Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2012/11/10
 |
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}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_vector.svg){kind=link}
screenshot somewhere from web, low resolution, no EXIF-data Motopark (talk) 13:17, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: and out of scope. Trijnsteltalk 17:15, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio of a copyright cover mik@ni 14:54, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Blatant copyright violation. Martin H. (talk) 17:23, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation. Small file with no EXIF and own work claim is doubtful. I think this file should be deleted as per COM:PRP. Rapsar (talk) 19:04, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: From her. Photographer: צילום: אילן ספירא. Geagea (talk) 04:55, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Same image here, http://hotadultblog.wordpress.com/author/hotadultblog/#jp-carousel-54, with a (C) mark from 2007. Therefore, unlikely "own work" of this 2-uploads-uploader. -- Túrelio (talk) 21:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Obvious copyvio -- even if the non-presence of watermark on our image is a curiousity russavia (talk) 00:26, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Image found on porn sites already from 2007 on[1], i.e. years before upload to Commons. Thereby very unlikely "own work". -- Túrelio (talk) 21:40, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete. Copyvio per nom. INeverCry 21:41, 10 November 2012 (UTC)- Delete. Copyvio per nom. --Herby talk thyme 08:19, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Comment - See also File:Polish Nudist.jpg from the same uploader. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:08, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- Which had been filed for deletion already yesterday: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Polish Nudist.jpg. --Túrelio (talk) 20:37, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Obvious copyvio -- even if the non-presence of watermark on our image is a curiousity russavia (talk) 00:25, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
i want to delete it Kingroyos (talk) 09:24, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept: not valid reason to del INeverCry 03:07, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
infringe copyright of this site http://www.lematinal.com/news/local-news/2495-funerailles-detat-pour-james-burty-david.html Kingroyos (talk) 05:43, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Thank you for your honesty; do not upload further copyright violations in the future or you may be blocked. -- Infrogmation (talk) 15:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
copy vio of getty images... Dudek1337 (talk) 00:29, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio [2] January (talk) 17:48, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
The PD tag only covers the form itself. The text of the complaint begins on page 3 and is not by an employee of the court, but by a private party – copyright presumably owned by one of a) Wendy Evelyn Gilberti, the lawyer, b) iGeneral Counsel, P.C., the law firm, or c) Internet Brands, Inc., the client and plaintiff. There is no indication given that court filings by private parties lose copyright protection or that the documents have been released under a free license. They are covered by rules of public access, but access is not necessarily the same as Public Domain. Philosopher Let us reason together. 20:25, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: When uploading this PDF I tried to follow the examples from other legal filings, but if a legal filing truly isn't a public domain document then I would ask that someone at Wikimedia be notified prior to deleting this PDF since http://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/09/05/wikimedia-foundation-seeks-declaratory-relief-in-response-to-legal-threats-from-internet-brands/ currently links to this PDF and will need to be updated. -- Wrh2 (talk) 21:41, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- Good point. I've e-mailed wmf:User:Kkay, the author of that blog post, advising her of this DR and of the other one. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 01:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- We've moved it to the Foundationwiki and added a fair use claim there. I'll delete it here. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 23:45, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 23:51, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
The PD tag only covers the form itself. The text of the opposition and motion is not by an employee of the court, but by a private party – copyright presumably owned by one of a) Wendy Evelyn Gilberti, the lawyer, b) iGeneral Counsel, P.C., the law firm, or c) Internet Brands, Inc., the client and plaintiff. There is no indication given that court filings by private parties lose copyright protection or that the documents have been released under a free license. They are covered by rules of public access, but access is not necessarily the same as Public Domain. Philosopher Let us reason together. 20:41, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- Concur with this interpretation and believe this file should be deleted from Commons. Thanks, Matthew (WMF) (talk) 19:14, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- We've moved it to Foundation wiki and included a fair use claim there. Deleting from here. :) Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 23:46, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 23:50, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Private persons Ciacho5 (talk) 00:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Private photos of users from Fotopolska.eu Yarl ✉ 19:15, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Private persons Ciacho5 (talk) 00:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Private photos of users from Fotopolska.eu Yarl ✉ 19:14, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Looks like a scan, not like own work. Ymblanter (talk) 00:06, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:28, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Clearly a scan, not own work Ymblanter (talk) 00:07, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:28, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Clearly a scan. not own work Ymblanter (talk) 00:08, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:28, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Clearly a scan. not own work Ymblanter (talk) 00:08, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:28, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Clearly a scan. not own work Ymblanter (talk) 00:09, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:28, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Clearly a scan. not own work Ymblanter (talk) 00:09, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:28, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Clearly a scan. not own work Ymblanter (talk) 00:09, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Clearly a scan. not own work Ymblanter (talk) 00:10, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Clearly a scan. not own work Ymblanter (talk) 00:10, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Clearly a scan. not own work Ymblanter (talk) 00:10, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Clearly a scan. not own work Ymblanter (talk) 00:11, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Clearly a scan. not own work Ymblanter (talk) 00:11, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Clearly a scan. not own work Ymblanter (talk) 00:11, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Clearly a scan. not own work Ymblanter (talk) 00:12, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
personal image, not in scope. Lacks description and is not in use. ELEKHHT 00:54, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Keep Illustrates St. Patrick's Day celebrations in Australia; the only color photograph of the topic currently on Wikimedia. Infrogmation (talk) 03:01, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
corrupted image ELEKHHT 01:15, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:19, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm not convinced an amateur would be in a position to take a portrait like this. This looks like something from NBA.com, although I can't find a specific match. Zagalejo (talk) 02:02, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:19, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm not convinced an amateur would be in a position to take a portrait like this. This looks like something from NBA.com, although I can't find a specific match. Zagalejo (talk) 02:20, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:19, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm not convinced an amateur would be in a position to take a portrait like this. This looks like something from NBA.com, although I can't find a specific match. Zagalejo (talk) 02:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:19, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm not convinced an amateur would be in a position to take a portrait like this. This looks like something from NBA.com, although I can't find a specific match. Zagalejo (talk) 02:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:19, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm not convinced an amateur would be in a position to take a portrait like this. This looks like something from NBA.com, although I can't find a specific match. Zagalejo (talk) 02:22, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:20, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm not convinced an amateur would be in a position to take a portrait like this. This looks like something from NBA.com, although I can't find a specific match. Zagalejo (talk) 02:22, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:20, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm not convinced an amateur would be in a position to take a portrait like this. This looks like something from NBA.com, although I can't find a specific match. Zagalejo (talk) 02:23, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:20, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm not convinced an amateur would be in a position to take a portrait like this. This looks like something from NBA.com, although I can't find a specific match. Zagalejo (talk) 02:23, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:20, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm not convinced an amateur would be in a position to take a portrait like this. This looks like something from NBA.com, although I can't find a specific match. Zagalejo (talk) 02:24, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:20, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Seems to simply have been taken from the website http://www.johnstoncollection.org/, where there is no indication of PD license ELEKHHT 02:29, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:20, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
This is a professional photo from the candidate's campaign site, http://www.kathleengkane.com/photos/. Image is claimed to be licensed under Creative Commons, but there is no evidence that this is true. Caesura (talk) 03:03, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:20, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
This photo comes from the candidate's campaign site, http://tomsmithforsenate.com/mediapage. Image is claimed to be licensed under Creative Commons, but there is no evidence that this is true. The campaign site says, "We are implicitly making these images and video footage freely available to the public and to the media for their use", but this does not seem to meet our criteria for acceptable licenses. Caesura (talk) 03:17, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:20, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
There is no evidence that this was actually taken by an employee of the U.S. government. (I believe it is Rendell's official gubernatorial portrait, so it may have been taken by an employee of the Pennsylvania state government, but Pennsylvania state government works are not generally public-domain.) Caesura (talk) 03:25, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Not the only non-free work by this uploader. Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:31, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for "stalking" me. I found it on the government official site, thus used it. It doesn't say that it wasn't taken by a government official. And anyway, I've seen other governor's photos used on here. MavsFan28 (talk) 23:30, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delete unless we can find clear evidence that it was taken by a federal employee in course of duties. ...doesn't say that it wasn't... does not suffice.--Sphilbrick (talk) 18:54, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- Addendum—he likes that tie. He has worn it:
-
- but I haven't found the exact shot (other than TXDOT site), and no evidence that a government employee took the shot in question. If it came from the Texas DOT, it isn't even likely to be the work of a federal employee.--Sphilbrick (talk) 19:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
No source, no information, no use. Fry1989 eh? 04:27, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
The file contains a non-free logo as well as several pieces of artwork which are most likely non-free also. Themeparkgc Talk 05:49, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
"My sister Melba order for breakfast McCafe" desc makes this a personal / non-encyclopedic file. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 06:09, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:40, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
obvious screenshot from TV ELEKHHT 06:14, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:27, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
screenshot ELEKHHT 06:15, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:27, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
screenshot ELEKHHT 06:16, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:27, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
uploader is not copyright holder ELEKHHT 06:17, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:27, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
article about her was deleted as insignificant ao the picture won't be used. Edgars2007 (talk) 06:35, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
probably copyvio from that source page and there is no info on copyrights Edgars2007 (talk) 06:50, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:23, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope - low resolution hard to read pie chart Lymantria (talk) 08:40, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:24, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
This file was inadvertenty misnamed. No articles link to "ILjunction-sderotaharon.png". It has been replaced with "ILjunction-sderotyariv.png". @Efrat (talk) 08:41, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:26, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Made by a friend for Wikipedia (written at its description page), therefore not eligible for Commons. Eleassar (t/p) 09:23, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:27, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
The figure is derived from Tacca. "Baccio Bandinelli" should be replaced by "Giovanni Bandini" Shanker Pur (talk) 09:23, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Kept: No valid reason given for deletion. INeverCry 00:29, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
