Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2006/03
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
March 1
[edit]I'm requesting deletion of this US-Gov logo(that I uploaded myself) because I can't find the source of it, and considering replacing the Gov-HHS template with another HHS logo that can be found on a US government site. I originally downloaded it from the english wikipedia here. Or will such deletion be necessary due to the nature of the logo? ---Marcus- 23:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Kept, it's being used on Template:PD-USGov-HHS so I am not sure what the request is about.
March 2
[edit]It is redundant with Category:2005-06 Southern Hemisphere tropical cyclone season. That is how it is referred to at Wikipedia. Miss Madeline 18:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 03:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
messed around
[edit]could somebody please delete http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cagegory:Encyclopédie_ou_Dictionnaire_raisonné_des_sciences%2C_des_arts_et_des_métiers and http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Encyclopédie_ou_Dictionnaire_raisonné_des_sciences%2C_des_arts_et_des_métiers thanks. 127.0.0.l 19:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. Items like this can be speedy deleted by marking them {{db|test}}. pfctdayelise (translate?) 01:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
March 3
[edit]Image:Australian50centcoin1970.jpg Image:Australian50centcoin1998.jpg Image:Australian50centcoin2001NSW.jpg Image:Australia 2 dollari.JPG Image:Australia 1 dollaro Anno del volontariato.JPG
[edit]These are images of Australian coins which date after 1969. On the Australian govt website it says that "The Commonwealth holds copyright in the designs and images used on Australian currency coins which were created after 1 May 1969." --Astrokey44 15:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- I have uploaded them to wikipedia with the {{money}} template since they are fair-use pictures really: [1], [2],
[3], [4], [5] Astrokey44 13:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - As discussed on Talk:Australian_coins these are actual photos of coins. Coins are 3d objects. 3d objects are not covered by 2d copyright.--AYArktos 10:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Uh, WTF? No! 3D objects can be copyrighted. The creator of the object has rights to any picture taken of it, i.e. the photographer shares the rights with the original creator. For 2D reproductions, only the original creator would have rights. It's completely wrong to think that copyright does not apply if you take a picture of a 3D object - see all the discussions we had about action figures here. Also, calling the Relief on a coin "3D" is hard pressed...
- All this being said: sure, the coins are copyrighted - but so are most images on commons (no copyleft without copyright). The important question is: what are the terms of use? Perhaps they are "free enough"... IIRC, we decided to keep images of Euro bank notes, because they have resonable terms of use. -- Duesentrieb(?!) 11:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- If you wish to reproduce coin designs you should contact the Mint. Failure to do so may result in a breach of copyright and legal action by the Mint. Yeah, I don't think so. pfctdayelise (translate?) 06:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- The aus govt website I linked to above also specifically adreses 2d/3d: "Copyright gives the copyright owner the exclusive right to reproduce designs and images from two-dimensional to three-dimensional form, and vice versa." Its not like youd be deleting all images of australian coins - you can still use the 50c, 20c, 10c, 5c, 2c and 1c which were designed in 1966 - its just these $1 and $2 which came out in the 1980s & the special edition 50c pieces which are copyrighted Astrokey44 13:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted / Fred Chess 10:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
This image is a duplicate of http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:La2-demis-france.png and should be removed because it does feature Corsica in a completely wrong place; Corsica is fashioned as it really was a few miles off the Provence coast, whereas it actually lies more than 170 km away in the south-east direction. There is no indication, although implicit, of the real position of Corsica, so people will be completely misleaded by this map. The same problem affects a number of maps of France. Any island or geographical region, when moved away from its REAL position, MUST be placed within a box to make it clear that the displacement was due to graphical reasons. --Written by User:Piero Montesacro, now posted here by pfctdayelise (translate?) 13:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- I think it would be a better idea to simply fix those maps by inserting a line separating Corsica from the rest, indicating a "cut" - this is often done in maps. -- Duesentrieb(?!) 09:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
- In general, I would agree with you: adding a visible line indicating the dispacement is mandatory as well as sufficient in such cases. I proposed, in this case, to simply remove the map because who has fabricated it cared even to invent the batimetry around Corsica and Provence shore in order to falsify the map and increase the impression that the Island actually lies where it doesn't. Thus, the cutting line would be not enough, because the false batimetry would be not fixed by the added line.
- By the way, the map in subject happens to be not alone. Here is a list (probably not a complete one) of similar cases:
- Interestingly, at least in one case (Image:Bordeaux dot2.png), checking the history you can see that the first map posted - which was accurate - was later intentionally replaced with the bogus one. It seems that some French users are a bit clueless - not to say careless - about map accuracy: as you can check here, one of them promptly agreed with my remarks and fixed more than 100 images on Commons which were inaccurate in the same way of the ones I pointed out above.
- IMHO this is not an unimportant matter, because we, as Wikipedia, are risking of distributing literally hundreds of bogus maps of France to the whole world. I believe that it could be the case to sensibilize the French Wikipedia about the problem, since in France there are even GOV institutions which do distribute similar inaccurate maps, in spite of the HARD FACT that they are obviosly and blatantly wrong and MISLEADING: for example, take the following image: Image:France_departements.png. As you can see, its latest version FEATURES a separation line (which I added!) indicating that the island of Corsica was displaced from its real position (actually, Corsica would have been entirely outside in such map, if it was accurate) but, if you check the previous versions, there was NO indication of the displacement performed. Furthermore, if you check the source of the map (http://www.ign.fr/affiche_rubrique.asp?rbr_id=445&lng_id=FR) you discover that its distributor is the National Geographical Institute of France!!! Now, please, be so kind to check this ACTUAL satellite image of the region and see by yourself what they dared to do; and you can check this image as well. Here are more ACCURATE maps of France which do prove my point. Please don't esitate in contacting me again if you need any further information. Thanks, Piero Montesacro 18:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
See explanations immediately above re: Image:France with Corsica (demis).png --Piero Montesacro 18:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
See explanations immediately above re: Image:France with Corsica (demis).png --Piero Montesacro 18:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
See explanations immediately above re: Image:France with Corsica (demis).png --Piero Montesacro 18:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
See explanations immediately above re: Image:France with Corsica (demis).png --Piero Montesacro 18:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
See explanations immediately above re: Image:France with Corsica (demis).png --Piero Montesacro 18:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
See explanations immediately above re: Image:France with Corsica (demis).png --Piero Montesacro 18:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
See explanations immediately above re: Image:France with Corsica (demis).png --Piero Montesacro 17:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
As no one has contested Piero's summary of the situation, I will consider it correct and soon delete these files because they are misleadingly inaccurate. --pfctdayelise (translate?) 17:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Uploaders request, on the desc page --Romeo Bravo (T | C) 05:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Deleted as uploader misunderstood licensing requirements. Probably the copy on fr: should be looked at as well. -- pfctdayelise (translate?) 06:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
logo, faie use --Shizhao 05:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Please delete this one. I was using it temporarily for a Wikinews story. And uploaded it in error. It would definitely be copyrighted to the Commonwealth Games mob.
- deleted--Shizhao 03:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I made this category and then realized it should just be Category:Infographics. I've already moved everything over. Sbwoodside 07:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
- deleted. Please use speedy deletion for this type of thing, by putting {{db|moved to Category:Infographics}} to the page. -- Duesentrieb(?!) 09:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
March 4
[edit]This image should be deleted. 1) It is factually incorrect (both "dragon heads" should be yellow), 2) it is incorrectly named (the name means "West Jutland", it should be "West Zealand", 3) A corrected image has been uploaded, and is listed under the correct name (Image:Vestsjællands amt coa.png), in line with the coats of the other 13 Danish counties. --Valentinian (talk) 19:05, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
- The correct insignia is shown on West Zealand County's official website. See e.g. this page (bottom): http://www.vestamt.dk/amt/vaaben.htm --Valentinian (talk) 19:28, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Redundant with {{self3|GFDL|cc-by-sa-1.0|cc-by-sa-2.5}} — Omegatron 14:53, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Deleted, pfctdayelise (translate?) 10:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
has the wrong name and so needs to be deleted.HardDisk 11:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
- if you upload a picture with a wrong name you can have it speedy deleted by using {{db|wrong name, correct image: [[:Image:newname.jpg]]}} -- Gorgo 18:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- Where is the new one?? pfctdayelise (translate?) 02:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Once again an unfree non-commercial and non-derivative only image from ESA... Needs to be deleted. Was uploaded from APOD by uploader (when do people finally read image captions at APOD?). Arnomane 13:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete--Shizhao 17:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 18:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
March 5
[edit]The cover of a newspaper is not the vaild copyright requirement of wikimedia Commons. It just suitable for fair use.--Ellery 09:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Both photos formerly included here were misclassified. They show some Asteraceae, not Pimelea or any other member of Thymelaeaceae. I moved them to Plants misidentified. Now the article does not contain any more media files. As Pimelea ciliolaris is a rare Australian species, there will not be any photos so soon. (I did not find a single one on internet.) So it is better to delete the page. --Franz Xaver 19:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
March 6
[edit]This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Image made 1918; no author given; no proof for PD, may still be copyrighted. --Crux 15:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
- @Fred: uh, wtf? Images first published in the US before 1923 are PD world wide. What does that have to do with this picture? Anyway... without knowing more about the source, we'll probably have to delete the image (70 pma probably applies and may still be running). Pitty. -- Duesentrieb(?!) 21:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
- It can be uploaded to English Wikipedia again and tagged PD. / Fred Chess 22:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
- what? no! If it was taken and published in germany, 70 years pma applies world wide, also in the US. Besides, the ugnlish WP is not US only... -- Duesentrieb(?!) 22:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
- Um, nope. "In the U.S., any work published before January 1, 1923 anywhere in the world[†] is in the public domain", from en:Wikipedia:Public domain. And the servers are in Florida. / Fred Chess 10:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, is that so? That would mean the US violates the Berne Convention... anyway, it's not relevant: Images must be PD in the vast majority of countries to be acceptable on commons (and, on the english WP too, I belive - but there you could claim fair use). The location of the servers is irrelevant to a copright suit. Images published in the US before 1923 are PD worldwide; Images published in Europe before 1923 may or may not be PD in the US, but they are not (automatically) PD in Europe (70 years pma applies). -- Duesentrieb(?!) 10:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
- No, they don't violate the Berne convention, which says that foreign works are protected under the terms of the signature country's own laws. But works published first outside the U.S. before 1923 would be only PD in the U.S., not world-wide. Lupo 10:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, is that so? That would mean the US violates the Berne Convention... anyway, it's not relevant: Images must be PD in the vast majority of countries to be acceptable on commons (and, on the english WP too, I belive - but there you could claim fair use). The location of the servers is irrelevant to a copright suit. Images published in the US before 1923 are PD worldwide; Images published in Europe before 1923 may or may not be PD in the US, but they are not (automatically) PD in Europe (70 years pma applies). -- Duesentrieb(?!) 10:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
- Um, nope. "In the U.S., any work published before January 1, 1923 anywhere in the world[†] is in the public domain", from en:Wikipedia:Public domain. And the servers are in Florida. / Fred Chess 10:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
- what? no! If it was taken and published in germany, 70 years pma applies world wide, also in the US. Besides, the ugnlish WP is not US only... -- Duesentrieb(?!) 22:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
- It can be uploaded to English Wikipedia again and tagged PD. / Fred Chess 22:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
- @Fred: uh, wtf? Images first published in the US before 1923 are PD world wide. What does that have to do with this picture? Anyway... without knowing more about the source, we'll probably have to delete the image (70 pma probably applies and may still be running). Pitty. -- Duesentrieb(?!) 21:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I do not agree with "Images published in the US before 1923 are PD worldwide" - was the reason for this obscure claim? --Historiograf 08:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
- "world-wide" is wrong. Works first published in the U.S. before 1923 are PD in the U.S., and therefore also PD in any country where the rule of the shorter term applies. But in countries where this rule does not apply, such works may still be copyrighted. Lupo 10:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
@Crux: please notify the uploader when you list an image here - use {{idw|Image:German Revolution.jpg}} -- Duesentrieb(?!) 21:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I took it from en:German Revolution. It seemed very obvious for me that anything published more than 70 years ago would be in the PD. And this is the case. Anyway, I have left a message in the first uploader's talk page. Let's see if he'll answer.
- Well, nice thinking, but that's my talk page on English Wikipedia, and I'm not the original uploader. / Fred Chess 19:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
OK, here's the answer: GFDL content from English Wikipedia. Is that enough? Mr.Rocks 11:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Image deleted. No evidence that photo is PD, no evidence that photo was ever published in the US, no evidence that the photo depicts Germany in 1918 and no evidence that the copyright owner (if any) has licensed the photo under GFDL. Thuresson 11:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
REASON : I am the author of this image and I want not to have anaything to do With WIKI now--chbanat 10:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- ARGUMENTS --chbanat 10:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC) —the preceding unsigned comment is by Kasarzaoutermez2 (talk • contribs)
Keep All you did was upload this image. I marked it as incomplete license/no source, because it's certainly not GPL, a modern software license! pfctdayelise (translate?) 23:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
No source over 1 week, deleted. pfctdayelise (translate?) 01:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
too big for loading, I forgot to check the size.
