Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2005/05

< Commons:Deletion requests | Archive
Commons logo
Commons logo

This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests.

You can visit the most recent archive here.

Archive
Archive
Archive May 2005

May 1

edit

Image:MTR Kwun Tong Line Extension (1984).gif

edit

seems copyright violation --Hello World! 16:48, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

several New York images

edit

Thes nice image are licensed under CC-BY-NC-SA, see [1]. So only non commercial. These image have to be deleted because of that. Very sad as Image:Flatitron Building Another Image.jpg was even an image of the day in december. Arnomane 20:39, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

May 2

edit

Image:MTR System Map.jpg

edit

Map of the Hong Kong underground system. From the MTR website [2]. MTR do not allow [3] commercial use: You agree not to post, publish, transmit, reproduce, distribute or in any way exploit any Content obtained through the Website for commercial purposes. Thuresson 00:29, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Licensing --Avatar 18:40, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Can the same image be uploaded to Wikipedia? — Instantnood 19:03, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
For example in the english wikipedia there is a Category:Non-commercial use only images but it is strongly discouraged to upload new pictures with this license. --Avatar 22:33, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I guess the MTR article needs this image until there is a substitute. — Instantnood 15:00, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bspider.ogg

edit 
file Bspider.ogg
Bspider.ogg: MS-DOS executable (EXE), OS/2 or MS Windows.

--Baikonur 12:36, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what the program does, but it has the string "Black Spider Virus installed!" in it. So please do not run it. The uploader should probably be blocked. --Baikonur 12:48, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. \u2014 Richie 14:37, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maple story

edit

All images on that page where screenshots of the game, I have deleted them. I don't think there is any free content that would make sense on that page. -- Duesentrieb 14:23, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

May 3

edit

Image:Scarabaeus_laticollis01.jpg

edit

re-uploaded under Image:Copris_lunaris02.jpg Jeffdelonge 06:07, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ngevangel1.jpg

edit

No licensing information, no content information, immediately clear that it could only have been uploaded under fair use. - Andre Engels 12:00, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All contributions from the uploader were copvios, including this DVD cover. Deleted. Thuresson 12:30, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Guo_Xuehu_1930.jpg

edit

This nice picture was also picture of the day but it is no PD even not in the UA as artist is still alive: Proof (even if I can't read chinese):

  • This web link (source within the picture description) [4] has the following subpages (left navigation): author and image. As you can see from the author description he was born in 1908 and is stil alive.
  • So this nice image needs to be deleted as far as I can see it. Arnomane 23:31, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Central Intelligence Agency logo.png

edit

The official seal of the Central Intelligence Agency. CIA Act of 1949 (50 U.S.C. section 403m):

No person may, except with the written permission of the Director, knowingly use the words \u201cCentral Intelligence Agency\u201d, the initials \u201cCIA\u201d, the seal of the Central Intelligence Agency, or any colorable imitation of such words, initials, or seal in connection with any merchandise, impersonation, solicitation, or commercial activity in a manner reasonably calculated to convey the impression that such use is approved, endorsed, or authorized by the Central Intelligence Agency. Source: [5]

Thuresson 16:50, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Um, so we not only can't use the image, but also cannot say anything about the CIA at all (Since we're licensing stuff under the GFDL which allows commercial use)? Sounds a bit weird. --Conti|✉ 23:52, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is a restriction independent of copyright and thus does not really concern us. For most insignia, any use suggesting endorsement is prohibited - this has lead to much discussion in the past, but I (and many others) belive we should not concern ourselves with this as long as the use in wikimedia projects is legal. Note that similar restrictions apply to all images of people - you may not use them in a derogatory way or in a way that suggest endorsement without the consent of the person shown (this is true in many countries). This has nothing to do with copyright or the GFDL, and I belive we can keep such images. -- Duesentrieb
From http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/docs/contributor_copyright.html, "The Factbook is in the public domain. Accordingly, it may be copied freely without permission of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). The official seal of the CIA, however, may NOT be copied without permission as required by the CIA Act of 1949 (50 U.S.C. section 403m). Misuse of the official seal of the CIA could result in civil and criminal penalties." Pretty much as clear as it gets, it's copyrighted. /Grillo 01:52, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As clear as the day is bright but some people claim that the US federal government can not own copyrights. My main reason for nominating this however was that the NASA logotype was nominated here a month ago and quickly deleted [6]. WikiCommons should have either both or none. Thuresson 02:25, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the notification, Thuresson.
This logo is just another instance of the same old problem for Wikinews. The goals of Wikinews are simply at odds with Wikimedia Commons.
Wikinews needs fair use images. It needs to use logos for business and political reporting. It needs to use screenshots when reporting on issues or developments in the computer software industry. Wikinews needs to use images marked "for editorial use only" for science stories.
However, this project (Commons) is more important than all that. Since Wikinews has been denied its own image repository, I'm afraid there is now a legitimate reason to consider forking Wikinews to work around this issue.
I apologize for all the hassles from Wikinews-related images. I mistakenly thought that someone was going to wave a magic wand to do something about this problem, but I can see now that was wishful thinking and we're just deluding ourselves by waiting for something to change. Regards, — DV 06:07, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how WikiNews was supposed to work with only free license images. Apparently their contributors don't think it can. One example: Image:AbigailWitchalls.jpg may be used for information but not for commercial purposes, clearly at odds with commons policy. However, I found Wikinews:Policies and guidelines/Image use policy which may be some kind of solution. Thuresson 07:23, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

insignia of the US government are a) PD and b) protected against misuse by law. That is, the copyright/license is compliant with the commons licensing policy, but other restrictions apply (see alse Template:Insignia), as is the case for most coats of arms and most images showing people.

This has led to discussions time and time again, and we will need a clear policy for this eventually - please discuss at Commons:Village pump#Copyright vs. other laws: problems with commercial use, etc. -- Duesentrieb 12:03, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • I think you should just close down the image section because the admins here are much too controling and much too compliant and submissive when it comes to illegal government directives such as ones like this saying :"No person may, except with the written permission of the Director.... knowingly use the words \u201cCentral Intelligence Agency" which is an obvious breach of the freedom of speech which is guaranteed by the overiding U.S. constitution. The fact that directive is even quoted here shows how some of the admins here have gone "over the top" in their application of their administrative authority and are not doing anything at all to stick up for our collective freedoms of speech and expression in this site. 64.229.28.130 12:53, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1.The USA has a constitution which vests all federal government power to the people; thus the expression a government "of the people". Our government doesn't own anything; the people of the USA own all the stuff that the government manages for the people.

2. Therefore the people own the logos of all federal government agencies,departments,armed forces etc.

3. Public is another word for "the people"

4. Therefore any US federal government logo is automatically in the "public" domain.

So, please just get the corks out and quit imagining the government has more power than it actually does.67.71.123.177 05:03, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

See Commons:Village pump for responses to the arguments put forward by 67.71.123.177.

May 4

edit

Image:Drunk brits.jpg

edit

Reason: This image was original source: http://www.sloreactor.com/forum/uploads//post-32-1085681599.jpg via http://www.carniola.org/theglory/2004/11/something_naked.htm No evidence of PD. - Amgine 23:55, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The uploader is a possible problem user on wikinews, wikinews:User:Paulrevere2005 and my impression is that several of his uploads to commons are possible copyright violations. Thuresson 02:48, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted, Thuresson 12:29, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Oleic_acid_shorthand_formula_2.PNG

edit

Reason: I am the uploader of the image. I did safe the picture by mistake two times. The version Image:Oleic_acid_shorthand_formula_2.PNG can be deleted, the (identical) version Image:Oleic_acid_shorthand_formula.PNG should be kept. --WS62 04:09, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. --EugeneZelenko 14:13, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]


May 5

edit

Template:SwedishGovernment

edit

This template is no accepted free license. Quote: This photo comes from the Swedish Government Offices Photo Gallery. It may be used freely during the cabinet's term of office but not later than October 2006. So no way this against our policy of free usage, see Commons:Licensing. All images using thes template need to be deleted also, that are:

The only way keeping them would be asking the swedish government if they would change their image policy. Arnomane 11:01, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - a license that does not allow the use of the images forever is not free. -- Duesentrieb 11:50, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. James F. (talk) 17:32, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep *Sigh*. These images were uploaded by another user several months ago and nobody complained. I therefor assumed that Commons would accept these images so I took the time and uploaded the rest of the them. These images are also used by several other meta wikis so if anyone delete them from Commons they'll have to go back and manually upload them to all the other language wikis. Also, what matters is that the images may be used freely as long as they are here on commons. Why not just remove them when the license expires? /Jebur 21:01, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Well there are problay many unfree pictures for months that need to be found and deleted. Well you can't reuse the pictures. How can we allow reuse of these pictures if they need to be deteled at some point? There is the policy of the commons only to have free content without usage restrictions, regardless how nice or how valuable a certain picture is. Arnomane 21:11, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia and the sister projects must be the bests free projects. Free is more important than good. Sanbec ✉ 08:22, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mugabe old.jpg

edit

I don't have a lot of confidence in web sites where users can upload and share "their" photos. This photo which the uploader claims is PD comes from flickr.com and the image looks like something from a news website. Regardless, the fine print clearly says [7] © All rights reserved. Thuresson 23:41, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seems as if he had mistaken This photo is public for PD. Thought Flickr has to be used with care (good signs for a self taken photo are Hi-Res, a series of photos at the same place) its a fine resource, much better than US-Gov (status outside the USA is not necessarily PD). And if you don't have confidence in web sites where people can upload and share photos this must be a nightmare for you. ;-) --guety 00:08, 5 May 2005 (UTC) (PS.: I love Flickr and Delete)[reply]