The original uploader, User:Romanm, wrote when he uploaded the file: "Made by a friend, especially for Wikipedia." This means there is no permission for its free usage. Eleassar (t/p) 09:26, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:29, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
The original uploader, Romanm, wrote when uploading: "Made by a friend, especially for Wikipedia." Therefore, there's no evidence of permission for free usage. Eleassar (t/p) 09:29, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:28, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Derivative work, no freedom of panorama in Ukraine. The monument was built in 2001 and is likely still under copyright. Jafeluv (talk) 09:40, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:32, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Derivative work, no freedom of panorama in Ukraine. The statue was built in 2003 and is likely still under copyright. Jafeluv (talk) 09:42, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:32, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Derivative work, no freedom of panorama in Ukraine. Sculptor Inna Kolomiets died in 2005, so the depicted work is still under copyright. Jafeluv (talk) 09:46, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:32, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Derivative work, no freedom of panorama in Ukraine. Built in 2000, the depicted statue is likely still under copyright. Jafeluv (talk) 09:48, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:32, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
No free rights for this poster 178.2.63.5 09:59, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: by Siebrand Morning ☼ (talk) 16:21, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No evidence that this image would be taken from an official document. The bottom of the cited pages has the notice "©Ben Cahoon". Eleassar (t/p) 10:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 00:37, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
No evidence that the photo would be in the public domain. Eleassar (t/p) 10:14, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- See also the talk of this page. --Eleassar (t/p) 07:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Kept: OTRS received. INeverCry 00:37, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
A derived work, based on a non-free image by Željko Heimer (FOTW). Eleassar (t/p) 10:20, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:37, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
I will quit the Wiki-Kindergarten! Matt666 (talk) 10:27, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
I will quit the Wiki-Kindergarten! Matt666 (talk) 10:28, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
I will quit the Wiki-Kindergarten! Matt666 (talk) 10:29, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
I will quit the Wiki-Kindergarten! Matt666 (talk) 10:29, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
I will quit the Wiki-Kindergarten! Matt666 (talk) 10:30, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
I will quit the Wiki-Kindergarten! Matt666 (talk) 10:30, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
I will quit the Wiki-Kindergarten! Matt666 (talk) 10:31, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion Morning ☼ (talk) 16:28, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
I will quit the Wiki-Kindergarten! Matt666 (talk) 10:32, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion Morning ☼ (talk) 16:28, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
No evidence that the label desing would be free. Works first published in Slovenia in 1945 or later are still copyrighted. Eleassar (t/p) 10:38, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:39, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
A work from 1930, no evidence that it was originally published anonymously or that the photographer would have died before 1945. Eleassar (t/p) 10:42, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:39, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
No permission by the author "Alex Stearn" given that this image can be released under a free license here High Contrast (talk) 10:52, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:39, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
The file is a lower-quality, flopped version of File:Nikolai Argunov (1771-c1829) - Portrait of Praskovya Ivanovna Zhemchugova-Sheremeteva, 1803.jpg (the original painting). Diannaa (talk) 10:57, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
_-_Portrait_of_Praskovya_Ivanovna_Zhemchugova-Sheremeteva,_1803.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 00:40, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
No evidence that this photo would have been originally published anonymously or that its author would have died before 1945. Eleassar (t/p) 11:00, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:40, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
No evidence that this work from Rogaška Slatina (now in Slovenia) would have been originally published anonymously or that its author would have died before 1945. Eleassar (t/p) 11:01, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:40, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
No evidence that the designer of this poster (from Rogaška Slatina, Slovenia) would have died before 1945 or that it was originally published anonymously. Eleassar (t/p) 11:02, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:40, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure that the buildings and the monument are de minimis in this image. Per COM:FOP#Slovenia; there is no evidence that the creator(s) would have died before 1945. Eleassar (t/p) 11:11, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:40, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
"Contributed by a friend, made especially for Wikipedia." No evidence that it would be free for any usage. Eleassar (t/p) 11:14, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:40, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
This is clearly a derivative work of an artbook. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 11:42, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:37, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
out of scope, bad personal photo Mjrmtg (talk) 13:04, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
out of scope, photo of self Mjrmtg (talk) 13:07, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Appears to have been taken from a 1974 British book. Even if the photo, said to have been taken in 1935, was published in 1935 (which we don't know), it wouldn't be PD in the US because of the URAA. Rd232 (talk) 14:06, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:44, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope: unused vanity collage. GrapedApe (talk) 14:14, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:24, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope: unused vanity image. GrapedApe (talk) 14:14, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope: unused vanity image. GrapedApe (talk) 14:14, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:14, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:37, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:16, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:23, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:17, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:23, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:25, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:23, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:37, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:38, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:46, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:24, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:51, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:24, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio of a copyright cover mik@ni 14:52, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:38, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:52, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:24, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Not enough information (author and/or publication date of the work, etc.) to determine copyright status. The Wisconsin Magazine of History is still published today, so that doesn't help to date it. Dcoetzee (talk) 15:33, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:52, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
The uploader has provided no license or source for this seal. He says he was self-created; does that mean it was self-drawn, or that it was scanned? If it was self-drawn, was it drawn from a concept published by the town or was he commissioned by the town to draw it? Etc. We need this information. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 15:38, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:52, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Flickr user [3] is not the photographer of the photos he/she uploaded to flickr. Martin H. (talk) 16:11, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:38, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Images from the San Diego Air & Space Museum have an unknown quantity to them; given previous DRs dealing with their images, we should be applying COM:PRP to all images from the SDASM flickr stream. russavia (talk) 16:14, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:53, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
copyviol: http://www.google.it/search?tbs=sbi:AMhZZisKkPZgdFRN5GP3Jc2AjBXluBZkkl_1cOrZM6Wni8yMuNcgtSvVpg8xgigsQO1QczmgtXYJ7EwPRAoIX0bJYG61M_1nUsDem5T2xhZf2EgRadKEsgb24JbC2mdXDwNEXlwIDkaMPDupyxSpr5ElaNuSG6HOnUwFF1GPZq5uO6bN0txKs3VV329L6cYLOpjkVl2ZhvSt45y1kkNy-LDF6ux7AyBSU9F7EC1kqSUZhm0c_1FHOSxZ0ZTablSOHOwQNwCdcPMoY_1eXDfDfvXsednKVSxpabi4zF2jxbU5VL18DfrtgdJXpqwUR3GqE8DPzskqsUaE0PpjzmQ6r-luwzxNcMmPfcqS7FIJYqSMsgC10MfT8FkbZWnJF93l-R1aP7OnfN9a2Ow9CxmEiibZIBrBzX9FVt0kiKUMPx-eFmb4GO9eORYxpOkm_1PZmbks2GMeCrWI7uF1rJKsttW0K0TnqEtLqysAl780KKRRKByLxINF1J1crriAt_1ZgX_1LpakSorX-XOQ4tsns-W3j5u3y7Esyff5mEpq7kiqqSTZKZUmPmFczgfGHBSsh7KfrtmPTBJbxTWas9D6S7c-VuGRyqafj3Hom1NKo_16XL4bmhLw5I3T80M--a37ZGfEeOl-x-GrWuSRvDAZxGBIYz8I5D_1R4C74Ir2Mg-zyZdr9kC4MyrKcMHv5UhHMzsm9O6lIQHbn4jL9tfHQGtQ8-3jIIVXOR5v7XV5vuuWwQq2bE2jCyUSO0k5GgQDfgAYCPo3xtob3XG1qAKmctzYsgueyiPyQblRhVGBQ-C0CRhQjRhEdjTJFxgsED5lWLW4oUf-2eDsEyLmfC9WNb3Brt0V0culoknaAPrc0yUTRbLs_1htegIAxn5LdV89EdbCOFumwe4oMiRSQj3aL4bx4owLIOWc3LGNBoAHfcw8lFZCB4wg5T0N88vWDfJ73Gk0Tp1qc4aW0KJbfVzYD7oeztbW6XvQCIBV5WH4LdAL_1wZhuDniqiIextjw1XZD4NgBpFpQrT_1Hxg6tFwfRJYRonG3GuWTCK3eoUcFLk8V39SYXS3DhFgyTQSKVfvxIEKv9mKPxyyM6ofoY7I4QxXuUC4XOFfkNkDCcVgqDxhCpm-q3ZMWOatcENSyhKL8AmfVdDXhwoedi71b_1-1gr_1J8tF1nuibdBFvvzjbVy85lLMDQdsMw9PtGxbvUcxaeOnW778eTf9QzQaPN1-HxNP1FnYreWpH6Bj3yP2OB05y-CpDZBu6yq303yOmHRocjwFHwgfLhxlIR89ScQ_1ERgWD3jtQzYlxhmCbMNg-DiOW7bnxJo5D3jBWsiRZXodbQY4&num=10&hl=it&bih=896&biw=1680 Danyele (talk) 16:16, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:39, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
No information on author or date of first publication of statue. No freedom of panorama for sculptures in the US. Dcoetzee (talk) 16:20, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:53, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Found here without attribution. No metadata, uploader's only contribution, web resolution. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:37, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Photo of not significant person - out of project scope. Low resolution, missing original exif - doubtful authorship. Art-top (talk) 16:50, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
No foreseeable educational purpose, therefore out of scope. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:46, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal image, out of scope. Rapsar (talk) 18:24, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:54, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Copyright violation. Rapsar (talk) 18:25, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:54, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal image, out of scope. Rapsar (talk) 18:28, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:54, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation. Small file with no EXIF and own work claim is doubtful. I think this file should be deleted as per COM:PRP. Rapsar (talk) 18:32, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:54, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Copyright violation. Rapsar (talk) 18:35, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- Don't remove please
Here is the Permit, It says: The use of images and content on this website is completely free
At the end of the page: http://piruzdilanchi.com/foto.en.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aztap (talk • contribs) 19:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:41, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work. Deleted before: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Atilla Kaya and Piruz Dilenchi.jpg HeminKurdistan (talk) 16:22, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Please also consider this file: File:پیروز دیلنچی.jpg. HeminKurdistan (talk) 16:23, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 20:26, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Picture of a non-notable person. Out of scope. Rapsar (talk) 18:42, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:54, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Copyright violation. Rapsar (talk) 18:45, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:41, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation. Small file with no EXIF and own work claim is doubtful. I think this file should be deleted as per COM:PRP. Rapsar (talk) 18:48, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:54, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation. Small file with no EXIF and own work claim is doubtful. I think this file should be deleted as per COM:PRP. Rapsar (talk) 18:56, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:54, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal image, out of scope. Rapsar (talk) 18:57, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:44, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal image, out of scope. Rapsar (talk) 19:00, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:55, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation. Small file with no EXIF and own work claim is doubtful. I think this file should be deleted as per COM:PRP. Rapsar (talk) 19:00, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:55, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Picture of a non-notable person. Out of scope. Rapsar (talk) 19:01, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:55, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal image, out of scope. Rapsar (talk) 19:02, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:41, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
This picture was made by myself personally on my home kitchen with Canon PowerShot A700 camera. The person on the picture is my father-in-law. Webpadre