- pictures can't be too big, we have pictures with more than 100 megapixel, so don't worry. But anyways, the Commons:Criteria for inclusion states: "Pictures of yourself, or your friends, are welcome here provided the following conditions are respected: [...] They are useful for some wikimedia project (for example an Wikipedia article, a Wikinews report, in a meta article, on a user-page)." Please use services like http://flickr.com/ for personal use only pictures. If you plan to use it on your user page than that's ok I guess. -- Gorgo 19:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- well it was intended for my user-page, but I found a better picture, and I doubt anyone would care to use Laura.jpg. Niels Herkild
Deleted, pfctdayelise (translate?) 06:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Copyvio. A court ruling in October 2005 applied war extensions to the works of painter Boldini, so that they will not enter Public Domain until late 2016 = 1932 (painter's death year + 1) + 70 + 14 years + 272 days. diff Teofilo 12:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep French law is not relevant --Historiograf 17:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
keep French law is relevant only to works created and/or first published in France. This seems to be from Italy, right? -- Duesentrieb(?!) 23:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC) PS: or is it? Apperently, Boldini died in Paris... we need a little more info about these Works, apperently. -- Duesentrieb(?!) 23:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
- Boldini was an Italian painter living in France. In 1872 he settled in Paris at the age of 30, taking a studio on the Place Pigalle. source. Teofilo 23:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- In the 12 october 2005 jugement, the Paris appeal court says Considérant que Giovanni Boldini est décédé à Paris, le 11 janvier 1931, qu'il n'est pas contesté que le portrait du compositeur VERDI, objet du litige, a été divulgué en France, de sorte que la France est, au sens de l'article 5 de la convention de Berne, le pays d'origine de l'Oeuvre ; que celle-ci doit donc bénéficier de la protection accordée aux auteurs par la loi française... (Considering that no objection has been made that the portrait of composer VERDI, object of the litigation, was disclosed in France, so that France is, in the sense of article 5 of the Berne convention, the country of origin of the work ; that this work must accordingly receive the benefit of the protection granted to authors by French law...) Teofilo 11:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - same reason as above. Raul654 06:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I am the owner of it and I'd like to have it removed from Wiki. —the preceding unsigned comment is by Canuckman (talk • contribs)
- Usually the response might be, "maybe you should think about what it means to relinquish all copyright to your work before you do so". However given this image's undescriptive name and total lack of identifying information, it's more or less useless (unless someone else can ID?). So, delete. pfctdayelise (translate?) 09:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- deleteTeofilo 12:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep He looks familiar. I think he plays icehocket. And public domain does mean public domain, so you can't decide about it anymore Canuckman. Fred Chess 22:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
- deleted --Shizhao 03:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Fred Chess 22:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I originally labeled this image as a speedy delete, but the uploader (User:Lib) contested it and wrote “Please explain why you want to delete this file, i see no reason. It is content from en.wikipedia. It does furthermore not violate any copyright”, and User:Bastique then removed my speedy-request.
This is a screenshot from a copyrighted computer program, and should be deleted. Kjetil r 16:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- I see your point, I didn't know content from en.wikipedia isnt OK when you requested the speedy deletion. I vote to delete it. Lib 16:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- It depends on the label in en.wp. If it's fair use or anything like it (logo, screenshot, albumcover, musicsample etc) then it is NOT allowed here. If it's a cc-(by)-(sa), GFDL, PD, then it's ok here. In any case, you should always link to the original file on en:, so that it can be checked (often files are uploaded with wrong tags anyway - saying "it's from en" is not strong enough proof that it's freely licensed). pfctdayelise (translate?) 00:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
No source information. I assume source = random website. Ashibaka 01:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Deletion request warning in this page since 31 Ago 2005 (invalid deletion request process?); redundant to Image:Tolentino-Stemma.png. Semolo75 15:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
- deleted --Shizhao 03:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
The license is not credible. --88.134.118.243 16:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 02:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
March 7
[edit]This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Images by User:Arschbock
[edit]I don't have any evidence that these images are not by the user, but his name ("assbuck") and the names of the images don't really give me much confidence that he speaks the truth. --Conti|✉ 17:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 03:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Images by User:Pictureman
[edit]- Image:Breasts.jpg
- Image:Vulva1.jpg ( see this, someone who speaks italian would be nice to have]
- Image:Vulva2.jpg
- Image:Vulva3.jpg
- Image:Breasts1.jpg
- Image:Breasts2.jpg
- Image:Breasts3.jpg
- Image:Breasts3a.jpg
- Image:Breasts4.jpg
- Image:Breasts4a.jpg
- Image:Vulvabigopen.jpg
- Image:Vulvabigopen2.JPG
All of his uploaded images are of a sexual nature and allegedly made by the uploader himself. I highly doubt that, as he has not replied on his talk page and seems to have dissapeared. We have similar free sourced images anyways. --Conti|✉ 19:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
- sexual nature is no valid reason for a deletion. What proof do you want if someone claims to have the pictures taken himself? As long as there is no good reason to distrust him I think we have to belive him. -- Gorgo 21:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
- How do you know that they are underaged? Kjetil r 22:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
- I find it highly unlikely the persons are over 18. I can't prove it, but let me ask you, how old do you think they are?
- And I also don't believe they have given consent to having their picture spread on the internet. (But I can't prove that either) Fred Chess 22:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
- I do not know, maybe somewhere between 15 and 40? There are no reasons to say that they are under 18. But I do agree that we have no evidence suggesting that they have given consent, and when the uploader does not give more information we should delete the images. Kjetil r 23:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
- there is no need for a consent when the person is not recognizable -- Gorgo 14:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- I do not know, maybe somewhere between 15 and 40? There are no reasons to say that they are under 18. But I do agree that we have no evidence suggesting that they have given consent, and when the uploader does not give more information we should delete the images. Kjetil r 23:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
- "own picture" doesn't necessarily need to mean the person itself is in the picture .. just the author of it. As long as the person visible in the picture approves or is not recognizable (which is the case here) that's perfectly ok -- Gorgo 23:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
- The point is that I doubt that "own picture" is the truth here, but of course I don't have any evidence of that. I asked an italian wikipedian about Image:Vulva1.jpg, maybe that makes things a bit more clear. --Conti|✉ 00:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
- again .. what proof do you want from the uploader? he really can't do anything more than saying it's his own picture, as long as we don't have any proof + reason to distrust him there is no reason at all to delete these pictures. His last contribution was over half a year ago so he is probably inactive. -- Gorgo 14:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- When he took it, where he took it, did the person who was photographed gave permission for them to be uploaded. As you said, since he has been gone for a while, he is not able to answer the questions, so the photos will be most likely deleted. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:24, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
- again .. what proof do you want from the uploader? he really can't do anything more than saying it's his own picture, as long as we don't have any proof + reason to distrust him there is no reason at all to delete these pictures. His last contribution was over half a year ago so he is probably inactive. -- Gorgo 14:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 03:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
March 8
[edit]This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
violazione copyright --Luigi Chiesa 18:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment Are photos from the Italian Senate copyrighted? Fred Chess 12:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
done. --RED DEVIL 666 15:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Kcyclopedist 07:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, the old one labels, the new one doesn't. Not really redundant. Kept. pfctdayelise (translate?) 01:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
This image was placed as nocopyright but it is actually fair use 64.12.116.65 02:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Deleted,obvious copyright violation. this qualifies as speedy.pfctdayelise (translate?) 13:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
The mistake of name.Correct name is "Fukashi",and correct name file has been uploaded.--tgmsito 03:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. In future you can mark requests like this in this way: {{db|Wrong name, now at [[:Image:Bettername.jpg]] ~~~~}} . pfctdayelise (translate?) 13:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Same as #Image:ERD.jpg. MS Access's screenshot is non-commercial-use only. --Tietew 08:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted -- WB 10:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
The photo was mistakenly identified as Daler Kirke, but it's really Emmerlev Kirke. The photo has now been uploaded as Image:Emmerlev Kirke.jpg. --Heelgrasper 20:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. In future you can mark requests like this in this way: {{db|Wrong name, now at [[:Image:Bettername.jpg]] ~~~~}}. pfctdayelise (translate?) 01:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
March 9
[edit]See in archives, user lied about another image he/she uploaded, there's no reason to believe User:Pinda with this image. It's not used anywhere anyways. --Conti|✉ 01:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
- I really tried to find this photo on internet, as I also was suspicious. But I did not succeed to spot a possible source. So, maybe this is not a fake. Is there a possibility to check, if it had been taken by a digital camera or if it has been scanned from a diapositive? In 1978 there were no digital cameras. --Franz Xaver 16:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 03:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
test page, no useful--Shizhao 01:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Deleted, pfctdayelise (translate?) 06:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Duplicate image of Image:Fyns amt coa.png (same image, same source). The latter image is named consistant with the other 13 counties, so the "coa" image should be the one kept. --Valentinian (talk) 23:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted. Please use {{Redundant}} for similar purposes in future. --EugeneZelenko 15:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Naming mistake
[edit]- Image:CA310013.JPG
- Image:Yamazaki-nabisco-Cup final 2006-01.jpg
- Image:Yamazaki-nabisco-Cup final 2006-02.jpg
--Ko1 08:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Deleted, next time you can put {{db|Naming mistake, see [[:Image:Bettername.jpg]] ~~~~}}. pfctdayelise (translate?) 09:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
March 10
[edit]Georgia O'Keeffe images
[edit]O'Keeffe died in 1986. This deletion request covers all painting in the linked category, and, since the category will then be empty except for the van Vechten photograph, also Category:Georgia O'Keeffe and Creator:Georgia_O'Keeffe. The paintings are
- Image:O'Keeffe Georgia Apple Family iii 1921.jpg: first exhibit 1923, New York, Anderson Galleries. Catalog raisonné #347.
- Image:O'Keeffe Georgia Blue Line c1919.jpg: first exhibit 1923, New York, Anderson Galleries. Catalog raisonné #294.
- Image:O'Keeffe Georgia Canna Red and Orange c1922.jpg first exhibit: 1927 New York, Intimate Galleries. Catalog raisonné #563.
- Image:O'Keeffe Georgia Canyon with Crows 1917.jpg first exhibit: 1958 New York, Downtown - Watercolor. Catalog raisonné #197.
- Image:O'Keeffe Georgia Fifty ninth street studio 1919.jpg: first exhibit 1923, New York, Anderson Galleries. Catalog raisonné #295.
- Image:O'Keeffe Georgia Lake George with Crows 1921.jpg: first exhibit 1923, New York, Anderson Galleries. Catalog raisonné #358.
- Image:O'Keeffe Georgia Maple Cedar 1922.jpg: first exhibit 1989 Milwaukee. Catalog raisonné #328.
- Image:O'Keeffe Georgia Maple and cedar, lake george 1920.jpg: first exhibit 1923, New York, Anderson Galleries. Catalog raisonné #400.
- Image:O'Keeffe Georgia Pink and Green Mountains no 1 1917.jpg: first exhibit 1962 Grand Rapids. Catalog raisonné #221.
- Image:O'Keeffe Georgia Seated Nude XI 1917.jpg: first exhibit 1966 Fort Worth. Catalog raisonné #179.
- Image:O'Keeffe Georgia Series 1 no 4 1918.jpg: first exhibit 1923, New York, Anderson Galleries. Catalog raisonné #255.
- Image:O'Keeffe Georgia Train Coming in Canyon Texas 1918.jpg: first exhibit: 1985, Amarillo. Catalog raisonné #130.
The basic argument for all these goes as follows: although these were created before 1923, they were not published before 1923. Note that even exhibition does not constitute publication, only the distribution of copies (such as photographic or lithographic reproductions) to the general public does. I have listed the first exhibitions from the catalogue raisonné published by Barbara Buhler Lynes because I think the best chance for "first publication" would be the exhibition catalogs, if there were any that contained a picture of a painting. The 1923 exhibit apparently had no such catalog. In any case, all were initially publicly displayed after 1922, and I thus consider it given that the first publications of these paintings, if any, also were later. Unless someone can prove with verifiable details that the copyright in the U.S. indeed had expired on these paintings, they must be considered copyrighted. (If copyright indeed should have expired on some of them, they would be PD also outside of the U.S. in countries where the rule of the shorter term applies.) See also en:Wikipedia:Public domain#Artworks for a discussion of what constitutes "publication" for a painting. Lupo 08:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
ACK. No contradiction to my suggestion (and de practice) thats works before now-100 should be tagged as PD unless it is proven that author is not dead 70 years. --Historiograf 01:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
- I can not prove they are public domain, but can you (Lupo) show indications that they are not public domain? For instance, are there any catalogue that ommitts these images, while printing others from O'Keeffee? I don't find it impossible that the copyrights were once registered, but never renewed. Fred Chess 21:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted / Fred Chess 11:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
March 10
[edit]Firefox logo, copyvio--Shizhao 03:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep, as it is LGPL-ed. --Minghong 03:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)- Delete, probably dangerous to keep it. Let's be creative and make a Firefox-like logo for Firefox! ;-) --Minghong 03:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- See
or Image:Mozilla Firefox.png or
- See
- Delete, probably dangerous to keep it. Let's be creative and make a Firefox-like logo for Firefox! ;-) --Minghong 03:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- Version on en says it is LGPL and apparently no one has contested it there. But I think that's just from a batch Nuvola upload. This has already been deleted twice. But it's identical to the real logo as far as I can see, just the background is orange.
- Keep, it's derived from an SVG logo on the English Wikipedia (en:Image:Firefox.svg) which is licensed under the LGPL. It is not a copyright violation (it is, at best, a trademark violation; but the artwork itself is licensed under the LGPL). —Locke Cole • t • c 00:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
- Actaully the en version is now up for deletion, mostly for User:Pmsyyz's reason. --LBMixPro 07:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- It is a copyright violation. The Mozilla Trademark Policy FAQ: The logo files themselves (e.g. the ones distributed with the apps) are copyrighted, and so making and distributing any derivative works would be a copyright infringement. The logo's also a trademark, and so if the result is confusingly similar to the original, it's a violation of trademark law too.