Image:Harumi umihotaru.jpg

edit

this file name is not correct. Same file is already existed as Image:Harumi passenger ship terminal.jpg.--Kentin 14:53, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged with {{redundant|[[:Image:Harumi passenger ship terminal.jpg]]}}. Sanbec ✉ 08:11, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Image:USAF seal.png and Image:US_Department_of_the_Air_Force_seal.png

edit

User:Arcturus has informed me that as per air force policy (see [8]), these images may not in fact be available in the public domain. In summary: use of the air force seal requires written permission from their air force. Though we could get permission, this would place the image in Category:Images used with permission, meaning that visitors to the sight cannot reproduce the image from us, but must rather ask the air force for permission. We prefer not to put users in this position, so we should probably just delete these images. →Iñgōlemo← talk 02:08, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

keep: Please see the discussion about #Image:Central Intelligence Agency logo.png above: insignia of the US government are a) PD and b) protected against misuse by law. That is, the copyright/license is compliant with the commons licensing policy, but other restrictions apply (see alse Template:Insignia), as is the case for most coats of arms and most images showing people.
This has led to discussions time and time again, and we will need a clear policy for this eventually - please discuss at Commons:Village pump#Copyright vs. other laws: problems with commercial use, etc. -- Duesentrieb 12:03, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the seal PD, when the USAF says ([9] section Permission to use art): \u201cWith the exception of the Air Force symbol and the Air Force Seal, images posted to the Internet are considered in the realm of public domain \u2026\u201d? -- Arcturus 09:02, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Because AFAIK if it is work by the US federal government, it is PD, no matter what the webpage sais. It would be different if the seal was work by a third party that is just licensed to the USAF (maybe this is the case?). I'm not sure why their wbsite is worded the way it is; The seal is in any case not usable "freely", as there are restrictions imposed by criminal law, as opposed to civil law which deals with copyright. Note that there is a very big difference: using copyrighted work without permissin is infringement, while misuse of insignia is a crime. I belive it is quite impossible to restrict material on the commons to images that are usable in any way, taking into account criminal law of all countries, too. We would have to delete all coats of arms and seals, all pictures of people, many maps, many images showing money and stamps, etc.
as I said I belive we need a clear policy for dealing with this. -- Duesentrieb 10:21, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
as a side note: I belive we don't have to delete these images, but we could, as a precausion. I have no strong feelings about keeping them, I just think it is very important to see the difference between copyright and criminal law, and to create clear guidelines accordingly. -- Duesentrieb 16:03, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The Air Force website states this about the seal: "Air Force Seal

Can I get an electronic copy of the Department of the Air Force Seal? Yes, however the Air Force Seal is protected by law from use by any party for purposes not specifically authorized by the Air Force. The seal is permitted only as outlined below (AFMAN33-326, 01 Nov 1999). Falsely making, forging, counterfeiting, mutilating, or altering the seal, or knowingly using or possessing with fraudulent intent is punishable by law (Title 18 U.S. Code 506, Crimes and Criminal Procedure). Display of the seal is allowed in certain instances. Commanders must make sure the display is in good taste and appropriate to the occasion. Authorized Users. Commanders of major commands (MAJCOM), field operating agencies (FOA), direct reporting units (DRU), Air Force missions, military assistance advisory groups, air attaches, professors of aerospace studies, and Air Force general officers may use the Air Force seal in the performance of their official duties. Museums may use the seal when specifically authorized by AFHRA. Authorized Uses. You may use the seal or any part of it--in black and white, color monochrome reproduction, pictorial, or sculptured relief--as follows: -- On printing issued at departmental level for general Air Force use. -- In official Air Force films, videotapes, or television programs. -- On programs, certificates, diplomas, invitations, and greetings of an official nature. -- On memorials or monuments erected or approved by the Department of the Air Force. -- With any official Air Force exhibit. -- On wall plaques at Air Force facilities with the approval of the appropriate commander or agency chief. Unauthorized Uses. The seal will not be to imply Air Force use or endorsement of an item. (For example: Air Force property and equipment for identification. Souvenir or novelty items.) -- Printed matter copied or collected by an Air Force activity, except as shown in paragraph -- Toys or commercial gifts and premiums. -- Stationery as a letterhead design. -- Menus, matchbook covers, sugar envelopes, calendars, and similar items. -- Military or civilian clothing."

I believe that our use of the seal is justified, since the image is in good taste, used appropriately, and we are just showing what the departmental seal looks like. Zscout370 (sound off) 03:49, 2005 May 7 (UTC)

Okay, but now I have a new deletionist whim: the latter image is exactly the same as the former. I say that since they're redundant, we might as well go for the larger image, which is <USAF seal.png>. →Iñgōlemo← talk 23:29, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Inter2.png and other logos from Category:Soccer

edit

I doubt that these logos are not copyrighted. --EugeneZelenko 06:04, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, ISTR that they are PD. Can't remember where the discussion was, but it certainly /was/ discussed before.
James F. (talk) 10:13, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The graphics provided by http://hqfl.dk are probably free, but this does not change the fact the most opf the designes of the logos are still protected (i.e. all that are not very old). This makes those images non-free, so delete unless the design is free, too. -- Duesentrieb 11:53, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
From the HQFL disclaimer:
All logos are trademarks of their respective owners, and are offered for non-commercial use and as a convenience for their lawful use only, with proper permission from the copyright or trademark holders.'. Thuresson 03:30, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Unknown

edit

.gif's Image:Etunojapunnerrus.gif Image:Jalkaprassi.gif Image:Jalkakyykky.gif Image:Maastaveto.gif Image:Pystypunnerrus.gif Image:Penkkipunnerrus.gif

.ogg's Image:2step pattern1.ogg Image:Ang-Hwicce.ogg Image:Ang-Aethelweard.ogg Image:Ang-Aethelric.ogg Image:Ang-Tha geanlaehtan underricu american.ogg

logo Image:National Institutes of Health logo.gif Image:Logo-francophonie.jpg

coat of arms/flag/seal Image:New zealand coa.png Image:Monaco coa.png Image:Nl-arms.gif Image:Lambang Mongolia.png Image:Latvia coa.png Image:Kyrgyzstan coa.png Image:Japan coa.png Image:Joensuu coat of arms.png Image:Ireland coa.png Image:Iran coa.png Image:Hungary-coa.jpg Image:KareliaCoatOfArms.gif Image:Kazakhstan.gif Image:Lithuania coat of arms.png Image:Macedonia coa.gif Image:Madagascar COA.png --Paddy 13:15, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Mexempire2.JPG Image:Mauritius coa.png Image:North Carolina state seal.png Image:Oslo coat.gif Image:Fiji coat of arms.gif Image:Escudo alvarado.jpg Image:Drammen coa.png Image:Connecticut state seal.png Image:Coat of Arms Angola.jpg Image:China guohui.png Image:Chervonograd.png Image:Ch zh wappen stadt.gif Image:Ch ge armoiries geneve ville.gif Image:Bosnia coa.png Image:Belgium coat of arms large.png Image:Afganistan coa small.png Image:02Escu1.jpg Image:South korea coa.png Image:Singapore crest.png Image:Skitts22.PNG Image:Russia coa.png Image:Portugal coa.png Image:PRC coa.png Image:Iceland Hornafjordur Skjaldamerki.png Image:Amazonas region logo.png Image:Vulogo.gif Image:US-DeptOfHomelandSecurity-Seal.png Image:Turkmenistan coa.jpg Image:Templarsign.jpg Image:Texas state seal.png Image:Escudo Temoac small.GIF

