Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2010/01/05
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
This file violates copyright of original copyright holder (Democratic Party of Japan). This file also may be a copied data from http://a-draw.com/contents/uploader2/4.html?1262665928 (Up14308.jpg) --Takot (talk) 09:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'm considering to move this request to speedydelete. --Takot (talk) 09:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Changed status of this file (Image:Up14308.jpg) to speedydelete. Thanks a lot. --Takot (talk) 10:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by High Contrast: Copyright violation: http://www.dpj.or.jp/media/poster/2007_poster05.pdf
There is no FOP in the netherlands Ralf Roletschek (talk) 16:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- The sculpture is part of the (very large) outdoor collection of the Sculpture Park and is mentioned as such in the KMM's own literature. It is permanently placed in the public space and freedom of panorama in the Netherlands is applicable for such works of art (see Freedom of Panorama: The Netherlands. I have no idea why nobody simply reads what Wikimedia Commons writes about that!. Greetings, --Gerardus (talk) 16:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Please withdraw your request.--Gerardus (talk) 16:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- I have put the template: FoP-Nederland on this image.--Gerardus (talk) 18:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Ich ziehe den Löschantrag zurück, es war Unwissen meinerseits. --Ralf Roletschek (talk) 18:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes JuventiniFan (talk) 20:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Nonsense request. Of course the file needs some complete workaround on source, author and license. --Martin H. (talk) 21:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Definitely not PD-textlogo. Needs a permission from the Historical Maritime Society. Eusebius (talk) 21:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Speedy: copyvio re-created after deletion. Eusebius (talk) 21:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
No indication that the uploader (Zak Smith) is the copyright holder when the author is called Christ Lefebvre. JD554 (talk) 09:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. No evidence of permission. --Martin H. (talk) 19:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
English. Duplicate category: already located at Category:Soups of Peru --ErickAgain 12:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC). --ErickAgain 12:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
I have edited the four files that were in the cat - now it is empty. In my opinion it is also possible to make a redirect "category redirect|Soups of Peru" - than the files are transfered automatically. (Dont know the written rules for redirects). Cholo Aleman (talk) 13:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Resolved, made into category redirect. -- Infrogmation (talk) 08:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
File not in use! The British Empire never had Afganastan, North Yamen or Cameroon and the territory it controlled in Libya is inaccurate: it did not go to the Mediterranean Sea but went further west instead. --Maps & Lucy (talk) 17:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Delete British Ceylon and Zimbabwe are missing as well. Maps & Lucy (talk)
Deleted, badly inaccurate map, not used in Wikimedia. -- Infrogmation (talk) 08:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Autopromotion -- User:Tamorlan. Corrected DR subpage Captain-tucker (talk) 10:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- But a perfectly good photo of the dish in question. Seems to me we'd just want to clear out the overlayed text as well as we can. - Jmabel ! talk 05:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Keep if overlayed text can be removed. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 09:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyvio of this. -- Avi (talk) 06:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
watermarked, no source or author info, probable copyvio Jmabel ! talk 01:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Taken from [1] Justass (talk) 02:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
It's outdated - Company Logo does not exist anymore! Christian.swiatkowski (talk) 09:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- even though "outdated" is not a valid reason for delete, this can indeed be deleted, since the image seems to be broken. --PaterMcFly (talk) 11:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I reverted to the previous version. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Ups, didn't see that. Change my oppinion to Keep --PaterMcFly (talk) 18:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Ups, didn't see that. Change my oppinion to
Kept. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Broken deletion request fixed by me. Original request was by User:DarthMob without any reason at all. Since I don't see one, too, I suggest speedy keep --PaterMcFly (talk) 12:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep The image has a derivitive work. Beep21 (talk) 22:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Kept. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Too small and cluttered. We have plenty of maps of the British Empire and this one is not in use. German and Ottoman territory annexed or ceeded to Britain are missing from the map. Furthermore, Britain never held any territorial claims in Spain. --Maps & Lucy (talk) 18:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep The only territorial claim in Spain I see on the map is Gibraltar, which is exactly correct. This is in scope if nothing else as part of Wikisource's EB, 11th edition, project.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep A higher resolution scan would be desirable; is the original in colour? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- The original is in B&W; note that it uses different types of stripping instead of color (which, admittedly, would be a lot more noticeable at at a higher resolution.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Notable for being in Encyclopædia Britannica Beep21 (talk) 22:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Kept. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
