looks now it looks like Netherlands, France etc. have sent their Jews to Auschwitz." No-one is going think that the modern France or Netherlands has concentration camps; however many Jews and others were deported from those countries in 1942-4. Paul Barlow 12:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep I understand your complaint, but it's hardly a reason for outright deletion! If the material is presented within the proper context, this map is far from "useless." Kindest regards, AlphaEta 03:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Info: For your information: Since not only Darapti has stated the opinion that historical borders would be better, I have decided to try to make another version of the map (but keep this old one). But it will take some time, and I have a little trouble deciding how to approach it, that is, which year(s) to use. The probs with '38 is that the Holocaust hadn't started in earnest at that time (and, for instance, Poland, France etc. had not been occupied/split). And there are problems with post '38 borders too, since the borders flow quite a bit between '39 and '45. It's actually a little b*tching headache... But I will have a go at it. If anyone has any suggestions, please contact me on my Wikipedia talk page, I'd be very thankful. Regards, --Dna-Dennis 22:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Since Dna-Dennis has agreed to create a new version I do not insist on deleting anymore. Sorry for saying useless. Darapti 16:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Info: Thanks Darapti. FYI (all) - I am working on a new map, but it will still take some time. It's a little tricky, this stuff...(but I knew it would be). But I have received great help from other wikipedians on it, really helpful! Regards, --Dna-Dennis 04:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Info: Updated the map with the first version (but likely not the last) with 1942 borders according to various suggestions. I kept the old map as Image:WW2-Holocaust-Europe-2007Borders.png. The new map perhaps ain't Da Vinci, but it's hard to make it any more detailed without scr*wing it up completely to utter incomprehensibility. Nevertheless, I'm still thankful for error checking and suggestions on my Wikipedia talk page. But please remember to first read the legend and image notes. Regards, --Dna-Dennis 11:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Kept, request withdrawn. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 09:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Telefe.gif

It's image is a logo of a television channel of the Argentine Republic, and logos (in this case) are copyrighted, unless the owner of rights has allowed this use. It is not work itself. --Belb 23:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Logos are presumed unfree unless provided otherwise. RedCoat 15:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. -- This user loves Krittaya. 11:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment Could be ineligible, depends on the level of originality required in Argentina. --rimshot^talk 18:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Deleted -- Bryan (talk to me) 15:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Bejsovec_arms_blue.jpg

There is the same image here:Image:Bejsovec blue arms.jpg, no links to this page Karelj 20:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Mark it with duplicate template.--Ahonc 20:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

 Comment Image is a duplicate, but is used on de: wiki. The image was resized presumably to fit into the article properly? I couldn't get the pixels right on the larger image, perhaps someone else can have a look. Deadstar (msg) 16:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Deleted, image replaced. -- Bryan (talk to me) 15:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Bejsovec_red_arms.jpg

There is the same image here:Image:Bejsovec arms red.jpg, no links to this page Karelj 20:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

 Comment Image is a duplicate, but is used on de: wiki. The image was resized presumably to fit into the article properly? I couldn't get the pixels right on the larger image, perhaps someone else can have a look. Deadstar (msg) 16:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Other image deleted. -- Bryan (talk to me) 15:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Pcconnection_cable_photo.jpg

Also:

• Image:Data connectors closeup.JPG
• Image:Power cable connector.jpg

These look like professional photos, and the article they are used in looks like it is copied from a website[20] -N 21:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete the first one. The quality of the close-ups is really bad, so taking the photos again wouldn't hurt. --32X 19:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
•  Comment They don't look that professional to me, and that's not a reason to delete, anyway. But I know what you mean. Rocket000 19:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted first one, looks like coming from a website. -- Bryan (talk to me) 15:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Entreprise 1er mai.jpg

dubious claim of self-creation ~ Riana ⁂ 22:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC) (Note: procedural nomination from me, 66.212.73.116 did not complete the deletion request)

Deleted. -- Bryan (talk to me) 15:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Kaziranga images from Amartyabag

• File:Kazi-broadleaf.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
• File:Kazi-sunbird.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
• File:Kazi-openbill.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
• File:Kazi-pallaseagle.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
• File:Kazi-elegrass.jpg (edit · last · + · history · watch · unwatch · check usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)

Permission has not been given on otrs (the e-mail is ambiguous as to whether or not commercial use is allowed). ~ Riana ⁂ 16:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC) (Note: procedural nomination from me - originally request initiated by Eagle 101, who did not complete the process).

Go ahead and delete the images. Amartyabag 06:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 16:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Image:Beverbeck.jpg, Image:Bargdorf2.jpg and Image:Bornsen.jpg