In many counties, insignia are a) PD and b) protected against misuse by law. That is, the copyright/license is compliant with the commons licensing policy, but other restrictions apply (see also Template:Insignia), as is also the case for many images showing people.
This has led to discussions time and time again, and we will need a clear policy for this eventually - please discuss at Commons:Village pump#Copyright vs. other laws: problems with commercial use, etc. -- Duesentrieb 12:03, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The Image:South korea coa.png has been marked on the italian Wikipedia as PD, see it:Immagine:Sudcorea-Stemma.png (I compaired the MD5 sums). But it has been uploaded on March 4, 2004, while the Image on the english Wikipedia has been uploaded on March 1, 2004 by a user with a different name. So I believe, it is copied from en. -- IGEL 12:58, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]


portrait Image:Susansontag.gif Image:Pi ar.jpg Image:Nikolay Nikolayevich Semyonov.jpg Image:Nikolay Dmitrievich Zelinsky.jpg Image:Necatigil.jpg Image:Maltete.jpg Image:Mario Del Monaco dans Otello.jpg Image:Lovecraft.jpg Image:Klaus.jpg Image:Karl Marx (middle-aged).gif Image:Innocentius x.jpg Image:Huxley.png Image:Hawking.jpg Image:Grzegorz XVII.jpg Image:Friedrich von hayek.jpg Image:Butlerov.png Image:Behrens.JPG Image:Arrhenius.jpg Image:Avila-camacho.jpg Image:BP Nikolsky.png Image:Amin dada.jpg Image:Alexander Naumovich Frumkin.png Image:Aleksei Aleksandrovich Balandin.jpg Image:ABC Zaqawi.jpg Image:Ram Gopal Varma.jpg Image:Raymon barre 01.jpg Image:PILAR MIRO 01.JPG Image:ZbHerbert.jpg Image:Talabani VOA.jpg Image:Band pic 2004.jpg Image:Andrzej z Helu.JPG Image:Pulvermacher.jpg

cover Image:Klaatu4.gif Image:Klaatu5.gif Image:Klaatu6.gif Image:Klaatu7.jpg Image:Klaatu8.jpg Image:Klaatu9.jpg

Done, Sanbec ✉ 08:17, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

other Image:Hexley bare 450.png Image:Hexley fork 450.png Image:Gg2.png Image:GDIposter.jpg

No license or other copyright problems. If you know the license and the source, add it and strike the image. -- Breezie 10:26, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oops, I got confused about that whole thing. Sorry, I'm new to this. Please delete the Klaatu images. I'll upload to the normal English Wikipedia. -- Tenniru


May 6

edit

Image:Himmelsscheibe von Nebra.jpg

edit

This is not PD worldwide, at least in Germany the rights are held by Saxony-Anhalt by (mis?)using §71 UrhG which grants the Publisher of a perevious unpuplished work exclusive rights on the work for 25 years. I don't know in how far this affects other juristications. -guety 16:48, 6 May 2005 (UTC) (and yes they sue people and, even worse, win)[reply]

This is not a two-dimensional work of art (paintings etc.) and the Template:PD-Art on this image is misleading. The disc was discovered in 1999 (see [10]) and I assume that the normal rules for photographs apply. Thuresson 17:22, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As Thuresson said it before this is no two dimensional work, thus this picture is no public domain anyways and needs to be deleted because of this. So we don't need to base the deletionrequest on the very questionable decission of a local court that lead to shameless (you can't call it other than that) misuse of german copyright laws by the government (!) of the state of Saxony-Anhalt (the decission would be very probably rejected if someone would take the time and money and would fight it through the instances). Arnomane 19:23, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that the Template:PD-Art is modified
The two-dimensional work of art (a painting or similar) depicted in this image is in the public domain worldwide. This photograph of the work is also in the public domain in the United States.
Thuresson 20:43, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry if my upload of this was incorrect or even illegal :( my understanding was that for commons, the laws of Florida (where the servers are located) would apply. Otherwise, the very difficult question will arise which local laws we take into account. The EU and Germany? fine. Also Switzerland? if so, also Serbia, Nigeria, Cuba and North Korea, or where do we draw the line. If we take the laws of the latter into account, Kim Jong-il could pretty much have any image on wikimedia deleted on a whim. As for "non-2d", since no work of art in the material world is truly two-dimensional, I understand this to mean that the work should contain no information of depth of the thing depicted. I.e. a mosaic would be fair game, but a relief probably wouldn't. The image on the sky disk is certainly not stereographical, or a sculpture. Dbachmann 12:56, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The fact remains that by uploading this image to WikiCommons you are distributing somebody else's work, a 1000x943 px image that a photographer has taken time to produce. See Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. who judged that exact photographic copies of public domain images are not protected by copyright. Since the disc is a 3D object and not an image, the photo is not PD. Thuresson 14:37, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
huh, according to the very case you cite, it's irrelevant that the image took time or effort or money to produce. What matters is originality. images of 3D objects such as statues or buildings may be original (angle, lighting), at least the court chose to say nothing about them. But what is a 3D object? Every painting is, consisting of canvas, layers of paint, etc. In this sense, the Nebra disk is a 2D object like any painting, mosaic or gobelin: it's a 2-dimensional artistic projection (a circle) of a three dimensional object (the sky). All originality is due to the artist who lived 3000 years ago, the photographer was simply charged with giving a faithful representation of that 2D projection. Dbachmann 15:35, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Image deleted, Thuresson 12:34, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Technical speeches

edit

Contains no files, only two links. Either copy the files to the commons (if license is OK), or delete the category and the links to it. -- Chris 73

Category deleted. Please delete the links to it . Sanbec ✉ 08:24, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

May 7

edit

Image:Colloseum.jpg

edit

Duplicates Image:Colloseum exterior.jpg and is not used. --Derbeth 13:11, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. --EugeneZelenko 13:28, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

May 8

edit

Image:Neil armstrong moon flag.jpg

edit

This isn't a photo of Neil Armstrong on the Moon. It is Buzz Aldrin [11] -- Evil Monkey 10:12, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done, Sanbec ✉ 08:37, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:VR lähiliikenne route map.png

edit

Route map from [12]. In the lower left corner is "© VR-Group Ltd 2005". Thuresson 15:26, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:VR lähiliikenne geographical map.png

edit

Train route map from [13]. Lower left corner claims "© VR-Group Ltd 2003". Thuresson 15:26, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Finnish Road Administration

edit

Map produced by the Finnish Road Administration. On its web page, the administration claims copyright to all text and images [14]: The copyright of this electronic publication is retained by the Finnish Road Administration (Finnra). No copies of texts, parts of texts or images, excluding minor quotations from the text, may be used for other publications or be sold without separate permission issued by Finnra.. Note: this is a duplicate of Image:Suomen päätiekartta.png.

Thuresson 15:49, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia logos

edit

Every non-free image in Category:CopyrightByWikimedia should be deleted, just because the Wikimedia foundation holds the copyright to them doesn't change that they're under a license far from what's acceptable here. \u2014Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 18:01, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't think storing these images on the server is a copyright violation. The best solution would be to wait until the Wikimedia foundation or their lawyers make a complaint. Thuresson 20:24, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    To quote their license: This image is copyrighted by the Wikimedia foundation. [...] All rights are reserved. (highlight by me), this clearly conflicts with our license policy. \u2014Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 02:50, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We make policies according to our needs; licensing policy is not dogma (the Wikimedia exception should be noted though). While I personally think the Wikimedia logos should be free content, the Board has decided that they shouldn't be, and the easy use of the logos on all our projects makes it desirable for them to reside on the Commons.--Eloquence 03:12, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not like I dug up some obscure part of policy and listed it on those grounds, this is a cornerstone of the commons, similer to how NPOV is a cornerstone on en. \u2014Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 04:43, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. These logos are very useful to have here. They're in wide use across all projects and really need to be part of the Commons. Is there any reason the policy can't be changed to include this category of images? Angela 03:15, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure they're useful, but so are alot of other images which we don't host because they're non-free, however the very reason why the commons was created was to form a repository of free media which this doesn't fall under. \u2014Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 04:43, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep., wikipedia is all wikis united, commons serves them all. This is a pointless vote --Cool Cat My Talk 03:28, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the point of Commons is to provide an absolutely free set of images for use on all Wikimedia projects. These images fall under that policy. James F. (talk) 13:07, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - I agree that those logos are not free by commons standards. However, as those are images internal to wikimedia, I think we should make an exception for them (which should be clear cut - I would not support exception for example for pictures of wikipedians, etc). The foundation needs a way to protect those logos against misuse - it would be better to have them under a free license and protected them using trademark law and such, but this is much harder to do internationally then relying on copyright law. The situation is actually related to the discussion about insignia, which are often free from copyright but restricted in use by national law. -- Duesentrieb 15:23, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with Ævar. As long as these images have non-free copyright status, we shouldn't host them here. If we make an exception for these because they're useful, why not make exceptions for other images that are useful? Dbenbenn 11:12, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because the copyright holder is the owner of this site, the foundation can't infringe on itself. But I agree that this is arguable, since the logos are not truely free content. -- Duesentrieb 12:47, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • So what? We don't accept files with a license like "this file can be used for whatever purpose on Wikimedia web sites" so why should we in this case? This is supposed to be a general repository for free content, not just one for Wikimedia. \u2014Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 16:45, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep :-) Anthere 23:55, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is Wikimedia. Dan100 20:54, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. indeed, to previous comment. notafish }<';> 23:27, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. concur with duesentrieb. --Elian 23:28, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "All rights are reserved" should be reconsidered by the foundation Gangleri | Th | T 23:51, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until Wikimedia sues us. Plus, how can you plagirize/infringe on yourself? Zscout370 (sound off) 03:53, 2005 May 16 (UTC)
  • Keep Just alter policy to specify "or content copyrighted by the Wikimedia Foundation". David.Monniaux 21:05, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly keep. This is really silly. Our aim is exactly the opposite of this copyright tyranny. Why shouldn't Wikimedia projects use the logo of their own foundation? Do we believe Wikimedia would sue Wikimedia for using the Wikimedia logo? Also, these logos are used by a lot of other projects and it would a hell of a lot of work to fix if some idiot deleted them. 83.109.148.29 22:07, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A cornerstone of Commons policy is that images must be free to use for any purpose. Unless this policy changes, the images shouldn't be in the dump where others may inadvertently download and use them. Baricom 08:31, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm surprised and disappointed that an exception is made at all. It doesn't matter that it's Wikimedia's copyright. Wikimedia should not be special with regards to the content of this site. This is like saying that the Wikipedia article on the Wikimedia Foundation is allowed to be POV. — I am also disappointed because more than half of the keep votes above clearly don't understand what this is about. "Wikimedia can't infringe upon itself" is an invalid argument because we're not collecting this content for Wikimedia. — Timwi 12:06, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Certainly we are. The primary purpose is to offer multimedia for the Wikimedia projects, instead of all projects needing to upload all images they want to use to themselves. 83.109.176.36 22:13, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this very useful and single exeption. petrus 17:49, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ævar, t'is was a bad idea. all arguments said Schaengel89 @me 20:38, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Commons policy says that all of the images have to be under a free license. I believe that as long as we have such a misguided policy in place, we need to not make exceptions. — Jesse's Girl | 18:37, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: A lot of people have said that it's not a copyright violation - there's clearly no argument that wikimedia would sue wikimedia, but the argument for them being deleted is not that but because according to the current commons policy all images uploaded must be free for use for any purpose by anybody, and clearly these images break the policy. I think deleting them is too extreme for the moment but policy must be changed. A simple caveat can be added, and as long as warning signs are put all over the place where the images are (ie, in Category:Wikimedia would do it. -- Joolz 19:30, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change Wikimedia Commons Policy. It is convenient to have these wikimedia copyrighted images all in one place, yet the commons must not allow any other unfree photos. Thus, we should alter the policy here to ban all unfree photos except for those copyrighted by the Wikimedia Foundation. Prominant notices should be placed on each wikimedia image that it is not free, and that of all unfree images, only wikimedia-copyrighted images are allowed here. The foundational principle of the Commons is having free (liber) media. If we could, at least in terms of policy, set up another "commons" for the wikimedia images, just for convenience, that would be preferable. --Zantastik 00:23, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change Wikimedia Commons Policy. I agree with Zantastik : the logos are really useful, and it is just a (logical) exception. --Dakdada discuter 20:38, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. These images have always been an exception, all you had to do was ask. It's illogical to ask to delete them as a way of resolving the discrepancy. silsor 22:18, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ecgod.jpg

