Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2009/12/21

< Commons:Deletion requests | Archive | 2009/12
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 December 21st, 2009
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:SwAP84.jpg

edit

No more penis pictures, please. Especially not grainy webcam shots. -Nard the Bard 01:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete for obvious reason. see also Commons:Deletion requests/Images of the male genitalia (2009-12-21). --D-Kuru (talk) 06:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Julo (talk) 19:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Images of the male genitalia (2009-12-21)

edit

Low resoluted, low quality, noisy images which show content we alread have (All images have at least one reason to delete them). I would have speedy deleted all really bad images (like Masturbation on a beachball8.jpg) but Lx 121 contacted me because I closed some deletion requests with the same content before 7 days were over. If I find some more images I will add them with a note if the deletion request is not closed already.
I suggested on Commons_talk:Project_scope#images_of_the_male_genitalia that the community may can/should think of minum standards for images which show the male genitalia because we have enough good ones and my credo is that we don't need a deletion request for every low resoluted webcam-dick. If you have any idea share it!
If you think that one (or more) files should be kept please include an information about which image you are talking about.
--D-Kuru (talk) 06:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Please mark the images with {{Delete}} and notify the uploaders.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Both ✓ Done However, I did not created a redirect from every files deletion page because this would be waste of time. A link to that page is included. --D-Kuru (talk) 14:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
as of the time i am writing this, there are still some "broken" nominations, i haven't backtraced all the individual noms to verify if every uploader has been notified or not, but there are still messy loose ends in this nom. Lx 121 (talk) 08:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it's not the worst image. I included the image because it's low resoluted and (if you have a look at the foreskin) a bit blurred. A human penis.jpg and 0136.JPG could be used instead but they are a bit noisy. However, MalePenis.jpg and RelaxedPenis.JPG can be used instead of Uncircpn.jpg. However, do you would keep all images? --D-Kuru (talk) 04:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do. I simply don't trust that you have thought this through when you nominate an image that clearly meets the requirements of Commons:Project_scope#File_in_use_in_another_Wikimedia_project, and still argue in favor of deleting it. --Kjetil_r 21:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
yes, it should; & this is good (& very convenient! lol) example of one reason why doing bulk-deletion noms like this is a bad idea. Lx 121 (talk) 08:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep

i don't really feel like going thru this nom item-by-item, so i'll just disagree with the whole thing, as being the wrong way to handle such discussions,

"commons is not censored" comes to mind too.

there is no valid basis for grouping these files together as a mass nom; they don't come from the same user, they don't have identical or related problems, they don't all fit into the exact same category placements; they're all just "dirty pictures", & the nominator (as they stated in the discussion above) simply can't be bothered doing the work properly, for indivudual noms.

the nominating admin even plans to add more items, on a "keep-adding-stuff-till-the-nom-is-closed" basis!

this is inappropriate behavior, especially coming from an admin, & it completely disregards commons policies & established practices for deletion procedures.

we don't allow users to pile up all-in-one bulk-deletion noms, like filling a garbage can, & there are good reasons why we don't.

it's messy & disruptive;

it's hard to make sure that all the details have been done right (in this case, they weren't),

& it wastes a lot of time for users who are interested/involved, trying to untangle a mess of unrelated items.

if we get in the habit of doing bulk-nominations like this, a lot of stuff is going to get lost (& broken) in the shuffle, & a lot of users won't want to bother dealing with having to try & untangle it all.

& if users are allowed to "just keep adding nominations" until the deletion "discussion" is closed, then the chaos gets considerably worse!

commons has established procedures for handling deletion nominations, & this doesn't follow them

as re d-kuru's comments mentioning me, i noted that this admin is in the practice of treating deletion noms of "dirty pictures" as "speedy", when that is clearly not commons policy. i requested that the admin stop doing this, as it clearly violates commons policy,

User_talk:D-Kuru#deletion_procedures

(included in the conversation are links to the relevant comons policies)

i assume that all of this, & the proposed policy changes are a result of our interactions.

as stated on the "scope" talk page, i do not think that we should create a new policy @ commons, allowing admins to "speedy" files, on the basis of a "minimum standard" rule.

my reasons for disagreeing with d-kuru about that are included at the talk page mentioned above

(Commons_talk:Project_scope#images_of_the_male_genitalia)

(it's late here, & this is a rough draft; i'll proofread it after i've slept, & make any necessary fixes then, my apologies for any errors, or anything that's badly phrased)

Lx 121 (talk) 08:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


for that matter, we (also) already have a whole system for dealing with quality standards of media files & related issues @ commons, located as a part of the commons maintenance schema here: Category:Quality_assurance

the nominating admin is completely disregaring that (or perhaps unaware of it?)

Lx 121 (talk)

@ Lx 121:
"there is no valid basis for grouping these files together as a mass nom [...] [1]they don't have identical or related problems, [2]they don't all fit into the exact same category placements" ]1[ You are wrong. They are related because they deal with the same kind of insufficiency (It doesn't matter if you call them "problems" or may something else); ]2[ There is no need to fall into the exact same category placements. If you mass nominate FOP violating images you (from my point of view) can collect the images from (e.g.) the US and (e.g.) Japan in one deletion request
"the nominating admin even plans to add more items, on a "keep-adding-stuff-till-the-nom-is-closed" basis!" I should have added that I planed to add a picture in case I missed one (compared to an image which got uploaded recently) and only in the first ~24 to ~35 hours after I've created the del request.
"it wastes a lot of time for users who are interested/involved, trying to untangle a mess of unrelated items" I don't understand what you are talking about... About which "mess of unrelated items" are you talking about.
"for that matter, we (also) already [...] Category:Quality_assurance" Actually this category is just to collect the images but I don't think that there are many user out there who e.g. add descriptions to images they find there. {{Low quality}} is also not really more than just a tag which tells everybody who wants to know it that this image will probably not be a featured picture. I was/am "completely disregaring that" because it does not really work.
However, I outsourced the images to their own deletion request...
PS: Technical note: If you use <br/> or <br> you can jump to the next line and the comment gets shorter
--D-Kuru (talk) 09:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outsourced: All Images are outsourced to their own deletion requests (see list below). All images which are still nominated for deletion got an update of their deletion notification on their talk page. All images which are in use in an article in a project by Wikimedia are listed at the bottom. Files which are used on Commons in a gallery or on a page whichs shows the images uploaded by a user are not included. Images like Masturbation10.jpg and Testicles-1.jpg are in use but their usage is may be disputed: Masturbation10.jpg for example is currently used on it:Utente:Ghia/Sandbox3 and on it:Utente:Uahlim and the descrition says "Questo utente si fa le seghe..." which would be ruffly translated "This user is jerking off". --D-Kuru (talk) 09:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Image Deletion request
in use
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:2PM_khun.jpg

