Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2010/05/18
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
An unused image because the equation has been integrated into the article as Tex. Wizard191 (talk) 00:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Delete Unused, basically text, out of scope. -- IANEZZ (talk) 07:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Leyo 08:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
How old is this statue? Who's the artist? There's no FOP in Italy. –Tryphon☂ 13:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Keep It's a XVII century statue. The article on itWiki is properly sourced, [1], I don't see any fraud here.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 15:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, I just added the date on the image page. –Tryphon☂ 15:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept. (non-admin closure) –Tryphon☂ 15:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
there is no indication for this image beeing "free software" abf «Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?»ABF is back to cabale! 15:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted appears to be a tv-screenshot abf «Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?»ABF is back to cabale! 15:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I kind of fail to understand how this fits our Scope, it is more something like a article for Wikipedia or Wikisource than it is a gallery. Commons host galleries full of content, no articles. --Huib talk 14:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep It is not an article. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
CommentUser:Abigor/temp is a plain copy&paste of the alleged out of scope gallery. Note that User:Abigor signs as "--Huib talk" Erik Warmelink (talk) 14:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)- Comment - I had it moved to the /temp to show it to a non admin while it was delete, I have blanked the page. Huib talk 14:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, I see now that User:Herbythyme had deleted it, difficult to understand why. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep, the poster is so to say "famous" at least in germany, a gallery of RAF wanted posters is in scope imo. Collecting all the cropped small files is a good idea and it is something a gallery or a category can do. Besides I have some doubt regarding the copyright, it is not in line with Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Hundertwasserentscheidung.jpg where we talked about files that are not official works extracted from an official work. --Martin H. (talk) 14:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- You may be right about the cropped images, and if they are deleted, the page will not have much use. But, that would be a reason to delete those cropped images, not a reason to speedily delete the gallery while keeping the cropped images. Erik Warmelink (talk) 15:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- Comment How long should I wait before I may edit the page? And, if I may edit, what is wrong? Erik Warmelink (talk) 17:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Kept. –Juliancolton | Talk 22:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
If the file is kept and the discussion is closed, then please remove the deletion marker, too.
The photos on this poster aren't German amtliche Werke, but works by others, which were used by the German police. (see § 24 KUG Für Zwecke der Rechtspflege und der öffentlichen Sicherheit dürfen von den Behörden Bildnisse ohne Einwilligung des Berechtigten sowie des Abgebildeten oder seiner Angehörigen vervielfältigt, verbreitet und öffentlich zur Schau gestellt werden.) The photos are still copyrighted by their authors. sугсго 14:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- File:Fahndungsplakat2.jpg
- File:Fahndungsplakat.jpg
- File:Rafplakat.JPG
- File:Fahndungsplakat3.jpg
- File:Ulrike Meinhof 2.jpg
- File:Andreas Bernd Baader 2.jpg
- File:Gudrun Ensslin 2.jpg
- File:Holger Klaus Meins 2.jpg
- File:Jan-Carl Raspe 2.jpg
- File:Ilse Stachowiak 2.jpg
- File:Klaus Jünschke 2.jpg
- File:Ronald Augustin 2.jpg
- File:Bernhard Braun 2.jpg
- File:Ralf Reinders 2.jpg
- File:Ingeborg Barz 2.jpg
- File:Irmgard Möller 2.jpg
- File:Brigitte Mohnhaupt 2.jpg
- File:Axel Achterath 2.jpg
- File:Katharina Hammerschmidt 2.jpg
- File:Rosemarie Keser 2.jpg
- File:Siegfried Hausner 2.jpg
- File:Heinz Brockmann 2.jpg
- File:Albert Fichter 2.jpg
--sугсго 14:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per previous DR Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rafplakat.JPG. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per Pieter. Derivatives of official works are allowed. --PaterMcFly (talk) 15:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- It is not a real official work. According to $ 24 KUG it is only allowed to use the photos on the poster for judicature or public security uses. That is not free use. sугсго 18:20, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment The above was about the gallery page RAF fahndungsplakat ±1972 and SCOPE, not about the possible copyright issue. Just because a work that is not an official work is shown in an official work does not make it free of copyright. --Martin H. (talk) 18:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment If those 23 images are deleted, we should also delete:
- File:Ulrike Meinhof.jpg
- File:Andreas Bernd Baader.jpg
- File:Gudrun Ensslin.jpg
- File:Holger Klaus Meins.jpg
- File:Jan-Carl Raspe.jpg
- File:Ilse Stachowiak.jpg
- File:Klaus Jünschke.jpg
- File:Ronald Augustin.jpg
- File:Bernhard Braun.jpg
- File:Ralf Reinders.jpg
- File:Ingeborg Barz.jpg
- File:Irmgard Möller.jpg
- File:Brigitte Mohnhaupt.jpg
- File:Axel Achterath.jpg
- File:Katharina Hammerschmidt.jpg
- File:Rosemarie Keser.jpg
- File:Siegfried Hausner.jpg
- File:Heinz Brockmann.jpg
- File:Albert Fichter.jpg
- Erik Warmelink (talk) 12:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Keep per previous DR. What a waste of time... 201.17.85.216 08:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
- Comment (again) The above deletion request was about SCOPE and the gallery, not about the file and not about copyright. --Martin H. (talk) 18:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Kept. It's been open now since last May (!) and there doesn't seem to be any consensus.--DieBuche (talk) 17:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
reopened according to http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Forum&oldid=45130076#L.C3.B6schregelfrage and de:Bildrechte#Fahndungsfotos Isderion (talk) 22:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep according to § 5 Abs. 2 UrhG. --Eva K. is evil 14:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Info Note, that Pictures belong to § 5 Abs. 2 UrhG prohibited derivation (and must have an source given) - so this isn't free as here "free" is defined. --Quedel (talk) 19:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC); Additionally, the license template is only for works according to § 5 Abs. 1 UrhG, not for works according to Abs. 2. --Quedel (talk) 20:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- The images cannot possibly be kept under German copyright law. First, they are obviously not protected under § 5 (1) UrhG which protects "Laws, ordinances, official decrees and notices as also decisions and official grounds of decisions" (translation from [2]). Second, as Quedel pointed out, it is irrelevant if they enjoy protection under § 5 (2) UrhG as this would mean that they are subject to § 62 (1) and thus not freely usable anyway (c.f. [3]). As to the rest, see sугсго's comments in this matter. —Pill (talk) 02:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Of course, this also applies to the extracted images. Given their licensing status, they would probably even be a violation of § 62 (1) (see Dreier in Dreier/Schulze UrhG, § 62, recital 16), so even if, much to my surprise, non-free images were accepted here and for some reason § 5 (2) was applicable to the wanted posters as suggested by EvaK, these images would have to be deleted. —Pill (talk) 23:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. - invalid DR - Jcb (talk) 11:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Reopened. 1) its not an invalid DR, it is allowed to appeal. 2) if the full procedure was not followed it is not a reason to simply quash valid arguments with an unfounded "kept" and declaring the request as "invalid" (and thererfore judging that the arguments are wrong and that the copyright status is correct). Simply fix the problems or ask the requesting user to fix it! --Martin H. (talk) 15:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- (EC)The nominator is responsible for a correct DR. If a DR has been kept already for two times and the new nominator fails to make a valid DR (it *was* an invalid DR), I don't see a valid reason against a keep closure. DRs like this are always at watch lists, so nominator will notice what happened and will be able to try again to follow the procedure. The fact that the uploaders have not been notified about the deletion request is sufficient for a keep closure for the moment. Jcb (talk) 16:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- For arguments you may also read the previous requests. The last one has been closed for procedural reasons, not judging yet the arguments. Jcb (talk) 16:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Please don't forget to add the DR to the today deletion request log, for now it's only present in archived logs. Jcb (talk) 16:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- We only have 2 requests here. 1st about the Gallerie page RAF fahndungsplakat ±1972 and if this gallerie is in scope or not, the 2nd is about copyright. The 2nd request was started by Sycro, closed by DieBuche, reopened by Isderion, closed by you). The copyright arguments have never been judged correctly, Sycro made an appropriate request, tagged all files and informed the uplaoder, this request was closed 1) for beeing open a long time by DieBuche 2) for procedural reasons by you. Damn, Sycro informed the uploaders, tagged all files, added a list, arguments are provided, the copyright concern is serios and this arguments are simply squashed with a "kept" because in the meantime the deletion tags have been removed? Thats inappropriate. Even if the uploaders were not informed: Inform them! but not simply use a procedural mistake to overrule valid legal concerns with such wikilawering. And remember please that a copyright infringement is a copyright infringement, no matter the uploader was informed or not. And now remove this {{Delh}} tags, the discussion is not for the archive. --Martin H. (talk) 16:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- I will copy the comments below. This is a new DR, so my keep closure remains and your new request starts today. Jcb (talk) 16:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- This is NOT a new request, I dont request something, I only fix the inapropriate dealing with other users requests. If you ask me we would reset the request to the version before your closure. The initial request was made by Sycro and was never correctly handled. --Martin H. (talk) 21:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- If you're that concerned with this DR, why didn't you process it in the past three months? You also still failed to list this DR to the today deletion request log. Please tell my if this comment is Chinese to you and I will take some time to explain you how it works. Jcb (talk) 21:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Because im not sure to make a decision. For the second question: {{Sofixit}}. --Martin H. (talk) 01:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not going to do that, but as long as nobody does, nobody will be allowed to close this request. Jcb (talk) 01:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Because im not sure to make a decision. For the second question: {{Sofixit}}. --Martin H. (talk) 01:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- If you're that concerned with this DR, why didn't you process it in the past three months? You also still failed to list this DR to the today deletion request log. Please tell my if this comment is Chinese to you and I will take some time to explain you how it works. Jcb (talk) 21:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- This is NOT a new request, I dont request something, I only fix the inapropriate dealing with other users requests. If you ask me we would reset the request to the version before your closure. The initial request was made by Sycro and was never correctly handled. --Martin H. (talk) 21:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- I will copy the comments below. This is a new DR, so my keep closure remains and your new request starts today. Jcb (talk) 16:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- We only have 2 requests here. 1st about the Gallerie page RAF fahndungsplakat ±1972 and if this gallerie is in scope or not, the 2nd is about copyright. The 2nd request was started by Sycro, closed by DieBuche, reopened by Isderion, closed by you). The copyright arguments have never been judged correctly, Sycro made an appropriate request, tagged all files and informed the uplaoder, this request was closed 1) for beeing open a long time by DieBuche 2) for procedural reasons by you. Damn, Sycro informed the uploaders, tagged all files, added a list, arguments are provided, the copyright concern is serios and this arguments are simply squashed with a "kept" because in the meantime the deletion tags have been removed? Thats inappropriate. Even if the uploaders were not informed: Inform them! but not simply use a procedural mistake to overrule valid legal concerns with such wikilawering. And remember please that a copyright infringement is a copyright infringement, no matter the uploader was informed or not. And now remove this {{Delh}} tags, the discussion is not for the archive. --Martin H. (talk) 16:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