License incorrect as this is a rotated duplicate of File:NASA satellite photo of Rama's Bridge.jpeg, a NASA image. Checkusage doesn't show this image as used anywhere. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep But this is in use on 18 pages in 16 projects. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- I am a silly old Hector. This is not the image I meant to nominate. Apologies. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Correct file now nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ram sethu, between India and Sri Llanka.jpg. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Kept. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
No freedom panorama in Russia. Copied to ruwiki under fair use terms as ru:File:Rudnev monument (Novomoskovsk).jpg. Safe to delete. Fastboy (talk) 17:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete copyright violation most likely Beep21 (talk) 23:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
No freedom panorama in Russia. Copied to ruwiki under fair use terms as ru:File:Novomoskovsk Town Hall.JPG. Safe to delete. Fastboy (talk) 17:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete copyright violation most likely Beep21 (talk) 23:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
unused personal photo, very low quality Cholo Aleman (talk) 18:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete not educational Beep21 (talk) 00:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
No freedom panorama in Russia. Copied to ruwiki under fair use terms as ru:File:Novomoskovsk power plant.jpg. Safe to delete. Fastboy (talk) 18:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete copyright violation most likely Beep21 (talk) 00:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
No freedom panorama in Russia. Copied to ruwiki under fair use terms as ru:File:Rudnev monument (Novomoskovsk).jpg. Safe to delete. Fastboy (talk) 18:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete copyright violation most likely Beep21 (talk) 00:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Derivative work, no clear source ("corporate picture"), no copyright. I hesitated to speedy delete. Eusebius (talk) 20:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Clearly a problem in that it is dominated by a presumably copyrighted photo. - Jmabel ! talk 23:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete derivitive work of a picture not likely to be freely licensed Beep21 (talk) 00:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Derivative work, no clear source ("corporate picture"), no copyright. I hesitated to speedy delete. Eusebius (talk) 20:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per Eusebius Beep21 (talk) 00:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
far out of scope - propaganda for a German state in exile from 2006??!!, copyright? Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete copyvio, see site http://www.e-welt.net/bfds_2003/veroeff/zeitschrift.htm probably to be speedy deleted--Havang(nl) (talk) 09:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
joke - see the description - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 21:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete appears to be out of scope. - Jmabel ! talk 23:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
This file is very simular to File:Spanish Empire color.png, but this one has mistakes as follows: Oregon Territory was not part of the Spanish Empire, The Louisiana Territory went into Canada in the same way as the rest of the territory existed and it did not reach as far north in Canada as it dipicts here. File:Spanish Empire color is correct! -- 23:44, 16 August 2009 User:99.226.115.81
- (Adjustment: I am not the nominator of delete procedure. I´m installing this missing deletion requests page to reach a decision. )--El-Bardo (talk) 14:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep Used --Simonxag (talk) 20:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Kept. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Redundant image of total Spanish territorial claims. Two other versions of this image exist: one with Portugese claims in GREEN and the other in YELLOW. This version is not being used! --Maps & Lucy (talk) 20:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. Redundant to what? Not in use doesn't mean it should be deleted. feydey (talk) 22:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- inaccurate version of File:Spanish Empire color.png which is the one being used! Maps & Lucy (talk) 19:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Delete All these maps were just an attempt by User:EuroHistoryTeacher to enhance his POV, wich was refused in a huge number of discussions (namely en:Spanish Empire). Please see discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:SpanishEmpireanachronic.png. The Ogre (talk) 20:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Close. Somehow archived a long time ago. Rocket000 (talk) 03:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
A very small JPEG image, we already have a high quality image of this flag. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 00:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete For duplicte images please use {{duplicate|File name here}}. ■ MMXX talk 06:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Since it was a different format, I brought it here. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 07:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom.Cholo Aleman (talk) 08:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete duplicate. --High Contrast (talk) 08:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Not in use, not useful. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