- The policy also states: You can't put the Mozilla logo on anything that you produce commercially. --Pmsyyz 07:24, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, per the newly provided information. —Lifeisunfair 13:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- This is a huge pain as people in local projects are using it in userbox template. Would be great to have some native speakers help sort this out, as change userboxes seems to upset people. I recall the one on en just had "fox" instead of an icon, so consider changing to something like that.
- Especially: sv, es, ca, fa. Probably then we need to run pywikipediabot 'touch.py' over the user pages, so they refresh properly and the image is actually gone. pfctdayelise (translate?) 01:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 11:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Netscape logo, copyvio. --Minghong 04:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Deleted, pfctdayelise (translate?) 01:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Netscape logo, copyvio. --Minghong 04:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- Used in a template on fr, so some help would be appreciated. pfctdayelise (translate?) 01:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Done. --Pmsyyz 22:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Used in a template on fr, so some help would be appreciated. pfctdayelise (translate?) 01:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 11:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
copyvio. not PD. see [8]--Shizhao 08:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 19:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
This is the title for The animation "Eto Ranger" was created in 1995. fair use. not PD--Shizhao 08:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Deleted, pfctdayelise (translate?) 06:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Reason: redundant to Image:Bundeswehrmuseum Dresden 51.jpg. Bukvoed 08:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- no reasin for deletion --Historiograf 01:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 11:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
no author named, no clear license (just speculation), pointless content --Stefan 00:18, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 16:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
REASON -- Self-request. I didn't see the copyright information about no fair-use images until it was too late. I've uploaded at Wikipedia directly. Please delete this file. MikeDockery 10:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- deleted. Tagging the image with {{Fair use}} is usually enough to get it deleted, btw. -- Duesentrieb(?!) 11:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
No permission from the copyright holder. (The reason given in the PD box is wrong; as Duesentrieb pointed out, german copyright sticks to the creator.) Whether the image satisfies the conditions for originality might be debatable, though. --Phrood 11:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure this is not trivial enough to be PD. The only way I see to keep the image is to assume it was intended to be PD by the creators, who poblished it widely and anonymously. However, German law provides a protection period of 50 years after publication even to anonymous work.
- On the other hand, this logo is widely used, and I find it unlikely that we'll get problems using it. But still, I can't see how this is free content. -- Duesentrieb(?!) 13:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
As main author of Schoepfungshoehe full ack to Fb78 --Historiograf 01:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
- I see that now. I was not sure because of the gun. Therefore I withdraw my deletion request. I have also changed the license tag to PD-ineligible. --Phrood 10:24, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
March 11
[edit]copyright violation
- Copyright 2006 SPG Media Limited. All rights reserved. http://www.army-technology.com/terms.html Sonaz 10:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted / Fred Chess 21:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
This seems to be a clear case of copyright violation. Is there any reason, why it is still here? --Franz Xaver 00:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 16:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Clear violation. Published as "self work" but description says it's taken from a journal about archeology. Renata3 01:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Bitte löschen, wurden wegen Problemen mit dem Punkt im Namen neu reingestellt mit Leerzeichen statt Punkt. --störfix 10:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC),
Tagged for speedy deletion, as the uploader asked for the deletion of these redundant images. --ALE! 12:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Missing license and authorship not credible. Scanning a copyrighted picture is not legal and would not even establish authorship in most countries if done to a non-copyrighted picture. Please notify uploader, I have not done so. --88.134.118.243 14:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
No license. --88.134.118.243 14:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 11:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Screenshot
[edit]Image:ScreenshotFastStoneViewer.jpg Image:IrfanView Deutsch.jpg
fair use --Shizhao 19:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Email from 2006/02/20: Hi Andrew, today I wrote a small information about your viewer in the German Wikipedia: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/FastStone_Image_Viewer I hope you agree to this. Gladly I want to insert the added picture as a screenshot to Wikipedia equivalent to the webpage http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/IrfanView. I ask you for your compliance to do so. Best regards Winfried
Email from 2006/02/21: Hi Winfried, Wow, it is pleasing to see that, please go ahead with the screenshot and GIF-Animation. This is helping to promote my program, Thanks a lot! Best wishes Andrew
--©WinG 13:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- The IrfanView one is OK but the FastStone one is not. The permission is not strong enough - the author should agree to licensing under a specific free license that allows derivative works and commercial use, not just "in Wikipedia". pfctdayelise (translate?) 04:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
O.K., I understand. Maybe you could wait some days until I got the correct permission. -- ©WinG 14:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- While we are on it though, we could remove the Windows screenshot portions. -- WB 01:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Here are the last emails I changed with the authoe of FastStone Image Viewer:
From "FastStone Soft" <[email protected]> 16. März 2006 17:41 Dear Winfried, You can make any screenshots about FastStone Image Viewer and publish them on the Internet. It is my pleasure that this will help people better understand our program. Thanks Andrew
> Dear Andrew, > there are some problems in the wikipedia with my images > (screenshots from your FastStone Image Viewer). > I ask you if you give me the permission for making > screenshots for wikipedia > to publish it under the rules of Creative Commons BY-SA > ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/ ) and > to publish this email and your answer. > Regards Winfried
-- ©WinG 07:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, he hasn't agreed to very much more than before. He needs to explicitly state how he licenses such images. pfctdayelise (translate?) 22:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
The original source was a .jpg, but it should have been converted to .png before uploading. I didn't realize it until I uploaded the .jpg, but it's now at Image:US Forest Service.png where it belongs. --Interiot 21:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Deleted, these can be speedied. pfctdayelise (translate?) 04:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Serious questions were raised about this image's copyright status in January, but the resulting discussion was closed without consensus. However, the copyright tag was never removed, and I'm not comfortable removing it until we've hashed this one out again. Since it was taken in 1930, it's not automatically PD under US copyright law unless it's independently PD under German copyright law, which no one has been able to verify. Chick Bowen 04:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
- It's more than 70 years old, so most likely copyright has expired. If somebody would step forward with a valid claim of copyright then it clearly should be deleted, but until such a claim is made I would suggest to keep it around JdH 21:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. The critical thing is not "more than 70 years old" but photographer died more than 70 years ago. According to [9], the image was taken on June 17, 1930 in Berlin and comes from Bettmann/Corbis. There's no proof that this is PD, and before tackling with Corbis, there would need to be watertight proof that their copyright claim was spurious and the image actually PD. To JdH: I disagree strongly. We should only have images labelled as PD where we are reasonably sure that this is true. Leaving an image here and claim it was PD despite serious doubts could backfire, because we then would have knowingly induced third parties to use the image under this false or shaky PD claim. Lupo 13:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- That claim is unsubstantiated. The problem is that people stamp their websites with "copyright", without giving any information where that claim comes from; if all these half-baked claims have to be honored you might as well close down Commons. This picture happens to be all over the internet, with different copyright claims.
- The picture was actually taken on June 28, 1929 in Berlin, and the occasion was the award ceremony of the Max-Planck medal of the German Physical Society, see the website of the Max Planck Gesellschaft or Landesmuseum für Technik und Arbeit in Mannheim. If there is a copyright owner my best guess would be that it is the German Physical Society. It may be worthwhile to check that with them. JdH 15:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Good find! Can you ask the Guys at the "Landesmuseum für Technik und Arbeit" in Mannheim to clarify the copyright status? They offer a large version for download, but only say "abdruck honorarfrei", meaning you don't have to pay. That doesn't mean it was PD. Lupo 13:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- I have in the mean time dropped them an email; wait and see. btw, I think that this shows that the claim on [10] is spurious; it doesn't look convincing at all since they can't even get the date and occasion right. The original uploader Thomas7 mentioned as "Source: Ullstein-Verlag". (i.e "Source", not "Copyright"); it would be interesting to hear from him where that came from, I can't find any confirmation of that on the internet. What it may mean is that he scanned it in from some book or something, as may have the person of that other website. Somewhere it was mentioned that the picture was published in "Raffiniert ist der Herrgott ..." by Abraham Pais (ISBN: 3827405297) ('Subtle is the Lord'). If somebody has access to that book, I would appreciate if he/she could look up what it says about copyright status. No matter what, the fact that the picture may have been published someplace else in no way means that it makes that publisher copyright holder. JdH 17:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- I wrote not only to the Landesmuseum für Technik und Arbeit in Mannheim, but also to the Deutsche Physikalische Gesellschaft. It has been a while, but up to now neither responded to my emails. JdH 12:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- I'll delete this tomorrow if noone objects. / Fred Chess 19:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
- Looking at the source page, it says "Abdruck honorarfrei, Belegexemplar erbeten an: Landesmuseum für Technik und Arbeit in Mannheim" ([11]). What does this mean? / Fred Chess 12:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
- "Abdruck honorarfrei, Belegexemplar erbeten an: Landesmuseum ...." means something like: "Print free of charge, specimen copy requested to: Landesmuseum ...." JdH 22:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
My small comments on various aspects:
- "Abdruck honorarfrei, Belegexemplar erbeten an [...]" is sadly nothing substantial. In practice it can mean anything from CC-BY-ND up to CC-BY. "Belegexemplar erbeten [...]" however doesn't necessarily man that you need to send a copy of your publication to them they it is just a strong wish written in a formal way. The target group of that standard sentence are mainly traditional book and newspaper authors/publishers that do not need any further info for their purpose.
- Thomas7 was a troll on de.wikipedia that did not care about copyright intentionally in order to harm us and I wouldn't be surprised if that Ullstein thing is something he did write intentionally in order to place an evil easter egg in our back; there was quite some time ago a legal problem with Ullstein Verlag that owns the copyright on all Hitler pictures done by a German called Walter Frentz (you can detect these copyvios by a rule of thumb that all color pictures of Hitler are done by Walter Frentz).
So as far as I see it: Delete that picture (and others from that source if they exist) for now and I hope that we will get in some weeks a positive answer. If so please forward the email answer along side your initial enquiry to permissions@wikimedia@org and if we have luck with their answer we will happily reupload that picture (and perhapes more) then. Arnomane 20:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
For me...Keep, we should mantain the picture unless we aren't sure that his author's death hadn't been more than 70 years ago. --Gaetanogambilonghi 11:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep If DPG is indeed copyright holder, as I think it is, then what applies is "70 years after first publication", which clearly is the case here. Furthermore, the Ullstein Verlag problem no longer applies; Thomas7 marked it that way when he first uploaded it. However, I have in the mean time uploaded the version from the Landesmuseum für Technik und Arbeit in Mannheim, so whereever Thomas7 got it from no longer applies; we are now dealing with the Landesmuseum in Mannheim instead. From the caption there it appears that it comes from the Brüche-Nachlass; they don't mention anything about Ullstein Verlag or any other Verlag for that matter; I take it Mr Brüche had an original print of it. As said, I asked them about copyright status, but they did not respond. If you think it is useful to I could write them a second email saying 'unless you object we'll assume it is PD", but I'll rather have that done by someone who is a native speaker of German. JdH 20:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Whether "somebody" knows is irrelevant; the author himself has to disclose his identity, see EU rules, Article 1, §§ 3 & 4 JdH 06:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- That is not really a contradiction. It is sufficient that he has disclosed his identity to "somebody". Since the photograph has shot this picture in public, clearly, he has already inherently disclosed his identity. Whether somebody still remembers who he was is irrelevant. Let's have 100 years, then we can reasonably assume it's free. --Rtc 13:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Not so; see Article 1, § 4 ... the natural persons who have created the work as such are identified as such in the versions of the work which are made available to the public. JdH 07:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Corbis/Bettman does indeed claim the copyright on it (search for "Max Planck Albert Einstein" on corbis.com and it will come up). I think the absence of really compelling evidence that the photo is in the public domain then it should not be at commons. Commons stuff should be air-tight free content. We have no evidence that DPG is the copyright holder; it may just as likely have been a press photographer. "Unless you object" is not a way to solicit rights releases, either (and is not at all legally binding). The higher cause of Commons is to have free content, not to have pretty or historically important pictures. Free comes first, content comes second. --Fastfission 00:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- Compare that to http://photos.aip.org/images/catalog/einstein_albert_c29.jsp First of all, the occasion mentioned on the AIP site corresponds to what is mentioned in the website of the Landesmuseum, and not with what Corbis claims it to be. Secondly, the link Using Einstein's Image leads to the blanket statement "Einstein bequeathed his estate--which includes rights to the use of his image, or celebrity rights...". It looks like that there were several copies of the original picture around; one those ended up in the Einstein archives, and another one in the estate of Ernst Brüche. I just wonder what that really means for copyright, and whether Corbis can really claim sole copyrights on the basis of that Einstein bequest. The question still remains who really took the picture, and to my mind that question remains unresolved. Afterall, AFAIK copyright belongs to whoever took the picture (or the organization for which he worked), and not to the person who is actually in the picture. JdH 22:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- The Einstein's image thing is separate and does not come into play here (celebrity rights fall under trademark law, not copyrights on photos -- it has to do with being able to sell things with Einstein as your brand name more than anything else). The question is whether or not we have a very good reason to doubt Corbis's copyright claim. They do sometimes claim things which they do not own the copyright to, but I think we should have to have a VERY good reason to push the envelope there. Commons is supposed to be a place where people can reliably find free content, and it defeats the point if we put up things with ambiguous copyrights. If we don't know the authorship then we can't determine the copyright and we have no good reason to assume it is in the public domain. --Fastfission 17:57, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted. Removed from 18 articles in 13 projects. / Fred Chess 22:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
March 12
[edit]The Image shows Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, not Fourier. --RobertLechner 23:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, same as Image:Hw-proudhon.jpg. The correct is yet at Charles Fourier Sanbec ✉ 12:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
REASON copyright issue JdH 11:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted / Fred Chess 11:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
copyright issue JdH 14:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted / Fred Chess 11:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
This is a cropped version of Image:P7032101 small2.jpg (with a little extra thrown in). It's unused, and I don't expect it could be useful. User:dbenbenn 22:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
- It's part of a series on "examples". Don't know what is the Commons' policy on "unused" - that I use it, does not matter? —Annie IP 23:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
- See User talk:Huitzlipochtli III.#On Deletion Requests on this. —Annie IP 04:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted / Fred Chess 11:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
A short poem, in PDF format. not used, and probably not usable. Also, I think the copyright is questionable. The author of the poem merely gave permission "to publish in www as PDF", not to sell the poem or modify it. User:dbenbenn 23:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
- It's not found by the tool on User:Huitzlipochtli III./Annie IP's 1st#Gallery
- ACK, that on Copyright, you're true. —Annie IP 04:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted / Fred Chess 11:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
According to user:Dbenbenn: "This idea never got off the ground. I see no reason to keep this page around. User:dbenbenn 00:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)" Moving it to deletion request. Fred Chess 13:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
- I just tagged this {{Historical}}.
