Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2005/02
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
Wrong name. Same as Image:Aragon municipalities.png --Tony Rotondas 10:39, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
"It understood to do not match a license. " Of it goes out and, please delete it.Araisyohei(talk) 04:53, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete: The image was originally uploaded by another user without licence notice. Araisyohei uploaded it on Commons under GFDL1.2, but I guess he had no right to do so. Therefore I think it should be deleted for protecting original photographer's right. BTW, I would have understand you unless I haven't seen the original image on Japanese Wikipedia. 何が書いてあるかわかりませんでした。日本語で書いてくださったほうがよかったと思います。--Aphaia 11:11, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- すみませんでした。本題ですが、ある方に、「これは、ライセンスに合っていないじゃないか？」といわれました。確認したところ、確かに合っていないことがわかりました。ので、削除を依頼します。Araisyohei(talk) 05:39, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This is copyrighted charactor in Japan. The image is fair use. --Suisui 10:50, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- But, is the image copyrighted? Keep -- Chris 73 04:04, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The copyright of these images are not expired yet. CC license does not affect. Tietew 16:49, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete: fair use. --kahusi - (Talk) 16:54, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, but notify the people involved in Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga first so that they can find a replacement. TOR 20:48, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- REUPLOADED - see image description pages for copyright information. Tietew 11:48, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Who is the author? The source seems very dubious to me! Do they have same policies like we do? I mean do they check? It looks to me that they are a very unreliable source! Some of the pictures shout at me I am stolen but someone has drawn a fancy background and thinks now it is no copivo. But this is even worse! Example the Harry Potter image. It is for shure not a privat photo. I have absolutly no good feeling with these. --Paddy 16:39, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- delete it's not clear, that these images are under CC license. --Crux 16:49, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. I'm with Paddy in this case. I doubt an anonymous author can license work under CC... --Avatar 16:52, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Sorry about all the mess, my fault here. The site the user took them from(see at the bottom of the page) was indeed licensed under CC, and I then asked him to re-upload the images. After a little bit of research I found out they were wrongly licensed on the site the user took them from. As a matter of fact, if you look closely at this, and this, you will see the references to Rizelmine an anime by Madhouse Productions and en:Card Captor Sakura which are anime series, and definitely *NOT* cc. But at least I have learned something here, it is good to try and find the uploader and tell him his image is going to be deleted before deleting it... Tietew also, when you provide a link, make sure we can find the copyright info without having to dig for hours ;-). I am no manga expert and couldn't find anything that ressembled the incriminated images on the links you provided. notafish }<';> 18:19, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The Image:Kiddy 001 1024x768.jpg had to be deleted too because it was obvious copy past from existing anime. The site with "CC" is not to be trusted!
Proof one image was taken from http://kawaii.nl/polls.php there we see:
- All the pictures on this site are from funny anime series and are edited by me, except for the wallpapers in the "Gallery"-section. If you want to copy anything from this website, please give credit to "Kawaii", because I spent a great deal of time in modifying them.
--Paddy 18:13, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Both deleted. — Dan | Talk 00:46, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
marked as "Public Domain for not commercial use", I asked here one month ago but nothing happened ... --:Bdk: 00:12, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- You're correct, the original source also claims that the picture may only be used when describing the work of the Swedish parliament. Thuresson 10:01, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Deleted. — Dan | Talk 00:46, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Orphan page, which I can't understand because it is Italian, but seems to be no use in Commons. Maybe it can be used in the Italian Wikipedia Someone translated me the text. I don't think that it is of any use. --Baikonur 13:13, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
support- on google there is no giorgia vanini to be found but there is a "Giorgio Vanni" wich is the author of the italian lyrics from dragon Ball Gt ( tv cartoon)--LadyofHats 13:58, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Deleted. — Dan | Talk 00:46, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
if someone could change it to category instead of categorie, maybe then it has sence.. but the document is by itself empty--LadyofHats 13:53, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Deleted. — Dan | Talk 00:46, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
REASON has no images on it, fo a reference see here-- LadyofHats 14:14, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- ARGUMENTS:
- Just uploaded that image, see User:Topjabot for permission and removed deletion request. Could have been a Problem with the Bot. -guety 20:01, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Kept. — Dan | Talk 00:46, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
All images found in this category
REASON These images are Norwegian coats of arms. They have a special protection in Norwegian law, and are not public domain. They are OK for fair use in Wikipedia, but I believe they do not belong on the commons. -- en:User Egil
- as far as i know the law is aplied for those shields of cities municipalities and members of the royal house ( none of the images here are this case) , and is treated then as "trade mark" yet this doesnt extend to other shields. i would promote the images stay.--LadyofHats 11:57, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Many countries have special regulations concerning the use of flags, coats of arms and other insignia, but this should not be confused with copyright law. The Norwegian coat of arms has been used since medieval time and can have no protection in copyright law itself. Thuresson 22:12, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Kept. — Dan | Talk 00:46, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Do we really need such Photos? --Suricata 14:01, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, as long as they're under a free license there's no problem with such pictures. But that's the problem I see here: They were reuploaded from en:, and there they had no copyright tags on them and were uploaded by a user whose only contributions were uploading these images and adding them to the articles. So I propose to delete the images unless we find the source of them and can confirm that they are indeed PD. --Conti|✉ 19:23, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Even though I agree that we should further inverstigate their copyright status the user vouched for them as being in the public domain. And until we're certain that they're not under a free license they should not be deleted. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 22:32, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Writing "Public domain" on a pictures doesn't make it automatically PD. Everyone can do that on any picture. And having a look at the uncropped version of one of the pictures I read a text that explains the image, and just as a sidenote explains the death erection. Then I see the title above which reads "Death erection", which gives me the feeling that the caption at the top was added later and that the picture exists without it. That makes me suspicious enough to not trust the new user whose only contributions so far is uploading these pictures and adding them to articles until I get a better proof that the pictures are PD. --Conti|✉ 23:35, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I hope this is a joke - of course we need photos on every medical phenomena, particularly those this interesting. Shame we cannot get versions without text. On top of this, they are used on Wikipedia en article. --Oldak Quill 22:59, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Can someone explain why one of these images was deleted before time on the debate is up? (And deleted off en. as well) -- Alkivar (from EN)
