Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2008/03
From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
[edit] March 1
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:Pcdelp1.GIF
Not "self-made" -N 21:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Deleted - another copyvio from the user... Yuval Y § Chat § 13:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:Nürnberg_-_Plärrer.jpg
Another user marks as no source and no permission but I disagree. Uploader asserts this has no credited author. -N 01:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- The user did not assert anything and I doubt that he is able to. It is a quite normal post card, made ninety years ago. A work is not "anonymous" just because the uploader is not able to provide credits, and the time of creation suggests that the author was still alive in 1938. Code·is·poetry 08:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Are there any signs oder marks on the card or its backside by a photographer or a publisher? Otherwise
Keep. Card is old enough, stamped on 28. April 1917, perhaps some years older. Mutter Erde 17:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC) 
Comment Can the uploader also upload the backside of this postcard? Lupo 19:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:ELFLogo.gif
Copyvio. -N 01:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hmmmm, you can see the (C)1978 on the drawing. --Tarawneh 15:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Dodo 08:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per en:Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2008 March 2#Image:ELFLogo.gif. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:FAU_at_demonstation.jpg
Multiple conflicting licenses, no proper source. -N 01:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Dodo 07:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. abf /talk to me/ 19:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:Malraux.jpg
Image does not appear to be PD, despite being tagged as such. Per [1], [2], and [3], image is dated 1935 (not published before January 1, 1923) and author was en:Gisèle Freund, who died in 2000 (i.e. we're not 70 years after death of author). No indication that any other PD criterion has been satisfied. Elcobbola 01:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Fvasconcellos 11:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per Elcobbola. There's no evidence that the image is public domain. Patrícia msg 17:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete I took it from en:wiki a long time ago. I agree with the previous messages. Ylebru 19:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. - Rocket000 04:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:The_Godfather_Movie_in_Text_(1096144644).jpg
Copyvio (but clever!) -N 02:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete clearly derivitive of copyrighted work. -- Infrogmation 23:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Hey, I've seen this before. It is cool. - Rocket000 04:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:PICT5464.jpg
Filmed person's consent? -N 02:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Useless. - Rocket000 04:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. But the girl seems to be happy, doesn't she? ;) abf /talk to me/ 19:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:Adriana_lima_(213028086).jpg
Flickr user did not take this picture. -N 02:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Unfortunately for him he clearly didn't have that chance! ;-) Nice pic though... --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 11:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. As stated on Flickr page: "...i needed a babe photo and found this nice shot of Adriana Lima, unfortunately i didn't find any info on the original author of it .... so if someone cares/knows please inform me and i'll change the 'licence'" - Rocket000 04:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:Image_Rateatingplacenta.jpg
Outside project scope. -N 02:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Technically adequate and potentially useful at biology articles. Durova 03:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep There's nothing wrong with this whatsoever. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 06:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Clearly in our scope. (It's even used.) - Rocket000 11:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:Netscape3.04gold.GIF
Invalid license tag Torindkflt 07:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyrighted stuff in main focus. abf /talk to me/ 19:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Pavlo_Tychyna.JPG
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:Askoldova_mogyla.jpg
and
- Image:Andrusiak Myhailo.jpg
- Image:25ab b.jpg
- Image:Btr 4.jpg
- Image:Ukrainian BTR-4.jpg
- Image:Btr3u.jpg
- Image:Chernobyl Luhansk.jpg
- Image:Antonow An-10 Riss.png
- Image:General plan mariupol.jpg
- Image:Kiev transit ticket.jpg
- Image:Kovel-photo-pryvokzalna.jpg
- Image:Kruty 1991.jpg
- Image:Mariyinsky Palace.jpg
- Image:Power plant Dnepr.jpg
- Image:Україна Дніпрогес (Леніна) Запоріжжя (1).jpg
Misused {{PD-UA-exempt}}. EugeneZelenko 17:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Add to this:
- Image:Adam Jerzy Czartoryski001.jpg (no source, might be PD for other reasons)
- Image:Lviv train station.jpg (old postcard, no date, no source, no author...)
- Image:Propaganda UPR.jpg (no source, but might be PD for other reasons)
- Image:Rpcfort logo.png (company logo, not a state symbol)
- Note: the "news reporting" clause does not apply to photos and should be removed from the template. The redirect at Template:PD-UA-exempt is also confusing. Lupo 10:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy delete, exept Image:Lviv train station.jpg, Image:Propaganda UPR.jpg and
Image:Kruty 1991.jpg- they could fall under {{PD-Ukraine}} - if source would be provided. Alex Spade 18:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)- I don't think that Image:Kruty 1991.jpg falls under {{PD-Ukraine}}. It's created in 1991 (however it's scan from low resolution source). Please also note road signs on image. They are definitely modern ones. --EugeneZelenko 15:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yup. Alex Spade 17:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think that Image:Kruty 1991.jpg falls under {{PD-Ukraine}}. It's created in 1991 (however it's scan from low resolution source). Please also note road signs on image. They are definitely modern ones. --EugeneZelenko 15:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. abf /talk to me/ 19:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:Hiszpański_osioł.PNG
Appears to be a professional painting; doubtfully self-made Patstuart (talk) 19:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete License was added by someone other than uploader (I could believe self-made, it's a nice sketch but anyone with reasonable talent could do it). -N 21:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - per N.- Anonymous DissidentTalk 20:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. abf /talk to me/ 19:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:NemanjicCrnojevic.svg
Because this flag never existed it is a strange hoax/re-creation from a symbol that has been found on one map. Clear intent is to show that Serbian Empire flag (also in the process of deletion) did have exactly the same characteristics as the flag of the ruling House of Montenegro of that time, but did it have such flag or not, where is any proof that such flag ever existed in that time period. Currenty there have been present as a medieval recreation, even the sources point out that the double headed eagle of Crnojevic is different that the one portrayed on this hoax/re-creation/fabricization flag. Interesting is to search sources for this unsupstatianted flag, sources are in Serbian Emprire Flag which is sourced to one and one alone symbol found on some singular map. Even on this map there is not shown what symbol is it, emblem, CoA, detail, ... Map is extremely top-extremely low resolution and visibility, where is a description, where is any written proof. Nowhere. --Rainman 20:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Also see Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Serbian Empire Flag.svg.
- Keep - not a valid reason for deletion. Commons holds many fictional flags as well so that is no problem. // Liftarn
- Delete - it is because there is even not enough source to make this even a fiction. Then administrators should change the name, category, description and bunch of other stuff to make if fictional. Then its usage would not be appropriate for serious articles but fictional ones. -- Rainman 00:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- That is not a valid reason for deletion. It it sourced enough for Commons. What you are refering to is it's use elsewhere and that is an entierly different matter. // Liftarn
- Delete - this is not even fiction this is fantasy world of some over eager medieval fesitivities freak. This flag has no source in reality jet it pretends to be almost official flag of that dinasty. It is simply not, there are no citations of it, not a single document than todays falsifications of history and corruption of encyclopaedia with UE (un-encyclopaedical content). -- Imbris 01:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- That is not a valid reason for deletion. It it sourced enough for Commons. What you are refering to is it's use elsewhere and that is an entierly different matter. // Liftarn
Kept. Invalid reason (again). As long as it's freely licensed and in our scope (as it's use shows that it is), there's no problem. Please become familiar with Commons before nominating images you disagree with. We exist for a lot more than Wikipedia. Our images don't have to be encyclopedic, "true", verified, NPOV, or whatever else you want to call them. The only sources Commons need are ones to verify the copyright status. If you don't like it, make an image you do like. If you don't like how it's being used, go there an argue about it. Commons is not the place for this. - Rocket000 00:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:Rusija.JPG
Collage of images from different sources, no proof of license. -N 21:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, clearly uploader not the creator of all images. -- Infrogmation 23:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. abf /talk to me/ 19:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:Gimp_splash.png 2008-03-01
Is this really free? -N 22:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Uhh yeah, would GIMP purposely distribute non-free artwork with its software? ViperSnake151 03:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Kept. lol. - Rocket000 04:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:Gimp_splash.png 2008-10-06
http://www.gimp.org/about/splash/stable.html says "The copyrights on these images are owned by their respective original authors. These images are distributed as part of the GIMP package released under the GPL. If you want to use them outside the official GIMP web site, please contact the original authors." This sounds exactly like our disclaimer, that while all text is GFDL, individual authors retain their copyright interests (and thus are available to relicense anyway they want). However someone else thought that meant this image is a copyvio. I removed the tag so we can discuss it instead. -Nard the Bard 19:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - The wording on that is very odd (contradictory, even) but it seems reasonable to assume we could use the images under GPL. J.smith (talk) 20:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - Well, I added that, because another newer GIMP splash uploaded by me, was removed because of that. I hope this will be discussed here a little more. Soeb (talk) 13:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Kept Uhh yeah, would GIMP purposely distribute non-free artwork with its software? 06:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:Torture_in_East_Timor_1995.jpg
Not a valid PD rationale Patstuart (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps this could be kept as {{PD-IDGov}}. -N 20:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- If it really was "taken anonymously and smuggled out of East Timor", then PD-IDGov probably doesn't work, since the license says it has to be published, not just created, by the government of Indonesia. --dave pape 21:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- I understand if this can't be listed as PD, but I feel as though there's no way anyone could claim copyright on this image. Isn't there anything that can be done? Thanks in advance for everyone's help. Scartol 01:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- If it really was "taken anonymously and smuggled out of East Timor", then PD-IDGov probably doesn't work, since the license says it has to be published, not just created, by the government of Indonesia. --dave pape 21:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Could the uploader please clarify what this image has to do with Jose Ramos-Horta? I doubt the Indonesian military would have let him take this picture rather than torturing him to death, so how is he involved in the copyright here? Pending satisfactory clarification, Delete – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 06:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Sorry about the confusion. This photo (and a host of others like it) were smuggled out of Indonesia and handed over to the Timorese leadership in exile, of which Ramos-Horta was a part. They were published by -- among others -- the East Timor International Support Center and East Timor Action Network/US. I don't know the relevant copyright law, so I understand that que sera sera. 205.213.111.51 19:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC) (Scartol)
-
Deleted. Copyright violation, we just don't know of who. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 02:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:Stempel.jpg
Not "own work" -N 22:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Try to repair the license, don't delete if not necessary! The photo is probably own work of uploader, and the book seems to be {{PD-old}}. Maybe {{PD-old}} & {{PD-self}} together? Julo 19:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:Coatofarmsbitola.gif
seems like official coat-arms, so maybe pd, but i do not belive its GFDL, and so I removed the npd-tag. abf /talk to me/ 14:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- I asked a user on [4]. Forrester [[ hate+love letters ]] 17:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- An "official" coat of arms is merely a text description (e.g. "blue-green shield containing a castle...") which is usually PD. But each individual implementation (image file) may be copyrighted. If this was created by the user, it could well be GFDL. However, the initial image description indicates that the uploader simply found it on Google image search. So it should probably be deleted. Quadell (talk) 17:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. If any representation of a coat of arms from Macedonia is PD, it should be explained (perhaps with a specific template); an image from Google doesn't turn magically into GFDL. Patrícia msg 13:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:Coatofarmsbitola.gif
seems like official coat-arms, so maybe pd, but i do not belive its GFDL, and so I removed the npd-tag. abf /talk to me/ 14:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- I asked a user on [5]. Forrester [[ hate+love letters ]] 17:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- An "official" coat of arms is merely a text description (e.g. "blue-green shield containing a castle...") which is usually PD. But each individual implementation (image file) may be copyrighted. If this was created by the user, it could well be GFDL. However, the initial image description indicates that the uploader simply found it on Google image search. So it should probably be deleted. Quadell (talk) 17:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. If any representation of a coat of arms from Macedonia is PD, it should be explained (perhaps with a specific template); an image from Google doesn't turn magically into GFDL. Patrícia msg 13:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
[edit] March 2
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:Pacincar.jpg
Copyvio. User removed my no permission tag. All user's other uploads are also not by the user. -N 15:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyvio. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:Pacincar.jpg
Reupload of copyright violation. -Nard the Bard 02:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 10:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:Palencia.gif
Not self-made -N 00:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Durova 02:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. abf /talk to me/ 19:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:Romuvan_ritual_6.PNG
No proof of license. -N 00:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Lietuvos Romuva © 2007 Julo 20:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - per nom. --Jodo 13:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. abf /talk to me/ 19:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:Outside_Mzolis.jpg
No consent of filmed persons. -N 01:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment — The people are outside the restaurant. Doesn't that mean that they are technically in a public place? --Boricuæddie 03:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Kept. 1) In a public place. 2) Imagine the OMG drama that would come with any Mzoli's related deletions. giggy (:O) 08:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:Environmental_Protection_Agency_logo.svg
Although it is in the public domain because it is a US government work, reproduction, derivtive works, and commercial use are restricted per [6], which is not suitable for Commons. ViperSnake151 03:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Trademark-like protections are allowed on Commons. -N 03:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep If that's the case we might as well delete all the government seals and insignias. --Cpicon92 03:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - I have noticed that we abide by US laws when it comes to fair use and all that. Sure, this may be a WP:ALLORNOTHING situation, but consider this, a template I made for the NASA logos on the English Wikipedia which I made after seeing the NASA logo (a government work, public domain) being tagged with a fair use rationale and the non-free logo template, survived Tfd with a keep. The template stated that although the image was in the public domain, that specific laws restricted the use of the image. Since we're hosted in the United States, we have to abide by their laws. It says here black and white that "This order prohibits reproduction and or use of [the logo] for commercial purposes. Even though it's public domain, it's made non-free by our standards. ViperSnake151 22:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Nearly every trademark there is prohibits commercial use. That's kinda implied by "trademark". Our policy has always been that images only have to be free in the copyright sense. - Rocket000 05:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:Lomonosov_University_Moscow.JPG
universitatea lomonosov din moscova 82.77.30.133 13:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment does it mean it is NOT this university? If so - rename, but I don't know the proper name Julo 17:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
kept Julo 19:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:Monitoring_med.jpg
"frei verfügbar als download" does not mean any "free licence" => "© Copyright 2008 ADT Security Services, Inc. All Rights Reserved." JD {æ} 15:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- This picture is for press download. It is allowed to use this picture in (oh my english issn´t good) cohesive with articles about the firma ADT . - RacoonyRE 13:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- in other words: it's not compatible with Commons:Licensing. --JD {æ} 14:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- I´m Sorry, my english is not so good. Then delete the picture... I can´t change your opinion! :-( -- RacoonyRE 14:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- in other words: it's not compatible with Commons:Licensing. --JD {æ} 14:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete We need to be able to use images freely, not only in "articles about the firma ADT". -- Deadstar (msg) 08:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. abf /talk to me/ 19:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:Raimon11.jpg
I do not believe this is own work. -N 20:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. See also uploader's contribution. Julo 20:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:Abizanda dend'a Zinca.JPG
Wrong license. Not mine indeed. --Lascorz (I'll read it) 
21:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Durova 00:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. abf /talk to me/ 20:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:Abizanda Ambista monimental.JPG
Wrong license. taken from the internet, not mine indeed. --Lascorz (I'll read it) 21:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Durova 23:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. abf /talk to me/ 20:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:Abizanda Cadalso e Ilesia.jpg
Wrong license. taken from the internet, not mine indeed. --Lascorz (I'll read it) 21:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Durova 23:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. abf /talk to me/ 20:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:Townsend_Lloyd_K_-_Atlantis.jpg
the plant shown is not a lilac, but a wisteria 67.71.148.154 23:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Please close this request, someone is joking. --Marcok 00:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep and suggest speedy close. Image does not claim to be a depiction of a lilac, but an illustration of mythical Atlantis. Durova 00:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Kept. ... - Rocket000 23:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:Challenger_memorial_Little_Tokyo.jpg
I uploaded this but I just want to be sure... There is no FOP in USA but this seems ok since it's an exact duplicate of a public domain object, ie there's no new copyrightable material here (and US jurispridence rejects sweat-of-the-brow as a basis for copyright). -N 15:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - I agree with N that it seems OK. giggy (:O) 08:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete I am afraid it is not free. It was an artistic idea to make this memorial like the original space shuttle, and to put it on this square in this city etc. It is not a copy of Challenger, it is quite different object. Julo 19:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I agree with N that it is a slavish copy of a public domain object -Nv8200p 03:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- I honestly do not know who put the memorial up in Los Angeles, but I see this endorsed by NASA when I personally went to the memorial. I will be around the area again next week, but I still think the image will be fine to host on the Commons. Keep User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 03:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Closed by me due to backlog. giggy (:O) 04:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] March 3
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:Kyu_1963.png
I have doubts that this TV screenshot falls under the category of "fotografiska bilder". dave pape 00:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Not a photographic picture (fotografiska bild). --GeorgHH • talk 18:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete --Johney (T∀LK) 19:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. --- Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:Bhuvaneswari1.jpg
marked as fair use -N 04:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. There are also claims that it's in the public domain, but no explanation as to why it would be. The uploader seems confused about the meaning of the terms, as they are mutually exclusive by definition. Looks like it might be a recent interpretation of the motif, so it's probably not in the public domain. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Arria Belli | parlami 15:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:Bokmassa.jpg
Not really GFDL. -N 04:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete No indication for GFDL. --GeorgHH • talk 18:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Why? The photo is free to use according to the photographer, Adam Lundquist, and the Göteborg Book Fair in connection with articles/publications about the Book Fair. --Darthmortar 19:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- That sounds like "fair use" (no pun intended). What if I wanted to make a t-shirt that said "Göteborg Book Fair sucks" and put a big penis across the picture and then sell the t-shirts? I could do that with a real GFDL image (the back of the t-shirt would have to be the text of the GFDL of course) but you cannot do that with a "fair use" image when they only want you to use it to promote the fair. -N 00:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Why? The photo is free to use according to the photographer, Adam Lundquist, and the Göteborg Book Fair in connection with articles/publications about the Book Fair. --Darthmortar 19:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Arria Belli | parlami 15:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:Media_Coverage.pdf
Outside project scope. -N 04:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete No permission of Johannah Cain. --GeorgHH • talk 18:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Given user's return after making only contribution 2 years ago to vandalize when notified their contribution was being deleted, I'd guess they took it personally. -N 01:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Arria Belli | parlami 15:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:Shanghai_adv.jpg
Photo of a fair use advertisement. BrokenSphere 05:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Arria Belli | parlami 15:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:T.V.Smith Stuttgart Roehre2002.JPG
Derivate work of the copyrighted stage poster; to avoid copyright issues, a cropped version has been uploaded under another name: Image:T V Smith Stuttgart Roehre 2002.jpg --Wikipeder 16:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Why do you have the opinion, that this is a derivate work (and if you think it is from a poster, can you prove it), and your announced picture dosn't exist. this is no poster its part of the stage and not in the main focus of the picture. Freedom of panorama can be applied --Joergens.mi 21:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- "Keep" isn't exactly an argument ... I have the opinion that it is a derivative work because it is highly unlikely that the back of the stage is a huge window miraculously opening to the same aerial view that appears on the artist's album cover. You can even invoke two rationales why this image is a derivative work: firstly as a derivative of the copyrighted poster and secondly as a derivative of the copyrighted stage design (the copyrighted parts of which consist of the poster).