per nom Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 11:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Dupe of ISS Expedition 22 Patch.png. This is the better one with higher resolution, transparent background and removed JPEG artefacts. --Ras67 (talk) 02:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per Ras67 Beep21 (talk) 21:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Cleaner, more utilitarian copy exits, as Ras says. David Fuchs (talk) 15:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
per nom Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 11:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Dupe of Iss-20 1.jpg. Useless, less quality, no source --Ras67 (talk) 03:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
per nom Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 11:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Dupe of ISS Expedition 21 Patch.png with opaque background. --Ras67 (talk) 03:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
per nom Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 11:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Unused duplicate of Teien art museum.jpg Bueller 007 (talk) 08:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per Bueller 007 Beep21 (talk) 22:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
per nom Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 11:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Scan of a book cover: No further information/permission given why this file can be released in the public domain High Contrast (talk) 08:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep: {{PD-textlogo}} applicable due to simplicity of fonts and symbol. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 09:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Comment {{PD-textlogo}} applies only for simple geometric shapes and texts. But this is not the case here. --High Contrast (talk) 12:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete If this were just the fonts and symbol on a monocolour background I too would say {{PD-textlogo}}. But there's a little more to the cover design than that. There's also the coloured and textured background. I think that the cover is more complex than a textlogo can comfortably be. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per High Contrast Beep21 (talk) 22:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
per nom Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 11:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
"useless person" - far out of scope - nice communication via toasts in brazil... - from user blabla20 Cholo Aleman (talk) 13:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete not educational Beep21 (talk) 22:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
per nom Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 11:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
No permission specified. Please, choose a Commons compatible permission. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 16:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per Jan Arkesteijn Beep21 (talk) 23:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
no permission specified, no reaction of the uploader Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 11:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
bad photo, no appropriate description, unusable - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Not a great photo, and could certainly use a description, but I'd tend to keep things like this unless we have a specific photo we know is a better picture of the same subject. - Jmabel ! talk 23:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete no subject Beep21 (talk) 00:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
per nom Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 11:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
1922 picture, too young to be considered PD-old automatically. Can it be considered PD-Anonymous-EU? I doubt it, we have no information that the picture is anonymous. Eusebius (talk) 21:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Delete unless authorship is clarified. Things do not become anonymous because we do not know who their author is. Rama (talk) 14:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 01:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
private foto of an unknown person, unused, selfportrait? = out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 08:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Looking in Category:Couches and Category:Sitting, I have not found a picture of a person sitting in a couch. Beep21 (talk) 22:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- interesting argument - I have added the cat Category:Sitting men Cholo Aleman (talk) 07:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Polarlys: see Commons:Project scope
The image is from 1956. The uploader is not the copyright holder of that image. He is not allowed to release it in the public domain or he did not state any reasons why this image can be published in the public domain. High Contrast (talk) 08:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Not free. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per High Contrast Beep21 (talk) 22:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 00:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
The image is from 1956. The uploader is not the copyright holder of that image. He is not allowed to release it in the public domain or he did not state any reasons why this image can be published in the public domain. High Contrast (talk) 08:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete copyright violation Beep21 (talk) 22:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 00:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
British Empire Anachronous maps are a plenty and this is a chain of many closely simular images. This perticular one, number 3, is not being used! --Maps & Lucy (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete as mere innacurate variation of File:The British Empire.png and not used. The Ogre (talk) 13:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per Ogre. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick (talk) 18:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Delete The map has been demised, and it is not in use, finally it has been corrected and fixed in aforementioned map, and therefore it fails the test of being useful for an educational purpose. Trasamundo (talk) 00:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 00:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