No author named and therfore the license is really a joke. Where did it say permissions granted? Anyone can say this photo is PD but it is not really. Since it states "male hostage" I suppose it is a terrorist photo?! If it was taken by a terrorist I do not agree with the license. If it was taken by a journalist the author should be named and there should be an explicit agreement on the PD license. Anyway does WP really need "terrorist" photos for a medical phenomenon? I do not like the thin legal line WP is treading. We should have a legal expert on that. I had only classes for copyright, trademarks, patents, etc. for engineers. IANAL but I see big legal problems with these images. I suppose a lawyer could write an essay on that. Please consider the legal issue carfully. Thank you --Paddy 20:16, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- no source, so better delete it because it's uncertain if it is really PD ... and for me not a loss for WP anyway ...Sicherlich 20:23, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I assume that the pictures are not PD - therefore better delete them. --APPER 20:32, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I agree with paddy and apper - delete it. --Elya 21:58, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- If there's an issue of license, the pictures should be put up for deletion, not the page. --SPUI 22:08, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- delete it. --Steschke 00:19, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Agree with SPUI. Keep. Timbo ('pedia Timbo) 20:10, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Results : 9 pros, 2 cons. The three images will be deleted (they already have been on w:en) and the page itself kept empty for future material. villy 12:29, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Contains misleading and/or outdated information on uploading images. Appears to imply that fair use images are permitted. Lots of red outgoing links, only 3 incoming links. The whole page looks like it's been copied and pasted from somewhere else with little attention being paid to if it makes sense on the Commons. There is no information here that isn't already covered by the Commons:FAQ and pages linked from there. --MarkSweep 07:10, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Will be deleted as soon as the deletion bug is fixed, see Voted for deletion and to delete when delete system is fixed. villy 12:35, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Public domain is unlikely. probertencyclopaedia.com states: "Please note: some pictures in The Probert Encyclopaedia have been obtained from the public domain in good faith, but may have been released without the copyright holder's permission, while we never knowingly include any copyright images accidents can happen and we cannot guarrantee the status of images you choose to copy." --Baikonur 14:07, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Deleted. villy 12:50, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
no license given; can't be in the public domain because Gabriele Münter died in 1962. --Baikonur 15:10, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Deleted. villy 12:56, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Although the text under the image says "There are no usage restrictions for this photo.", the uploader states on his user page: "Nearly all my images are without restrictions. You can include them in your personal or commercial works. The sale of the images (for example: the inclusion in a commercial stock photos collection) is prohibited. It is prohibited the use of the images in works promoting intolerance, hate or racism.", which does not match the definition of "free" used here. --Baikonur 16:06, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Deleted. villy 13:00, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
geneva.ch copyvio
[edit]Image:Ch ge centre by night.jpg Image:Ch ge quai lac saleve.jpg Image:Ch ge lac quai jetdeau.jpg Image:Ch ge lac jetdeau.jpg Image:Ch ge lac st pierre.jpg Image:Ch ge st pierre.jpg Image:Ch ge st pierre place.jpg copyvio from http://geneva.ch/ --Paddy 20:14, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- agree Greatpatton 00:49, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Deleted. — Dan | Talk 00:32, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- wrong name TeunSpaans 05:27, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Deleted. — Dan | Talk 00:32, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Can't see why this should be free useable, Gatesworld says its Copyrighted by MGM which says its only useable for personal, noncomercial use. -guety 14:28, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Deleted. — Dan | Talk 00:32, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The category tree under Category:Animals contains categories for the following classifications: Phylum and Class (for now mixed together because of the english named classes that actually belong under Category:Chordata), Order and Family. Beneath Family it is sometimes sensible (as discussed some time before) to have articles for Species and/or Genus, depending on the population, even subclassifications. What should be avoided are subcategories of different classification levels (as Order and Suborder, Phylum and Suphylum) in one category. There may be however, articles concerning common information, but this could be included in the category page as well.
Therefore both Category:Pinnipedia and Pinnipedia should be deleted: The first for mixing classification levels and providing a very awkward path of navigation through the category-tree by including some species in both Suborder AND Order categories; the second for providing information, that is already available (in the category system per se and the language wikipedias; commons is not an encyclopedia).
This may seem trivial but keeping this practice up not only makes the navigation counterintuitive and slower by introducing sublayers, but also makes it harder to keep all these articles and categories up to date, binding time and work force that could be better used.
If Category:Pinnipedia is to be kept, Category:Fissipedia should be created as well and all Fissipedia moved into this category (having the very undesireable effect of leaving Category:Carnivora with only two subcategories). -- Petwoe 10:37, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Definitely in favor of deleting Pinnipedia, because it is an encyclopedia-like article and not an image repository. In favor of deleting Category:Pinnipedia because it makes the category tree unnecessarily deep. - Andre Engels 11:23, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Do not delete. Neither your nor my reasons are in the Deletion guidelines. - Andre Engels 11:23, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Do delete. I find that guideline bad, and just put this line here to give an example of why. - Andre Engels 11:23, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Actually I think it is in the guidelines:
- Do delete. I find that guideline bad, and just put this line here to give an example of why. - Andre Engels 11:23, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Do not delete. Neither your nor my reasons are in the Deletion guidelines. - Andre Engels 11:23, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- "The file/page is redundant through a better but not identical one."