- I can't really prove its a poster though but the way it is attached to the scaffolding makes me believe it is not my grandma's settee.
- I replaced the cropped image's name with a link in case copy and paste won't work again. --Wikipeder 18:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete Derivate work --Jodo 19:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - is there freedom of panorama involved? It's not the main focus of the image, so it's okay. ViperSnake151 20:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Panorama is only outside.
- Comment Freedom of panorama can only be on puplic ground with images which are permanently fixed at the place. These two things do not apply on this situation
- Panorama is only outside.
- OTRS ticket 2008030310015851 contains a valid permission by T. V. Smith regarding the stage poster as GFDL. Code·is·poetry 15:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Excellent! I removed the delete tag. --Wikipeder 17:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:Medvedev_at_Davos.jpg
CC-BY-NC-SA photo. "Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License" [9] sk 16:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep When it was uploaded from Flickr and ran thru the bot, it was CC-BY-SA at the time. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 20:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Provisional Keep - if it's Wikimedia's policy to keep images even if their license has changed subsequently. I searched today as well and it was CC-BY-SA. --Avala 21:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Yep. It's not just our policy, CC licenses are irrevocable. - Rocket000 23:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry Rocket: reopened. The point here is that they mistakenly licensed their images as CC-BY-SA. They intended CC-BY-NC-SA all along. The problem is that their photo descriptions included the line "+++ no resale, no archive +++", but were licensed CC-BY-SA. I've asked them repeatedly to clarify. Apparently it took them a while to understand where the problem was. They first removed the "no resale, no archive" line from the two photos I had pointed out to them, but the line was still in the EXIF data, and they also left it on all the rest of their images. A little while after, they removed the "no resale, no archive" line (apparently from all their images) and changed the license to CC-BY-NC-SA. See e.g. Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Maria Bartiromo.jpg (which I'll have to re-nominate now) and Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Tony Blair at the World Economic Forum.jpg. To summarize: the CC-BY-SA licensing at Flickr was an error. The CC-BY-NC-SA licensing is what they intended all along. Lupo 08:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per my comments above. Lupo 08:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Have the Flickr uploaders been challenged with the irrevocability of the license? Perhaps we could coerce them into releasing it under CC-BY-SA. If not, this should be deleted, but shouldn't these images be discussed as a group? Sverdrup 11:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Nope. Their original licensing was "CC-BY-SA + no resale + no archive", which is a bizarre mixture. I asked them to clarify that by removing the "no resale, no archive" line and either just use CC-BY-SA or, if they really didn't want others to resell the images, switch to CC-BY-NC-SA. Sadly, they chose CC-BY-NC-SA once they had understood the problem. Lupo 11:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- If this license is irrevocable it is not our fault that they didn't understand it at first and made an error. Ignorantia juris non excusat. --Avala 12:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Ignoring the "no resale, no archive" part is not ok. Their license was not plain CC-BY-SA, it was "CC_BY_SA + no resale + no archive". Lupo 13:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- When I was searching flickr (and Zscout370 as well I guess) this image turned up as something that can be used on Wikimedia. What they did afterwards, all the numerous license changes cannot be of our concern. --Avala 13:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- They only changed the image license because I asked the uploader to release photos for the 2008 Meeting in Davos. I was working with other Commons administrators about these images and we been uploading them anyways. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 15:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- We have a problem: [10]. Take e.g. Image:World Economic Forum Annual Meeting Davos 2005 (346655258).jpg: even our description reproduces the "no resale, no archive" text, and today it's CC-BY-NC-SA. Same for Image:Ferenc Gyurcsány, Davos 1.jpg ("no resale, no archive" in the EXIF, today: CC-BY-NC-SA). And so on... :-( CC-BY-SA + "no resale, no archive" is not CC-BY-SA... Lupo 15:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- They only changed the image license because I asked the uploader to release photos for the 2008 Meeting in Davos. I was working with other Commons administrators about these images and we been uploading them anyways. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 15:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- When I was searching flickr (and Zscout370 as well I guess) this image turned up as something that can be used on Wikimedia. What they did afterwards, all the numerous license changes cannot be of our concern. --Avala 13:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Ignoring the "no resale, no archive" part is not ok. Their license was not plain CC-BY-SA, it was "CC_BY_SA + no resale + no archive". Lupo 13:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- If this license is irrevocable it is not our fault that they didn't understand it at first and made an error. Ignorantia juris non excusat. --Avala 12:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Nope. Their original licensing was "CC-BY-SA + no resale + no archive", which is a bizarre mixture. I asked them to clarify that by removing the "no resale, no archive" line and either just use CC-BY-SA or, if they really didn't want others to resell the images, switch to CC-BY-NC-SA. Sadly, they chose CC-BY-NC-SA once they had understood the problem. Lupo 11:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- I think it should be removed. If not for anything else than just being nice netizens. They didn't license it properly, but their intent was clearly not for as liberal as CC-BY-SA judging by their "no resale, no archive". Is it legal for getting it as CC-BY-SA when that comment is there? Who knows, but why bother making a legal call when we're not lawyers? --Dori - Talk 16:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- "Any of the above conditions can be waived if you get permission from the copyright holder." - Are they willing to allow Wikimedia usage? Did anyone ask them? I still don't think that we need it because their mistakes make no obligation for us but still things would be clearer if they also specifically allowed us to use the work.--Avala 16:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- A Wikimedia-only permission would be no good... Lupo 16:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Wikimedia Commons and all other projects using images from here. --Avala 16:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, Avala, that's not free enough. We want free media that can be used by anyone for any legal purpose. Lupo 19:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Aren't there images here that were released for usage here by their authors? There is even a system under which we send requests and where approvals are saved. Anyway that was just my idea how to put an end to this discussion. But regardless we definitely should not delete an image because the author changed the license subsequently. --Avala 20:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, Avala, that's not free enough. We want free media that can be used by anyone for any legal purpose. Lupo 19:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Wikimedia Commons and all other projects using images from here. --Avala 16:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- A Wikimedia-only permission would be no good... Lupo 16:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- "Any of the above conditions can be waived if you get permission from the copyright holder." - Are they willing to allow Wikimedia usage? Did anyone ask them? I still don't think that we need it because their mistakes make no obligation for us but still things would be clearer if they also specifically allowed us to use the work.--Avala 16:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- To clarify I vote Delete, unless the original copyrightholder changes his/her mind. I agree with the honesty perspective, but mostly because we have to make a conservative judgement. The conservative judgement is that the license situation is very unclear, probably non-free. Sverdrup 23:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - licensing is inappropriate for Commons unless they'll agree to remove NC, which seems unlikely. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 05:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. - Rocket000 18:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:TERAPIA_DE_INTEGRACIÓN_CUERPO_MENTE_ESPIRITU.pdf
Out of project scope. Text document. EugeneZelenko 17:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Useless. -N 19:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Arria Belli | parlami 15:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:Parthenon_frieze_noth_XLIV.JPG
misnumbered in title, will re-upload Twospoonfuls 18:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment What is the correctly named image? You can use {{badname|Name of other file}} or {{duplicate|Name of other file}} In these cases. -- Deadstar (msg) 08:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- The correct block number is there in the image. I don't really give a damn what the correct template is, I'd just like it deleted. Thanks. Twospoonfuls 11:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
4 March 2008 User:Zirland deleted "Image:Parthenon frieze noth XLIV.JPG" (Duplicated file)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:Parthenon_frieze_west_I_1.JPG
wrongly uploaded duplicate Twospoonfuls 18:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Duplicate of what? You can use {{duplicate|Name of other file}} in these cases. -- Deadstar (msg) 08:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Of...that----->
. Twospoonfuls 11:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Of...that----->
Deleted. - Rocket000 18:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Qed.jpg
brute force / without source, description of anything Kolossos 12:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Perhaps the police should be involved for this and Wiki people should turn in the contac User's information as well WayneRay 17:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)WayneRay
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:Matt_berry.jpg
Not "self-made" -N 05:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep if the uploader is to be believed, he is Ben Meadows of Ben Meadows Photography, who does have the right to use the picture and describe it as self-made Also see the talk page for Matt Berry on wikipedia.
Ben Meadows' contact details are here. What's the procedure for getting someone to verify, to Wikimedia's satisfaction, that they really are the uploader? Do we contact him and ask him to reply to a special e-mail address? boffy_b 03:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Kept. OTRS verification would be good, but for now we can Assume Good Faith. giggy (:O) 04:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:Show.gif
Sources of the photos used in this GIF animation are unclear. Probably a copyvio. ALE! ¿…? 08:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:Tirol-Suedtirol-Trentino.png
Source-Image is in german "DÜP", because it is not ineligible, here PD-self claimed, wich is wrong anyhow. abf /talk to me/ 13:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
behalten, basiert auf Image:Tirol 1918.png (gfdl); hochgeladen wurde das bild mit einem allg. pd-baustein (beweis). Der allg. pd-baustein kann zwar als pd-ineligible oder PD-self gemeint sein, aber ich interpertiere das mal als pd-self. ;) Das pd-self zeug deuten wir mal um und basteln uns eine gfdl-lizenz draus (zumindest solange bis jemand mit ahnung drüberschaut :)). --77.133.21.122 17:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Huh? Sorry the argument makes no sense. Keep. Gryffindor 22:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Don't see what's the problem about this. I made clear which image I used as base. Color-tones are selected to better show the three different parts (the only-grey version doesn't do that well enough in my opinion). The color of Südtirol is more similar to nord- and osttirol than to trentino, to point out that there is a german-speaking minority as well, it has no political meaning (I also colored trentino blue, not green, to not make it political, and I avoided giving südtirol a direct red tone, witch could be interpreted as political claim). I didn't even remove the "Alto Adige" :-) ... If it's really inacceptable for you this way, I could create a version with three red-tones, or three colors not related to Austria or Italy, but I think it's okay that way. KEEP --PSIplus 
14:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:Wo_stehst_DU_60px.png
In my eyes this is nonsense outside of our project scope abf /talk to me/ 15:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Translation: "I don't like the picture and therefore I want to have the picture deleted." You can compare it to Image:Adminpedia.png. Picture is used in the user and wikipedia namespace. It is consensus that you can upload a small quantity of images that do not serve the project in a direct way (eg illustrating articles) but in an indirect way (maybe here: express an opinion, call attention to a problem; illustrate the user-page, so the user is happy). --77.133.21.122 16:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- 77.133.21.122, you can't compare it to Image:Adminpedia.png as the latter is a sort of joke, not directed at any person, not even to the reader.-- Túrelio 08:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep of course you can compare it - the adminpedia picture points directly at the reader "auch deins" translates to "also yours" ;) --83.215.146.135 22:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- 77.133.21.122, you can't compare it to Image:Adminpedia.png as the latter is a sort of joke, not directed at any person, not even to the reader.-- Túrelio 08:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep It's in use at Geman Wikipedia (in five pages). --GeorgHH • talk 18:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Oh yes, on three user pages and on one project page twice. Very relevant ;-) -- Túrelio 08:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete The image aims at insulting contributors for whom relevance is relevant, calling them censors (as can be seen in the context it is used in, btw in 4 of the aforementioned 5 times by the uploader). There is no need of letting people insult others with pictures, texts will do. --NoCultureIcons 02:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep It is not only for him relevant, and it has wider meanings. Textversion:
[ Vandalismusbekämpfung < Wo stehst du? > Zensur ]is not so nice. --Fg68at de:Disk 14:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC) - Keep Why this picture is not to be interpreted as an insult:
- It illustrates that there is a continuum between censorship and “Vandalismusbeseitung”, the last being – without a doubt – one of the most important tasks in wiki projects. It implicates that none of the poles can be defined exactly and concedes that disposal of vandalism is a tightrope walk and that some inaccurate actions are inevitable and only human.
- Instead of an accusing statement there is a question which leaves to the reader to answer it by “I do my best to act in an objective way”.
- Differing from Adminpedia.png, the question isn't explicitly addressed to any person or group. There isn't any reference to the aforementioned “contributors for whom relevance is relevant”, admins or anybody else.
- --Dan-yell 15:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment look, if you use this image in an RfA to criticise the candidate, where it then gets removed by an admin, and afterwards, you use it on the discussionpage of said admin to criticise her censorship, I don't care what you explain in this discussion. If it's not meant to address any person or group, don't use it to address people or groups, which (to me) seems to be the sole purpose of the image. --NoCultureIcons 22:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment see, there is no reason why I shouldn't insert the discussed subject into the discussion. Whether You see yourself attacked depends on whether You feel addressed or not. --Dan-yell 23:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep It's very usefull to put attention on the responsibility of all users of Wikipedia. --87.175.68.195 07:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as of COM:SCOPE. That is wikipolitical activism, rather typical for :de (I know :de quite well). Move it to :de, it can be stored locally. There is no use for that here, as it is rather opposed to the way we interact on Commons, and due to the language it is of no use for any other wikipedia version. And why do we have even two versions of the same image Image:Wo stehst DU 61px.png? -- Túrelio 08:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Knowing the wikipolitical activism in the German Wikipedia, I guess You also know it's reasons there (Germans regard their WP as to be "leaner and fitter" than en-WP - see e.g. the discussion about an article on Mzoli's in de-WP). For this is think that to move the picture to :de might mean to move it into the trash. Also I wonder what the Category:German_Wikipedia is meant to be for. --Dan-yell 14:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Mzoli's was a very special case due to the involvement of Jimbo. Also, my "Move it to :de" proposal was meant to be honest, not as a sort of short-cut to the trash can. As deletion debates here on Commons usually take more time than on WP, I would at least upload it on :de and see what happens.-- Túrelio 09:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete This image isn´t in use in other Wikipedias than de-WP (and whether it´s needed there or not is another question...). Maybe it´s reasonable if the image would be moved to de-WP. Furthermore one version is enough. We don´t need three (!) versions. See also Túrelio.Chaddy 17:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment there have been added speedy deletion requests for the other versions. --Dan-yell 14:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- DeleteThe image is only used in the German Wikipedia, so it should be either moved there or be deleted because of irrelevance. The image is completely useless —the preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.123.97.198 (talk • contribs) 21:33, 9. Mär. 2008
- Keep
- Commons is a file repository for all Wikimedia projects. The file can be used also in the german Wikibooks, Wikisource, Wikinews, Wiktionary and Wikiquote. It's counterproductive to move it to de.wikipedia.
- COM:SCOPE says Commons may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive. Like Wikipedia, the Commons is not censored. --GeorgHH • talk 10:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I can't see the picture as offensive. It just says there's a range of options between removing vandalism and censorship, and asks the reader where he/she stands. I don't know about the particular usage, but even if it has been abused, then the abuse should be stopped and not the picture, which is sort of original (and might be translated into other languages if somebody needs it). --Mowenna 18:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep As said before, can be used also elsewhere and is not offensive at all. Don't see a need to delete. --WikipediaMaster 19:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:Communes_Map.png
This image can be seen at http://www.mapanddata.info/FR05/CAR/carticFr2003.htm, also the talk page says this image was converted to a png from a gif, note how both images are strictly identical, right down to the thinning of some lines at particular points. This kind of data is not available for free in France, so I don't see how a single user can have collected this data all on his own. Jackaranga 15:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- This kind of data is available for sale for a few hundred Euros, however in order to buy the rights to republish it you would have to pay thousands and thousands of euros. I don't believe the user created this himself, due to the fact it requires teams of cartographers and thousands of hours of work to collect this amount of data, and there is no reason the result would have been identical down to the last pixel to this copyrighted version, even if he had managed. Jackaranga 15:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm, in the US, this would unquestionably be {{PD-ineligible}}, and put together by the government at that. Any comments? Patstuart (talk) 14:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- No it wouldn't, the PD-USgov applies only to the US government, it has nothing to do with the country the work is located in, also this map was not created by a government, it's blatant copyright infringement I don't know why this is taking so long. Also cartographic data is not ineligible for copyright. Jackaranga 20:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment I’m nearly sure that this is PD-ineligible in France. Wait until I check. VIGNERON * discut. 11:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- Salut ! I just visited the site of Articque, http://www.mapanddata.info/ , from where the map came. It is one of numerous free downloads of maps and statistical data from the site available for simply registering. The home page calls the downloadable maps and statistical resources « Ressources gratuites », and the top of the download page calls them « Téléchargement gratuits ». There is no copyright information or other restrictions indicated whatsoever on the download page or on the maps themselves. There is also no indication that they actually created the maps, thought I would logically assume they did since statistical mapping is their line of business. One would think that if Articque was interested in « protecting » their rights to these maps that the least they would do is put their name or web address or something on them! - - Since there appears to be no restictions on this « free » map, and this was converted into another format for Wikipedia, it is not for resale, and it does not restrict Articque's ability to sell their product in any way, it should be allowed to stay, in my opinion. It is extremely interesting, which lead me to click on it and take a closer look - thus, leading to this talk page. Tchao ! Charvex 10:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. the mainpage of http://www.mapanddata.info/ has a clear assertion to copyright. Gnangarra 12:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:Pottok.jpg
Los únicos colores admitidos para la raza pottoka son el negro y castaño muy oscuro. El alazan no se permite. --2 March 2008 User:Ipasmor Fixed request. -- Deadstar (msg) 10:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Could you translate this please? I guess you mean the file name is wrong (no Pottok)? If this is the case, it's not a reason for deletion but for renaming. --Überraschungsbilder 18:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- "The only colors allowed for the breed pottoka are black and very dark chestnut. Sorrel is not allowed." -N 02:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Er, Mantener y darle otro nombre si es necesario. Es un bueno imagen. Keep and rename if necessary; it's a good image. Any horse experts around here? Patstuart (talk) 14:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- We don´t really need good photos of horses of unknown breed, which do nothing than standing around. We need Photos of horses, for all the breed articles.
- But if this with the color is correct - than why can I find in the German wikipedia
- Farben: alle außer Schimmel (Colors: alle except greys)
- and here [13] - they breed the horse.