This is REDICULOUS! There is no reason to keep this image! Iceland, Cameroon, Madagascar, Indonesia, Bhutan, Nepal, Iran, Afganastan, Ethiopia, Cambodia and Vietnam wqere actually never inside the empire, they were occupied by the British armed Forces during WW2. Malta in Europe was a part of the British Empire for real and it is not on the map. (Don't up-load files which are useless!) --Maps & Lucy (talk) 19:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
WTF? Then edit the map. Only because a map is partly wrong, doesn't mean it should be deleted, Because It can be fixed. Use common sense. Ricardo P. (talk) 20:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete as mere innacurate variation of File:The British Empire.png and not used. The Ogre (talk) 13:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per Ogre. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick (talk) 18:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Delete The map has been demised, and it is not in use, finally it has been corrected and fixed in aforementioned map, and therefore it fails the test of being useful for an educational purpose. Trasamundo (talk) 00:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 00:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Self-created artwork without obvious educational use. Kenmayer (talk) 16:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete It's just a jumble of unreated pictures. Beep21 (talk) 23:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 00:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
According to the permission statement the author FW must have passed away more than 15 years ago. Who is FW, and where can we check this information? Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 16:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per Jan Arkesteijn Beep21 (talk) 23:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 00:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
No freedom panorama in Russia. (Copied to ruwiki as ru:File:Statue of miner at Sovetskaya Square (Novomoskosk).jpg under fair use terms.)--Fastboy (talk) 16:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 00:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
No freedom panorama in Russia Fastboy (talk) 17:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Copied to ruwiki as ru:File:Sculpture at the source of the Don River (Novomoskovsk).JPG under fair use terms. Now safe to delete.--Fastboy (talk) 17:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 00:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
copyright violation - taken from voltaire.net Cholo Aleman (talk) 17:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 00:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
taken from a television screen - copyright violation Cholo Aleman (talk) 18:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 00:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
self-promotion - unused, strange protest - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Also, it has some not-quite-correct English superposed on the photo. - Jmabel ! talk 23:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete confusing Beep21 (talk) 00:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 00:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
joke, out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 21:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Person in a costume, not obviously out of scope (we have many images of people in animal costumes) but needs to be categorized correctly & described. - Jmabel ! talk 23:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete original artwork Beep21 (talk) 00:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 00:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Published after 1969-01-01, therefore not PD-Sweden (and perhaps also a photographic work, not a photographic picture). Eusebius (talk) 21:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- I took the year for the last permitted year and did not notice that it should be before January 1. Apparently, it takes another ten year before PD-Sweden is applicable.
- I doubt, however, that it is a photographic work. A few colors added is very simple and manual work. --Årvasbåo (talk) 22:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- OK for your last comment. About 1969 though, I'm afraid it is a fixed date due to the transitional regulations, a picture taken during 1969 will become PD only in 2020 (50 years until jan. 1st). This if of course if I understand well {{PD-Sweden-photo}} and {{PD-Sweden-1969}}. --Eusebius (talk) 22:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Not PD-Sweden. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 00:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Published in 1942, cannot be in the public domain. Eusebius (talk) 21:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 00:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
1936 picture. What do the photographic credits of the 2000 book say? Eusebius (talk) 21:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- 70 years old is enough for public domain, isn's it? Credit of the book said this picture is a 1936 one, that all... What's the matter? --prosopee (talk) 15:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- It's 70 years after the death of the author, not after the picture is taken. Therefore, we need to know who the author is. --Eusebius (talk) 15:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 00:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Picture from 1934. What do the photographic credits of the book say about the author? Eusebius (talk) 21:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Delete unless authorship is clarified. Things do not become anonymous because we do not know who their author is. Rama (talk) 14:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Uploader wrote "Author unknown". /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