This is the case for Pinnipedia: All the information is. already available in a better and leaner way (not directly in another page or file): The category tree. - "The file is enormous and replaced by a much smaller file which contains all of the useful information."
Well, it is not enourmous, but there is nothing lost, if it would be deleted. All the necessary information is still retained - at no extra space at all. - "The file/page is not potentially usable by any current or future Wikimedia project (e.g. art by unknown artist)".
All the information is already available in the wikipedias - they certainly will not need it in the future. If someday some new project might need it, it would almost certainly not be serached for in commons, where it is available only in english.
Petwoe 13:24, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I disagree, and am for keeping either the category or the article. It's a question of usability here. These animals are fairly closely related and often confused by the layperson. Having one page which includes all of them *helps* those who're looking through commons for pictures to quickly find the right one. If you're going to argue that providing easy usability is not a role for the commons repository, then I'm afraid I'm just going to have to disagree with you. Vadakkan 00:32, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- It is disputed that the Pinnipedia families are closely related; at the same time this irrelevant, since commons is not an encyclopedia. And I agree, that this is a question of usability. The "confused layperson" would not serach in a scientific classification tree and if he or she does, he or she would be confused finding some images in two parent categories. I am still waiting for a valid reason, why Pinnipeds should have intermediate taxon ranks or why it would be necessary to have the whole taxon-tree in commons, making it virtually unuseable (especially for the confused layperson who doesn't know but the basic taxa). Besides, who would like to create all those categories? -- Peter_Aut 15:54, 11 Dez 2004 (UTC)
- I agree that the "confused layperson" - or a normal person without special biology knowledge - wouldn't be looking in the categories in the first place, and therefore I support the deletion of the pinnipedia category. However, I do think this person should be given some direction if he happened to search for pinnipedia. I recommend something like this page, an older version of pinnipedia, for that purpose. Here the layperson can see which scientifically named family corresponds to the animal he's looking for, and go straight to that family's page, in what could be a beautiful marriage of text and image. -- Ranveig 22:17, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- There is some truth in there as far as there should be a posiibility to search for Pinnipedia and actually find something. I've two ideas about that:
1. There is already the term Pinnipedia in the Taxolist on top of each category page, so at least those pages can be found.
2. What about putting the subcategories on the Category:Carnivora page (like I have proposed for Category:Animals? (This can be done with or without links to the appropriate categories).
As a sidenote I would like to point out, that the Pinnipedia page is factual incorrect since neither "Odobenus" nor "Arctocephalinae" are families of Pinnipedia. If the page is kept, this should be corrected. -- Peter_Aut 11:16, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- There is some truth in there as far as there should be a posiibility to search for Pinnipedia and actually find something. I've two ideas about that:
- Right, what about keeping the info page (with corrections), simply as a pointer, at least until the searching system has become better. It doesn't need to have pictures or anything. Kill the category. I just want to resolve this, trying to start the new year in a friendly and tolerant manner and all that. -- Ranveig 13:21, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This debate is growing old and rusty, and I suggest it be moved to the archive. I think Pinnipedia should stay as a guideline for people who are looking for "seals" but have no idea about their scientific classification. Category:Pinnipedia may be removed, as Peter Aut suggested. -- Ranveig 16:41, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Kept. — Dan | Talk 00:55, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Stargate characters
[edit]Image:Stargate atlantis char teyla.jpg, Image:Stargate atlantis char weir.jpg, Image:Stargate atlantis char sheppard.jpg, Image:Stargate atlantis char ford.jpg, Image:Stargate atlantis char beckett.jpg, Image:Stargate atlantis char mckay.jpg The reason above also applies to these images: "'Stargate' and all related characters and images are the property of MGM Television Entertainment". --Baikonur 16:09, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Deleted. ]]— Dan | [[User talk:Rdsmith4|Talk 23:23, 22 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I doubt that this image is in the public domain. Tagging an image with PD does not make it PD. --Baikonur 16:27, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- This picture was originally uploaded to pl.wp,pl:Grafika:Karlheinz stockhausen.jpg.pl.wp has indicated Public Domain info since then.And after a couple of days later one of the user uploaded it to en.wp.I uploaded the same photo here yesterday. As the original one indicates PD,en:Image:Karlheinz Stockhausen.jpg.So I hope this image keep.Searobin 10:46, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Deleted: http://www.mmguide.musicmatch.com/artist/artist.cgi?ARTISTID=604723 Copyright © 2001-2004 Musicmatch®
REASON: Wrong name and was unable to move it to correct name. Uploaded new on correct name. –Wintermute 19:25, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Deleted. ]]— Dan | [[User talk:Rdsmith4|Talk 23:23, 22 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Same as above. –Wintermute 19:25, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Deleted. ]]— Dan | [[User talk:Rdsmith4|Talk 23:23, 22 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Same as above. –Wintermute 19:25, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Deleted. ]]— Dan | [[User talk:Rdsmith4|Talk 23:23, 22 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Non-free coat of arms, the Icelandic goverment claims exclusive rights on it and AFAIK it's not out of copyright. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 08:47, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Deleted. ]]— Dan | [[User talk:Rdsmith4|Talk 00:30, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Wrong name (without author's name), correct is repeated here Image:Druzki Ngruev 27633738sP4020228.jpg. Pibwl 20:24, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Deleted. ]]— Dan | [[User talk:Rdsmith4|Talk 00:30, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Crest of National Chi Nan University, copyvio--Shizhao 01:03, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC) Deleted. ]]— Dan | [[User talk:Rdsmith4|Talk 23:55, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Image:NutritionFacts broccoli cooked.png and all other images from the same source
[edit]The permission is incompatible to the GFDL because it only allows the use of these images "in conjunction with Wikipedia's food-related articles" and not everywhere under the terms of the GFDL license. --Baikonur 18:12, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- ACK delete! --Paddy 18:14, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- And what is the purpose of having a tables as pictures anyway? -guety 00:16, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. I am the uploader who asked Nutritionfacts' permission to use the images. The permission is in fact compatable with the GFDL. I asked them specifically if they agree to let us use the images under the terms of the Wikipedia license (which is the GFDL), and I supplied a link, and they said yes. They said "food-related articles" because, well, where else would you use them? It's not a further usage restriction if they agreed to the terms of the Wikipedia license.