- Braun, Schwarz, Fuchs sowie alle daraus entstehenden Schecken (Colors: Bay, Black, Chestnut (it is not metioned if it is sorrel or dark chestnut), Pintos)
- Kersti 13:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Have it {{rename}}d please. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 19:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:Pottoka Bianditzen.JPG
Este caballo no es un Pottoka. Para detalles: http://www.pottoka.org/esp_ezaugarriak.php --21:43, 2 March 2008 User:Ipasmor
- Comment Any idea what it is then? Rename image, don't delete. -- Deadstar (msg) 10:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I thought they were pottokas. But if they aren´t this horse race, I don´t know what race they are. I only know they are two small horses (very similar to pottokas) in Bianditz mountain (Oiartzun, Basque Country). In that zone there are a lot of pottokas. --Orereta 10:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I´m against the deletion. See there: Pottok. There are very similar horses, comparing horses of Pottoka Bianditzen. And if the information is not correct, I think change info is sufficient--Orereta 10:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per - Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Pottok.jpg. Patstuart (talk) 14:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Kept per Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Pottok.jpg – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 19:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:Pottokak Bianditzen 2.JPG
No son pottokas. más información: http://www.pottoka.org/esp_ezaugarriak.php --21:51, 2 March 2008 User:Ipasmor
- Comment I thought they were pottokas. But if they aren´t this horse race, I don´t know what race they are. I only know they are two small horses (very similar to pottokas) in Bianditz mountain (Oiartzun, Basque Country). In that zone there are a lot of pottokas. --Orereta 10:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I´m against the deletion. See there: Pottok. There are very similar horses, comparing horses of Pottoka Bianditzen. And if the information is not correct, I think change info is sufficient--Orereta 10:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - per Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Pottok.jpg. Patstuart (talk) 14:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Kept per Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Pottok.jpg – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 19:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:George_H.W._Bush_superstructure_lift.jpg
see Commons:Deletion requests/Image:PCU George H W Bush CVN 77 in dry dock.jpg. Given author John Whalen isn't a US Navy member, see http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=39716 which is labeled "Photo by Mr. John Whalen courtesy Northrop Grumman Ship Building" schlendrian •λ• 23:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:Indian_Army_WWII.jpg
No creator and year of publication given, so no indication that PD India sixty year rule fits. GeorgHH • talk 16:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep unless you're willing to argue WWII extended till 1948 and beyond... -N 02:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep the date is not given, but the photograph obviously predates 1948 and so fits the sixty year rule 121.45.84.91 04:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Publication date unknown, so we can't say that this is PD. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 12:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:Altarskåp_från_Bollnäs,_STF1923.jpg
The Swedish photographer C. G. Rosenberg lived 1883 - 1957.[14] (See also [15].) Lupo 11:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- This looks like a copy of a PD work. Is it? If so it would be a simple photograph made before 1969, nyet? -N 02:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know if it would be considered a "simple photograph" in Sweden. If it's a work, it's not PD. It's a photo of a (probably public domain) 3D original. The photographer was a professional; highly acclaimed for his architectural photos. Lupo 07:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, agree with Lupo. Kameraad Pjotr 19:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:Cuño_EUM.png
Mexican official works are not automatically in the public domain. Therefore this image is a copyvio. Not much of a problem as there are several better images arround. ALE! ¿…? 15:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- official works EUM
Artículo 14.- No son objeto de la protección como derecho de autor a que se refiere esta Ley:
....
VII. Las reproducciones o imitaciones, sin autorización, de escudos, banderas o emblemas de cualquier país, estado, municipio o división política equivalente, ni las denominaciones, siglas, símbolos o emblemas de organizaciones internacionales gubernamentales, no gubernamentales, o de cualquier otra organización reconocida oficialmente, así como la designación verbal de los mismos;
VIII. Los textos legislativos, reglamentarios, administrativos o judiciales, así como sus traducciones oficiales. En caso de ser publicados, deberán apegarse al texto oficial y no conferirán derecho exclusivo de edición;
.... Estracto de la LEY FEDERAL DEL DERECHO DE AUTOR Última reforma publicada DOF 23-07-2003
--Silvestre 14:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per "texto completo" provided by Silvestre - "No son objeto de la protección como derecho de autor a que se refiere esta Ley:" - "These are not an object of copyright protection". Perhaps someone would like to make a template now for Mexican "shield, flags, and emblems" and "legislative, regularatory, administrative, or judicial texts or their official translations". Patstuart (talk) 14:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Kept, see {{PD-MX-exempt}}. Kameraad Pjotr 19:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:Kapspanten pure.svg
image is not correct -- 3 March 2008 User:Arend041
Neutral - for now, assuming the image is fixed; I don't know enough about the subject to say "keep" though. - Keep - I think PatriciaR fixed the image. Would the uploader and/or Patricia confirm that the top revision is satisfactory? – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 02:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Kept. No valid reason to delete, now. MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:Mi.jpg
Not self-made. -N 04:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] March 4
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:Mae_West.jpg
Copyfraud. The Flickr user cannot license this image of Mae West. The original Flickr page says he forgot the source of it even. -N 01:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete unless the actual copyright status can be ascertained and is appropriate for Commons. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 21:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. - Rocket000 18:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:Stevie Nicks 1.jpg
Feels like a copyvio --Tarawneh 03:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Looks like a celebrity promotional portrait. Durova 08:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Stevie Nicks has been a celebrity for over 30 years and this looks like a professional portrait, probably photographed quite some time ago. She's going to turn 60 two months from now. Doesn't look like a portrait of a woman in late middle age. Durova 02:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. - Rocket000 18:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:Bancopopular.jpg
found at http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=333551 C arango 03:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Durova 08:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete all user uploads unless he can prove he's the author. Seems all of them taken from skyscrapercity.com (different users). --Platonides 14:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 00:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:Corporacionfinancieravalle.jpg
found at: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=333551 C arango 03:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Durova 08:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. by Zirland: "In category Other speedy deletions; no license" - Rocket000 18:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:Chicas_Show.jpg
Out of scope? It's just text (self-made). And there's no license. - Rocket000 18:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 00:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:Nicolae_Ceausescu.jpg
Is the uploader really the author of this photo? Another version on the internet: [16] Alex:D 20:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete No proof. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 15:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
copyvio, deleted Julo 18:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:Ladiscusion.jpg
May qualify as pd-ineligible, but I am not sure. Looks like a copyvio. -N 01:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete {{derivative}}, I think. --Dodo 13:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Deleted - derivative work, per above. -Aude (talk | contribs) 21:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:Vilamarí.gif
It is not visible. New version: Vilamarí.jpg Tantarantana 11:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep It's visible now. Gif is mora appropiate than jpg. --Platonides 14:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:TajCenotaphs.jpg
Photos in the interior of the Taj Mahal are absolutely forbidden unless you get a special authorization, but there is no permission. -- Anna 19:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Hmmmm... Forbidden? What does it mean? In Indian copyright law is nothing about Taj Mahal. Maybe it is forbidden just because of security reasons? There is nothing what can hurt Taj Mahal and seems to be nothing against Indian law. Julo 19:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- The same here. What does it mean forbidden? Does this Photo hurt some copyright laws? I guess no, Taj Mahal have been buld over 100 years ago. --Avron 10:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Kept - No photographs is a condition of entry issue rather than a copyright issue, which is important for us. See also: Commons:Image_casebook#Museum_photography -Aude (talk | contribs) 22:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:Interior4.jpg
Photos in the interior of the Taj Mahal are absolutely forbidden unless you get a special authorization, but there is no permission -- Anna 19:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Why do you say "there is no permission"?
How do you know? Who are you "Anna"? What is your reference? What is your authorization to make such a claim? Wikipedia is such an extraordinary collection of busy-bodies who think they are god's gift to knowledge. Grow up.
We visited the Taj Mahal in 1999 with the blessing and permission of the Archaeological Survey of India. All photos supplied by myself and Armchair Travel Co Ltd were authorised by ASI - UNDER CONTRACT. All photos supplied are copyright William Donelson and Armchair Travel Co Ltd.Donelson 12:27, 5 Mar 2008.
Keep - Legal restrictions of this matter do not concern us. We only are concerned about copyright, personality rights, etc. ViperSnake151 12:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Kept - No photographs is a condition of entry issue rather than a copyright issue, which is important for us. See also: Commons:Image_casebook#Museum_photography -Aude (talk | contribs) 22:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:Logo.juus.gif
no license - the uploader is not the creator, he did not understand about licensing h-stt !? 19:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment http://www.juus.de might have copyright status for this logo (can't access it at the moment). -- Deadstar (msg) 09:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 17:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:Jbze-logo.gif
no license, the uploader is not the creator, he just di not understand aboutu licensing h-stt !? 19:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Durova 20:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 17:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:Breaking.gif
This goes against the "Wikimedia visual identity guidelines". (And it's hideous, but that's another story.) When used, it simply has an air of immaturity. Zanimum 18:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep used on many different wikis, shows some of the "fun" side of the project without vandalism. -N 01:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I don't see any problem with having that. --Platonides 14:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I'd not mind this if it went round a little slower. --Brian McNeil / talk 20:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment According to CheckUsage, this is used on 39 pages in 18 projects. Adambro 20:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Used out of ignorance, as far as we know. A Wikimedia brand is a Wikimedia brand is a Wikimedia brand. It should be protected under copyright, or released as PD. As the second won't happen, the first is the only option. -- Zanimum 17:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - But would someone fix it so the point of rotation is actually the centre of the circle? – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 17:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Kept, in use (though I think it's horrid). Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 16:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:Breizoz - A French Creperie Resturant at Nelson Place Williamstown.jpg
The photo virtually is just a duplication of the same photo – Image:Williamstown - French Creperie Restaurant.jpg. The object was shoot at different time and then I found one is of a better quality although they were given a different name when I uploaded them to the Widimedia Commons. 4 March 2008 Donaldytong
- It is not exact duplicate. We can keep both pictures Julo 19:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- As I am the original photo maker, I cannot see any benefit and value to keep this photo in Wikimedia Commons because there is another nearly exact and better quality photo Image:Williamstown - French Creperie Restaurant.jpg available in the same page of Category Melbourne. Donaldytong--122.104.80.218 09:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - the other one is better. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 17:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, not in use, author request. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 21:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Deleted Author request --Donaldytong 11:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:Karolszymanowski.jpg
no reason for PD given. Szymanowski died 1937 so its possible that the autor of the photo is not 70years dead ...Sicherlich Post 20:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC) --Sicherlich Post 20:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Sicherlich, we don't have to be suspicious; let's use positive thinking! The picture must be made before 1937, Szymanowski seems to be 40-50 years old, i.e. the photo could be made between 1922 and 1932. The author of this photo could die few years after shotting the picture, for instance before 1937.
But it is no matter, when the author is unknown we can use {{anonymous-EU}}. Julo 16:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. No author info and picture isn't old enough to be on the safe sideBadseed talk 15:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:Joseph_Henri_Mensier.jpg
No correkt date, no correct author. Alkab 14:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep the situation is very clear : User:Karl1263 take a photography on october 2007 of a portrait of Joseph Henri Mensier. This portrait is probably in PD (Joseph Henri Mensier died in 1917, so the author of the portait - which is unknow - will probably died for more than 70 years). I don't understand this nomination.--Bapti ✉ 21:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, no proof of PD-old. Kameraad Pjotr 10:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
[edit] March 5
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:Nude1.jpg
I would like to remove my contribution. It is unused. Kma922 00:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - personality rights. Patstuart (talk) 20:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Keep! It's a great photo!
- Delete After discussion with Kma922. Morgoth666 09:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Why? if we have to remove unused photos from this server, it would be a great percentage (more than fifty?) that I don't know! But IMHO, almost all photos on Commons are not used. You made a series of photos of this model, published it here on Commons, now you are backing off for this one, this series are helping us to understand the model, a graphical point of view if I could say so; some other people would have made a category of this series. So, why not keeping it?Morgoth666 21:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC) - Delete image uploaded in error, unused; personality rights. Lupo 09:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep no reason to delete it IMO. Just part of the diversity of nude photographs availbale on Commons. May be useful to some people. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 11:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete We try to honor author's requests when possible. The file being unused is not a reason to delete but it is one less reason we should keep it. When it comes to images of this nature, we should have a little more respect for the uploader's wishes with personality rights and everything. Let's not keep it simply because we can. - Rocket000 15:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Herrick 15:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Deleted / Author requested.--Fanghong 00:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:T.I. - Live @ Madison Square Garden on August 22, 2007.jpg
This image is a copyvio from here --Reverend X 19:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted / Copyvio --Fanghong 01:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC) + +
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:NRT6 2001.jpg
This upload here is an attempt to bypass an ongoing deletion discussion at the English Wikipedia (see w:en:Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_June_23). The discussion there is that the image has no potential use as an encyclopaedia article, since doing so contravenes the basic project policy relating to living persons. There is no sibling project that has a use for such an image. No Wikimedia project has any business embarrassing and distressing this person in the future as xe grows up by employing a naked picture of xem taken without xyr consent when xe was a child. (There are also plenty of pictures of the event in question that include only consenting adults and do not run the same risk of future distress and embarrassment.) As such it should be deleted in accordance with Commons' deletion policy for being "not potentially usable by any current or future Wikimedia project". Uncle G 22:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- Keep If I can understand the deletion request (kind of hard with the made up pronouns in it) this request is founded on 2 grounds:
- 1) bypass ongoing deletion discussion. False. As I have noted on the image's talk page, it has survived two prior deletion attempts and is expected to survive this one. This is an OTRS confirmed image, there's no reason for it not to reside on Commons.
- 2) Of no use in any project. False. It was in use in Wikipedia for over a year before Uncle G decided to remove it on moralistic grounds (en:Talk:Nackt_Radtour). It is a picture from a nude bike race in Germany, where local law does not prohibit public nudity in any way. I can't see why, for example, the German Wikipedia might not want to use this picture if they decide to start an article on the naked bike race, since it takes place in Germany. -N 22:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete This image is potentially illegal according to Florida law since it allows a great deal of interpretation on what is or is not child porn, to quote; "actual lewd exhibition of the genitals" [18] clearly this photo does that, and since it isn't defined more specifically you can't say this doesn't violate Florida law in good faith, I recommend delete unless actual legal advice is offered and not just laymans POV. I agree that this is a violation of personality rights, but we won't find out until the young child grows up and takes legal action. Madmax32 23:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- "Lewd" means in a sexually appealing way. Images of naked kids are not per se illegal, because they are not pornographic unless they are obscene or sexually appealing. A guy holding his kid in a country where such public nudity is perfectly legal does not pass that test. If it did, the people walking behind them in clothing would not casually be passing by as if it were nothing. -N 00:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Imho your definition of lewd is merely a point of view, even though I think arguing over definitions is pointless, lewd can be defined as sexual or just obscene, such as nudity (reading from a dictionary or by it's popular use). Besides just how exactly would you define which image is sexual or not? The Florida law does not go into the detail that you are using to define what would be lewd or not, it just says 'lewd exhibition of genitals'. to me walking naked down the street would be a lewd exhibition of genitals, it doesn't say masturbation or any sexual act. And that photo was taken in Germany not Florida so your observation about peoples reactions is besides the point and would not prove anything (people walk by people getting mugged too in real life) Madmax32 01:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- A couple of points:
- (1) There is no sibling project that has a use for such an image - Commons does not limit itself to content strictly on terms of utility in relation to other Wikimedia projects. Media may not necessarily be encyclopedic, yet those are not deleted.
- (2) Legal grounds for removal - I have yet to see anything other than a bare citation of law that suggests this image is illegal under Florida state law; I am not convinced. If someone is aware of an interpretation of the law—whether as established in case law or as elaborated by a legal scholar—please bring it forth. Simply stating the law is, IMO, insufficient to say that the image should be deleted. Further, if there is a serious legal issue, the image will simply be deleted.
- That said, I hope it is obvious that I recommend that the image not be deleted. Cheers, Iamunknown 02:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Keep No valid reason for deletion has been presented. —Angr 17:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Keep No valid reason for deletion has been presented. Also, I spoke personally with the owner of the image who knows the people involved and everything was cleared and also cleared through Wikipedia licensing process. Dandelion1 01:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Here are some other arguments:
- Images depicting families participating in social nudity events help _illustrate visually_ arguments that casual nudity is embraced by many cultures across the globe and they reinforce arguments that non-sexualized nudity is harmelss and even beneficial for children. See articles at the bottom of the Nudity and children page. This isn't some kind of imaginary concept, people advocate and live a body-positive lifestyle that also includes incorporating family-friendly social nudity into their everyday lives. Images like this make these discussions far less abstract. Arguing that these kinds of images are immoral or irresponsible are being put foward by people who believe that social nudity in the family is inappropriate. Public displays of this lifestyle are a very visual and tangible validation of this that some people just are not willing to accept. That is why these topics deserve a space on wikipedia. The law is different in different parts of the world and these issues are being played out in different events. It is true... a picture is worth a thousand words. Just pick up a National Geographic magazine for crying out loud and expand your mind.
- Nackt Radtour is a public event, just like World Naked Bike Ride and all other clothing-optional bike rides. We have children participate in our Seattle ride too and those pictures are also live currently on the internet. We have large people, skinny people, democrats, republicans, asian, white, latino, you name it. The more diverse a ride looks the more it will attract a diverse set of potential riders. These photos in Germany were uploaded so participants and outsiders could have some idea of what the ride is like. The fact that participants of all ages and families participate adds a sense of safety for those who might be deciding if they want to participate or not. If families did not participate then these events it would be harder to classify as family-friendly events. It really scares me that some here are trying to argue that these images are lewd or sexy or exploitative.