<quote>
- Keep according to § 5 Abs. 2 UrhG. --Eva K. is evil 14:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- Info Note, that Pictures belong to § 5 Abs. 2 UrhG prohibited derivation (and must have an source given) - so this isn't free as here "free" is defined. --Quedel (talk) 19:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC); Additionally, the license template is only for works according to § 5 Abs. 1 UrhG, not for works according to Abs. 2. --Quedel (talk) 20:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- The images cannot possibly be kept under German copyright law. First, they are obviously not protected under § 5 (1) UrhG which protects "Laws, ordinances, official decrees and notices as also decisions and official grounds of decisions" (translation from [4]). Second, as Quedel pointed out, it is irrelevant if they enjoy protection under § 5 (2) UrhG as this would mean that they are subject to § 62 (1) and thus not freely usable anyway (c.f. [5]). As to the rest, see sугсго's comments in this matter. —Pill (talk) 02:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Of course, this also applies to the extracted images. Given their licensing status, they would probably even be a violation of § 62 (1) (see Dreier in Dreier/Schulze UrhG, § 62, recital 16), so even if, much to my surprise, non-free images were accepted here and for some reason § 5 (2) was applicable to the wanted posters as suggested by EvaK, these images would have to be deleted. —Pill (talk) 23:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
</quote>
- This request is about copyrights, if the files are a violation of COM:L we cant keep them, no matter if they are linked somewhere or not, this is entirely meaningles and nothing but stupid wikilawering. The lists are however provided by Special:WhatLinksHere and above by Sycro and theu uploader. --Martin H. (talk) 21:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- The first DR and the last DR just mentioned the gallery in it. It was an honest mistake. And making it very clear what is to be deleted is a very important thing in DRs, and this page is a mess.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- This request is about copyrights, if the files are a violation of COM:L we cant keep them, no matter if they are linked somewhere or not, this is entirely meaningles and nothing but stupid wikilawering. The lists are however provided by Special:WhatLinksHere and above by Sycro and theu uploader. --Martin H. (talk) 21:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- The files are all listed above and in Category:Deletion requests May 2010. Teofilo (talk) 00:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Delete There are two aspects concerning the photographies:
- Right of the own image of the photographed people: They are not neccessarily famous people in public. The were just searched by the police for some time. They are unguilty, arrested, or free again. Keeping the pictures in public is a damage to their personal rights.
- Copyright of the photographers. It is not given for further use than the police search.
So there is not a legal base for keeping it. On the other hand, these papers are indeed part of the german history. -- Simplicius (talk) 23:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- For the first one; I don't think we worry about Germany conceptions of personal rights. The English Wikipedia has an article on a German murderer who won cases in Germany about the violation of his personal rights, and threatened the WMF with legal action. You join a terrorist group, earn some notoriety, you've bought yourself a place in the public record.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- It is law. Simplicius (talk) 13:20, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete: Works under the terms of § 5 II dUrhG are not compatible with the conditions of free contents. Free content require the right for derivations, but these works doesn't allow this, so §§ 5 II, 62 I - III dUrhG.
- Werke gem. § 5 Abs. 2 UrhG sind nicht mit den Bedingungen der freien Inhalte kompatibel. Nur solche Werke, welche eine freie Bearbeitung zulassen, entsprechen den freien Inhalten. Dies trifft jedoch im Gegensatz zu Abs. 1 explizit nicht zu.
- --Suhadi Sadono (talk) 14:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- PS: See also this Discussion. --Suhadi Sadono (talk) 14:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Delete Das Fahnundungsplakat und alle daraus entnommenen Lichtbilder müssen leider gelöscht werden. Der § 5 aus dem Urheberrecht kann in diesem Falle nicht angewendet werden. Da der § 24 KunstUrhG (Gesetz betreffend das Urheberrecht an Werken der bildenden Künste und der Photographie) für Wikipedia / Wikicommons nicht gelten kann.
- Zitat:
- Für Zwecke der Rechtspflege und der öffentlichen Sicherheit dürfen von den Behörden Bildnisse ohne Einwilligung des Berechtigten sowie des Abgebildeten oder seiner Angehörigen vervielfältigt, verbreitet und öffentlich zur Schau gestellt werden.
Von daher leider leider löschen kandschwar (talk) 19:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Wikimedia Commons ist keine Behoerde. Jeder Kriminelle sollten sich den entsprechenden Paragraphen allerdings merken, falls sein Bildnis einmal ohne dessen Einwilligung von den Behoerden oeffentlich zur Schau gestellt werden sollte. --Janericloebe (talk) 23:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- Du verdrehst da glaube ich was. Behörden dürfen ohne Einwilligung des Berechtigten (Berechtigter=Inhaber der Nutzungsrechte), andere Stellen dürfen nicht. Wikimedia Commons darf also nicht. --Martin H. (talk) 00:11, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- Die Abgebildeten sind ggf. unschuldig, oder verurteilt, inhaftiert oder bereits entlassen. Damit ist der Drops gelutscht. Rechtspflege greift nicht mehr.- Simplicius (talk) 13:20, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete I changed my mind on this one; the license does not apply. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. User:Pill's analysis is persuasive, and others seem largely in accord. I'm not concerned about protecting these people's privacy in this case, only that the law in question does not permit derivative works, and so does not comply with Commons:Licensing. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
The image does not meet commons' scope. ← Körnerbrötchen » ✉ 15:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Speedy, Commons is not an image hosting service for low quality pictures of your penis. --Martin H. (talk) 16:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
seems to be a copyvio. no source and author and permission given. ← Körnerbrötchen » ✉ 16:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Herbythyme: Copyright violation
questionable. abf «Cabale!» 21:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Marking as speedy delete, it is blatantly out of scope. — Tetromino (talk) 12:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Herby abf «Cabale!» 13:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Orphaned, low quality, blurry, out of project scope, no forseeable use. FASTILY (TALK) 00:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete When emptying your Recycle Bin, don't forget to upload the content on Commons. Who knows? May be it could be useful for someone. Then they say, we are not friendly here. --Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 04:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Delete - article about him in the english WP was deleted Cholo Aleman (talk) 05:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 21:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
An unused image because the equation has been integrated into the article as TeX. Wizard191 (talk) 00:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Unused, basically text, out of scope. -- IANEZZ (talk) 07:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 21:35, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
An unused image because the equation has been integrated into the article as TeX. Wizard191 (talk) 00:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Unused, basically text, out of scope. -- IANEZZ (talk) 07:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 21:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
An unused image because the equation has been integrated into the article as Tex Wizard191 (talk) 00:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Unused, basically text, out of scope. -- IANEZZ (talk) 07:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 21:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
strange unused screenshot - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 21:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete--DieBuche (talk) 22:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 21:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Bad quality dupe of File:Circuito de Albacete track map.svg --DieBuche (talk) 10:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. Unused, really bad quality and no description. –Tryphon☂ 13:20, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Oh, come on.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 15:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 01:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 21:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 01:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
File:Classified2.jpg and File:An aircraft by ikarus tm.jpg
Out of project scope, apparently uploaded to supplement a fictitious stealth aircraft article uploader wrote on en.wiki (since deleted). — Huntster (t @ c) 05:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Unused, low-quality 3D rendering, out of scope. -- IANEZZ (talk) 07:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 11:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Derivative work of a copyrighted television programme. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 08:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Unusable copyvio--DieBuche (talk) 10:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 11:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
low quality, no "real" source, definetely not a "free screenshot" abf «Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?»ABF is back to cabale! 15:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete same goes to other images from this uploader, File:Tyler Farrar1.PNG is clearly screenshot from TV --Justass (talk) 15:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 11:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
I highly doubt the images "notability" and source abf «Cabale!» 20:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Now this is bad..--DieBuche (talk) 20:20, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete And all his contributions. He's using the images for a bad joke in Spanish Wikipedia. --Taichi (talk) 07:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 12:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 21:20, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 12:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
self promotional marketing malo (talk) 00:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Also add File:Soncenet markica.gif same reasoning -- malo (talk) 00:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 00:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Useless except for a deleted en:wp vanity article on Yoshi Ando Nyttend (talk) 12:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Withdraw, sorry for not noticing that it was in use. Nyttend (talk) 04:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - Probable copyvio, uploader seems to be a fan, image appears to be a professional shot. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per Mattbuck, likely copyvio. -- Deadstar (msg) 14:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. Indeed, sure looks like a copyright violation. –Tryphon☂ 14:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 00:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
derivative work abf «Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?»ABF is back to cabale! 18:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Freedom of panorama in Sweden.--Ankara (talk) 18:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep What work? Anyway, COM:FOP#Sweden. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. Appears to be permanently placed adjacent to a public place outdoors. Note that while the building is not a public place, FOP is granted for works placed permanently "at or adjacent to" ("på eller vid") a public place outdoors. Additionally, the logotype may not meet Sweden's high threshold of originality (cf. File:Upphovsrätt på teknisk ritning.png, which was ruled ineligible for copyright protection by the Swedish Supreme Court). —LX (talk, contribs) 21:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per LX -- Herby (Vienna) (talk) 14:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Mbdortmund (talk) 00:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