edit

Image:Bateria4.jpg

edit

Remains of User:R@ph pictures (the other have just been terminated), no copyright status, no answer from User for a week, pobably copyvios. -guety 00:46, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

At the spanish wikipedia, R@ph has been accused of violating copyright, [15]. Thuresson 01:11, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Images deleted, Thuresson 12:41, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Japan Tottori MitokuSan Nagereido DSC01248.jpg

edit
Done, correct image is Image:Japan Tottori MitokuSan Nageiredo DSC01248.jpg Sanbec ✉ 08:32, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Shubun - reading in a bamboo studio.jpeg

edit
Tagged with {{redundant|[[:Image:Shubun_-_reading_in_a_bamboo_studio.jpg]]}}. None of both are used. Sanbec ✉ 08:36, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Checked via check-usage - Image:Shubun_-_reading_in_a_bamboo_studio.jpg is used in en, Image:Shubun - reading in a bamboo studio.jpeg is used nowhere - deleted. --Avatar 22:51, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

May 9

edit

PDF

edit

Image:Envelope - Boonville Address.pdf / Image:Envelope - Wood Food Company.pdf

This is not an open format. Please provide these documents in JPEG. Thanks. Yann 14:33, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is, see PDF, this format is non-proprietery, in fact if you go by patent claims (although it was pretty much a b.s. claim) PDF is freeer than the JPEG format you suggested. \u2014Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 02:52, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, let's see now.... PDF is not closed, closed formats are not forbidden (but discouraged), PDF is a very good format for somethings and a valid choice for vector graphics (as we still can't upload SVG, it's pretty much the only choice). But in this case the PDF serves as a wrapper for bitmaps only, which is pointles, so deleted, someone already was so kind as to extract the bitmaps. -- Duesentrieb 11:13, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

May 11

edit

Image:Tacoma Narrows Bridge.gif

edit

unknown copyright status. --Shizhao 11:45, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That has to be a frame of [16], which is public domain. --SPUI 16:06, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No it's not. (I watched the movie to find out) -guety 12:21, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Deleted. Dbenbenn 20:33, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Image:Vatican flag large.png

edit

OB by Image:Flag of Vatican City.png. Zscout370 (sound off) 15:40, 2005 May 11 (UTC)

The flag series are normalizated. See Image:Vatican flag 300.png and National insignia. Sanbec ✉ 08:00, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, Thuresson 00:28, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:xpdf.png

edit

In information page, it says the image is licensed under GFDL 1.2 or later, but I can't find out this fact:

  • It seems contained in this archive as "NoiaWarm/36x36/apps/xpdf.png", but the archive doesn't contain licence information.
  • The site distribute the archive doesn't say the archive is licensed under GFDL or other free licence.

--PiaCarrot 07:26, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

May 12

edit

Image:Basketball-Fish Hook Maneuvar model.JPG

edit

Looks like a joke to me. ed g2s • talk 02:06, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bah, I had that on my user page at en. --SPUI 16:02, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Already deleted. --Avatar 22:53, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-ESA

edit

User:Ploum's created template:PD-ESA stating that images by esa are public domain. This is not the case. The pages the template points to state clearly that the images may only be used under specific restrictions, i.e. some rights are reserved (ergo, not PD). The ESA FAQ [17] states that: You may freely use the images you find on our site, as long as it is not for commercial use. You may not modify the images. The Copyright notice [18] says specifically that If these images are to be used in advertising or any commercial promotion, layout and copy must be submitted to ESA beforehand for approval.

This is not acceptable by commons standards: derivative work must be allowed as well as commercial use. I'm aware that it would be very good if we could use pictures by ESA. I also know that there are currently talks between ESA and the Wikimedia foundation, and that Jimbo is looking into it personally. I hope this turns out well. But right now, we can't use ESA images. -- Duesentrieb 02:16, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please also delete images uploaded under this license: Image:Halley.jpg, Image:EXOSAT artist 218.jpg, and Image:Corot1.jpg. THe repective category, Category:PD ESA, should be deleted too. -- Duesentrieb 02:18, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, delete all. Sanbec ✉ 07:48, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: How often do we need to say it? Until the last person learned it that ESA images are no public domain, we wil have to say it again and again... Arnomane 22:12, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted, Thuresson 09:07, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

various poor quality vanity images of cats

edit

this request has been moved here from en:wikipedia:images and media for deletion#April 26 as the images are all here not on en. Plugwash 00:50, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete, too low quality to be usable. --Elian 17:22, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh, delete. Dbenbenn 15:49, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Uploader User:Niki K has not been notified of this request. Please wait another 7 days to delete images. Thuresson 23:51, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is only for my private gallery in PL Wiki. Niki 10:57, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. Generally, if you want to make a private photo gallery, Wikimedia isn't the right place. But the images aren't very big; perhaps they should be an exception? Dbenbenn 01:16, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
i think theese should be deleted. We are not a free webspace provider. Plugwash 11:01, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]


May 13

edit

Image:Sonnenuntergang in Europa und Afrika.jpg

edit

Usage Conditions are not public-domain-compatible, see [19]. Image has already been deleted on German WP. --Leipnizkeks 21:35, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete. -guety 23:48, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete - I have created a similar image using the same tool but NASA data: Image:Nightfall europe-and-afrika 20050507-184500.jpg -- Duesentrieb 23:17, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I used Check Usage to change from one image to the other. This image is used in en: and de: but only on talk pages. Thuresson 22:45, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted, Thuresson 19:07, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

May 14

edit

Image:Frau.jpg

edit

Very unlikly that this picture is a photo of Wikibär. He constantly claims pictures of other persons as own pictures, until we find the real source... I suppose that this woman's name is also not Gabi but some eastern european name. Supposedly this is a picture of a prostitute he found in a catalogue. Sadly we now have no picture of a real naked woman anylonger. :-( Can someone provide a good and believable free one? Arnomane 17:44, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Can you show an example for other nude persons from Wikibär? This is a heavy accusation, against it is the professional exposure. Mr.Do 18:03, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Supplementary: In the source code of this picture you can find tags like this: T i t t i e s 09 - 25 - 03. So the picture seems not to be taken at 01-12-2004 as stated by the uploader and it is very unlikely to mark own photos in their source code in this manner. In the opposite, one should mark a hidden copyright at that place. --Markus Schweiss 21:23, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Which other persons? I do not find anything and it says, Titties is the name of an earlier another work in this File, here: [20] Mr.Do! 16:44, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikibär is a problematic user I know from the german wikipedia. He has in the past months tried to force a allow-fair-use policy on the de:wp, against the decision of the community. He has turned to vandalism in the process and has been blocked repeatedly (not by me). I also suspect he's identical with User:Fair Use Freedom Force and User:Freedom Force Commons Bomber who tried to do similar things here, and who have bin blocked for it, too (the latter indefinietly - this time, by me).