As to the tables, we've had food articles on Wikipedia for years, and nutrition information has been sorely lacking. I considered making a template for a table, but there's no easy way to do this. It's much easier to use the (publicly available) pre-made images. If anyone wants to make a replacement table that looks similar, feel free, but without a replacement, I hope the information will not be deleted.
These images have been well-received on the English Wikipedia, and I could move them there, I suppose, but I wanted to make them available to others. I worked very hard on gaining permission to use these images, uploading them, and including them in articles. I would be disappointed if they were deleted. Quadell (talk) 12:52, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC) - Keep. What Quadel said. Dbenbenn 13:21, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. The only issue I see is that, unlike with images, it would be possible to do a full text search and index on tables, but unless someone would like to volunteer to create a lot of fairly intricate tables, these images should stay. Regarding the license terms, it would be good if there was a link to the explanation for the GFDL tag that Quadell negotiated and explained above. But even without this, I see no reason to delete GFDL images that are being actively used. --MarkSweep 13:22, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. frankly, I don't believe that the copyright claim is valid anyway, that the permission grant is simply a courtesy. The format is a US government (FDA) specification, and the data isn't copyrightable. --IMeowbot 13:48, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Also, if these images don't survive, I'll help to produce table conversions. --IMeowbot 13:51, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Transwiki to en. The licence seems murky to me, and on commons I want clarity. For example could I use this image in wikibooks? Or on my GFDL website? It isn't clear to me. Also these images include only English text, so they have little use outside of en. If they are permitted in wikibooks they can be uploaded there as required. Zeimusu 13:59, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Although I think a template for the nutritional info would be useful. So keep until such a magical beast exists. --MaxPower 17:01, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Kept. ]]— Dan | [[User talk:Rdsmith4|Talk 23:55, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Copyright violation, Image:Utahstateseal.jpg has the same in its history. -guety 00:16, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Deleted. ]]— Dan | [[User talk:Rdsmith4|Talk 23:55, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Uploader asked on Village Pump whether these qualified as GFDL; the responses (now archived) suggested that the images were probably copyvio. — Dan | Talk 04:22, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Deleted. ]]— Dan | [[User talk:Rdsmith4|Talk 01:59, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
As above. — Dan | Talk 04:22, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Belfast murals
[edit]Image:Belfast mural 1.jpg, Image:Belfast mural 2.jpg, Image:Belfast mural 3.jpg, Image:Belfast mural 4.jpg, Image:Belfast murals 5.jpg, Image:Belfast mural 6.jpg, Image:Belfast mural 7.jpg, Image:Belfast mural 8.jpg, Image:Belfast mural 9.jpg
Bad naming, this pictures are from Derry. I've re-uploaded them with the right name. --Zubro 17:46, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
All deleted. ]]— Dan | [[User talk:Rdsmith4|Talk 01:59, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This should be renamed to Category:Himalaya to reflect the officially correct name. See w:en:Himalaya. RedWolf 18:44, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Category deleted (since categories cannot be moved); all items in it moved to Category:Himalaya. ]]— Dan | [[User talk:Rdsmith4|Talk 00:52, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
accidentally uploaded Image:Plan_Moskau_Kreml_rahmen2.jpg does the job, but is smaller. --Schizoschaf 19:55, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Deleted. ]]— Dan | [[User talk:Rdsmith4|Talk 00:52, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The lake isn't Gadenlauisee, it's Bachalpsee. I've uploaded an improved version as Image:Bachalpsee.jpg. —MRB 10:52, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Deleted. ]]— Dan | [[User talk:Rdsmith4|Talk 02:10, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Material from the Kinsey Institute. This material is copyrighted, see http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/library/publication.html and http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/library/access.html villy 13:23, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- There must be a misunderstanding. The work is not copyrighted. You can see from the image it is over one hundred years old, it cannot be copyrighted. You have mistaken the copyright policies regarding "any work or authorship (hereafter the "work") under the control of the Institute or copyrighted by the Institute" which means created by the Institute, things such as it's journals, etc. Apollomelos 13:36, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, this is not copyrighted. --Oldak Quill 19:25, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Kept. ]]— Dan | [[User talk:Rdsmith4|Talk 02:10, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Brazil maps
[edit]Image:Brasil CentroOeste maploc.PNG, Image:Brasil_Nordeste_maploc.PNG, Image:Brasil_Norte_maploc.PNG, Image:Brasil_Sudeste_maploc.PNG, Image:Brasil_Sul_maploc.PNG
- uploaded same maps with better contrast under same names but with ".png" instead of ".PNG". WHB 23:02, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Deleted. ]]— Dan | [[User talk:Rdsmith4|Talk 02:10, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This category would simply be the intersection of Category:Wisconsin and Category:Buildings. It only has one image, which is already in those categories anyway. Dbenbenn 05:38, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Deleted. ]]— Dan | [[User talk:Rdsmith4|Talk 02:10, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Forgot to name file, please delete. Uploaded a named one
Deleted. ]]— Dan | [[User talk:Rdsmith4|Talk 01:27, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Windows_XP_desktop_labels.png not free
Deleted. ]]— Dan | [[User talk:Rdsmith4|Talk 01:27, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Images of Eiffel Tower at night after 2003 are illegal, see http://www.tour-eiffel.fr/teiffel/uk/pratique/faq/
- Q : Is the publishing of a photo of the Eiffel Tower permitted?