edit

The files are clearly from Paris Baguette, a bakery company. It is therefore not a free image. SKS2K6 (talk) 08:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Merry Christmas! Kwj2772 (msg) 01:08, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:PikiWiki_Israel_3577_Ramat-Gan_City.JPG

edit

COM:DW, FOP does not apply (2D-work, not permanently situated). Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think it's not permanently situated? Where do you think they're going to move it when the centenary is over? Surely they'll just throw it away. That makes this its permanent situation. -- Zsero (talk) 21:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Permanently situated has two meanings in this context: (1) fixed in a public place and never moved from there (2) a movable object that has the sole purpose of being displayed in public, an there no intention to collect it for future use. The content of this poster clearly indicates that it has no other purpose but being displayed in this public place (even if it is technically movable). 2D-works are covered under the Israeli copyright law, and I am afraid Pieter Kuiper is not the authority regarding the interpretation of Israeli laws. Drork (talk) 14:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually there is only one meaning. Your (1) does not exist — there is no such thing as a work that will last forever! Every work that is displayed in public will be removed eventually, whether after one year or a thousand; but it is obvious that this does not make it a temporary situation. As you say, what matters is whether it is intended to be put on private display afterwards, and in this case that is clearly not going to happen. Would Mr Kuiper claim that an ice or butter sculpture is not "permanently situated", merely because it will not be there for very long? -- Zsero (talk) 23:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, probably not ment to be permanently placed in a public place. Kameraad Pjotr 20:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:PikiWiki Israel 3577 Ramat-Gan City.JPG

edit

COM:DW, FOP does not apply (2D-work, not permanently situated).

Renominated after undeletion. The basis for undeletion was that "This display was meant to be shown for its entire life, and would only be removed when discarded, as such, it is a "permanent" display similar to the ice sculpture quoted and is covered by Israeli FoP" following the quote from Dr. Presenti referred to by Drork.

However, that reference to an ice sculpture being permanently situated until it melts is perfectly consistent with Commons:Freedom of panorama#Permanent vs temporary which talks about the "natural lifetime of the work". The "natural lifetime" of this poster doesn't end when it is removed, it would end when it was destroyed by wind and rain if it left outside. The fact that the poster relates to a specific event and is unlikely to be reused doesn't mean that the "natural lifetime" of the work has finished. If it is disposed of then its "natural lifetime" has been artificially shortened.

The information from Dr. Presenti doesn't imply that we shouldn't consider the "natural lifetime of the work" in determining if something is permanently situated and so it doesn't confirm that this poster can be considered permanently situated.

In addition to considering the "natural lifetime of the work", Commons:Freedom of panorama#Permanent vs temporary suggests we should consider the intent with which a work is displayed. In this case the intent is unlikely to have been to display the work indefinitely until its "natural lifetime" ended since it refers to a specific event and so may no longer be relevant long before the "natural lifetime" ends. Therefore, I don't think this work was permanently situation and therefore FoP doesn't apply and so it should be deleted. --Adambro (talk) 09:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