scan of a damaged source (book?), unused, very low resolution, adequate maps on the same subject can be found in the categories in which I placed this file --Santosga (talk) 19:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Delete - questionable copyrights, nearly unusable Cholo Aleman (talk) 06:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 00:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
unused, unintelligible graphic, resolution too low to read --Santosga (talk) 19:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Delete per nom Cholo Aleman (talk) 06:41, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 00:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
unused, no context, uncategorized since 2008, unintelligible graphic, resolution too low to read --Santosga (talk) 19:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Delete - unusable without the context Cholo Aleman (talk) 21:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 00:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
unused, no context, uncategorized since 2008, unintelligible graphic, resolution too low to read --Santosga (talk) 19:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Delete unusable, content cannot be identified Cholo Aleman (talk) 12:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 00:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
unused image of a sports group - out of scope, very interesting "english" description.... Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 00:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
unused radio logo from facebook - out of scope, unclear copyrights Cholo Aleman (talk) 21:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom abf «Cabale!» 21:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 00:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
unused poster from a conference - out of scope - out of scope (as far as I see) Cholo Aleman (talk) 21:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 00:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Outdated version of File:MIA - Miami International Airport FAA diagram.svg --DieBuche (talk) 10:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, in use. –Tryphon☂ 13:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Strong Keep In an ideal world, I would have one of these for every month, or at least one for each version, deleting unchanged months. Absolutely valuable to show the history of the airport. This might well be an off-wiki application, although I could image a sequenced file as well. They should, of course, be marked (as they are) to show that they are not current. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 14:16, 2010 May 25 (UTC)
Kept per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 17:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
diagram from the english wp, "made to illustrate an article" - unfortunately unused, useless without context - out of scope (if someone has a good idea , please add categories) Cholo Aleman (talk) 05:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Have asked original submitter for a description Oxyman (talk) 16:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Comment Thanks - I did not realize that because if the import the original creator is not notified with this DR. Cholo Aleman (talk) 05:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- Hi, I'm the original creator. The drawing was created to illustrate an article on Wikipedia,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatch_mark. I initially posted the drawing TO Wikipedia; I have no idea why it was moved here (I didn't do it). I suppose you can delete it if you want, but doesn't that defeat the purpose of creating an illustration for an article? Plus that will leave the article without an illustration, which is problematic since it needs the diagram to adequately depict the geometric concept. I'm not sure how to link to my home page but it's here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bookgrrl. Let me know if you want me to add something so it can stay.
- Cannot find the picture in the article. --Mbdortmund (talk) 00:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Hi, I'm the original creator. The drawing was created to illustrate an article on Wikipedia,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatch_mark. I initially posted the drawing TO Wikipedia; I have no idea why it was moved here (I didn't do it). I suppose you can delete it if you want, but doesn't that defeat the purpose of creating an illustration for an article? Plus that will leave the article without an illustration, which is problematic since it needs the diagram to adequately depict the geometric concept. I'm not sure how to link to my home page but it's here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bookgrrl. Let me know if you want me to add something so it can stay.
- Delete It was removed from the article 3 1/2 years ago. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Diagram has been identified and now has description and categories. Even if it is not currently in use may still be of use to some wikimedia project in the future, hence within scope Oxyman (talk) 23:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Keep I withdraw my deletion request Cholo Aleman (talk) 04:25, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
withdrawn Kept. Mbdortmund (talk) 09:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
bad image, does not match our scope, there are (much) better ones. abf «Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?»ABF is back to cabale! 15:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
The same:
Kind regards, abf «Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?»ABF is back to cabale! 15:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- What is your exact problem with the last image. It's in use in the German Wikipedia. --Isderion (talk) 02:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, let's strike that one. abf «Cabale!» 12:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- These photos all show some reflection in windows through which they were taken. Not a great problem. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- The problem is that Commons is not a free web-host, and that those images are not usable for any educational purpose. abf «Cabale!» 12:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- Except for the last one: Image not in use, bad quality (those reflections aren't helpful, unless you want to show the bad effect of reflections, and I bet there are better pictures for that). I'd opt for deletion. --Guandalug (talk) 22:34, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- The problem is that Commons is not a free web-host, and that those images are not usable for any educational purpose. abf «Cabale!» 12:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Huib talk 14:52, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
We can't use PD-art for 2007 year image. Dinamik (talk) 06:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete as per nomination. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 13:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted MPF (talk) 17:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
It is unlikely this professional looking image of Benny Hill is self made. -- Deadstar (msg) 10:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete I agree. May be the uploader is the copyright holder, but, in this case, he needs to give us more information than simply "own work".--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 15:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Indeed. Unless information is passed on that makes this tag likely (e.g via OTRS), the 'own work' tag is rather unlikely to be correct. --Guandalug (talk) 08:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 20:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
No source. Tried to get an admin to speedy it but he refused. Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (talk) 21:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Only an official photographer of the Air Force could have shot it. So it's even in PD as work of someone working for the US Federal Government.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 10:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- KeepAgreed. There's no way in the world anything but another Air Force plane was that close to this. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Speedy keep! Public domain, already used on many user pages in Wikipedia alone, and the file is in the Commons itself. mechamind90 05:36, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep The source seems rather obvious to me. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Per Giorgiomonteforti.Acather96 (talk) 14:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Kept. I don't usually close DRs that I have commented on, but this seems pretty obvious and it's been open too long. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
This file is probably not the work of the uploader. It has been available on the web since well before it was uploaded, e.g. [6][7] Fences and windows (talk) 17:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Hmm. I don't know if this ever got transcluded. Just done. Fences and windows (talk) 12:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Files of User:DrGML
edit- File:The Couple 1.JPG
- File:The Couple 2.JPG
- File:The Couple 3.JPG
- File:The Couple 4.JPG
- File:The Couple 5.JPG
These all seem to be copyrighted works by Leda Luss Luyken, no indication that the uploader is the original uploader, but File:The Couple 1.JPG appears to indicate that, if DrGML is Luyken, that the images are under copyright. -- fetchcomms☛ 08:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Correct, the original copyright holder is Leda Luss Luyken; I am her spouse, Dr. Georg Michael Luyken; I am the manager of LLLarts, the studio and management bureau of Leda Luss Luyken. I am authorised to up-load the pictures and have the consent of Leda Luss Luyken to so. Is that OK? Above post by uploader DrGML
- See my note at User talk:Fetchcomms#The Couple - 5 pics. fetchcomms☛ 09:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- OTRS permission has been received and verified, this can be closed now. fetchcomms☛ 21:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept. OTRS received. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Photograph of a photograph of Putin at the World Press Awards - this probably is a derivative. The exhibition is also temporary (and inside). -- Deadstar (msg) 08:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, clearly a derivative work, and de minimis doesn't apply since the inclusion is intentional. –Tryphon☂ 13:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Derivative work. --High Contrast (talk) 15:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Not PD in the country of origin (France), at least not according to the current license ({{PD-US}}). –Tryphon☂ 12:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete Made by Bécan, died 1942. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. High Contrast (talk) 16:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
See: Peter Mühlbauer: "Verwaiste Werke und Immaterialgüterrechts-Waisenhäuser", In: Telepolis, 18.05.2010. Erst auf mehrere Erinnerungsschreiben hin antwortet man schließlich, dass das Bundesarchiv "nicht davon ausgeht", dass die Fotografie gemeinfrei ist. "Vielmehr", so die Behörde, sei das Porträt eine "professionelle Arbeit und somit ein Lichtbildwerk, das Urheberrechtsschutz genießt". Das Bundesarchiv habe sich entschieden, das Foto, dessen Hersteller sich nicht ermitteln ließ, unter der Lizenz CC-BY-SA zu veröffentlichen, weil es sich "in der Pflicht sieht, auch Zeugnisse von Kulturschaffenden aus der ersten Hälfte des 20. Jahrhunderts einem breiteren Kreis der Öffentlichkeit zugänglich zu machen und insbesondere gemäß den Maßgaben des [extern] § 1 des Bundesarchivgesetzes 'nutzbar zu machen'". Auf die Frage, wie denn ein unbekannter Fotograf Nutzungsrechte an das Bundesarchiv übertragen haben kann, antwortet man, dass es sich beim "Bild 146-2005-0119" um den Scan des im Archiv vorliegenden Original-Glasnegativs handeln würde. Darin sehen die Koblenzer eine ausreichende Grundlage für eine "archivische Nutzung", wozu sie auch eine Veröffentlichung des Bildes rechnen. The Bundesarchiv only owns a copy and do not own the copyright on this work. --Kragenfaultier (talk) 13:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- As promised yesterday here the translation of Kragenfaultier´s citation: Not until several reminder letters were sent it was answered that the Bundesarchiv "doesn´t assume" that the photography is in the public domain. "Rather", according to the agency, was "the portrait a "professional work and hence a photographic work that is copyrighted". The Bundesarchiv had decided to publish the photo, whose author couldn´t been identified, under the license CC-BY-SA, because it [the Bundesarchiv] feels constrained to make also evidence of persons engaged in the cultural sector from the first half of the 20. century accessible to a wider circle of the public and particularly to 'harness' it per § 1 of the Bundesarchiv law." To the question, how an unknown photographer could have confered rights of use to the Bundesarchiv, was answered that the "image 146-2005-0119" would be a scan of an original wet collodion plate available in the archiv. Therein they see a sufficient basis for an "archival usage" to which they also count a publication.