- A : There are no restrictions on publishing a picture of the Tower by day. Photos taken at night when the lights are aglow are subjected to copyright laws, and fees for the right to publish must be paid to the SNTE.
- The image was apparently taken by the the uploader. If french copyright law forbids taking pictures of the Eiffel tower at night, then this law must be in breach of international copyright conventions. Thuresson 12:54, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Why should it breach international copyright conventions?
If i am creating art (illuminating the Eiffel Tower) i own the copyright/figurative mark of the installation. The same happens in the US --62.226.13.194 13:12, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I knew it was not public domain in France (see discussion of thoses images) but I did not know light was under (c) in states :| But btw : what about Image:Tour Eiffel nuit Concorde.jpg ? -- FoeNyx 19:21, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Works of art are protected in copyright law, obviously, but this particular artistic expression, decorating the Eiffel tower with lights, have been done since the tower was built in 1889. One can also question if it ever was original enough to be protected by copyright law. Thuresson 04:31, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I think we should leave it up in protest. Maybe this is a little reckless but someone has to stand up for common sense, and I don't see why not us. --Mboverload 09:11, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Kept. ]]— Dan | [[User talk:Rdsmith4|Talk 00:30, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Resubmitted. ed g2s • talk 16:05, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
We cannot break the law just because we don't like it. Apparently the lighting display is new (2003) and very much copyright by the company who installed it (SNTE). As such this is the same as taking a photograph of a recent work of art and should be treated as such (although I do agree the law is a bit absurd). ed g2s • talk 16:05, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- "The Eiffel Tower's likeness had long since been part of the public domain, when in 2003, it was abruptly repossessed by the city of Paris. That's the year that the SNTE, the company charged with maintaining the tower, adorned it with a distinctive lighting display, copyrighted the design, and in one feel swoop, reclaimed the nighttime image and likeness of the most popular monument on earth. In short: they changed the actual likeness of the tower, and then copyrighted that." [1]
- Just saying "I own the copyright to this and that" does not make it so. It's not a question if the law is absurd or not but rather if it protects lighting displays. Thuresson 22:53, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Agree with Thuresson. --Dittaeva 09:27, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, but yes, this is more than just faintly ridiculous. James F. (talk) 14:34, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete and chop the head off the Person that made this possible. -guety 02:59, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Temporary installations can be copyrighted. If we have to decapitate those people making this thing possible I do not know? --Paddy 05:15, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
blog.fastcompany.com cite:
- "It is really just a way to manage commercial use of the image, so that it isn't used in ways we don't approve,"
- said Mr. Dieu.
- Delete since this image shows the sparkling lights which, after all that I read, are copyright protected.—Webster 22:34, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep but tag it. There many pictures in commons which shows copyrighted material or are restricted in use for by national law. Think of {{insignia}}. The picture is made by a user for wikipedia use. His part of the work, to take the picture, is under GFDL. -- Stahlkocher 18:17, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Deleted this time round. ]]— Dan | [[User talk:Rdsmith4|Talk 22:38, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
same as above
Kept (per above discussion). ]]— Dan | [[User talk:Rdsmith4|Talk 00:30, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Resubmitted ed g2s • talk 16:05, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I have doubts wheter this image (my comment was shifted to the other image of the Eiffel tower, but I really mean this one!) is protected by french (or international) copyright. The reasons are: (1) The Eiffel-Tower itself is for sure not protected any more, since Gustave Eiffel is dead for more than 70 years. (2) It seems, that in French law, you can get copyright for illumination installations. (3) The "normal" illumination as before 2003 was not protected (this is what I read, but is that true?) (4) The "blinking" illumination was added in 2003 and because of (2) it seems that it is copyrighted. (5) In the discussed image no "blinking" illumination can be seen. All illumination that can be seen is the same as it was before 2003, when it was apparently not copyrighted. This leads me to the following statement: The only thing that is copyrighted at Eiffel-Tower is the "blinking" illumination. If this "blinking illumination" is not visible then the image can not be copyright protected. -- This is only my statement. IANAL and this statement can be wrong. If somebody knows that it is wrong, please tell us why (and at which point). If my statement is right, my conclusion would be that the discussed image is not copyrighted and should not be deleted. Keep. —Webster 13:04, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- From what I've read a complete new set of lights was installed for this installation, including a rotating "beacon" at the top. We have to assume the 2003 installation was made sufficiently distinct from any previous installation as to allow them to claim copyright as this was their intention. Just because to you or I it still looks like a load of lights on the tower as before, doesn't mean a lot of work didn't go into redesigning the new lighting scheme, including sufficient creative input. ed g2s • talk 18:03, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- The rotating "beacon" was already working in Nov. 2002, see Image:Tour_Eiffel_nuit_Concorde.jpg. According to the official page [2], the beacon was added in 2000 and they added in 2003 only the sparkling lights (and they write explicitly that the gold lights are in place since 1986). I think it's not to much to assume that they would have written if they had changed the gold lights in 2003 as well. This means that there is still no good and logical explanation why pictures without the sparkling lights but with the gold lights from 1986 should be forbidden since 2003. Right now, I see only three possibilities: (a) The (often read) declaration that night images from 2002 or earlier are allowed, is incorrect. This could be the case because the installation of gold lights in 1986 is copyrighted and all night images since have been "forbidden". (b) The gold lights from 1986 are copyrighted but from 1986 until 2002, this copyright was unused and only in 2003 the copyright holder claimed again for it (I don't know if this is possible to claim the intellectual property after nearly 20 years of not claiming it.) (c) What I said before: Only the sparkling lights are copyright protected but the gold lights aren't. This would mean that any pictures without sparkling lights are permitted. -- All three possibilities are not really mentioned in the other discussions. Until know I only read things like "it is forbidden" but nobody gives a sound explanation why. And until there is no better reason given, I stay to the keep (but to be clear: I'm not claiming that the image must be legal. I'm only saying that all explanations given here and in other forums are not good enough to go for the delete. If somebody brings a good source with a better explanation I would accept a delete.) —Webster 22:34, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- IANAL but I think in France it's (a) →