This picture was one of his first contributions to the german wikipedia, and was accepted without any questions (there was talk about the use of this picture in articles, of course). In the light of Wikibärs recent behavior, I agree to question this image very closely. It is also unclear if this woman agreed to have the image published on the internet. -- Duesentrieb 23:13, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Supplement: It seems that he's no impersonating a (non-existent) user User:MM Salesman - see the deleted edits of that page and discussion about #Image:Montinari Milano.jpg above. -- Duesentrieb 23:23, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And he is of course not blocked de:Benutzer:AshSert, they only upload the same Images at the same time on different languages [21], both like Edit wars and Arcade games. -guety 23:28, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

None of the havy accusations is proven. Please tell us the offset (in hex) of the tag "T i t t i e s - 09 -25 - 03". I am not shure, that wikibaer is the copyright holder, but before you make such havy accusations and call the person an eastern european prostitute, you have to prove it! If the person is no prostitute, your assumption will be fatal. Are you shure with your assumption, or do you offend a blameless person? --Ulenspiegel 23:11, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You will find the tag with an editor of your choose on line 24 in the source code. The correct information means "T i t t i e s - 09 25 - 03". I 've also made a screenshot of the situation: Image:Screenshot frau.jpg.--Markus Schweiss 05:49, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed. Offset of the string in question is 0x014b2 (hex); hexdump:
       000014b0  0f 00 54 00 69 00 74 00  74 00 69 00 65 00 73 00  |..T.i.t.t.i.e.s.|
       000014c0  2d 00 30 00 39 00 32 00  35 00 2d 00 30 00 33 00  |-.0.9.2.5.-.0.3.|
This is IMHO a strong indicator that the picture was indeed taken much earlier and the uploader lied about its origin. He is thereby also publishing an potentialy incriminating picture of a person probablywithout consent, in a very exposed place. -- Duesentrieb 16:13, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ack. Looks bad for the wikibear. I asked him for the camera type, lens type and film, he used, no answer till now. I asked him for another picture of abdomen of the lady (to compare some biometric data) with a special marker to verify, that the image is taken by him, he argued, that I am asking for a peep-show. This facts lead me to the assumption, that wikibär is not the copyrightholder, he did not take the image. Please delete it. --Ulenspiegel 10:23, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This was only half a truth. Wikibaer says, you want to close him for an unlimited period and the name ""eastern european prostitute"" a big meanness is and Arnomane hates him, why should for him go on working? T.i.t.t.i.e.s is only the name of a earlier Edit. keep Mr.Do! 15:44, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that there is a request to block Wikibär on the german wikipedia: see de:Wikipedia:Benutzersperrung/Wikibär (Ulenspiegel voted against that, btw). It is also true that he displayd unaccaptable behavior and angered quite a few people, as you can see there. I belive it is not a good idea to jump to conclusions about who the person on the picture is, but doubts about the origin of the foto are justified, I think. It is also unclear if the woman gave her consent to the picture being published in the wikipedia. Wikibär made it seem like this picture was taken especially for the Wikipedia - but he was not active in the wikipedia in 2003, and did not upload the image until the end of 2004. -- Duesentrieb 15:56, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I would not remove it, because if it is away, come whole britneys and skeleton models. Maybe one must bring for the right motive also sometimes a small victim. If she is really a prostitute, she was increased thereby as humans. :) Mr.Do! 18:12, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Come on you're boring de:Benutzer:Wikibär sock puppet. If you think that you need to threat us with copyright violations of Britney Spears pictures, well it's up to you to feel the consequences. Arnomane 20:07, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
With Britney, I meant not the picture, but the Mainstream, the appearance of today's model. Your Deletion requests here, is more the reaction on the Mainstream, i think. You are angry one. Mr.Do! 14:18, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr.Do! There are several clues that you are identical with the user Wikibär in the german Wikipedia. Please confirm or deny. --Ulenspiegel 21:17, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am not in your family. Mr.Do! 14:33, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quite obviously copyvio. Delete. Ausir 23:31, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted all references from other wp-projects with more than 10k articles using check-usage. Will delete the files in a short time. --Avatar 23:39, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
But whose copyvio? 68.32.48.32 19:52, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

several images by Mrfinch

edit

User:Mrfinch has uploaded several images that show graphic designs. He told me that he photographed public signposts. But becaus the images show only copyrighted graphics, not the signpost as such, they are (bad) reproductions of non-free material and have to be deleted.

Here's a list of the images: Image:Tour-wildbergerhütte.gif, Image:Tour-reichshof.gif, Image:Tour-eckenhagen.gif, Image:Tour-denklingen.gif, Image:Fachwerkroute-nümb.jpg, Image:Höhenroute in der Gemeinde Nümbrecht.jpg, Image:--User-mrfinch-mrfinch-- 1.jpg (redundant to Image:Fachwerkroute-nümb.jpg) -- Duesentrieb 15:27, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ich werde die Genehmigung der Gemeidne ienholen. 16:18, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
translation of the above: I will ask the municipality for permission. --Elian 17:24, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Unknown

edit

photographs Image:Potsdamer Platz.jpg Image:Old vilnius.jpg Image:Bente zijaanzicht.jpg Image:Basson.jpg Image:Bas07.jpg Image:Auschwitz gate brama 1940s.jpg Image:7 113-1368 IMG.JPG Image:A Velha Ponte De Cachoeirinha.jpg Image:3d Swingometer Swing to Red from Yellow and Blue.jpg Image:3d Swingometer Swing to Yellow and Blue from Red.jpg Image:3d Swingometer Swing to Red from Blue and Yellow.jpg Image:300px-B25.412pix.jpg Image:0000068382 1.jpg Image:Amelanchier-lamarckii.jpg Image:Alfalfa im.jpg Image:Alfajorartesanaldemaicena.jpg Image:Aidanquinn.JPG Image:1477 Low Countries.png Image:Orhan pamuk.jpg Image:Sculpture of Aristotle2.jpg Image:Sculpture of Aristotle.jpg Image:Resize of IMG 0104.jpg Image:Qaban.jpg Image:Ohar-Tadorna-tadorna-copyright 2005 by Mikolaj Jopczynski PL.jpg Image:Nénuphars.jpg Image:Nothobranchius rachovii male.jpg Image:Norway Oslo Vaalerenga.jpg Image:Maximilian schell.JPG Image:Naqshe rostam.jpg Image:MonteRosa.JPG Image:Pierre-Alain Morel.jpg Image:Petrusstatue im Petersdom.jpg Image:SIGN ratp RER B Entree Luxembourg Paris.jpg Image:Verde18.jpg Image:VW1938.jpg Image:Sugarmaple1.jpg Image:Iglesia.jpg Image:Cluny-Abtei-Ostfluegel-mtob.jpg Image:Checkpoint Charlie Gedenkstätte.jpg Image:Cachoeirinha Noturna.jpg Image:CH Biel Schüss.JPG Image:CH Biel Altstadt-6.jpg Image:Berliner Fernsehturm April 2005.jpg Image:Bente.jpg Tagged or deleted by Paddy and myself. Thuresson 18:23, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

paintings/drawings Image:Base tri.jpg Image:Inque.jpg Image:Valinomycin.gif

looks like copyvio Image:Altenburg7bis10.jpg Image:AltenburgUnterAs.jpg

other Image:Plakathinrichtung.jpg Image:Oil.2001-2005jpg.jpg Image:Oil.2001-2005jpg.smaller.jpg Image:Babylonian numerals.jpg Image:Archi-Tectonics IMAGE.jpg Image:1959-03-03 shelep2.png Image:Magnus-carlsen.gif Image:Messier11.jpg Image:Messier18.jpg Image:Money of Fiji.jpg Image:\u6a4b\u982d\u85dd\u8853\u6751.jpg Image:Cropp2.JPG Image:Carreras.gif Image:Blog.vs.webpage.png Image:Blide.gif Image:Birkenau plan obecny.jpg Image:Shukokai Men2.jpg Tagged or deleted by Paddy and Thuresson. Two images need further consideration.