This is not the official flag of Bouvet Island, but the Norwegian flag is. This one is just a fantasy flag. See Flags of the World. mali 16:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. We've got inofficial flags of a number of other regions, for example some of the United States Minor Outlying Islands. —Nightstallion (?) 18:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. We have local unofficial flags of other places, however, we should note that the Norwegian flag is used officialy. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 04:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Duplicated material. Higher-resolution version of the same thing already exists at Image:Test des airbags de Mars Pathfinder.jpg. --Schuminweb 01:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 11:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Claimed to be copyvio of http://www.letterkennyselfcatering.ie/ ; possibly the webpage is of the uploader's? Fred Chess 12:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 11:28, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
March 13
[edit]This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
nice picture, but when the author is unknown, you can not say that he is more than 70 years dead. In the case the author is unknown the picture has to be older than 100 years. this is not the case, it is stated that the picture is around 1913. --BLueFiSH ?! 00:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually, no. Acccording to EU rules, if the author is really unknown then copyright expires 70 years after first publication, and not 70 years after the unknown author passed away. JdH 21:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
- yes, that is right. I just looked in the book "Berlins unbekannte Kulturdenkmäler" and there is to read, that the construction time was 12 years and that it was completed 1913. --BLueFiSH ✉ 02:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- Kept, per JdH / Fred Chess 11:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No evidence the author, who is psuedonymous, has released his work under GFDL - I haven't seen any proof that he has released it into the PD either. Both Canadian and US law protect the copyright of pseudonymous authors. pfctdayelise (translate?) 11:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
- Would be great if you read the articles before. In the article at the en:wiki you will find links to extern sites were the fre usability is described. First READ - then try to delete! Dolcett is an annymous to the net but gave interviews to reporters. Or don't you trust the press? Strange request, it's not OK! Kenwilliams 12:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
- I did read the article, and look at the links given, as much fun as that was. I couldn't find anything saying the author released his work under GFDL or into the public domain. (They're not the same thing, BTW.) Can you just provide a direct link or quote, please? pfctdayelise (translate?) 13:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
- Kenwilliams, Du kannst auch in Deutsch schreiben, wir werden es schon verstehen. /Fred Chess 22:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- I did read the article, and look at the links given, as much fun as that was. I couldn't find anything saying the author released his work under GFDL or into the public domain. (They're not the same thing, BTW.) Can you just provide a direct link or quote, please? pfctdayelise (translate?) 13:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted. After reading [12] it is clear that Dolcett's work is not licensed under GPL. Thuresson 13:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Accidently uploaded it under a wrong name. Reuploaded with correct name. --|EPO| 13:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted / Fred Chess 21:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
from nl.wikipedia, unknown, not PD --Shizhao 06:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, of course. nl:Afbeelding:Leefgebied_fennek.JPG says it was derived from nl:Afbeelding:Afbeelding (kaart).JPG, which is PD. Both uploaded to nl by the same user. You may safely assume that all such derived maps are under a free license. Jürgen probably just forgot to license his derivations explicitly. These are the standard blank maps used on many Wikipedias... Lupo 20:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Kept / Fred Chess 22:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
copyvio images
[edit]Image:Acanthaster planci.jpg Image:Solaster stimpsoni.jpg Image:Asterias vulgaris.jpg Image:Gorgonocephalus caryi.jpg
may copyvio --Shizhao 06:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
- Please notify uploader when requesting deletion. Thuresson 13:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
- As for now site is temporary closed until April 30. It contains copyrights notice for composition (Составление). I sent e-mail on mentioned contact address with request for clarification on copyrights status. --EugeneZelenko 14:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
- I received reply from creator of this site. He told that first and last images were taken from Encarta Ecyclopedia 2000. 2 and 3 - from enature.com. So this is copyvio.
From: "Алексей Михайлов" <livingthings at yandex dot ru> Mailed-By: yandex.ru Reply-To: livingthings at yandex dot ru To: eugene dot zelenko at gmail dot com Date: Apr 13, 2006 12:49 PM Subject: Re: Авторские права на изрбражения Приветствую вас! Первый и последний снимок взяты из Encarta Ecyclopedia 2000, остальные - с сайта enature.com. На выходных поищу авторов в энциклопедии. На сайте же фотографии легко находятся в поиске. С уважением, Алексей Михайлов
- Thanks Eugene for your efforts. They are now Deleted / Fred Chess 10:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
March 14
[edit]1972 publish, fair use --Shizhao 08:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- Kept per Duesentrieb / Fred Chess 09:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
as well as Image:Geloebnis.jpg, Image:Einkleidung-AGA.jpg, Image:Fahnenjunker-AGA.jpg. Files are protected by German copyright law. Files released by the German Bundeswehr (=armed forces) are not in the public domain like e.g. files of the military of the US. See also the discussion on the German WP --King 13:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- All deleted / Fred Chess 09:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Uploaded by a user who labeled it as CC-SA. Upon further contact with user to confirm that the copyright holder had licensed it as CC-SA, uploader explained that he had simply asked the professor for a photo, but had not confirmed anything about its licensing requirements or whether it can be put on Commons. Uploader has instructed others to e-mail the professor himself to get such information; I think we and the professor have better things to do than follow up on his lack of incentive. User has been informed that failure to confirm the licensing situation will result in deletion. See w:User_talk:Licorne#Image:Winterberg.jpg for the exchange. --Fastfission 00:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- Onus is on uploader to show the image is freely licensed - not us or anyone else.
- If he asserts he owns the rights there's no reason to suspect otherwise. There are all sorts of arrangements that result in the subject and not the photographer owning the copyright (work for hire, informal or formal). --Fastfission 16:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC) --Fastfission 16:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Winterberg claims (translated from German): "Concerning the picture, I can assure you that it is my property, because it was taken with my camera in front of my office at the University of Nevada", i.e. it was a situation where he passed the camera to someone else, who took a snap. I find it very hard to belive that in such a setting the person who actually presses the button owns the copyright. Otherwise, a lot of holiday pictures will be online illegally... --Stephan Schulz 10:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Whether you believe it or not: If someone else takes a snapshot with your camera, you don't own the copyright to this picture. Same for recording equipment etc. I doubt that Mr. Winterberg is an expert in copyright law.
- You could argue, of course, that by handing the camera to a stranger to make a snapshot of you, you created an unspoken contract that gives you the exclusive rights to the picture. But that is mere speculation. I'm not a lawyer, and only a lawyer could answer this. In this case, however, I think copyright laws are pretty clear about who is the creator and who is not. --Fb78 15:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Disagree.
- The person who decides what to photo, and where, "creates" the photo. The person who holds the camera is just pressing a button, mechanically. Fred Chess 15:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- you don't really think that that person that actually pressed the button to take the picture for him, comes and claimes the copyright? This deletion request is quite absurd. Anyways if you ask someone to take a picture for you he does exactly that, he "takes a picture for you" and thus releases his rights. -- Gorgo 21:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- Winterberg claims (translated from German): "Concerning the picture, I can assure you that it is my property, because it was taken with my camera in front of my office at the University of Nevada", i.e. it was a situation where he passed the camera to someone else, who took a snap. I find it very hard to belive that in such a setting the person who actually presses the button owns the copyright. Otherwise, a lot of holiday pictures will be online illegally... --Stephan Schulz 10:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- If he asserts he owns the rights there's no reason to suspect otherwise. There are all sorts of arrangements that result in the subject and not the photographer owning the copyright (work for hire, informal or formal). --Fastfission 16:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC) --Fastfission 16:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Keep - We should let the Kirche im Dorf. How can the person who presses the button make a proof that it is the copyright owner? --Historiograf 16:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Kept - majority thinks it's ok, and no proof of the opposite. / Fred Chess 14:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Has a deletion request on the image description page, but it that it hasn't been listed here: "unless someone proves that this image is really free; I don't think Getty Images would allow this. --Head 15:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)" --Baikonur 02:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- Will be Deleted (after a brief quaranteen period). I personally don't know what Getty is, but since no-one has opposed I'll delete it now. / Fred Chess 14:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Alles copyvio und das gleiche. Siehe Copyright 2006 SPG Media Limited. All rights reserved. http://www.army-technology.com/terms.html --Sonaz 00:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted / Fred Chess 13:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Screenshot, fair use --Shizhao 03:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted, a photo of a poster. Please note I have to trust you, Shizhao, because I can't read the description page myself. / Fred Chess 12:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
redundant to Image:Peoples Liberation Army Flag of the Peoples Republic of China.svg--Shizhao 08:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- As the uploader of the image being slated for deletion, I give my consent for it to be deleted. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 23:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Kept - image is still in use on Wikipedia projects. I think we agreed, for now, not to delete png flags in favour of svg. / Fred Chess 12:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Flag of the People's Republic of China
[edit]Image:China flag 300.png Image:China flag large.png Image:Flag of China.png Image:Flag of the People's Republic of China.png
redundant to Image:Flag of the People's Republic of China.svg--Shizhao 08:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- Kept I think we agreed to keep different flags version on Commons. / Fred Chess 12:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
redundant to Image:China Qing Dynasty Flag 1862.png--Shizhao 08:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- Kept Per above / Fred Chess 12:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I originally uploaded the file, and I am requesting its deletion because I no longer have use for it. (Ibaranoff24 03:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC))
Attention. This image is from the "Baltų archeologija" journal Nr.1. No copyright in this journal. Free license. This image is under personal attack organised by adminstrator Dirgela and user Qwarc in Lithuanian wikipedia -lt.wikipedia.org - they ignore information about no copyright in the journal.
- deleted--Shizhao 11:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Attention. This image is from the "Baltų archeologija" journal Nr.1. No copyright in this journal. Free license. This image is under personal attack organised by adminstrator Dirgela and user Qwarc in Lithuanian wikipedia -lt.wikipedia.org - they ignore information about no copyright in the journal.
- deleted--Shizhao 11:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I uploaded and did not "use a descriptive and concise filename". Reuploaded as Image:lama glama kwh.jpg Kwh 05:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC) Same reason for second, reuploaded as Image:Ceratotherium simum kwh 2.jpg Kwh 05:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Deleted, these can be speedy deleted by tagging them: {{db|bad name, now at [[:Image:Bettername.jpg]] ~~~~}}. pfctdayelise (translate?) 06:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Why is this still here? JdH 08:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- Because there is no link to the replacement file, and you didn't mark it for speedy deletion? pfctdayelise (translate?) 01:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- OK, the replacement file is here Image:Hendrik_Kramers.jpg JdH 07:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Deleted pfctdayelise (translate?) 09:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Image is broken.