- Re: permissions. I would add that a film named "Radtour-Classics 2001: Nackt-Radtour in und um Karlsruhe am 14. 6. 2001" from this ride was also cleared by filmmaker to screen at the Naked Freedom Film Festival taking place in Seattle in 2004 at the Seattle Art Museum and 911 Media Arts Center and persons depicted in the image were all present in that as well. It was removed at the last minute due to a German -> English translation dispute and because an early trailer screening suggested that a 45 minute film on the subject was just boring. http://www.bodyfreedom.org/nfff/lineup.html . The ad for the festival itself featured persons of all ages, including children. See http://www.bodyfreedom.org/media_projects/NFFFstranger3C.jpg
- People of all ages participate in these events all over the world. Diversity in age, sex and ethnicity is represented in popular events such as these. Family-friendly events involve participants of all ages. Dandelion1 04:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Given personality rights issues. Images on Commons must comply with personality rights laws of countries such as French and Germany (see fr:Droit à l'image or de:Recht am eigenen Bild if your unfamiliar with these) - we need the consent of the people in the image. Projects that do not need to comply with the such laws (e.g. en.wiki) may choose whether or not to keep a local copy, but it does not appear suitable for Commons. WjBscribe 21:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- You can't cite German privacy law when the people were German and appear to have consented. -N 21:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- They consented to the photo being taken, they also have to waive their rights in terms of distribution. We really should have an OTRS email from the subjects agreeing to the image being released under the GFDL. WjBscribe 22:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- I am relatively new to Commons so this hardline resistance to pictures of people on Commons baffles me. Please point me at the appropriate policy pages. Where exactly is the line drawn? Is it famous people versus non famous? -N 23:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- See Commons:Licensing#Country-specific laws. Commons policy is that images have to be legally usable across projects. That means they have to comply with the governing law of the major projects. So the problem isn't Commons policy as such, its the privacy laws of several European countries - but yeah its a public/private distinction. As well as the photographer, private people keep rights to control the use and distribution of photos of them. It is standard practice on Commons to delete images that violate personality laws - this obviously doesn't affect en.wiki which can host such images (as Florida law does not recognise personality rights). WjBscribe 00:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- I looked at the German article (using Babelfish) and apparently the law exempts "Pictures of meetings, elevators and similar procedures, in which the explained persons participated". Apparently consent to appear in a group photo counts as consent of publication. Please correct me if I'm wrong. -N 00:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- You're not wrong as such - but that only part of it. The group exemption as I understand it is for when there are many people and individuals aren't very distinct i.e. crowd shots where there are loads of people. I don't think it applies just because several people are in the photo - it just covers situations where there are so many people that its impractical for rights to be retained. For example in this photo, I don't think we'd need all 8 people's consent - just the guy in the foreground and the child's legal guardian (and possibly the man with the moustache and sunglasses). The nudity isn't the problem IMO, just the fact that these are idenitifiable private people. WjBscribe 02:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Some of the adults (particularly the one holding the child) may be identifiable. The child herself really is not identifiable. For one thing, most of her face is covered by her hand and her bangs; for another, she is today six years older than she was when that picture was taken. Children's appearance changes a lot in six years. That said, the fact that this image has already been published on the Internet before it was uploaded to Wikipedia strongly suggests that the subjects have agreed to publication. —Angr 09:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- You're not wrong as such - but that only part of it. The group exemption as I understand it is for when there are many people and individuals aren't very distinct i.e. crowd shots where there are loads of people. I don't think it applies just because several people are in the photo - it just covers situations where there are so many people that its impractical for rights to be retained. For example in this photo, I don't think we'd need all 8 people's consent - just the guy in the foreground and the child's legal guardian (and possibly the man with the moustache and sunglasses). The nudity isn't the problem IMO, just the fact that these are idenitifiable private people. WjBscribe 02:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- I looked at the German article (using Babelfish) and apparently the law exempts "Pictures of meetings, elevators and similar procedures, in which the explained persons participated". Apparently consent to appear in a group photo counts as consent of publication. Please correct me if I'm wrong. -N 00:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- See Commons:Licensing#Country-specific laws. Commons policy is that images have to be legally usable across projects. That means they have to comply with the governing law of the major projects. So the problem isn't Commons policy as such, its the privacy laws of several European countries - but yeah its a public/private distinction. As well as the photographer, private people keep rights to control the use and distribution of photos of them. It is standard practice on Commons to delete images that violate personality laws - this obviously doesn't affect en.wiki which can host such images (as Florida law does not recognise personality rights). WjBscribe 00:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- I am relatively new to Commons so this hardline resistance to pictures of people on Commons baffles me. Please point me at the appropriate policy pages. Where exactly is the line drawn? Is it famous people versus non famous? -N 23:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- They consented to the photo being taken, they also have to waive their rights in terms of distribution. We really should have an OTRS email from the subjects agreeing to the image being released under the GFDL. WjBscribe 22:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Thing is, the server are in florida so only Florida LAw matters to the creator's of this site an th other projects!!!-- Hornetman16 00:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- You can't cite German privacy law when the people were German and appear to have consented. -N 21:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- DELETE - It was bad enough huting Wikipedia now it hurting Wikimedia Commons too? That's sick!-- Hornetman16 21:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Um dude, I've read about your issues, and while I respect them, your private issues about being "hurt" don't apply to non abusive pictures such as this one. -N 21:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Hornetman16 left me a message on my talk page asking me not to insult him. I am referring to his comments on the English Wikipedia about how abusive child porn pictures have apparently ruined his life and how he's calling the cops and the press on Wikipedia (see w:en:Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_June_23). I can't see how I've insulted him by trying to explain I respect his pain but that has nothing to do with naked people in general. -N 23:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Um dude, I've read about your issues, and while I respect them, your private issues about being "hurt" don't apply to non abusive pictures such as this one. -N 21:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- As a Christian I want this picture deleted!-- Hornetman16 23:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- That's also not a valid argument in a deletion discussion. -N 23:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- It is cause God overrules you!-- Hornetman16 23:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Hornetman your arguments here are bordering on the disruptive. There is nothing wrong with nudity - its a perfectly innocent scene. There is in my opinion a problem (as I state above) with personality rights, but the fact that some of the people are nude seems pretty irrelevant to me. WjBscribe 02:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- It is cause God overrules you!-- Hornetman16 23:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- That's also not a valid argument in a deletion discussion. -N 23:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- You call 6 nude men and one of them hold a nude 4 year old girl innocent? How do you know they're not raping her huh?-- Hornetman16 03:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- That's hard to do on a bicycle... -N 03:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Um, because they are not? --Iamunknown 03:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per WJBScribe's comment re. "personality rights" of certain European countries. It's a legal issue, IMO. Regards accusations of "Ewwww!! Icky kid pr0n!!!, etc, etc", I don't buy that for a second. I have a daughter of similar age, as it happens and when I look at the picture in question, I see nothing sexual about it in the slightest. Not a bit. Major hint here: Nudity does not equate to sex. QED - Alison ☺ 04:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Where's the proof they're not raping her (time to get back on topic) I just want this photo deleted cause it this web site (including Wikipedia) unfit for eye's under 18. Just think what kind of message your sending to other kids that girls age. This is the message:
- It's okay to take naked photo of your self and post them on the internet.
- That's not the message you want to send 3 and 4 year olds. If that heppens their parent could end up in jail for being caught in posseson of Child Porn and that would screw the kids life up cause then they would be sent to foster homes. Now, answer me a question. Do you really want to do that to a kids life?-- Hornetman16 05:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Dude, your ... ummm ... worldview is a little twisted. They is no child rape here. There is nudity. When I look at that picture, I see a bunch of nude cyclists getting ready for a bike run, dad is holding up his daughter like ya do, and she's sucking her thumb and nestling into his shoulder as little kids do. Big whoop. "Just think what kind of message your sending to other kids that girls age" - let me tell you what message I see there; the message that there's nothing inherently wrong with nudity - how about that message? Nothing. You're being phenomenally prudish to the point of being a little warped in your outlook here. There is no rape here. Rape is a big nasty word, let me tell you, and your blithe throwing around of it just pressed one of my buttons here. Anyone who's ever been raped in real-life would be mightily angry with you right now for equating a pic of a bunch of happy, nude cyclists with rape. "Rape" is not your toy-analogy here, and I'm not impressed in the slightest with your trivialising of it (yes, that's right). So drop it already - Alison ☺ 05:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- The reason I brought it up is cause I've had 6 Girlfriends that have been raped in their lives and I know how much it hurt them. My mom was also raped by her Grandfather when she was a kid and she crys everytime she talks about it. And you forgot the rest of the message anyway!- Hornetman16 05:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Dude, your ... ummm ... worldview is a little twisted. They is no child rape here. There is nudity. When I look at that picture, I see a bunch of nude cyclists getting ready for a bike run, dad is holding up his daughter like ya do, and she's sucking her thumb and nestling into his shoulder as little kids do. Big whoop. "Just think what kind of message your sending to other kids that girls age" - let me tell you what message I see there; the message that there's nothing inherently wrong with nudity - how about that message? Nothing. You're being phenomenally prudish to the point of being a little warped in your outlook here. There is no rape here. Rape is a big nasty word, let me tell you, and your blithe throwing around of it just pressed one of my buttons here. Anyone who's ever been raped in real-life would be mightily angry with you right now for equating a pic of a bunch of happy, nude cyclists with rape. "Rape" is not your toy-analogy here, and I'm not impressed in the slightest with your trivialising of it (yes, that's right). So drop it already - Alison ☺ 05:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Where's the proof they're not raping her (time to get back on topic) I just want this photo deleted cause it this web site (including Wikipedia) unfit for eye's under 18. Just think what kind of message your sending to other kids that girls age. This is the message:
- Other opinions to what I stated?-- Hornetman16 03:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
-
Oppose to Hornetman16 - I’m Roman Catholic and I can’t agree to your fundamentalist attitude. Your rape argument is furthermore IMHO absolute irrelevant for this image - rather pray for assigning of your sins or your relatives... --FSHL 18:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- I had droped the rape thing! read back b4 you make that kind of comment.-- Hornetman16 01:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Since the discussion about religion appears to be over, Delete per WJBscribe. This image is not pornographic - it is not a sexualized image that focuses on the child. However, privacy and other legal issues do come into play here with regards to other people in the image. --Coredesat 07:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- But no more so than the 1000+ images carrying the {{personality rights}} template. You're not seriously suggesting we delete all images of identifiable people from Commons, are you? —Angr 15:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - no valid reason for deletion has been presented. — Jeff G. 01:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - If I get this right, the only 'valid' reason given so far is Florida law. If I have understood it right, then that depiction would also have to be 'lewd'. While mores obviously change, and interpretations of the laws even more, this image does not contain 'lewdness', i.e. sexual intent or showing off. It also think it does not break German law in such a respect - I grew up with legal sex help books (some given to us in school!) which had much more explicit images (of young teenagers, not kids, accepted, but still much younger than what nowadays raises cries of hue). Ingolfson 10:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - unless an instance can be given of Florida law holding a similarly asexual image to be lewd. As for personality rights, this was a public event. --Simonxag 00:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Kept. No consensus to delete. Furthermore, the personality rights issue appears to be absent. Just take a look at the source site (lots of nudists, even at the Love Parade 2006 in Berlin). As far as the license is concerned: there's a release filed at OTRS. Lupo 14:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:Goederen.PNG
Dutch language table without description of what it refers to exactly, or what context it can be used in. Not used, doubt it will ever be used. ---- Deadstar (msg) 10:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - It is a (not entirely correct) translation of a part of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Club_good . - Erik Baas 14:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. --- Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:French_people_-_mosaic.PNG
Contains Image:Edith Piaf 1915-1963.jpg which is deleted. Martin H. (talk) 21:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Kept. I removed the image from the collage. --Tryphon (talk) 16:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:Imac_2007.png
Derivative image 189.145.3.84 16:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep, free license. --MB-one 17:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep, but replace. Alright this is free and can be kept... but can someone with an iMac please upload a good picture? One with better lighting and the mouse and keyboard and the computer turned on and no blurry background? Context is okay... just have a clean environment. Althepal 19:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Derivative of nothing. -N 00:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep I don't see why this image is derivative. --KveD (talk) 06:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep, but replace I agree with the person two comments above me, and I for one, would like to see the camera better. —the preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.49.75.151 (talk • contribs)
no reason for deleting, kept Julo 17:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:Deutsche_Direktinvestitionen_in_China_-_Geschichte,_Zustand_und_Perspektiven.pdf
- Delete Outside project scope. -N 19:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. --- Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] All images not PD in the US
OK, commons has had a longstanding policy of allowing images that are public domain in their home countries, but not in the United States, to be housed here. However, while this was de facto policy, it was not our said policy, per COM:L, which clearly states that an image must be in the public domain in the United States as well. Additionally, I have brought this issue up on the discussion boards, and it is clear that the community wishes to engage in this policy. As such, I propose that we delete every image that is not in the public domain in the United States: that will include almost every image linked to from {{PD-Argentina}} [19], {{PD-Iraq}} [20], {{PD-India}} (e.g., Image:Gandhi 1929.jpg, if it's not renewed here), {{PD-Russia}}, and many in {{PD-South-Africa}}, {{PD-UK-unknown}}, just to name a few. The only exception to this rule might be {{PD-Iran}}, as the US doesn't recognize most copyrights from this country right now. My suggestion, because this is so massive, is that we can create a new template which will put images in the speedy deletion category: the template will state something like "images not in the public domain on commons are now deprecated, and may be speedily deleted". We will need to be careful, as most images created before 1977 will not have renewed their copyright, and will be eligible for PD.
Of course, we need to establish we are going to do this: it is a very massive job. If not, we will need to come up with another alternative. But, short of changing the policy itself and getting the legal OK from the foundation, I do not see any.
As a note, I have brought this up for a deletion discussion, because I believe we need to be assertive, and not simply have a talk about this on a policy page (if I'm not mistaken, this has come up before, and nothing has been done?). Patstuart (talk) 20:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, for now. As per Anthère's comment: "there is no urgency to delete stuff. So, no one goes into a deletion frenzy". If it turns out that these images can't be moved to a local chapter, then they will obviously need to be deleted. But definitely keep, until the WMF has made up their minds about what to do with them. Anrie 20:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC) Added: if you feel the need to be assertive, it might be better to keep reminding them (the WMF) that something needs to be decided on about this. Anrie 20:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Comment - I think you bring up a good point. Just to muddy the waters, though, if there is a public domain issue, then we may be hosting a copyright violation, and that could mean urgency. Of course, if someone complains about a copyright violation, WMF could always just take it down immediately. However, I really really really don't think we should just say keep for now and keep pushing this off to a later date - this is not an acceptable long term policy. We need to come up with a better solution. Patstuart (talk) 20:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. It's an issue for the Foundation to decide. Perhaps they decide to delete the mages anyway, so deleting them now would save time... but what if they don't? What if they find a good solution that doesn't involve deleting the images? For example, moving all them to another server outside the US and beyond the evil and unconstitucional Uruguay Round Agreements Act, or perhaps a good legal trick we didn't come up with. But the thing is, those things are not not at our level to fully evaluate.
- For Commons, undoing the whole thing would be easy. Surely the deleted images remain in the server anyway, and they can simply be restored. But what about the projects that use the images? CommonsDelinker can easily unlink all of them in a quick manner, but how would the images could be easily restored back into all the artcles that used them? Thialfi 22:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep No court case is known for this topic. WMF should ignore the problem until it will be sued in the US from a foreign rights owner --Historiograf 01:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep for now, until a Cease and desist notice is received, then the case should be re-examined. The overwhelming majority of those images are PD everywhere except in the US. Removing them will harm all the projects, including those whose uploaders, editors and readers don't access from within the US. Deleting several thousand images, after careful checking URAA compliance, an fixing thousands of articles in all wikipedias will prove to be hugely more work (probably worthless) than finding a safe heaven for storing that part of the database in a country with a copyright legislation a little bit less ridiculous that the US one. Cinabrium 03:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep for now, per Anthere's comment, cited by Anrie. Raymond Disc. 06:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep There's not court case and copyright trial known for this topic. See also: Anthere's comment. You can't see everthing on the US-"point of view". --Herrick 07:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment You can't see ever[y]thing on the US-"point of view". Now that's a non-argument. The WMF and the servers are subject to U.S. law, and if the WMF legal counsel says that anything we host must be legal to publish in the U.S., then that's that. And there have been court cases about such things. Lupo 07:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment to Lupo: When you've sad in the next comment, that this "deletion request" is the wrong vehicle to discuss this issue, I agree with you. But if in australia made an australian photographer an public domain photo many years ago and the template {{PD-Australia}} shows the specific items, I'd be very astonished to see the janusheaded clerk who tries an court case?! Who many servers standing in europe using the PD-Stuff? If someone (in Germany: "Abmahnanwälte") want to split wikikpedia, isssues like that would be great start. :-( --Herrick 10:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment This "deletion request" is certainly the wrong vehicle to discuss this issue. There was no need at all to split the discussion going on at Commons talk:Licensing#Source country and U.S., which also gives a bit more background! The issue has been known for a long time and has been mentioned several times in several Wikimedia projects. The WMF board (Mike Godwin & Anthère) have finally clarified the basic issues, so now it's finally time to enforce the "PD in US" part of our rules. However, as Anthère said, the files violating this rule should not be deleted yet. Instead, they should be identified and tagged appropriately. See the discussion at Commons talk:Licensing#Source country and U.S.. Maybe we'll end up by deleting all images so tagged, or maybe the foundation can come up with a creative solution to keep these images somehow all the same. Therefore: for now, tag affected existing images as {{PD-1923}}, {{PD-URAA}}, or {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}. However, I think it'd be a good idea to make any newly uploaded images that would fall under {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} eligible for speedy deletion. Lupo 07:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment to Pat: yes, this has come up before, and nothing was done because people kept questioning the basics of this rule, claiming that it was ok to host "PD" images not PD in the U.S. Also, your comment about "most images created before 1977 will not have renewed their copyright, and will be eligible for PD" makes me wonder if you have understood the problem at all. If there was a U.S. copyright on a foreign image, and it was not renewed, then that's a failure to comply with the U.S. formalities, and the foreign image is eligible for copyright restoration under the URAA! Hence it's copyrighted in the U.S. if it was still copyrighted in its source country on the URAA date. (Unless it was simultaneously published abroad and in the U.S.) So, in fact many pre-1978 images are copyrighted in the U.S. Lupo 07:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep As long as there exists no decision by the WMF to delete this images this is self-censorship. --kogo 09:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - see Raymond and Polarlys. Marcus Cyron 13:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
This isn’t the right place to discuss this issue. You don’t want an overstrained admin to close this in – let’s say six months – just to bring it to an end? No matter what will happen: Those, who try to establish copyright holders, dates of publication etc. will be affected, all the rest is business as usual, except for singular requests for deletion. But that’s just a personal opinion. --Polarlys 10:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:ATV_001_Jules_Verne_(artist_impression).jpg
Unfree ESA image 88.65.105.30 20:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I think it came from the ESA webpage (For example, this huge picture [21] looks about the same, listed as the same artist... and surprise! It's marked with (C) copyright tag. Also, the page says "all rights reserved" on it. I guess this is regretfully not freeuse. Nesnad 12:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Old news. It has already been established that this image should be deleted. See discussion here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:ESA_Columbus_module.jpg Dutchsatellites 07:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:Stauffenberg.jpg
Image:Claus von Stauffenberg.jpg has been deleted, this is a derivative and should be deleted as well. Highly doubtful license. 78.34.128.173 20:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- We should be consistent. If Image:Claus von Stauffenberg.jpg is deleted as a NSD, we should Delete the derivative as well. --Kjetil_r 20:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. abf /talk to me/ 12:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:Hugo_Award_2007_cropped.jpg
Derivative work. dave pape 02:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 03:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:Campeon talleres 98.jpg
Press photo, fake license --Fernandopascullo 11:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep No proof of copyright violation. --Dezidor 22:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:Signature_of_Robert_Mugabe_2.svg
replaced by Image:Signature of Robert Mugabe clear.svg [[User:Sagredo|<b><font color ="#009933">Sagredo</font></b>]]<sup>[[User talk:Sagredo|<font color ="#8FD35D">⊙☿♀♁♂♃♄</font>]]</sup> 00:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - we don't delete superceded images; just use {{superceded}} instead. Also, what's with the funky sig? O.o – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 06:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Kept and tagged as superseded. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 16:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:Hundertwasser_toilet_gate.jpg
artist Friedensreich Hundertwasser died in 2000, not covered by FOP Polarlys 10:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC) add: Image:HundertwasserToiletteKawakawainnen.jpg, Image:Hundertwasser toilet in Kawakawa.jpg, Image:Hundertwasser koru flag.jpg, Image:Hundertwasser toilet interior (ladies).jpg.