No license. -- Breezie 17:11, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Magnus-carlsen.gif is a position from a chess game, and I generated the image myself. Positions of chess games are public domain and the image is no ones property. --Malathion 16:00, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Image:\u6a4b\u982d\u85dd\u8853\u6751.jpg is web logo, copyrighted--Shizhao 16:44, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt if Image:Plakathinrichtung.jpg has enough artistic/creative worth (German "Schöpfungshöhe")to have copyright applied. I'd say it's public domain. --AndreasPraefcke 11:18, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Nothobranchius rachovii male.jpg Source and copyright information added. Tommy Kronkvist 22:40, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]


May 15

edit

Image:Screenshot.jpg, Image:Screenshot1.jpg, Image:Screenshot2.jpg

edit

Game screenshots which could only qualify as fair use which aren't allowed on Commons. RedWolf 06:51, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think that am ok, we need new licenses on the Commons, because also the French or Spanish Wikipedia uses Fair Use. Ever more or a special arrangement. See here: [22] Mr.Do! 16:53, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The commons is a media collection/databse, it can not claim fair use of images. Fair use is bound to the use of an image in a specific context/article. Also, the laws about fair use are quite different in different countries, it would then be very hard to tell which images on the commons can be used by which porject. Thus, the commons can not allow fair use. -- Duesentrieb 17:11, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted all three. --Avatar 22:53, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

May 16

edit

Image:Song of fisherman.jpg

edit

Film is PD(1934), but post is copyrighted(not is 1934)--Shizhao 14:36, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

really?the post is not published with film?--Snowyowls 16:08, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

\u5f88\u660e\u663e\u662f\u540e\u6765\u5236\u4f5c\u7684VCD\u5c01\u9762\uff0c\u5b8c\u5168\u548c30\ u5e74\u4ee3\u7684\u98ce\u683c\u4e0d\u540c--Shizhao 16:41, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
\u53ef\u662f\u4f60\u770b\u90a3\u4e2a\u5b57\u90fd\u662f\u4ece\u53f3\u5411\u5de6\u5199\u7684,\u91cd\ u65b0\u51fa\u7248\u7684\u5e94\u8be5\u662f\u4ece\u5de6\u5411\u53f3\u5199\u554a--Snowyowls 05:07, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
can someone translate those last two comments to english so the rest of us can read them please. Plugwash 22:55, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Image not deleted, Thuresson 23:34, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

May 18

edit

user:Lupin May 18 upload all image

edit

see Special:Contributions/Lupin

from http://sxc.hu , © 2000-2004 Dream Interactive. All rights reserved.--Shizhao 03:24, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This copyright notice has nothing to do with the picture licenses. Please check out Commons:Stock.xchng images. But the pics (I did not check if all are free) should be labeled as CopyrightedFreeUse and not as PD (see User talk:Avatar). --Avatar 06:43, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that I've fixed the license notices as appropriate. Some are free; some should be deleted. Lupin 00:21, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Could you provide a list of the remaining images that should be deleted? Thuresson 00:12, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Image:China teacup.jpg, Image:Kerosene lamp.jpg, Image:Lobster pots.jpg, Image:Bullseye.jpg Lupin 19:14, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Image:Bullseye.jpg apparently did not have any restrictions so I kept it. Thuresson 23:48, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Image:Francois Mitterrand und Helmut Kohl in Verdun 1984.jpg

edit

This photography is definitely not free for editing and changing. The webmaster of the site informs so. -- Simplicius 12:37, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

[email protected], Gesendet: Freitag, 28. Januar 2005 15:49, Betreff: RE: [courrierFD] Fotographien, Sehr geehrte Herr oder Dame, Es bedeutet nicht dass die Fotos bearbeitet oder verändert werden kann. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Der webmaster, http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr

Does Template:Publication officielle make any change? Thuresson 12:55, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Of course also it's not possible that this picture is GFDL and PD at the same time. --Avatar 15:37, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, you may not alter (e.g.: deform, change colors....) pictures showing persons without written permission anyhow, stated or not. -- Stahlkocher 11:54, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Is that an international convention or just the law in your neck of the woods? A source for your claim, please. Thuresson 22:05, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
An international convention like public domain? :-), no, but Federal Constitutional Court of Germany, Ron Sommer vs. Wirtschaftswoche, 5% deformation of face, http://www.urheberrecht.org/news/2203/ (german only, sorry). Another brilliant idea would be the change of Gerhard Schröders hair-color in his picture into grey ;-) On the other hand you may change the pictures size, resolution, or switch it to B&W. Best regards from Ruhr Area/germany -- Stahlkocher 4 July 2005 17:23 (UTC)
This picture ist non-derivative due to the information by the webmaster by diplomatie.gouv.fr
Indeed there is a simple alternative for us: allowing CC-ND (non-deravative) for Wikimedia Commons in future.
If we do not want this, this picture will have to be deleted. -- Simplicius 8 July 2005 23:27 (UTC)
I changed the description to use the tag {{FrenchMinistryOfForeignAffairs}}, which should be the subject in question (note that it does not mention ND requirements atm).--Mayhem 8 July 2005 23:51 (UTC)
I refreshed the deletion request. -- Breezie 18:27, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Maott.jpg

edit

Canvas of Mao Tse Tung in Tian'anmen, author is Zhou Lingzhao(\u5468\u4ee4\u948a)(in 1950 painting) or Zhang Zhenshi(\u5f20\u632f\u4ed5)(in 1953 painting) or Wang Guodong(\u738b\u56fd\u680b)(in 1964 painting) or Ge Xiaoguang(\u845b\u5c0f\u5149)(in 1977 painting) or Liu Yang(\u5218\u626c)(in 1979 painting).Image copyrighted--Shizhao 14:06, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Images uploaded by User:Sam guru-murthi

edit

All images have unclear license status (some are labeled in broken syntax, some not at all), consent of the author is unclear (is sam Zoe? or Abigail? or Sam?). Also, some of the images have poor quality, and for all the use for the wikimedia progects is unclear. This seems like a private collection of family artwork to me... A list of the images follows -- Duesentrieb 19:59, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PS: The user seems completely inactive and does not react to requests to provide more information about the images. There is also no link to other accounts and no email contact. -- Duesentrieb 20:03, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Zoe by Zoe O'Sullivan-Sehmi--photograph.jpg Image:The Tree by Zoe O'Sullivan-Sehmi.jpg Image:The Lady One- by abigail O'Sullivan-Sehmi.jpg Image:TaintedLove One.jpg Image:Tainted Love Two.jpg Image:Stormy Weather by Zoe O'Sullivan-Sehmi.jpg Image:Silent Night by Zoe O'Sullivan-Sehmi.jpg Image:Shadow women red by Abigail O'Sullivan-Sehmi.jpg Image:Reclining Woman by Abigail O'Sullivan-Sehmi.jpg Image:My collage two.jpg Image:My collage one.jpg Image:My my my by Abigail O'Sullivan-Sehmi.jpg Image:Me Two by Abigail O'Sullivan-Sehmi.jpg Image:Me Three by Abigail O'Sullivan-Sehmi.jpg Image:Me Six by Abigail O'Sullivan-Sehmi.jpg Image:Me One by Abigail O'Sullivan-Sehmi.jpg Image:Me Four by Abigail O'Sullivan-Sehmi.jpg Image:Me Five by Abigail O'Sullivan-Sehmi.jpg Image:Margaret Gable by Abigail O'Sullivan-Sehmi.jpg Image:Love Granny by Abigail O'Sullivan-Sehmi.jpg Image:LadynRed by Zoe O'Sullivan-Sehmi.jpg Image:Dune by Abigail O'Sullivan-Sehmi.jpg Image:Black lady by Abigail O'Sullivan-Sehmi.jpg Image:French Coat-by Abigail O'Sullivan-Sehmi.jpg Image:Based on by abigail o'sullivan-sehmi.jpg Image:June by Abigail O'Sullivan-Sehmi.jpg Image:Abi one.jpg Image:Abi two.jpg

Image:Tony_Bliar.jpg

edit

Disregarding the content of the picture, it's based on a copyrighted work (which is used on en:wikipedia as fair use): en:Image:Tonyblair1.jpg -- Joolz 12:34, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, fair use. Thuresson 12:55, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Michel-eyquem-de-montaigne 1.jpg

edit

I suppose this may be {{PD-art}}, but the uploader refuses to provide a source and has reverted the {{unknown}} tag I placed. Taragüí @ 09:36, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is a painting by Thomas de Leu (Franco-Flemish painter and engraver, * 1560; \u2020 1612, active period 1580-1610). An engraving of this painting was published in the first edition of Montaigne's Essais, 1617.