- It is very convenient that most BW pictures this user has uploaded are tagged with "author=unknown"... For the ones coming from books, though, he told me (after I made the DR) that the book credits did not tell anything about authorship. It should therefore be reasonable to keep as PD-Anonymous-EU. --Eusebius (talk) 06:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 00:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
1930 picture. What do the photographic credits of the book say about authorship? Eusebius (talk) 21:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Delete unless authorship is clarified. Things do not become anonymous because we do not know who their author is. Rama (talk) 14:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 00:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
1923 picture, too young to be considered PD-old automatically. Can it be considered PD-Anonymous-EU? I doubt it, we have no information that the picture is anonymous. Eusebius (talk) 21:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Old and anonymous, and nothing to worry about. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delete we know nothing about this file, everything to worry about -- not that it would matter, this is a repository of Free media, not "get-away-with-it" media. Rama (talk) 14:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 00:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
1922picture, too young to be considered PD-old automatically. Can it be considered PD-Anonymous-EU? I doubt it, we have no information that the picture is anonymous. Eusebius (talk) 22:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- This photo is used on the cover of the following book. The publisher ought to be able to verify whether this photo is public domain or not:
- Campbell, Joseph, ed. The Portable Jung. New York: Penguin Books (1976), ISBN 0-14-015070-6. ThreeOfCups (talk) 18:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- También aquí y aquí. --Viejo sabio (talk) 09:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep In "The portable Jung" it is credited to "The Bettman Archive". It is also on the cover of The Wisdom of Carl Jung, where it is credited to Corbis. Which must mean that the photographer is unknown. Jung - a biography says it is courtesy of the Jung family. This book says it is taken from Jung's "The Archetype & the Collective Unconscious" in the Collected Works Volume 9:1, which was published 1969. An obvious case of {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- The Bettman Archive is a part of Corbis, may ask them. I agree with Eusebius: 1922 is far too young, to assume pd-old, some random information of recent publications is far too less research too assume no author disclosure. --Martin H. (talk) 20:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Delete unless authorship is clarified. Rama (talk) 14:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- That is not the way it should be done. The phot is anonymous. Copyright law has provisions for such works. They are free after 70 years. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- Pieter, you are refering to books from 1976, 2003, 2001, 1986 and 1969 and insist on the idea that this image was published more than 70 years ago without a public claim of authorship and that no subsequent claim of authorship was made in the 70 years following its first publication. You are not even close to provide evidence for that claim. --Martin H. (talk) 19:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- It is on the cover of four scholarly books, in all cases without any author information. It does not need to have been published more than 70 years ago. Even if 1969 was the first publication, it is a 1922 photo, and publication rights would have expired. But I know, nothing would satisfy Martin H. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- Pieter, you are refering to books from 1976, 2003, 2001, 1986 and 1969 and insist on the idea that this image was published more than 70 years ago without a public claim of authorship and that no subsequent claim of authorship was made in the 70 years following its first publication. You are not even close to provide evidence for that claim. --Martin H. (talk) 19:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- That is not the way it should be done. The phot is anonymous. Copyright law has provisions for such works. They are free after 70 years. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Delete According to Corbis, this is a rights-managed image, not a royalty-free image. [2] 24.162.236.93 05:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- Corbis is claiming so many things... At least one book publisher says they had their cover photo courtesy of the Jung family - not from Corbis/Bettman. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 00:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
1926picture, too young to be considered PD-old automatically. Can it be considered PD-Anonymous-EU? I doubt it, we have no information that the picture is anonymous. Eusebius (talk) 22:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Used on several book covers. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Very probable that author death as less than 70 years. --GaAs11671 11:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 00:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
No freedom panorama in Russia. Copied to ruwiki under fair use terms as ru:File:Dmitry Donskoj memorial (Novomoskovsk).jpg. Safe to delete. Fastboy (talk) 18:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete copyright violation most likely Beep21 (talk) 00:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Polarlys: Per Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Д.Донской_в_Новомосковске.JPG
The eyes are enormous, and can't be accepted. Conty (talk) 13:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Uploader/author request. Unused. Rocket000 (talk) 16:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
This file has not the correct name.
- Transylvania as separated administrative unit was dissolved by a compromise (en, de, ro, hu) in 1867.
- Before 1867 Transylvania had no flag, just a coat of arms.