- Keep The photo was taken in a public place in New Zealand that has the free panorama law, similar to Great Britan law (that stated: "Section 62 of the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 is much broader than the corresponding provisions in many other countries, and allows photographers to take pictures of buildings, and sculptures, models for buildings and works of artistic craftsmanship (if permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public) without breaching copyright. Such photographs may be published in any way."), see: Commons:Freedom of panorama. The instalation is permamently situated in public place. Regards Electron 11:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Kept. MichaelMaggs 17:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:Museu_dali_interior.jpg
FOP doesn't apply inside a museum (even if in a court) TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 15:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- This DR also concerns:
- Delete all. This is inside w:Dalí Theatre and Museum, not FOP. --Vriullop 14:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:Hans Maikowski.jpeg
Why should the unknown author have died a few years after taking the picture? --89.56.138.15 10:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Heart attack? -N 23:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Codeispoetry: Copyright violation
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:Results_by_County_of_the_2008_Democratic_Presidential_Primaries.png
While I realize superseded images are normally not deleted, this image is out of date and thus incorrect, and any reasons normally given for not deleting such images do not apply here. This image should be deleted in favor of the other image. Patstuart (talk) 07:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Doesn't it represent reality at some point in the past then? Just note that that's the case and Keep – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 19:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Kept. MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:CheinMoscow.jpg
Che in Moscow was first published in Cuba? Is there proof of this? -N 01:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- If you visit the Museo Che Guevara (Centro de Estudios Che Guevara en La Habana, Cuba (which I have been to) they say so. The photo was taken by the Cuban governments own photographers who documented all of Che Guevara's world travels for informational/propaganda purposes. Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 00:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Kept, per Redthoreau. Kameraad Pjotr 19:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:Range map-Senecio cineraria-SouthAmerica.svg
it was made and named from probably inaccurate information --carol 06:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Uploader request. Unused MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Category:Oral Parts of Matura
At first, these photos of non-notable, identifiable persons where obviously taken in a private setting with a limited purpose (you know, these school photographs …). Our personality rights warning is no carte blanche for uploading images of all kind! Second: There is a conflict with COM:SCOPE, see images like Image:Matura - before oral exam 6.jpg, Image:Matura - during oral exam 16.jpg, Image:Matura - before oral exam 3.jpg, Image:Matura - next please.jpg. The quality is also not the best. --Polarlys 11:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep The photos were taken in the public place (the school) on a formal state exam (Matura). The teachers were taken during doing theirs duties, the students were taken during the formal state exam in a public place. So it is obviously the situation when we can apply the law about free panorama. And there in Chech Republic is the free panorama law...
- If you have sth better you can replaced their... Could you show me more precisely the point of our rigths that say sth about the limits, please? Regards Electron 11:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- en:Personality rights, de:Recht am eigenen Bild, fr:Droit à l'image. Choose your favorite language to get a general idea. Regards, --Polarlys 11:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. OK, I read this but it is a very unclear and a very discutable subject and there is many points of view. There is also nothing about that what the Czech law says about it (because that photos were taken in Czech)... Regards Electron 11:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- en:Personality rights, de:Recht am eigenen Bild, fr:Droit à l'image. Choose your favorite language to get a general idea. Regards, --Polarlys 11:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
- I don't know that either, but the absence of this paragraph in the correspondending article says not much, most countries have regulations for that and last but not least there is also an european level. --Polarlys 11:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- These are only doubts and speculation... All laws require a precision and there are no room for speculation. If you don't sure don't judge. There is no guilt if the is no a precission evidence. Regards Electron 11:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know that either, but the absence of this paragraph in the correspondending article says not much, most countries have regulations for that and last but not least there is also an european level. --Polarlys 11:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- If you think it's okay under Czech law to publish photos of non-notable persons (even in unpleasant situations) without their consent, please provide evidence for that. Commons doesn't work the way that people upload photos which have strong usage restrictions in a lot of countries and then other users have to guess if it's okay in other jurisdictions too. BTW: Discussing doubtable uploads has nothing to do with playing judge. --Polarlys 12:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Very comfotable point of seating. You should do this, you should do that... and I will be play the role of the God. I have no doubts - only you have got. The question is who should move his but... and explain the matter? Regards Electron 12:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- If you think it's okay under Czech law to publish photos of non-notable persons (even in unpleasant situations) without their consent, please provide evidence for that. Commons doesn't work the way that people upload photos which have strong usage restrictions in a lot of countries and then other users have to guess if it's okay in other jurisdictions too. BTW: Discussing doubtable uploads has nothing to do with playing judge. --Polarlys 12:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- For me it's a good starting point to wait for other users responses. --Polarlys 12:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC) PS: Your recent addition has absolutely nothing to do with freedom of panorama: This request is about individuals, not pieces of art or buildings. Being in public service doesn't take away your privacy.
- Everybody can change partly his opinion and improve clearity of his previous expression... Regards Electron 14:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- There are much more photos with that matura on Flickr (about 700 pieses or more). The teachers and students are aware that they are photographed obviosly. I havent seen any objection of the objects beeing taken of this photos. Electron 14:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- There is no problem adding further comments, but you should highlight this for transparency :-) Being photographed isn't a silent permission (see en:Model release) for putting images on the web and the resulting possibility to see your face in a Wikipedia article on exams. Most likely the photographed persons are not aware that these images are on the web, are open to the public and can be used in a different context. --Polarlys 16:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- And because of that fact we have a very useful template that is called {personality rights}}... E.g.: If you decided to go outside your home you take a risk to be seen and to be opinioned by others. No matter what you do or don't do. How do you look like or how do you don't look like. Yes it is very hard but true... Life is so brutal ;) Regards Electron 14:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- There is no problem adding further comments, but you should highlight this for transparency :-) Being photographed isn't a silent permission (see en:Model release) for putting images on the web and the resulting possibility to see your face in a Wikipedia article on exams. Most likely the photographed persons are not aware that these images are on the web, are open to the public and can be used in a different context. --Polarlys 16:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- For me it's a good starting point to wait for other users responses. --Polarlys 12:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC) PS: Your recent addition has absolutely nothing to do with freedom of panorama: This request is about individuals, not pieces of art or buildings. Being in public service doesn't take away your privacy.
-
-
-
-
-
-
<remove indent> I agree with Polarlys - some of these images are out of scope, and/or near duplicates (see no. 3, no. 4 and no. 9 for instance), some could be useful as illustration of "school exams". However in all cases we need to be sure that the people in the images know that they are being used as "example students/teachers doing exams".
If I found someone had uploaded an image of me without my permission/knowing about it, I would want it deleted immediately. It is up to me only to decide where I publish my own image, no matter what the law in my particular country says. -- Deadstar (msg) 08:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete per Commons:Photographs of identifiable people. The teachers and students have I think a reasonable expectation of privacy in an examination. --MichaelMaggs 17:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment If they wanted their privacy they hadn't accepted taking photograps at this time... It is not a one photo which was taken. There were handreds of them there on Flickr. Nobody convince me that the teatchers and students weren't aware that somebody is taking the photos... And I think that the examining board had a power to stop the activity if they didn't want it. Talking about their law to privacy has no sense if they don't want it... Regards Electron (talk) 06:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Delete Per above. Mww113 (talk) 16:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment We shouldn't judge all category. There are meny photos. They are not the same. For egzample there on some of them people are taken at the back and without a clear view of faces. So we should consider each photo separately... Electron (talk) 06:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:Ekin.jpg
non free logo. fair use similar to en:Image:ETAlogo.jpg -- -- Fernando Estel ☆ · 星 (Talk: here- es- en) 11:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Freedom of panorama? --Jodo 19:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think so, the logo is in the focus of the picture and it is used to illustrate the article about Ekin.---- Fernando Estel ☆ · 星 (Talk: here- es- en) 21:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- And where is the problem? If the picture is at a puplic place and it is fixed there, you can also put the copyrighted image in the center of your picture. --Jodo 13:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think so, the logo is in the focus of the picture and it is used to illustrate the article about Ekin.---- Fernando Estel ☆ · 星 (Talk: here- es- en) 21:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, covered by Spanish FOP. --rimshottalk 14:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete If there is a Mickey Mouse draw on a wall and you take a photo, the photo itself is not covered by FOP, because the original work of art is a copyvio. In this case, the logo on the wall may be drawn without permission, so may be a copyvio.--Trixt (talk) 00:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete cf. Commons:FOP: Article 40bis further states the above law "may not be so interpreted that they could be applied in a manner capable of unreasonably prejudicing the legitimate interests of the author or adversely affecting the normal exploitation of the works to which they refer." Forrester [[ hate+love letters ]] 23:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
[edit] No es un anagrama similar
Si creo haberte entendido bien, la foto es cuestionada por parecerse a otra en la que aparece el anagrama de ETA. No son similares, uno es el anagrama de uno y el otro de otro. La subi para ponerla en el articulo en la wikipedia en español de Ekin y sería absurdo poner una imagen de ETA en el, puesto que se habla de otra organización. Solo basta ver las dos fotos para ver que no son similares y hacen alusion claramente a organizaciones distintas. Por lo que entiendo que no se debería discutir en absoluto esta foto, me parece mas que purista, ralla la falta de cordura decir que vale una de ETA porque es similar. Por ejemplo, una bandera republicana española y una de la epoca de franco; ahi son muuucho mas similares, hacen mencion al mismo pais y tal y cual, pero todo el mundo comprende que las dos son necesarias en commons. Por ello mas si cabe en este caso.
—MedvedB 15:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hola Medveb. No se cuestiona eso, sino la libertad para usar ese logo en Commons. No propongo que se use una de ETA, que como puedes ver, no está en Commons, ya que es un logo con copyright perteneciente a una organización ummm privada. Pongo ese ejemplo porque se trata de un caso similar, un logo con copyright que no se podría usar a menos que se contase con el permiso de sus propietarios.---- Fernando Estel ☆ · 星 (Talk: here- es- en) 21:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Anonymous101 talk 10:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:Campeon Conmebol.jpg
press photo, fake license --Fernandopascullo 11:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Malformed request. I think this has been relisted as Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Talleres_Conmebol.jpg -Aude (talk | contribs) 22:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] March 6
[edit] Image:54981-shocker 400.jpg
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:BoromirFrodoAmonHem.jpg
In the absence of a valid source, there is no proof that it is GFDL, and I am thinking it is probably copyrighted by the author, if it really is GFDL for some reason it should have the OTRS ticket. Jackaranga 00:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Probably from [22], site has notice "© All rights reserved. No artwork may be used without expressed or written permission from the author.", so yes permission is needed. --Tony Wills 08:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Judging by [23], it looks like permission was sent. Perhaps someone failed to transwiki it properly and lost the OTRS tag. --dave pape 14:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Looks more like it was never sent to me. Jackaranga 20:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Videmus Omnia 23:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:Logo-portaal-kroatie.jpg
Replaced by the PNG file without information loss. See Image:Logo-portaal-kroatie.png --Rainman 00:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
The file is orphaned as far I know. -- Rainman 03:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Image:Logo-portaal-kroatie.png is identical but has no flickers around the CoA. PNG version is being used by NL wiki only. JPG version is not used. Also when someone who would like to use one of those images and with little time to spare they would not see the change and select the better version. Therefore if this JPG version would be deleted than this problem would be solved. No harm done. -- Rainman 23:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. abf /talk to me/ 11:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:Der_Bund_neuste_Layouts.jpg
Derivative image. -N 01:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Durova 02:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Please leave it on the Commons - it's part of a newspaper documentary on http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Der_Bund - thank you. --Hinterkappelen 08:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Jodo 13:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 02:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:1204397127_f.jpg
I'm calling BS on "self-made". -N 01:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete visible scanning artifacts. Durova 02:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment scanning doesn't mean anything. The user could have scanned a non-digital photo of his. But I suppose he did scan a magazine... --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 19:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- It isn't a standard aspect ratio. Which is more likely: grainy film combined with either a good paper cutter or image processing software, or a magazine scan? Durova 21:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- The fact that it's not a standard aspect ratio is not a proof either since we can crop our own scanned pictures (I've done it here for instance and to be honest I don't really know how I could prove it's really my picture and not a scanned magazine!) --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 18:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC) (PS: well yes in fact I know how I could since I'm on the non-cropped picture but I don't want to upload a version with me!)
- Well, my own uploads display the processing software in the metadata. So anyone who really cared about it could determine when I upgraded from Photoshop CS to CS3. I don't see any metadata on this image page, so we're left to choose between some grainy low quality stuff like Kodak disc film (if that's even made anymore), a mechanical slicer and a low quality scanner, v. magazine scan. Another thing that leads me to conclude magazine scan is the angle of the soda can: soft drink manufacturers make those things so the product name is visible to an observer when the open end of the can is facing the holder's mouth. Yet in this case it's the bar code and ingredients that face the camera: that's the sort of positioning a professional photographer would set up to avoid copyright issues, but it isn't a natural position for an amateur shot. When I simulated that, it meant the open end of the can faced my right cheek instead of my mouth. Durova 22:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Now I think your arguments are valid. They weren't before your lattest detailled message. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 12:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well, my own uploads display the processing software in the metadata. So anyone who really cared about it could determine when I upgraded from Photoshop CS to CS3. I don't see any metadata on this image page, so we're left to choose between some grainy low quality stuff like Kodak disc film (if that's even made anymore), a mechanical slicer and a low quality scanner, v. magazine scan. Another thing that leads me to conclude magazine scan is the angle of the soda can: soft drink manufacturers make those things so the product name is visible to an observer when the open end of the can is facing the holder's mouth. Yet in this case it's the bar code and ingredients that face the camera: that's the sort of positioning a professional photographer would set up to avoid copyright issues, but it isn't a natural position for an amateur shot. When I simulated that, it meant the open end of the can faced my right cheek instead of my mouth. Durova 22:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- The fact that it's not a standard aspect ratio is not a proof either since we can crop our own scanned pictures (I've done it here for instance and to be honest I don't really know how I could prove it's really my picture and not a scanned magazine!) --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 18:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC) (PS: well yes in fact I know how I could since I'm on the non-cropped picture but I don't want to upload a version with me!)