Possible copyright violation. Small file with no EXIF and own work claim is doubtful. I think this file should be deleted as per COM:PRP. Rapsar (talk) 19:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- Oops. Sorry, I didn't see EXIF data of the file.--Rapsar (talk) 19:29, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal image, out of scope. Rapsar (talk) 19:06, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:41, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation. Small file with no EXIF and own work claim is doubtful. I think this file should be deleted as per COM:PRP. Rapsar (talk) 19:06, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:56, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation. Small file with no EXIF and own work claim is doubtful. I think this file should be deleted as per COM:PRP. Rapsar (talk) 19:07, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:57, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal image, out of scope. Rapsar (talk) 19:09, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:41, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation. Small file with no EXIF and own work claim is doubtful. I think this file should be deleted as per COM:PRP. Rapsar (talk) 19:09, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:57, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation. Small file with no EXIF and own work claim is doubtful. I think this file should be deleted as per COM:PRP. Rapsar (talk) 19:10, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:57, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation. Small file with no EXIF and own work claim is doubtful. I think this file should be deleted as per COM:PRP. Rapsar (talk) 19:10, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:57, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation. Small file with no EXIF and own work claim is doubtful. I think this file should be deleted as per COM:PRP. Rapsar (talk) 19:11, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:57, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation. Small file with no EXIF and own work claim is doubtful. I think this file should be deleted as per COM:PRP. Rapsar (talk) 19:29, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:58, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation. Small files with no EXIF and own work claims are doubtful. This file should be deleted as per COM:PRP. Rapsar (talk) 09:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
We have a better version of this file and this one is not being used. Rapsar (talk) 19:35, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:58, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
We have a better version of this file and this one is not being used. Rapsar (talk) 19:49, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:58, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
We have a better version of this file and this one is not being used. Rapsar (talk) 19:52, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:58, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Copyright violation. Rapsar (talk) 19:54, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Scanned from a newspaper or something. Uploader is not the original creator of the file. Rapsar (talk) 20:01, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
1928 movie poster. No evidence that this is a free picture. Badzil (talk) 20:12, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Crop of a movie poster. No evidence that this picture is free. Badzil (talk) 20:13, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Photograph of an album. No evidence that this picture is free. Badzil (talk) 20:16, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
No evidence image is uploader's own work - see http://www.redbookmag.com/fun-contests/celebrity/ray-romano-interview. Bbb23 (talk) 20:20, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:58, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Honorio Mossi died in 1943 (Source), This portrait wiil be in PD in 2013 so the next year we will able to restore it Ezarateesteban 20:43, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- Now I look into it, I realize that is correct. Oops! I saw the portrait of someone who had died in 1824, which seemed to have done in the period, published by a respectable newspaper. I did not check further into the artist. It is an artist's impression, not a real portrait and yes, not yet free use. I have cut it out of the article. It should be deleted. Apologies. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:52, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:58, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Derivative work of a copyrighted work. The statue is sculpted in 2011, so not in the Public Domain yet. FOP in Finland for buildings only. Apalsola t • c 21:07, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- Statue is a product of the Russian sculptor Andrey Kovalchuk and Finnish license does not apply (FOP) --Matti (talk) 22:30, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- The statue is located in Finland, so yes, the Finnish copyright law does apply. ––Apalsola t • c 23:46, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- And furthermore, according to the link you posted, there is no FOP in Russia either, so the image should be removed anyway. ––Apalsola t • c 23:49, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- Article 21. Free Use of Works Permanently Situated in Places of Public Resort: Reproduction, broadcasting or cablecasting for general public knowledge shall be allowed, without the author's consent or payment of royalties, of works of architecture, photography and figurative art permanently located in places of public resort, except where portrayal of the work is the basic object of such reproduction, broadcasting or cablecasting for general public knowledge or where portrayal of the work is used for commercial purposes. --Matti (talk) 01:07, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
- Commercial use must also be allowed. See Commons:Licensing for more information. ––Apalsola t • c 22:40, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
- Article 21. Free Use of Works Permanently Situated in Places of Public Resort: Reproduction, broadcasting or cablecasting for general public knowledge shall be allowed, without the author's consent or payment of royalties, of works of architecture, photography and figurative art permanently located in places of public resort, except where portrayal of the work is the basic object of such reproduction, broadcasting or cablecasting for general public knowledge or where portrayal of the work is used for commercial purposes. --Matti (talk) 01:07, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:59, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
This rendition is copyrighted, it can't be here. Fry1989 eh? 21:08, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:59, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Unneccesary, the SVG of this flag is scalable. Fry1989 eh? 21:10, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
- Delete Perhaps the creator thought it would be helpful to reduce size, but not a valid argument. Resizing File:Flag of Albania.svg is the better option.--Sphilbrick (talk) 20:18, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Unnecesary, SVGs are scalable. Fry1989 eh? 21:11, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
- Delete Perhaps the creator thought it would be helpful to reduce size, but not a valid argument. Resizing File:Flag of Albania.svg is the better option.--Sphilbrick (talk) 20:18, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Same photo (though in worse quality) was uploaded 1 year ago to http://othersblogs.tumblr.com/post/6350585604/theres-always-one-one-to-spoil-the-picture, i.e. clearly prior to the upload to Commons by a 1-upload-user. Thereby, VERY unlikely "own work". -- Túrelio (talk) 21:13, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. Copyvio per nom. INeverCry 21:44, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. Copyvio per nom. --Herby talk thyme 08:20, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:43, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
this is a private artwork and thus out of scope Antemister (talk) 21:15, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. First off, I don't know why this wasn't added to Commons:Deletion requests/Image:CopticCross.jpg. More importantly, slight variations and graphic elaborations of traditional religious symbols are by no means out of scope. In fact, I uploaded one myself just the other day: File:Ichthys Cross.svg. In many cases, unless a symbol has a simple abstract geometrical definition, or you're exactly scanning or photographing a historical document or artefact, it's hard to come up with a "clean"-looking version of a symbol without applying some degree of interpretation or personal artistic initiative. The result would only be out of scope if there were personal visual individual idiosyncrasies or eccentricities which would make the image useless for any purpose except to illustrate the uploader's personal views -- something which you have not shown or alleged... AnonMoos (talk) 01:27, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- Keep this is as private as this (ok, i'm pushing the point, but the idea is there) Zeugma fr (talk) 12:57, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Activist art. No context within any article. Not used with exception of a few user pages. DevinCook (talk) 06:37, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- Images primarily or only used on user pages are allowed -- consult {{User page image}}. This is a "Special or fictional flag". Commons has many hundreds of them, and they usually aren't deleted just for being "Special or fictional" -- only if they're maliciously hoaxing or hatemongering.... AnonMoos (talk) 14:20, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- In the case of this image, I would favor the "maliciously hoaxing or hatemongering" argument. -DevinCook (talk) 21:18, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- Really? en:User:Kelapstick/UBX/CommieCali says "This User doesn't think California is the First Communist State of America, he just likes this flag." -- AnonMoos (talk) 22:11, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- In the case of this image, I would favor the "maliciously hoaxing or hatemongering" argument. -DevinCook (talk) 21:18, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Kept: In use. Hopefully communist witch hunt is past. Yann (talk) 09:20, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE user-generated flag; violation of COM:NOTHOST, COM:SELFIE, COM:EV. A realistic educational purpose is a policy requirement for all Commons files. All files with no such purpose must be deleted: "Wikimedia Commons is not your personal free web host". GPinkerton (talk) 20:16, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per previous discussion on this topic. The file is in use on a user page. Mysterymanblue 22:26, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Mysterymanblue: COM:INUSE states: "If an image is in use on another project (aside from use on talk pages or user pages), that is enough for it to be within scope." (emphasis added) Being in use on a talk page or user page does not mean it is within COM:SCOPE. COM:SPAM suggests "Artwork without obvious educational use, including non-educational artwork uploaded to showcase the artist's skills" … "are not realistically useful for an educational purpose" and "An otherwise non-educational file does not acquire educational purpose solely because it is in use on a gallery page or in a category on Commons, nor solely because it is in use on a user page". If a file – such as this one – is out of scope; it should be deleted. GPinkerton (talk) 01:24, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. "The uploading of small numbers of images (e.g. of yourself) for use on a personal user page of Commons or another project is allowed as long as that user is or was an active participant on that project.". —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
This is a fake flag for "Communist California." The only usage outside of file logs seems to be on a user talk page along with the caption "This User previously lived in the Shit-Hole State of California, and believes it to be the First Communist State of America." So at least IMO it doesn't follow the "good faith" part of the guideline about a file being kept if it's in use. There's no educational value to it outside of that either. So the image should be deleted as OOS, if not also due to the clearly malicious nature of it. Adamant1 (talk) 03:55, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete trolling is OOS Dronebogus (talk) 01:17, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:41, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 08:16, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Well its havily in use and by that in scope. But the question is if COM:DW applies. --JuTa 08:30, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Kept: In use. Content is de minimis. Yann (talk) 09:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but this is not covered b COM:FOP#United States. According en:St. John's Cathedral (Los Angeles) the church was build in 1925 and the artist of this mosaic is unknown. Its unclear if its PD-old or PD-US-"whatever". JuTa 08:17, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- The same applies to File:Gold Mosaic of Seated Jesus, St. John's Cathedral.JPG. --JuTa 08:20, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:24, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but this is not covered by COM:FOP#United States. It might be below COM:TOO, but i don't like to decide it alone. JuTa 08:27, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Google logo is PD-textlogo. The rest is utilitarian stuff. Yann (talk) 09:23, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Looks like a copyvio. Kobac (talk) 23:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. PierreSelim (talk) 06:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Out of scope - low resolution, not wellknown person, undescriptive description Lymantria (talk) 08:35, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted Out of scope. Yann (talk) 09:24, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
I'm not sure that this image is simple enough to be ineligible for copyright; it is based on a work by Željko Heimer (FOTW). Eleassar (t/p) 10:25, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- You're kidding, right??? It's way too simple for anything. Fry1989 eh? 18:48, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what was is the threshold of originality in the country of the creator of this ensign, Željko Heimer. Please provide the country and some court cases to prove this ensign would not pass it there. --Eleassar (t/p) 19:02, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, he is from Croatia obviously.[4] --Eleassar (t/p) 19:55, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- I don't have to provide ANYTHING, anybody can see this is too simple, it's the Yugoslav flag and a diamond shape. This is laughable. Fry1989 eh? 21:01, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- Possibly, but not demonstrated with reliable references. In any case, one can't just take an image from a website, convert it from gif to svg and post it with PD-self here. One has to redraw it, per COM:Coats of arms and per [5]. I know that this is not a coat of arms, but the rationale is the same. --Eleassar (t/p) 11:40, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - ineligible for copyright just like the Yugoslav flag from which this is derived. There can't be any originality here at all, but even if it could be, it would still legally be ineligible for copyright protection.--Avala (talk) 17:29, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Kept: PD-ineligible. Yann (talk) 09:39, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
I will quit the WIKI Kindergarten Matt666 (talk) 10:27, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Delete while your reason is not a valid reason to delete this image I still think it should be deleted as it has been taken from an (elevated) private property and thus there is no freedom of panorama. Amada44 talk to me 11:02, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Kept: No reason to delete, nothing to copyright. Yann (talk) 09:39, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Wrong image. Meant to upload another one. Erolish (talk) 10:57, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 09:42, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