u rase a very good argument, and I admit it is difficult for me to be certain what is right. It is not a question of FOP but rather of permenant-v-temporary. In my opinion a commercial, even when is taked down and even if not ment to be reused, could still be reused, and the rights remain, because a publication company may choose to reuse a commercial years later, and its actual intention should be deemed as such. I do not think section 23 can apply to any commercial (whether for a product, a TV show, or an event). This, on the other hand, is a municipal sign, which is indeed ment for a one time use and then it will be discarded (thrown away). By that it is simmilar to artwork on the icing of a cake (that is thrown away but not eaten). I admit I am not sure whether to deem it as permenant or temporary. From what I understand, according to US or UK law, the intention of the artist should be considered - whether they intended it to be one time or not. In this case this is indeed a one time use, without further intentions, and ment to be thrown away (i.e. distroyes) at the end of the use. Therefore, I think it should be deemed as permenant without a presumption of reuse which can be assuemed for a regular commercial. Deror avi (talk) 15:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response to the points I raised. I do though think it is difficult to differentiate between this and a commercial/advertisement, many of which can refer to specific events or periods of time which would make their reuse unlikely. However, there exists some who collect advertising posters and so even when a poster is removed from its original location it might continue to exist.
You seem to suggest that in this case there was an intention was to use it once and then destroy it but surely an intention for what is done with it after it is removed exists isn't consistent with the idea of it being permanently placed. For it to be permanently situated would imply that the intention was to leave it there indefinitely, with no intention of removing it. I'm struggling to understand how this poster can be considered to be permanently situated. Adambro (talk) 15:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The sign itself reads as a commemoration of a 100-year anniversary of Tel-Aviv/Yafo. This can not be reused, as there will never be another 100 year anniversary. Once the anniversary year is up, the poster becomes defunct and expired, and I consider that to be the end of its natural life. However, unlike an ice sculpture, it can persist beyond the year or be placed in storage. Although, an ice sculpture can be placed in a freezer as well. I made the undeletion decision based on the fact that the poster is a specifically dated anniversary poster (and not an advertisment) and it has a lifespan, after which it will almost definitely be removed and discarded, and that remains my opinion now. Fascinating points raised here, but I think this is still safely under FoP. -- Avi (talk) 16:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think "natural life" means the same as useful life as is the point you seem to be making. I don't think that the fact that the poster refers to a specific event means that its "natural life" is limited to the period of that event. Also, even when it is no longer used for its original purpose, a poster like this may be reused by collectors for example. I don't think permanent means until it is removed and disposed of, it means there wasn't an intention to remove it in the first place. Your comment that "it will almost definitely be removed and discarded" and "that the poster is a specifically dated anniversary poster" does in my opinion add more weight to the view that the intention was for it to be temporarily situated rather than permanently situated. I'm struggling to understand how this can be considered permanently situated, particularly with reference to Commons:Freedom of panorama#Permanent vs temporary.
    On a related issue, thanks for correcting the deletion request notice, I'd forgotten that I needed to update it. Adambro (talk) 16:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on what what was brought from Dr. Presenti, to me it seems that permanent does not mean forever, it means until the end of its life. If I am going to put a poster in public, and I know it will be removed and destroyed in a week, is that temporary or permanentm, vis-a-vis an ice sculpture? Agreed, I originally may have thought like you, but the ice sculpture depiction as permanent is compelling. However, I too am extremely interested to hear what other of our commons experts have to say :) -- Avi (talk) 16:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As for the dates; my pleasure. I forget to do those things all the time myself . -- Avi (talk) 16:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are examples of photographs published in Israeli books and magazines, which include such posters without reference to the poster's copyright holder (hence without asking his/her permission, and without considering it a "fair use"). One example I saw was a photograph by Alex Levac of a huge poster "Tel Aviv celebrates 90 years" placed in Rabin Square in Tel Aviv. Another example was a huge commercial poster which was hung on a building, but it was quite obvious that the measurments and method of hanging was specifically adapted to that building. In this case it seems to me very much like the former example, hence my conclusion that it is okay. Drork (talk) 18:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is enough to say that examples of images of similar posters exist in particular circumstances, particularly where such examples would seem to suggest a position counter to Commons:Freedom of panorama#Permanent vs temporary. It is difficult to say whether or not permission was sought but simply not credited in the book or their use was under a claim of fair use or similar. Unless we can find anything more solid to suggest Commons:Freedom of panorama#Permanent vs temporary should be considered incorrect either just for Israel or more generally we should apply the precautionary principle and delete this. It feels quite unnatural for what seems to be accepted is a temporary poster to described as permanently situated. Adambro (talk) 19:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any more unnatural than describing an ice sculpture situated in the Middle East as permanent? -- Avi (talk) 19:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is quite strange I would agree but an ice sculpture has much shorter "natural lifetime of the work" so can only be permanently situated for a very limited time in a warm atmosphere whereas this poster hasn't reached the end of its "natural lifetime", it has been artificially shortened. Adambro (talk) 19:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This poster seems custom made for that building and that anniversary; I think it's natural for it to be used only in that place for that time, and then it is defunct. -- Avi (talk) 22:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the question there is what meaning of "natural" are we using. I think you're meaning what is reasonable to expect in the circumstances, whereas I'm referring to how things happen in nature. That is what I think both Commons:Freedom of panorama#Permanent vs temporary and Dr. Presenti's ice sculpture examples are alluding to, the idea that the ice sculpture is permanent as far as nature will allow. A poster would, in my interpretation of the phrase "natural lifetime of the work", have a "natural lifetime" dependent on the materials and printing process used, not the content of the poster which is what I believe is your interpretation. So in this case, whilst the poster's message may only be relevant for a year, it's "natural lifetime" would continue until the physical material disintegrated. Is this understanding of your position correct? Adambro (talk) 23:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I may well be wrong; we could really use an Israeli Copyright Legal expert here :) -- Avi (talk) 01:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep IMO we first need to distinguish what is temporary versus permanent. I believe that for something to be considered temporary, that something should be up for the removal by human actions. Otherwise absolutely everything is temporary because everything including the Universe itself will be destroyed by the forces of nature sooner or later .--Mbz1 (talk) 19:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That is surely the aim of this discussion, to determine whether this qualifies as temporary or permanent. We already have Commons:Freedom of panorama#Permanent vs temporary though and that talks about a "natural lifetime" which the removal of a temporary poster doesn't end. It makes it clear that it is the intent with which something is placed which is of primary concern, not what is done if the work is removed. If the intent is for something to remain indefinitely with no plan to remove it then it can be considered permanently placed. If something is displayed somewhere where it is reasonable to assume the intend was to later remove it then it should be considered temporarily situated. In my opinion this poster falls into the latter category. Adambro (talk) 19:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay at that point I believe I have not enough knoledge on the subject to vote. I will try to learn more about it, and then I might vote once again.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As for the exmples I mentioned earlier - in case a permission was sought, the name of the copyright holder should have appeared next to the image. This is also true for a case of "fair use" claim, although people tend to be less strict in these cases. However, the photographs I've seen were by a professional well-known photographer, and I doubt if he, or his book's editor, took a lax approach for that matter. Furthermore, it is possible that a certain legal principle would receive different interpretations in different countries. The question is - do we adopt a single unified Wikimedia Commons' approach, or do we follow each country's norms for images taken within its jurisdiction?
As for the image itself - take a look at the poster. It is not an ordinary standard poster. You can tell by its dimentions that it was designed for display in this specific location. Furthermore, its content indicates that its reuse is hardly possible. True, there is some doubt about whether it was meant to be "permanent" and yet this doubt is not a reasonable doubt. We cannot satisfy any doubt, we have to adopt a common-sense approach in these matters.