The file was downloaded from the web two years ago or so; I can't remember the site's exact URL. However, the reproduction is used on some hundreds of web documents and in many prints. Of course, it is {{PD-art}}. - See my user talk --Luestling 12:12, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

May 19

edit

Image:Bosch.eden.502pix.jpg

edit

Obsoleted by Image:Hieronymus Bosch - The Garden of Earthly Delights - The Earthly Paradise (Garden of Eden).jpg Grenavitar 05:40, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly "obsoleted"; you uploaded the latter after the former was already here. However, yours has the better name, which is sufficient. James F. (talk) 17:51, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please use User:RCBot/rename to replace old image with new one on all Wikipedias. Otherwise you can't just delete due renaming. --EugeneZelenko 02:43, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Done. \u2014 Richie 14:39, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:PS33.jpg

edit

Marked as fair use. Copyrighted image from Sony: "all rights reserved" -- Joolz 14:45, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

deleted. --Avatar 15:29, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Liste alphabétique des peintres

edit

Replaced by Category:Alphabetic list of painters with our one language only allowed category system :/ Grenavitar 01:00, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No need to delete. Unfourtunally redirects to categories don't work, keep linkt to english category. -guety 01:16, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I was going to delete category:Peintures mythologiques too... but, just redirect? that sounds fine.... Do you agree that we should migrate to English? That is the policy no? I'm not trying to be Anglo-centric Grenavitar 01:21, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing wrong with having the categories in english, as the Lingua franca of the western world it is the best choice. But why delete a hint where to look for someone that speaks liitle or no english? -guety 01:39, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects from category to category work just fine. Its redirects from normal pages to categories that don't. Plugwash 09:28, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]


May 20

edit

Images with incomplete information

edit

The following images are marked with the {{incomplete license}} template, usually meaning that the claimed license are dubious and/or the source is difficult or impossible to find:

Image:71725.jpg, Image:Abdullah öcalan.jpg, Image:Adnan Saygun.gif, Image:Afghan fieldtopaste.jpg, Image:Anibal Acevedo Vila.jpg, Image:ArchBishop Michael O'Brien.jpg, Image:Barbrastreisand.jpg, Image:Collorpic.jpg, Image:DOrtega.jpg, Image:Edgard Varese.jpg, Image:Eleanor-tito.jpg, Image:Evabraun.jpg, Image:HOUSEOFSAUDOIL.1jpg.jpg, Image:Guantanamobay.jpg, Image:Kravchuk.jpg, Image:MarshalMannerheim.jpg, Image:Martini.jpg, Image:Mozilla Firefox 50 million celebration.png, Image:Takebacktheweb small.png, Image:Radovan Karadzic.jpg, Image:Ratko Mladic.jpg, Image:Robert Hunter.jpg, Image:Tarja Halonen.jpg, Image:Vyacheslav Shtyrov.jpg, Image:Wernerherzog.jpg

Thuresson 20:35, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The following images: Image:Braszkiewicz Daria 01.jpg, Image:Braszkiewicz Daria 02.JPG, Image:Braszkiewicz Daria 05.jpg, Image:Braszkiewicz Daria 07.jpg Were in the above list, but they have the required license information in Polish. They were uploaded by a friend of hers. On the other hand, they were used in the article about Daria Braszkiewicz in Polish Wikipedia, but her article was deleted for notability reasons (she's "Miss Belgian Polonia" - the "most beautiful of the Polish girls living in Belgium). Should her pictures be therefore deleted, or kept at Commons? Ausir 22:01, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

At least the license information should be translated to a major language. Thuresson 20:35, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I just translated it for one image, the rest got deleted before I did it... Ausir 23:28, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Composition_of_39th_Parliament.png

edit

This was a error. There is no 39th Parliament yet. This image has been superseded by Image:Composition_of_38th_Parliament.png. I, the creator of this image, request that it be deleted. Andrew pmk 02:37, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Radovan Karadzic.jpg

edit

The image is from [23] (also public domain, .gov website as indicated)

I find it hard to believe that the US State Department's official photographer has photographed Karadzic. The State Department has probably stolen the image from somewhere. Thuresson 20:35, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ratko Mladic.jpg

edit

The image is from [24] ("Unless a copyright is indicated, information on the Department of State Web Site is in the public domain and may be copied and distributed without permission. Citation of the U.S. State Department as source of the information is appreciated.")

See above. Thuresson 20:35, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Eleanor-tito.jpg

edit

The image is from [25] (another .gov website, as indicated)

Thank you, I found this image at NARA, updated info. Thuresson 20:35, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

May 21

edit

Upload of User:Thepretenders22

edit

Images looks like screenshots from Halo 2 (copyrighted game). --EugeneZelenko 03:05, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Alpha.PNG

edit

Wrong file name (Uppercase extention). Re-uploaded to Image:Alpha.png. --WebBoy 19:49, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Paddy 00:15, 22 May 2005. --AndreasPraefcke 20:22, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

May 22

edit

Image:Page.de.garde.png

edit

Wrong file Name --Buzz 10:18, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, Thuresson 19:03, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Preservatif-emploi.jpg

edit

It seems the PD tag is abusive. The drawing doesn't look old enough and i don't see any mention of authorization from the artist. The original image uploaded on fr: doesn't contain more informations. Med 12:44, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, Thuresson 00:13, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Image:George Galloway at demonstration.jpg

edit

Unknown copyright status --Mrfixter 10:05, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I uploaded this in a moment of madness/insanity ('Cus it propper good), it won't happen again. I got it from indymedia [26] as they have a copyleft policy, i think it could be used on wikipedia (not commons though I admit).
They say "We consider, as a rule, that material contributed to this site free for non-profit re-use in the spirit of Copyleft." at [27] --JK the Unwise 16:22, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. --Avatar 16:56, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Deutscher Reisepass.jpg

edit

Uploader, User:Calvin Ballantine, have been asked about license for this image but only delete the question from his/her user page [28] . He/she has also deleted the {{incomplete license}} template from the image description page. Thuresson 19:03, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, Thuresson 00:13, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

May 23

edit

Image:Water drop.jpg ...

edit

... and Image:Firesalamander.jpg, Image:Loveparade2003.jpg, Image:Torre de Belem.jpg, Image:Ddr ram.jpg, Image:Pocketwatch.jpeg.
Images from pixelquelle, compare Commons:Bad sources ... and all other pictures from pixelquelle you may find, they are not PD :-( :Bdk: 13:10, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted all references from other wp-projects with more than 10k articles using check-usage. Will delete the files in a short time. --Avatar 22:05, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
deleted --Paddy 11:40, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

May 24

edit

Image:Press pass.png

edit

The uploader asked me to delete this file. I am not sure why it was uploaded; I think he thought this was a good way to get the file to me. Anyway, it should be deleted. Pingswept 05:03, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. --Avatar 07:07, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Anais 2004 006 Night at Taipei.JPG

edit

Cc-by-nc-nd-2.0, nonfree copyright--Shizhao 03:52, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, Thuresson 00:13, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Centrosema virginiana

edit

Does anyone need a redirect from a wrong name to a page without media content? Please, delete -- Franz Xaver 13:49, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. --Avatar 14:47, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Thermal Equator climate map.jpg

edit

copyed from english wikipedia and there out of some book (en:User:Diceman), seems not to be PD (no sources) --Saperaud 16:28, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Great looking map. No evidence of copyright.

67.71.121.57 11:56, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Abside.eglise.du.Thor.2.png

edit

I uploaded twice the same image, one as ...Thor.2.png, the other as ...Thor_2.png
Buzz 19:20, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. --Avatar 21:18, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

May 25

edit

Image:OlympicsBoxing.ws.jpg

edit

Photo from geekphilosopher.com, whose policy is Photos cannot be posted for redistribution. (see [29] & [30]) Ary29 08:29, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I found out it's a US Army photo (see [31]), so I withdraw the deletion request and add PD-USGov-Military licence. Ary29 08:32, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Derukuiwautareu.png

edit

Simply, misspelling if the sentence. It must be "\u51fa\u308b\u676d\u306f\u6253\u305f\u308c\u308b". --Ananda 11:18, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Sanbec ✉ 12:56, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be still the file. --kahusi - (Talk) 02:07, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Narrow smile.jpg

edit

Promotional photo: I have re-uploaded it to en-wiki with proper attribution. --Phil | Talk 14:27, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

May 26

edit

Embraer

edit

Image:Embraer 190 1b b RGB.jpg, Image:Embraer 195 1 emb1954 baixa.jpg, Image:Embraer 175 1 030801 0011 b RGB.jpg

  1. "User shall not modify the image in any way"
  2. "Its prohibited the usage of Embraer's name and its images on any commercial activity, including ads, promotional materials, and any other announcements which do not have an informative, educational, journalistic, or institutional objective"
No modifying allowed, no commercial use allowed --Denniss 23:51, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. Checked via check-usage - removed from de/pt - notified User:Stahlkocher --Avatar 22:44, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately: Commercial use is not forbidden, also modification. Please be more carefull next time. And read licenses more slowly. -- Stahlkocher 12:30, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Stahlkocker wrote the original license which read:

  • User shall not modify the image in any way
  • User shall not use the Images in any way that implies an affiliation or association to Embraer and its Images
  • Its prohibited the usage of Embraer's name and its images on any commercial activity, including ads, promotional materials, and any other announcements which do not have an informative, educational, journalistic, or institutional objective.

