Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2010/09/21
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
We have nice photos of skulls, and don't need this anymore. Conty (talk) 18:40, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Kept. File in use.Geagea (talk) 03:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
97.93.245.41 00:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Closed and kept, erroneous/nonsense request. --PaterMcFly (talk) 06:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
189.221.236.62 00:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
No reson for deletion given --PaterMcFly (talk) 06:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
oknnnn Red351 (talk) 13:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Blatant copyright violation. --High Contrast (talk) 14:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
File by User:Rdeils is sourced to "Google" and is probably unfree. Stefan4 (talk) 22:59, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyvio revision. -- Эlcobbola talk 16:56, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Creator does not want the file to be public. --Pz939 (talk) 12:50, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by EugeneZelenko: Non-free screenshot: Software
copyvio Kattenkruid (talk) 12:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyright violation -- Common Good (talk) 19:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
We already have the same view of the tower but better composed. Łukasz Łoziński (talk) 21:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Keep 1) it's not a reason for deletion 2) we have NOT "the same view of the tower". Trycatch (talk) 21:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)- KeepI agree that many images in this series have composition issues, which were made worse by watermark removal; however here at commons it is not a reason for deletion.--Jarekt (talk) 01:43, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Geagea (talk) 01:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
copia exacta de otra de mi misma propiedad Cristhiandr (talk) 17:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Kept. higher res. Renamed: File:SAntoniotx.JPG -- Common Good (talk) 19:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I made a mistake. Alphanabla (talk) 21:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Common Good (talk) 19:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Bad contrast. Łukasz Łoziński (talk) 21:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep no reason for deletion. Trycatch (talk) 22:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I agree that many images in this series have composition issues, which were made sometimes worse by watermark removal; however here at commons it is not a reason for deletion.--Jarekt (talk) 01:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Please note that we already have about 20 pictures showing front of the cathedral. A few of them are really good. What's the reason to keep the worse? I believe pictures in such a huge category at commons need to be selected - just to keep it clear.--Łukasz Łoziński (talk) 13:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Comment We very rarely delete images based on their quality, composition, etc. You would have to prove that image is out of scope, and our scope is very broad. Other proper deletion reason is exact or scaled duplicate of other image. Your files do not meet any of those criteria. I appreciate your desire to "keep it clear" and tidy but that should be accomplished by other means than deletion of images you pronounce inferior. Another reason is that many users react badly to deletion of their images and we do not want to put off valuable contributors. I in the past nominated many images for deletion based on out of scope reasoning, but those were mostly extreme examples, like 20 pictures almost identical to this one, blurry pavement photos or low-resolution photos with large impossible to remove watermarks. --Jarekt (talk) 16:47, 22 September 2010 (UTC)- Keep Wikimedia Commons is not the photo-art gallery, but it is the place of documentation the history of the world: people, villages, towns, cities etc. This is not a problem of number of quasi-identical pictures, because every one was shot in different time and shows different state of the same object. Julo (talk) 18:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Per Julo & others. Electron
<Talk?> 18:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Julo (talk) 06:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Man called Nils (apparently...) looking at unidentifiable sea; no possible use, sole contribution of uploader (has been uncategorised since 17 November 2008). Anatiomaros (talk) 22:32, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Delete, unused private image Cholo Aleman (talk) 15:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Blurpeace 22:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Copyright violation Malpass93 (talk) 21:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Blurpeace 22:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Flickr page says this is courtesy of US Soccer, likely not a free license image. BrokenSphere 21:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom unless evidence that has been free licensed by the copyright holder is presented. Notes: Flickr photo now labeled "all rights reserved." Image is in use in multiple Wikipedias. Infrogmation (talk) 18:47, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Blurpeace 22:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Accidentally uploaded this file 128.62.219.160 17:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Blurpeace 22:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
orphan image, out of scope - has no educational purpose. Amsaim (talk) 15:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Blurpeace 22:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Violação de direitos autorais Ricvelozo (talk) 00:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep This is a simple shape geometry logo like others and eneligable for copyright. --Kungfuman (talk) 16:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, too close a call. Better to be cautious. Blurpeace 22:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Cropped version of [1] low resolution and lack of metadata are suspect Samuell (talk) 22:33, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Blurpeace 22:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Promozione di un centro commerciale Discanto (talk) 03:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Kept, ineligible for copyright. Whether the logo is within scope is another factor that should be considered in a separate deletion request. Blurpeace 23:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
No clear information about the pictured person. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 03:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 17:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
les estan esperando los de la delicuensia organisadas esos que se bañan todos los diaz junto con los del alcolicos anonimo para desacer se 189.133.103.141 20:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- Obvious trolling. Speedy close and delete this instead? ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 12:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- And you are generating dozens of similarly inane DRs? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
CV, out of scope; see also Commons:Deletion requests/Nihal Kaviratne CBE. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 17:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
no source, out of scope, perhaps violation personal rights, not used or categorized since 2008 4028mdk09 (talk) 08:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 17:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
no source, out of scope, not used or categorized since 2008 4028mdk09 (talk) 08:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 17:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
out of scope, not used or categorized since 2008, probably violating personal rights 4028mdk09 (talk) 08:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 17:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
out of scope, not used or categorized since 2008, probably violating personal rights 4028mdk09 (talk) 08:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 17:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
much to small, not usable for project scope, bad quality 4028mdk09 (talk) 08:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 17:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I have serious doubts about the copyright status of this file --Màñü飆¹5 talk 08:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Nothing copyrightable to be seen here. -- Herby (Vienna) (talk) 19:47, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
out of scope, probably violating personal rights 4028mdk09 (talk) 08:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 17:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
probably violating personal rights, not used or categorized since 2008, out of scope 4028mdk09 (talk) 08:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 17:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
out of scope, no source, probably violating personal rights 4028mdk09 (talk) 08:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 17:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
out of scope, not used or categorized since 2008, violating personal rights? 4028mdk09 (talk) 08:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 17:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
out of project scope, not used or categorized since 2008, probably violating personal rights 4028mdk09 (talk) 08:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 17:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Perchè non è richiamato da nessuna pagina Gothic3devil (talk) 11:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 17:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Promotional, Its not possible to have the unloaders picture in the sun's core Common-Man (talk) 18:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Email from author
[edit]hi there, Please have the file faceonsun.jpg removed. Actually I was trying to learn how to upload a media file on page and accidentally uploaded it. You can see from the tone of the picture that it was just for fun. I was unable to find the option to delete it (I am relatively new to this editor work). Please accept my appologies for the accidental upload.
Regards, Yasir -- This e-mail was sent by Yhasan to Binukalarickan by the "E-mail user" function at Wikimedia Commons. --Common-Man (talk) 05:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Unused private image, no educational value, → out of scope. Jahobr (talk) 18:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 17:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Poster, Promotional material, In appropriate license Common-Man (talk) 18:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 17:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Poster/ Brochure - In appropriate license Common-Man (talk) 18:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 17:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
No FoP in France. 84.61.172.89 18:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - what a joke this request is. The picture shows a piece of the Berlin Wall (not concerned by FoP - neither a work of art, nor a copyrighted building) and a tree (no comment). The building that would be concerned by the FoP question is well in the background and does not constitue the main focus. Who ist that Troll from Germany, anyway? --Edelseider (talk) 19:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I agree with Edelseider: a piece of the Berlin Wall is not a work of art which can be copyrighted. I hoverer DO NOT agree with User:Edelseider name calling. Anybody should be able to file DR without being called names. It is not how we do things here. --Jarekt (talk) 01:56, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, Jarekt, I admit I was being rude. However, trolls exist in the Wiki universe just as much as in Norvegian folk tales. There could be one standing right behind you, mind! --Edelseider (talk) 10:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Look like screen shot, Author need to describe or Admins need to judge Common-Man (talk) 19:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Already have the same picture but better composed. Łukasz Łoziński (talk) 21:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep no reason for deletion. Trycatch (talk) 22:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- KeepI agree that many images in this series have composition issues, which were made sometimes worse by watermark removal; however here at commons it is not a reason for deletion.--Jarekt (talk) 01:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete If a better version is available there, I see no potential reason to keep it. --Amit6 (talk) 14:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Someone cropped my image without asking me (I know, this is public domain now) and now it's nominated for deletion for poor composition. I don't think it's a good way to encourage photographers to contribute to Wiki Commons. --Rafał Komorowski (talk) 06:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Certainly, you are right. I've reverted this and several other similar crops by User:Amit6. It's not hard to upload new versions under new name. Trycatch (talk) 11:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Dear Sir, I do appreciate your contribution. My deletion request was only a signal to start discussion - it is actually very hard to remove a thing from Wikimedia. As a result, User:Trycatch was able to revert some unfortunate crops. Nobody tries to attack you. Yours sincirely, --Łukasz Łoziński (talk) 13:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- I apologise to the first uploader of File:Poland_Wroclaw_Cathedral_2007.jpg and to the Commons community also if the crops made by me are unnecessary. Thank you. --Amit6 (talk) 14:20, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Not well balanced colours and low resolution. Łukasz Łoziński (talk) 21:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep no reason for deletion. Resolution is ok. Not well balanced colors? It's a wiki, you can balance it by yourself. Trycatch (talk) 21:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I agree that many images in this series have composition issues, which were made sometimes worse by watermark removal; however here at commons it is not a reason for deletion.--Jarekt (talk) 01:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Dear Trycath - you know you can't do everything with a photo. This one is just weak. I see no reason to keep it while we have so many better shots of the cathedral at Commons.--Łukasz Łoziński (talk) 13:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Per Trycatch & Jarekt. Electron <Talk?> 18:43, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Bad proportions in the picture - look at the people and compare the towers with other photos. Łukasz Łoziński (talk) 21:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I agree that many images in this series have composition issues, which were made sometimes worse by watermark removal; however here at commons it is not a reason for deletion.--Jarekt (talk) 01:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
There is no composition issue - just unreal propostions - please take a look at the towers. --Łukasz Łoziński (talk) 13:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Definitely there is something strange with the geometry. Trycatch (talk) 14:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Bad composition while there already are very good photos of the cathedral on Wikimedia. Łukasz Łoziński (talk) 21:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep good enough. Trycatch (talk) 22:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I agree that many images in this series have composition issues, which were made sometimes worse by watermark removal; however here at commons it is not a reason for deletion.--Jarekt (talk) 01:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Suspected permission of a picture made during an “orginal fotoshoot of the band XIV Dark Centuries”. —DerHexer (Talk) 23:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
I`m a member of XIV Dark Centuries, and it is our picture, so where is the problem???--*waldheinz* (talk) 11:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Unluckily the photographed person is not automatically the copyright holder, that's usually the photograph. It could of course be possible that he transferred all legal rights of use to your band. But we cannot confirm that without a valid mail confirmation. So would it be possible for you to send a mail to permissions-common-de
wikimedia.org from one of those mail address which are mentioned on your homepage: http://www.xivdarkcenturies.de/index2.htm where you confirm the authorship of that file and the licence (here possibly public domain)? That would avoid deleting that file. :-) Thanks in advance and kind regards, —DerHexer (Talk) 00:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
OK, we will send the mail. Und, warum können wir eigentlich nicht deutsch schreiben???--*waldheinz* (talk) 12:20, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Wasn das? Der Mailversand zum folgenden Empfänger ist endgültig gescheitert:
permissions-common-de@wikimedia.org
Letzter Fehler: 550 5.0.0 Mailbox unavailable/command rejected for policy reasons/no
access
Erklärung: host mchenry.wikimedia.org [208.80.152.186] said: Address
permissions-common-de@wikimedia.org does not exist
Letzter Weiterleitungsversuch war: Donnerstag, 23. September 2010 14:19:14 +0200 (MEST)
--*waldheinz* (talk) 13:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Ich habe jetzt nochmal versucht die Mail an die angegebene Adresse zu senden. Versand ist wieder gescheitert. Wie verfahren wir denn nun weiter???--*waldheinz* (talk) 11:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- Autsch, seh leider erst jetzt, dass die Adresse permissions-commons-dewikimedia.org (also commons statt common) heißen müsste, muss ich mich wohl vertippt haben. Sorry! War am Wochenende leider auch ohne Internet unterwegs. Eine Rückfrage bei Kollegen, sich hierum zu kümmern, war anscheinend leider ebenso wenig erfolgreich. Bitte nochmal versuchen, wir schaffen das schon! ;o) Grüße, —DerHexer (Talk) 00:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- Autsch, seh leider erst jetzt, dass die Adresse permissions-commons-de
Gib mir bitte bescheid, ob die Mail angekommen ist und ob das so genügt.--*waldheinz* (talk) 16:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Kept. OTRS permission received. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 19:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I really doubt this is own work (low resolution, no EXIF). –Tryphon☂ 23:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 09:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
out of project scope, no description, not used or categorized since 2008, perhaps violating personal rights 4028mdk09 (talk) 08:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Jahobr (talk) 18:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Amada44 talk to me 14:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