Last remark - while this photograph is neither a masterpiece, nor documents a rare event, the consequences of deletion goes beyond giving up one image. It has to do with outreach. A contributor whose image was deleted might not be willing to contribute again. This is something I learned when trying to promote outreach projects for Wikimedia Israel. It is the other side of the coin, and we should not ignore it. Drork (talk) 22:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've spent a lot of time explaining why I don't think this qualifies as permanently situated so I'd hope you'd not suggest "this doubt is not a reasonable doubt". I see very little in Commons:Freedom of panorama#Permanent vs temporary which considers how a work is reused or whether it is. The primary question it seems to be asking is not whether a work could or is reused, but what the intention was when a work is placed somewhere. In this case the intention wasn't to leave it permanently situated for the "natural lifetime of the work", but probably only as long as the message the poster gives is relevant. I suppose that depends on your interpretation of the phrase "natural lifetime of the work" and so it would be perhaps helpful if you could confirm whether you share the interpretation that I've suggested Avi might in my comment above. Adambro (talk) 23:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is exactly the doubt which I, in my humble opinion, regard as unreasonable. The municipality that owns the copyrights will undoubtedly remove this huge poster before it decays naturally, because its content will be outdated. Now, you wonder whether this removal can be considered the end of the work's natural lifetime. We cannot get a compelling opinion on that, especially not from Israel, because no one ever complained about such copyright violation. However, we can ignore this doubt, because in such cases, you simply look at what people do and act accordingly. In Israel people take photographs of such works and publish them, and no one ever suggested it was wrong. Considering there is nothing explicit in the law against it, we can assume it is okay. We had a contrary case with Israeli stamps. While the authrities rarely complain about copyright violation, we cannot ignore a specific stipulation in the 2004 revision of the law, and we had to remove all uploads that violated it. We are also very caucious about doubtful cases, but here the doubt is slight enough to allow us to enjoy it. Drork (talk) 10:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is appropriate to suggest there is hardly any basis for the doubt I've expressed. Whether or not FoP Israel is valid for this situation depends entirely on answering the question whether or not this is "permanently placed". Where we have Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Israel saying that FoP is "permitted if that work is permanently placed in a public place", I wouldn't think it would be too difficult to have this doubt considering this poster is clearly intended to be temporary. A temporary poster being permanently placed until it is removed is a concept I'm struggling to grasp and I don't think it is too unreasonable to expect others might have the same difficulty. Unless "permanently" is defined somewhere in the law, I would have thought its conventional meaning, referring to something as being intended to remain situated in a public place for ever, would apply. This idea of a temporary poster being permanent would in my view be much more questionable than my own interpretation. Adambro (talk) 10:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If we interpret the term "permanently displayed" by the intention of the copyright holder, then this poster is permanently displayed. The poster will be removed, no doubt about it, but it is very reasonable to think that the copyright holder wouldn't mind it being torn by the wind or fade in the son instead of being removed by the city's employees. Of course we cannot guarantee that 100%, but the likeliness is high anough, considering its content and the fact that the poster's dimentions were adapted to this specific location. Drork (talk) 11:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure to be honest. The contents of the poster very strongly suggests that the intention would be to remove it once it became irrelevant. I really cannot believe that the city would have intended to leave it up until it was destroyed by natural processes since that could take many years by which time the poster would look very unattractive. Surely they must have intended to remove it before it was destroyed by nature? That surely means it wasn't intended to be permanently placed? Adambro (talk) 11:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If they intended to remove it and dispose of it, that would be the end of its natural life in my opinion, although we already clarified that we have a difference of opinion in that regard :). Can anyone approach an Israeli copyright expert and ask? -- Avi (talk) 15:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe we should start with what we all agree on:
The poster was probably made for that very place (It nicely fit the building) and for special occasion (we know that from the poster itself) If we agree with the above statements, it means that we probably could agree that the poster is not going to be reused in any other place. Now the only thing we should agree on is: Could we consider the placement permanent, if the subject is never going to be reused in other place. I believe we could.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And I know that under Israeli copyright low of 2007 "Incidental Use" of any category of work is permitted. IMO we could consider it as "Incidental Use". A photographer was taken an image of the building, and poster just happened to be on his way.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec, reply to Avi) The concept of "permanently situated" isn't unique to Israel so it probably isn't necessary to consult someone familiar with Israeli law since Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Israel doesn't seem to suggest a specific meaning of "permanently situated" in Israel. In the absence of any evidence to suggest otherwise, we should work from the explanation of Permanent vs temporary given at COM:FOP which in my view is pretty clear in suggesting this would be temporary. Are we in agreement that COM:FOP, at least as it stands, would define this as temporarily situated?
(reply to Mbz) I wouldn't disagree that this poster was specially made and unlikely to be reused once it is removed. I don't see how you get from that to the conclusion that it is therefore permanently situated though. COM:FOP makes no reference to considerations of the reusability potential or degree to which something is customised, it says the answer to the question of temporary versus permanent is "a question of what the intention was when the work was placed there". It seems reasonable to conclude that the intention when putting up a poster relating to a specific event would be to remove it once the poster is no longer relevant. Where does this idea that if it isn't reused then it would be permanently situated come from?
(ec x 2,reply to Mbz) It isn't possible to describe the poster as an incidental element of the work since it forms the main subject. Adambro (talk) 15:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the poster is the main subject, but does it mean that it was photographed intentionally? According to dictionary "incidental" means "occurring merely by chance or without intention or calculation". In other words did photographer tried to take the image of the poster or he just did not think about that at all. I know from my own experience that sometimes I could get incidental and big subjects in my own images without even noticing it before I look at the image on the screen of my computer. --Mbz1 (talk) 16:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is clear that the poster is the intended subject of this picture. -- Avi (talk) 16:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then I guess we all should agree with Adambro, and delete the image. If later the OTRS ticket is obtained, the image could be restored.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder, if it is possible to get OTRS ticket for it?--Mbz1 (talk) 23:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We would need one from the city of Ramat Gan. -- Avi (talk) 01:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The more I think about this, and read both the Hebrew and English versions of the copyright law, the more Adambro's point about permanence resonates with me. At this point, I'm thinking my initial understanding was wrong, and actually the opposite applies. If the govt of Ramat Gan leaves the poster up beyond the anniversary year until it gets pretty much ruined, that would indicate peranent placement. However, if they take it down at the end of the year, that may very well be temporary. OK, any commons regular living in Tel-Aviv/Ramat Gan, can y'all call the municipality please? . -- Avi (talk) 16:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I sent a question to the Municipality of Ramat Gan. I am interested to hear their answer on whether they regard this image as a copyright violation. Secondly, Adambro misunderstood my last remark here. I didn't say this poster is going to be left in its current place until it is ruined. I said it would be probably removed once its content became irrelevant. However we interpret "permanently displayed" by the intention of the copyright holder as we understand it by common sense. In this case, it is very reasonable to assume that the Municipality wouldn't mind this tear to pieces or fade in the sun once its content became irrelevant. If there were an ink that faded away once the content of the poster becomes irrelevant, the Municipality of Ramat Gan might as well use it for printing this poster. Therefore, it qualifies as equivalent to the "ice sculpture" example. Drork (talk) 19:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
However, if they plan on actively taking it down once the anniversary year is over, regardless of its condition, that may just well be "temporary" as Adambro says. The PLACEMENT on the building may be temporary, notwithstanding its quick trip to the garbage afterwards, and so it fails the Section 23 test of
קביעות