The fact that Stahlkocher denies this is surprising. Actually, I would question that Stahlkocher is aware of Commons:Licensing. Thuresson 18:00, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

NGM

edit

Image:NGM-v31-p305-A.png, Image:NGM-v31-p305-B.png, Image:NGM-v31-p305-C.png, Image:NGM-v31-p305-D.png Please delete each of these. They have been replaced by more appropriately named images. (I am the uploader.) —Mike 04:25, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Checked via check-usage - no usage found. --Avatar 22:34, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Asteroid 216 Kleopatra-computermodel.jpg

edit

This image can be deleted as it is a duplicate. There exists a better quality version of the same picture at Image:Asteroid-Kleopatra-radar.png. Arnomane 16:28, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Checked via check-usage - no usage found. --Avatar 22:30, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Template:Chile-Educational-Use

edit

and

Image:Augusto pinochet.jpg

edit

Commons fails to provide a works of cultural, scientific or didactic character that the image is used in, making it a copyrightviolation. -guety 21:18, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oye, la imágen cumple con todos los requisitos, la misma estaba en el Wikipedia English, y nadie la ha borrado. --Antoine 20:32, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The Problem is the different nature of Commons and Wikipedia, Commons ist a image database, Wikipedia an encyclopedia. While on Wikipedia fair use and other citation rights can apply, they do not on a image database. So the same as statet in Commons:Licensing#Material under the Fair Use Clause is not allowed on the Commons aplies to the chilean fair use equivalent. -guety 21:30, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

May 27

edit

Image:Young gandhi.jpg

edit

Poor photograph quality and/or tampering makes this image virtually unusable. Without at least a hint of a source or some other means of verification images like this should not be used. --213.54.200.244 04:21, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This image is of historical importance and is from 1876. If you can find the same photograph with a better quality, then good, otherwise, stop requesting image deletion here with silly criterias. Yann 14:19, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Since you point out the importance: if it is such an important picture, one would expect to find a bare minimum of information about its origin (book, website ...). I cannot see how that would be "silly". --213.54.209.199 14:47, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK, it is the only existing picture of Gandhi at this age. Is this one better: Image:Young Gandhi2.jpg ? Note that some agencies sell this picture, but the price is not low, and they don't give the name of the photographer either. Yann 23:53, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I would rather have no image at all than one whose disputability is greater than its actual descriptive value. See the Hitler image above for a more obvious example of disfigurement. --213.54.198.126 23:43, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to differ. What is your problem having an image here, if the licence is valid and it is useful for someone ? Yann 09:51, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
One more try: you state that similar versions of this picture are being sold by "agencies" - I would assume that to mean that the image is in fact copyrightable. If that is the case: doesn´t that entail a possible copyright violation for your image unless we can establish its origin? --213.54.206.59 17:54, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ah now, you want to delete it for another reason... :(
The question of rights is quite interesting, but I wonder on which ground you could argue that a photograph taken in 1876 by an unknown photographer is copyrightable ? The agencies may sell pictures, but it doesn't change the status of the picture. Nowhere copyright law says that PD pictures can't be sold. Yann 13:52, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Of course, but there seem to be so many different versions - I suppose we should try to get the one which comes closest to what we think the original looked like. Examples: [32], [33], your second version. How about this one [34]? --213.54.199.118 01:54, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
No, all these are just the same picture. Check the details. The #1 you cite is heavily retouched. I rather like having the nearest possible of the original. BTW, I just discovered that, according to Indian copyright law, pictures are in the public domain 60 years after the date of publication, whether the photographer is known or not. See [35] Yann 09:26, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
keep, the image is obviously not copyrightable. I would encourage Yann to put some sort of source info to all the Gandhi images. e.g. the book it was scanned from or the website it was downloaded from. I believe (correct me if I am wrong) an old photo like this, even if scanned from a recently published book cannot be copyrightable. --Spundun 18:32, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Images uploaded by User:Oilboss

edit

Image:IMG 0036.jpg Image:DF4D.jpg Image:Ss9g1.jpg Image:Resize of IMG 0104.jpg Image:SS7E.jpg Image:Df4b.jpg Image:DF11.jpg All these images were uploaded without any information on their licence neither source. I have asked user who have uploaded them about their licence, but now, after more than a mounth, there is still no responce Kneiphof 20:41, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, Thuresson 02:17, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Literary criticism

edit

The page contains nothing but a definition (and a faulty one at that), and is not likely to be expanded upon - what would a picture of literary criticism look like? -Didactohedron 23:25, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, Thuresson 02:17, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

May 28

edit

Image:Douglas Adams by Jill Furmanovsky dna3b.jpg

edit

A press photo. It was tagged as {{Attribution}} by the uploader, who justified that with "No usage restriction found". I don't believe the photo is actually available under such a license, though I'd be happy to be proved wrong. Uploader queried on talk page. Note that de:Douglas Adams and it:Douglas Adams use this photo. Dbenbenn 02:01, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is a press foto and for shure it may be used *free* in a usefull document, even for comerciall use. I believe should not be a argument. -- Stahlkocher 10:58, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Press photos are definitely not free images. "No usage restriction found" is no argument for claiming it to be free use. Ausir 10:45, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - press fotos are generally not free for commercial use. Also, "no copyright restrictions found" is no argument, all material is copyrighted per default (in must jurisdictions, anyway). -- Duesentrieb 18:41, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Do not change my words. I wrote that there were "No usage restriction found", which is, obviously, something completely different then "no copyright restrictions found". All images which are under GFDL are copyrighted. Be shure, you may use this picture as long you credit it properly. And in a way in which Douglas Adams or Jill Furmanovsky reputation is not damaged. -- Stahlkocher 12:47, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Deleted, all images on WikiCommons must be allowed to be used by anybody for any reason. Restrictions on the way images are used are not compatible with Commons:Licensing. Thuresson 18:09, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Image:Schwarzeneggerarnold1.jpg

edit

Another promotional photo. I don't believe the {{Attribution}}. Dbenbenn 03:05, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Ausir 10:47, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted, Thuresson 02:17, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Image:MSN Messenger.jpg

edit

Screenshot. --Ecemaml 09:40, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, Thuresson 02:17, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Image:Pablo Zalaquett.jpg

edit

There is no argument on how this image has become public domain. According to description, the holder of the copyright is "La Florida". --Ecemaml 09:58, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"La Florida" probably means Municipalidad de La Florida. Thuresson 09:32, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted, Thuresson 02:17, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Threshold etc

edit

I don't think it's useful to have a page about everything someone might want an image about. Such pages will clutter search results. Also, Template:Noimage has appeared here after it was deleted (multiple times) on the English Wikipedia today after consensus at w:en:Wikipedia:Templates for deletion. There are similar at Category:Picture request which also need removing. Angela 16:40, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, Thuresson 02:17, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I was suggesting that Template:Noimage and related templates should be deleted as well, not just threshold. Angela 16:42, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Image:Sudoku.gif

edit
  • ja: \u30bd\u30fc\u30b9\u306e\u4f1a\u8a71\u30da\u30fc\u30b8\u3067\u300cSurely this image is copyright by the Times newspaper?\u300d\u3068\u66f8\u304b\u308c\u3066\u3044\u307e\u3059\u304c\u3001\u78ba\u8a8d\u3067\u304d \u307e\u305b\u3093\u3002\u3069\u306a\u305f\u304b\u78ba\u8a8d\u3067\u304d\u306a\u3044\u3067\u3057\u3087\ u3046\u304b\u3002
  • en: It is written as "Surely this image is copyright by the Times newspaper?" in a Talk page of a source, but cannot confirm it. May not you confirm somebody it?

--kahusi - (Talk) 23:43, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure. A box of boxes with numbers written in some of them seems doubtful of worthiness for copyright...
James F. (talk) 11:09, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Times might have come up with the puzzle, but if John Foley made the actual image, then any copyright rests with him. (And it's probably PD anyway.) Dbenbenn 01:22, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, surely this must be ineligible for copyright? Thuresson 19:15, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Did John Foley make this problem?

May 30

edit

Image:United Kingdom map.png

edit

Duplicates Image:Uk-map.png; both images have the same. --Derbeth 07:14, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Uk-map.png is of lower quality; if any, delete that one. James F. (talk) 00:07, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep "United Kingdom map.png", possibly delete Uk-map.png. Dbenbenn 06:29, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Deleted Image:United Kingdom map.png; same resolution, same size, weighter than Image:Uk-map.png Sanbec ✉ 13:27, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

May 31

edit

Image:National Anthem of Singapore (Instrumental).ogg

edit

and...

Image:National Anthem of Singapore (Soloist & choir).ogg

edit

and...

Image:National Anthem of Singapore (Piano).ogg

edit

These files are from [36] and seem to be copyrighted, see [37]. Quote from the copyright page:

All web design, text, contents, graphics, the selection and arrangement thereof are the copyright property of the Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts (MICA). No part of this website may be reproduced in any form or by any means for commercial purposes or otherwise without the prior permission of MICA.

It is possible that the recordings of the anthem has been released as PD, but that is not evident from what I can find on the webpage. -- Duesentrieb 17:17, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:The Alchemist Leon Brunin.jpg

edit

Painter died in 1949, so PD-art will only be applicable from 2020... --AndreasPraefcke 22:47, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Deleted, Thuresson 08:11, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2005/05&oldid=2753286"