A photo associated with a pure vandalism page about how "awesome" this guy is. He isn't. Timneu22 (talk) 14:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Neutral, although the uploader should probably be blocked. He was already identified on Wikipedia as a "Vandalism-Only Account". mechamind90 15:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, out of scope. File:Bryle2.jpg too. –Tryphon☂ 16:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Amada44 talk to me 14:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Unused private image, no educational value, → out of scope. Jahobr (talk) 18:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Amada44 talk to me 14:48, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Unused private image, no educational value, → out of scope. Jahobr (talk) 18:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Amada44 talk to me 14:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Unused private image, no educational value, → out of scope. Jahobr (talk) 18:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Amada44 talk to me 14:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Unused private image, no educational value, → out of scope. Jahobr (talk) 18:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Amada44 talk to me 14:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Unused private image, no educational value, → out of scope. Jahobr (talk) 18:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Amada44 talk to me 14:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Unused private image, no educational value, → out of scope. Jahobr (talk) 18:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Amada44 talk to me 14:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Unused private image, no educational value, → out of scope. Jahobr (talk) 18:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Amada44 talk to me 14:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Unused private image, no educational value, → out of scope. Jahobr (talk) 18:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Amada44 talk to me 14:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
This image is sourced from www.sawnet.org, appropriate license not given, No articles using the file. This file is not focused on Jagat Singh Common-Man (talk) 18:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by ZooFari: No license since 21 September 2010
No FoP for sculptures in Denmark. 84.61.172.89 17:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep where you see sculptures? Trycatch (talk) 02:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Freedom of Panorama does not apply for buildings in private property Lukas Beck (talk) 15:03, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
- Keep There is no restriction for photographs of buildings on private property. c.f. Consolidated Act on Copyright 2014, Sec. 24(3): "Buildings may be freely reproduced in pictorial form and then made available to the public." Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 16:42, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
- That is the point of freedom of panorama. It loosens copyright for works of art that are publicly and permanently exhibited. This also applies to Denmark. the building is located on private grounds. Freedom of panorama is therefore not applicable here. Lukas Beck (talk) 08:16, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. This image is focused on buildings. Any other elements are deminimis. IronGargoyle (talk) 20:42, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, but the bulding itselve isn't free. Lukas Beck (talk) 04:16, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
- I looked more closely into this and you have a complete misunderstanding of Danish law on Freedom of Panorama when it comes to buildings. The only mention of works needing to be in a public place is for "works of art" (and these are not allowed because a noncommercial restriction is placed). Photographs of buildings have a separate line entry and have no such restrictions (neither public place nor commercial use) It's very clear if you look at COM:FOP Denmark or here. IronGargoyle (talk) 14:22, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, but the bulding itselve isn't free. Lukas Beck (talk) 04:16, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
- Hi IronGargoyle, this is rather interesting point that Denmark does not have any "public place-like" limitation on buildings for its FoP law. Is there actually any reliable source in English? The "English translation" link on {{FoP-Denmark}} unfortunately seems obsolete and not working. Regards --A.Savin 18:06, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
- Section 24 point 3 in the linked pdf I shared just above (should be on page 9). IronGargoyle (talk) 18:23, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
- Hi IronGargoyle, this is rather interesting point that Denmark does not have any "public place-like" limitation on buildings for its FoP law. Is there actually any reliable source in English? The "English translation" link on {{FoP-Denmark}} unfortunately seems obsolete and not working. Regards --A.Savin 18:06, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. —howcheng {chat} 22:34, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Too small to be of any use, no educational value, → out of scope. Jahobr (talk) 18:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Common Good (talk) 19:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
My file uploaded under an unwanted & bad account...request came for clean up Common-Man (talk) 08:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio: Speedydelete
No proof Hamid Mir created the photo, since he is present on it himself. FunkMonk (talk) 12:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep oh please. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep indeed. Trycatch (talk) 20:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Please keep your snide remarks to yourself, Pieter. This photo was taken by the man who is sitting right next to OBL, are you kidding me? The description even says the actual author is unknown, which simply doesn't cut it. FunkMonk (talk) 22:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- He gave his camera to a guy with a beard to take a picture with Osama. Sigh. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Then the guy with the beard owns the copyright of the photo, not Mir. It's as simple as that. It's about intellectual ownership, not physical ownership. FunkMonk (talk) 23:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Well, if it's in Afghanistan then it's PD iirc, as Afghanistan doesn't have copyright laws. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Only if it was first published in Afghanistan, Hamid Mir is Pakistani, so that does not appear likely. FunkMonk (talk) 00:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Well, if it's in Afghanistan then it's PD iirc, as Afghanistan doesn't have copyright laws. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Then the guy with the beard owns the copyright of the photo, not Mir. It's as simple as that. It's about intellectual ownership, not physical ownership. FunkMonk (talk) 23:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- He gave his camera to a guy with a beard to take a picture with Osama. Sigh. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Please keep your snide remarks to yourself, Pieter. This photo was taken by the man who is sitting right next to OBL, are you kidding me? The description even says the actual author is unknown, which simply doesn't cut it. FunkMonk (talk) 22:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Of all the pictures, why this? lol Mar4d (talk) 13:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Of all what pictures? And what's your reason for voting keep? If I come across what seems like a copyvio, I nominate it, the subject matter is irrelevant. FunkMonk (talk) 14:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Has an OTRS ticket. Do we now going to question every OTRS administrator’s decision on ticketing. --ARTEST4ECHO talk 19:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- Irrelevant to the copyright status. If the man who gave the permission isn't the creator of the photo, then his permission is useless. Merely owning it doesn't make him the copyright holder. The OTRS guys most likely overlooked this fact, many other OTRS images have been deleted. FunkMonk (talk) 20:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep There is something called implicit contracts. The person holding the camera certainly understood that the picture might get used, and with those persons in the picture, other than for personal use.
- Give it a test. If the person that held the camera after the event would have said he wants $1000 every time the photo is used, would you find it reasonable, do you think Hamid Mir would have found it reasonable and would you think the surrounding people would have found it reasonable? If the person holding the camera understood Hamid Mir would be surprised by that condition, then he also understood that Hamid Mir thought there was an implicit contract about him being allowed to use the photo.
- Whether such implicit contracts are accepted by law in a certain situation and, especially, what they are supposed to include, vary by jurisdiction. But I think a person known to be a journalist being able to publish such photos as he wish, perhaps with some royalty to the person holding the camera, if known, should be quite universal.
- --LPfi (talk) 14:58, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- Demanding 1000 dollars for each publication is not a criterion for owning a photo. One thing is to let Mir use the photo, another is to let him determine the coyright status of it. For all we know, the photographer could have taken the photo for an article in a newspaper. FunkMonk (talk) 15:28, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- --LPfi (talk) 14:58, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- If there was no implicit (or explicit) contract, then any rights to the photo should be negotiated afterwards and the person holding the camera could very well ask whatever he wants or forbid using the photo (for other than personal use etcetera). If we agree that there was an implicit contract, then we still have to figure out what that implicit contract can be expected to include. I think the person holding the camera knew the photo might get published, and he shouldn't have made presumptions about how it was going to be published. --LPfi (talk) 22:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- Heh, speculations on what a person might have thought isn't really solid enough if we want to determine copyright status, is it? FunkMonk (talk) 22:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- If there was no implicit (or explicit) contract, then any rights to the photo should be negotiated afterwards and the person holding the camera could very well ask whatever he wants or forbid using the photo (for other than personal use etcetera). If we agree that there was an implicit contract, then we still have to figure out what that implicit contract can be expected to include. I think the person holding the camera knew the photo might get published, and he shouldn't have made presumptions about how it was going to be published. --LPfi (talk) 22:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- Such speculations are used in court, and where they are predictable they may very well be used by us. There is often explicit language on implicit contracts in the law and in case law (but I do not know the relevant jurisdictions). --LPfi (talk) 09:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep yeah pls keep.Mannix Chan (talk) 09:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- "Pls keep" is not an argument. FunkMonk (talk) 15:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- Such speculations are used in court, and where they are predictable they may very well be used by us. There is often explicit language on implicit contracts in the law and in case law (but I do not know the relevant jurisdictions). --LPfi (talk) 09:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- By the way, the broader issue is discussed here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Licensing#Self_photos_by_a_third_party FunkMonk (talk) 17:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Keep la foto es tomada por un periodista que muy humildemente proporcionó a cualquier persona la libertad de tomar y/o reproducir dicha imagen. Por tal motivo es de libre uso y no viola ningún derecho. Nanovapor9 (talk) 02:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- deleted: no evidence that uploader has rights to release the image under a Free licence (quasi-admission that he does not). Rama (talk) 05:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Derivative work. FunkMonk (talk) 11:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. DieBuche (talk) 23:19, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
No Commons:Freedom of panorama in Belarus. Installed in [5ka.su/ref/history/0_object81569.html 1977]. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- Doesn't Article 19 allow it?--Dr. med. Mabuse (talk) 20:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- According to this article commercial usage of such photos of work of art (main subject) without artist's permission is not allowed. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no freedom of panorama in Belarus. Kameraad Pjotr 20:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Superseded by PNG ZanderZ (talk) 17:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- different file format, so Keep --Effeietsanders (talk) 12:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Kept, file is in use. Kameraad Pjotr 18:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
photograph of copyrighted work grillo (talk) 12:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Probably uploader is the artist. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
M goransson grafiskbetong flower.jpg i uploaded by me and it is my own property /Mikael Göransson
Deleted, OTRS verification of the author required. Kameraad Pjotr 18:37, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
While this photo of the painting is licensed as CC-BY-2.0 on Flickr, the artist of the painting and location is unknown, {{FoP-Australia}} considers 2D art works as copyrightable. The lack of anything about the orgins of the painting leads me to think that this is a copyrighted painting. Bidgee (talk) 17:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, the painting is copyrighted and freedom of panorama does not apply. Kameraad Pjotr 21:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
distorted proportions (and wrong flag - there was no such variant with crowned eagle). Correct one is here File:PRL Ensign Border Defence Army.svg Pibwl (talk) 17:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 16:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
I replaced this map (which is one I created) with a new map Will (Talk - contribs) 03:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, uploader request, file is not in use. Kameraad Pjotr 20:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
low quality photo --Povilasz (talk) 07:28, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, out of project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 20:39, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Out of scope, I have no idea what the point of this image is. FunkMonk (talk) 03:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Have you seen the context it is used in? Given the generic name of the file, and the strange use, it seems that a mistake might have been made since it shows up there. But I'll ask the uploader. FunkMonk (talk) 05:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Certainly, you are right -- the file was uploaded in 2009, while the page in Wikiversity was created in 2007. Trycatch (talk) 09:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Have you seen the context it is used in? Given the generic name of the file, and the strange use, it seems that a mistake might have been made since it shows up there. But I'll ask the uploader. FunkMonk (talk) 05:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. FunkMonk (talk) 13:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
advertisment, out of project scope 194.95.119.139 12:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 01:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
First, these poorly sources images are exact duplicates of each other en:File:Arpad.jpg, en:File:Arpad 2008.jpg, and en:File:Arpad album photosession.jpg. Second, both Arpad.kollanyi (here and here), and Platformshoes (here) both claim to hold the copyrights. Lastly this appears to be a publicity photo, so I doubt ether Arpad.kollanyi or Platformshoes own copyrights. see also --ARTEST4ECHO talk 17:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 17:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Probable copyright violation. See TinEye results (and contributor's other upload which is an overt copyvio) Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- - Looks like a copyright violation to me, as DC says, his other upload was a vio and this one likely is also. Ask him to upload the actual digital picture if it belongs to him. Off2riorob (talk) 23:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per DC. TinEye is really useful here -- I wonder if there's a way to provide a one-click interface to TinEye on Commons that would add a summary of search results to its talkpage... --SJ+ 23:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 01:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Obvious copyright violation (image is tagged with website info) Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, ask him to upload the digital if he really owns it. All pics like this have been lifted from somewhere and we should get tougher and delete them faster and block the accounts. Off2riorob (talk) 23:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete and agree. --SJ+ 23:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 01:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
UCB Logo -Ucbwiki 29. Juli 2009, 02:22 Uhr
(Adjustment: I am not the nominator of delete procedure. I´m installing this missing deletion requests page to reach a decision. )--El-Bardo (talk) 08:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete Logo proteted --El-Bardo (talk) 08:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Out of COM:SCOPE. We aren't Used Cardboard Boxes' webhost. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 15:18, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 03:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Freedom of panorama in Lithuania does not permit commcercial use. FunkMonk (talk) 00:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete COM:FOP is pretty clear about this. It's a recent sculpture. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 15:25, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 03:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Freedom of panorama in Lithuania does not permit commcercial use. FunkMonk (talk) 00:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete COM:FOP is pretty clear about this. It's a recent sculpture. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 15:25, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 03:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
tihsi Ex-BGDA- (talk) 00:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Copyvio. Found on the Washington Post website, here. Image published 2010-02-27. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 15:29, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 03:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I hate to say it, but the fresco looks quite recent (uplaoder says as much, in French), and there is no freedom of panorama in France. Copyright problem, I believe. Jmabel ! talk 01:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
File:Le mur aux fresques.JPG might raise similar issues, but I think it's OK because it more shows where the frescoes are, and is less a depiction of any one fresco. I think that one is de minimis, but wouldn't argue if someone else thinks it's a problem. Also, the individual frescoes there look like relatively uncreative reproductions of older, public domain works. - Jmabel ! talk 01:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Bonjour,
Joyeuse( Ardèche ) est décorée de fresques réalisées ces dernières année et offertes à la vision de tous dans un but d'animation. Elles ont été utilisées dans d'autres sites (http://www.beauzons.com/index.php/Image:Joyeuse_6.jpg )et je n'ai pas vu de mal à en donner ma propre vision en les photographiant. Les problèmes de licence sont trés difficiles à résoudre sur wikicommmons Cordialement--Alainauzas 06:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- j'ajoute que dans d'autres photos, les réalisateurs sont bien identifiés et laissent leurs droits :File:Boissel02.jpg
Il suffirait alors de me désigner comme l'auteur de la photographie.?--Alainauzas 07:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, File:Boissel02.jpg may be a problem as well. Yes, it credits "La Recluse pour le sujet" (I'm not even sure in this context what that means as a credit: is "La Recluse" the artist of some original public domain work or of the actual fresco? Is this an individual or an organization?) but given that that is not the uploader, I'd expect that this needs OTRS.