- Alternate image exists as Image:Language travel from India.png (Both are created by me). --Miljoshi 10:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Deleted, these can be speedy deleted by tagging them: {{db|Error in file (image doesn't display)}}. pfctdayelise (translate?) 06:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
China Qing Dynasty Flag
[edit]Image:China Qing Dynasty Flag 1889.png Image:Longqi.jpg
redundant to Image:China Qing Dynasty Flag 1889.svg--Shizhao 08:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted they looked exactly the same to me. If you didn't agree, you should have spoken. / Fred Chess 08:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
March 15
[edit]March 15
[edit]All files in Category:Photographs by Agencia Camara from Brazil
[edit]In Template:AgenciaCamaraBr, The Chamber allows it to be used for any purpose if the source of the picture, but, the text in portuguese avaiable in all pages (like this and this) said Reprodução autorizada mediante citação da TV Câmara. Reprodução is reproduction. Nothing about derivations and comercial usage. 555 18:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep: "Reprodução" means the image can be copyed and it can be used freely. There is not a significative diference between this license and the license from Agencia Brasil. --Carlosar 05:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- See Commons:Licensing, derivative works and commercial use must be allowed, reproduction only does not allow modifications. --Denniss 18:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- What does Reprodução autorizada mediante citação da TV Câmara mean? / Fred Chess 13:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- Suggest
- But what about derivative works? We need that too. pfctdayelise (translate?) 11:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
- Why would derivatory works not be allowed? / Fred Chess 12:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- Why would they be allowed if it is not explicitly stated? pfctdayelise (translate?) 13:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- Because people don't explicively state this unless to say it isn't allowed. / Fred Chess 13:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- Are we now voting against the licensing guidelines? cc-by explicitely states that they may be freely used and modified. That's not the case here. If you want to keep the images, prove you are right by getting the rights owner to send you Common Misconception. That should be easy if you are right, no? --Rtc 21:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- The word is ambiguous. It might mean modification, it might not mean it. At #Lots of pictures somebody wrote he sent an inquiry for clarification. Only that can prove you are right. --Rtc 19:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
kept--Shizhao 13:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)Reopening - not yet resolved. pfctdayelise (translate?) 06:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Manuel. Raul654 17:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- kept --Shizhao 12:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Works of art of Alfons Mucha
[edit]Painter died in 1939, so the works will become PD on 1 January 2010. --AndreasPraefcke 13:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Is it possible that some countries adopted 70 year limit after the year 1989 (50 years after Mucha's death), so his work is PD after all? --romanm (talk) 16:44, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
- At least in Germany, the 70 pma rule is retroactive, so it does not matter when it was adopted. I expect it's the same in most EU countries: retroactive at least for works still under copyright at the time of adoption, maybe even for everything. Things are different (and even more complicated) in the US. -- Duesentrieb(?!) 17:24, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, in any case we should have a look at what Czech law sais - everything else is idle talk, I guess. If it's not PD by their law, it has to be deleted. If it is PD by their law, things get complicated... -- Duesentrieb(?!) 17:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
- The case is difficult anyway. Which law has to be applied? Is it the law of the location, where he created these works? He worked in Czechoslovakia, Germany, France, and the USA. Is it the law of the state, he was citizen of, when he created these works? I suppose, he was citizen of the Austrian-Hungarian empire and of Czechoslovakia, at least. Is it really the law of todays Czech Republic, that has to be applied to works created in Paris or Munich by a citizen of the Austrian-Hungarian empire? Is it the law of the location, where copies of the works are intended to be used? Commons images can be used everywhere. Is it the law of the location, where the originals are deposited? Difficult to talk about originals of advertisment posters. As far as can be said from the text on the posters, most of them where created in France. And Alfons Mucha was in Paris between 1889 and 1904, at a time when Czechoslovakia was not yet existing. So, maybe French law is the most relevant. --Franz Xaver 20:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
- OK. I'll delete them according to the 70 pma.
- Fred Chess 09:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- Done Ok I'm finally finished. They were used everywhere but I orphaned them.... / Fred Chess 19:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
no proof for license --Crux 17:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- 100% not GNU /81.226.181.227 18:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC) (User:Grillo)
- Deleted - no license / Fred Chess 18:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
REASON superseded by "Image:Tower, Great Zimbabwe1.jpg"--JackyR 22:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- ARGUMENTS hair on scan (sorry didn't notice sooner)--JackyR 22:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- You could have just re-uploaded on to the old one. -- WB 23:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- You know the second one has a black line on the left... are you sure you want to keep that one? pfctdayelise (translate?) 06:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Someone could probably do one of those panorama stitching to preserve each image's good portions. I can't though. -- WB 10:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Easier to just crop the black line off the edge. User:dbenbenn 14:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Someone could probably do one of those panorama stitching to preserve each image's good portions. I can't though. -- WB 10:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. Ah, didn't understand I could re-upload (in fact, think I couldn't as was then newbie). Plan to manipulate newer pic to remove black line... Sorry to have bothered you folks. JackyR 18:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted as requested / Fred Chess 13:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Painter died in 1964 only. Created pre-1923 does not equal published pre-1923. See en:WP:PD#Artworks. Lupo 16:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted, as per the 70 pma date / Fred Chess 11:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Painter died in 1964 only. Created pre-1923 does not equal published pre-1923. See en:WP:PD#Artworks. (Note: if both are deleted, Creator:Anita Malfatti is an orphan, and Category:Anita Malfatti is empty. Lupo 16:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted as per above. / Fred Chess 11:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Image was uploaded February 24 2006 and is a double of Image:Karte_Smartno_ob_Paki_si.png (uploaded July 2005). The name Smartno is not the official name and confusing (there exist more places called Smartno). Furthermore there is no need for double entries for identical images. Besednjak 13:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted / Fred Chess 11:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
All images uploaded before 3/3/2006 09:15 look like TV captures. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 02:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Dammit, dammit, dammit. I just confirmed one copyvio: Image:Martin Koch Torino 2006.jpg / [13]. This is not just a copyright misunderstanding, this is deliberate, misleading fraud. Gah. pfctdayelise (translate?) 03:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Index of Getty Images' photo galleries here: http://www.torino2006.org/ENG/OlympicGames/gare_e_programma/fotogallery.html pfctdayelise (translate?) 03:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Compare to SportsPhotographer's uploads. Looks bad... -- Duesentrieb(?!) 11:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- I think it's interesting that Image:Martin Koch Torino 2006.jpg is actually larger than the version at [14]. It is within the realm of possibility that SportsPhotographer sold his photo to Getty. I guess one way he could prove he really took that photo is if he uploaded a much higher resolution version of it. User:dbenbenn 12:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Seriously, which sport photographer would release his works in the public domain? Taking photos is a sport photographer's way of living, making the images PD makes no sense. These are obvious copyvios. /Grillo 12:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- D'accord. And the unprofessional way in which user 'explained' his position on his page doesn't speak for him either. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 09:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Seriously, which sport photographer would release his works in the public domain? Taking photos is a sport photographer's way of living, making the images PD makes no sense. These are obvious copyvios. /Grillo 12:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
If someone is in any doubt they should take a look at the picture of Lars Bystøl Image:Lars Bystøl Torino 2006.jpg. The metadata says: Author is Clive Mason and Copyright holder is 2006 Getty Images. Haros 08:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Incidentally, I would like to inform you all that the Olympic website cannot be fully trusted for copyright information. A known user of Italian Wikipedia and photographer, Utente:Fotogian, saw one of his own pictures on their website with "© Getty Images". He had uploaded that same picture some time before in Italian Wikipedia under GFDL licence, and very likely the people at torino2006.org took it from there (they can do it of course - provided they respect the licence). He wrote them a protesting email, claiming his rights as author, and they changed the attribution of the picture: here. But still they make no mention of the GFDL licence the photo is distributed under. So just watch out! They might have taken illicit "© Getty Images" credit for other photos as well. Ary29 10:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC) PS: that Fotogian's photo is uploaded here as Image:Itwiki_Oval_Lingotto.jpg
With the help of the CheckUsage tool I have now removed the usage of all of SportsPhotographer's images, and they can now be deleted. Stianbh 14:35, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you so much!
- Now, is there any way to mass delete one person's contribs?!
- I've deleted 50 images, others, please jump in. pfctdayelise (translate?) 13:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Well that was fun... not. Now all deleted. pfctdayelise (translate?) 11:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Author used Google Maps as a primary source (see en:User talk:Ed g2s#Jordanhill). The data from these maps is copyrighted [15]. ed g2s • talk 15:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- I looked at maps of the area from several sources and only showed the main information such as main roads and suburbs. Its ridiculous that a map company thinks that they can copyright a city Astrokey44 23:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Google Maps isn't the only fish in the sea. Check out http://opensourcegis.org/ . pfctdayelise (translate?) 00:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- (In particular NASA World Wind I'm sure I've heard mentioned on WP before. pfctdayelise (translate?) 00:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC))
- I fail to see how using Google Maps and other copyrighted maps as sources for drawing your own map, is any different from using Encyclopedia Britannica as a source for writing a Wikipedia article. You can't copyright facts. It appears that OpenStreetMap.org is overly paranoid about this issue. For example, Ed g2s, did you realise that OSM won't accept your London Underground geographic maps, since they "have reason to believe that Google Maps was also involved in the collection of the data" [16]? Should your Underground maps therefore be deleted? Nonsense. Keep. User:dbenbenn 03:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- I have been contacted by the OSM people about those maps, and I informed them that my data was indeed taken from LandSat maps. ed g2s • talk 02:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Are we all talking about the same thing? To what extent is this image based on Google Maps? Like a screenshot? (No...) Or like you have Google Maps in one window and you're drawing your map by hand in another? If it's the latter, then
- The author used this map from Google. Compare that to Image:Jordanhill station, Glasgow, location map.PNG. User:dbenbenn 07:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Also compare multimap a different map company which uses exactly the same data in their map. There are probably other companies that make street directories for Glasgow with the same data too Astrokey44 08:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- The map companies have a copyright on their data, and any derivative works of that (see w:Database rights). There have been court cases (recently one between A to Z and the AA) where one company has sued (succesfully) the other for the other using their maps as source data. It may seem absurd, but companies do have a copyright on geographical data they collect, and this has been affirmed in the courts. ed g2s • talk 02:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- I think the case your refering to is this [17] one where they looked at fine details of a tiny culdesac to prove that the map was copied - this is really saying that the design is copyright, or that any creative extra bits of data map companies choose to add to their map is copyright. This would not be the case here as it is only looking at the main streets - if you compare other maps like mapquest, streetmap msn mappoint and the link to the multimap above, not to mention all the companies who make street maps of glasgow, the main streets at least are roughly the same. I also looked at World Wind and the data which is actually in the public domain from NASA is not far off showing the main streets: Image:Glasgow NASA satellite.png Astrokey44 07:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- The author used this map from Google. Compare that to Image:Jordanhill station, Glasgow, location map.PNG. User:dbenbenn 07:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- keep It is WRONG that there is a data protection (this applies world wide). Facts are free from copyright. In the EU there is a database protection but you can use protected databases freely if you are cautiou
March 16
[edit]Long time troubled user who uploaded many files without providing info, then uploading files using {{self2|GFDL cc-by-sa-2.5,2.0,1.0}}, but was found in lying about authorship (Image:Puertadelaluna.png, Image:Bolivianita1.PNG, Image:Territoriosdebolivia.png). --EugeneZelenko 15:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- This user ignores many warnings we give them, never responds to them or on talk pages, and actively lies about copyright to try and get around our rules. What are they contributing to the Commons? Only extra work for everyone who has to clean up their mess. I think they should be banned for a long time. pfctdayelise (translate?) 01:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- I think ban (may be permanent) is good idea. --EugeneZelenko 16:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Also see Image:Palaciodegobierno.png, Image:Porongosantacruz1.PNG and Image:Nevadospayachatas.PNG. Blocked in es wiki 2 times, first because copyrighted text in articles. There he never responds, only undestand when blocked. I think all contributions should be deleted. Sorry for my english. --Edub 09:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I blocked this user indefinitely (i.e. permanent). Some help removing his images would be good, especially if you speak Spanish -- pfctdayelise (translate?) 07:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
March 17
[edit]It's not CC-BY-SA but CC-NC-SA: This site is goverened by a "Noncommercial, Share Alike" Creative Commons license. ([18]) Maybe it changed since this photo was uploaded, I don't know... --pfctdayelise (translate?) 02:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete On web site it clearly says that it is restricted to noncommercial rather than CC-BY-SA. 70.35.189.50 01:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Lovely. 82.42.225.31 09:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- Note, the lower-right corner of the main page says cc-by-sa-2.0. It isn't clear which license is supposed to apply. User:dbenbenn 14:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I believe if the picture is removed it should be replaced with an equal picture. This picture shows what is normal hair growth for the human female. It is an important picture and should either be kept or replaced but not removed permanently.
- I agree too, but we're only talking about the copyright status here. Hm. it is weird that the website has both. pfctdayelise (translate?) 03:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Kept, multilicensing means you can choose which one to use :) pfctdayelise (translate?) 07:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
A very crude cut & paste job with the face of an unknown standing next to Fidel Castro. Vandalism, uploaded today and already used in nine Wikipedias. Could this be speedy deleted? Thuresson 09:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Wow, it's already in six different wp articles. Articles. I reckon clear vandalism and intent to mislead -> speedy. Who would complain? The vandal? pfctdayelise (translate?) 12:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- As above. /Grillo 19:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Deleted, pfctdayelise (translate?) 07:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Incorrectly named by myself being careless, reuploaded with correct name --Varco 17:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Incorrect species. Image was reuploaded by me as Image:Tortula_muralis1.jpg. --Mbc 18:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted. --EugeneZelenko 16:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
This image is tagged as a work of the US military. The source given is "from:www.af.mil/photos/", but I've been unable to find the image there under "Tornado" or "Luftwaffe" as a keyword. It is, however, identical to [19], a clearly copyrighted image with a named author in Germany. Someone emailed the Foundation to complain about this, so thought I'd better flag it up for the copyvio process here...
(I'm not registered on Commons; I'm over here from en.wiki, so probably best to leave a message here if you need to contact me. Apologies if I got anything wrong in marking this for deletion) --Shimgray 22:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Clear copyvio, please speedy. I checked the other two images uploaded by this user and they are copyvios as well. --Denniss 00:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. Grr! pfctdayelise (translate?) 01:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
(If anyone knows what language this user speaks, please translate my message in English at User talk:Anderson. Thanks --pfctdayelise (translate?) 01:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC))
The term of 70 years that Spanish law marks hasn't expired yet. Anna 04:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Suggest Keep - English description page says "Free use granted via letter from the the Hispanic Society to Primetime." [20] / Fred Chess 07:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. I have asked en:User:Primetime to see the letter; he/she replied that the letter was lost (en:Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images#April 10). Thuresson 00:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted , lack of source/license / Fred Chess 18:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Reason: image is an exact copy of the image on http://www.banrep.gov.co/museo/esp/o_muisca.htm, which claims incompatible copyright.