. -- Avi (talk) 19:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies to Drork if I'd misunderstood your comments. To compare this to the ice sculpture example, both have a limited "natural lifetime" just the ice sculpture's is much shorter due to it melting. Just as if the intention of the creator of the ice sculpture was to leave it until it melts, i.e. it reaches the end of its "natural lifetime", it could be described as permanently situated, if it was intended to be removed before it melted away it would only be temporarily situated. In the case of the poster, if the intention of the creator was to leave it until it was destroyed by nature then it could be described as permanently situated but if it was placed with the intention of removing it before that occurred then it would only be temporarily situated. That is how I relate the ice sculpture example to this poster and how I form the opinion that this, and many other posters, will only be temporarily situated. Adambro (talk) 19:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Adambro, we present here two interpretations that are both valid. Actually, the only way this kind of ambiguity can be resolved is looking for court rulings in similar cases. As far as the Israeli jurisdiction is concerned, I think there is no precedence. I am not an expert, nor even a lawyer, but in the past few years, due to my activity in Wikimedia Israel, I learned a bit about the subject, and I don't know of any appeal to an Israeli court about copyright infringement of this kind. As I said earlier, I found some examples of commercially published photograph similar to the one we discuss, and I never heard of complaints on behalf of the copyright holders. In my opinion, if the law can be interpreted in several ways and there is no compelling interpretation by a court or an authorized state official, then we should consider the norms and customs of the place where the photograph was taken. Well, that summarizes my position in such matters, I can't say it is better than yours. It is a question of policy. Drork (talk) 07:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS - I've just got a response from the Municipality of Ramat-Gan. They are checking under the authority of which department this case falls. Drork (talk) 07:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would also suggest that we wait for the municipality. Deror avi (talk) 17:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No need to rush things, more than happy to wait and see what we hear, any additional information could be helpful. Adambro (talk) 17:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I talked on the phone with the spokeswoman of the Ramat-Gan Municipality. She checked the issue with the legal department and came up with this answer: "if anyone wants to use this image, so be it. We will take no actions against it". I understood from her that they do not mind at all about non-commercial use of the image, and though not thrilled about commercial use, they are not going to do anything to prevent it. Now, I don't know if they will be willing to send a written response, which is a bit more compelling. Also, the answer says nothing about the extent of FoP or a permanent copyright policy of the municipality. It simply means that they have no interest to deal with this issue, and allow us the benefit of the doubt. Drork (talk) 09:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So their answer suggests that this poster is not covered by FOP (otherwise they would have said "there is nothing we can do about it" instead of "we will take no actions against it"). So I'd say  delete unless we get written permission from the municipality through OTRS. –Tryphon☂ 10:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It means nothing of the sort. Neither the city spokeswoman nor its legal department are experts on copyright law, and can be presumed to have neither the knowledge nor the inclination to give a legal opinion on FOP. All it means is that whatever rights they may or may not have, they have no interest in enforcing. Therefore even if we ultimately conclude that FOP doesn't cover objects that are intended to be removed and discarded, this particular image should be kept anyway. -- Zsero (talk) 12:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't acceptable for us to host images on the basis that the copyright holder is unlikely to take legal action per the precautionary principle. If we determine images aren't, or probably aren't, freely licensed then we simply can't host them. Adambro (talk) 12:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In this case it's not that they "probably" won't take legal action; they've said that they won't. The precautionary principle therefore doesn't apply: there is nothing to be precautious about. But of course we still have to resolve the general question, and this response doesn't help either side. -- Zsero (talk) 13:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We still need this in writing, and a bit more precise ("we will take no action against it" is not really a permission; something along the lines of "we are the copyright holders of this poster and we give permission to anyone to use this picture of the poster for any purpose" is what we usually require). –Tryphon☂ 13:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I might not have been precise enough in my phrasing. We had in fact two conversations, because the spokeswoman had to consult the legal department. After consulting with the legal department, the spokeswoman returned to me and told me (and I translate as accurately as possible: "We are not interested in dealing with this issue. This poster was placed in a public place, so if anyone wants to use it, may he enjoy it". "אנחנו לא מעוניינים לעסוק בזה, המודעה נמצאת במקום ציבורי, מי שרוצה להשתמש בה, שיבוּשׂם לו.". This is not like saying "you violated our copyrights but we won't sue you". It is more like saying: "whether we have copyrights or not, we are not going to proclaim them". Now, getting this statement in writing is too much effort (at least for me) and I'd rather see this file deleted than trying to explain what exactly the problem is, and why we need a written letter. To sum it up - we have an oral consent from the copyright holder (somewhat reserved, but still a consent) to have this image here, it is not in writing. As for the FoP principle - we can never be sure whether it applies here. Drork (talk) 16:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I love that phrase שיבוּשׂם לו, which literally means something like "may it be fragrant for him" -- Zsero (talk) 16:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When a Hebrew-speaker uses this phrase, s/he usually means: "I'm not sure whether I like it or not, but I'm going to allow it". Drork (talk) 17:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Or, "have fun and don't bother me". Actually, the English idiom closest in both meaning and connotation is "much joy may he have of it". -- Zsero (talk) 17:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete This would would need the permission of the photographer(s) of the two photos in this poster (unless the Municiplality owns all rights). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:01, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The municipality owns all possible rights on the poster according to an explicit paragraph in the Israeli copyright law. The photographer who produced this file has already waived its copyrights. The municipality's position is given above. We are not voting now. We are trying to figure out whether this file should stay or go according to the Commons' policy. There is no risk of complaints on behalf of the municipality. Drork (talk) 19:20, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Vague... what explicit paragraph? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:37, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know you too well to realize that this is not an innocent question. If you want to flood this discussion with endless pseudo-legal arguments, you won't have my cooperation. Drork (talk) 11:33, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So you were just bluffing about that "explicit paragraph"? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:14, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to assume not and would ask that Pieter doesn't make suggestions to the effect that another user was attempting to mislead. Nevertheless, it would be helpful that if Drork is aware of an "explicit paragraph in the Israeli copyright law" that means the municipality holds all the rights that he take the time to highlight the paragraph. Adambro (talk) 12:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, and I am not going to get into a sideline legal discussion about this, we are talking about paragraph 36, which determines that the State of Israel is the first owner of the copyrights on any work created by an employee of a statutory institution for the purpose of his/her work or in the course of his/her work, and on any work ordered by the state. The Municipality of Ramat-Gan is a statutory institution. The normal procedure is that the legal department of the relevant statutory institution manages the copyright issues, according to standard instructions periodically published on behalf of the state's Attorney General. There is a possibility of a special contract in which the state agrees to leave the copyrights at the hands of the artist. Had it been the case here, the municipality's spokeswoman would have told me that in our conversation over the phone. I trust she would have never misled me to think the municipality owned the copyrights (in principle, regardless of FoP considerations) had there been a special contract. Drork (talk) 13:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted (again). Reading through the discussion, the issue of "temporary" vs "permanent" is not clear (and "temporary" seems more likely), so we should follow the precautionary principle and not allow the image under Israeli FOP. Therefore, a release from the copyright holder (presumably the Municipality) is required. The phone correspondence is interesting, but for an image to be hosted on Commons "it requires the owner to provide a specific release under a suitably free license, which allows anyone to use them for any purpose, including commercial usage and derivative works" [quote from the relevant OTRS reply]. Saying that "not thrilled about commercial use, they are not going to do anything to prevent it" is not actually granting permission to use it for commercial purposes and there is no mention of derivatives. The file can be restored if we can get a release from the municipality through OTRS (Commons:Email templates] should help with that).--Nilfanion (talk) 11:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have been thinking about this alot, and I agree with you. It is more "temporary" than "permanent". Deror avi (talk) 10:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:U.S_Vice-President_Walter_Mondale.jpg