Yes, Commons is much stricter about copyrights than many other sites. That's because we only want to host images that we are reasonably confident won't raise copyright issues when reproduced elsewhere, even for commercial use. (Non-copyright restrictions are a different matter.)
Yes, this means some subjects cannot be depicted on Commons. For example, virtually no contemporary building in a country without freedom of panorama can be depicted on Commons without the architect's permission. In the US, where I live, buildings are OK, but anything considered to be artwork can be a similar problem. For example, most sculptures in public places that were installed in the US after 1923 present this same problem. - Jmabel ! talk 14:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, i understand but y know the Owner off this house, the pinter off tnis fresca and many sites on Joyeuse used this fresca.
In France everbody can reproducted buildings and artwork on this buildings! http://web.mac.com/jmsenasson/iWeb/JOYEUSE/CHATEAU_files/slideshow.html?slideIndex=37
--Alainauzas 07:15, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete One would need the artist's permission. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete I would say there is no way that particular fresco is "relatively uncreative reproductions of older, public domain works". There's too much interpretation in it. Some of the others might be slavish copies. Alainauzas, are you trying to say that the owners of the artwork have released those images on the website into the public domain? My French is not up to the job (and I can't see anything on the site)? If so, you'll need to show where it says that on the website. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 03:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Unused private image, no educational value, → out of scope. Jahobr (talk) 18:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 04:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sari-and-Mundu.png - Copyvio Common-Man (talk) 18:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Why is this a copyright violation? The file was first uploaded in English wiki and later moved to Commons. --Sreejith K (talk) 10:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Look at the link (I attched), both have the girls picture is same, but boys picture is different, cannot distinguish who is the real owner...If you are the owner of both, Apply necessary description--Common-Man (talk) 15:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- My mistake. I did not notice that. My apologies. The file names seemed so similar at first look.
- Comparing the two images, this image was uploaded recently (not to mention that the date in the summary is a future date), has invalid permission tag, is not used in any articles and the uploader does not seem to have a long history with english wiki or commons. So I recommend deleting this image. --Sreejith K (talk) 06:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - for reasons given above --Sreejith K (talk) 06:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Copyvio ---KALARICKAN | My Interactions 06:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 03:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Not a free image. No copyright notice in the source. Rondador (talk) 19:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 04:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Considering that the only other picture uploaded by this user is a copyvio, this one reeks of copyvio too. Anyway, who is Nathan Fisher? en.wp deleted the corresponding article. Rosenzweig δ 19:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 04:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Already have the same picture but better composed - File:Poland Wroclaw Cathedral 2007 new.jpg Łukasz Łoziński (talk) 21:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- KeepI agree that many images in this series have composition issues, which were made sometimes worse by watermark removal; however here at commons it is not a reason for deletion.--Jarekt (talk) 01:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Already have almost the same but better composed - File:Poland Wroclaw Cathedral 2007 new.jpg Łukasz Łoziński (talk) 21:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- KeepI agree that many images in this series have composition issues, which were made sometimes worse by watermark removal; however here at commons it is not a reason for deletion.--Jarekt (talk) 01:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Too low resolution and chaotic composition - already have much better photos of that place. Łukasz Łoziński (talk) 21:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I agree that many images in this series have composition issues, which were made sometimes worse by watermark removal; however here at commons it is not a reason for deletion.--Jarekt (talk) 01:47, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- :: Keep Per Jarekt. Electron <Talk?> 18:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Low resolution, bad composition - already have much better front pictures of the towers. Łukasz Łoziński (talk) 21:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep no reason for deletion. Trycatch (talk) 21:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Per Trycatch. Electron <Talk?> 18:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Very low resolution while we have better pictures of this side of the building. Łukasz Łoziński (talk) 21:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep 600×389 is not "very low resolution". Trycatch (talk) 22:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I agree that many images in this series have composition issues, which were made sometimes worse by watermark removal; however here at commons it is not a reason for deletion.--Jarekt (talk) 01:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Dear Trycatch, I believe nowadays such a picture really is considered as of very low resolution. --Łukasz Łoziński (talk) 13:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Keep Per Trycatch & Jarekt. Electron 
<Talk?> 18:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
COM:DW; image largely consists of copyrighted product labeling. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 21:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 03:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
en wikipedia uploader has a history of uploading images with wrong licences source is a travel firm so is probably not the originator (current site content is all rights reserved) - really needs provenance confirmed MilborneOne (talk) 23:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 03:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Building was designed by Nikitkin who died in 1973. There is no FOP in Russia. Fernrohr (talk) 23:07, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
1. Ok! Please, give a link to the original. Where can we see a photo of Nikitkin of which you speak? HeatSink
2. On the photo we can see construction cranes, which appeared after a fire in 2000. HeatSink
3. Do you have the original RAW image parts that make up this panorama picture? HeatSink
- Nikitin is here and no, he did not make the photo. He made the building. --Fernrohr (talk) 10:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- Do you mean this photo? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TVtower_in_Ostankino.jpg) This is totally different angles...--HeatSink (talk) 11:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- No, i mean the building, which is intellectual property of the architect until 1973+70, so you cannot grant a CC-license. --Fernrohr (talk) 12:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- The license was assigned to the photo. As in this picture: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TVtower_in_Ostankino.jpg and many others...--HeatSink (talk) 13:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- Which part of the license violated? Please, give a link.--HeatSink (talk) 13:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- You cannot grant a license for a photo of something, the IP rights of which belong to somebody else (the architect). --Fernrohr (talk) 14:10, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- Please, give a link to part of the license.--HeatSink (talk) 16:41, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- Please, give a link to document, that confirms IP rights.--HeatSink (talk) 16:41, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- The license you used on 10 February 2007 when uploading, is this (without excluding professional usage of the photo), and the FOP is explained here. Nikitkin has the right to use the result of his work for commercial purposes, and you have not. --Fernrohr (talk) 16:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- "Nikitkin has the right to use the result of his work for commercial purposes" - please, confirm his commercial right, give a link to document.
- He has, because he invented it. The law is quoted in my last answer, article 1276. --Fernrohr (talk) 18:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- Article 1276 is not document, which proving ownership.--HeatSink (talk) 18:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- He has, because he invented it. The law is quoted in my last answer, article 1276. --Fernrohr (talk) 18:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- "Nikitkin has the right to use the result of his work for commercial purposes" - please, confirm his commercial right, give a link to document.
- The license you used on 10 February 2007 when uploading, is this (without excluding professional usage of the photo), and the FOP is explained here. Nikitkin has the right to use the result of his work for commercial purposes, and you have not. --Fernrohr (talk) 16:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- Please, give a link to part of the license...--HeatSink (talk) 18:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- What license? --Fernrohr (talk) 05:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- You cannot grant a license for a photo of something, the IP rights of which belong to somebody else (the architect). --Fernrohr (talk) 14:10, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- No, i mean the building, which is intellectual property of the architect until 1973+70, so you cannot grant a CC-license. --Fernrohr (talk) 12:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- Do you mean this photo? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TVtower_in_Ostankino.jpg) This is totally different angles...--HeatSink (talk) 11:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- Reopened. There wasn’t any actual discussion here. The bottom part of the tower is not visible, and I don’t think anything else is any more than a functional work.
- Remalfermita. Ĉi tie okazis nenia efektiva diskuto. La bazo de la turo ne videblas, kaj mi pensas, ke la cetero probable estas nur necesa rezulto de laŭutilcela konstruo.
--AVRS (talk) 15:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no freedom of panorama in Russia. Kameraad Pjotr 19:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
No proof the FBI created the image just because they used it in their posters/website. FunkMonk (talk) 11:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- I believe that somewhere deep within the various 9/11 records is a trail of where the FBI obtained images for the hijackers. Can't help any more than that sorry! 84.9.58.74 14:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Obtained, yes, but they hardly created the images themselves. FunkMonk (talk) 14:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no evidence that this image was taken by the FBI. Kameraad Pjotr 19:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
No proof the FBI created the image just because they used it in their posters/website. FunkMonk (talk) 12:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no evidence that this photo was taken by a FBI employee. Kameraad Pjotr 16:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
While source may be FBI, this image still retains copyright of the original creator. Do we care about that copyright I am not sure. In any case this is not PD-Afghanistan due to age. とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 06:07, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete --Officer (talk) 18:25, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per both above and previous deletion request. Wizardman 15:29, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted Not FBI an image . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
No FoP in France. 84.61.172.89 18:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep This is a functional building that does not pass the threshold of originality. There is no definite artistic character for this building. --High Contrast (talk) 14:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Kept, does not pass the threshold of originality. Kameraad Pjotr 17:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
No proof the FBI created the image just because they host it on their website. FunkMonk (talk) 11:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Onus is on the uploader to prove licensing. Federal agencies republish copyrighted content all the time, frequently without telling us it's copyrighted. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 15:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no evidence that this is a work of a US federal employee. Kameraad Pjotr 19:54, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
No proof the FBI created the image just because they used it in their posters/website. FunkMonk (talk) 11:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States Federal Government under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the US Code. Nanovapor9 (talk) 23:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- There is no proof the FBI created this image just because they use it on their site, and it is very unlikely they did. Obtaining a photo doesn't give you the copyright for it. FunkMonk (talk) 23:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Te comento estimado FunkMonk que si la persona tomó esta foto y la suministra por voluntad propia no sólo al gobierno de Estados Unidos sino a otro país no viola ningún derecho, si aparece en una dependencia federal de estados unidos entonces es porque la foto puede ser utilizada para suministrar una información valiosa, por tal motivo se puede usar, no viola ningun derecho. Nanovapor9 (talk) 02:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no evidence that this image was taken by an US federal employee. Kameraad Pjotr 20:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
No FoP in France. 84.61.172.89 18:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep This is a functional building that does not pass the threshold of originality. There is no definite artistic character for this building. --High Contrast (talk) 14:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep usual building, no reason for Deletion... --LutzBruno (talk) 15:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Kept, nothing copyrightable in the picture. Kameraad Pjotr 19:13, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
No FoP in France. 84.61.172.89 18:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep This is a functional building that does not pass the threshold of originality. There is no definite artistic character for this building. --High Contrast (talk) 14:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Kept, nothing copyrightable in the photograph. Kameraad Pjotr 19:11, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
The poster was found, not created by the USG. No proof the photo in the poster was first published in Afghanistan. FunkMonk (talk) 11:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
It doesn’t matter who created it. This image was pubished in the in the Zhawar Kili area of Eastern Afghanistan as discribed at www.defenseimagery.mil an offical US goverment website. The US goverment say it was pushished Afghanistan making and Afghanistan doesn’t have a copyright law at all. See tag. It reads "As of 2005, Afghanistan has no official copyright relations with the United States, resulting in works published in the country not being copyrighted in the United States, regardless of the local copyright laws of these countries.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 13:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- As i stated in another nomination, you fail to understand that the poster is not the same as the photo in the poster. Supporters of Osama Bin Laden frequently make posters of pictures they find in the web, see this for example: http://www.snopes.com/rumors/bert.asp FunkMonk (talk) 13:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep And please do not start different DRs for what is the same image. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Please prove that the photo in the poster was first published in Afghanistan. FunkMonk (talk) 14:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I believe that all three images 1, 2, and 3, that have been has listed for deletion by FunkMonk ether fall under {{020114-N-8242C-006}}or {{PD-Afghanistan}}. These image were published in the in the Zhawar Kili area of Eastern Afghanistan as described at www.defenseimagery.mil an official US government website.