- It isn't a standard aspect ratio. Which is more likely: grainy film combined with either a good paper cutter or image processing software, or a magazine scan? Durova 21:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure. Compare with Image:VvMiramar castle.jpg - there you have typical artifacts after scanning the newspaper Julo 12:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 02:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:1980_Detroit_Auto_Kings_Program.jpg
I uploaded it, but no license applies. Nbeeker 02:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 02:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:Mike_Turk.jpg
I uploaded it. Can't find an appropriate license. Nbeeker 02:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 02:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:VvMiramar_castle.jpg
Has scanning artifacts, so the sourcing needs to be clarified. -N 03:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete false "self-made", wrong license Julo 12:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete artifacts are clearly showing a scanned magazine. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 18:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 02:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:Hellen Keller holding doll with Ann Sullivan 1888.jpg
REASON(Not in public domain until 1/1/2009) --Davidwr2 04:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Looks like a valid PD-US work to me. (with a license fix by me). -N 04:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- I uploaded it. I later researched it and found I was mistaken. It is barely less than 120 years old. It is by an unknown photographer: "someone" in the family of the person who donated the picture to the people who know own it. As such, it's copyright lasts until 12/31/2008. Sorry, I wish it were otherwise. Davidwr2 04:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- User:Dystopos has re-uploaded this same image as Image:Helen Keller with Anne Sullivan in July 1888.jpg
- Delete It is in the public domain but it is substantially similar to and smaller than a subsequently-uploaded file, Image:Helen_Keller_with_Anne_Sullivan_in_July_1888.jpg. Davidwr2 22:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC) Keep The copyright appears to have expired in 1988. It is different enough from the other image that it can be kept. Davidwr2 22:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
kept Julo 11:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:SNES_logo.svg
copyvio 189.145.3.84 04:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep pd-ineligible. -N 04:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per N ChristianBier 12:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep The image consists of a rectangle and 4 words. Sounds like the definition of PD-ineligible to me. Anomie 12:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Kept. - Rocket000 18:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:Map-Romance Language World.svg
(none) --6 March 2008 User:70.234.82.206
- Fixed request. I think IP might have nominated it because it is corrupt? I can't seem to open it. -- Deadstar (msg) 09:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I see the uploader User:Ronaldmolina20 uploaded a new version of Image:Map-Romance_Language_World.png, then tried to convert it to SVG, and uploaded this version. But I think the 'conversion' just encapsulated the PNG into an SVG, and unfortunately linked to the PNG copy on the users Desktop - so it probably looks fine for them :-). So although not actually 'corrupt', it is useless :-) Delete --Tony Wills 01:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. --- Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:Interieur4.JPG
Bad name; superseeded by "Interieur Citelis 12 TUR arriere.JPG" Daiima 12:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Info: This deletion debate can be closed as he has replaced the {{db}} template with a {{badname}} so this process is redundant. --Tony Wills 19:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Closing request, nomination has changed to badname. -- Deadstar (msg) 08:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:Umdrums_name.png
This is not in use any more. It was in use during 2007 when I used the name "umdrums" at Wikipedia. Umdrums 12:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Uploader request, and file is now out of project scope if not wanted for user-page. --Tony Wills 19:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per nom. -- Deadstar (msg) 08:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Template:GFDL-1.2
I think we should not accept this kind of license that restricts the user to the choice of the GFDL 1.2, while the normal template {{GFDL}} gives users permission to chose any later versions as well, at their option. It is clear that the practical restrictions that the GFDL 1.2 imposes on pictures (you have to print the full license) were not intended; the license was written with other purposes in mind where this is not a problem (computer manuals); and it has been announced that the FSF is going to fix that in the next GFDL version by making it compatible to some of the Creative Commons licenses. The practical restrictions are now abused a lot to upload pictures as GFDL1.2-only to make them de facto non-free and to knowingly prevent almost any common commercial usage in print. There is no way to make these pictures really free later when the FSF fixes the problem; hence the pictures are not really free. I think we should give the owners of the respective pictures time to switch to some other license (as deletion requests will take long on commons, there should be more than enough time); then radically delete this template and the rest of the images and ban GFDL-1.2 completely as a de facto non-free license. --rtc 12:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Diese Lizenz ist nunmal von der Community erlaubt worden und eine Löschung wäre ein rein politisches Exempel, das rtc hier statuieren will. GFDL-1.2 Bilder sind genauso frei wie die Bilder unter anderen Lizenzen auch. Dann sollten wir auch gleich alle Inhalte der Wikipedia löschen und einfach neu unter einer Lizenz anfangen, die für den Zweck der Erstellung einer Enzyklopädie geschrieben wurde. Was rtc hier fordert ist absurd und sollte keine weitere Beachtung finden, denn er stellt inzident den Bestand des kompletten Projekts in Frage. --ST ○ 17:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I am not sure this is the appropriate forum to discuss such a radical deletion (a much wider discussion is needed). I also see no reason to ban a license which is indeed free - a link is all that is necessary for online publication, for printed publications adding the license is really only a problem when the publication is very small (eg a postcard), in which case a small booklet would perhaps be appropriate :-). Banning the license would effectively result in the deletion of many free images where the uploader was no longer active on commons, and could not update the license. Just mark this one as superceded and encourage the use of the new one. --Tony Wills 19:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- That is not an argument for, but an argument against the tag. These people have knowingly chosen a tag that gives users no choice to update, and that especially causes problems once they are no longer active. --rtc 06:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- No, it is a argument against removal of the tag :-). They have licensed their work to make it freely available with a viral license that ensures all subsequent usage is also freely available - the whole point of these licenses is that you grant it and people can't modify the terms. If you can't meet the terms of the license, then don't use the image :-) --Tony Wills 21:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- It is very much an argument for removal of the tag. I am not speaking about users modifying the license, which they can't, regardless of whether it's licensed as 1.2only or 1.2-or-any-later, but about the Free Software Foundation modifying it to stop abuse of the license for purposes it was not intended for; namely the purpose of making pictures de facto non-free. If you don't want to make your pictures free, don't upload them to commons. :-) --rtc 06:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- No, it is a argument against removal of the tag :-). They have licensed their work to make it freely available with a viral license that ensures all subsequent usage is also freely available - the whole point of these licenses is that you grant it and people can't modify the terms. If you can't meet the terms of the license, then don't use the image :-) --Tony Wills 21:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Delete The possibility of using a later GFDL version is probably the only way out of the nightmarish situation the GFDL 1.2 creates for print publication. The GFDL 1.2 is mainly intended and very well suited for complete books but hampers using our content in newspapers etc. seriously. If not deleted, it should at least be made impossible to use GFDL-1.2-only in the future in some way. The current requirement of including the full GFDL in a print publication makes it impossible to use a Wikipedia/Commons article or image in a newspaper or magazine without violating the licence (because no newspaper/magazine is going to waste space for printing the full GFDL). Every newspaper using content from Wikipedia or Commons nevertheless (without printing the GFDL and version history alongside) is currently a licence violator and could be sued. Specifically in Germany this could be a real problem, because even an uninvolved third party can issue a so-called "Abmahnung" (see en:Abmahnung in English or more in detail de:Abmahnung in German), charging money for their time and effort issuing a warning for perceived wrongdoings to someone else. Some attorneys in Germany make a living from this. So, I think, in Germany things like this could happen: A prints content from Commons in his newspaper, let's call the image's creator B. Enter attorney C sending A an "Abmahnung" telling him that he did wrong to B, charging lots of money for his time and effort (entirely on his own, without any request from B). Sounds absurd, but such things are real in Germany. A later version of the GFDL no longer requiring all this cumbersome stuff in a print publication would solve the issue, but it solves it only if content is uploaded under "GFDL 1.2 or any later version". Therefore I think we should no longer accept GFDL 1.2-only. Gestumblindi 21:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep As long as there is no newer version of GFDL, no reason to delete it. It should be possible to stick to certain version of gfdl and not to sign a blanco cheque. On the other hand, if finally a 1.3 or a 2.0 is released, i would consider to disallow new uploads under 1.2-GFDL ---jha- 23:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- If we wish to further free content and knowledge in the Wikipedia spirit, we should already only allow "GFDL 1.2 or any later version" uploads as the GFDL 1.2 was never really appropriate for our purposes, we eagerly await a more fitting version, and "GFDL 1.2 only" is against the spirit of this project, as the only reason to insist on this certain version can be the intention to make free reuse more difficult. Gestumblindi 23:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- "or any later version" is not a blanco cheque. Section 10 of the license says "The Free Software Foundation may publish new, revised versions of the GNU Free Documentation License from time to time. Such new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to address new problems or concerns." (my emphasis). It is, however, a blanco cheque for the FSF to stop abuse of the license where it is used to make something de facto non-free. --rtc 05:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep The license GDFL 1.2 only is as free as the whole wikipedia and many other pictures are at the moment. The status quo. Why should this license be not accepted any longer? This doesnt make sense. GFDL 1.2 only is a free license. --Jodo 00:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- No, "[t]he license GDFL 1.2 only is" not "as free as the whole wikipedia and many other pictures are at the moment". "the whole wikipedia and many other pictures" give users permission to chose any later version of the license; GFDL 1.2-only does not. --rtc 06:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- I wanted to say that because there is no "any later version" of the GDFL at the moment, the GDFL 1.2 is the license which a external user has to follow. --Jodo 14:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- The use of the GFDL was an interim solution, because it was the only free content license at that time. It has always been planned that the license will be updated to cope with the problems it does not yet solve. Soon, there will be a new version, and it will be compatible to the CC-BY-SA. The only reason to license anything as 1.2-only is to exploit the idiosyncracies of 1.2 which make it de facto non-free if applied to about anything except manuals for computer programs. --rtc 16:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- I wanted to say that because there is no "any later version" of the GDFL at the moment, the GDFL 1.2 is the license which a external user has to follow. --Jodo 14:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- No, "[t]he license GDFL 1.2 only is" not "as free as the whole wikipedia and many other pictures are at the moment". "the whole wikipedia and many other pictures" give users permission to chose any later version of the license; GFDL 1.2-only does not. --rtc 06:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Yes, at the moment there's little difference between GFDL and GFDL1.2only. But the FSF, Creative Commons and Wikimedia Foundation are currently working on the next version of the GFDL and making it compatible with CC-by (or CC-by-sa?). So in the near future there will be a huge difference between those licenses that could have quite an impact on how people can re-use Wikipedia content. Several people used GFDL because they knew it makes the use of these images in magazines, newspapers, etc.. almost impossible due to the requirment of printing the whole license text. Now that this is about to change, GFDL1.2only is nothing but a bad way to further prevent commercial usage of their images in the future.
Wikipedia, and Commons in particular, are projects to create and publish _free_ content that can be used by anyone for whatever purpose. Artificially trying to limit the reuse of some of the content is IMHO against the goal of this project. Furthermore, if you look at the license text of the GFDL, it only mentions the possibilities of licensing your works as "GFDL" (without any version)leaving it to re-users to choose any version of the license when using the licensed works, or using "GFDL version X or any later versions". So either no version at all, or Version X including all later and future versions. There's no mention of allowing to use only one single version of the license. I'd say deprecate the license template and delete all images that are uploaded after a certain date. Then ask uploaders if they're willing to relicense their images under the standard GFDL or other licenses. --Kam Solusar 16:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep That is a good licence and valid. --Heckenreuter 19:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
There was a very short discussion on COM:L concerning the 1.2-only issue: Commons_talk:Licensing/Archive_9#Individual_licence_templates.--Wiggum 20:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I can understand deprecating the use of GFDL1.2 when a more appropriate version comes along, but I can't see the argument that requires removal of images that are freely licensed just because some print media can't be bothered printing the GFDL. At some future point are we going to look at attribution-required licenses and say that because in some situations attribution is too difficult (eg printing the image on a postage-stamp, where there is not enough room or proper attribution), that attribution-required licenses are restrictive and therefore not free?
- Ultimately I expect print media would like to make money from free images without paying anything for them, without printing licenses, without attributing their source and without acknowledging the concept of free licenses (after all copyright is their stock and trade) - they would just love to bludge off freely licensed material without giving anything back let alone acknowledging the existence of copy-left and the spirit of free licensing. Insisting media print the license is a great way to spread the concept of free licenses :-). If one is unwilling to conform to the license requirements, well, here's a suggestion - don't use the images ;-).
- By all means look into specific conditions that people are appending to GFDL licenses that appear to violate the license, but leave a perfectly valid free license alone :-) --Tony Wills 21:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- This deletion request is not about deprecating the license GFDL1.2, but about deprecating the license tag {{GFDL-1.2}}, which should really be named GFDL-1.2-but-no-later-version. The argument is plainly and simply that the GFDL 1.2 was never intended for pictures, and it does not make sense to use it except with the or-any-later-version to permit the FSF to fix the problems. GFDL1.2-but-no-later-version would still be acceptable for computer manuals (which we don't have here), but definitely not for pictures, because in this context, it is a de facto non-free license that makes use of the work nearly impossible. Claims such as "Insisting media print the license is a great way to spread the concept of free licenses" are hypocritical; you know exactly that people are not using GFDL1.2-but-no-later-version because they value freedom (if they would, there should be no problem for them to license it as -or-any-later-version, to make sure the Free Software Foundation, which values freedom like no other, can keep the works free under changed circumstances), but because they want to upload pictures to commons without granting a really free license. Please leave the -or-any-later-version of a perfectly valid license tag alone. :-) --rtc 06:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep It's perfectly free and valid. Not being the best license doesn't mean we should delete the images which use it. Platonides 21:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep see Tony. -- smial 22:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep cf. Tony, there's nothing to add to. --Eva K. tell me about it 00:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Tony wrote: "Insisting media print the license is a great way to spread the concept of free licenses :-)" - no, it is not. It is a very bad way to do this, I think. You really don't want to see our content appearing in newspapers and magazines? For we can't reasonably expect one to print the whole license just because they want to use a nice Commons picture. We need a license that makes attribution easier, but of course still requires attribution, and it seems that exactly this is what a later GNU-FDL version will provide. It's also not only affecting newspapers/magazines. A recent example of the GNU-FDL 1.2 probably preventing an image use I personally think would have been nice: Commons:Help_desk#Using_an_image. The GNU-FDL was originally intended for whole books, not for single pictures or short articles; this is the historical reason for the "printing the whole license" thing and I don't think we should (mis-)use it to make our content in effect less free. Gestumblindi 05:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, a better GFDL type license for single images would be great, and that's what your arguments support. But if banning a license results in material being withdrawn/deleted then we've lost freely licensed images. In the example you cite, having found a suitable image they can at least ask the author for more appropriate licensing if GFDL is a problem - better that than having no image to use, yes? The licensing doesn't prevent free use, a publication's priorities/economics/philosophy might, but that's their choice :-). If more people started publishing GFDL licenses people might begin to notice, more in your face than a one line attribution that doesn't even need to mention wikimedia anyway ;-) --Tony Wills 07:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- I have never asked to ban a license! GFDL licensing is perfectly okay, but only if it done with the -or-any-later-version. "better that than having no image to use, yes?" no. Because the goal is not having images, but having free images. And no image at all is better than a quasi non-free-image. With the same argument we can say: Let's permit CC-BY-ND images - better that than having no image to use, yes? Let's permit CC-BY-NC-ND images - better that than having no image to use, yes? Let's permit images specially licensed for Wikipedia - better that than having no image to use, yes? Let's permit images where Wikipedia has only to pay a little bit per year, a special price - better that than having no image to use, yes? You are still ignoring the basic argument: There is no reason to use -but-no-later-version except to prevent free use of the image. Practical issues such as "a publication's priorities/economics/philosophy" are well barriers that need to be accounted for if something it to be free; not without a reason, the BSD license with the advertisement clause has a bad reputation. ---rtc 07:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, a better GFDL type license for single images would be great, and that's what your arguments support. But if banning a license results in material being withdrawn/deleted then we've lost freely licensed images. In the example you cite, having found a suitable image they can at least ask the author for more appropriate licensing if GFDL is a problem - better that than having no image to use, yes? The licensing doesn't prevent free use, a publication's priorities/economics/philosophy might, but that's their choice :-). If more people started publishing GFDL licenses people might begin to notice, more in your face than a one line attribution that doesn't even need to mention wikimedia anyway ;-) --Tony Wills 07:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
- I only see that you prefer to extend an argument about licensing from German WP to Commons. Your and some other users quite aggressive attitude - who eventually dare to claim that GFDL isn't a free license - made me withdraw any productive activities from WP and Commons, I'm not willing to contribute images any longer. I'm not willing to agree to "or any later version" as I consider it an adhesion contract to a further development of GFDL which I can't control and which I perhaps won't agree. It's simply an unfair condition, a clause of arbitriness to turn a free license with certain conditions into an unconditional free lunch. I wonder why some people insist on such a condition, it makes me suspicous about their aims. If I find a future version of GFDL more suitable, as copyright owner and licenser I want to decide myself wether I make an upgrade or not. --Eva K. tell me about it 12:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- First, once more; nobody is claiming that the GFDL is not a free license. The GFDL is a free license, but in its current version de facto only if applied to computer manuals, which it was created for. Second, if you use the GFDL, you also bind yourself to the preamble. This preamble sets forth an ethical doctrine, and it is part of the license. If you really subscribe to the preamble, you *must* give permission to license the pictures or-any-later-version, since you otherwise contradict yourself, you say "hey, I give you this picture here. It's free and such, but here's a catch, you may not use it under any practical circumstances; because if you print the picture, you have to print a text that is many times as big as the picture, and you have to fulfil other annoying requirements that nobody knows how they even apply to pictures". Third, there is no contract involved, since you give up restrictions on the picture that you control without getting anything back. And by using the -or-any-later-version clause, you give the Free Software Foundation permission to keep the license up to date and adjust it to new needs and new situations to protect the freedom it grants. The Free Software Foundation promises to keep new versions similar in spirit to older versions, so if you really subscribe to the license, especially the preamble, there should be no problem for you. There is no unfair condition. You can even assign your copyrights to the Free Software Foundation, that way, you help even more to exorcise your copyrights that should not even exist in the first place and that you should not possess, because they serve to subjugate other people's freedom. What are you afraid of? You can alternatively use one of the creative commons licenses that are already available and that are actually designed for pictures. But we can't accept gfdl-1.2-only for pictures; that's purely an attempt to upload the picture but keeping it de facto proprietary. We must quickly, violently and painfully destroy the dream of some users who think they have found a trick to make their picture widely known by exploiting wikipedia's broad audience, but without the perceived drawback that they must be free. And we need to do it before it becomes too much of an accepted practice (it is already almost too late). PS: You added "a clause of arbitriness to turn a free license with certain conditions into an unconditional free lunch". That shows you simply don't get the idea behind the GFDL. The conditions are emphatically not there to hinder free lunch (and making that comparison between copyrights and physical objects is quite wrong, too). The license permits "free lunch"! The conditions are solely there to protect users' freedom. At the time the GFDL was designed, users did not have easy internet access. So to make users aware of their freedoms, it was necessary to add the condition that the license must be printed. And for computer manuals, this was not a practical issue. That was the purpose of that condition, not to rule out "free lunch". With everyone having easy access to the internet, the condition has become obsolete; a link to the license is sufficient to make users aware of their freedoms. Especially for pictures, the now-obsolete condition is now nothing but a practical issue that does not protect users freedom, but that restricts it. If you oppose "free lunch", don't use a free license, please. --rtc 13:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- First I'm not such a romantic idealist to believe in ethical doctrines and promises. I'd rather believe in the stork, Santa Clause and the Easter bunny. Second it's much easier to prevent the using of a photograph by technical means, even if licensed under any CC. In that case you can stand on the sidelines.
But eventually you showed yourself: I consider your insinuation above that I or someone els want to trick the community as a personal attack. And it's an obvious contradition that you primarily assure that GFDL 1.2 is a free license and than later claim that people using that license for their images intend to block a free use. It the same weird argumentation you and your followers use in German WP and which brought nothing than strife. What about "Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point" and "Assume good faith"? I miss it from your side. --Eva K. tell me about it 14:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)- See, I assume good faith, I assume that you personally use 1.2-only-option because you did not know better, or because you misunderstood the intention of the GFDL as trying to prohibit "free lunch", and not because you tried to trick people. But regardless of your intention, GFDL1.2 if applied to pictures *is* de facto non-free and should not be accepted. Using GFDL1.2, if applied to pictures, de facto establishes the same dictatorship over users as non-free licenses do. And dictatorships should be eliminated, regardless of whether they are meant well or not. It is not a contradiction to say that GFDL is a free license and say that using it without the or-any-later-version clause for pictures blocks (*not* "intend[s] to block") free use. What problem do you have with using GFDL 1.2-or-any-later-version? What are you afraid of? You did not answer that question. --rtc 14:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- It's an interesting point that you - like a kind of Spanish Inquisition (sic!) - talk about exorcism by reference to intellectual property. Further you claim that the licences only grant users freedom. Everyone has a right to line their pockets with my media but I as a author shall have no benefits, not even be named? IMO such ideas enslave authors and deny their efforts and freedom. I'm actually afraid of people like you who want to steal my work under the cloak of freedom which I'm willing to donate voluntarily for free use but want to keep my ownership. --Eva K. tell me about it 16:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- If you want to keep ownership, that is, if you want to be the proprietor of your work, or, to use a different word, want to keep your work proprietary, you may not use a free license, because free licenses are defined to be those that are not proprietary. Nobody has any problem with attribution being required for your work. That is not the problem at all with licensing it as gfdl-1.2-only, however. The gfdl will continue to be requiring attribution, no matter which version. If you have a problem that people use your work and don't give anything back, don't use free licenses. This simply cannot be emphasized enough. --rtc 17:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- It's an interesting point that you - like a kind of Spanish Inquisition (sic!) - talk about exorcism by reference to intellectual property. Further you claim that the licences only grant users freedom. Everyone has a right to line their pockets with my media but I as a author shall have no benefits, not even be named? IMO such ideas enslave authors and deny their efforts and freedom. I'm actually afraid of people like you who want to steal my work under the cloak of freedom which I'm willing to donate voluntarily for free use but want to keep my ownership. --Eva K. tell me about it 16:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- See, I assume good faith, I assume that you personally use 1.2-only-option because you did not know better, or because you misunderstood the intention of the GFDL as trying to prohibit "free lunch", and not because you tried to trick people. But regardless of your intention, GFDL1.2 if applied to pictures *is* de facto non-free and should not be accepted. Using GFDL1.2, if applied to pictures, de facto establishes the same dictatorship over users as non-free licenses do. And dictatorships should be eliminated, regardless of whether they are meant well or not. It is not a contradiction to say that GFDL is a free license and say that using it without the or-any-later-version clause for pictures blocks (*not* "intend[s] to block") free use. What problem do you have with using GFDL 1.2-or-any-later-version? What are you afraid of? You did not answer that question. --rtc 14:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- First I'm not such a romantic idealist to believe in ethical doctrines and promises. I'd rather believe in the stork, Santa Clause and the Easter bunny. Second it's much easier to prevent the using of a photograph by technical means, even if licensed under any CC. In that case you can stand on the sidelines.