- Deleted -- orphaned from Spanish article, and put a notice on the image on EN wiki with same name - Fred Chess 17:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
This image contains an ESA logo and is also featured on the Cluster homepage, therefore I presume that the image has been created by ESA and not by NASA. --Phrood 15:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted - not free / Fred Chess 18:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
March 18
[edit]Delete. Is doubled entry. Uploaded February 2006. Is identical to older upload from summer 2005: Image:Karte_Preddvor_si.png. Besednjak 13:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
The same applies to following images: Image:Obcine polzela.png Image:Obcine podvelka.png Image:Obcine zirovnica.png Image:Obcine vitanje.png Image:Obcine videm.png Image:Obcine verzej.png Image:Obcine velika polana.png Image:Obcine turnisce.png Image:Obcine trnovska vas.png Image:Obcine trebnje.png Image:Obcine tabor.png Image:Obcine sveti andraz.png Image:Obcine smarje.png Image:Obcine sv ana.png Image:Obcine starse.png Image:Obcine solcava.png Image:Obcine sentjur.png Image:Obcine sempeter.png Image:Obcine selnica.png Image:Obcine salovci.png Image:Obcine sentjernej.png Image:Obcine semic.png Image:Obcine hoce.png Image:Obcine horjul.png Image:Obcine krizevci.png Image:Obcine cerklje.png Image:Obcine benedikt.png Image:Obcine hodos.png Image:Obcine ig.png Image:Obcine ilirska bistrica.png Image:Obcine ivancna gorica.png Image:Obcine sostanj.png Image:Obcine zalec.png Image:Obcine dornava.png Image:Obcine osilnica.png Image:Obcine gorisnica.png Image:Obcine podcetrtek.png Image:Obcine mozirje.png Image:Obcine lovrenc.png Image:Obcine menges.png Image:Obcine luce.png Image:Obcine markovci.png Image:Obcine ljubno.png Image:Obcine radenci.png Image:Obcine hrpelje.png Image:Obcine lasko.png Image:Obcine medvode.png Image:Obcine mirna pec.png Image:Obcine ziri.png Image:Obcine vojnik.png Image:Obcine logatec.png Image:Obcine kungota.png Image:Obcine velike lasce.png Image:Obcine trzin.png and wrongly uploaded Image:Karte Kungota so.png
I hope you have an idea about who this should do. Besednjak 17:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)probably you don't.- I have cleaned up the mess. All uploaded images were re-uploaded under the original name, all images above can now be deleted. Besednjak 11:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- All deleted . To however upload files from local Wikipedias, please make use of the {{NowCommons}} template to avoid this. (I now added the tag to all the original maps on Slovenian Wikipedia) / Fred Chess 08:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
This image was originally uploaded to en.wikipedia as a PD image, but that was disputed and its status has been changed to 'fair use' (see [21])--JeremyA 17:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted / Fred Chess 13:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
The photographer seems not to have been informed about the use of a free lisence. In an e-mail posted at no:Bilde:Skien fengsel 800.jpg, the company that provided the image was pointed to no:Mal:Statoilbilde, which is a restrictive lisence allowing use only on Wikipedia and requesting that an e-mail is sent to the owner of the image whenever a photo is used there. The company is asked only to specify if they'll allow use of their photos in the Norwegian WP or in any other WP; there is no mention of third party use. If anyone wants a translation of the e-mail, let me know. Cnyborg 20:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 16:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Misspelled name when creating a new category. JeremyA 18:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted. Please use {{db|reason}} for such purposes in future. --EugeneZelenko 16:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
I originally uploaded the file, and I am requesting its deletion because there is a wrong artist name in the title. The new file is Image:Alvan Fischer The Great Horseshoe Fall Niagara.jpg.--Rlbberlin 18:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted. --EugeneZelenko 16:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
March 19
[edit]Duplicates of en:Paramount Pictures created by a user banned from en:. Chock-full of copyvio images to boot. DopefishJustin 00:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Wow. Also AT&T, Procter & Gamble, Universal Studios and Pixar. --Conti|✉ 01:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- ...and Pathé, and basically everything in User:Logoboy95's edit history.... DopefishJustin 01:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah. This user got a permaban in en.wp. I also propose a long ban, maybe permanent, for this user here. Again all they are doing is creating work for us, they're not adding anything useful at all. Again, deliberate fraud or deliberate breaking of the rules. pfctdayelise (translate?) 01:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- I just banned this user for ignoring his talk page and reverting deletion tags. Strongly suggest permanent ban! pfctdayelise (translate?) 02:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- I deleted all the logos, and encyclopedia articles copied from EN. User:dbenbenn 05:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
March 20
[edit]Duplicate with better quality image:Visaginas COA.gif and image:Silute COA.gif. The later titles is also consistent with other coat of arms in its category. Renata3 01:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Visaginas
[edit]- If somebody says this new version
is "better" than this one
- I can not agree.
Additionally, this new "better" version is GIF 50 kB (old one is PNG 2.5kB).
If somebody wants to use left one - OK, but I prefer to use this right one. So don't delete the old version and keep it. - Julo 18:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
REASON uploaded the wrong image of an image depicting a life person that I lack the rights to - SanjibLemar 23:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
I spoke to the uploader, he said he will upload the right image once his account is 4 days old. pfctdayelise (translate?) 09:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
It is not PD. Manuel Anastácio 11:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- delete. Paulo Juntas 11:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 06:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
The artist died in 2002. You must have the written authorization from the rights-owner to publish photos of her work. --Mathieu 14:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- These are sculptures in Italy. What does Italian law say about sculptures in public places? User:dbenbenn 14:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- @Mathieu: sorry, I did not notice the images where not taken in france (it said "franche sculptor", so...) - at least the images taken in Germany can probably be kept because of Panoramafreiheit. I don't know about the images from Italy and other places. -- Duesentrieb(?!) 17:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, my bad too. I didn't realized that it depends on the location where the scuplture are exposed. Must I removed the deletion request on the category page ? Mathieu 22:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- For now, let's just wait for more comments - maybe someone can clarify for Italy. When this gets clearer, it would be nice to remove the deletion request, because the category is likely to stay if at least some of the images can be kept. That's why tagging individual images is better ;) -- Duesentrieb(?!) 22:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- keep Panoramafreiheit is a general principle Wikimedia Foundation should follow. It's ridiculous to assume that a German artist cannot sue at a French court when a sculpture exposed in Germany is shown here. Again and again and again: Some photos from the Hundertwasserhaus in Vienna (Austria!) which are legal in Austria are'nt legal in Germany due of a very restrictive interpretation of the Panoramafreiheit. Country of origin without doubt: Austria. --Historiograf 15:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Huh? What does Austria have to do with these photos, which were taken in Italy? User:dbenbenn 08:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
It is not relevant where the photos are taken under legal circumstances. If I make and publish a photo of a Vienna house from first floor of a Vienna house I can get sued for a German court (decision of German Bundesgerichtshof). If there is Panoramafreiheit in Italy (reading the copyright law I haven't found any hint for Panoramafreiheit) every EU citizen can choose the country for a litigation and thus go for a French court (and French courts are very very restrictive, more restrictive than our good old Teofilo here!). That's called FORUM SHOPPING. And now I am awaitung the well known our-servers-are-in-Florida-argument. --Historiograf 23:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Several of these photos are taken in a public place in Stockholm. They also show more than just the sculptures. I am not aware of any Swedish law that would make these photographs fall under the copyright of (the estate of) Niki de Saint Phalle. Celsius 14:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
@Historiograf: Don't mention any court case without... (rest see above). BTW, the word is latrine rumor --84.154.174.48 10:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- This is absolutely right, I should have given the referece. I apologize. See [22] --Historiograf 21:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- Btw, I think we should start to add info about country specific restrictions to the image description page. It doesn't hurt. / Fred Chess 11:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
This image is not potentially usable by any current or future Wikimedia project. --80.144.126.205 14:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 06:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted on en.wikipedia for POV, OR, AB. Uploader has no edits , both involved in this image. Infinity0 17:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
The image is being used to push a POV - it has been created by the uploader, and is not used anywhere else on the web. Similar diagrams on the net normally put communism where "left-wing" is, not in the current position. AB means the uploader is absent. Infinity0 20:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Redundant; replaced by Image:Heisenberg's Microscope 1.gif JdH 22:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted. You could use {{Redundant}} for such purposes in future. --EugeneZelenko 15:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
March 22
[edit]Copyright violation. This is a official image of McLaren copyrighted.--Morio 01:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 07:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
copyvio. from[23]--Shizhao 11:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 07:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
copyvio. from [24]. "中國國際廣播電臺版權所有 ©1997-2006 未經協議授權 禁止下載使用"--Shizhao 11:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 12:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
23 March
[edit]Mistaken flag never used, only found at unclear sources and on propaganda artwork. --Ratatosk ✍ 00:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
March 21
[edit]Category:Electric locomotive (singular) is empty and redundant to Category:Electric locomotives (plural). Thryduulf 12:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Copyright violation. Link given by uploader. Chigliak 17:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 05:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Described as "copyrighted - free use", but it's very doubtful - scanned from a new book. Uploaded by a "fresh" wikipedian, inactive since 12 March (on Polish Wiki as well). Pibwl 20:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 05:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
March 22
[edit]March 23
[edit]March 24
[edit]Possible copyvio--the source page for this image states "© 2006 R.D.V - All rights reserved." --JeremyA 04:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. The photograph was originally uploaded to w:Image:Coldstream-platform.jpg by w:User:Somebody in the WWW on December 17, 2004, who wrote "Initial version of file, taken by me, released under the GFDL." The copyright notice at [25] is irrelevant. User:dbenbenn 11:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- Kept per Dbenbenn / Fred Chess 16:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
As pretty as this Marie is, I don't see any use for her picture here. It is not in use on any Wikipedia. It seems to have been taken from http://www.marie-sann.de/ and I don't believe that User:Ganon really got permission. — Erin (talk) 10:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted /Fred Chess 17:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
This is a re-drawing of a copyrighted character from an American television show, a copyrighted character who is also no doubt trademarked. I am not even sure that the uploader is claiming that he drew the thing or not. In any case, it is no more copyright-free than a re-drawing of Mickey Mouse would be, even if the uploader was the author. --Fastfission 23:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted (but reuploaded as fair use on EN wiki) / Fred Chess 17:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
- The "Debian Open Use Logo License" states "This logo or a modified version may be used by anyone to refer to the Debian project."
So that, it is quite clear these logos modified versions under Debian Open Use Logo License is freely used by anyone in condion to refer to the Debian project. -Green 06:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
This image is redundant to Image:Cypraea-tigris-001.jpg. Thanks.--Valérie75 07:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Please mark images like this for speedy deletion:
{{db|uploaded twice, other image at [[Image:Foo.jpg]]}} ~~~~
Typo in the filename - BanglaBesh. Corrected filename version exists as Image:Bangladesh War 1971 Movements.png. Thanks! --Miljoshi 11:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted. Please use {{db|Wrong name. Replaced with ...}} for such purposes in future. --EugeneZelenko 15:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
March 25
[edit]uploader en:User:TrojanSkin en wikipedia: "photographed by Layla May {{PD}}" TrojanSkin is Layla May? He didn't write pd-self. Sorry for my english --Edub 09:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- From {{No source since}}: "Source information must be provided so that the copyright status can be verified by others. Specifically, the author and source of the file are crucial" Only if you uploads an image at commons? If you upload it at en wiki or other is not necessary because you later can upload it here? --Edub 09:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you for listing the image here. (We had a short conversation about this image).
- I check Special:Contributions/TrojanSkin who has written alot about skinheads. So she should know, I think, what "PD" means. When she added "A British Skinhead, Lex, on a cutdown Vespa scooter, photographed by Layla May, in Lewes, England in 1991 or 1992." [26] I think she was not lying. Such detailed information is also something which I think suggests the uploader known the photographer. But I have no definite proof.
- I hope you understood everything in this text. If not, I hope someone can translate it into Spanish.
- Fred Chess 11:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you, I understood you. However, I think image should be delete because license is not completely clear. --Edub 13:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Tagged with {{nosource}} Will be deleted if no source is properly found. Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 17
- 39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
See [27]: "uploader is probably photographer" Why? Why GFDL? --Edub 09:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Own work also. I think user:Dbenbenn should be able to answer because he was involved when this image was nominated for deletion on English Wikipedia. /Fred Chess 11:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I wasn't really involved. More than a year ago I tagged the photo as GFDL, but since then the standards for image sources have gotten stricter. There's really no way to know whether w:User:SR fan was the photographer. The photo is non-professional, but SR fan could have just found it on the web somewhere. And SR fan's contributions don't give any information. So I don't know whether this photo should be kept or not. User:dbenbenn 22:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- Own work also. I think user:Dbenbenn should be able to answer because he was involved when this image was nominated for deletion on English Wikipedia. /Fred Chess 11:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- On the English article, a note was once added to the image thumbnail saying "Copyright Sarah Smith" [28] . I now suggest deletion of the image. / Fred Chess 00:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
- It's not a very good photo. Delete it. — Erin (talk) 12:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted for lack of source/license, and removed from four articles. / Fred Chess 17:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Claims to be PD-old, but is younger than 70 years (taken 1937). --Matt314 12:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted - not sufficient proof to assume PD. Image not used anywhere / Fred Chess 08:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Distorting the wikipedia logo in this way is not a good idea IMO. I don't see a purpose for this animation. --Elian Talk 17:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Kept -- There isn't any policy related reason to delete it. / Fred Chess 17:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
according to [29], this photo is not redistributable. not a free license. Tietew 20:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Copied from "Linder Biologie", Metzler-Verlag, 21. neu bearbeitete Auflage. ISBN 3-507-10580-2. --84.154.195.145 14:35, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted Quite trivial design, but scanning off copyrighted books can't be good... / Fred Chess 08:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Title of article misspelled. Correct spelling is John Livesy Ridgway--Cotinis 15:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted. Please use {{db|Wrong name. Replaced with ...}} for such purposes in future. --EugeneZelenko 16:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Image obsoleted by Image:portable_electrical_generator_angle.jpg
Modification of [30] with linkspam added --84.154.167.144 20:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 02:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
March 26
[edit]Image:Jinan.png et al.