- Between 1867 and 1918 Transylvania was an administrative non-autonomous territory inside Austria-Hungary. (See the maps below)
- The region called Transylvania was part of Hungary since 1867; The non-autonomous administrative unit has no flag. The here presented transylvanian flag probably was used by the ethnic Romanian citizens, but rejected by the ethnic Hungarian and German citizens.
-
-
Administrative units of A.-H.; 1914 -
Contemporary map 1. -
Contemporary map 1.
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
It is possible, this is a historical flag, but it has not the right name. --Beroesz (talk) 16:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete In such cases, a source should have been added to the file - otherwise anyone can draw anything, no problem with the licence, and nobody asks whether the information is true. I agree with the arguments given by Beroesz, Transylvania was a part of the Austria-Hungary beginning from 1867 and as such, had no official flag. --Hkoala (talk) 17:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- I am not familiar with the guidelines concerning deletion, but I think you should specify who, if anyone used this flag and when. It clearly wasn't official neither between 1867 and 1918, nor before 1848 — was it perhaps introduced by the Landtag in 1863...? BTW, there is another object in Commons, doubtfully claimed as „flag of Transylvania“, this one from an era when it wasn't obvious for any territorial unit to have a flag of its own... --Oguszt (talk) 21:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Rename. I propose the rename of the file in "Flag of Transylvania" because a flag is a de facto symbol, it need not to be official, but generally recognised as such one (as symbol). For example: en:Flag of Tibet. For additional infos about the flag of Transylvania, please visit http://www.flaggenlexikon.de/, and search for "Siebenbürgen", the german name of Transylvania. --Mihai Andrei (talk) 17:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- {This flag never had and has the official status to be the flag of Transylvania (see the above-mentioned arguments). According to the present day Romanian Constitution only the country itself (Romania) has an official flag, but not the historical provinces such as Transylvania, Moldova, Dobrogea, etc. For the era before 1918 see the arguments above. It shoud be renamed something like unofficial flag of Transylvania.svg, because the term Flag of Transylvania implies that it is an official flag. --Istvánka (talk) 09:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- Mihai, I couldn't find more infos about the flag on the site you mentioned. But the „interaktive Landkarte Österreich-Ungarns“ at the bottom of the page displays the border separating Transylvania and Hungary as if it has had the same legal relevance as the borders between the Austrian Kronländer. In 1867, they did away with all the autonomy Transylvania used to have (except that the special Transylvanian laws regarding the ballot and the press remained in force in „the parts beyond the King's Pass“). The guys who made the site could have indicated the borders of the Banat or the Military Zone, or anything by the same token... --Oguszt (talk) 17:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
@Oguszt: In the front of the page http://www.flaggenlexikon.de/ is the bottom "Zum Gesamtverzeichnis bitte hier klicken". Select please "Siebenbürgen" and after that click "Los!". The result is in German and English. So you will find the explication "The colours of Siebenburgen show three horizontal stripes in blue, red and gold. The colours descent from the blazon of the country." --Mihai Andrei (talk) 17:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- OK, I'd found that page (that's where the map is I was referring to), just skipped over the second sentence you're quoting. Anyway, this is by no means real background details (= doesn't make clear when the flag was invented, which law regulated its use or what group of people actually used it etc.) --Oguszt (talk) 22:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Feel free to rename accordingly. It's not going to be deleted as it's in use on multiple projects, thus it's within our project scope. Rocket000 (talk) 15:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Images of the Stevie Ray Vaughan memorial statue
[edit]- File:SRV.jpeg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Srvstatue1.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Srvstatue4.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Srvstatue6.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Srvstatue7.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Freedom of panorama in the US does not extend to works of art, see COM:FOP#United_States. JD554 (talk) 11:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Rocket000 (talk) 16:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
No reliable source that confirms the date of photograph, no reliable source saying the image is anonymous or that the photographer died 70 years ago. Assuming that the photographer died 70 years ago for an (maybe) 1930s photograph or that the work is anonymous without doing any research is not acceptable. Martin H. (talk) 02:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Was unable to find any info on the image (without such basic information, it's extremely hard to know where to begin.) Given that its an unknown author, publication date would be the necessary info, and as its unverified and post-1923, I'm guessing it's better to be safe here. David Fuchs (talk) 15:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, lacks source/author information. Kameraad Pjotr 19:03, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