- He has shown no proof that the claim of publication in Afghanistan is false or that the {{ID-USMil}} is invalid, as stated by the US government itself.
- FunkMonk obviously disagrees, so I will leave it for another administrator to decide.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 14:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Peter Kuiper has jus shown that the image is credited to AP.[2] Which makes it ineglibile for inclusion on Commons. FunkMonk (talk) 14:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Even if it is, this image of the poster is still released threw the US government and this issue would only apply to the cropped image of bin-laden only, not this entire poster.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 14:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- That I am unsure about, but seems unlikely, if I for example printed out a poster showing a work of Dalí, took it to Afghanistan and photographed the poster, would it be free to upload on Commons? De minimis would apply if Bin Laden wasn't the subject of the entire poster/photo. He is not in the photo as a small, inconsequential element, he is the focus. FunkMonk (talk) 14:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Even if it is, this image of the poster is still released threw the US government and this issue would only apply to the cropped image of bin-laden only, not this entire poster.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 14:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Peter Kuiper has jus shown that the image is credited to AP.[2] Which makes it ineglibile for inclusion on Commons. FunkMonk (talk) 14:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Comment See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:US Navy 020114-N-8242C-006 U.S. Navy SEALs find valuable intelligence in Afghanistan.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bin Laden Poster2.jpeg - same discussion.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 15:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Keep, per ARTEST4ECHO and the same discussions elsewhere. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- I quote ARTEST4ECHO: "and this issue would only apply to the cropped image of bin-laden only, not this entire poster." I take this to mean that he agrees the cropped photo is a possible copyvio at least. FunkMonk (talk) 15:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Again you are trying to imply things by cuting up what people say. Why don't you quote me correctly. I said "Even if it is, this image". I did not say ANYTHING about the other image. I say all three image are ALL pubic domain, and quit trying to put word in other people mouths.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 15:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Calm down. I clearly explained that it was was how I understood it, not that it was what you meant. If that's not what you meant, so be it. FunkMonk (talk) 15:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- You croped what I said in order to make it appear that I agree with you plain and simple.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 15:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- What can I say, I'm sorry if it seemed that way. FunkMonk (talk) 15:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- You croped what I said in order to make it appear that I agree with you plain and simple.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 15:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Calm down. I clearly explained that it was was how I understood it, not that it was what you meant. If that's not what you meant, so be it. FunkMonk (talk) 15:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Again you are trying to imply things by cuting up what people say. Why don't you quote me correctly. I said "Even if it is, this image". I did not say ANYTHING about the other image. I say all three image are ALL pubic domain, and quit trying to put word in other people mouths.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 15:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- I quote ARTEST4ECHO: "and this issue would only apply to the cropped image of bin-laden only, not this entire poster." I take this to mean that he agrees the cropped photo is a possible copyvio at least. FunkMonk (talk) 15:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- To summarise the issues (and get back on track): The uploaded photo itself was taken by a US soldier, no one disputes that. The photo depicts a poster, which was created in Afghanistan, no one disputes that. However, the poster, which is the focus of the photo, shows a photo of Osama Bin Laden, which we do not know the copyright status of. We know that it is from 1988 or before, and possibly first published by Associated Press. Ergo, there is no proof at all that the photo of Osama Bin Laden used in the poster, which is represented here in the form of a photo by a US soldier, is in the public domain. Quite the contrary. De minimis does not apply here, at least to the cropped version of the photo, since OBL is the main focus of the poster. FunkMonk (talk) 19:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. Per nom. Derivative work of a derivative work of an original work attributed to the Associated Press. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per above. RayAYang (talk) 00:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- If the people who want to keep this are convinced of the PD nature of the OBL photo, why do they settle for less, in this case a picture of a picture, and don't simply upload the original photo? Let's see how well that would fare. FunkMonk (talk) 05:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- This has been going on since september, with no consensus for deletion. Could we end this discussion, keep the image and move on ? JJ Georges (talk) 12:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- That people want to keep it badly does not change the copyright status. FunkMonk (talk) 06:04, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Coincido con el usuario JJ Georges, porque discutir sobre un poster que a nadie le afecta, ni mucho menos viola copyright ? es una guerra del nunca terminar, hoy quitan la foto, mañana vuelven y suben otras más, entonces porque no dejamos esto tal cual como está sabiendo de ante mano que es un simple poster.
Nanovapor9 (talk) 20:13, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, the poster was made in Afghanistan as {{PD-Afghanistan}}, but the source images were not and are protected by copyright. Kameraad Pjotr 21:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Found, not created by US forces. No proof the photo in the poster was first published in Afghanistan. FunkMonk (talk) 11:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- It doesn’t matter who created it. It was published in Afghanistan and Afghanistan doesn’t have a copyright law at all. See tag. It reads "As of 2005, Afghanistan has no official copyright relations with the United States, resulting in works published in the country not being copyrighted in the United States, regardless of the local copyright laws of these countries."--ARTEST4ECHO talk 13:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- There is no proof the image in the poster was first published in Afghanistan, so the Afghan copyright law is irrelevant. FunkMonk (talk) 13:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Incorrect. This image was pubished in the in the Zhawar Kili area of Eastern Afghanistan as discribed at www.defenseimagery.mil an offical US goverment website. The US goverment say it was pushished in Zhawar Kili area of Eastern Afghanistan making it Afghanistan and copyright issues. --ARTEST4ECHO talk 13:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- You fail to understand that the poster is not the same as the photo in the poster. Supporters of Osama Bin Laden frequently make posters of pictures they find in the web, see this for example: http://www.snopes.com/rumors/bert.asp FunkMonk (talk) 13:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Show me the Muppet. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Just what is it that you're claiming here? That this poster is a fake with Bert, planted by Snopes to mislead the US military?
- That it was created by al Qaeda supporters, which is just the same thing as what Snopes describe? (Maybe it's that Radio baghdad, "US soldier, Bart Simpson is sleeping with your wives back home" story again?)
- Or that it's what Snopes describe as a forged poster, putting Bin Laden and Bert together to discredit both (so show me that Muppet)?
- There are two credible possibilities here: it's al Qaeda's poster, photographed by a US grunt. There's no credible copyright on the poster, US Gov on the photo. Or else it's a US fake poster, which isn't impossible, photographed by US spooks, in which case it's US Gov on both. Neither of these are a problem for us. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- You fail to understand that the poster is not the same as the photo in the poster. Supporters of Osama Bin Laden frequently make posters of pictures they find in the web, see this for example: http://www.snopes.com/rumors/bert.asp FunkMonk (talk) 13:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Incorrect. This image was pubished in the in the Zhawar Kili area of Eastern Afghanistan as discribed at www.defenseimagery.mil an offical US goverment website. The US goverment say it was pushished in Zhawar Kili area of Eastern Afghanistan making it Afghanistan and copyright issues. --ARTEST4ECHO talk 13:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- There is no proof the image in the poster was first published in Afghanistan, so the Afghan copyright law is irrelevant. FunkMonk (talk) 13:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Nom appears to misunderstand the claim of the photo's creator, and the state of copyright law in Afghanistan. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Please do not make false claims. There is no proof the photo in the poster was first published in Afghanistan, as I have shown, supporters of Bin Laden frequently make posters from photos they find on the web, including this one, so we simply don't know where it was first published. FunkMonk (talk) 14:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Comment See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:US Navy 020114-N-8242C-006 U.S. Navy SEALs find valuable intelligence in Afghanistan.jpg Andy Dingley (talk) 13:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Comment See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bin Laden Poster.jpeg same discussion.
- Keep And please do not start different DRs for what is the same image. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Please provide a valid argument for why the image should be kept. FunkMonk (talk) 14:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- I see no need to repeat myself everywhere you started DRs on the same image. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- You haven't made a valid argument in any of them, so you could just as well start here. Please demonstrate that the photo in the poster was first published in Afghanistan. FunkMonk (talk) 14:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- I see no need to repeat myself everywhere you started DRs on the same image. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Please provide a valid argument for why the image should be kept. FunkMonk (talk) 14:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I believe that all three images 1, 2, and 3, that have been has listed for deletion by FunkMonk ether fall under {{020114-N-8242C-006}}or {{PD-Afghanistan}}. These image were published in the in the Zhawar Kili area of Eastern Afghanistan as described at www.defenseimagery.mil an official US government website.
- He has shown no proof that the claim of publication in Afghanistan is false or that the {{ID-USMil}} is invalid, as stated by the US government itself.
- FunkMonk obviously disagrees, so I will leave it for another administrator to decide.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 14:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Peter Kuiper has jus shown that the image is credited to AP.[3] Which makes it ineglibile for inclusion on Commons. FunkMonk (talk) 14:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Even if it is, this image of the poster is still released threw the US government and this issue would only apply to the cropped image of bin-laden only, not this entire poster.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 14:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Addationally your mis-quoting Pieter Kuiper. He said "One can find out: this seems to be the 1988 photo, attributed by Time to AP. This would fail {{PD-Saudi Arabia}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)" Still making it {{Pd}}--ARTEST4ECHO talk 14:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- That I am unsure about, but seems unlikely, if I for example printed out a poster showing a work of Dalí, took it to Afghanistan and photographed the poster, would it be free to upload on Commons? And no, I didn't quote Pieter. FunkMonk (talk) 14:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Ok I will grant you that you didn't quote Pieter, that was not what I ment. What I ment was that were trying to imply that he says that image should be deleted. He was not. He is still says that the image is {{Pd}} even if it did. We have come up with three different licenses that all apply, but you do not want to accept any of them. I don't think if we came up with a million of them, you would accept any of them, so I think it will have to be left to an administrator to decide.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 14:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- The number of possible licenses is really irrelevant, as long as we don't know the correct one. This is not about "acceptance" of a theorised license. This is about correct sourcing. And I am an administrator, for the record. FunkMonk (talk) 14:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Again I think all three licenses are vaild, so it seems that two others do. So I will leave it to "Another" administrator to decide, since nothing anyone says will convince you.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 15:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Could you please relist the three possible licenses you propose for scrutiny? Again, this is about fact, not opinion. FunkMonk (talk) 15:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- I'm done trying to explain anything to you. Read the pages yourself and they are all listed very prominently there. You are one of those administrators who feel they can never be wrong. So your arguments for deletion have changed three times in order to come up with an additional reason to delete all three images. So no one can convince you otherwise and since you are an administrator, no one can stop you.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 15:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Please do not throw baseless accusations around. It does not matter how many reasons for deletion I propose, if even one is correct, the images should be deleted. The same can't be said about theorised licenses that may or may not be applicable leading to files being kept. The main problem here is: the photo in the poster has no source information. Which means its copyright status is unknown. No amount of tap-dancing and accusations can change that. FunkMonk (talk) 15:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Again, A new argument. And it’s not a baseless accusation. You intentionally misquted me. You actions are obvious to all three commenter’s. You now claim isn’t sources, when the source is listed. It is a derivative work of 3 which means the source is THE US GOVEMENT.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 15:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- No. A US soldier created the uploaded photo of the poster, not the picture of OBL in that poster. These are separate issues. See below. FunkMonk (talk) 15:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Again, A new argument. And it’s not a baseless accusation. You intentionally misquted me. You actions are obvious to all three commenter’s. You now claim isn’t sources, when the source is listed. It is a derivative work of 3 which means the source is THE US GOVEMENT.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 15:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Please do not throw baseless accusations around. It does not matter how many reasons for deletion I propose, if even one is correct, the images should be deleted. The same can't be said about theorised licenses that may or may not be applicable leading to files being kept. The main problem here is: the photo in the poster has no source information. Which means its copyright status is unknown. No amount of tap-dancing and accusations can change that. FunkMonk (talk) 15:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- I'm done trying to explain anything to you. Read the pages yourself and they are all listed very prominently there. You are one of those administrators who feel they can never be wrong. So your arguments for deletion have changed three times in order to come up with an additional reason to delete all three images. So no one can convince you otherwise and since you are an administrator, no one can stop you.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 15:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Could you please relist the three possible licenses you propose for scrutiny? Again, this is about fact, not opinion. FunkMonk (talk) 15:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Again I think all three licenses are vaild, so it seems that two others do. So I will leave it to "Another" administrator to decide, since nothing anyone says will convince you.