- In short, as it was already said several times in this discussion, they only scanned the originaly and now think that they can do with the scan what they want. But in fact they can´t, because according to German law, a copy of a two-dimensional work is not copyrightable (this is also the Foundation´s official point of view, see Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag). An because the author is unkown none could have transfered rights of use to the Bundesarchiv. Thus this is a copyright violation. Chaddy (talk) 19:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep The given statement is probably true for a big number of images from the bundesarchiv. They do not *own* the copyright on any of their images, but they keep the originals and they made the confession that they are legally allowed to upload their pictures to commons (according to german law, a company cannot own copyright, only people can. But a company can have all neccessary rights on the given images). We can assume that whatever they uploaded can be used under CC-BY-SA and its their responsibility if someone will later claim (and proove!) copyright on it. --PaterMcFly (talk) 15:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Addition: The article does not say that using or publishing the image is wrong, it only says it is not without risk. But as said, that is probably true for a lot of these bundesarchiv images and they agreed to take the risk (there was some discussion about this before, is probably part of the agreement between the bundesarchiv and wikimedia). --PaterMcFly (talk) 15:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- They do not have the copyright, their statement is - in short. We own a copy, we have the right to published it under the cc-licence. It's just own scan, not own work. Kragenfaultier (talk) 06:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- That is as valid legal argument as any presented by an organization responsible for disseminating free content (and the commons is made up of hundreds of thousands of images from such sources). The argument has not yet been tested by any lawsuit against the Bundesarchiv, unless you can offer some case law pointing to the contrary. ˉanetode╦╩ 00:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- That doesn't mean the pictures can be kept. --rtc (talk) 10:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- That is as valid legal argument as any presented by an organization responsible for disseminating free content (and the commons is made up of hundreds of thousands of images from such sources). The argument has not yet been tested by any lawsuit against the Bundesarchiv, unless you can offer some case law pointing to the contrary. ˉanetode╦╩ 00:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- They do not have the copyright, their statement is - in short. We own a copy, we have the right to published it under the cc-licence. It's just own scan, not own work. Kragenfaultier (talk) 06:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- Addition: The article does not say that using or publishing the image is wrong, it only says it is not without risk. But as said, that is probably true for a lot of these bundesarchiv images and they agreed to take the risk (there was some discussion about this before, is probably part of the agreement between the bundesarchiv and wikimedia). --PaterMcFly (talk) 15:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep The Bundesachiv owns the original glass negative of the 1932 photo; photographer unknown. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment What about a change of license to PD-EU-Anonymous? -- Herby (Vienna) (talk) 14:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Kragenfaultier is essentially correct. Bundesarchiv has no copyright and no other rights on their pictures. Their claim that they have released them under CC-BY-SA is ridiculous and has no legal basis whatsoever. --rtc (talk) 20:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: Does the Bundesarchiv have any special right under German law as an archives, library or repository to reproduce copyrighted images for archival purposes, and can it license such a right to other persons? — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 21:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- Even if it had such a right, which I assume it doesn't have, it wouldn't subsume CC-BY-SA or any other free license. --rtc (talk) 21:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- No, such a right does not exist (an exeption are official works as for example official coat of arms or legal texts but this has no matter to the images from the Bundesarchiv). Also the Bundesarchiv has to observe the German copyright law.
- Delete because the Bundesarchiv does not own the right to publish this work.
- To all keep voters: Please read the cited Telepolis article (if someone can´t understand German I could translate the citation tomorrow) then you understand how the Bundesarchiv thinks. This is nothing else than copyfraud. Chaddy (talk) 21:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- My German is not good enough to understand that article properly and GoogleTranslate produces the usual laughable "gobbledegook" which makes no sense whatever. Please translate, if you have the time. I really think though that the correct interpretation of the legal situation is a question for the Foundation's lawyers and not us. Anatiomaros (talk) 22:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep: Are you seriously suggesting we should delete about 80,000 images? I suggest contacting Wikimedia Germany for their opinion. As far as I can see from this wording - "These images are licensed Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 Germany License (CC-BY-SA). Wikimedia Germany and the Federal Archives have signed a cooperation agreement that, among other things, asserts that the Federal Archives owns sufficient rights to be able to grant this kind of license." (my italics) - the onus in the unlikely event of any future legal action pertaining to individual image[s] would fall on the Bundesarchiv and not ourselves: we have accepted their assertion in good faith. Anatiomaros (talk) 21:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- Only the mere number of affected images may not hinder us from deleting them if necessary...
- And with due respect for your good faith but we may not break the law (by keeping consciously thousands of copyright violations we or rather the foundation as operator are at least participated). Chaddy (talk) 21:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- Actually I took the liberty of using "we", not "I". I think we need a legal opinion on this from Foundation lawyers and Wikimedia Germany, who are the party in the agreement. We are not lawyers. This could affect 80,000 images and should be carefully considered by people with the competence to understand where this puts us. Respectfully, Anatiomaros (talk) 22:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, seriously suggesting that. You cannot make contracts that cause damage to third parties. I.e. you cannot make a contract with someone else, resulting in the copyright holder's position to be weakened, for example by giving you a supposed defense of "good faith use" and thus causing the copyright holder to lose his ability to sue you. Such "tricks" to circumvent copyright do not work. A license cannot be acquired in good faith. It's your own obligation to make sure that a license is valid. In this case we even know that they are invalid, because the Bundesarchiv has openly admitted it. --rtc (talk) 21:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: I agree that Wikimedia Germany's legal counsel should be requested to weigh in on this issue. Will a German-speaking user please get in touch with him or her and ask that he or she join this discussion? — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 09:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Keep. The Bundesarchiv licensed this image. That's it. Wether it obtained the rights correctly or not is not our problem. The owner of the rights could hold responsible the Bundesarchiv but Kragenfaultier's believing which entirely is based on the telepolis article – not a reliable source in my opinion – do not state any specific violation of a specific person (whose belongings and right, if they would have no childs or other descendants or heirs, would be owned by the State of Germany anyway, who owns the Bundesarchiv). The rfd is based purely on speculation. --88.102.101.245 22:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- "The owner of the rights could hold responsible the Bundesarchiv" That's wrong. Please see what I wrote just above. You cannot make contracts that cause damage to third parties. "Kragenfaultier's believing which entirely is based on the telepolis article – not a reliable source in my opinion" The article quotes very clear statements made by the Bundesarchiv itself. Do you want to say that it is lying about the Bundesarchiv having made this statement? Please get real. --rtc (talk) 22:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Comment Strong disagree with the rational presented by PaterMcFly and 88.102.101.245 above. Only the copyright holder can grant a license. For some works the BArch is in my opinion clearly not the copyright holder but they assume ownership based on the fact that they own the negatives or that the whole content was transfered to them by someone else (e.g. agencies). It doesnt matter if they can be held responsible and so Commons has nothing to lose, Commons:What Commons is not#Commons is not concerned about copyright holders not caring (and COM:PRP). However, I also strongly disagree with voices here that they own no rights on their images at all as rtc wrote above - maybe the plural was a mistake or I understand it wrong? - for most collections they own the rights or the exclusive rights where granted by the copyright holders. And, disagree day today, tagging the file with PD-EU-Anonymous is also not ok as no research was done: that exactly is the bad of the BArch, they do great with making content available, but they do bad with not accessing the legal status of much of their files. Commons is better. --Martin H. (talk) 22:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment On their site, the Bundesarchiv say that the provenance of the negative collection is Polyphot Presse-Illustration in Vienna. How and when did this collection end up in Germany? If it was because of Arisierung or something like that, there may be a problem. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- A search on "Polyphot" on bundesarchiv pictures gave 9 hits.