"forbidden"not free since 1986. The illumination installations are an « œuvre de l'esprit » protected until 70 years after the death of the guy wich made it in 1986, and 70 years after the death of the guy wich made it in 2000 and 70 years after the death of the guy wich added blinking in 2003. Here some french law references (in french sorry) L112-2 & L112-3. But probably User:Aurevilly could confirm this to us. I do not have no idea about the status of this in USA. But anyway can we put the tag GFDL if it does not apply in one country ? FoeNyx 01:12, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- IANAL but I think in France it's (a) →
- The rotating "beacon" was already working in Nov. 2002, see Image:Tour_Eiffel_nuit_Concorde.jpg. According to the official page [2], the beacon was added in 2000 and they added in 2003 only the sparkling lights (and they write explicitly that the gold lights are in place since 1986). I think it's not to much to assume that they would have written if they had changed the gold lights in 2003 as well. This means that there is still no good and logical explanation why pictures without the sparkling lights but with the gold lights from 1986 should be forbidden since 2003. Right now, I see only three possibilities: (a) The (often read) declaration that night images from 2002 or earlier are allowed, is incorrect. This could be the case because the installation of gold lights in 1986 is copyrighted and all night images since have been "forbidden". (b) The gold lights from 1986 are copyrighted but from 1986 until 2002, this copyright was unused and only in 2003 the copyright holder claimed again for it (I don't know if this is possible to claim the intellectual property after nearly 20 years of not claiming it.) (c) What I said before: Only the sparkling lights are copyright protected but the gold lights aren't. This would mean that any pictures without sparkling lights are permitted. -- All three possibilities are not really mentioned in the other discussions. Until know I only read things like "it is forbidden" but nobody gives a sound explanation why. And until there is no better reason given, I stay to the keep (but to be clear: I'm not claiming that the image must be legal. I'm only saying that all explanations given here and in other forums are not good enough to go for the delete. If somebody brings a good source with a better explanation I would accept a delete.) —Webster 22:34, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Deleted this time round. ]]— Dan | [[User talk:Rdsmith4|Talk 22:38, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Norwegian municipality/county/state coats of arms have special protection by Norwegian Criminal law (§ 328), and I know of no statement that should indicate they are in any way public domain. They mey be acceptable for fair use in certain contexts, but do not belong on the commons. -- Egil 22:33, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep This is not a question of copyright law but the law of Norway. Many countries have laws restricting the use of national insignias but let's not confuse one with the other. Thuresson 22:56, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: National law aside, I know of no statement anywhere that would indicate that these symbols are excempt from international copyright, or indeed that they are in Public Domain as has been suggested by some uploaders. (This is not the US, and there is (regretfully) no generic rule in Norway stating that anything issued by the state is automatically Public Domain) -- Egil 23:04, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Assuming that these coats of arms were issued before 1922 (Image:Norway_coat.png is a medieval coat of arms), copyright law should have nothing to say about these images. Thuresson 02:15, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- The Norwegian coat of arms have medieval origins, but it is not medieval in its current form. Most of the municipality coats of arms were made in the 1950s and 60s. I will try to obtain more information on this issue, but in any regard I believe that public domain is definitely quite wrong and misleading. According to Norwegian Criminal law, misuse of these symbols are subject to up to 3 months of imprisonment, and I believe that similar laws exist in other European countries. I don't dispute the current usage of these emblems in articles in Wikipedia, but I do believe that for these, the other cases term of the {{coatofarms}} template applies. -- Egil 09:01, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Norwegian coats of arms aren't copyrighted - nothing made public by the governing bodies is. However, the usage is severely restricted, in that you may not use them to represent the authority they symbolise. A coat of arms template would be fine, but we'll need to get rid of the "fair use" bit first. -- Ranveig 12:33, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep We have had the very same discussion within the german wikipedia (there are similar German laws and I suppose they exist everywhere), which has the same image policy as the wikimedia commons. This special law has nothing to do with copyright. So although you are not allowed to make everything with the image it isn't unfree. To clarify why I give you an example: Imagine a picture of some famous person released under the GFDL. Now someone else modifies it in a way that this person gets shown in a very offended kind. So although the GFDL allows you to make this modification you aren't allowed by other laws to do so. Nobody would claim that this image would be now unfree as you can't do everything what you want. The Copyright does not exist in the free space it is in a frame of other laws. You cannot allow things beyond copyright. So in german Wikipedia we have made a second template beside the license template thought as a warning that says: "Attention: This image displays a flag, an emblem, a signet or some other national emblem. The image presented here is within the public domain (or licensed under the GNU-FDL) but the use may be