[edit]The following images are of very/extremely low quality and better images illustrating the same subjects are available (listed in Shandong). According to the Check-Usage tool, the following listed images are not used in other Wikimedia projects. I request that these images be deleted. --R.O.C 02:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- Image:Jinan.png, Image:Weihai.png, Image:Yantai.png, Image:Qingdao.png, Image:Weifang.png, Image:Rizhao.png, Image:Dongying.png, Image:Binzhou.png, Image:Zibuo.png, Image:Laiwu.png, Image:Linyi.png, Image:Dezhou.png, Image:Liaocheng.png, Image:Taian.png, Image:Jining.png, Image:Heze.png, Image:Zaozhuang.png
- Image:Shandong.png: This image may look OK with its resolution, but actually the borders are drawn only approximately and lack basic details or accuracy, for example, the border lines and coast lines of Shandong (highlighted area), Korea, Taiwan, southeastern Mainland China, Viet Nam, etc, are far from accurate. Compare with Image:China-Shandong.png and Image:ChinaShandongBlank.png.
- Kept - they look very well on thumbs. No policy related reason for deletion. Also, please notify uploader next time. / Fred Chess 08:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Image:Euro symbol black.svg, Image:Euro symbol.svg and all signature in Category:European Constitution
[edit]Those images are copyrighted by EU Web Site and they are non commercial. --RED DEVIL 666 14:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, until a credible source can confirm that the euro symbol is only for noncommercial use. Thuresson 13:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
No source ?
- Deleted. --Jusjih 14:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Everything moved to Category:Devils Tower National Monument --Huebi 11:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted. Please use {{db|unused category, redundant to ...}} for such purposes in future. --Franz Xaver 17:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I had create another series of pricetable to instead this complex and not user-friendly pricetable.
And now no any page use this image. Tnds 12:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted / Fred Chess 12:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
This image comes from a BBC news webpage [31]. Whilst it says "SOURCE:NASA", I believe this applies to the information in the image and not the artwork itself, which is done in a recognisable BBC house style - certainly I glanced at the article using this image on en: and thought "why have we used a BBC graph?".
I think this is misleadingly labeled by the BBC, and we've picked it up in error. Factual information, yes, but there's creative work in that graph and I really don't think NASA made it - and the BBC having a somewhat vague way of labelling graphs doesn't waive their copyright. Pity, but...
(For examples of the ways the BBC tags graphs and so forth with information sources not authors, poke around the Google image searches for "graph" on their site) Shimgray 18:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- Hello, I had put the template "Nasa" because the pic show "Source: Nasa", I really don't know about BBC issue. My website page-source is : this BBC one. I like this pic, but I agree the deletion if it's truly a BBC work. Yug (talk) 18:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Image:Special report zh.png et al.
[edit]As per discussions (in Chinese) in Watercooler on Chinese Wikinews, the characters "報道" instead of "報導" should be used to express the meanings of "report". Also, the standard/traditional way to write character "別" should be followed. New images are prepared accordingly (Image:Wikinews breaking zh.png, Image:Wikinews original zh.png, Image:Wikinews special zh.png, and Image:Wikinews exclusive zh.png). Editors request that all old images regarding this issue be deleted. I also request that redundant images serving the same functions but not used elsewhere be deleted.
Deletion requested for:
- (requested at Chinese Water Cooler) Image:Original zh.png, Image:Special zh.png, Image:Original report zh.png, Image:Special report zh.png
- (requested by original author) Image:Wikinews-breaking-zh.png, Image:Wikinews-original-zh.png, Image:Wikinews-special-zh.png, Image:Wikinews-exclusive-zh.png
- (requested because of redundancy) Image:Breaking zht.png, Image:Breaking zh.png
--R.O.C 02:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 02:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
March 27
[edit]copyvio, paper fair use--Shizhao 06:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- 哈,哈, Mind to introduce more the rule in details? --OPERA26 06:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- *
scan paper, fair use--Shizhao 06:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- 哈,哈,哈, Who said it was scanned paper? --OPERA26 06:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- probably not scanned but photographed. Still copyvio. -- Duesentrieb(?!) 17:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- *
- So? Advertisements are generally shown in public, but you still can't reproduce them freely. Some contries have extra rules for things shown in public, but that generally only applies to permanent installations (generally, buildings, monuments, etc) -- Duesentrieb(?!) 11:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
- Both deleted
Can be found on [32], there marked as copyrighted. Marked as fair-use on en --Dbenzhuser 10:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- At least one of the photografs from [33] can be found on [34] without further copyright notice. Can we use this one or did the NSA just forget to place the informations? --Dbenzhuser 12:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted - English page says "The copyright of the photograph of Alan Turing on this page belongs to Mrs Beryl Turing." [35]." Removed from 9 pages in 8 project. / Fred Chess 08:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
- Note it is still used locally on lots of places. [36]. / Fred Chess 09:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
- was an updated version of Image:Life expectancy world map.PNG but in incorrect jpeg format - the png image has now been updated. Astrokey44 13:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted but please notify uploader next time. However, I clarified the summary of the creator information to the image. / Fred Chess 10:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Image name is wrong, this is station Marche
- It has to be reuploaded before it can be deleted. / Fred Chess 20:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
- Kept - but added question to image description page (Image talk:Metro Torino station Fermi.JPG) / Fred Chess 11:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
No proper free license. This is definitly not enough for releasing it under GFDL. --Avatar 13:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
- I think it is enough for the GFDL. Please have a look to Image_talk:Hm06_logo_de_col.png, where the authorisation of the Hannover Messe AG is published in the german language. --Markus Schweiss 18:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
After a negotiation with the responsible employee of Hannover-Messe AG by phone the logo should be deleted. --Markus Schweiss 14:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted - and removed from Dutch Wikipedia / Fred Chess 11:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Copyright unsure: SXC user did not specify any, so SXC "Image license" should be assumed (see: COM:SXC). Better image exists with license exlplicitly given by photographer: Image:Bohol-Chocolate Hills.jpg. A.J. 16:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
The copyright holder says : Hi, it's great that we can have a place to share photos, to download and use for FREE! My appreciation to Stock.xchng! And to the many people who share their photos... thank you! :) . Keep. If Better image exists it's not a reason to delete. Petrus 17:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, SXC can be used for free, but that doesn't mean they are in public domain. "For free" means "no payment" but NOT "no limitations". Author dod not release this photo for "all purposes", so we are bound by SXC license. Delete unless someone gets permission directly from the author.
- I've sent him an email and I'm waiting for replay. A.J. 10:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
- Replay received. Speedy delete because of copyright violation. A.J. 10:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 13:41, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Poor quality. Jojo 18:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Image name is wrong. new image is uploaded Image:Claude Monet Bouquet of Sunflowers.jpg --Rlbberlin 21:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- Usually this is done by speedy deletion. But why did you not upload the original file but a very small version ? --Denniss 21:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted. / Fred Chess 20:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Maps in Category:Maps of counties in Kansas
[edit]User:Moverton has uploaded many maps of Kansas, taken from ksdot.org. The user has tagged them as {{PD-US}}, but has given no reason to indicate why they are public domain. Indeed, the source web page says "Copyright © 2005 Kansas Department of Transportation". User:dbenbenn 03:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- First I will just mention that just because the web page is copyright doesn't necessarily mean that any objects linked to it are copyrighted. If you look at the actual transportation map you will not find a copyright notice. Also I had asked them before and the response I got was that the maps they produce are in the public domain because they are produced with tax dollars. Because I no longer have access to that e-mail (computer died), I e-mailed them again and this is the response I received today (email addresses removed):
From: Brian Logan <> Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 12:42:56 -0600 Subject: RE: KDOT Official Transportation Map Michael, KDOT does not copyright their map products. They are in the public domain. Thanks. Brian
- If you need to do any further verification or have specific questions for them, their contact e-mail address is accessible via previously referenced web page. —Mike 04:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Category:Washington, D.C. history, Category:Washington, D.C. neighborhoods, Category:Washington, D.C. transportation
[edit]These are now obsolete and redundant, as we now have:
- Category:History of Washington, D.C.
- Category:Neighborhoods of Washington, D.C.
- Category:Transportation in Washington, D.C.
All the Washington, D.C.-related categories use this naming convention, leaving Category:Washington, D.C. history, Category:Washington, D.C. neighborhoods, and Category:Washington, D.C. transportation obsolete. Kmf164 17:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I think this picture from source www.archive.org could be use in wikipedia, because its an old picture. But I made this deletion request to check if it could be used. --Hhp4 10:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I think this picture from source www.archive.org could be use in wikipedia, because the pictures from this source could be used, at it es PD. But I made this deletion request to check if it could be used. --Hhp4 10:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I think this picture from source www.archive.org could be use in wikipedia, because the pictures from this source could be used, at it es PD. But I made this deletion request to check if it could be used. --Hhp4 10:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Kept, this page says they're public domain. pfctdayelise (translate?) 11:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
March 28
[edit]© All rights reserved, according to original source [37]. --Patrick-br msg 13:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted -- removed from Portugese Wikipedia. / Fred Chess 11:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
wrong name, right is Image:Retrogadation1.png - excuse me --W!B: 13:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted as W!B requested. Kept the png for now. / Fred Chess 19:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Selfmade drawing of a copyrighted Smurf. --84.133.126.111 15:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted. Not used anywhere. / Fred Chess 19:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
March 29
[edit]I do not believe this image is in the public domain, despite the assertion made by the original poster. The cave art itself wasn't even discovered till the mid 1990s. It appears to have been taken from the illustrated book written by the discoverers or from the web site maintained by the French Ministry of Culture. Entrance to the cave has been restricted since the beginning and no tourists could have taken this photo. This image is currently linked to the WP article: Chauvet Cave. I notified the person who uploaded the image on user's Talk page. Ande B. 08:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- I guess the drawings are a little bit older than 70 years? ;) I'm not that sure about French law, but most of the times you can't copyright just a scan of a picture, only the original picture itself, which would make this pd-old -- Gorgo 10:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
We have here the clear policy not to accept claims for the copyright regarding twodimensional objects if the object is PD (according to Bridgeman v. Corel). The French users are opposing this policy but that changes NOTHING. Keep --Historiograf 17:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- I doubt that the original counts as "two-dimensional". It's the wall of a cave, and those don't tend to be as even as plain paper. I guess lighting and perspective do matter in this case, which makes it an original work by the photograper. Fb78 18:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- If it would be possible to put a large scanner machine in the cave and to place it before the wall (I see it as flat! sorry) there could be no copyright because reproductions of flatbed scanners are lacking originality. If one cannot see a difference between a xerox a reproduction made by such a scanner and a phtotograph I regard the results in each case as PD because of lack of originality. US Supreme Court doesn't accept the sweat of the brow theory (nor do it the German Bundesgerichtshof) --Historiograf 21:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for being so quick to respond! Original photographs are protected by international and US Copyright law. I have a copy of the illustrated text by Chauvet et al., who have a registered copyright for all of the photos in that book, including one of the cave lions we see on the article page. The book was published in the US in 1995. Similar images on the French Ministry of Culture web sites are also protected.
The fact of "two dimensionality" is not relevant to the ability to copyright a thing, it simply goes to the particular forms and supporting images that the US Copyright office requires to be filed for registration of images and 3 dimensional objects, such as sculptures. Also, the age of the objects photographed have nothing to do with the copyrightability of a photo of the objects. Nor does the object's public accessibility reduce the copyrights of photos of the object. The design of the Eiffel Tower, as a piece of architecture, can no longer be protected by copyright. But a photo taken of it today receives copyright protection that starts today. So my concern is that the high quality image of the cave lions cannot be in the public domain because it can be no more than 12 years old, only the original discoverers and the French government's agents have had access to the site and none of those parties appear to have granted permission for its use. Now there may be some other argument out there to allow it to be kept, but it is definitely not "public domain." I would prefer to get permission for its use. Ande B. 20:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- It is a matter of the fact that exact duplicates of 2D objects are not copyrightable because there is no creative contribution to "copyright". Some countries, such as the country I live in, have the copyright of photographical work, but most countries do not have such a copyright amd regard photographical duplicates to be equivalent to photocopies (Xerox) which of course do not grant and copyright.
- With that said, the image Image:Chauvet-CaveLions.jpg, an image of lions on a cave wall, is by its nature of such a kind that photos of it can not be said to be public domain. The photographer of this work would recognize it and thus it is my opinion that it warrants the artistic copyright, and thus should be deleted.