- They may have the whole collection of Polyphot Presse-Illustration in Vienna, but i find it unlikely. One of the pictures is
- Bild 146-2009-0113, Original title: Der bekannte Kunstmaler Prof. Baluschek feiert am 9. Mai seinen 60. Geburtstag. Copyright by Polyphot Presse-Illustration Wien. IV., Mühlgasse 13. Delete or PD?(and de.wikipedia Erich_Raeder.jpg)
- Polyphot Presse-Illustration could be a press agency which buys negatives\glass _and_ full copyright from photographers. In that case the company "Polyphot Presse-Illustration Wien" will be the legal copyrightholder. If they own the copyright (and publish the image?) in 1932 it could be that this image is in PD 1932 + 70years = 2002 = In public domain. I dont know Austrian copyright-law. (This could wery well be a Public Domain image from a foreign country published by Bundesarcive under CC-BY.)
- The painter Hans Baluschek lost his opportunity to work in germany, like Kurt Weill. A whole segment of society was erased. Wether leftish, jewish, whatever. It is not unlikely that the missing photographer is in that number. I also understand modern Germany's need for contact with their own past. Andrez1 (talk) 20:15, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed, this is the only Polyphot image of which the Bundesarchiv has the glass negative. Strange. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:04, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- Among Agency:
- 1 "Polyphot Presse-Illustration, Wien" Kurt Weill Bild 146-2005-0119 Old signature: Bild 147-0138
- 1 "Polyphot Presse Illustration, Wien" Bild 146-1977-086-29A (Die Not der Wolgadeutschen)
- 3 "Polyphot, Wien" Bild 146-1976-076-25A, Bild 146-1978-042-11, Bild 146-1987-080-30A (Admiral Erich Raeder)
- 4 "Polyphot" Bild 146-2006-0063, Bild 146-2006-0065, Bild 146-2006-0064, Bild 146-2009-0113 (Hans Baluschek)
- If those images arrived at Bundesarchiv from one source, it would also be strange to use 4 different "Agency"'s if their provenance ought to be 1 source. --Andrez1 (talk) 22:06, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- and given "Inventory: Bild 146 - Sammlung von Repro-Negativen" it is only Bild 146-2006-0063, Bild 146-2006-0065, Bild 146-2006-0064, (Bruno Petzold) witch seems to be prosessed in repro at the same time. --Andrez1 (talk) 22:55, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- Or they might have the whole collection from polyphot and performing scan on demand. Hard to tell.--Andrez1 (talk) 23:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- "Original title: KS/A 143 94 Kurt Weill in Wien" from "Agency:" "Polyphot Presse-Illustration, Wien" so far points to a Austrian company handling (and is _in_ _posession_ _of_ _the_ _copyright_ to be able to do so?) an image by unkown photographer (Austrian?) wich depicts the (then) German composer Kurt Weill. (It is Austrian legislation wich have to be taken into account.)
- If that companys assets where transferede to Germany trough Anschluss, Arisierung, or given as gift or bought: It does not change anything: the copyright has expired, the photo of "Kurt Weill in Wien", "Bundesarchiv Bild 146-2005-0119, Kurt Weill.jpg", is in Public Domain and should be given a PD-OLD-70.
- Bundesarchive hold the nessesary information on how they have acquired the glass negative, and how they have acquired the copyright to the photograph: and need to give that information. They have not done so sofar.
- I belive a (valid?) copyright-claim can only be made by the unknown photograper(s inheritants). And not Bundesarchive. So they have no right to issue an CC-BY. It is not valid. --Andrez1 (talk) 01:34, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep If Bundesarchiv claims they can release those images under CC license, that is good enough for me. That is probably better assurance than many other CC licensed files. --Jarekt (talk) 12:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- The Bundesarchiv does not claim they can release those images under CC license. They merely said they have decided to do so for pragmatic reasons, and to do that despite the fact that the picture "is of professional quality, and thus a photographic work, which is clearly protected by copyright". Bundesarchiv does not guarantee the validity of the license, that's the problem of people using it. --rtc (talk) 12:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Deleting all 80K plus images, as rtc seems to pushing for, would be a massive overkill - especially given than the publicity that the donation received at the time. It would make the flap over Jimbo's porn purge look like small potatoes. And remember, we are dealing with a reputable organization - the Bundesarchiv is a branch of the German government. I've listed this DR under the Commons:Bundesarchiv/Questionable licensing section, so hopefully someone can contact the archive to see if this image was passed along by accident. Tabercil (talk) 17:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- Firstly it would be enough to look over all images with an unkown author... Most of them might be a copyright violation comparable to this case. Chaddy (talk) 19:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep While the legal argument presented above is compelling, all files on Wikimedia servers must merely show proof of licensing by a trusted authority, not to put that authority itself on trial. If there's a concern over legality of tens of thousands of images, then COM:DEL is a poor forum for substantive debate. Unless any of the delete voters are familiar with the whole body of German statutes and are willing to participate in a professional capacity, leave the legal wrangling to experienced wikimedia legal counsel. To be clear: copyfraud is just one approach to advocating intellectual property rights between corporations. ˉanetode╦╩ 00:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- Furthermore, assuming that Herr Mühlbauer wrote this article for business reasons related to Kunsthandel Mühlbauer, we find ourselves in the midst of legal manipulations which are wholly unrelated to the Commons project. ˉanetode╦╩ 00:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- Merely because the reason for deletion was coming from this different context (the "legal manipulations or whatever) doesn't mean it's invalid. Your pledge for authoritarianism above, while admittedly pretty common, is as false as it can get. Actually, the contrary is true: "Proofs" of licensing, especially if given by a trusted authority, must be questioned in the most stringent way and put on trial again and again. --rtc (talk) 10:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- So you're saying that we cannot treat any license as being valid, irregardless of who issued it? Paranoid much? Tabercil (talk) 11:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- Only using justificationism one could make such an inference. I regard justificationism as false. I am saying that we cannot treat any license as justified, regardless of who issued it. I am not saying (but a justificationist would obviously infer that from the previous sentence) that we must thus regard it as invalid. It is perfectly rational to question a license even if we assume that it is valid. If you call this paranoia, you may do so. For me it's merely an attempt to find and delete pictures that have no valid license. --rtc (talk) 16:24, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- So you're saying that we cannot treat any license as being valid, irregardless of who issued it? Paranoid much? Tabercil (talk) 11:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- Merely because the reason for deletion was coming from this different context (the "legal manipulations or whatever) doesn't mean it's invalid. Your pledge for authoritarianism above, while admittedly pretty common, is as false as it can get. Actually, the contrary is true: "Proofs" of licensing, especially if given by a trusted authority, must be questioned in the most stringent way and put on trial again and again. --rtc (talk) 10:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- Furthermore, assuming that Herr Mühlbauer wrote this article for business reasons related to Kunsthandel Mühlbauer, we find ourselves in the midst of legal manipulations which are wholly unrelated to the Commons project. ˉanetode╦╩ 00:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- Well, isms are something else entirely. I can label your argument as copyright paranoia activism, but that would get us no further than your assumption of authoritarianism on my behalf (which, by the way, has many unsavory connotations that I reject outright). The Commons can and does provide images without any sort of legal guarantee of license precisely because it is up to the end user to determine the relevant statutes in their country. All we can say is that the Bundesarchiv claims the ability to license these images and that we are reproducing them here for convenience. And please let's not get bogged down in semantics or legal approaches here, saying that someone is a justificationist only reflects your reading of their intentions. ˉanetode╦╩ 05:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- "The Commons can and does provide images without any sort of legal guarantee of license precisely because it is up to the end user to determine the relevant statutes in their country." That's irrelevant. What is relevant is that copyright violations have to be deleted. "All we can say is that the Bundesarchiv claims the ability to license these images" It does not claim that; the opposite is true. It acknowledges that the picture is copyrighted and that it thus has no rights to license them as CC-BY-SA. But it said it did so anyway, because of pragmatic reasons: As an archive, they feel obliged to make the pictures more widely accessible, even if doing that involves using a bogus license. I am not saying someone is a justificationist because of anybody's intentions, but because of the structure of the argument he's using. You are giving authoritarian justifications for not deleting the picture. You are saying "please accept what the Bundesarchive as an authority and do not criticize its claims". That's authoritarianism, used in a justificationist argument. --rtc (talk) 10:50, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I understand your argument and the point you are making. The argument provided in the above links is persuasive, there's no doubt about that. What I'm saying is simply that there may be a better way to go about dealing with Bundesarchiv files, kind of like Flickr uploads are currently handled. When I run across a copyright violation posted under a free license on flickr, I don't throw my hands up and say "we must all bow down to that glorious organization!" However annoying it is to process images with false licenses, I think we should first establish a systematic process to review files from Bundesarchive. This process can't be established by the random throwing of darts on deletion discussions, it must involve the greater community of experienced and knowledgeable users and, especially, solid advice from a legal professional. The reason why I don't like what I say being labeled authoritarian is because I think that the issue is more complex than is let on in this discussion. ˉanetode╦╩ 23:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