There is no information about how this map was created. It could have been based on a copyrighted map and as such ineligible for Commons. It has been tagged as missing its source since 16 October. Eleassar (t/p) 12:12, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- Note that if the file gets deleted, the derivatives also have to be deleted.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:42, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- As well as the derivatives of its derivatives etc. These go into hundreds if not thousands. Unfortunately, the uploader stated in May 2010 that he doesn't remember which source did he use.[6] --Eleassar (t/p) 16:27, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- I do not object to the deletion, my remark was that all affected articles should be listed (possibly with the help of a bot). If those are really thousands we may consider asking someone to replace the file with a free alternative (should not be too difficult for an expert) before all of them get deleted.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:40, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- These can be accessed at Special:Whatlinkshere/File:Europe countries.svg. I've posted a request for help at the Village Pump. --Eleassar (t/p) 16:42, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- I do not object to the deletion, my remark was that all affected articles should be listed (possibly with the help of a bot). If those are really thousands we may consider asking someone to replace the file with a free alternative (should not be too difficult for an expert) before all of them get deleted.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:40, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- As well as the derivatives of its derivatives etc. These go into hundreds if not thousands. Unfortunately, the uploader stated in May 2010 that he doesn't remember which source did he use.[6] --Eleassar (t/p) 16:27, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- It could be argued that if it's impossible to tell now what map it's based on, then it can't be a copyright violation. At some level of abstraction (and this map is fairly abstract) all reasonably accurate maps will look virtually identical, because they're supposed to be reflections of reality, and not purely artistic works. Information is not copyrightable, and there is a core of information in a reasonably accurate map. So if we can't tell what map was the source, maybe all we're left with is the uncopyrightable information. Rd232 (talk) 16:54, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- Maybe yes, maybe not. How can we be sure if there is no source? In all cases, appropriate evidence must be provided... --Eleassar (t/p) 17:09, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- Keep as per Rd232's argument above. Yann (talk) 17:27, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, not following Rd232 but the usual cartographic sight and how maps are made. This map isn't "pure information", not all maps in that scale and that projection need to look like this. Even if I would have taken both scale and projection I would have added much more Greek islands and I wouldn't have shown such a big part of the Atlantic Ocean. This map has got a cartographic generalisation and a graphic of its own. This makes this map an "own work", it still is an artistic work. It is usual cartographic practice to use several sources to create a work on its own. This is allowed as long as every map has got its own originality (in generalisation, colours, thickness of lines, elements that are shown, projection, scale...) NNW (talk) 17:41, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- I didn't really follow your reason for "keep" here; but your more detailed explanation of the same issue at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Maps of Slovenia (link) clarifies. Rd232 (talk) 18:49, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- I didn't want to repeat all that again. :o) NNW (talk) 18:56, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- I didn't really follow your reason for "keep" here; but your more detailed explanation of the same issue at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Maps of Slovenia (link) clarifies. Rd232 (talk) 18:49, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- It may be "own work" but is still derived from some other maps that are possibly unfree. From the US Copyright Act of 1976, Section 101: "A derivative work is a work based upon one or more preexisting works ... in which a work may be recast, transformed [emphasis mine], or adapted." I don't see what is so different with maps compared to other derivative works. As NNW has described it here: "It is forbidden to redraw an existing map but it is allowed to combine different sources to create a new, self-contained map. One way (beside a new graphic: colours, thickness of lines, elements which are shown...) for this is the cartographic generalisation.", it seems to me like just another form of transformation and a collage. Which means the source maps should be listed, free, and license compatible. Obviously, some reliable source for this forbidden and allowed should be cited, as currently the only one such is the US Copyright Act, which states what it does. --Eleassar (t/p) 21:43, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- There is big difference between a collage and maps. In a collage I am able to combine original images in any way I want to. The object that is shown in a map is given by nature (which makes map differ from other graphics, too). Then there are cartographic rules I have to follow if I want to produce a real and good map: It is impossible to draw the Atlantic Ocean bigger just to get a difference to another map. It is senseless only to show small streams but not to show hugh rivers for a difference. My only freedom as a cartographer is the graphic as you quote above. And that's where copyright starts.
- Please read Commons:Deletion requests/File:Toronto map.png. In the original version of the file description User:Lencer mentioned Google Earth which led to the DR. As a result of the start of the DR Lencer removed that note. Total transparency through naming all sources might be Commons's ideal but is obviously counterproductive in mapmaking because not everybody knows how maps are made and isn't able to evaluate those references. So what does the community want? Unfortunately this question is a bit bigger than the DR to File:Europe_countries.svg, here we want find an answer to it. NNW (talk) 11:32, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- Could therefore mapmaking be compared to drawing a coat of arms, where one has a textual blason (like nature in this case) and has to stick to it (see here)? I am sure the problem with the Toronto map would not appear if it was written what source was used for what purpose. Unlike that case, here we simply don't know anything about the original maps. --Eleassar (t/p) 12:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- It does indeed seem similar to drawing a coat of arms. The nature (textual blason) limits its design, and one bases his "own map" on previously published maps, like one would derive a new coat of arms from an older one. As we demand for all derived coats-of-arms to be based on text or on a public domain original, the same must probably be done here (and to verify this has been done so, source maps should be listed, as we demand with the coats of arms). --Eleassar (t/p) 09:42, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- In a coat of arms, the original elements are those that aren't in the blazon, and you can't copy them. For a map, the real world is the blazon. You can't copy the elements that aren't in the real world, like the choice of colors and other things as NNW explained. Then, unless you provide a source from which non-natural elements have been copied to this map, I don't see anything copied in it.--Pere prlpz (talk) 09:51, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- Keep as per Rd232's argument above.--Pere prlpz (talk) 00:23, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- This argument has been invalidated by NNW (see above). --Eleassar (t/p) 09:39, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- Rd232 says all original maps are similar. NNW points that all original maps are slightly different. You say no map is original and all maps are copyvio (except if you made it by yourself from data collected by yourself). I don't see NNW's argument invalidating Rd232 argument, just refining the differences between different original maps. Although, I see both invalidating your arguments.--Pere prlpz (talk) 09:45, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- Rd232 said: "maybe all we're left with is the uncopyrightable information." NNW replied: "This map isn't "pure information", not all maps in that scale and that projection need to look like this... This map has got a cartographic generalisation and a graphic of its own. This makes this map an "own work", it still is an artistic work." --Eleassar (t/p) 09:49, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- Rd232 says all original maps are similar. NNW points that all original maps are slightly different. You say no map is original and all maps are copyvio (except if you made it by yourself from data collected by yourself). I don't see NNW's argument invalidating Rd232 argument, just refining the differences between different original maps. Although, I see both invalidating your arguments.--Pere prlpz (talk) 09:45, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- This argument has been invalidated by NNW (see above). --Eleassar (t/p) 09:39, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- Keep I'm inclined to believe the "own work" claim that it's original enough, particularly one uploaded in 2006 when standards were a little different. If you want, perhaps add the {{References missing}} tag. I don't think it's enough reason to delete to simply raise some doubt, which almost always be done... it's tantamount to saying that all maps are automatically considered copyvios unless proven otherwise. Is there a source map you can find which indicates that it may be a derivative work? Without that... I don't see enough significant doubt raised here. The "based on" in the definition of derivative works does not simply mean "information used"; it specifically means that there is identifiable expression copied from a source version. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:16, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not saying that all maps are automatically considered copyvios unless proven otherwise. I'm saying that all maps that don't include the information "based on XYZ public domain map" (like the one shown here, with the caption: "An allowable map, based entirely on free sources. Note that the image description lists the sources explicitly.") or "based on a PD map" (like e.g. this one) should be considered copyvios unless proven otherwise. The burden of proof is on the uploader and a claim like this should be the minimum requirement. As already stated, unfortunately the uploader did not state in May 2010 that he didn't remember the source he had used, but it had been a PD source; he stated only that he didn't remember the source.[7] I think this raises a significant doubt that this map is based on a free map or maps; even more so because some other images, like [8], show that the user was not really conscientious about free sources. --Eleassar (t/p) 15:44, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- Summarizing this discussion:
- You say all maps are copyvios unless based on public domain or free maps.
- Most of us say that maps can rightfully be based on information taken from non-free maps, just as a Wikipedia article can be based on information taken from non-free sources, although any map can be a copyvio depending on the elements copied.
- I think this is the only essential disagreement about maps in this one and other current deletions requests.--Pere prlpz (talk) 19:33, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- I think you're right. So the file should be kept, except if there is another non-free one that this one may be derived from (in the sense of identifiable expression). Thanks for having explained this to me. --Eleassar (t/p) 20:41, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
![[8]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Matopas_landscape.jpg){kind=link}
Kept: as per above. Yann (talk) 09:45, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:25, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 09:49, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by SamuelFreli as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Logo INeverCry 17:39, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Kept: PD-textlogo. Yann (talk) 09:54, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Wcam as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: http://ja.cas-no.org/jp16e/ INeverCry 17:54, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Kept: PD-textlogo. Yann (talk) 09:54, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
COM:FOP#Philippines. 84.61.186.88 18:07, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:53, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Unusable tiny. Superseded by many files in Category:Flags of Albania. P199 (talk) 18:15, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
- Delete Not needed given existence of File:Flag of Albania.svg as a better option.--Sphilbrick (talk) 20:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Not needed. Yann (talk) 09:54, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
I uploaded it to start a file on a local artist, but would like to go in another direction at a later time. Thank you. Chescat (talk) 22:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Unused personal image, out of scope. Rapsar (talk) 19:08, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:56, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation. Small file with no EXIF and own work claim is doubtful. I think this file should be deleted as per COM:PRP. Rapsar (talk) 19:08, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: by INeverCry. Yann (talk) 09:56, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation. Small file with no EXIF and own work claim is doubtful. I think this file should be deleted as per COM:PRP. Rapsar (talk) 19:09, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: by INeverCry. Yann (talk) 09:56, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Is this in scope? It seems to be a list of German political subdivisions. Such a list might belong in one or more of the Wikipedias, see List of rural districts of Germany, but not here. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:19, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. Out of scope per Commons:Galleries: "Galleries without media are not galleries at all. They are considered out of the project scope and meet the criteria for speedy deletion." INeverCry 21:38, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- Move to Commons: namespace somewhere? The links to categories and galleries (though mislabelled "articles", the list is clearly copied from de.wp) may be useful for maintenance as an overview of German cities etc. Rd232 (talk) 22:12, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- Good thought. I can see the utility of such a list. It might be a user subpage, or perhaps we need a new prefix "List:" -- but, as I said above, it doesn't appear to fit into our present setup. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:24, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- History.
- This list was created in 2005 to have a working list.