- First, once more; nobody is claiming that the GFDL is not a free license. The GFDL is a free license, but in its current version de facto only if applied to computer manuals, which it was created for. Second, if you use the GFDL, you also bind yourself to the preamble. This preamble sets forth an ethical doctrine, and it is part of the license. If you really subscribe to the preamble, you *must* give permission to license the pictures or-any-later-version, since you otherwise contradict yourself, you say "hey, I give you this picture here. It's free and such, but here's a catch, you may not use it under any practical circumstances; because if you print the picture, you have to print a text that is many times as big as the picture, and you have to fulfil other annoying requirements that nobody knows how they even apply to pictures". Third, there is no contract involved, since you give up restrictions on the picture that you control without getting anything back. And by using the -or-any-later-version clause, you give the Free Software Foundation permission to keep the license up to date and adjust it to new needs and new situations to protect the freedom it grants. The Free Software Foundation promises to keep new versions similar in spirit to older versions, so if you really subscribe to the license, especially the preamble, there should be no problem for you. There is no unfair condition. You can even assign your copyrights to the Free Software Foundation, that way, you help even more to exorcise your copyrights that should not even exist in the first place and that you should not possess, because they serve to subjugate other people's freedom. What are you afraid of? You can alternatively use one of the creative commons licenses that are already available and that are actually designed for pictures. But we can't accept gfdl-1.2-only for pictures; that's purely an attempt to upload the picture but keeping it de facto proprietary. We must quickly, violently and painfully destroy the dream of some users who think they have found a trick to make their picture widely known by exploiting wikipedia's broad audience, but without the perceived drawback that they must be free. And we need to do it before it becomes too much of an accepted practice (it is already almost too late). PS: You added "a clause of arbitriness to turn a free license with certain conditions into an unconditional free lunch". That shows you simply don't get the idea behind the GFDL. The conditions are emphatically not there to hinder free lunch (and making that comparison between copyrights and physical objects is quite wrong, too). The license permits "free lunch"! The conditions are solely there to protect users' freedom. At the time the GFDL was designed, users did not have easy internet access. So to make users aware of their freedoms, it was necessary to add the condition that the license must be printed. And for computer manuals, this was not a practical issue. That was the purpose of that condition, not to rule out "free lunch". With everyone having easy access to the internet, the condition has become obsolete; a link to the license is sufficient to make users aware of their freedoms. Especially for pictures, the now-obsolete condition is now nothing but a practical issue that does not protect users freedom, but that restricts it. If you oppose "free lunch", don't use a free license, please. --rtc 13:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- I only see that you prefer to extend an argument about licensing from German WP to Commons. Your and some other users quite aggressive attitude - who eventually dare to claim that GFDL isn't a free license - made me withdraw any productive activities from WP and Commons, I'm not willing to contribute images any longer. I'm not willing to agree to "or any later version" as I consider it an adhesion contract to a further development of GFDL which I can't control and which I perhaps won't agree. It's simply an unfair condition, a clause of arbitriness to turn a free license with certain conditions into an unconditional free lunch. I wonder why some people insist on such a condition, it makes me suspicous about their aims. If I find a future version of GFDL more suitable, as copyright owner and licenser I want to decide myself wether I make an upgrade or not. --Eva K. tell me about it 12:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- * Keep Eine freie Lizenz, Löschwunsch schwer nachvollziehbar. --Mbdortmund 14:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- What is so hard to understand about the fact that this template is, contrary to your claim, de facto not free if applied to anything other than computer manuals? --rtc 14:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Was ist so schwer daran, zu verstehen, daß 1.2only eine gültige freie Lizenz ist? Es ist ein persönlicher Angriff, Benutzern zu unterstellen, daß sie unlautere Absichten haben, wenn diese Lizenz nutzen. Wenn Fotografen eine Verbreitung verhindern möchten, geht das mit technischen Mitteln weitaus einfacher. "any-later" ist als Vertragsbestandteil sowieso ungültig, egal wie die Amis das sehen. Was soll es außerdem, einen deutschen Streit auf Commons auszutragen? Ja klar, Urheberrecht ist böse und gehört abgeschafft. Kommunismus für alle! --87.185.253.140 14:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Die GFDL ist kein Vertrag, daher kann es auch keinen ungültigen Vertragsbestandteil geben. Und wenn es angeblich sowieso ungültig ist, was nicht der fall ist, dann frage ich mich, was Leute dagegen haben? Kommunismus heißt, andere Leute umzubringen, --rtc 15:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Was ist so schwer daran, zu verstehen, daß 1.2only eine gültige freie Lizenz ist? Es ist ein persönlicher Angriff, Benutzern zu unterstellen, daß sie unlautere Absichten haben, wenn diese Lizenz nutzen. Wenn Fotografen eine Verbreitung verhindern möchten, geht das mit technischen Mitteln weitaus einfacher. "any-later" ist als Vertragsbestandteil sowieso ungültig, egal wie die Amis das sehen. Was soll es außerdem, einen deutschen Streit auf Commons auszutragen? Ja klar, Urheberrecht ist böse und gehört abgeschafft. Kommunismus für alle! --87.185.253.140 14:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- What is so hard to understand about the fact that this template is, contrary to your claim, de facto not free if applied to anything other than computer manuals? --rtc 14:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- rtc, how many media did you provide for the commons up to now? --Mbdortmund 15:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- zero. My work is almost exlusively in requesting the deletion of non-free media, which is at least as important, if not more important than providing free media. --rtc 15:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, that's interesting. You instruct others about free media but don't contribute to Commons yourself. You are the signpost that shows the way but doesn't walk it. --Eva K. tell me about it 15:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Mit solchen Aktionen erreichst du vortrefflich, daß Fotos in Zukunft in VGA-Größe und totkomprimiert hochgeladen werden. Selbst nichts hochladen aber andere belehren, schöner Stil. --87.185.253.140 15:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- That's what I said above about technical means. And he can't do anything against it. --Eva K. tell me about it 15:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- If the choice is between a bad-quality free image and a good-quality de-facto non-free image, then we have to chose the former. --rtc 15:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- I love that point. That isn't much more than the biting the bullet. --Eva K. tell me about it 15:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Höre auf mit dem Quatsch, zu suggerieren, GFDL wäre unfrei, egal weche Version. Die Wikipedia wird dir diesen Privatkrieg danken. It's only a german question, don't feed the troll. As answer we have in .de in future stamp-sized pictures. --87.185.223.31 16:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know what you are talking about. --rtc 16:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Don't forget that Wikipedia's first and foremost goal is to produce and publish _free_ information. The downside is that we have to decline certain images or texts because their authors don't agree with our goals. And "we have in .de in future stamp-sized pictures." is nothing but FUD. There are many good photographers who are willing to license their images under a truly free license that allows everyone to use their images, even commercially. Just look at many of our free images of celebrities, something nobody would have imagined a few years back. There's no need to limit ourselves to less-than-truly-free images. And please stop those Ad hominem attacks. --Kam Solusar 16:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- I consider it more FUD to claim that intellectual property is theft. And that's what you're just doing. It fits to the current New Manchesterism worldwide: Authors/workers right are worth nothing, users/masters rights beats everything. The real downside of your so-called freedom is slavery. --Eva K. tell me about it 17:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry that I am confused, but if you support "intellectual property", that is, you disagree with the project's goal, what are you expecting? --rtc 17:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, you're really confused that you don't see that there's no collision beetween intellectual property on one hand and the donation of that property for free use on the other hand. --Eva K. tell me about it 17:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- either you understand the word "free use" in a fundamentally different way than I or you are basically saying "I don't see a collision between dictatorship on the one hand and democracy on the other hand" How can something be property and free use at the same time? "Property designates those things commonly recognized as the entities in respect of which a person or group has exclusive rights."(en:Property) "Free content, or free information, is any kind of functional work, artwork, or other creative content having no significant legal restriction relative to people's freedom to use, redistribute, and produce modified versions of and works derived from the content." (en:Free Content) --rtc 18:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Was interessieren uns angelsächsische Artikel oder Gesetze? Nichts! Wir richten uns ausschließlich nach DACH-Recht, aber das weißt du ja. --87.185.223.31 18:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, very slow and in simple words for someone who seems to stick in ideas like dicatatorship vs. democracy: Imagine I have a garden. This garden is registered in the cadastre. It is registered in my name. The garden is my property. I don't put a fence around the garden. I invite everyone to have their picknicks in it. That is property and free use. Got it? --Eva K. tell me about it 18:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- No. This is where the fact kicks in that "intellectual property" is a propaganda term that provokes exactly this kind of completely misleading thinking and comparing things that have nothing in common. I cannot put a copy of your garden in front of my house if I don't have one. I cannot change a copy of your garden according to my needs. I cannot sell copies of your garden, or modified versions of your garden. It's not about how people use your picture as people might use your garden (I don't give people permission to use my garden, or the files on my computer, do you?). It is about using their copy of the picture you made. --rtc 18:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- I give up. Not only that you are not willing to follow me, you aren't even able or willing to understand a simple allegory. It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than to convice someone who argues like a solicitor who got astrayed in the jungle of laws. Hope your deletion request got off-pressed to protect the project from endles strifes. --Eva K. tell me about it 18:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- You are comparing apples and eggs. You are the one who is confused; don't expect people to understand you if you make such nonsensish comparisons. You still didn't say which problem you have with the GFDL-1.2-or-any-later-version --rtc 19:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Famous last words... You ought to read through the thread once more, perhaps you then understand. --Eva K. tell me about it 19:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- You are comparing apples and eggs. You are the one who is confused; don't expect people to understand you if you make such nonsensish comparisons. You still didn't say which problem you have with the GFDL-1.2-or-any-later-version --rtc 19:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- I give up. Not only that you are not willing to follow me, you aren't even able or willing to understand a simple allegory. It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than to convice someone who argues like a solicitor who got astrayed in the jungle of laws. Hope your deletion request got off-pressed to protect the project from endles strifes. --Eva K. tell me about it 18:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- No. This is where the fact kicks in that "intellectual property" is a propaganda term that provokes exactly this kind of completely misleading thinking and comparing things that have nothing in common. I cannot put a copy of your garden in front of my house if I don't have one. I cannot change a copy of your garden according to my needs. I cannot sell copies of your garden, or modified versions of your garden. It's not about how people use your picture as people might use your garden (I don't give people permission to use my garden, or the files on my computer, do you?). It is about using their copy of the picture you made. --rtc 18:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, very slow and in simple words for someone who seems to stick in ideas like dicatatorship vs. democracy: Imagine I have a garden. This garden is registered in the cadastre. It is registered in my name. The garden is my property. I don't put a fence around the garden. I invite everyone to have their picknicks in it. That is property and free use. Got it? --Eva K. tell me about it 18:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Was interessieren uns angelsächsische Artikel oder Gesetze? Nichts! Wir richten uns ausschließlich nach DACH-Recht, aber das weißt du ja. --87.185.223.31 18:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- either you understand the word "free use" in a fundamentally different way than I or you are basically saying "I don't see a collision between dictatorship on the one hand and democracy on the other hand" How can something be property and free use at the same time? "Property designates those things commonly recognized as the entities in respect of which a person or group has exclusive rights."(en:Property) "Free content, or free information, is any kind of functional work, artwork, or other creative content having no significant legal restriction relative to people's freedom to use, redistribute, and produce modified versions of and works derived from the content." (en:Free Content) --rtc 18:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, you're really confused that you don't see that there's no collision beetween intellectual property on one hand and the donation of that property for free use on the other hand. --Eva K. tell me about it 17:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry that I am confused, but if you support "intellectual property", that is, you disagree with the project's goal, what are you expecting? --rtc 17:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- I consider it more FUD to claim that intellectual property is theft. And that's what you're just doing. It fits to the current New Manchesterism worldwide: Authors/workers right are worth nothing, users/masters rights beats everything. The real downside of your so-called freedom is slavery. --Eva K. tell me about it 17:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Höre auf mit dem Quatsch, zu suggerieren, GFDL wäre unfrei, egal weche Version. Die Wikipedia wird dir diesen Privatkrieg danken. It's only a german question, don't feed the troll. As answer we have in .de in future stamp-sized pictures. --87.185.223.31 16:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- I love that point. That isn't much more than the biting the bullet. --Eva K. tell me about it 15:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- zero. My work is almost exlusively in requesting the deletion of non-free media, which is at least as important, if not more important than providing free media. --rtc 15:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
This also could be an attemp from w:Knol to disturb success of wikipedia, couldn't it?. --ST ○ 17:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'm afraid it is. --Eva K. tell me about it 17:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- comment Technicaly a free license so no we can't delete on those ground. What I can't work out is what it actualy means. GFDL version 1.2 only yes. Problem is that version 1.2 allowes updateing to latter versions. So explcitly going for 1.2 rather than 1.0 makes a sort of sense but I have no idea what impact it would have on attempts to update latter.Geni 00:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Yes, this license is currently as free as most of our projects, since most content of our projects is released as GFDL, and the current version is 1.2. So basically, there is no reason for deletion. However, this license is exclusively used to protect some contributors from the possibility of providing truly free content; the current GFDL version is quite comparable to cc-by-sa-nc and these users want to keep it that way. Since there is no good reason for anybody to use this license (especially with regard to the major improvement in compatibility CC and GFDL will receive soon hopefully), we should delete it. Moreover, with the new version of the GFDL, GFDL-1.2 would be the only license in use which is compatible only regarding to the spirit of the license, while all other licenses are also legally compatible. To sum it up, there are two reasons for deletion: Nobody caring about really free content could want to use this license; when switching to a new GFDL version (which hopefully will come), these files are not longer usable or only usable via referring to the spirit, not to the current license – a situation we currently have and want to get away from. Code·is·poetry 08:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- An example for the usage of this template: retracting license via own licensing template. Code·is·poetry 17:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete It's the only way to explain people in nearly future the usage of commons images simple in some minutes. That's the reason why Jimmy Wales invest some time with the Free Software Foundation to make the GFDL easier to use. It's also the only way to stop things like "Abmahnung" and make all images compatible with our Wikimedia-Commons license which is visible on the footer of each page. I invested some time to look what images would be involved (but I can't see all images). Many images like Image:Solar-cycle-data.png are not really involved into this deletion request, because they are additionally Creative Commons licenses. A "subst" of the GFDL1.2 template would be enough in such cases. Also images from User:EvaK (Example-Edit) and User:Steschke (Example-Edit) are not neccesarely to delete, because they were uploaded in many cases as CC or GFDL (which includes "any later version "). So I don't understand there protest. We shouldn't hear on people which don't want to know that a Creative Commons license is like all free licenses is perpetual (see example edits). It shows that there is not only a theoretical interest to bring images under personal protection.
- So, after I look to many images, I believe the win for the project with over 2 million images would be greater than the loss. --Kolossos 17:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. I'm all for promotion and increasing the awareness of free licenses, but the full-license-text-citation requirement of GFDL, when applied to images, is just a joke and bad publicity for free content. It's a huge string attached. Use of the GFDL was mistake from the beginning, and instead of reinforcing this mistake its best to just rip it off like a band-aid - real quick. Apart from that I find it poor discussion practice to attack rtc based on a lack of image contributions. Commons has many ways for people to make useful contributions. --Dschwen 23:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Kept (procedural). GFDL-1.2 is a free license. Yes, its inconvenient for printed re-use but its just fine for use on the internet - that is not "de facto non free". Given that there is no reason to delete the template, and all images tagged with it, outright. There are valid reasons for Commons to deprecate, but COM:DEL is not the appropriate forum. As a first step, I'd suggest suspend uploads under (only) this license from today whilst a more in-depth discussion of the merits are held at a suitable location. I've copied the debate to the talk page of the template.
Please continue discussion at Template talk:GFDL-1.2. Thank you.--Nilfanion 16:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)--Nilfanion 16:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:IMG_2608.JPG
Very, very bad quality. Out of focuse, blured, etc.. ALE! ¿…? 13:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- ... but is is in use, so Keep Multichill 23:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- nl:Wetenschappelijke promotie (small so you dont really see the bad quality). Multichill 15:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
-
Kept. Requested for rename. abf /talk to me/ 18:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:Simonwoah.png
Out of project scope EugeneZelenko 16:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 02:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:5_County_Point.png
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:PICT0057.JPG
because it already exists with the right description etc. Benediktleander 18:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
moved to Image:Sunset-West Coast National Park-PICT0057.jpg Julo 12:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:AncillaTiliaEmpurpled.jpg
wrongfully uploaded LexieMolotoff 18:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC) {{bad name}}
- Delete per nom. Durova 21:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per nom. -- Deadstar (msg) 08:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:DSC00230kkk.JPG
Their first child was born in 1914. The author is not necessarily dead for 70 years. --89.56.150.135 11:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete No source data. -N 01:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. No source – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 03:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:Breast Augmentation 3mo post-op.ogg
No encyclopic relevance. Suitable for YouTube but not for WP. --Tantalos 12:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep I'm not sure what to make of the 'reasons' given for deletion. Whether the video is taken as a warning or an enticement or neutrally I see no reason why video showing breast enlargement three months after operation should not be here. Assuming that 'encyclopic' is meant to read 'encyclopedic' (or 'encyclopaedic'), and that 'WP' means 'Wikipedia', is Tantalos perhaps confusing Commons with Wikipedia?217.44.132.81 01:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- I don't change my mind. I don't appose articles about pornography on Wikipedia, but I do appose videos with an obvious pornographic background on WP as well as on Commons. It has really no project scope, if you have a look at the video. --Tantalos 12:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep "obvious pornographic background"? um, it's my old roommate demonstrating that breast implants don't feel "hard" or "weird"; contrary to popular belief. Any "pornographic" interpretation is solely your imagination. zuzu 18:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Obviously if anyone see any pornographic background in this video, it's only imagination. I supose that the disire of being there recording your video. Thanks Zuzu, and thank's to your roommate of course!