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 15:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- The number of possible licenses is really irrelevant, as long as we don't know the correct one. This is not about "acceptance" of a theorised license. This is about correct sourcing. And I am an administrator, for the record. FunkMonk (talk) 14:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Ok I will grant you that you didn't quote Pieter, that was not what I ment. What I ment was that were trying to imply that he says that image should be deleted. He was not. He is still says that the image is {{Pd}} even if it did. We have come up with three different licenses that all apply, but you do not want to accept any of them. I don't think if we came up with a million of them, you would accept any of them, so I think it will have to be left to an administrator to decide.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 14:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- That I am unsure about, but seems unlikely, if I for example printed out a poster showing a work of Dalí, took it to Afghanistan and photographed the poster, would it be free to upload on Commons? And no, I didn't quote Pieter. FunkMonk (talk) 14:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Peter Kuiper has jus shown that the image is credited to AP.[3] Which makes it ineglibile for inclusion on Commons. FunkMonk (talk) 14:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- To summarise the issues: The uploaded photo itself was taken by a US soldier, no one disputes that. The photo depicts a poster, which was created in Afghanistan, no one disputes that. However, the poster, which is the focus of the photo, shows a photo of Osama Bin Laden, which we do not know the copyright status of. We know that it is from 1988 or before, and possibly first published by Associated Press. Ergo, there is no proof at all that the photo of Osama Bin Laden used in the poster, which is represented here in the form of a photo by a US soldier, is in the public domain. Quite the contrary. De minimis does not apply here, at least to the cropped version of the photo, since OBL is the main focus of the poster. FunkMonk (talk) 15:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per COM:PRP. Having no clear publication information (date, author, etc) is unacceptable. There is no evidence that this work was originally published in Afghanistan, or that it would not otherwise subject to copyright under another country's laws. US Gov't websites frequently have non-PD images- the onus is on us to verify that they are indeed PD. The legal vacuum in Afghanistan does not give us carte blanche to set aside the due diligence we'd take in investigating any other image. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 07:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I think there is no need for deletion, till it is proofed that is not publish in afganistan. HBR (talk) 19:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- It is the other way around. It needs to be deleted unless someone can prove it is PD Afghanistan. Pieter Kuiper seems to have shown that the photo as taken by a crew who also made a news story, so considering TV was banned in Afghanistan in 1998 when the picture was taken, it wouldn't make much sense if this news story had been intended for local media. FunkMonk (talk) 22:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep No debe ser borrado debido a que simplemente es un poster y no viola ningún derecho, aun las imagenes publicadas por el gobierno federal de los Estados Unidos deben ser tomadas como imagenes legales. Nanovapor9 (talk) 16:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - The main thrust of the arguement for deletion should be made alittle more explicit - its a matter of this image being a derivative. I would be willing to accept that the poster was published in Afghanistan; there is a logistical limit to the kind of documentation that can be produced on these sorts of issues so I would be willing to fall back on assuming good faith. However, I think the real issue here is whether or not this poster constitutes a derivative work. This poster is obviously composited from several distinct photographic elements- The image of Bin-Laden on the poster is a famous one and if its original publication was outside of Afghanistan then this poster is simply a derivative of a distinct copywritten work which means that the derivative here is not legally protected. Unless someone can provide information demonstrating that the original photograph (not the derivative poster presented here) was published in Afghanistan this should be deleted - and even if someone can produce that information this image should not be used as the original could be used and is a superior substitute. Solid State Survivor (talk) 02:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - If Afghanistan, then public domain. --Joshua Issac (talk) 02:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- That only applies to works originally published (not just made) in Afghanistan. There is no indication that the image used to make this poster was originally published in Afghanistan. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 12:40, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- Exactly, there is no indication at all that this was first published in Afghanistan. In fact, Pieter Kuiper found some info that suggested it was taken by a film crew, which would leave out Afghans, since TV was banned by Taliban at the time. FunkMonk (talk) 01:22, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
and what? you kidding nonsence. breaking of copyright it only breaking of berme convection - not killing of childen. Bring to m a berme convection, im rewrite that document to allow use images in wikipedia and problem it solved... --77.48.153.172 16:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- That would solve a lot of our problems, so go ahead. FunkMonk (talk) 04:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
- It would not, as the images would have to be released under a "free" licence to be modified and used by anybody. --Joshua Issac (talk) 18:02, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
- Well, if our dear IP is in a position to rewrite the Berne Convention, I bet he can easily solve that problem too. FunkMonk (talk) 18:22, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
- It would not, as the images would have to be released under a "free" licence to be modified and used by anybody. --Joshua Issac (talk) 18:02, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
- That would solve a lot of our problems, so go ahead. FunkMonk (talk) 04:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bin Laden Poster.jpeg. Kameraad Pjotr 21:10, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Is this image free? The image appears to be quite old from the cars seen in the upper left see larger image [4]. The souce given is a spam link unrelated to image. It has 60 results on Tineye making it diffcult to determine copyright.--Sandahl (talk) 18:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- I strongly recommend deletion. The entire concept of "Bulk REO" seems to be spam/advertising. A google search returns nothing but spammers. I've been battling a "Bulk REO" spam article creation over at wikipedia with that title for the past several days and this is just the latest salvo. Sailsbystars (talk) 17:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no date of first publication/author. Kameraad Pjotr 20:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
The DEA hardly created this photo. FunkMonk (talk) 11:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep They used it, so they most likely own the rights. JJ Georges (talk) 22:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- Then you're severely misunderstanding copyright. Merely using an image doesn't mean you own it. FunkMonk (talk) 23:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- What I mean is that they most likely bought the rights to whatever news agency which used it in the first place. Hence, they own them. I can hardly imagine a government agency using an image without having the rights to do so. JJ Georges (talk) 19:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- Then you're severely misunderstanding copyright. Merely using an image doesn't mean you own it. FunkMonk (talk) 23:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep la foto es tomada claramente por la D.E.A. debido a un trabajo que realizaron. As a work of the U.S. federal government ! Nanovapor9 (talk) 22:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- So a US government employee took a publicity photo of Osama Bin Laden? Are you kidding? FunkMonk (talk) 23:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- I don't speak english i speak spanish. Y eso es lo que tu no sabes, quizás una persona que tomó la foto la pudo suministrar al gobierno de los Estados Unidos ? te voy a dar un ejemplo para que veas que puede ser así. En la web oficial del departamento de estados de los Estados Unidos tienen un programa de recompensas para terroristas, narcotraficantes y cualquier tipo de criminal en donde aparecen fotos de éstos criminales y fugitivos, mentira ? bueno miralo tu mismo.
Narcotics Rewards Program - Target Information
Te recuerdo que el tema del terrorismo no es algo que compete única y exclusivamente a Estados Unidos, es un tema global y por tal motivo las naciones de todo el mundo están enlazadas para dar con la captura a estos personajes, entonces siendo así pq no pueden existir personas que den informaciones (fotos, documentos, otros) al gobierno estadounidense ? para eso tambien existe la INTERPOL, entre muchas otras organizaciones ! por eso la foto debe ser tomada como una fuente del gobierno federal de los estados unidos ! llamese D.E.A., F.B.I., u otra dependencia
Nanovapor9 (talk) 02:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Onus is on the uploader to prove licensing. Federal agencies republish copyrighted content all the time, frequently without telling us it's copyrighted. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 15:43, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- Comment
- Copyright Information
Unless a copyright is indicated, information on State Department websites is in the public domain and may be copied and distributed without permission. Citation of the U.S. State Department as source of the information is appreciated.
If a copyright is indicated on a photo, graphic, or other material, permission to copy these materials must be obtained from the original source. For photos without captions or with only partial captions, hold your cursor over the photo to view the "alt tag" for any copyright information. Please note that many photos used on this website are copyrighted. Only State Department photos are in the public domain.
- If a photo belongs to U.S. Departament of State it finds in this database: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/pix/index.htm
I would add the following images in equality of circumstance:
- File:Reyes farc.jpg
- File:Tiro fijo farc.jpg
- File:Rios farc.jpg
- File:Victoria140.jpg
- File:Ivan farc.jpg
- File:Timochenco.jpg
- File:Cano farc.jpg
- File:Milton farc.jpg
- File:Timochenko.jpg
- File:Noe SR.jpg
- File:Jose benito C.jpg
- File:Abelardo CC.jpg
- File:Luis antonio L.jpg
- File:Edgar lopez G..jpg
- File:Ct042402fig15.jpg
See: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Osama.jpg
Pablo López 
We fly together 08:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, no evidence that these images were taken by an FBI employee, as required per {{PD-USGov}}. Kameraad Pjotr 19:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Has been "no permission"-tagged before, however uploader disagrees. Therefor this nomination so that proper discussion can be run. The quoted permission text is not suffecient. It does not allow "free use" it merely says that it's okay to use it in the media. It does not make it compatible with Commons:Licensing and thuss needs some kind of real license. --–Krinkletalk 12:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- This is semi-ridiculous. The image in question has been reprinted in numerous publications based on the stated release. When an image is released to "the media" that generally means its able to be reproduced, edited, and distributed by anyone, and indeed it has. The fact that this single editor doesn't understand the meaning of a general release is not sufficient to delete an image that has be made available freely to the public. If needed, I am willing to personally contact the copyright holder in question in order to get this whole silliness rectified. -Epicadam (talk) 05:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- If you are able to do so, that would be great. In order to get it to the right people ask him to contact the permissions people at COM:OTRS for example with one of the templates. Also, just to emphasize why "release to media" is not sufficient, here the summary quotes on top of the policy page Commons:Licensing:
Wikimedia Commons accepts only free content, that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, anytime, for any purpose. The use may be restricted by issues not related to copyright, though, see Commons:Non-copyright restrictions, and the license may demand some special measures.
Wikimedia Commons accepts only media
- that are explicitly freely licensed, or
- that are in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work.
Media licensed under non-commercial only licenses also are not accepted.
- That's a little more speficic then just 'release to the media'. Which could mean PD-self (Released all rights to the public domain, free as can be), or Cc-attribution (Free license that allows distribution, alterering and commercial use with the requirement of Attribution to author) or some other license. –Krinkletalk 14:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- I have contacted the copyright holder and received a response. The director of the organization has requested that no action be taken until they have a chance to review the licensing procedures set forth by Wikipedia. Thanks, Epicadam (talk) 14:31, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, license is not free enough. Kameraad Pjotr 18:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
No proof the FBI created the image just because they used it in their posters/website. FunkMonk (talk) 12:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep picture from his Florida driving record: [5]. Trycatch (talk) 02:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Kept, per Trycatch. Kameraad Pjotr 19:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
No proof the FBI created the image just because they used it in their posters/website. FunkMonk (talk) 12:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Comment identical to File:FBanihammad.JPG, but this file is larger, and quality is slightly better. Trycatch (talk) 16:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Kept, per Commons:Deletion requests/File:FBanihammad.JPG. Kameraad Pjotr 19:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
unknown subject (this isn't Polish flag), lack of description, not used anywhere, author's single input Pibwl (talk) 16:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, out of project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 20:15, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
1) I don't see enough evidence that this photograph is really anonymous. 2) Margot Fonteyn toured in the US in 1949, not in 1937, and another source states that this photograph really was created in 1949. Trycatch (talk) 22:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Comment American 1949 photo, probably {{PD-US-no notice}} or {{PD-US-no renewal}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no evidence that this image is in the public domain. Kameraad Pjotr 20:38, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Lebanon. FunkMonk (talk) 11:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't get your point. If you could pleace elaborate why this photo should be deleted. --Mag Hag (talk) 09:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Yes. The photo shows other, copyrighted photos, and is therefore a derivative work. In a place like for example Germany, where the have freedom of panorama, it would be allowed, but not in Lebanon. See here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Freedom_of_panorama FunkMonk (talk) 15:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Indeed, COM:FOP is clear on this. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 15:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, derivative work of a copyrighted image. Kameraad Pjotr 21:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Unclear copyright situation. I doubt that "Saxum" of hr.wikipedia has shot this image. The permission stated below cannot be read by me, so I cannot say if the permission allows the use on Commons. It is anyway obligatory that such permissions get checked by OTRS-people. This was not done by now. --80.187.102.197 14:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Mmmm, I'm sorry, I overlooked a template hr:Predložak:Provjereno poštena upotreba: Ova datoteka ili slika podliježe zaštiti autorskih prava. Nakon razmatranja na Poštena uporaba, zaključeno je da ju je moguće koristiti u skladu sa odredbama Zakona o autorskim pravima Sjedinjenih država o poštenoj uporabi, i da nema drugih mogućnosti osim njenog korištenja u skladu sa ovom doktrinom. Zato se tvrdi da se ova datoteka ili slika smije koristiti pod poštenom uporabom; ako je koristite za bilo koju ne-obrazovnu svrhu, vrlo je moguće da kršite zakone o zaštiti autorskih prava. (Please, translate by some free automatic software and read text.)