- Well, isms are something else entirely. I can label your argument as copyright paranoia activism, but that would get us no further than your assumption of authoritarianism on my behalf (which, by the way, has many unsavory connotations that I reject outright). The Commons can and does provide images without any sort of legal guarantee of license precisely because it is up to the end user to determine the relevant statutes in their country. All we can say is that the Bundesarchiv claims the ability to license these images and that we are reproducing them here for convenience. And please let's not get bogged down in semantics or legal approaches here, saying that someone is a justificationist only reflects your reading of their intentions. ˉanetode╦╩ 05:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete We cannot support tagging pictures with CC which the Bundesarchiv doesn't own. The argumentation of the archive is ridiculous in the light of German copyright law --FrobenChristoph (talk) 00:40, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- keep: The contracts with the Bundesarchiv include an indemnity clause. I do not support any second guessing unless the Bundesarchiv themselves approach us with the confession that they made a mistake and wish to have individual images deleted. --h-stt !? 06:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- They will compensate any damage to third parties who confide in the copyright oh Bundesarchiv? Realy? Kragenfaultier (talk) 07:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- The Bundesarchiv has made the confession that the picture is copyrighted. We are bound to our commons policies, which dictate that copyright violations have to be deleted. We are not bound to the supposed contract that neither we as commons editors and users of these pictures in wikipedia nor any of the actual copyright holders has signed. Thus, your argument is nonsense. --rtc (talk) 10:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- Mayhaps deletion of the one image, if it is proven to be a copyvio, and it appears that we do have someone contacting the Bundesarchiv to clarify. But wholesale deletion as you're advocating is in no way warranted at this point. Tabercil (talk) 11:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- The fact that the image is copyrighted does not make publishing under a CC-BY license necessarily a copyright violation (even explicit publication under a free license doesn't actually remove copyright). An archive or agency can still have the rights do publish the images as they want, because usually the've payed for them. This doesn't necessarily apply to this specific image, but for most stuff the bundesarchiv released. Besides: How would wikimedia be responsible or sueable for publishing images in good faith? For this particular case: The bundesarchiv owns the original image, the photographer is unknown. Chances that somebody can proove to still have rights on this image are marginably small. --PaterMcFly (talk) 20:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- Alleged probablies for being sued in practice are irrelevant. What matters is the copyright status. --rtc (talk) 10:50, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
- This particular image would go as {{PD-anon-70}} IMO anyway, because if the barch doesn't know the copyright holder, we should be safe to assume he's really unknown. Even if we're wrong: What happens if it really was a copyvio? Some 10, maybe 100 Euro Schadenersatz? I'm not up to decide on this, but I'd suppose WMF or Barch do know about this risk and are accepting it. --PaterMcFly (talk) 12:53, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
- Alleged probablies for being sued in practice are irrelevant. What matters is the copyright status. --rtc (talk) 10:50, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
- The Bundesarchive have an image from polyphot Bild 146-2009-0113, (se above for more detail) "Copyright by Polyphot Presse-Illustration Wien" That points to polyphot as once copyrightholder, (maybe even for the Kurt Weill image) they may have easily persuaded photographers to give avay their imaterial rights like right to attribution. They may have company photographers to do the work, and company gets the copyrights (like us-gov).
- That i belive is how matters were solved then, when anyone bought or inherited a photographic company, they got control of the glass, and made copies in the company name. The actual photographer was not a matter of consern. like this, Emilie, her nephew or his son. And whoever at work that day. Work period 1852-1938 The last living Emil Bieber died in 1962, but i belive images have to be treated as published by company, if published as company. If not, images dating 1852 (photographer Emilie Bieber (1810-1884)) could be claimed under copyrigt of the inheritants of photographer Emil Bieber(1878-1962).
- (That is the rationale of museums, archives, so on; if we posess the glass, we have all rights, if we posess a copy, we got the copyright...from here to eternity.)
- Below there is an "Mathias Schindler" "84.191.169.190" who have asked the Bundesarchive for a chain of right-transferes. If they dont give it, i belive {{PD-old-70}} will do. --Andrez1 (talk) 14:13, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
- Additionally, I contacted someone else on this topic and they indicated they would be contacting one of the users who was apparently part of the team that negotiated the deal. I mean, we've heard the prosecution (or should it be the persecution?) on this item; I'm waiting for someone from the defense (i.e., the Bundesarchiv) to chime in before adding my vote. Tabercil (talk) 01:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Below there is an "Mathias Schindler" "84.191.169.190" who have asked the Bundesarchive for a chain of right-transferes. If they dont give it, i belive {{PD-old-70}} will do. --Andrez1 (talk) 14:13, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
- I belive the mentionede "Mathias Schindler" is the user which negotiated the deal with Bundesarchive. Mathias_Schindler Here for a lenghty speach. --Andrez1 (talk) 19:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete ist es Frechheit oder Schlamperei? --Ralf Roletschek (talk) 10:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete That's clear copyvio. The archive doesn't have the right to publish the images under a free licence as long as there is no regular permission by the photographer. As they even do not claim to have such a permission the images have to be deleted. --Martina Nolte (talk) 11:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Ich habe das Bundesarchiv vorgestern gefragt, ob die Zitate im tp-Artikel so stimmen und ob es zu diesem Bild weitere Informationen gibt, insbesondere eine Kette der Rechteübertragungen. Ich denke, dass dies der erste Schritt in der Klärung sein sollte, ob das Bild richtigerweise unter cc-by-sa veröffentlicht werden konnte. Mathias Schindler -- 84.191.169.190 11:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete If they own a copy, the glass negative, or even posess the original photons involved in the prosess; they do not posses the copyright, so they have no right to issue an cc-by license. Whatever deal cut with wikimedia\cc\Bundesarchive is violating the rights of copyright-holders. (and me. I the public. Where there is a Public Domain image.) in the blogs.. german. Andrez1 (talk) 14:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- Why do you propose to delete it? Just change the license to {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} if you think that the CC license is wrong. But I suppose that the archive can claim publication rights. I find all these protests here a bit difficult to understand. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bundesarchiv Bild 146-1971-041-10, Paris, der Kollaboration beschuldigte Französinnen.jpg for an orphaned image that was more doubtful than this one. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- The information given sofar does not indicate that Bundesarchiove have the right to issue an cc-by on the image. I am willing to change my vote if they add information which support their claim on copyright on the material. To not add such information should not be an option, it would just send the signal that silence and time will solve any problem.
- The {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} is an option, but what to use relies on what information Bundesarcive gives. Given that this glass negative originated from a press agency in Vienna, it could be a newspaper in 1932 with this image containing information on original photographer. But i dont belive so. Bundesarchive hold the key to that information as they seems to have at least 9 images from the agency, maybe the whole collection. Bundesarchiv's input is needed.
- Unless disputed, i have to belive this is true: (User:PaterMcFly) (according to german law, a company cannot own copyright, only people can. But a company can have all neccessary rights on the given images).
- In this matter the glass negative of Kurt Weill is the work of an unknown author. If that photographer never had the copyright to his own material (because he\she was an emploi of Polyphot Presse-Illustration, Wien) or sold the rights to the company, which in next turn assumed they have all the rights needed to publish without photograpers name.
- If and when (this becomes all speculative, Bundesarchiv input is needed) the Polyphot company asset, the image and glass-negative -collection was transfered to Bundesarchive (under what circumstanse?) they might have got the impression that as long as they own the collection, they have all rights.