For a painting I consider it not impossible to find out the painter. The image is a non-photographic work, so according to the license template copyright expires 50 years after the authors death. Martin H. (talk) 06:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- I cannot find my original notes on this, though I did check it at the time I uploaded the file. Please do not delete this to give me time to revisit the painting and check the details again. Thankyou. Babakathy (talk) 07:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Kept, AGF on uploaders behalf. Kameraad Pjotr 19:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
photograph of copyrighted painting. not clear whether freedom of panorama could apply, and COM:FOP says nothing about the situation in Zimbabwe Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Delete If Zimbabwe law follows British law (and most of the former colonies do), then 2D works are not covered by FOP. This work is almost certainly in copyright, as the subject is Sir Walter Adams 1906-1975 and looks older than 35 (ie 1941) in the painting. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:57, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- I made the photo and uploaded the file in 2006. However, as a non-photographic work it is covered under the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act 1966 (1981), II, 6 (3)(a) (see template:PD-Zimbabwe) and I have been unable to establish the full name and date of death of the painter. Babakathy (talk) 07:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted - (not by me) - Jcb (talk) 21:37, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
The uploader is not the copyright holder of that image. He is not allowed to release it in the public domain or he did not state any reasons why this image can be published in the public domain. High Contrast (talk) 08:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Comment It is from 1920. The white border just gives the name of the enemaling shop in Ortenberg, Baden. However, it seems that this comes from http://www.reklameschilder.com/Lebensmittel.htm — I doubt that {{PD-art}} applies for such non-flat signs. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Comment I uploaded the file from that web-page the user Pieter Kuiper told. I guess it free, for it is an old advertisment sign, used everywhere in shops and it is like an old painting from 1920 or even earlier. --Joachim Specht (talk) 01:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, lacks essential source information. Kameraad Pjotr 19:28, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Logo of a school in Germany. The uploader scanned this logo out of a brochure. Most likely the uploader is not the copyright holder of that file. High Contrast (talk) 08:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Hmm... I remember reading that logos have an elevated threshold of originality in Germany: if File:Laufendes-Auge.jpg can be {{PD-ineligible}}, I suspect this might be too. (That said, the claim of "own work" seems certainly wrong, and I notice a bunch of other images with similar issues in the uploader's contribs.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 12:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, not PD-ineligible. Kameraad Pjotr 19:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
book cover of a book from 1936: No evidence for "PD-old". High Contrast (talk) 08:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Comment If the book does not say who made the photo, this is free. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Exactly this is the case: the uploader who owns obviously one copy could help. --High Contrast (talk) 12:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, lacks essential source information (author). Kameraad Pjotr 19:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
No valid claim for usage of a high-res image, no valid source. Japanese copyright law is 50 years after author's death. If this is actually from 1940, it could very well still be protected. Bueller 007 (talk) 08:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Although I agree with you that the user clearly doesn't know how to use Wikimedia Commons (watermarks! OMG! etc), you are mistaken about Japanese copyright: According to Japanese Copyright Law the copyright on this work has expired and is as such public domain . According to articles 51 and 57 of the copyright laws of Japan, under the jurisdiction of the Government of Japan all non-photographic works enter the public domain 50 years after the death of the creator (there being multiple creators, the creator who dies last) or 50 years after publication for anonymous or pseudonymous authors or for works whose copyright holder is an organization. Clearly the image in question is thus copyright free. Cheers, Nesnad (talk) 14:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Kept, PD-Japan-Anonymous. Kameraad Pjotr 14:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Newer Upload (HarscoInfrastructure1.jpg) replaces this file. Problems with appearance of picture! Christian.swiatkowski (talk) 09:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Comment I do not notice any problems with the appearance. Beep21 (talk) 22:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Kept, file is in use, upload a newer version if there are any problems. Kameraad Pjotr 14:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Unused photo, article on which it was originally used on ES (http://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ManuChenko&redirect=no&rcid=32121023) was deleted on the grounds of being not notable, which makes me suspect it was either a vanity page or an attack page. Google seaches on the phrase "ManuChenko" do not come back with any relevant results. Given the presence of the "Porn Stars", I feel this image should be removed unless it can be proven that the subject of the image is indeed a porn star. Tabercil (talk) 12:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, out of project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 14:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