- Fred Chess 21:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you, Fred Chess, for your explanation about the 2D objects. Your understanding of photocopies or xerographic copies seems to be the same as mine: a mere copy of another image cannot itself be copyrighted. The copyright attaches to the original image, it does not follow mere photocopies. Unfortunately, some people seem to misunderstand the concept and believe that if they get a photocopy of an image, they can use that copy freely. But they cannot do so without violating the legitimate copyright of the original. One of my concerns is that by stating that Wikimedia considers the image to be "public domain" we misinform the public about legal issues and encourage further violation of the copyright. I'd rather avoid that negative publicity.Ande B. 21:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry you are talking NONSENSE. Creators of the paintings are thousands of years dead. We are only talking here of reproductions of works which are CLEARLY in the PD. We have here RULES and you will not be able to change these. Thank you --Historiograf 22:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- Gee, Historiograf, stop shouting. Photographs of natural objects, and just about anything else, are copyright protected under US law. The photos taken by Chauvet, et al., are registered with the US Copyright Office, so they receive even higher protection than those not registered. The publishers, Thames Hudson and Harry N. Abrams (a division of the New York Times) and the SYGMA company are the ones who can grant licenses or permission for their use. The fact that you don't like the ability for photos to be protected is not relevant to what the copyright laws actually do. Nor is your unwillingness or inability to understand the difference between using photos as a form of mere copying and photos as discrete items protected by copyright relevant to anyone but you. These images are definitely not public domain. If there is a different means to legitimize their use, it is up to you to provide it. Ande B. 22:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- But you said yourself "The copyright attaches to the original image, it does not follow mere photocopies." So my understanding is, that the original image (the drawing on the wall) is clearly pd and the picture of it is just a photocopy. -- Gorgo 23:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- Gee, Historiograf, stop shouting. Photographs of natural objects, and just about anything else, are copyright protected under US law. The photos taken by Chauvet, et al., are registered with the US Copyright Office, so they receive even higher protection than those not registered. The publishers, Thames Hudson and Harry N. Abrams (a division of the New York Times) and the SYGMA company are the ones who can grant licenses or permission for their use. The fact that you don't like the ability for photos to be protected is not relevant to what the copyright laws actually do. Nor is your unwillingness or inability to understand the difference between using photos as a form of mere copying and photos as discrete items protected by copyright relevant to anyone but you. These images are definitely not public domain. If there is a different means to legitimize their use, it is up to you to provide it. Ande B. 22:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- Hi Gorgo, I think that some of the confusion lies in the quirkiness of copyright laws and not in the mental abilities of the Wiki contributors. Photographs are not the equivalents of photocopies, except under specific, technical circumstances. The drawing on the cave walls is ancient, and if you made a 3D replica of the cave, or parts of it, that included the images, you could probably get away with it, though you could not prevent anyone else from making another replica. But a replica of a cave wall is not the same as a photograph of that wall. These types of photos take a great deal of technical skill and artistic effort to produce and it is that artistic effort that the copyright laws protect. Someone above claimed that the cave walls were the "same thing" as a flat, 2 dimensional picture, but they are mistaken. These surfaces are sculptural in nature, 3D surfaces that pose many difficulties for photography. Beyond that, the images themselves have been incised into the wall, making them items of low relief, not "simply" paintings. I don't want to be a jerk about these things because my personal preference would be to have an image to accompany the text on the article page. But unless Chauvet or the Ministry of Culture grants a free license to use their images, I don't know what exception could be claimed. Wiki does not seem to accept the Fair Use exception, so if the image is retained, it would have to be under some other exception. I really wish the photo rules in the various Wiki policies were a little more descriptive of the circumstances of proper use, because their language tends to be equivocal. That can only lead to confusion. I think I've said enough here for a knowledgeable person to make an reasonable decision. Ande B. 00:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
- 1) The paining itself is clearly not protected by copyright. 2) On the other hand, the reproduction might not be merely a reproduction of an entirely two-dimensional picture. The camera is clearly in a distance as can been seen from the shadows. I don't know the exact profile of the cave wall, on the picture it seems mostly flat. But this impression might not necessarily reflect reality: To have the two-dimensional feeling might be an optical illusion from the perspective of the camera, the same way as getting the light correctly: It might just have been twisted in a way that the sladows from bumps disappear into dark lines of the picture. It might even be possible that large stones are standing out at the wall and the painting just has been drawn to match their contours, which might be very well amortized into a two-dimensional picture from this camera perspective. All these things are clearly different from two dimensional xerox-like reproductions. I can only conclude that in my opinion the difference between Copyright and Copyfraud here depends heavily on the actual shape of the cave wall at the particular region which the drawing was painted at and if it could be considered as two-dimensional in the legal sense. 3) The shadows might be a problem, since it is just outside of a mere reproduction that way. So the shadows, although it seems to have been clearly in the interest of the photographer to avoid them as much as possible, might actually cause this not to be a reproduction anymore in a legal sense. The Photographer could claim to have photographed for whatever reason the shadows as they stand out at the various little bumps, not the drawing itself. Weird, isn't it. 4) Historiograf is right: It all depend on if "one cannot see a difference between [...] a reproduction made by such a scanner and a phtotograph". But if that is actually true in this particular case or not is entirely speculation without exact knowledge of the cave wall's shape so keeping the image is not entirely without risk. --Rtc 04:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
- Hi, Rtc. First, I want to thank everyone for taking so much effort to grapple with the issues. They are not straightforward. I would never contend that the wall paintings themselves are under copyright. You could make a painting patterned after it without worrying about it. That isn't the problem. People seem to be misled by some reference in various Wiki guidelines about the treatment of "two dimensional images." When an exact, two dimensional replica is made of a painting, drawing, photo, or sketch that is in the public domain, then the photographic replica or facsimile may not be protected by copyright. Historically, the best method of obtaining an accurate replica or facsimile of a drawing or painting was to take a very careful photograph of it using no artistic placement, lighting, or treatment of the image. In this instance, we are not dealing with a replica or facsimile at all.
- The facsimile rule has been applied almost exclusively to archival quality photographic images of two dimensional art-work, i.e. paintings and drawings. These distinctions are not in the US codes that deal with copyrights of images. Most people here from the US, whether they know it or not, are relying on a limited reading of the Bridgeman case.That case was appealed once and went back for re-trial and never went any further. Technically, it applies only to the Bridgeman Library and Corel, it isn't even binding precedent on others in the venue where it was decided. Now its reasoning is fairly persuasive but I don't know that I would want to rely on a cursory understanding of that case if I were sued by the people (including the New York TImes) who owned a registered copyright on the image or by the French government who is rather adamant about ownership rights to its images.
- We are dealing with a detail of a photograph of the interior of an overhanging cave wall that is decorated with numerous creatures. The photo is used to demonstrate the three dimensional quality of the incised edges of the images. If people don't acknowledge a difference between a "replica" and a photgraph of a natural formation that humans once decorated, then I guess we are talking at cross purposes. I hope I haven't generated any hard feelings. This stuff isn't exactly the easiest to contend with. Ande B. 06:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Teofilo 09:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
- I'm gonna delete it. I understand Historiograf's view - however - I'm sorry, I don't regard it as a 2D object. --Crux 20:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
REASON slight mistakes (description on the page)
- ARGUMENTS own work --Immanuel Giel 11:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
理由（以上两者已有更准确的图像，作者提交删除。） -- Fdcn 16:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)上方已提出。
The common term for subways, metros, elevated railways, etc is rapid transit. The current name, for instance, excluded elevated railways. --SPUI 13:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- Bot, anyone? pfctdayelise (translate?) 14:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- SPUI, please change category for all images in the category before requesting deletion. Thuresson 14:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
- concur. I think it's something OrgulloBot can handle easily. Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 20:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
- Sure, but I still have no bot flag
:'(--Orgullomoore 03:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)- Got it!--Orgullomoore 03:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
- Sure, but I still have no bot flag
Deleted, pfctdayelise (translate?) 15:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Insect images
[edit]- Image:Aeshna-affinis-male-top-www.jpg
- Image:Aeshna-affinis-male-side-www.jpg
- Image:Aeshna-affinis-male-crop-www.jpg
- Image:Aeshna-affinis-female-top-www.jpg
- Image:Aeshna-affinis-female-side-www.jpg
- Image:Aeshna-affinis-female-crop-www.jpg
- Image:Aeshna-affinis-copula-www.jpg
- Image:Aeshna-affinis-immature-male-top-www.jpg
"All materials contained in this web site are protected by copyright. Materials may be downloaded and copied for personal non-commercial use only."(http://www.dragonflies.de/)/ © R.Geerts 2006 (on the pictures)--80.237.152.53 22:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
- Would it not be resonable to assume the photographer simply forgot to add the license tag to Image:Aeshna-affinis-male-top-www.jpg? I will keep all if no-one objects. / Fred Chess 11:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- If you keep it and add a tag under this presupposition, you are accountabile if you are wrong. You decide, and you take the consequences. Objectively, I can only say that there is no license. --Rtc 00:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- Would it not be resonable to assume the photographer simply forgot to add the license tag to Image:Aeshna-affinis-male-top-www.jpg? I will keep all if no-one objects. / Fred Chess 11:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- Kept all; added license tag to the one missing. For the record, I did send the webmaster an email on April 26, but he hasn't responded. / Fred Chess 18:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
March 30
[edit]This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Appears to be a corporate press release. User:dbenbenn 05:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I uploaded this file and it is not a corporate press release. It is a description of an organization. Does any description of an organization constitute a "corporate press release" in your book? If something about this description strikes you that way, please let me know as I am curious.
- Deleted, not used in any Wikimedia project, WikiCommons is not a free web host. Thuresson 23:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
copyvio. not self work --Shizhao 06:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
copyvio --Shizhao 06:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
copyvio--Shizhao 07:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted all three.
Double -- Andro96 07:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted the other redundant image because it was not used on Wikipedia projects. / Fred Chess 08:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
No source to verify image is PD -Nv8200p 15:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment -- deleted edits at en: are unhelpful. No source there either. Jkelly 04:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
fair use. not free screenshot--Shizhao 15:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
- sorry, you can delete it because it is copyrighted software screenshot--W.F. Siu 01:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
March 31
[edit]This image is replaced by the image Hennef Wappen.png and not used any more. --Stefan Knauf 15:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted as per uploader. Not used anywhere. / --Fred Chess 13:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
All the articles and images of this category have been transferred to the new Category:Spanish history. PACO 15:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- Why not use a Category redirect? Jkelly 20:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
- Kept turned into a category redirect. / Fred Chess 13:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
The uploader says the image is “taken from an old issue of Peru21, a mayor peruvian newspaper”. The image is labelled as public domain. I am not familiar with Peruvian copyright laws, when do images enter the public domain in Peru? Kjetil r 15:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- The uploader recently removed the {{delete}} label from the image ([38]), claiming that the deletion request is unexplained.
- Well, maybe I should explain it better now: One may not scan a newspaper photography and then release the scanned image into the public domain. Only the author of the photography may release the image into the public domain. Thus Image:Alberto Fujimori 2.jpg is a copyright violation (unless the photography is in the public domain due to age. I am not familiar with Peruvian copyright laws, but I doubt this). Kjetil r 21:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
- I deleted the picture because no reasonable explanation was given to me regarding the copyright accusations against the picture. Messhermit 17:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- I think the picture is still there ;-) --ALE! 15:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
- I deleted the picture because no reasonable explanation was given to me regarding the copyright accusations against the picture. Messhermit 17:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete The uploader's comments on the image page are inconsistent but indicate that the image was scanned from a newspaper. I am not aware of any country that deems images printed in its newspapers to be public domain. Scanning an image from a newspaper does not turn the scanner into the holder of a copyright regarding the image. If the uploader now claims to be the original photographer, at this point, I would need more than his/her word for it. Photographers do not normally need to scan their own images from a newspaper, although I have done so in the past when I lost my source images and negatives. Ande B. 22:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted - removed from 7 pages in 7 projects / Fred Chess 13:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Copyvio. Reproduction of an advertisement, as pointed out by the uploader him/herself on Commons talk:Licensing. --Fb78 10:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Image indicates Southern Asia (see Image:Map-World-South-Asia.png) and not "the Indian World". David Kernow 13:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted, but please notify uploader next time. Image indicated as being used on two wikipedias, but they had been changed weeks ago. / Fred Chess 12:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
scan from book, not GFDL and cc-by --Shizhao 01:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I am the creator of the book and the holder of the copyright of the images. I am providing license under GFDL, and the file should NOT be deleted. Eric Ascalon
- Kept -- copyright OK. / Fred Chess 12:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy rename to Category:Maps of European regions, please. David Kernow 00:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC) (Apologies if this the wrong place to make this request; was unable to find relevant help/information.)
There is no speedy rename for categories, only the slow migration of individual images to the new category. When that is complete and the old one is empty, then it can be speedy deleted. pfctdayelise (translate?) 13:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
copyvio --Shizhao 02:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- and no source --Shizhao 03:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, please delete this image. This image is not in public domain as the uploader stated. Please see this page, this image is copyrighted.--Theodoranian|虎兒 00:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
- Wait. Why I can not open and explore this page?--Encyclopedist 09:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
- This image IS in the public domain according to the copyright law of the republic of china; the site [39] mentioned above has nothing to do with the image, it's not wise to believe a site of a political party can own the copyright of the image of a former president of the republic, the copyright symbol in the site is only irrelevant with this image; morever, this site contains other images which are widely used in the wiki. the uploader does not have to give the so-called source of the image since it is a photo already in the public domain. on the contrary, it is the responsability of the person who doubts the public property of this image to give the according proof. Since the question about this photo is already fully disscused here ，[40]it is a waste of time to propose for its deletion without any new idea. --F117Z 05:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 09:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Copyvio - could be fair use on some wikis, but not here. Ausir 23:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted - derivatory work / Fred Chess 12:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The license terms of www.bigfoto.com are generous, however, "It is not permitted to copy bigfoto pictures onto a web site and offer them for downloading." (complete license terms).
I request that this template and all photos from www.bigfoto.com are deleted. Thuresson 18:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted, Thuresson 20:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Duplicate of Image:Cities participating in Live 8.png. No use of this picture found by WikiSense CheckUsage. David Kernow 21:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- Yes; should I have speedied the deletion request? I didn't want to risk upsetting the uploader... Regards, David Kernow 23:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted, Thuresson 20:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