- The scope was to create categories for the administrative districts and their muncipalities and to have backlinks in the German language Wikipedia. Simplicius (talk) 13:31, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- Keep It not simply displays german administrative districts and their muncipalities rather it give links to all related categories and galleries on Commons. So it is also a working list to see red links of municipalities for possible creation of galleries. --GeorgHH • talk 11:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Though created seven years ago, as a working list the page is still sensible and in use. Nevertheless, it could be more multilingual to visualize this aim in a better way. As I'm from the Esperanto wikipedia and more or less fluent in German and English, I did a translation of the first section to English and Esperanto, but the page could be still more multilingual...
- Obwohl schon vor sieben Jahren angelegt, ist diese Seite als Arbeitsliste immer noch sinnvoll und in Benutzung. Trotzdem könnte sie mehrsprachiger sein, um dieses Ziel deutlicher zu machen. Da ich aus der Esperanto-Wikipedia bin und Deutsch wie Englisch mehr oder weniger kann, habe ich den ersten Abschnitt auf Englisch und Esperanto übersetzt, aber die Seite könnte durchaus noch mehrsprachiger sein...
- By the way: Clearly this is no gallery. I would have no problem at all to see this page moved to a title like "Commons:Verwaltungsgliederung Deutschlands".
- -- ThomasPusch (talk) 12:37, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Sinnvolle Arbeitsseite, die einen Überblick über noch zu erstellende Galerien oder bereits vorhandene gibt. Spricht etwas gegen eine Projektseite? --Asio 23:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Should be moved to something that fits in Category:Commons category schemes. --Foroa (talk) 08:27, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Kept: as above. Yann (talk) 10:03, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Unneccesary, SVGs are scalable. Fry1989 eh? 21:22, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
- Delete Perhaps the creator thought it would be helpful to reduce size, but not a valid argument. Resizing File:Flag of Albania.svg is the better option.--Sphilbrick (talk) 20:17, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 10:05, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Obvious copyvio. Rondador (talk) 21:33, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Kept: PD-ineligible. Yann (talk) 10:06, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Low resolution, no EXIF, look like a screenshot from a video Morning ☼ (talk) 23:57, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Others by the same author, e.g. this apparent TV screenshot don't inspire confidence.--Sphilbrick (talk) 20:04, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 10:11, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
"Made by a friend, especially for Wikipedia". No evidence of permission for the free usage. Eleassar (t/p) 09:31, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - that is quoting the original uploader from 2005. Why the sudden interest in 2012 is beyond me but either way this image is due to Yugoslav laws ineligible for copyright (just like anyone can print laws and no one can hold copyright on those prints) so it's all quite irrelevant.--Avala (talk) 17:22, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, Eleassar stop wasting everybody's time with useless DR nominations. Fry1989 eh? 18:16, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- As visible from the file history, the current file is a derivative of the 2005 file and as such non-free for Commons. See also COM:Coats of arms. --Eleassar (t/p) 21:36, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- What part of "ineligible for copyright" don't you understand? It CAN'T be copyrighted because it is legally excluded from being so. Fry1989 eh? 21:46, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- Where do you see this text in the file description page? PD-Yugoslavia lists some copyright sentence from the Croatian act, but the link to verify it is dead and what does it have to do with a coat-of-arms created (drawn) in Slovenia in the 2000s in any case? --Eleassar (t/p) 21:49, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- This arms isn't from the 2000s it's from 1974, Yugoslav copyright applies, and the successor state of Montenegro's PD-MNEGov says "Official materials of state authorities or materials published by any other person or institution which do public function.", which holds the current coat of arms as ineligible for copyright and thus any past coats of arms of Montenegro as well. Fry1989 eh? 21:56, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- This coat of arms is from the 2000s, originates from Slovenia. It was not just copied from some official publication, it was drawn anew after a model by a friend of the uploader. --Eleassar (t/p) 21:58, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- Derivative of 1970s drawings. This is all PD under the law. Fry1989 eh? 22:09, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- What law? Obviously, as the coat of arms was drawn in Slovenia, the Montenegro law does not apply to it. --Eleassar (t/p) 22:13, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- What laws do you think? The ones I've been talking about the whole time, the Yugoslav copyright law, and the laws of the successor states. It doesn't matter which of the successor states this was drawn in, it's a derivative of a version that is ineligible for copyright under the law. Fry1989 eh? 22:43, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- Per COM:Coats of arms: "CoA found on Commons may be (1) reproductions of PD-old artworks, (2) recent artwork with a clear "free" licence, (3) self-made reproductions. The rest should be deleted (and eventually will be)." This is not a reproduction and has no clear free license. --Eleassar (t/p) 23:03, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- It has plenty of obvious evidence that it's PD. The laws say so, but even more ironically is your initial quote when you first nominated the file: "Made by a friend, especially for Wikipedia". That makes it very clear that whoever drew it, did so releasing their file for Wikipedia. They gave up any rights to it. You have absolutely nothing on this file. Fry1989 eh? 23:35, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- What law? Obviously, as the coat of arms was drawn in Slovenia, the Montenegro law does not apply to it. --Eleassar (t/p) 22:13, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- Derivative of 1970s drawings. This is all PD under the law. Fry1989 eh? 22:09, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- This coat of arms is from the 2000s, originates from Slovenia. It was not just copied from some official publication, it was drawn anew after a model by a friend of the uploader. --Eleassar (t/p) 21:58, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- This arms isn't from the 2000s it's from 1974, Yugoslav copyright applies, and the successor state of Montenegro's PD-MNEGov says "Official materials of state authorities or materials published by any other person or institution which do public function.", which holds the current coat of arms as ineligible for copyright and thus any past coats of arms of Montenegro as well. Fry1989 eh? 21:56, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- Where do you see this text in the file description page? PD-Yugoslavia lists some copyright sentence from the Croatian act, but the link to verify it is dead and what does it have to do with a coat-of-arms created (drawn) in Slovenia in the 2000s in any case? --Eleassar (t/p) 21:49, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- What part of "ineligible for copyright" don't you understand? It CAN'T be copyrighted because it is legally excluded from being so. Fry1989 eh? 21:46, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- As visible from the file history, the current file is a derivative of the 2005 file and as such non-free for Commons. See also COM:Coats of arms. --Eleassar (t/p) 21:36, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Kept: You are both right and both wrong. The blazon (formal description) of a COA typically does not have a copyright, but our policy is that each representation of a COA has its own copyright which belongs to the artist who drew it. Thus the issue is not whether Yugoslav or Slovenian law applies, but what law applies to the drawing itself. Since it was apparently made for WMF projects, it seems to me we can keep it. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
In Village pump/Copyright, this image is not eligible for Commons because of United Kingdom's very low threshold of originality. Even if it looks simple, UK may find it creative enough for copyrights. George Ho (talk) 11:38, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- This needs a link to the previous DR, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pet Shop Boys - Yes.jpg.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:23, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delete I think it's very likely that these meet the UK threshold of originality. cmadler (talk) 14:55, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:54, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
The "source" states: "partially based on a GFDL map", with an accompanying link to a copyrighted map published by Cankar Publishing House in 1957, when GFDL did not exist at all. Eleassar (t/p) 11:43, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- Keep It takes information from the book map. I see this more as a reference than a source.--Pere prlpz (talk) 22:04, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination --Eleassar (t/p) 13:50, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Kept: withdrawn by nominator Morning ☼ (talk) 15:08, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio: book cover PICAWN (talk) 16:30, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- No copyright violation
This photo has not violated any copyright and so it need not be deleted. This photo is my own work from a book that i own. It demonstrate the bilingual aspect of the Dictionary beside demonstrating its huge size. It fills a gap in knowledge beside it worth keeping more than the photo on Arabic Wikipedia that is used under an incomplete licence and can not be migrated to commons wikimedia. I can not understand who proposed it for deletion or why? Could PICAWN elaborate more because he has no user page? Also there is so many many many book covers on commons why delete this photo (Despite the fact that it is not a photo of the book cover but a photo of the book itself). --Ashashyou (talk) 17:29, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- The fact that you own the book does not give you the copyright on it. However this cover does not include any art work. Is it simple enough for {{PD-ineligible}}? Yann (talk) 09:52, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Kept: I don't think there are enough words, in either language, for a literary copyright. There are a couple of logos that might have a copyright, but they are de minimis, I think. Ashashyou should be careful, however. Yann is entirely correct -- the fact that you own a book does not give you any right to photograph it and post the image here. The only thing that allows us to keep this one is that it is too simple to have an enforceable copyright. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:09, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Copyright tag incorrect as image was published well after 1989, therefore probably copyrighted. (This is my first attempt at deleting something on Commons, so apologies if I screwed something up.) jcgoble3 (talk) 21:11, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- Don't care if it's deleted. Six years ago when this was uploaded it was on the U.S. Patent site so it was allowed and now it's not. I've given up trying to figure out what a lawyer will think is allowed or not. Delete all my images for all I care and I hope the lawyers enjoy their black and white photos of things that only existed before 1923.
- Epolk (talk) 03:29, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- I'd rather the file be kept, I feel it really helps in the articles.--Astros4477 (talk) 23:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Unfortunately it was publishe ten years after the cutoff date for PD patents. The license tag is wrong. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:12, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Used for vandalism on en-wiki ZappaOMati 23:47, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- Comment The deletion argument doesn't sound valid. Frankly, I see some legitimate use for this image, although it is clearly a composite of two other images, and it is reasonable to ask the creator to identify the source of the underlying birds, to ensure that those are not copyvios.--Sphilbrick (talk) 20:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader admits that it is Photoshop work and does not give a source for either of the images. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:15, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
This animation was made using the maps created by Ron Blakey, who it turns out does not license his works for free commercial use. Derivative works of his maps should not be hosted on Wiki Commons.Kurzon (talk) 08:28, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
This animation was made using the copyright maps by Ron Blakey, who does not license them for free use and thus should not be hosted on Wiki Commons. Kurzon (talk) 09:58, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- @sysop: See Commons:Deletion requests/File:LateJurassicGlobal.jpg for the false OTRS ticket. NNW (talk) 14:30, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- This file was restored by Micheletb. Yann (talk) 09:30, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: The maps in this animation are not covered by our permission from Blakey . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:23, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
File:Mozart musique classique sifflee (Le siffleur-Clodine Tardy) 29e Festival des vendanges (arts de la rue) Suresnes 2012.ogg
editThis file was initially tagged by Fastily as Speedy (speedy) and the most recent rationale was: corrupt file (This needs to be converted to ogv (its .mpg I think, but my connection speed is too slow to upload a 20Mb file --McZusatz (talk) 10:03, 10 November 2012 (UTC) ) McZusatz (talk) 10:03, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: Could be kept... --McZusatz (talk) 19:03, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Kept: OK now. Yann (talk) 09:53, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
File:Erik Satie Musique sifflee (Le siffleur-Clodine Tardy) 29e Festival des vendanges (arts de la rue) Suresnes 2012.ogg
editThis file was initially tagged by Fastily as Speedy (speedy) and the most recent rationale was: corrupt file (This needs to be converted to ogv (its .mpg I think, but my connection speed is too slow to upload a 20Mb file --McZusatz (talk) 10:04, 10 November 2012 (UTC) ) McZusatz (talk) 10:04, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: Could be kept... --McZusatz (talk) 19:03, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Kept: OK now. Yann (talk) 09:54, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Acording to the File:Al-Andalus (norsk).jpg log, this file which is a translation of the Norwegian one is infringing the copyright policy Kimdime (talk) 11:43, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
Deleted: Per http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jameslwoodward/Archive5#Deleted_image Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 22:26, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Scaled down dupe of one of our SVG files. Fry1989 eh? 21:03, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copy of File:Coat of arms of Afghanistan.svg. Martin H. (talk) 00:37, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
not from presidencia.gov Ginés90 (talk) 21:24, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: It does come actually from cultura.gov.ar Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 22:31, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
It's my work L.L.Freitas (talk) 23:32, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Uncontested DR. MBisanz talk 04:10, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
It's my work L.L.Freitas (talk) 23:32, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Uncontested DR. MBisanz talk 04:10, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
It's my work L.L.Freitas (talk) 23:33, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Uncontested DR. MBisanz talk 04:10, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
The creator of this image, somebody called 'Wandergruppe gemütlich', has possibly not given the permission for a free release under a free license. As long as the uploader cannot bring a permission, this image must get deleted 178.2.63.5 15:26, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Einverständniserklärung (Rechte-Inhaber)
Ich erkläre in Bezug auf das Bild
{{{ File:Alai! Alai! (Wandergruppe gemütlich 1989).jpg }}},
dass ich die Inhaberin / den Inhaber eines vollumfänglichen Nutzungsrechtes um Erlaubnis befragte und eine Zusage erhielt.