subject to additional law restrictions. In particular you have to take care of the terms of national emblems. More information on this topic can be found at <link>". You can watch the german template at http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vorlage:Wappenrecht . So I strongly suggest keeping those images that are created by the uploaders (after original templates) or are released accordingly by other copyright holders and making the same template here on Commons. This way has proven to be very practical within german Wikipedia (which has a very strict image policy). Arnomane 17:35, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Addition: To be polite we have in german Wikipedia additional the following policy: We ask every town if they want to giv us their emblem (mostly found on their web site) accordingly to the GFDL or alternativly: We create a own one after the official description and inform them. In both cases we clearly say within the email that copryright and other right needs to be distinct and that we take care of it and that other rights than copyright don't get touched by the GFDL. As I can remember we had two towns that were very unfriendly (rude email answers with threats, but they made themselves quite ridicolous, it also went trough the media afterwards ;-) ) and some other very distinct answers that they disallow us the use in any way. In those cases we deleted out of fairness the picture or didn't upload one although it is higly questionable if they have any right in demanding that (in cases were the copyright of the emblem is clearly expired). If you want some advice etc. ask in English (or German, but no problem we all speak English) within the german Wikipedia e.g. here: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Urheberrechtsfragen and the persons involved in this matter will help you for sure. Arnomane 09:20, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Comment to the above: These coats of arms are not covered by copyright law per se. But their use in their own country is very restricted, and many other countries have similar laws (I don't know about the US). There is no problem using them for information purposes like in Wikipedia, similar to fair use. There is no need to ask. So there is not a problem using these images in Wikipedia. The problem is that I do not believe the images belong in the Commons. -- Egil 17:41, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- As I said: In de-Wikipedia we have the same image policy as in the commons. (or better said the other way round, our policy is far older ;-) ). So we exactly had this discussion and came to the conclusion above (the example with the famous person was one of our decision points). And note: In Germany (and Austria and Switzerland) dosen't exist a "Fair Use" right, so we were forced by law to be far more stricter than the en-Wikipedia (German law gets also applied to websites in other nations that are edited by Germans) with images and now I'm quite happy with our strict image policy. So I'm for keeping those images within the commons provided the following conditions:
- The image is out of copyright or the copyright holder released it GFDL-free (if so tell the names of the copyright holder and when the image was created).
- A polite question via email to the town using that sign. If they refuse us any use we delete the image out of fairness within the commons.
- I they allow us the use cite the email answer below the description of the image.
- I think with this policy everyone can live comfortable and we act very strict according the image policy of the commons. Arnomane 18:24, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- As I said: In de-Wikipedia we have the same image policy as in the commons. (or better said the other way round, our policy is far older ;-) ). So we exactly had this discussion and came to the conclusion above (the example with the famous person was one of our decision points). And note: In Germany (and Austria and Switzerland) dosen't exist a "Fair Use" right, so we were forced by law to be far more stricter than the en-Wikipedia (German law gets also applied to websites in other nations that are edited by Germans) with images and now I'm quite happy with our strict image policy. So I'm for keeping those images within the commons provided the following conditions:
- Comment to the above: These coats of arms are not covered by copyright law per se. But their use in their own country is very restricted, and many other countries have similar laws (I don't know about the US). There is no problem using them for information purposes like in Wikipedia, similar to fair use. There is no need to ask. So there is not a problem using these images in Wikipedia. The problem is that I do not believe the images belong in the Commons. -- Egil 17:41, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Image:Snåsa_komm.png
- Image:Inderøy_komm.png
- Image:Hitra_komm.png
- Image:Midtre_Gauldal_komm.png
- Image:Tromsø_komm.png
- Image:Buskerud_vapen.png
- Image:Oppland_vapen.png
- Image:Rogaland_fylke_vapen.png
- Image:Sogn_og_Fjordane_fylke_vapen.png
- Image:Sør-Trøndelag_vapen.png
- Image:Telemark_vapen.png
- Image:Vest-Agder_vapen.png
- Image:Vestfold_vapen.png
- Image:Norway_coat.png
Other coats of arms with the same status as the above (but not marked as being on deletion request) are:
- Image:Røyrvik komm.png
- Image:Overhalla komm.png
- Image:Nærøy komm.png
- Image:Namsskogan komm.png
- Image:Meråker komm.png
- Image:Lierne komm.png
- Image:Levanger komm.png
- Image:Leka komm.png
- Image:Stjørdal komm.png
- Image:Verdal komm.png
- Image:Vikna komm.png
- Image:Grong komm.png
- Image:Høylandet komm.png
All images kept and labeled {{insignia}}. ]]— Dan | [[User talk:Rdsmith4|Talk 22:38, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
ESA-Picture, not free. -83.129.86.235 02:03, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, "non-commercial" isn't free enough for Commons. James F. (talk) 14:45, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, The one who asked the ESA was me. I had put quite some energy in convincing them and they clearly said, they want us to accept their license, so deletion of this (and other ESA Images here) absolutley necessary and can be done without much asking (by the way all ESA images in German Wikipedia are now deleted because of this). The full answer Email of ESA see my mails (forwarded answers in English below my remarks in German): [5] and [6]. So no chance in keeping this. Arnomane 17:32, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- The same applies to the following ESA images that can be deleted the same time: Image:Vega-ESA.jpg, Image:Ariane 5 launcher at Guiana Space Centre.jpg and probably some more. Arnomane 23:51, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Deleted. ]]— Dan | [[User talk:Rdsmith4|Talk 22:38, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- REASON -- It is a deriative work of the harry potter series. The drawing is great, no offence to the drawer, but unfortunatly this picture has problems that are incompatible with the Commons.