edit

No sign that it is a work of the US government Eusebius (talk) 10:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just for me not to look to much like an ass, the reference to the Library of Congress was not there when I nominated for deletion. Sorry for commenting on a close case. --Eusebius (talk) 12:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Julo (talk) 02:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Marcos_visit_Reagan_1982_cropped.jpg

edit

No sign that it is the work of a US gov photographer Eusebius (talk) 10:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Immediate close and keep. All photographs on the Reagan Library web site are the work of Government White House photographers and are in the public domain. Just to make sure of this, I contacted Steve Branch, the library's audiovisual archivist, who confirmed my understanding. -- Zsero (talk) 19:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Julo (talk) 02:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Suhail01.jpg

edit

Out of scope: unused personal artwork. –Tryphon☂ 11:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. –blurpeace (talk) 09:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Rantapuisto2.jpg

edit

FOP for buildings only in Finland, sculptor Nina Terno died in 2003 so not PD yet A333 (talk) 12:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. –blurpeace (talk) 09:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:ARMOURS_OF_INDIA.jpg

edit

Source says "© 2007 Bharat-Rakshak"; no evidence of free license Avron (talk) 14:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. –blurpeace (talk) 09:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Sounds_of_the_drain.jpg

edit

Out of scope: obviously a band from Germany of no relevance. The image is unused. High Contrast (talk) 16:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. –blurpeace (talk) 09:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Penis034.jpg

edit

No specific educational value compared to our existing male genitalia collection. ·×α£đ·es 16:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Julo (talk) 23:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:PICT0120.JPG

edit

Personal image not used anywhere; unencyclopedic and over a year old. ZooFari 17:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Julo (talk) 19:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Apellidoplf.jpg

edit

Unused, rather unusful. Yarl ✉ 18:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. –blurpeace (talk) 09:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Candy_Girl_Advocate.jpg

edit

I'm not sure, however such depiction falls rather under fair use. Masur (talk) 18:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. –blurpeace (talk) 09:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Makano058.png

edit

dubious self-made image from drive-by uploader. while i can't find the exact photo anywhere on the internet, it's from the same photo shoot as the top photo on makano's myspace page Mangostar (talk) 18:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Demphra024.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
File:Aldo008.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
while it suggest some inner source OTRS would be nice --Justass (talk) 20:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete per above. Gabrielabrego also looks as an inactive single-purpose account in Spanish Wikipedia. ·×α£đ·es 23:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, no need to discuss this, don’t waste your time looking for such files on the web. Merry Christmas everybody. --Polarlys (talk) 01:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:PICT0134.JPG