Ich erlaube hiermit jedermann die Weiternutzung des Bildes unter der freien Lizenz „Creative Commons Namensnennung-Weitergabe unter gleichen Bedingungen 3.0 Deutschland“ (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/de/legalcode).
Ich genehmige somit in urheberrechtlicher Hinsicht Dritten das Recht, das Bild (auch gewerblich) zu nutzen und zu verändern, sofern sie die Lizenzbedingungen wahren. Mir ist bekannt, dass ich diese Einwilligung üblicherweise nicht widerrufen kann.
Mir ist bekannt, dass sich die Unterstellung unter eine freie Lizenz nur auf das Urheberrecht bezieht und es mir daher unbenommen ist, aufgrund anderer Gesetze (Persönlichkeitsrecht, Markenrecht usw.) gegen Dritte vorzugehen, die das Bild im Rahmen der freien Lizenz rechtmäßig, auf Grund der anderen Gesetze aber unrechtmäßig nutzen.
Gleichwohl erwerbe ich keinen Anspruch darauf, dass das Bild dauerhaft auf der Wikipedia eingestellt wird.
{{{ 2012-11-12 }}}, Frze, member of Alpinists group "Wandergruppe gemütlich"
--Frze (talk) 07:31, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
The description said "own work" from the beginning and the uploader says so here again. Any reasons to doubt this? I think this request can be closed. --Prüm (talk) 09:07, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
- @Frze, is this request independent of IP 178.2.63.5's request or is the mentioned unnamed member actually behind IP178.2.63.5 ? --Túrelio (talk) 11:59, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 18:29, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb Quinquavigintillion (talk) 00:18, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- Please be serious and don't waste peoples time by saying "bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb" -- Infrogmation (talk) 03:03, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
duplicate duplicate Quinquavigintillion (talk) 00:28, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: File has been deleted as copyvio. INeverCry 00:27, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Roy Hesketh Circuit (talk · contribs)
editScanned images - doubtuful authorship.
- File:Stock Car Action.jpg
- File:Cras through the field.jpg
- File:26 Dec 1953 Programme.jpg
- File:Viva GT.jpg
- File:Roy Hesketh Circuit and the Stock Car Dust Bowl.jpg
- File:Roy Hesketh Circuit.jpg
Art-top (talk) 05:57, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:46, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP#Slovenia, images are not free for Commons if the architect died after 1945. I have found no information about the architect; however the rail to Rogaška was built in 1903. I propose deletion due to unknown copyright status.
- File:Rogaska Slatina-train station, June 2011.jpg
- File:Rogaska slatina-train station-front.jpg
- File:Rogaska Slatina-train station.jpg
- File:RogaskaSlatina-ZelPostaja.JPG
Eleassar (t/p) 10:35, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Keep the fact there is no information about the architect available and the arhitecture of the staiton itself show its a functional arhitecture without artistic value. --Sporti (talk) 13:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- The station was built in 1903 or later, which means that the architect could easily be living after 1945. Due to the architect's name not being available, unfortunately this can't be verified. This means that the copyright status can't be determined. The building certainly seems above the threshold of originality to me; the artistic value is irrelevant. --Eleassar (t/p) 13:30, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- How is architect being unknown different from photographer being unknown? Unlees you (or anyone) can find a source about the arhitect and he died in 1945 or after, these should be kept. --Sporti (talk) 13:45, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- It's not different. The burden of proof is on the uploader. --Eleassar (t/p) 13:48, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- You can only proove that something exsists, not that something doesn't. And the burden of proof is on the one that makes the deletion request. --Sporti (talk) 13:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- Per COM:EVIDENCE, the burden of proof is on the uploader. It must be proven that the architect died before 1945; if the information is not found, the copyright status remains unclear. --Eleassar (t/p) 13:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- If it's not different from photographers being unknown, this building is PD. --Sporti (talk) 14:02, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- Why? --Eleassar (t/p) 14:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- As the law states year of creation + 70 years for work of unknown artists. --Sporti (talk) 14:08, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- The law states this for anonymous works. This is an orphan work, because it was not originally constructed anonymously. --Eleassar (t/p) 14:13, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- As the law states year of creation + 70 years for work of unknown artists. --Sporti (talk) 14:08, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- Per COM:EVIDENCE, the burden of proof is on the uploader. It must be proven that the architect died before 1945; if the information is not found, the copyright status remains unclear. --Eleassar (t/p) 13:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- You can only proove that something exsists, not that something doesn't. And the burden of proof is on the one that makes the deletion request. --Sporti (talk) 13:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- It's not different. The burden of proof is on the uploader. --Eleassar (t/p) 13:48, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- How is architect being unknown different from photographer being unknown? Unlees you (or anyone) can find a source about the arhitect and he died in 1945 or after, these should be kept. --Sporti (talk) 13:45, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Much to simple to get a copyright. Yann (talk) 09:41, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Files in Category:Rogaška Slatina
editWorks created in the 20th century. There is no evidence that the architect died before 1945. Per COM:FOP#Slovenia, not free for Commons.
Eleassar (t/p) 11:06, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:40, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
First published in Slovenia by authors living after 1945, thus still copyrighted.
- File:Slovar slovenskega knjiznega jezika 2.jpg
- File:Slovar slovenskega knjiznega jezika 3.jpg
- File:Slovar slovenskega knjiznega jezika 4.jpg
- File:Slovar slovenskega knjiznega jezika 5.jpg
Eleassar (t/p) 11:18, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:41, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by MrDarkMoon (talk · contribs)
editLow resolution photos, missing exif - doubtuful authorship.
Art-top (talk) 11:23, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:25, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Files in Category:Enciklopedija Slovenije
editFirst published in Slovenia by authors living after 1945; thus still copyrighted.
- File:Enciklopedija Slovenije 1.jpg
- File:Enciklopedija Slovenije 2.jpg
- File:Enciklopedija Slovenije 3.jpg.JPG
- File:Enciklopedija Slovenije 4.jpg.JPG
Eleassar (t/p) 11:23, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:41, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Wasifwasif
editAs shown in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nagore shariff.jpg: User started saying the untruth and uploading stolen files. This are some more recent uploads that differ from older uploads in various points such as camera EXIF, sizes, quality, subjects (the user probably has no chance to make photos of that people). I think this 5 files at least are stolen.
- File:Sheikha Hatoon Fassi.jpg
- File:Ummu zavaya.jpg
- File:Erwadisanthana2011.jpg
- File:Sundarmla.JPG
- File:Ghouse baai.JPG
Martin H. (talk) 13:15, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- I dont have any issues with deleting the files File:Ummu zavaya.jpg, File:Sundarmla.JPG and File:Ghouse baai.JPG.
- But the images File:Sheikha Hatoon Fassi.jpg and File:Erwadisanthana2011.jpg are purely taken from my camera and uploaded. Please prove if you allege that i have stolen this. This 2 fiels are purely mine. Wasifwasif (talk) 07:05, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- The File File:Erwadisanthana2011.jpg that you say comes directly from your camera contains a gigantic watermark in the center of the image and was 3 days before you uploaded it here already at http://newsforus.wordpress.com/2011/10/22/8780/. --Martin H. (talk) 10:55, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:57, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Files in Category:Triglav National Park
editNo evidence that these works would be free.
- File:Kranjska Gora Mojstrana Vrata Severna stena Triglava-Nordwand 2011-08-26 779.jpg
- File:Skica TNP Burger.gif
- File:Triglav NP sign.JPG
Eleassar (t/p) 13:16, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:42, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal image, out of scope
- File:241297 912292247137 27609511 42477872 5166953 o.jpg
- File:Kirimsies.jpg
- File:N669272182 963044 1863.jpg
- File:Angry Father.JPG
Morning ☼ (talk) 13:27, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- please delete--Steinsplitter (talk) 19:45, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:43, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
- File:Mentesabiacru Tocata.jpg
- File:Estrellasdelporno Quilicura 2004.jpg
- File:Nieblabaja Tocata.jpg
- File:Moreno Jackson Viña.jpg
- File:Estrellas OmegayLeviatan.jpg
- File:Efs concerto.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 13:51, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:43, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
- File:Jordon hodges actor writer producer.jpg
- File:Jordon Hodges actor writer.jpg
- File:Jordon hodges actor june 2012.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 13:54, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:37, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Gmaisuradze15 (talk · contribs)
editMany of the files from this user can be found on official sites likes airports-wwws, airline-www, architecture-bureau. I've nominated only those ten photos where external sources User:wingtip found, but its possible, that all pictures are copyright-violation. The Uploader don't have any other edits on Wiki-projects; the picture are taken withCanon EOS-50D, a day later with DMC-TZ3 and Nikon-D200 (especially both used on the same day, EXIF says different time is only 2 minutes - and one picture is at night, the same at midday) - two weeks after he used a Coolpix P510. More Details and external URL are coming in second edit after mass-tagging with VisualFileChange
- File:FlyGeorgiaa.jpg
- found on Flickr with non-free license. Flickr-User have not answered yet. Given as 19th of June at flickr and 30th July on Commons.