1938 picture. What do the photographic credits of the book say about authorship? Eusebius (talk) 22:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Uploader wrote it: "Author unknown". /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Kept, per Pieter Kuiper. Kameraad Pjotr 14:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
1933 picture. What do the photographic credits of the book say about authorship? Eusebius (talk) 22:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Kept, PD-EU-Anonymous. Kameraad Pjotr 14:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
License incorrect as this is a rotated duplicate of File:NASA satellite photo of Rama's Bridge.jpeg, a NASA image. Checkusage doesn't show this image as used anywhere. This time I've nominated the correct image for deletion. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 14:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I wish to delete this file. Please help me. I don't know how to do it --Bingread (talk) 22:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Why do you want to delete it? Rocket000 (talk) 16:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Kept, unclear deletion request. Kameraad Pjotr 14:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure why it should be PD. Is "Becker Maas" a studio, maybe making a company the author of the picture? Eusebius (talk) 22:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Apparently Becker & Maass is the name of the studio, so I'd say that copyright could not last later than 1993 (unless we can find a credited individual), but it still exposes us to the claims of "Sigmund Freud Copyrights", that the LOC warns us against. --Eusebius (talk) 22:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yes and no. Ill did some corrections on the image according to the working LOC link I added. Becker & Maass was a photographic studio in Berlin, they employed many photographers. As there is no corporate copyright in germany we have to research the author, the LOC not gives any author but the company. However, it seems like much of the Becker & Maass works are held by the Stiftung Preussischer Kulturbesitz, also this image (bpk #10011140). We can not consider this image an anonymous work without consultating every known (and not yet known) source. So Delete. --Martin H. (talk) 22:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yes and no. Ill did some corrections on the image according to the working LOC link I added. Becker & Maass was a photographic studio in Berlin, they employed many photographers. As there is no corporate copyright in germany we have to research the author, the LOC not gives any author but the company. However, it seems like much of the Becker & Maass works are held by the Stiftung Preussischer Kulturbesitz, also this image (bpk #10011140). We can not consider this image an anonymous work without consultating every known (and not yet known) source. So
- Keep with {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Comment looks complicated see here, but I think Pieter is right --Mbdortmund (talk) 11:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Kept, per Pieter Kuiper. Kameraad Pjotr 14:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Photographs of statues depicting Lu Xun
[edit]- File:Lu Xun in Sendai.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Lu Xun Kiskőrös.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:LuXun1.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Status of Luxun.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
According to COM:FOP#China, FOP is only allowed if the author and title of the work are credited. This is not the case with any of these photographed statues.
-- Powers (talk) 00:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep now China (People's Republic of China) have freedom of panorama, why not first try to complete the information, and then if they left unattributed, try to remove them. ■ MMXX talk 06:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- I wouldn't even know where to begin looking for the author information. Powers (talk) 19:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Sendai is in Japan... Nothing indicates that these statues are PD-old. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete first one per Japan FOP, btw where is this one. ■ MMXX talk 21:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Kiskőrös is in Hungary and OK with FOP. Keep this one! -- Herby (Vienna) (talk) 20:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- KeepFile:LuXun1.JPG I had written the author's information in Chinese "由著名雕塑家唐大禧塑造"(Shaped by the famous sculptor Tang Daxi) long time before. --瓜皮仔＠Canton 15:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- I don't see that text on the image description page. Powers (talk) 13:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep all, PRC have freedom of panorama--shizhao (talk) 15:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- But Sendai still belongs to Japan... /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Kept, except the first one, as that is in Japan. Kameraad Pjotr 18:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)