- There is a lot of law to consider, and to little information given. According to Austrian law of 1932, can a company own copyright? all, inkluding imaterial rights? Austrian law of today? Is the German law which prohibit company ownership of copyright, a law which separate material(?) copyright, like exclusive right to produce copies (and does Bundesarchive have that? from what source?) and imaterial rights like right to attribution? According to austrian - german - EU -law, if all rights to a photograph, inclusive imaterial rights, is hold by a company, as an asset which can be transfered to, lets say Bundesarchive, when does that copyright expire? If that image was sent from the agency to a news-paper, is that published? Or is first date of publication the scan-date in 2005? + 70 years? copyright expires in 2075? Can copyright be renewed that way 73 years after exposure of glass to light?
- From norwegian law (does not aplie here) the copyright would have expired death of author +70 year. If the copyright was hold by company (as i belive is the cause with images sourcing from polyphot) it would expire publication +70 year. (and some mumbo-jumbo like establishing copyright based on published date on previous unpublished material)
- On your - But I suppose that the archive can claim publication rights. I find all these protests here a bit difficult to understand. - I do not argue that Bundesarchive does not have the right to publish the image. They have the same rights to publish an PD-image as I and you and wikimedia. What i doubt is that they have the copyright on the image. So they have no right to issue an cc-by. I have adressed much of the same issue here National_Library_of_Norway.2C_CC-by_on_Public_Domain_images_on_flickr. --Andrez1 (talk) 15:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- I meant en:Publication rights. If this portrait was previously unpublished (unlikely), the Bundesarchiv may be entitled to exploit its rights by requiring attribution. Possession of the negative gives them a lot of leverage. Anyway, the Bundesarchiv behaves saintly compared to photo agencies like Bettman Corbis. Go put some pressure on them, guys. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Agree There is a (unlikely) en:Publication right all countries of the European Union with a 25-year term starting at the publication of the previously unpublished work. - if the Kurt Weill image first where published in 2005. Copyrighted until 2030. If so the Bundesarchive could hold the right to issue an cc-by. Bundesarchive input is needed.--Andrez1 (talk) 16:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- I meant en:Publication rights. If this portrait was previously unpublished (unlikely), the Bundesarchiv may be entitled to exploit its rights by requiring attribution. Possession of the negative gives them a lot of leverage. Anyway, the Bundesarchiv behaves saintly compared to photo agencies like Bettman Corbis. Go put some pressure on them, guys. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Can Bundesarchiv have the rights to an image if author is unknown? I think yes. If I take a photo and go to Bundesarchiv and say "Here is a photo I have taken. I hereby give you all rights to this image." then they have the right to this photo even if they do not know my name or if they have written it down and have lost it. If they have the negatives I find it likely that they have been granted the rights to the photo.
- As I understand the comments they do not say "We have the rights" or "We do not have the rights" they say something like "There is a risk we do not have the rights". Is that the right understanding?
- As for "unknown author" it is hard to prove. I'm sure Bundesarchiv has tried to find the author. The issue here is how much work we should demand before we accept that author is unknown. If we do not trust institutions like Bundesarchiv then what about images in Category:Files from Flickr's 'The Commons'? --MGA73 (talk) 21:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Kept, per Bundesarchiv: asserts that the Federal Archives owns sufficient rights to be able to grant this kind of license. Kameraad Pjotr 19:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
unused, unintelligible graphic, resolution too low to read adequately --Santosga (talk) 19:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Delete unusable without (missing) context Cholo Aleman (talk) 06:40, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Perfectly intelligible. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Comment hm, for a physicist it is more or less readable, comparison of different fiber optics Cholo Aleman (talk) 12:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Krinkle: Missing essential information: source and/or license
Heydar Aliyev was born in 1923. His age at this photo is obviously bigger than 17. Сonsequently, this image was made after 1940. We can't use PD-art or PD-old for this photo. Dinamik (talk) 06:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. -- IANEZZ (talk) 07:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Hello I could not see the date like 1940 in the photo. Deletion of photo will effect many articles. Consider it--Bakuemil (talk) 10:35, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Per nom. Martin H. (talk) 01:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
We can't use PD-old for photo, which was made in 1945. Dinamik (talk) 06:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom: PD-old and Date: 1945 doesn't compute. --Guandalug (talk) 08:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 02:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
We can't use PD-art for modern image of 3D-object. Dinamik (talk) 06:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Violation of Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag. --Martin H. (talk) 02:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
We can't use PD-old for 1943 year image. Dinamik (talk) 06:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete 108 year old Boris Yefimov died in 2008. Not free until 2079. Trycatch (talk) 09:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Per Trycatch. --Martin H. (talk) 02:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
There is no proof that this image can be published under a "Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported"-licence. The source, a pdf file of the newspaper (?) "Večernje novosti" gives no confirmation. What is meant by the statement "free source edition" remains unclear. High Contrast (talk) 17:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Source (newspaper) is not published under a free license (also the website is not). +I remember that I deletet this upload a while ago already... --Martin H. (talk) 03:12, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
there is no indication, this might be "free software". abf «Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?»ABF is back to cabale! 15:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment It is an aerial photograph of a city, probably Bitonto, Italy. The license is not appropriate, but the question is, did User:JuveFG96 actually take the photo, as is implied -- or is it lifted from someplace? TinEye does not have it. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, bogus licensing, no real source. Kameraad Pjotr 17:43, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
We can't use PD-selft for image, which was made on the second part of XXth century (вторая половина XX века) by the uknown soviet photographer. Dinamik (talk) 06:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, invalid licence tag, made by an unknown photographer. Kameraad Pjotr 13:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
boyco who ?? (in Germany famous saying: "Horst wer??") - nonexisting kings are: out of scope :) Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, out of project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 12:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Unlikely the uploader created the aerial photograph this map is based on. No source mentioned. -- Deadstar (msg) 14:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom. –Tryphon☂ 15:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 22:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Unusable, low quality map (although not fictional - this is a map of New Silver Beach) -- Deadstar (msg) 14:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Per nom. --Martin H. (talk) 22:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
converted by me to DR from a speedy by Körnerbrötchen for "it's a copyrighted picture, see http://www.guysong.dds.nl/bioguy.html (maybe just colored or taken from elsewhere?)" --Túrelio (talk) 21:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
It's a long time I uploaded a picture for use at Wikipedia. I do understand and respect the copyright-thing. But, yeah, how to proof this pic is made by me? As I wrote earlier: please see the 'properties' of the jpeg at http://www.guysong.dds.nl/bioguy.html. It's the same portrait (that one changed into black and white and combined with a title). I, Martin van der Veen, was the webdesigner of that site, and also took the photographs. Hope this will help. If not, I'm interested in a suggestion how to proof this better. Thanks & regards! Martin aka 'Weeronica' Weeronica (talk) 12:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep I'm inclined to believe him -- the image here is both in color and with a lot more pixels than the cited image. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep If it's a copy, it's the other way 'round. You can see a shadow of the nech and the shoulders in the commons - picture, something you cannot see on that biography - page. So, I'm strongly inclined to believe Weeronica. --Guandalug (talk) 08:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Jim and Guandalug, you're both right. Looking forward to the opinion of Körnerbrötchen on this. Weeronica (talk)
.jpg){kind=link}
unused image of a not notable band - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 21:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Self promotion.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 01:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Pruneautalk 13:57, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
there is a much better image File:Kestenberg with parents 1890.jpg, it is not quite a duplicate, but this one here is unusable, tiny and blurred. Herzi Pinki (talk) 21:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete delete, unused, appears to be a useless thumbnail.--Sandahl (talk) 22:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Pruneautalk 13:57, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
EXIF data has info on the Common Ground Project, and gives as Author:Charly Kurz / Lookat. This is likely not self made. -- Deadstar (msg) 11:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Other files by the same uploader:
- File:Cgcmailboxes.jpg has no source, no EXIF data
- File:101004-DD North elevation.jpg marked as copyvio as http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119876732563552709.html states this credited by Polshek Partnership LLP
- File:Times Square Lobby1.jpg looks as though it was grabbed from a website
- File:Ck usa commonground 14 l.jpg / derivative File:Prince George Hotel exterior.jpg and File:Ck usa commonground 17 l.jpg have EXIF data with info on the Common Ground Project, and gives as Author:Charly Kurz / Lookat.
- File:060223 cmngrnd 045.jpg has EXIF data stating "Todd France copyright 2004"
- File:SantaMonica-interviewer.jpg has no EXIF data
- File:Windham House Facade.jpg has no EXIF data
- File:Brook Avenue Rendering.jpg looks like an architectural rendering of a building, unlikely to be self made.
The below files could be self made/OK, but have a few different cameras:
- File:CG Logo White Background Blue and Green.jpg - Licensed as "self", but I changed it to PD-Textlogo as this is not self made & qualifies as PD-textlogo.