- File:Tbilisis aeroporti.jpg
- File:Tbilisi 01.jpg
- Both above can be found at TAVConstruction.com, the legal site of the constructor. Permission should be sent. The first file additionally at TAVNewsPort.com. The photo can't be taken from a normal passenger, in this security-zone special-permissions are necessary. And then a commercial using is often not permitted withour prior permission from the airport.
- File:Tbilisi airport ramp.jpg
- Can be found at Hurriyetdeailnews.com with watermark (in arabian language)
- File:Dezeen Kutaisi-Airport-by-UNStudio 1.jpg
- File:Dezeen Kutaisi-Airport-by-UNStudio 3.jpg
- File:Kataisiairport02.jpg
- To the three above: can be found at UnStudio.com. A permission from the architecture-bureau should be sent.
- File:Batumiiiii.jpg
- Can be found at legal site Ajara.gov.ge
- File:Tbilisi aairport.jpg
- can be found at Airportsinternational.com with Credit to Caroline Cook. Even if was prior published on commons than on the exteral site.
- File:FlyGeorgia at Tbilisi.jpg
- Can be found at FlyGeorgia.com, the legal site of the airline. Permission should be sent.
Quedel (talk) 13:54, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
So, URLs are added. Please see 
de:User Talk:Quedel#Verdächtige Bilder for prior discussion. --Quedel (talk) 14:19, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:58, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ndanielitosalinas (talk · contribs)
editUnlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
- File:San José de Oruro Campeón 1995.jpg
- File:San José de Oruro Campeón 1955.jpg
- File:Hinchada de San Jose de Oruro en Brasil.jpg
- File:San jose vs sao paulo.JPG
- File:La Temible Hinchada de San Jose de Oruro 2007.JPG
- File:Minero de San Jose de Oruro.jpg
- File:San Jose de Oruro.JPG
- File:Ciudad de Oruro.JPG
EugeneZelenko (talk) 13:58, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:44, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Canal5tigre (talk · contribs)
editUnlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
- File:Entrevista a Luis Andreotti.jpg
- File:Placa señal de Ajuste.jpg
- File:Firma 1989.jpg
- File:Entrevistas.jpg
- File:Estudios.jpg
- File:Instalaciones De Canal 5 Tigre.jpg
- File:Caper 1995 Buenos Aires, Argentina.jpg
- File:Inauguracion Estudios.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:18, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:51, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Whereas the bust is work by Fran Ksaver Zajec (free), the monument is work by Vasja Ulrich from 2000 (not free per COM:FOP#Slovenia). Eleassar (t/p) 14:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- Keep There is no monument, only simple base on which the bust is sitting. Please try to use common sense when proposing this requests. --Sporti (talk) 15:45, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- My common sense told me that this is not only a simple base, but an ornamented base (see colours) with a specifically designed upper part and a plaque, and that as such it could be copyrighted. I acknowledge though that other users may have other opinions. --Eleassar (t/p) 15:48, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- Colours? I only see plain rock colour "decorated" with a line of rust under where the bust is placed and a line of dirt where the rock has a crack. The plaque only says France Prešeren with his birth and death years.--Sporti (talk) 12:19, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- Does bronze rust? As far as I know, only iron rusts. And it doesn't seem like dirt. The plaque is quite simple, but what is important is the overall arrangement. --Eleassar (t/p) 12:34, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- Ah so if it's not that, it is now maybe the overall arrangement. Not to waste everyones time and continue another pointless discussion, it's clear there is no needed threshold of originality (apart from the bust, which is not an issue). If you can't see that maybe your not the right person to be making these massive deletion requests. --Sporti (talk) 13:19, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- "Monument" and "overall arrangement" are just two terms that refer to the same thing. I have already stated why I think it is copyrightable: It's not just a simple geometric form, but has its texture, colours, a specifically designed upper part and a plaque, and as such is a creative work that was designed thoughtfully. --Eleassar (t/p) 21:05, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- Keep I suppose this is the wrong file to which we are linked because all I see is the bust and the deletion proposer himself says that the bust is not copyrighted. Please open a new request with that monument photo wherever it is.--Avala (talk) 17:30, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- This is apparently only a part of the monument. One may have a look at the entire monument e.g. here. Also a side view. Nonetheless, according to this court case (citing summary): "The composing parts of architectural works are protected if they meet the conditions of an individual intelectual creation." --Eleassar (t/p) 13:44, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Kept: The monument is too simple to get a copyright. Yann (talk) 09:48, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
The file was kept as "too simple to get a copyright". There's no reliable reference for such a claim (a TOO in Slovenia).[9] It's a creative work. Eleassar (t/p) 10:26, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- The windbreaks on the bridge are creative work, this isn't. Get over it and don't be a dick with all the unneceserry deletion, redeliton and undeletion requests. --Sporti (talk) 10:52, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- You don't be a dick and assume good faith. What Jim actually stated was "There is nothing in the cite above which suggests anything more than the barest minimum of creativity is required," and there is such creativity in this monument. So rather than telling me what should I not be, which is very impolite, try to find a reference for the TOO. --Eleassar (t/p) 10:56, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Kept I understand that the bust is PD. All I see, then, is a very simple slightly conical pedestal with a stucco finish. I think it would a stretch, even in a country with a very low threshold, to claim copyright in the pedestal. It is too similar to thousands of public pedestals all over the world. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:05, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Sueli parisi (talk · contribs)
editLooks like collection of promo photos. Now evidence of permission. Are they notable?
- File:Boo e Dalilla El Amira.jpg
- File:Bob e Dalilla El Amira.jpg
- File:Ale e Dalilla El Amira.jpg
- File:Avattara e Dalilla El Amira1.jpg
- File:Avattara e Dalilla El Amira2.jpg
- File:Avattara e Dalilla El Amira.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:38, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Could these images add anything new to collection of domesticated dogs?
- File:Molly enjoying the bean bag.jpg
- File:Molly enjoying doona life.jpg
- File:Just a cute beagle.jpg
- File:Famous Beagle Porthos.jpg
- File:Molly just lounging around.jpg
- File:Molly Chilling Out.jpg
- File:Christmas Molly 1.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:26, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:38, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Modern art. I think painter identity confirmation via Commons:OTRS is necessary.
- File:Christ, Leica and orange 1963 (92 x 73 cm).JPG
- File:Vibration essentielle 1982 (97 x 130cm).JPG
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:27, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:51, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
While artworks by Yatrides uploaded by Yatrides are covered by OTRS, these Christie Catalogs, are copyright violations because they're (c) Christie's Auctions.
- File:1983 Christie's 22.03.83, 'L'autre rive' Yatrides oil-paint record sale. Page 4.jpg
- File:1983 Christie's 22.03.83, 'L'autre rive' Yatrides oil-paint record sale. Page 2.jpg
- File:1983 Christie's 22.03.83, 'L'autre rive' Yatrides oil-paint record sale. Page 1.jpg
- File:1965 Collector's choice, Yatrides under contract with Samuel E. Johnson Director International Galleries, Chicago summer 1965.jpg
Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:15, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
En réponse à votre demande de ”Deletion requests”
editEn réponse à votre demande de ”Deletion requests” voici les raison de la présence sur Common les documents ci-dessous
1° Les fichiers : File:1983 Christie's 22.03.83, 'L'autre rive' Yatrides oil-paint record sale. Page 4.jpg
File:1983 Christie's 22.03.83, 'L'autre rive' Yatrides oil-paint record sale. Page 2.jpg
File:1983 Christie's 22.03.83, 'L'autre rive' Yatrides oil-paint record sale. Page 1.jpg
Ces 3 fichiers montrent la présence de l’œuvre de Yatrides à la vente record chez Christie’s Londres le 22 mars 1983, destinés à Wikipedia pour étayer les commentaires pour ceux qui n’ont pas eu le catalogue. Christie’s très connu et largement diffusé, autant que la reproduction de la Joconde. Il semble qu’aucun droit ne soit en jeu dans ce cas.
2° Le fichier : File: 1965 Collector's choice, Yatrides under contract with Samuel E. JOHNSON Director International Galleries, Chicago summer 1965.jpg
Ce catalogue n’est pas un catalogues Christie’s, il est édité par S.E. Johnson qui montre la présence du travail de Yatrides parmi les grands peintres aux « International Galleries» de Chicago, Illinois, USA, Samuel-E. JOHNSON Directeur, avec lequel Yatrides à été en contrat d’exclusivité. Catalogue dans lequel il est précisé «Yatrides surrounded by insignificant contemporaries painters » (Sic Johnson) “ définition majorée par René HUYGUE Conservateur du Musée du Louvre célèbre Historien d’art dans son discours au XVIIIè Salon de Montmorency : “Yatridès, synthèse de la peinture”.
Qu’en pensez-vous.
Sur un autre Plan, la présence des photos des tableaux de Yatridès sur Wiki-Common est-elle dangereuse. Un premier modérateur l’avait signalé.
--Yatrides (talk) 14:49, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for your clarity. However if "This catalog is not a Christie's catalog, it is edited by S.E. Johnson who shows the presence of the work of Yatrides among the great painters at the International Galleries of Chicago, Illinois, USA," is correct, why were they titled "1983 Christie's..."? And why use both the front and back cover of Christie's catalog, claimed as own work. The foregoing shows that there is promotionalism involved. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:34, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Daphne Lantier 18:29, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:36, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:38, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Bhanwar Bahadur Singh Shekhawat (talk · contribs)
editOut of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:46, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:24, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by CarloHerrmann (talk · contribs)
editModern art. I think painter identity confirmation via Commons:OTRS is necessary.
- File:'The Couple' by Carla Lavatelli.jpeg
- File:'1½' by Carla Lavatelli.jpeg
- File:Bust of Princess Grace of Monoco by Carla Lavatelli.jpeg
- File:'La Girandola' by Carla Lavatelli.jpeg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:53, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:52, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ferch Haruno Koigakubo (talk · contribs)
editcopyvios - small sizes - no EXIF - images taken from internet - not own work
- File:389797 294198813957424 543990742 n 1.jpg
- File:377033 268565329854106 100001019233880 776146 796930335 n 1.jpg
- File:Alfredo Toxqui.jpg
- File:34190 447289591070 129945281070 6625353 2556426 n 1 1.jpg
- File:Markus Lopez.jpg
- File:Alvaro Ortiz.jpg
- File:20110519 16 49 FranciscoPalencia ntmx 2.jpg
INeverCry 04:02, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 15:50, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ferch Haruno Koigakubo (talk · contribs)
editLow resolution photos without original exif - doubtful authorship. Some of them marked as copyvio.
