Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 September 8

< September 7	September 9 >

September 8

File:Stinger system.JPG

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stinger system.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Noclador (notify | contribs).

Tagged with {{di-no fair use rationale}}; procedural nomination. NW (Talk) 01:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a weapons system that's used by the US Army, and one that isn't terribly secret. Hence there are lots of freely-licensed images of it, that can serve the purpose just as well as this non-free one. — PyTom (talk) 05:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Italian government photos are not PD, but US Army photos are. Thus, there is no need for this non-free image, it is replaceable (WP:NFCC#1). Jappalang (talk) 08:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Brothers in misfortune.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Brothers in misfortune.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Russavia (notify | contribs).

Copyright violation The image was derived from a copyrighted document here, this document does not provide any provenance of the image, other than to state it was published by the "Nansen committee". The uploader asserts that this image is public domain in Russia, but this only applies to images published in Russia, but the source document states it was published by the "Nansen committee", and this committee was based in Geneva, Switzerland. The actual image has French caption text, and a google search reveals the original image to be a post card published in Geneva, Switzerland. The only allowance for public domain images under the Swiss Copyright Law is related to official government publications as explained in Template:PD-Switzerland-official. Note that the "Nansen Committee" still exists and is based in Geneva, they would still likely retain copyright of the image. Martintg (talk) 05:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, according to Swiss_copyright_law#Duration_of_protection the duration of protection for anonymous works is 70 years. Thus, the image became PD in 1991. I have changed the license tag to {{PD-old-70}} Alex Bakharev (talk) 07:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CSD#F8.--Rockfang (talk) 04:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Enterprise-model-shopped.png

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Derivative work

File:Enterprise-model-shopped.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by David Fuchs (notify | contribs).

Photos taken under freedom of panorama do not grant rights for derivative works on the copyrighted object (See commons:Commons:Freedom of panorama#The right to modify and commons:Commons:Freedom of panorama#Further derivative works). Jappalang (talk) 06:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The extent of the derivative work is to display only a part of the model, rather than the entirety, and that would seem to fall within the ambit of "The author of a photograph has the right to authorize the derivative work based on the photograph only to the extent that results from the creative element of his work". Stifle (talk) 08:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That does not compute with the preceding statements: "A derivative work based on a photograph is most often also a derivative work based on the depicted object. The panorama freedom usually does not include the delegation of the right to authorize the derivative works." Basically, the photographer cannot authorize others to make derivative works of his own derivative work (Enterprise) as stated in the conclusion: "However, he does not have the right to authorize the derivative work in the extent associated with the original object.". Also, "Generally, the freedom to modify such pictures is restricted." Cropping is fine, but removing elements of the photo to cut out a copyrighted object and re-using it elsewhere seems to be out of line with the rights granted for photos taken under panorama of freedom. Jappalang (talk) 09:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Catalog back page.JPG

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep Published before 1978 with no evidence of compliance with US formalities for copyright and no evidence of copyright in Yugoslavia. -Nv8200p talk 21:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Catalog back page.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Andrija.b (notify | contribs).

This is a bit of a complicated one. The image is from a catalogue, and was first published in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia in the 1960s, prior to the enactment of any copyright laws. The uploader has permission from the person who owns the particular copy of the catalogue. Normally, that would not be sufficient, but I am unable to find anything that suggests that the catalogue is, or ever was, copyrighted. I am therefore nominating for deletion with a neutral recommendation, as the copyright status is not 100% certain. Stifle (talk) 08:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Milenko Stefanovic was born in 1930 in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. In the Second World War the country joined the Allies, but was defeated and occupied by Nazi forces. At the end of the war, using the final fights for liberation, Yugoslav communists succeeded to gain control over the country and keep it until the late ‘80s. Yugoslav monarchy was abolished and replaced by the republic named Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia, which was later renamed to Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. So, the catalog was printed in the country under the communist rule.

There was very little private property in communism. Almost everything was the property of either the state or the whole society (i.e. of the “working people”). There weren’t such things as copyrights, at least not as we understand them today. For example, if someone wrote a book, he/she had the right to be recognized as its author, nobody else could publish it under his own name, or plagiarize it on some other way. However, if someone would like to have that book, he didn’t have to buy it, he could simply (photo) copy it without any legal penalty. Radio and TV stations were using various recordings without the obligation to pay the royalty to composers and performers. Even the most eminent musicians were often expected to perform without fees or for fees promised only orally, without any written contract. There weren’t specialized public relations agencies who would prepare promotional catalogs. As far as I know, artists usually had to prepare and organize printing of their promotional material by themselves. I’ve never asked Professor Stefanovic who printed his catalog, or who took the picture, neither that’s important, because that person probably isn’t alive any more. But even if he/she were alive, he/she wouldn’t expect to have any copyright of the picture. The exclusive copyrights owner always was the person for whom the catalog or similar material was made.

I hope that this explanation will help clarifying the status of the image. Best regards,--Andrija (talk) 11:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Pricegougeexample.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pricegougeexample.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Digitalhen (notify | contribs).

Orphaned image, claim that it's a price gouge is OR. Listing is in Singapore Dollars, not US, so bound to confuse most of our readers. DreamGuy (talk) 16:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or rename and transwiki to Commons. Stifle (talk) 09:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.