- To be frank, I think that I inappropriately uploaded the file, although I would like someone who read in Croatian well to check the text and permission, for I don't understand why is the PD copyright tag on the file in hr.wikipedia and why is the en:Template:Copy to Wikimedia Commons おn the file in en.wikipedia.--BezPRUzyn (talk) 15:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, lacks suitable permission. Kameraad Pjotr 19:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
No FOP in Lebanon. FunkMonk (talk) 11:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no freedom of panorama in Lebanon. Kameraad Pjotr 21:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Unused private image, no educational value, → out of scope. Jahobr (talk) 18:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep w:Pat Swindall, notable person. Trycatch (talk) 01:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Kept: notable person. added cats Amada44 talk to me 08:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Copied from (page, image) Ednei amaral (talk) 03:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. You have not listed any valid reason for deletion. The file you linked is not a pixel-for-pixel match, and this crest looks pretty simple. Perhaps it just needs a change of license, such as {{PD-shape}}. LobStoR (talk) 23:10, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- Comment May also be old. The school has existed since 1792. Almost certainly an invalid license though; if it isn't PD it's copyvio. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 15:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, invalid licence (likely copyright violation). Kameraad Pjotr 20:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
bad quality, there are alternatives --Hugo.arg (talk) 19:27, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- Write links to alternatives of the same type. --Dezidor (talk) 19:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Now trying to upload alternative but somehow system crashes at the momment. This photo is from the old times, done with mobil phone and is realy low quality. The only article it is used is about transportation in Kėdainiai. So I'll upload new photo and this will be complitely useless. Hugo.arg (talk) 19:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- Here it is File:Kedainiai van hool.JPG. Hugo.arg (talk) 19:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Poor quality cellphone image, original uploader requests deletion and has submitted a replacement. I don't see why this would be kept. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 15:15, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
We don't need 3 SVGs of the same flag. Fry1989 (talk) 20:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- where are the two same Flags?..? MT0 (talk) 03:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- In the category Flags of governors of Australian states there are 3 SVGs of the exact same flag, that being the Standard of he New South Wales' Governor. The 3 files in question are: 1 File:Flag of the Governor of New South Wales.svg (the correct file), 2 File:New South Wales Governors flag.svg (this one, which I have nominated for deletion), and 3 File:Gobernador de Nuevo Gales del Sur.svg (also nominated for deletion, and which has a fault in the file istelf).
- Again, we don't need 3 SVGs of the same flag. Fry1989 (talk) 23:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- Ok..so delete it.. MT0 (talk) 04:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Superseded image where original uploader (MT0, above) has consented to deletion. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 15:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
No proof the FBI created the image just because they host it on their website. FunkMonk (talk) 11:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Onus is on the uploader to prove licensing. Federal agencies republish copyrighted content all the time, frequently without telling us it's copyrighted. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 15:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
No proof the FBI created the image just because they used it in their posters/website. FunkMonk (talk) 11:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Onus is on the uploader to prove licensing. Federal agencies republish copyrighted content all the time, frequently without telling us it's copyrighted. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 15:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
No proof the FBI created the image just because they used it in their posters/website. FunkMonk (talk) 11:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Onus is on the uploader to prove licensing. Federal agencies republish copyrighted content all the time, frequently without telling us it's copyrighted. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 15:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
No proof the FBI created the image just because they used it in their posters/website. FunkMonk (talk) 11:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/wanted_terrorists/saif-al-adel, the FBI web site, shows this as his picture and lists him as a "most wanted terrorist." The FBI web site accuses him of “Conspiracy to Kill United States Nationals, to Murder, to Destroy Buildings and Property of the United States, and to Destroy the National Defense Utilities of the United States.” So I’ll go with that.
- You'll go with what exactly? Which part of that states FBI created the image? FunkMonk (talk) 20:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Onus is on the uploader to prove licensing. Federal agencies republish copyrighted content all the time, frequently without telling us it's copyrighted. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 15:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
No proof the FBI created the image just because they used it in their posters/website. FunkMonk (talk) 11:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Onus is on the uploader to prove licensing. Federal agencies republish copyrighted content all the time, frequently without telling us it's copyrighted. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 15:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
The FBI did not create the card or the photo in it. FunkMonk (talk) 11:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Federal document. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Are the FBI in charge of making visas and the photos in them?m FunkMonk (talk) 11:49, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- No, that would be a consulate, or the INS, or some department in the Foreign Office. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- Would that make it PD? In that case, the license should be changed. As long as it's PD FBI, it's misleading and wrong. FunkMonk (talk) 12:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- Was uploaded with {{PD-USGov}}, which is correct. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- Alright. As for your edit summary, whatever happened to "assume good faith"? Or maybe that doesn't apply to Commons? FunkMonk (talk) 13:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- Was uploaded with {{PD-USGov}}, which is correct. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- Would that make it PD? In that case, the license should be changed. As long as it's PD FBI, it's misleading and wrong. FunkMonk (talk) 12:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- No, that would be a consulate, or the INS, or some department in the Foreign Office. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- Are the FBI in charge of making visas and the photos in them?m FunkMonk (talk) 11:49, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Neutral Do people submit these photos like with passport photos? In that case, copyright would not seem to be transferred. What is the country of publication of the photo? These are all questions that should be answered. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 15:42, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per user Pieter Kuiper's point. JohnCengiz77 (talk) 00:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: It is a USA federal document, but the photograph was supplied by the applicant, so this is a DW of the photographer's copyright. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope. I'm also not sure about the copyright status of the photo itself (if it's free, it may be worth cropping). Rocket000 (talk) 18:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. --Phyrexian ɸ 20:51, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:DW of image with unknown source and copyright status. Wknight94 talk 13:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
DEA hardly created this image. FunkMonk (talk) 11:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete indeed they did not. Rama (talk) 11:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep They use it, so they most likely bought the rights and now use it as a governemental work. JJ Georges (talk) 22:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- That's extremely unlikely. Even if it was the case, buying a license for using a photo does not make it your intellectual property. FunkMonk (talk) 23:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep This image is a work of a Drug Enforcement Administration employee, taken or made during the course of an employee's official duties. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the image is in the public domain (17 U.S.C. § 101 and § 105). Nanovapor9 (talk) 16:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- Do you have sources to back that allegation? Rama (talk) 17:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Por supuesto. Mira te voy a dar 2 ejemplos para que te des cuenta de lo que te afirmo. Primero que todo te comento que cualquier persona que haya tomado una foto a un terrorista es libre de hacer con ella lo que desee, como el caso del periodista Hamid Mir el cual divulgó una foto en una entrevista con Osama Bin Laden y es utilizada aquí en wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hamid_Mir_interviewing_Osama_bin_Laden.jpg Por otra parte el siguiente portal web del gobierno de los Estados Unidos muestra de forma detallada a otros terroristas: Narcotics Rewards Program - Target Information entonces no se te extrañe que sea el gobierno de Colombia quienes le hayan suministrado estas foto, entre las 2 naciones hay multiples acuerdos y financiamientos, inclusive de Estados Unidos hacia Colombia en la lucha por acabar el terrorismo y el narcotrafico, entonces porque tu tienes que dudar de la procedencia de estas fotos ? si son los mimos gobiernos quienes las proporcionan a los Estados Unidos ? o mejor aun, entonces siendo así como tu dices porque no se han borrado todas las fotos de los siguientes articulos: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuerzas_Armadas_Revolucionarias_de_Colombia, http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%ADnea_de_mando_de_las_FARC-EP, y de muchos otros articulos ? me parece que estamos perdiendo el tiempo en una discusion que la verdad no tienen relevancia, osama bin laden es una persona como tu y como yo, la única diferencia es que esa persona es un terrorista como los son los de las FARC, entonces cual es la diferencia ? entonces porque no se han borrado las fotos de los articulos que te acabo de señalar ? Nanovapor9 (talk) 00:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- One does not forfeits their rights to copyright by engaging in criminal or terrorist activities. And in the case at hand, we know nothing of the photographer. Rama (talk) 04:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Yo en ningun momento dije que el fotografo pierde sus derechos, lo que dije fue que la foto fue suministrada al gobierno federal de los Estados Unidos tal cual como lo hizo el gobierno de Colombia, entregandole las fotos de otros terroristas, entonces cual es la diferencia con osama bin laden ? si todos son igualmente terroristas ? la foto fue dada a los Estados Unidos y de allí su divulgación, no viola ningún derecho. Nanovapor9 (talk) 16:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- This has been going on since september, with no consensus for deletion. Could we end this discussion, keep the image and move on ? JJ Georges (talk) 12:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete the image and move on ? Rama (talk) 12:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- No, keep the image and move on. Are we supposed to go on until there is a consensus for the deletion ? JJ Georges (talk) 13:41, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- No, but we are not forced to take opinions based on patent misunderstandings into consideration either. This is not a vote. Rama (talk)
- Estoy a favor del usuario JJ Georges, ya que debemos seguir y no darle mas vueltas a este asunto, porque no nos fijamos en redactar artículos para la Wikipedia en ves de perder el tiempo quitando fotos que estan claramente sustentadas por el Gobierno Federal de los Estados Unidos ? Yo de verdad que dejaria la foto porque no viola ningun derecho.
- Nanovapor9 (talk) 01:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- No, but we are not forced to take opinions based on patent misunderstandings into consideration either. This is not a vote. Rama (talk)
- No, keep the image and move on. Are we supposed to go on until there is a consensus for the deletion ? JJ Georges (talk) 13:41, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete the image and move on ? Rama (talk) 12:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete, File:Osama.jpg#Licensing is simply untrue, this file was not created by an employee of the U.S. federal government. --Martin H. (talk) 13:51, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- De verdad que esta foto no viola copyright, expuse un caso de una pagina del Gobierno Federal de Estados Unidos donde aparecen fotos de varios terroristas internacionales. El hecho no es tanto que un estadounidense que trabaje para el gobierno de EE.UU. haya tomado la foto, pero si se puede dar el caso de que la persona que tomó la foto la haya donado al gobierno de EE.UU. como el caso que ya expuse, en este caso si puede ser publicada y de hecho así lo es !. [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]
- Delete Onus is on the uploader to prove licensing. Federal agencies republish copyrighted content all the time, frequently without telling us it's copyrighted. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 15:43, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- Si dices que las fotos las cargan con derechos de autor, entonces como determinas tu que dicho autor no pudo haber cedido sus derechos para que otras agencias o personas las publiquen ? Te repito que el Gobierno Federal de Estados Unidos ha soportado fotos en sus páginas con muchos terroristas internacionales. Si esto fuera como tu dices entonces porque no se procede con el borrado de fotos para este artículo ? Estructura Militar de las FARC, teniendo en cuenta que fueron tomadas de EE.UU. aquí Target Information. Te comento otro ejemplo, si fuera com dices, entonces porque la wiki permite que se suban fotos de terroristas internacionales en estos artículos:
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[1]](http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2006/04/10/300_ori_2.jpg){kind=link}
![[4]](http://img.coxnewsweb.com/B/06/99/02/image_7702996.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
- Nanovapor9 (talk) 19:36, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- I don't understand Spanish very well, I'm afraid. The best I can tell is you're asking me how I know the rights were not assigned to the US govt. or another agency? That's just it: I don't know and can't figure it out. Nobody has put forth an adequate accounting of the image's publication history. Therefore, we must delete. It is unacceptable to naïvely assume that this is a PD image simply because it has appeared on a US govt. publication. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 13:23, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- Nanovapor9 (talk) 19:36, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- Aun no respondes a mi pregunta, si es como tu dices, entonces porque no se borran las fotos de los artículos previamente mensionados ? sabiendo que fueron tomados de estas paginas que acabo de mostrar. No es posible que se borren las fotos para unos articulos y para otros no.
- Nanovapor9 (talk) 17:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not saying anything about other files in this DR because it's neither relevant nor necessary. The point at issue is whether this specific image is the product of the US government, or is otherwise freely licensed. If we cannot verify that this image is freely licensed, we cannot keep it on Commons. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:55, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- No, como me vas a decir que no es relevante ? acaso las imagenes que te hablo de otros proyectos no están subidas en Commons ? Aquí, solo falta mirar ese enlace para saber que estas imagenes son del Gobierno Federal de los Estados Unidos porque en Colombia estas imagenes fueron "donadas" o cedidas por el acuerdo que tienen los dos paises en contra del Terrorismo y el narcotrafico. Estamos hablando de Osama Bin Laden un terrorista internacional como lo son los terroristas de las FARC, entonces que diferencia hay ? Ninguna ! ambos (FARC y AL QAEDA) son 2 redes terroristas y hablan el mismo lenguaje. Entonces porque si se suben fotos de las FARC y de AL QAEDA no ? Y si tu crees que no se sabe la procedencia, te repito, entonces porque no se borran las imagenes de las FARC ? si son terroristas ?
- Nanovapor9 (talk) 22:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- Comment
- Copyright Information
- Unless a copyright is indicated, information on State Department websites is in the public domain and may be copied and distributed without permission. Citation of the U.S. State Department as source of the information is appreciated.