- ARGUMENTS -- Mboverload 14:35, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I'm not sure about this one. Comments? James F. (talk) 14:50, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- The test for a derivative work is that it is "based on and a close copy of". Certainly, this is based on the Harry Potter series. Is it a close copy of it? I am not sure. Raul654 17:42, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I'm not sure. If it just was inspiered by Harry Potter keep. If its painted after a Person in the Films (haven't seen them) delete. -guety 02:53, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, it is a character from the films. --Mboverload 09:11, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, this is obviously actor Alan Rickman in one of the Harry Potter movies. Thuresson 14:30, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Deleted. ]]— Dan | [[User talk:Rdsmith4|Talk 22:38, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
IMHO this image can be deleted because there is another version of the same picture that has a higher resolution. (Image:Dresden Augustusbrücke Altstadt 1900.jpg) --AlexF 15:25, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Tentative keep. I prepared and uploaded the image listed for deletion here. You'll notice that I removed a lot of dirt from the scan, smoothed it, and sharpened it. That entailed some loss of quality that would have been visible in the full resolution (ca. 3500×2500), so I scaled it down to about half the size (1600×1200) and cropped it to a standard aspect ratio. Also, resolution isn't everything. I don't know of any articles for which a 1600px image is too small; in all cases it gets scaled down to 200px to 400px. --MarkSweep 21:35, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep both of them. One is the original the other is a version cleaned up for use in articles. The time when resolution is all important is when you wan't to crop the image to get a peice to illustrate something specific. BTW if an image has been modified in any way from the source version PLEASE state what you have done and why on the image page Plugwash 17:52, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I added a description of the modifications. Note that the smaller image is not a modification of the larger one. Rather, they are two different modifications of the same archival TIFF file from the LOC. --MarkSweep 06:25, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- ok i downloaded the archival tiff to take a look. It apeears the only changes made to the larger version were cropping and jpeg conversion. A png conversion of the original tiff is still pretty big (the original tiff seems to be 24 bit rgb so a conversion to png should be lossless) and is probablly too big to upload here. I think there are two main possibilties here
- 1:keep both versions (what i would do)
- 2:delete the higher res virtually unmodified version those who need the original source material can get it from the LOC site (possible problem if that section of the LOC site were to dissapear. Plugwash 11:43, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I added a description of the modifications. Note that the smaller image is not a modification of the larger one. Rather, they are two different modifications of the same archival TIFF file from the LOC. --MarkSweep 06:25, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Kept. ]]— Dan | [[User talk:Rdsmith4|Talk 01:33, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Copyright information is wrong. German copyright expires 70 years after the death of the author/creator. Old copyright laws are no longer valid. --217.234.129.104 21:34, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: Could we get a legal opinion on the copyright terms as they apply to images from before 1949? --MarkSweep 05:09, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- The copyright terms today (70 years pma) apply even on images before 1949, that has been discussed a thousand times on German wikipedia. --Leipnizkeks 16:20, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- no possible author is alive! who should say sth. against? Schaengel89 @me 15:42, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- The heirs? --Paddy 19:32, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
These guys are from german picture deletion mafia. All whats true about it is: It may be not PD in germany for some reason, but for sure: it is PD-US, if it helps. The new (1995) copyrights terms did not affect the old copyright status directly. This misunderstanding is forced in german wikipedia for reasons i did not know. I personally think that we cannot trace down every possibel (rare, theoretical, probably, may by) copyright infringement. And therefor keep in mind: What you mark PD-US-GOV is copyright protected in germany anyhow. Look at the history of [7] and you will see that the Leibnizkeks first tags a deletion request and some hours later he tags it again as PD, because of a american website (no word of a german copyright terms today). So be aware! -- Stahlkocher 20:09, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
@Stahlkocher there is no need to label people here as "picture deletion mafia" or to pillory Leibnizkeks. This is not the place expose people like that here. This is the site where you may objectively dicuss the copyright. That is what this discussion is for. And even Leibnizkeks may be wrong with the copyright of a picture or make a mistake. If you carry on making defamatory statements like you did I will ask someone else to have you temoraraly blocked. If it gets worse I do it myself. greetings --Paddy 21:02, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Sorry, I was upset. On the other hand: I would be a good idea not to tell people that the copyright terms today (70 years pma) apply even on images before 1949. This is missleading and not the truth. -- Stahlkocher 12:34, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Is there anywhere on Wikipedia where German copyright laws are discussed? Preferrably in English but I understand German fairly well. Swedish copyright law is in a similar situation, with 1942 being the relevant year. Thuresson 14:55, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- It is at de:Wikipedia:Bildrechte. In the EU today should be a copyright law with little differences in each EU-country. I personally compared todays german law with the spanish one, there were only minor differences. The problem (or were the 70 year pma opinion is based on) is a judgment in a lawsuit in March 2004, in which a italy picture, first published 1943, found to be still copyrighted in germany. There was another lawsuit in 1999, were few pictures made around 1930 found to be copyrighted. The problem is the complex history of the complex german copyright law. The law itself is not fully clear and left room for opinions. Although it is thruth that, If the performer is dead for 70 years there is no room for discussion, it did not mean If the performer is not dead for 70 years the picture is still copyrighted -- Stahlkocher 19:03, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Kept. ]]— Dan | [[User talk:Rdsmith4|Talk 01:33, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Please delete this image I have received proof that it is a fake. [8] Apollomelos 19:29, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Agree: This looks like actor Jeremy Irons in the TV miniseries Brideshead Revisited from 1981. Thuresson 15:05, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Deleted. ]]— Dan | [[User talk:Rdsmith4|Talk 01:33, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Please delete this image also. An expert of ancient Greek pederasty has questioned its authenticity. And unless its source can be further substantiated beyond this sole site I would prefer it removed to be on the safe side. Apollomelos 19:29, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Deleted. ]]— Dan | [[User talk:Rdsmith4|Talk 01:33, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Looks like a clear copyvio. -guety 01:02, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Deleted. ]]— Dan | [[User talk:Rdsmith4|Talk 01:33, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)