- It looks lite pornograph material, but it shows big breast after a operation. So Keep. --217.236.240.39 19:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep Even if some people don't believe that it helps WP, there are plenty of images that I don't get. It's definitely not pornographic.--Caveat emptor 07:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep It's NOT porn and it illustrates some pratice/gesture quite well, which a simple picture can't. It is definitely valuable. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 09:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:Sl_victoria_crater.jpg
Is this second life image really PD-US-Gov? ALE! ¿…? 21:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Ha, yes! I'm Eric Hackathorn, project manager for NOAA's Virtual World, and took the photo during work hours as a NOAA employee. Visit the SciLands wiki page for more information.
- Hackshaven 21:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- SciLands Hackshaven 21:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Keep Dubya Tee Eff. -N 02:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Is this discussion closed? Can I delete the delete request? Hackshaven 18:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Template:PD-WAGov
English Wikipedia has redirected the same template to Template:Di-no license (on Commons Template:No license): Think the same should be done here. --GeorgHH • talk 12:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Public record!=Public domain, some uses are probably reserved (derivative works are probably prohibited). -N 02:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Redirected to Template:No license. "Public record" doesn't mean public domain. Some these images may be PD, but this is not a license. Fortunately, there aren't many (currently 6) images. Rocket000 07:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:Shining_silver_gun.jpg
copyvio Sdrtirs 22:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Image was freely licensed when uploaded. -N 01:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Failed Flikr review. We have no way of knowing what the licence was when uploaded there. MichaelMaggs 19:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:Drac_siurell_petit.jpg
Not really "self-made". -N 01:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment See also Image:Drac siurell pequeño.jpg & Image:Drac Siurell mascota de mallorca fantastica.jpg. --Dodo 13:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete derivative work of http://mallorcafantastica07.blogspot.com/ --Vriullop 14:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 12:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:El_corazon_dice.pdf
Outside project scope, apparently part of a drive to use Wikimedia to raise money for charity. Which is fine but not if we didn't authorize it. -N 01:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
The image supports Wikimedia Foundation and is therefore useful to all Wikimedia projects. Paula Bergen 13:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Siebrand: Dupe of Image:El corazón dice.pdf
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:The_Heart_Says.ogg
Outside project scope, part of some money-making scam. -N 01:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
The image supports Wikimedia Foundation and is therefore useful to all Wikimedia projects. Paula Bergen 13:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lupo 10:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:El_corazón_dice.pdf
Outside project scope. -N 01:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lupo 10:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:The_Heart_Says.pdf
Outside project scope. -N 01:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
The image supports Wikimedia Foundation and is therefore useful to all Wikimedia projects. Paula Bergen 13:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC) DeleteOne poem is not a photograph/image and is out of Commons scope. WayneRay 16:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)WayneRay Founder Canadian Poetry Association
Deleted. Lupo 10:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
[edit] March 7
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:Duinbergen_-_Heilige_Familiekerk_2.jpg
Too dark to be useful for Wikipedia Erik Baas 00:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - nonsense - as explained a 100 times, this is how it looks IRL with a low winter sun in the afternoon. A concept the user doesn't seem to grasp —the preceding unsigned comment was added by LimoWreck (talk • contribs) 00:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep This is no studiowork: the sun is not always on our side. Next time better. --Foroa 09:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Extreme cases notwithstanding, quality of a photograph is not a reason for deletion. Images here are not only for Wikipedia. --rimshottalk 10:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Kept. abf /talk to me/ 06:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:Blankenberge_-_Sint-Antoniuskerk_4.jpg
Too dark to be useful for Wikipedia Erik Baas 00:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - nonsense - as explained a 100 times, this is how it looks IRL with a low winter sun in the afternoon. A concept the user doesn't seem to grasp —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LimoWreck (talk • contribs) at 00:26, 7 Mar 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Extreme cases notwithstanding, quality of a photograph is not a reason for deletion. Images here are not only for Wikipedia.--rimshottalk 10:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Kept. abf /talk to me/ 06:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:Duinbergen_-_Heilige_Familiekerk_3.jpg
Too dark to be useful for Wikipedia Erik Baas 00:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - nonsense - as explained a 100 times, this is how it looks IRL with a low winter sun in the afternoon. A concept the poor user doesn't seem to grasp. Besides, commons is not wikipedia, and all pics are useful as long as they show reality or have a purpose. —the preceding unsigned comment was added by LimoWreck (talk • contribs) 00:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Extreme cases notwithstanding, quality of a photograph is not a reason for deletion. Images here are not only for Wikipedia.--rimshottalk 10:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Kept. abf /talk to me/ 06:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:Loco4.jpg
The petitioner has not given any reason. -- Fernando Estel ☆ · 星 (Talk: here- es- en) 21:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Propongo el borrado de esta imagen ya que la misma no tiene utilidad en la Wikipedia, sólo era una tomadura de pelo (de las tantas, obviamente la menos grave), de un usuario que acabó siendo expulsado por continuos sabotajes al proyecto. Ferbr1 14:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Useless.---- Fernando Estel ☆ · 星 (Talk: here- es- en) 13:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. It's very funny. ...And useless untill someone uses it... --The Mad Philologist 10:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. No entiendo por que se quiere borrar. Si para Wikipedia no sirve, igual viene bien para algún otro proyecto, ya sea de Wikimedia o externo. --81.47.192.178 11:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. COM:SCOPE Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 14:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. again after it was re-uploadet. abf /talk to me/ 06:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:VW logo.jpg
Fair use (en wiki) -- 7 March 2008 User:Bandurr
- Without the fan I'd say ineligible, but as it is now: Delete. --rimshottalk 16:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. abf /talk to me/ 06:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:Portail maritime.jpg
incompatible licenses CC and GFDL--Jodo 14:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well it would be good to contact the "portail maritime" where it's used then!... so that they could create a different collage a upload it under the same name. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 18:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Could someone with a better expression in french language do that? My french is really very bad. --Jodo 22:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Done --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 10:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- We are looking what we can do. Le probleme est-il bien la suppression de la photo fr::Image:800px-OldMagneticCompass.jpg? CaptainHaddock 11:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Done fixed, please close this deletion request. Cheers. -- Perky 12:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- We are looking what we can do. Le probleme est-il bien la suppression de la photo fr::Image:800px-OldMagneticCompass.jpg? CaptainHaddock 11:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Could someone with a better expression in french language do that? My french is really very bad. --Jodo 22:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Not done. It uses still Image:Kho_Pippi-Maya_Beach.jpg and Image:Phare_petit_minou_600x800.JPG which are GFDL, or do i have a caching problem? --Jodo 13:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Could you be a little more explicit. At the begining, you tell that the problem comes from the licences CC and GFDL which are incompatible. But in the collage they are two photos under CC licence: the one of the compass which is out and this one:Image:Construction d'un drakkar a Roskilde.jpg and all the others are GFDL. So are you sure that is not this photo that we must replace ? Barbe-Noire 16:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry to say, but what's wrong with GFDL ? Dear Jodo. -- Perky 17:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Image:Phare_petit_minou_600x800.JPG is Done fixed, with source and Image:Kho_Pippi-Maya_Beach.jpg, and Image:Construction d'un drakkar a Roskilde.jpg have the right licences, it's seems. So, please, would you be kind enough to close the deletion request. -- Perky 18:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Image:Phare_petit_minou_600x800.JPG is
- Sorry to say, but what's wrong with GFDL ? Dear Jodo. -- Perky 17:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Could you be a little more explicit. At the begining, you tell that the problem comes from the licences CC and GFDL which are incompatible. But in the collage they are two photos under CC licence: the one of the compass which is out and this one:Image:Construction d'un drakkar a Roskilde.jpg and all the others are GFDL. So are you sure that is not this photo that we must replace ? Barbe-Noire 16:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Problems soluted. All licenses now clear and explained in the description ChristianBier 22:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:Admin_mop.PNG
It's using by too many Wikipedias, I know. But where is the source of this "PD mop"? Look at its talk page. OsamaK 15:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- I do not believe a copyright violation is the case. Please do not directly delete this image and instead overwrite it with a 'free' version and then delete the old version. -- Cat ちぃ？ 13:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep The mop itself is pd-ineligible. -N 19:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep And what will happen to the 2115 pages that use it?. Alvaro qc 23:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Not a valid reason, we're talking about unsourced image, we shouldn't think like that. We can use our delinker to delete this image from all of these 2115 pages.--OsamaK 10:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Weak keep for now - You say look at the talk page, but all there is there is someone asking where the PD mop is. I see no evidence that it does not exist. Can we assume it was drawn by User:Essjay when he produced the image? – Tivedshambo (talk) 08:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Then let's delete Category:Unknown per en:WP:AGF! Sure we can't, he must say that.--OsamaK 10:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Unless there's some reason to believe this is a copyright violation, I don't see the problem. We can't always require proof. That doesn't make sense. - Rocket000 07:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep for the reasons stated above --Church of emacs 16:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Yes, formally there is no source for this PD mop, but in that case we can assume good faith for Essjay and keep the image. Being punctilious in any case never leads to a good thing, remember it. — Kalan ? 07:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. I fully agree with Kalan. lvova 07:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep --Johney (T∀LK) 12:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep How is that mop copyrighted? J.delanoy 01:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete I don't care whether the mop is copyrighted: the logo is copyrighted, so how can it possibly be a free image? Nyttend 04:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Comment - it does not claim to be a free image. As I understand it, Wikimedia logos are exempt from the free-use policy, as they are for use within the project only. (Someone correct me if I'm wrong) – Tivedshambo (talk) 10:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- But isn't Commons for free images only? - Keithorz (talk‧對話) 11:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- From Commons:Licensing: "...the only non-free-licensed exceptions hosted here as well are Wikimedia logos and other designs copyrighted by the Wikimedia Foundation that are the trademarks, service marks or other design elements that identify the sites of the various projects of the Wikimedia Foundation." – Tivedshambo (talk) 13:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- You are right, but consider the worst case scenario: whom is Wikimedia going to sue? Let's keep it rational, after all. Pundit 14:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- From Commons:Licensing: "...the only non-free-licensed exceptions hosted here as well are Wikimedia logos and other designs copyrighted by the Wikimedia Foundation that are the trademarks, service marks or other design elements that identify the sites of the various projects of the Wikimedia Foundation." – Tivedshambo (talk) 13:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- But isn't Commons for free images only? - Keithorz (talk‧對話) 11:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - it does not claim to be a free image. As I understand it, Wikimedia logos are exempt from the free-use policy, as they are for use within the project only. (Someone correct me if I'm wrong) – Tivedshambo (talk) 10:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep --junafani 09:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep --Baran Ivo 06:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep -- Pundit 19:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC) if a copyvio, overwrite with a free one
- Keep —Animum (talk) 20:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Result was Keep. There's no particularly compelling evidence that the mop is a copyvio; the only "suspect" bit of information about its validity is the fact that the author, Essjay, has a funky reputation; that reputation doesn't speak to uploading blatant copyright violations, though (at least, to the best of my knowledge), so I don't consider such a suspicion-derived argument to carry much weight. A source would be preferred, yes, but there's certainly nothing to stop someone from re-creating this image with a beyond-the-shadow-of-a-doubt PD mop (just as long as they realize that edits to such a widely-used image would come with a significant amount of attention).
As for the fact that it uses the Wikipedia logo, I know of no precedent for deleting derivatives of WMF intellectual property. While I'm usually never swayed by the "who's gonna sue?" argument, I do believe this is a valid comment in this discussion; it's a derivative work used by the community to identify the community. If the Foundation decides such derivative works should be removed, then yes, this image should face the firing squad. Until then, though, it should stay. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:A_Young_Young_Woman_Blowing_A_Dandelion_Clock.png
After some research it appears that it's probably this nude model (more of her on this forum where one might be able to find the same picture if someone is patient enough to check all the links!) (CAUTION: ADULT CONTENT IF YOU FOLLOW THE LINKS). Then I suppose we may delete other uploads by BestSummers (talk • contribs) and maybe block him because it's not his first attempt to upload copyrighted adult content! TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 18:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Copyvio. -N 19:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyvio. abf /talk to me/ 06:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:A_New_Model_for_Atomic_Structure-Copy.pdf
Outside project scope. -N 22:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete out of scope for Commons as it's some kind of article; out of scope for any Wikipedia as it's original research. --rimshottalk 16:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. abf /talk to me/ 06:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:Wolneharcerstwo.jpg
Image cannot be displayed, it contains errors Erik Baas 00:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment for now until issue is resolved. JPEG file itself shows OK; suggest seeking technical assistance or signaling possible software problems for rendering this file. JC —the preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.191.47.11 (talk • contribs) 01:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC) (TOR exit node)
- Comment New image was uploaded, but I still can't open it. -- Deadstar (msg) 11:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Kept. It works now, tested in Opera 9, IE7 and whatever the current version of Firefox is. rimshottalk 14:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:Como, ex casa del fascio 01.JPG
Copyrighted building, no freedom of panorama in Italy. --147.122.27.237 13:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment are you sure such a dull building can be copyrighted?! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 18:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Personally I'd agree about "dull building", but according to some people it is not: "perhaps the most famous work of the Italian Rationalist architect, Giuseppe Terragni." (en:Casa del Fascio (Como)). See also the message at Category:Casa del Fascio in Como. --87.8.233.57 23:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete OK then... --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 12:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Personally I'd agree about "dull building", but according to some people it is not: "perhaps the most famous work of the Italian Rationalist architect, Giuseppe Terragni." (en:Casa del Fascio (Como)). See also the message at Category:Casa del Fascio in Como. --87.8.233.57 23:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Generic photo --Sailko 22:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. no FOP in italy, sorry. abf /talk to me/ 06:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:Castle_Wolfenstein_Welcome_Screen.png
I do not think that Castle Wolfenstein is freeware. See copyright on the screenshot. ALE! ¿…? 21:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Castle Wolfenstein is freeware, it wasn't freeware in 1984, but in 2006 its authors released all rights. See server abandonia.com for further information. --Kenor 09:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
9 March 2008 User:Drini deleted "Image:Castle Wolfenstein Welcome Screen.png" (copyvio. Price has nothing to do with copyright, it's (C) 1984)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:Štvanice-Francisova turbína-deska.jpg
Quality is very poor. The inscription is hardly legible, even without the ugly huge graffiti tags. No article links to this image, not even the original Czech article Ostrov Štvanice (location where the photo was taken). --Tetris L 14:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC) --Tetris L 14:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep
- The pictured board is damaged by tags, but quality of the image in itself is good.
- The inscription text is utterly legible, even thought it is embossed only (without contrast-staining) and aesthetically devaluated by tags.
- The image does not need to be used just in article. It is able to be used as further explanation to the image Image:Štvanice-Francisova turbína.jpg.
- The articles en:Francis turbine and cs:Francisova turbína are nearly stubs still. They don't contain description of various types of Francis turbine yet, especially about triplex Francis turbine. A separate article about river power plant at Štvanice Insel in Prague does not exist yet. The image is unimportant regarding the general article about the insel, of course.
- --ŠJů 23:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Kept. If it is not suitable for the uses you have in mind then don't use it for them. This depicts tagging for example. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 19:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:Bandeau portail les-femmes.jpg
one handled picture was deleted because of no source --Jodo 14:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC) --Jodo 14:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well it would be good to contact the "portail des femmes" where it's used then!... so that they could create a different collage a upload it under the same name. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 18:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Could someone with a better expression in french language do that? My french is really very bad. --Jodo 22:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Done --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 10:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Could someone with a better expression in french language do that? My french is really very bad. --Jodo 22:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
_signing_the_Concordat_between_Nazi_Germany_and_the_Vatican,_20_July_1933.PNG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_signing_the_Concordat_between_Nazi_Germany_and_the_Vatican,_20_July_1933.PNG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
![[3]](http://www.cndp.fr/themadoc/manray/images/freund_malraux.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_%D0%97%D0%B0%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%96%D0%B6%D0%B6%D1%8F_(1).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
![[4]](http://mk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%80_%D1%81%D0%BE_%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA:Guitardemon666#commons:Commons:Deletion_requests.2FImage:Coatofarmsbitola.gif){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Operations_Room.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[12]](http://phil.cdc.gov/phil_images/01191999/00002/02ee058_jpg_lores.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
![[21]](http://www.esa.int/images/ATV.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[23]](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dan_crook54#Image:BoromirFrodoAmonHem.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Beach_Volleyball_210406_(1996921336).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_Beach_Volleyball_210406_(1996921336).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
[edit] Image:Rongorongo_G-r_Small_Santiago_(unretouched).jpg
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Not a purely 2D object - not PD-art. dave pape 15:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Is there another tag I could use? The point of this photo is to show how the text was organized. The text itself predates 1860. Kwamikagami 02:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: This is a prehistoric object; it seems we can reasonably expect that it was in existence before the very concept of copyrights and, that notwithstanding, it is easily past 100/120+ years after the author's death. Although I'm not sure about applicability to prehistoric objects, the logic of this ruling seems to indicate that photos of this object, similarly, cannot be copyrighted as they lack originality. Deletion seems inappropriate, but tags such as {{anonymous work}}, {{PD-ineligible}} or simply {{PD-Old}} may be more fitting. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 18:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- I added {{PD-script}}. All of these images are illustrating a script, one which is not deciphered and therefor for which each text is relevant. Kwamikagami 00:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- The text is certainly public domain - that's not the problem here. The issue is that the photograph itself may be copyrighted (it's not a reproduction of purely 2D text, but a photo of the physical artifact). http://www.rongorongo.org/copy.html appears to grant a non-commercial license for the photos, which is not sufficiently free for Commons. --dave pape 15:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per above. License to image held by Cercle d'Études sur l'Île de Pâques et la Polynésie {C.E.I.P.P.}. Image is not licensed for commercial use. ЭLСОВВОLД