- File:The Christopher facade.JPG (Kodak camera)
- File:Montrose Facade Cropped.jpg (Kodak camera)
- File:SkidRow-view.jpg (Canon camera)
- File:Times Square Apartment1.jpg (Sony camera)
-- Deadstar (msg) 12:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Just as a note, many of these images are used in the en.wikipedia article on Common Ground, which I extensively redid, both textually, to bring it into compliance with NPOV, and visually, for a better layout. If all these images are removed, that article would need to be redone again pretty much from scratch. Obviously, that's not an argument for keeping them -- if they're in violation, their usage is irrelevant -- but it would be nice to know if they're going to be axed. Some of them (the ones located in NYC) I can replace with new images of my own, and I'll get on the stick and do that if I know they're going to go. Any advance notice would be appreciated. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no source (or a bogus source), likely to be copyright violations. Kameraad Pjotr 18:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Copyright notice watermarked at the image is not GFDL. And no indication that the uploader is the photographer in 1910. GeorgHH • talk 16:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete If we believe that the image was taken in 1910 (it certainly looks like it) then the watermark copyright notice is irrelevant. The only question is, does {{PD-Chile}} apply? That is true only if the work was published before 1940 and the photographer is unknown. If the photographer is known or it was not published before 1940, then it is in copyright. (It's 120 years for unknown author in Chile.) If this were a really great image, I might be inclined to work a little harder for it, but it's also close to out of scope for quality. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Copyright violation. Diego Grez return fire 18:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, likely copyright violation. Kameraad Pjotr 18:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
File indicates this was published before 1923, however there's no source information which is needed for confirmation. --Thirdship (talk) 03:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment It was very probably shot before 1937 and I think so because on 1937 Madame definitively retired from the show-biz. So no reason to pose gaga after that year. If it's true that it was a promotional picture, so the authorship is not relevant and the author pretty unknown or anonymous, why not to apply {{PD-US-not renewed}} or {{PD-US-no notice}}?--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 04:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- weak Delete I'm inclined to believe it is after 1923, as her film career didn't really take off until then, so it's not PD-old. I agree that it's probably PD-not renewed, but do we guess? I think the answer is "no". Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no evidence that it's {{PD-US-not renewed}}. Kameraad Pjotr 20:30, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Copyvio from http://band.arts.usf.edu/wp-content/images/latinshow.jpg -- Deadstar (msg) 15:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- I might be wrong here, but user BACsop2000 (talk · contribs) has uploaded a fair few images relating to en:University of South Florida Herd of Thunder, all of which he proclaims to be own work, but none of which have any EXIF data. If all are taken from the above website, they might be work of different people as http://band.arts.usf.edu/2010/04/16/we-need-your-pictures/ asks for people to submit their own. The slide show it refers to seems to be out of business at the moment. -- Deadstar (msg) 15:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, clear copyright violation. Kameraad Pjotr 19:50, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
We can't use PD-old PD-self for 2005 year copyrighted images. Dinamik (talk) 06:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Where do you see a pd-old claim here? It doesn't look like simply copied from your source either, because the images here have no watermarks. --PaterMcFly (talk) 10:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Where do you see a pd-old claim here? - excuse me: it was my technical mistake; It doesn't look like simply copied from your source either, because the images here have no watermarks - the images have watermarks - please, look at them attentively. Dinamik (talk) 17:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Yes. It has watermarks. Right on the batons, in grey. The watermarks seems to be written in cyrillic alphabet. And there is the number 2005.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 23:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Agreed. Very subtle, but clearly there. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, copyright violation. Kameraad Pjotr 20:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Logo of a Greek political party (http://www.eek.gr). Uploader claims "doesn't need a special license, it is a publicly open to use logo of a political party". However, this logo on en: wiki for a greek political party has a fair use rationale on it. -- Deadstar (msg) 13:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Logo for the "Befalsskolen for Infanteriet i Sør-Norge" a training school, in operation between 1945 and 1994. This is not PD-Old. -- Deadstar (msg) 14:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
"Ms. Huntington was 94 when she completed the statue for its 1969 dedication at the park." (http://putnampark.org/visit-putnam-park.htm) which means that this image qualifies as a derivative of a copyrighted sculpture. -- Deadstar (msg) 15:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete I agree abf «Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?»ABF is back to cabale! 15:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Copyvio. MKFI (talk) 18:56, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Much cleaner version exists: Image:Wafer flats convention_v2.svg --DieBuche (talk) 13:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, in use on several projects. I'll tag it with {{SVG available}}. –Tryphon☂ 13:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept, per Tryphon. Kameraad Pjotr 20:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
File:Ipod sales graph.png, File:Ipod sales.svg, File:iPod sales quarterly.png & File:Ipod sales total.svg
edit
outdated versions of File:TotaliPodsSales 2008Q3.svg --DieBuche (talk) 10:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep at least File:iPod sales quarterly.png, which is in use; I see no compelling reason to delete the other ones either, but it's more debatable. –Tryphon☂ 13:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- weak Keep As a general rule, I'm opposed to deleting time series graphs just because there are more recent versions available -- principally because they may be a book or article such as History of X in the 20th Century for which a graph running to 2000 would be more useful than one running to 2010. With that said, though, it's a little far fetched here, so it's only a very weak keep. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept. DieBuche (talk) 16:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
File:裸婦(日の出橋).jpg etc.
edit.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
- File:裸婦(日の出橋).jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:裸婦立像.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
.jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
.jpg&diff=0){kind=link}
.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
.jpg&action=watch){kind=link}
.jpg&action=unwatch){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=purge){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&preload=Commons:Deletion_requests/preload){kind=link}
.jpg&action=delete){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Copyright violation of art.
- Artist:ja:木内克 (Kinouchi Yoshi,1892 - 1977)
- Place:Japan
- Note:Freedom_of_panorama#Japan--KENPEI (talk) 13:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no freedom of panorama in Japan for artworks. Kameraad Pjotr 20:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
File:女(永隆橋).jpg etc.
edit.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
- File:女(永隆橋).jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:微風.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:希望（旭川市４条通８丁目）.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:あい（北海道療育園彫刻の森）.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
.jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
.jpg&diff=0){kind=link}
.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
.jpg&action=watch){kind=link}
.jpg&action=unwatch){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=purge){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&preload=Commons:Deletion_requests/preload){kind=link}
.jpg&action=delete){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Copyright violation of art.
- Artist:ja:笹戸千津子 (Sasado Chizuko,1948-)
- Place:Japan
- Note:Freedom_of_panorama#Japan--KENPEI (talk) 13:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no freedom of panorama in Japan for artworks. Kameraad Pjotr 20:54, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Unknown copyright. No rationale from uploader why this image is under a free license.--Sandahl (talk) 16:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
WTC Sphere
edit
Please see this conclusion of the discussion Commons:Deletion requests/File:Battery Park Sphere.JPG. All images of "The Sphere" are not public and should be deleted. These include:
- File:WTC.sphere.jpg
- File:WTC Sphere.jpg
- File:TheSphere.jpg
- File:FEMA - 4138 - Photograph by Andrea Booher taken on 09-23-2001 in New York.jpg
- File:FEMA - 4060 - Photograph by Michael Rieger taken on 09-21-2001 in New York.jpg
- File:FEMA - 4051 - Photograph by Michael Rieger taken on 09-21-2001 in New York.jpg
- File:FEMA - 4052 - Photograph by Michael Rieger taken on 09-21-2001 in New York.jpg
- File:FEMA - 4048 - Photograph by Michael Rieger taken on 09-21-2001 in New York.jpg
- File:FEMA - 4047 - Photograph by Michael Rieger taken on 09-21-2001 in New York.jpg
- File:FEMA - 4043 - Photograph by Michael Rieger taken on 09-21-2001 in New York.jpg
- File:FEMA - 3922 - Photograph by Andrea Booher taken on 09-16-2001 in New York.jpg
Gryffindor (talk) 20:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Some of the FEMA pictures should count as de minimis. Check individually. -- Herby (Vienna) (talk) 14:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep all of FEMA. All of FEMA images shows not The Sphere, but some uncopyrightable {{PD-trivial}} debris from The Sphere. Additionally, most of depictions of this debris in FEMA photos are clear de minimis. Of course, the first 3 pictures (not FEMA) are different. Trycatch (talk) 20:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete The first three images -- clear copyvio.
- Keep all the FEMA images. I think we're stretching de minimus a little here, but I think it's OK. I disagree strongly that the damaged Sphere is not still under copyright. Cropping most of the FEMA images would be a clear violation. That should probably be noted on their pages. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Nominate first three images separately and the FEMA images together - First of all, procedure was not followed here: there is no notification on the pages themselves (except for File:WTC.sphere.jpg or at least one of the uploader's (my) talk page. Second, it is hard for me to believe that if another artist decided to intentionally create what remains of the sphere that it would be considered a derivative of Fritz Koenig's work. Third, not all parts of the sphere represent equal deviations from the original work. There is a bigger difference in the part of the sphere photographed in File:WTC Sphere.jpg than File:WTC.sphere.jpg, for example.--Jorfer (talk) 21:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Sphere itself seems to be {{PD-US-no notice}} in the first place. [8] A copyrighted work which is damaged is in most cases still copyrighted I would think, but that seems like a moot point here. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Kept those that were de minimis, deleted the others. Kameraad Pjotr 20:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)