- If a copyright is indicated on a photo, graphic, or other material, permission to copy these materials must be obtained from the original source. For photos without captions or with only partial captions, hold your cursor over the photo to view the "alt tag" for any copyright information. Please note that many photos used on this website are copyrighted. Only State Department photos are in the public domain.
- If a photo belongs to U.S. Departament of State it finds in this database: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/pix/index.htm
- Pablo López
We fly together 06:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I add the following images in equality of circumstance:
- File:Reyes farc.jpg
- File:Tiro fijo farc.jpg
- File:Rios farc.jpg
- File:Victoria140.jpg
- File:Ivan farc.jpg
- File:Timochenco.jpg
- File:Cano farc.jpg
- File:Milton farc.jpg
- File:Timochenko.jpg
- File:Noe SR.jpg
- File:Jose benito C.jpg
- File:Abelardo CC.jpg
- File:Luis antonio L.jpg
- File:Edgar lopez G..jpg
- File:Ct042402fig15.jpg
- All of those should most likely be deleted too. And again, government websites use copyrighted images all the time, no reason to believe a picture is created by them if it not explicitly says so. FunkMonk (talk) 13:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Other images probably copyrighted:
Supposed original source: http://www.dea.gov/speeches/s102901.html, the same that Osama.jpg -now http://www.justice.gov/dea/speeches/s102901.html See: http://web.archive.org/web/2/http://www.dea.gov/speeches/s102901.html - but this image has 82 x 141 and 3.4 kb vs 314 x 480 and 289 kb of the photo in Commons.
- It isn't a DEA's image
- That isn't the original source
Original source: http://www.homelandsecurity.alabama.gov/tap/terrst-vuln.htm -See: http://web.archive.org/web/20070419184832/www.homelandsecurity.alabama.gov/tap/terrst-vuln.htm- but Alabama Department of Homeland Security doesn't belong to the federal government, it belong to the state of Alabama. See about us. This departament has your own policies -http://dhs.alabama.gov/policies/webpolicies.aspx- but I don't know if they publish under CC or not.
Webarchive has a copy of 150 x 168 and Commons of 358 x 450, but it doesn't mean anything because it isn't the original source.
Pablo López We fly together 09:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Photographs of people that the Federal Government would like to arrest and who have not been arrested are very unlikely to be Federal government photographs -- if the Federal Government had been able to take a photo of the person, it would have arrested him at the same time. The fact that it is on a Federal website means nothing -- many Federal websites are very careless about credit for photos. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Unused personal photo - out of scope Gbawden (talk) 08:54, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Deleted. out of scope -- George Chernilevsky talk 21:00, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
No proof the FBI created the image just because they used it in their posters/website. FunkMonk (talk) 11:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep a link to the FBI website is enough for us to assume it's free of copyright. --PaterMcFly (talk) 13:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- No, because it does in no way prove that the photo was created by the FBI, which is the criterion for unclusion here. The FBI hardly had one of their employees take a passphoto of one of the 9/11 hijackers before they even knew who he was. FunkMonk (talk) 13:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- See also this[11] for precedent. FunkMonk (talk) 22:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- No, because it does in no way prove that the photo was created by the FBI, which is the criterion for unclusion here. The FBI hardly had one of their employees take a passphoto of one of the 9/11 hijackers before they even knew who he was. FunkMonk (talk) 13:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Do you really read the description? It has nothing to do with FBI, this is photograph from his Florida driving license. Trycatch (talk) 22:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- My bad with the specifics, the other hijacker photos had FBI tags, but then again, why should the state of Florida own a picture he provided for his license? It appears Atta owned it, but he hasn't been dead for 70 years, so... FunkMonk (talk) 23:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Probably it was created in local DMV office by this agency employee. Trycatch (talk) 00:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- See Florida Statuses 2008, Section 322.142 - Color photographic or digital imaged licenses: "The department shall, upon receipt of the required fee, issue to each qualified applicant for a driver's license a color photographic or digital imaged driver's license bearing a fullface photograph or digital image of the licensee." Trycatch (talk) 02:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- So by extension, all Florida driver's license photos are PD? Strikes me as odd, then we can basically use any of such on Commons. FunkMonk (talk) 05:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- No, it will be privacy violation. Trycatch (talk) 10:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- So by extension, all Florida driver's license photos are PD? Strikes me as odd, then we can basically use any of such on Commons. FunkMonk (talk) 05:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- My bad with the specifics, the other hijacker photos had FBI tags, but then again, why should the state of Florida own a picture he provided for his license? It appears Atta owned it, but he hasn't been dead for 70 years, so... FunkMonk (talk) 23:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep with {{PD-FLGov}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per previous commenters. JohnCengiz77 (talk) 14:15, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
![[11]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Osama_Bin_Laden.jpg){kind=link}
Kept: Florida is one of a very few (maybe the only) US states whose photographs are PD. Dirver's license photos are taken by the state, not (like a passport) supplied by the driver. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
No proof the FBI created the image just because they used it in their posters/website. FunkMonk (talk) 11:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Poster was not created by US navy. No proof the photo in the poster was first published in Afghanistan. FunkMonk (talk) 11:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - this is "valuable intelligence information"... and Afghanistan does not protect copyright, see {{PD-Afghanistan}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- There is no proof that the photo and drawings in the poster were created in Afghanistan either. In fact, it looks like someone just made a compilation of pictures found on the web, making this image derivative of a derivative. Wouldn't be the first time: http://www.snopes.com/rumors/bert.asp FunkMonk (talk) 13:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep No evidence against the uploader's claim that it's a US military photo, taken during a US military operation. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- And no one has claimed it wasn't, and it is really irrelevant. Yes, a US soldier took a photo of a poster, but he did not take the picture in the poster. See the difference? We could keep the image of the soldier holding the poster if we cropped the photos in it out, but that would remove any value of the photo. FunkMonk (talk) 13:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Have al Qaeda signed the Berne Convention then? Afghanistan hasn't. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- That is irrelevant. If the photo was first published in say, Saudi Arabia or Yemen, the image is copyrighted. We just don't know, so the photo can't be on Commons. FunkMonk (talk) 14:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- One can find out: this seems to be the 1988 photo, attributed by Time to AP. This would fail {{PD-Saudi Arabia}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- If it was first published by AP, then it can not be used on Commons. FunkMonk (talk) 14:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Of course AP did not make this photo. If it was originally published in Yemen, it is now {{PD-Yemen}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Tell me how you know AP did not publish the photo first. One of their local employees could easily have taken the photo, AP published it, and woopti, it was not published in the country where was taken. FunkMonk (talk) 14:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- It still doesn’t matter. This image was taken by the US military of an Osama Bin Laden propaganda poster. Even if the image is AP and don't all under {{PD-Yemen}} it falls under the Commons:De minimis rule since the poster is the focus of the photo not bin-laden.
- Erm, the poster is basically a photo of Bin Laden. FunkMonk (talk) 14:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- The poster is Osama Bin Laden propaganda, that is the focus, not Osama Bin Laden himself, as as described.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 14:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- The possibly copyrighted photo of OBL takes up about 60% og the poster. Is that trivial? FunkMonk (talk) 15:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- The poster is Osama Bin Laden propaganda, that is the focus, not Osama Bin Laden himself, as as described.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 14:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Erm, the poster is basically a photo of Bin Laden. FunkMonk (talk) 14:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- In 1988, Osama bin Laden was not on the radar of Western news agencies. AP obtained and distributed this photo, but as no photographer is credited, one may doubt that they obtained the rights. From the looks of this portrait, I would guess that this is a publicity photo by Osama's own organization, and that its use in the poster was authorized. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- That's theory again. Which is useless in this discussion. OBL was interviewed by Robert Fisk back in 1993, so he did get attention from western journalists prior to 2001. FunkMonk (talk) 15:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- You proposed the theory that "one of AP's local employees could easily have taken" this photo, and that was nonsense. Of course, Al Quaeda and Osama were known before 2001 - they were behind other terrorist attacks. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- It was merely counter-nonsense. I acknowledge that such is not appropriate here. FunkMonk (talk) 16:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- You proposed the theory that "one of AP's local employees could easily have taken" this photo, and that was nonsense. Of course, Al Quaeda and Osama were known before 2001 - they were behind other terrorist attacks. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- That's theory again. Which is useless in this discussion. OBL was interviewed by Robert Fisk back in 1993, so he did get attention from western journalists prior to 2001. FunkMonk (talk) 15:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- It still doesn’t matter. This image was taken by the US military of an Osama Bin Laden propaganda poster. Even if the image is AP and don't all under {{PD-Yemen}} it falls under the Commons:De minimis rule since the poster is the focus of the photo not bin-laden.
- Tell me how you know AP did not publish the photo first. One of their local employees could easily have taken the photo, AP published it, and woopti, it was not published in the country where was taken. FunkMonk (talk) 14:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Of course AP did not make this photo. If it was originally published in Yemen, it is now {{PD-Yemen}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Clearly it's a typo by Time -- the photograph was created in 1998, not in 1988 (see EXIF, and [12] for example -- clearly the photograph from the same photo session). And highly unlikely it was really created by an AP photographer. Trycatch (talk) 18:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Interesting. But it doesn't reveal much in relation to who first published it. Other than both images are credited to AP, which means we shouldn't just brush that possibility off. For now, it is the most likely source. Certainly more concrete than wild speculation. FunkMonk (talk) 18:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Typo indeed. These images are taken from an April 1998 interview, according to this. There was a May 1998 inteview by ABC, but these April images seem to be own work by Al Qaeda, which AP got hold of. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, it's not from ABC interview. Video from this interview is available here -- other environment, other clothes. Trycatch (talk) 20:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Again, Pieter, speculation won't get us nowhere. FunkMonk (talk) 22:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Would you accept that this has an AP caption? It says that the photo is from a TV interview. As far as I know, AP is not in that business. I think is is safe to assume that they talk about local Afghanistan Taliban TV. Then this was published in Afghanistan. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Eh, why not an Arabic TV station? He's an Arabic speaker after all, and Taliban banned TV, along with music, back in 1996. Seems like PD Afganistan is ruled out then. FunkMonk (talk) 15:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Would you accept that this has an AP caption? It says that the photo is from a TV interview. As far as I know, AP is not in that business. I think is is safe to assume that they talk about local Afghanistan Taliban TV. Then this was published in Afghanistan. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Again, Pieter, speculation won't get us nowhere. FunkMonk (talk) 22:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, it's not from ABC interview. Video from this interview is available here -- other environment, other clothes. Trycatch (talk) 20:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Typo indeed. These images are taken from an April 1998 interview, according to this. There was a May 1998 inteview by ABC, but these April images seem to be own work by Al Qaeda, which AP got hold of. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Interesting. But it doesn't reveal much in relation to who first published it. Other than both images are credited to AP, which means we shouldn't just brush that possibility off. For now, it is the most likely source. Certainly more concrete than wild speculation. FunkMonk (talk) 18:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- If it was first published by AP, then it can not be used on Commons. FunkMonk (talk) 14:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- One can find out: this seems to be the 1988 photo, attributed by Time to AP. This would fail {{PD-Saudi Arabia}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- That is irrelevant. If the photo was first published in say, Saudi Arabia or Yemen, the image is copyrighted. We just don't know, so the photo can't be on Commons. FunkMonk (talk) 14:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Have al Qaeda signed the Berne Convention then? Afghanistan hasn't. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- And no one has claimed it wasn't, and it is really irrelevant. Yes, a US soldier took a photo of a poster, but he did not take the picture in the poster. See the difference? We could keep the image of the soldier holding the poster if we cropped the photos in it out, but that would remove any value of the photo. FunkMonk (talk) 13:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- I agree there is a chance that de minimis applies to this incarnation of the picture only, but since that is a subjective decision, I'd like to see some more opinions. FunkMonk (talk) 15:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Comment See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bin Laden Poster2.jpeg Andy Dingley (talk) 13:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Comment See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bin Laden Poster.jpeg same discussion.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 15:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per COM:DW, COM:PRP. There is no evidence that the photo was originally published in Afghanistan, or that it would not otherwise subject to copyright under another country's laws. US Gov't websites frequently have non-PD images- the onus is on us to verify that they are indeed PD. Webmasters are not IP lawyers. The legal vacuum in Afghanistan does not give us carte blanche to set aside the due diligence we'd take in investigating any other image. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 07:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- I realize that you copied and pasted the same statement on all three images in question. However, I would like to point out that this was the original photograph of the Osama Bin Laden propaganda poster located in an al Qaida classroom photograph taken by a US solder during a search and destroy mission in the Zhawar Kili area. The image was then released by the United States Navy with the ID 020114-N-8242C-006. I would think that {{ID-USMil}} and {{PD-USGov-Military-Navy}} should apply here. Whether or {{PD-USGov-Military-Navy}} or {{PD-Afghanistan}} applies to the cropped images is another debate.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 19:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- PD-US gov only applies to the parts of the picture that are not copyrightable. This does not include the Osama photo. Again, if he was blurred out, there would be no problem, but what would be the point of having the image then? FunkMonk (talk) 20:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- Moreover, (and I think this is where you were going, ARTEST4ECHO) this is not de minimis; the poster is prominent, takes up most of the image, and is moreover the central focus of the image. That the Navy slapped a tracking ID on this image has no real probative value in determining the copyright status of the focus of this image. Finally, that my rationale is present in multiple deletion discussions dealing with images that are derivative works of one another does not have any bearing on the merits of my argument. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 03:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- PD-US gov only applies to the parts of the picture that are not copyrightable. This does not include the Osama photo. Again, if he was blurred out, there would be no problem, but what would be the point of having the image then? FunkMonk (talk) 20:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Same as above. JJ Georges (talk) 22:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- But the above comments in favour of keeping it are based on misinformation. FunkMonk (talk) 23:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep No veo el problema de esta foto, acaso no es un poster ? porque mejor no nos dedicamos a redactar artículos en la wiki a estar borrando fotos que no violan ningún copyright ? y te aseguro que si la borran alguna otra persona subirá otras fotos, es una situación que nunca terminará, entonces porqué seguír en esto ?