edit

Personal image unused anywhere; not useful. ZooFari 19:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Julo (talk) 19:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:1 Spot.jpg

edit

It seems to be full of copyrighted material --Unai Fdz. de Betoño (talk) 20:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Julo (talk) 23:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Ecbcopyright.png

edit

Poorly drawn PNG file replaced by File:Ecb copyright.svg. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 21:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now - unused. Deleted. Julo (talk) 17:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Map of the fossil sites of the earliest hominids (35.8-3.3M BP).svg

edit

The labeling is completely wrong: the species should be written as Sahelanthropus tchadensis, Orrorin tugenensis, Kenyanthropus platyops, Ardipithecus kadabba, Ardipithecus ramidus. (Incomplete DR by Gerbil completed. --AFBorchert (talk) 23:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I suggest to fix the labeling and to  Keep this image. Please note that it is widely used. --AFBorchert (talk) 23:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose that's a withdraw? Nominating for deletion with a keep in your rational isn't going to do any help; try submitting at the Graphic Lab. ZooFari 23:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is not my DR, I just completed an incomplete DR, see the notice above. --AFBorchert (talk) 23:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My bad. In that case,  Keep. ZooFari 23:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep In use. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. –blurpeace (talk) 09:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:GeorgievIan.jpg

edit

Out of scope. Would we really use this photo on a biographical article on this person? -Nard the Bard 02:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Flag_of_the_North_Atlantic_Treaty_Organization.svg

edit

Copyright held by NATO (see detailed on en.wiki: en:File:Flag_of_NATO.svg) Smooth_O (talk) 10:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

著作権の問題があるとありますがこれは「旗、紋章、印章等といった公式の記章を表しています。」とテンプレート:記章に書かれています。もし、これで著作権の問題があるなら国旗はどうなるのですか? --KitaTKO (talk) 11:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Killiondude (talk) 03:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Images of Roland von Bagratuni

edit

These are all scans from user "Roland von Bagratuni", that he used to illustrate an article about him. He is an hungaro-polish journalist, the article about him was deleted in polish WP in 2007. His userpage was already deleted, these are pictures used in a gallery about him, nowhere else. If he is not notable person for the polish wp, the files describing his lives are out of scope in the commons. I talked about that with a polish speaking admin (will be copied later) Cholo Aleman (talk) 18:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

copy from my talk page:

"Hi,

Roland von Bagratuni had a biographical article in Polish Wikipedia. He uploaded this documents as a source for this article. His biography was eventually deleted as not notable enough for encyclopcedia. Your first intuition was good: this documents are out of scope.

Regards,

A.J. (talk) 10:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick answer! - what is his profession? Is he a writer? - If he is clearly not notable, the documents can be deleted. In some of the documents his name is "Antonowicz" (or similar). Does he adopt a new name? (As far as I understand "Bagratuni" is an Armenian name, or at least derived from armenian ancestors.) Best wishes Cholo Aleman (talk) 11:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to last version of his deleted biography, gis real name is Roland Antoniewicz, but he uses von Bagratuni as well. He is a journalist, Polish-Hungarian Friendship Association activist, reportedly belonged to anti-communist movement in Poland and Hungary (this documents focus on that part), has some minor appearce in movie industry as actor and director's assistant. At first, his self-written biography was more impressive, but after more strict review with accordance to all Wikipedia rules, what remained was considered not enough, although the consensus was not very strong. Conclusion: let's delete those papers, there's little probability that they will be useful. A.J. (talk) 11:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again! - he was even cited in the New York Times back in 1989, see [2], his english user page is funny, see [3] - I will prepare the deletion of these files by and by. (If he is the King of Armenia, than he can come back.) Cholo Aleman (talk) 12:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)" Cholo Aleman (talk) 19:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

* I doubt that his userpage has been deleted, since it is still there as Roland von Bagratuni. But my polish is terrible. --Neozoon (talk) 01:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment sorry, this was a misunderstanding! - his userpage in the commons was deleted, see User:Roland von Bagratuni, deleted by Admin Polarlys as "out of scope". I dont know anything about the polish Wikipedia, only the information from User:Ejdzej Cholo Aleman (talk) 09:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. As was said. It's completely out of scope. Private document proving "notability" od RvB. Masur (talk) 19:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Toad powerup icon.svg

edit

copyrighted character and Nintendo corporate icon/franchise. Not so simple geometry like File:Star with eyes.svg. Simple character Goomba was also deleted. Many early games has such simple design. Same with File:Toads powerup.PNG --Kungfuman (talk) 13:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pienso que debería dejarse ya que la he dibujado yo mismo en su totalidad con el paint. También podría dibujarla de forma menos parecida como la "Star with eyes"--AnelGTR (talk) 03:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete derivative work of copyrighted work. There also is File:Toads powerup.PNG. // Sertion 09:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, along with Toads powerup.PNG. -- Infrogmation (talk) 00:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Cling_gaffa_cloth_tape.jpg

edit

See Commons:Image casebook#Product packaging. -- Zsero (talk) 08:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. removed logo and drawings Justass (talk) 15:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Dish_mexico.jpg

edit

Not evidence that this logo is eligible for any kind of free license, and the current license of "PD-self" is clearly inappropriate. — Huntster (t @ c) 05:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 18:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Duck_power_tape.jpg

edit

See Commons:Image casebook#Product packaging -- Zsero (talk) 08:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete The photo seems to be as much of the artwork as anything else. --Simonxag (talk) 13:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 18:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Image:Christkindlesm7.JPG

edit

Reasons for deletion request -Stoschmidt (talk) 09:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Siehe: Recht_am_eigenen_Bild#Erkennbarkeit, --Stoschmidt (talk) 09:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 18:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Eigenharp_Alpha.jpg

edit

There is no evidence that the flickr member holds the copyright and can release this image under a CC license as the picture is from http://www.eigenlabs.com/alpha/ Whpq (talk) 12:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment I don't know why the flickr member licensed it under CC-2.0. If you wonder it, you can ask it to the member. --Shoulder-synth (talk) 12:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I've sent a request for COM:OTRS permission to license holder, Eigenlabs. --Shoulder-synth (talk) 04:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 18:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Rantapuisto2008.jpg

edit

This work of art is made in the 2000s so not PD yet, FOP in Finland for buildings only A333 (talk) 13:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 18:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Watt2005.jpg

edit

Source=en: wiki. it states that Mr. Watt has given full permission for use of the file anywhere on wikipedia which is not enough for commons. No source besides en: wiki, yet licensed with "I, the copyright holder" etc. -- Deadstar (msg) 16:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Watt sent the picture to me in 2005 via e-mail. This may have been when I had a different, now closed e-mail address, however, so locating that e-mail message may be a problem. Watt is not hard to contact via e-mail, so if you're requiring further permission, let me know and I'll pass his contact info on to you privately. -- Cjmarsicano (talk) 22:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Commons:OTRS Polarlys (talk) 18:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reopening this debate, like it or not.

As the uploader of this image, which was done on behalf of Mr. Watt, I received absolutely no recent notice that this image was being tagged for deletion on any grounds. I found out about this yesterday not from anyone at Wiki, but from Mr. Watt himself when he e-mailed me to inquire what happened to the image.

This is a completely unacceptable action and on behalf of Mr. Watt, I want some satisfaction and resolution on this matter. I can raise quite an uproar otherwise.

-- Cjmarsicano (talk) 03:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Dejar de Pensar The Fire.ogg

edit

This is either a copyvio or we need a permission through our OTRS team for this recording of this group. See also this associated DR. --AFBorchert (talk) 23:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 18:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Rear_HG_GTS_Monaro.jpg

edit

image has incorrect features on car will mislead KillaMonaro471 (talk) 07:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Mbdortmund (talk) 15:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:$10IdiAminDada$10.jpg

edit

This image is not an Turkmenistan' work ferbr1 (talk) 09:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{Derivative}} Just as all other similarly tagged scanned notes (and there are loads) uploaded by the same user. A few countries have their notes under a PD license and should be tagged as such but the majority will simply have to be deleted. /129.215.149.98 13:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More inf o can be found on Commons:Money. If the country hasn't got an entry then delete should be the default option (unless the note is really old). /129.215.149.98 13:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, false license/creation claim. No evidence image is free licensed for any other reason presented. -- Infrogmation (talk) 17:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Estacion_Federico_Lacroze-2.jpg

edit

I have been checking the uploader's file contributions on enwp. Most are now already nominated for deletion at en:Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2009 December 21. While I think we can assume good faith here, it is probably not safe to assume that the uploader understood what he was asking for when he got permission to upload this file, and for that reason it is unlikely that the photographer gave informed consent to the release. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 20:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Template:PD-DenmarkEVH

edit

I think this template should not be used, and should be removed from Commons, because I fail to see how a "factual presentation" can be a media file. I might be mistaken by translation issues, though. -Eusebius (talk) 09:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The short answer is: You are mistaken. The longer answer: EVH is used for illustrations covered by the Danish Copyright Law §9. The classical example is example of this is the illustrations in the Danish Statutory Regulations for High Voltage Installations (da: Stærkstrømsbekendtgørelsen). The illustrations in this document is per definition copyrighted by the Danish Safety Technology Authority which is the government body responsible for this set of regulations. However - even though two people are capable of creating the same drawing independent of each other, as they are illustrating the same legal matter - it would normally be copyrighted in the normal sense. You are thus allowed to make new versions of the illustration (they can even be the exact same), as long as you don't do a direct copy of the media file. I.e. an illustration showing the 10kV power distribution net in Copenhagen is by default copyright, because the Danish Safety Technology Authority holds that copyright. You can't independently create another version without either looking at the statutory regulations or the illustrations within and thus they would always be copyrighted. But because of §9 you are allowed anyway. That's where this template comes into action. --Henrik (Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 12:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for your explanations. I think that could be covered by other, more general ineligibility templates (non specific to a country), but ok. I think, however, that we should have a close look at the pictures currently bearing this template. From what you say, I'm not sure that a reproduction of a private company logo, for instance, should be licensed under PD-DenmarkEVH, it should probably be PD-textlogo (if applicable). I also doubt that the photograph of a simple design should be covered by your description of what "factual presentations" are here. I think I had seen a more serious case, but it must have been deleted already. Anyway, if you have a good understanding of the issue, please don't hesitate to make things clearer when you can. --Eusebius (talk) 12:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that a more general ineligibility template would be preferred, but currently I'm not sure which one to use, as I think that it is necessary to provide information, that a media file may contain visually the same content as a copyrighted government created file. This could either be provided using some sort of notice (similar to {{Copydesign}}). Any thoughts would be much appreciated. --Henrik (Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 11:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Though I'm not sure, I would believe that the intention of the law is that a set of data (numbers) should not be copyrighted. I would say the intention is not images. However electrical diagrams should be covered by "factual presentations" and thus not copyrighted.
But since such rules exists in many other countries operating with the "work" concept I believe this template should be replaced by which is not country specific. --|EPO| da: 11:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After debating the issue on COM:IRC the conclusion is that a combination of {{PD-shape}} + {{Trademarked}} should suffice as to covering the freedom of the actualy media and the availability of solely factual presentation. If no one opposes, I'll start converting the files which utilizes this license sometime after christmas and then this license can be deleted. --Henrik (Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 12:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Template was only used on a few images and they where easy converted to {{PD-shape}} + {{Trademarked}} as per above. Template is no longer used for image licensing. --Henrik (Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 17:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. --O (谈 • висчвын) 13:22, 10 May 2010 (GMT)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2009/12/21&oldid=39081065"