Nanovapor9 (talk) 20:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted: There are too many questions here to keep this. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
No proof the FBI created the image just because they used it in their posters/website. FunkMonk (talk) 11:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Photo from his Florida driving license: [13]. {{PD-FLGov}}. Trycatch (talk) 00:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Kept: Florida is PD Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Sourced and licensed to the FBI without any evidence the FBI is the author of the photo (nor why the FBI would've photographed him). The previous nomination for deletion of a file at this name was from 2010/2011 and closed due to {{PD-FLGov}} licensing, sourced to this Florida state document; this is a different photo than the one depicted in the FL paperwork. Fourthords | =Λ= | 19:16, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Question If this photo is of unknown origin, how about reverting to the version from 2007 and deleting the new versions? We don't want to delete a PD-FLGov file that's in use in many articles. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:25, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
- The 2007 version of the file is still not the same photo that's in the Florida source document, though. The black-and-white photo could probably be cropped from the PDF and used under {{PD-FLGov}}, but it's not the same photo as the color one used here on the Commons. Fourthords | =Λ= | 12:38, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
- OK, I defer to your knowledge, but we don't want to have unnecessary red links on a bunch of Wikipedia articles, so whatever substitution is necessary should be made. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:26, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
- Problem for all these images is that it is extremely unlikely the US government took a photo of him before he died. Just because they republished the photo doesn't mean they created it. FunkMonk (talk) 20:04, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
- It doesn't have to be a Federal photo. PD-FLGov is fine. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:33, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
- I've uploaded the Florida PDF, and then extracted the B&W photo therefrom (as well as the signature). I've updated the English Wikipedia page, but can't help you anywhere else the nominated file is used. Fourthords | =Λ= | 15:03, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
- If it's determined that this file has to be hidden, can we make it a redirect to that one? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:27, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
- That's beyond my ken, sorry. Fourthords | =Λ= | 01:47, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
- The closing admin can do it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:29, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
- That's beyond my ken, sorry. Fourthords | =Λ= | 01:47, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
- If it's determined that this file has to be hidden, can we make it a redirect to that one? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:27, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
- Problem for all these images is that it is extremely unlikely the US government took a photo of him before he died. Just because they republished the photo doesn't mean they created it. FunkMonk (talk) 20:04, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
- OK, I defer to your knowledge, but we don't want to have unnecessary red links on a bunch of Wikipedia articles, so whatever substitution is necessary should be made. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:26, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
- The 2007 version of the file is still not the same photo that's in the Florida source document, though. The black-and-white photo could probably be cropped from the PDF and used under {{PD-FLGov}}, but it's not the same photo as the color one used here on the Commons. Fourthords | =Λ= | 12:38, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
- Al-Shehhi obtained a duplicata of his driver's license in Hollywood, Florida on 19 June 2001 after changing his address; this was confirmed by the U.S. v. Moussaoui stipulation regarding chronology, many hijackers had done the same (incl. Ziad Jarrah). This is where the picture is sourced from, and it is from the Florida DMV. This photograph is public domain. Thank you very much, NAADAAN (talk) 03:22, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
- The black-and-white photo in your linked PDF is sourced to the Florida government, and presumably licensable under {{PD-FLGov}}, though whether the colour photo that's actually under discussion meets the same criteria, I can't say and would leave to an administrator to split that hair. However, neither meets the licensing of {{PD-USGov}}, currently claimed. Lastly, while I don't understand the relevance of the rest of your comment, your second URL there is broken. Fourthords | =Λ= | 03:52, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
- In my opinion, divergence in color between the same image is not enough to constitute a copyrightable derivative work -- unless it is a specific colorization of the PD black and white photograph which can be attributed to an author (but this burden on proof is on neither of us and it diverges from the original claim made on this deletion request). It's fair to claim that the color picture, which is another exhibit in the Moussaoui case, are works of the Florida DMV and are PD as well. With the picture being first published by the FBI and later published by the U.S. Attorney's Office, I can't think up anyone who can claim copyright on this. I wanna source my claims to some degree -- I recall finding a paragraph mentioning his duplicata on a timeline for the Moussaoui case, I've been unable to find it but this timeline includes it. NAADAAN (talk) 05:14, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
- The black-and-white photo in your linked PDF is sourced to the Florida government, and presumably licensable under {{PD-FLGov}}, though whether the colour photo that's actually under discussion meets the same criteria, I can't say and would leave to an administrator to split that hair. However, neither meets the licensing of {{PD-USGov}}, currently claimed. Lastly, while I don't understand the relevance of the rest of your comment, your second URL there is broken. Fourthords | =Λ= | 03:52, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. This is a mugshot, so even if not a FBI work, it may be PD-ineligible, or PD-FLGov. --Yann (talk) 10:11, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
No proof the FBI created the image just because they used it in their posters/website. FunkMonk (talk) 11:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Photo from his Florida driving license: [14]. {{PD-FLGov}}. Trycatch (talk) 18:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per user Trycatch's point. JohnCengiz77 (talk) 14:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
No proof the FBI created the image just because they used it in their posters/website. FunkMonk (talk) 11:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per it being a Government released photo. JohnCengiz77 (talk) 00:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Photos for visas are supplied by the applicant, so this infringes the photographer's copyright. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
No proof the FBI created the image just because they used it in their posters/website. FunkMonk (talk) 11:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per it being a Government released photo. JohnCengiz77 (talk) 14:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Source unknown -- as we have seen above, the FBI uses many images that are not theirs to license. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
No proof the FBI created the image just because they used it in their posters/website. FunkMonk (talk) 11:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
No proof the FBI created the image just because they used it in their posters/website. FunkMonk (talk) 12:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Photo from his Florida driving license: [15]. {{PD-FLGov}}. Trycatch (talk) 23:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per user Trycatch's point. JohnCengiz77 (talk) 14:16, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
No proof the FBI created the image just because they used it in their posters/website. FunkMonk (talk) 12:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per it being a Government released photo. JohnCengiz77 (talk) 00:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: unknown source Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
The image omits the Shetland Islands. There are over 100 islands stretching about 100 miles much further North. Imagine cutting Cornwall from an image of the UK. Imagine a map of Greece without Crete. As this image is widely used it should be replaced ASAP. Stiubhart Ceann Loch (talk) 16:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Same comment copied by
89.224.214.99 21:38, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
No, this is a map of England not the UK, not even Great Britain or Scotland. Therefore the Shetland Islands, the Channel Islands or for that matter the Isle of Man need not be mentioned. My only suggestion would be that a better map of England be provided, including some of the shires or wider areas. But deletion would be a mistake.
Kept: This is widely in use, so it cannot be deleted. It is not unusual for locater maps to omit outlying places -- a map showing the location of Illinois might well omit Alaska and Hawaii. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
No FoP for sculptures in Denmark. 84.61.172.89 17:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Unused private image, no educational value, → out of scope. Jahobr (talk) 18:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete well, w:Pavel Tsvetkov, but I'm not sure about copyright status. Trycatch (talk) 01:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - overwrite with higher res version currently sitting at w:File:Pavel Tsvetkov.jpg. Magog the Ogre (talk) 13:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
- scratch that: different file format. Magog the Ogre (talk) 13:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination, somehow i missed the notability. Sorry. It could be deleted if the high-res jpg is uploaded to commons. But the current reason "private image" is false. Jahobr (talk) 13:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Unused private image, no educational value, → out of scope. Jahobr (talk) 18:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep notable person: w:pt:Pedro Barny. Trycatch (talk) 02:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Kept Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
No FoP for sculptures in Denmark. 84.61.172.89 18:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:56, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
No FoP for sculptures in Denmark. 84.61.172.89 18:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep where you see sculptures? Trycatch (talk) 01:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep + 1 Kvardek du (talk) 16:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept: sculpture (gas station, tower, etc.) is de minimis Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
No FoP for sculptures in Denmark. 84.61.172.89 18:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
This was added from the wrong Wikipedia account. I am not the owner of this image nor do I have the rights for it. Rhickok (talk) 20:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
pictures of a copyrighted game Prosfilaes (talk) 20:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- You can only see parts of a part of a game. Copyright is never affected. keep.--Peng (talk) 09:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
pictures of a copyrighted game Prosfilaes (talk) 20:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- You can only see parts of a part of a game. Copyright is never affected. keep.--Peng (talk) 09:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
No such flag ever existed. The naval jack of Romania, between 1922 and 1947 had the middle coat of arms of Romania on it. Alex:D (talk) 13:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
No such flag ever existed in Romania. The naval jack always had the middle coat of arms of Romania on it Alex:D (talk) 23:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, out of project scope: poor quality, historically inaccurate. Kameraad Pjotr 20:21, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ostankino 2.jpg
derived work of a copyrighted work of architecture, no COM:FOP in Russia, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Останкинская телебашня (Ostankino-Tower).JPG AFBorchert (talk) 16:50, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
this file is on flickr . creative commons 2.0 generic --Tonchino (talk) 11:48, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: The image may be CC, but it infringes on the copyright of the architect. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:12, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Bad and small Balu79 (talk) 12:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Bad and small Balu79 (talk) 12:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Amada44 talk to me 14:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Amada44 talk to me 14:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Bad and small Balu79 (talk) 12:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Bad and small Balu79 (talk) 12:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Amada44 talk to me 14:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Amada44 talk to me 14:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
No FoP for sculptures in Denmark. 84.61.172.89 16:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Are these realy sculptures? I see minimizations of houses. --PaterMcFly (talk) 15:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
No FoP for sculptures in Denmark. 84.61.172.89 16:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
No FoP for sculptures in Denmark. 84.61.172.89 16:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
No FoP for sculptures in Denmark. 84.61.172.89 16:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
No FoP for sculptures in Denmark. 84.61.172.89 16:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
No FoP for sculptures in Denmark. 84.61.172.89 16:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
No FoP for sculptures in Denmark. 84.61.172.89 16:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
No FoP for sculptures in Denmark. 84.61.172.89 16:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
No FoP for sculptures in Denmark. 84.61.172.89 16:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
No FoP for sculptures in Denmark. 84.61.172.89 17:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
No FoP for sculptures in Denmark. 84.61.172.89 17:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
No FoP for sculptures in Denmark. 84.61.172.89 17:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
No FoP for sculptures in Denmark. 84.61.172.89 17:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep That's just the gate to the park. It is mere architecture. Btw I doubt that every scale model is considered as a sculpture. -- Herby (Vienna) (talk) 19:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep The look of the gatepost is special but since it primary functions as an entrance and is often used as a common picture of Legoland (for example here [16], here [17], and here [18], it should be alright to keep. --Hubertus (talk) 11:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
![[18]](http://www.travelpod.com/travel-photo/annalise.m/1/1243798318/legoland-at-billund.jpg/tpod.html){kind=link}
Deleted, per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Legoland Billund 0360.jpg. Kameraad Pjotr 20:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No FoP for sculptures in Denmark. 84.61.172.89 17:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted, per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Legoland Billund 0360.jpg. Kameraad Pjotr 20:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Well, I do not think that User:Sisco has the right to release this image with a PD license: firstly it remains unclear where the image comes from (is it own work - if yes not stated; is it from a PD website - not stated as well). We only know that User:Sisco uploaded it some time ago. Disturbing is in addition the fact that this image appears here, too. --80.187.102.162 18:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- And who first published it?--Sanandros (talk) 08:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mundu-and-Saree.png - copyvio Common-Man (talk) 18:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- See the other req with same picture...Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mundu-and-Saree.png --...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 09:58, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