- File:269054 214450448598928 6614368 n 1.jpg
- File:Alex Aguinaga.png
- File:Alex Aguinaga Cagon.jpg
- File:Ferch.jpg
- File:Francisco Palencia.jpg
- File:Juan Castillo.png
- File:Mauro Camoranesi.png
- File:Maura Camoranesi.jpg
Art-top (talk) 15:38, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, clear case if you sent this files through google imagesearch. Unfree files grabbed from other websites. --Martin H. (talk) 16:46, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Low resolution promo photos without original exif - doubtful authorship. Some of them marked as copyvio.
- File:Elena Girzhul.jpg
- File:Alexander Delhi.jpg
- File:Alexander Lukyanenko.jpg
- File:Sergei Monul.jpg
- File:Maya Parnas.jpg
- File:Natalia Nikiforova.jpg
- File:Natalya Rusanov.jpg
- File:Pyotr Stepanov.jpg
- File:Oleksandr Turchynov.png
- File:Oleksandr Turchynov.jpg
Art-top (talk) 16:45, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvios. INeverCry 17:01, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
...na mapie Sosnowca.png
edit
Files that are variations of a Polish city map, with no source, uploaded to pl.wp by pl:User:Vanessa00:
- File:Dańdówka na mapie Sosnowca.png
- File:Dębowa Góra na mapie Sosnowca.png
- File:Jęzor na mapie Sosnowca.png
- File:Kazimierz Górniczy na mapie Sosnowca.png
- File:Klimontów na mapie Sosnowca.png
- File:Maczki na mapie Sosnowca.png
- File:Milowice na mapie Sosnowca.png
- File:Modrzejów na mapie Sosnowca.png
- File:Niwka na mapie Sosnowca.png
- File:Porąbka na mapie Sosnowca.png
- File:Radocha na mapie Sosnowca.png
- File:Sielec na mapie Sosnowca.png
- File:Stary Sosnowiec na mapie Sosnowca.png
- File:Zagórze na mapie Sosnowca.png
Note that Image:Ostrowy Górnicze na mapie Sosnowca.png and Image:Ostra Górka na mapie Sosnowca.png were deleted for the same reason in 2009. --Rd232 (talk) 21:59, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:01, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
File:QR Code.png
edit
The two images are both referral codes to a pornographic website being used to replace the lede image at en:QR code. They have no value as images on commons or any other Wikimedia project and only serve as a vehicle for spam. --SudoGhost (talk) 23:13, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted Platonides (talk) 23:16, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
per Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Threshold of originality in horticulture - I'll try to do further investigation when I've time (even after deletion).
- File:Hannover - Herrenhäuser Garten - Großer Garten citrusgarten.jpg
- File:Hannover - Herrenhäuser Garten - Großer Garten citrusgarten - Schachbrettmuster.jpg
Rillke(q?) 17:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure to understand: you took the photos and uploaded the files, you are requesting them to be deleted, and you are arguing against deletion. Has anyone challenged the permanency of these photos?--Pere prlpz (talk) 19:15, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- I've uploaded to get input on Commons:Village pump/Copyright about whether these files could be hosted here or whether it could be a risk. Since the result was not unambiguous I've nominated them for deletion so another administrator is forced to make a decision. -- Rillke(q?) 19:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- I lean toward keep. Although the garden as a whole probably meets the threshold of originality, the foreground portion is very simple, while the more complex portions might be treated as de minimis. There is an additional question, which is whether a living garden constitutes a fixation suitable for copyright. It seems that at least in US law, a living garden is not copyrightable. I think these are uncopyrightable on both counts, and since either would be sufficient, that gives me enough of a margin of error to say "keep". cmadler (talk) 14:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Gardens such as the depicted are eligible for copyright in German, see KG, 09.02.2001 - 5 U 9667/00. This is not de minimis as the pictures are clearly focused on the artwork. --AFBorchert (talk) 05:34, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
per Commons:Office actions/DMCA notices#Notification of DMCA takedown demand - Claes Oldenburg. Or short: It was legal to take these photos in Germany and publish, distribute or sell them in Germany but it is not allowed to distribute them in the U.S. Because works must be free, both in the source country and the U.S. these files can't be kept.
- File:Verbotsschild Hunde und Fahrradfahrer.jpg
- File:Nanas - Niki de Saint Phalle 05.jpg
- File:Nanas - Niki de Saint Phalle 04.jpg
- File:Nanas - Niki de Saint Phalle 03.jpg
- File:Nanas - Niki de Saint Phalle 02.jpg
- File:Nanas - Niki de Saint Phalle 01.jpg
Rillke(q?) 23:00, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted INeverCry 01:03, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Comment: Can we undelete File:Verbotsschild Hunde und Fahrradfahrer.jpg? It don't seems be designed by Claes Oldenburg. --84.61.186.88 07:30, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- Nor did he design the Nanas (they are by Niki de Saint Phalle). But the situation is basically the same: Commons:Lex loci protectionis. -- Rillke(q?) 09:13, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Comment: The File:Verbotsschild Hunde und Fahrradfahrer.jpg seems to be an Amtliches Werk. --84.61.186.88 15:05, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- At least it is not an official road sign. It was located at (not in) Herrenhäuser Gärten (Nürnberg). But I don't know who/ which organization the creator is. -- Rillke(q?) 15:11, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Comment: I don't know whether File:Verbotsschild Hunde und Fahrradfahrer.jpg meets the threshold of originality. --84.61.186.88 16:03, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- Maybe you are right. If no one is responding here, and you think this file was very valuable, you may file an undeletion request. Thank you. -- Rillke(q?) 17:43, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Given source is "google Images" / No license.
- File:Pearl District Revitalization.jpg
- File:Arkansas River park trail.jpg
- File:Tulsa aerial of Tulsa 392 - Copy.jpg
- File:20090503 BOK.jpg
Savhñ 23:50, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 16:24, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
There's no clear explanation why this derived work would not violate copyrights of the original author. The description mentions the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, Article 6, but I don't see anything in this article that would make this coat of arms a copyright-free work. Eleassar (t/p) 09:12, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- The same with File:Coat_of_arms_of_the_Socialist_Republic_of_Montenegro.svg, derived from it. --Eleassar (t/p) 09:13, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Keep There is no need to delete--Sokac121 (talk) 11:36, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:15, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
_vector.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_vector.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Not true SVG, we do have several real SVGs. Fry1989 eh? 21:40, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
_vector.svg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 22:14, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
_vector.svg){kind=link}
to big should be smaller for integration Jener13 (talk) 17:44, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept: use "thumb" parameter Denniss (talk) 18:50, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
not longer necessary, rights unknown Jener13 (talk) 06:37, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- It is used at Petersberg (at de.wp). But the author-information given is wrong. At named "de:Kraus Fandor" sale-box, the company was established in 1910 and produced until 1938. So the uploader isn't the author, and the picture is probably a copyright-violation. Delete. --Quedel (talk) 14:29, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
works by Claes Oldenburg
editFollowing wmf:DMCA Oldenburg, it seems sensible to delete all remaining media showing Oldenburg works which rely on non-US FOP. So Category:Chiat/Day Building is fine, but the following aren't:
- File:Houseball detail.jpg
- File:Oldenburg en Barcelona 2011.jpg
- File:Mistos.jpg
- File:FlyingPins.jpg <-- this one isn't shot from street-level, thereby questionable whether covered by FOP. --Túrelio (talk) 16:49, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- File:PikiWiki Israel 19474 quot;Apple Corequot; in Israel Museum Jerusalem.JPG
- File:Gartenschlauch (Freiburg) 2962.jpg
_2962.jpg){kind=link}
Note also
- File:Vitra Weil am Rhein 03 10 2012 Panorama.jpg has its own DR as it may well fail German FOP anyway
- File:Cheonggyecheon spring.jpg / File:TheSpringBehindview.jpg have their own DR (Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Cheonggyecheon) as South Korea only has non-commercial FOP anyway.
--Rd232 (talk) 23:51, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose all. These DR should be reverted immediately. By the so-far-I've-seen-applied-everywhere rule of "we deal with it as it comes up", please note that these images are not listed in any DMCA notice. Wikipedia/Wikimedia is not obligated to guess what will be listed next by, or to do the work of, an alleged copyright holder. Let's not be driven by fear. Let's not encourage deletionism, either. I suggest another solution, for example: moving to Wikipedia with appropriate fair-use rationale if and only if needed. In fact, are there tools for moving images from Commons to Wikipedia, or what's the correct template to add? --Lexein (talk) 01:48, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose all First it have to be checked wether this DCMA Oldenburg is correct acccording to all rules. If it is correct - I oppose to that in several pieces - only this pieces - where that rules apply correctly - mentioned there should be removed. There should be no leading obedience! As it is a legal matter we should follow pedantically the text, where it apply. The moving to wiki with the appropriate rules should be te last solution but it would be one.
- I also state here, that we need servers in a neutral country with reasonable copyright laws to store things, that make problems in America. I. e. The change of the copyright deadline from 70 to 90 years in retrospect is another reason for doing that. The servers in that save country could be managed and owned by a chapter located in the that country, ore by one of the big non US-Chapters. There should be no legal connection to the foundation through which the U.S. copyright can be applied. --Jörgens.Mi Talk 06:33, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- We have that. It is called Wikilivres and it hosted by Wikimedia Canada in Canada. Yann (talk) 16:55, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- Keep those image that fall under local FoP rules, they were not part of the DMCA take-down notice so no need to delete them as they are valid in their source country. --Denniss (talk) 07:11, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- Unfortunately Delete. We've known for a long time that these images are probably copyrighted in the U.S. and probably don't meet Commons copyright policy. However, since no one had pushed the issue before, we chose to leave them. Indeed, we had a discussion on the Village Pump about this very issue earlier this year. Until U.S. FoP law is changed, we have to respect U.S. law even if it leads to absurd situations like this. Kaldari (talk) 21:29, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- Comment FWIW, I believe Netherlands FoP covers File:FlyingPins.jpg, since this shows a work in the context of its location in a public place. The location of the camera doesn't matter here. --Avenue (talk) 22:37, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- Are you sure about that? At least in Germany (this one was shot in NL, of course) it does really matter and a prominent FOP case was lost in court, because the photo was shot out of another building. --Túrelio (talk) 07:19, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- Well that case was precisely because German FOP was more restrictive than Austrian. I think Dutch FOP is more like Austrian, and seems fine for this: Commons:FOP#The_Netherlands. Rd232 (talk) 07:58, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- Are you sure about that? At least in Germany (this one was shot in NL, of course) it does really matter and a prominent FOP case was lost in court, because the photo was shot out of another building. --Túrelio (talk) 07:19, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delete, but not for the reason given by the nominator, which I think is currently too expansive. The
fivesix photos listed for deletion here are of artworks listed (#s 3, 6, 12, 13, & 15) in the Oldenburg DMCA notice received by the WMF. So the "red flag" test would seem to apply to such photos, and I think the WMF would thus be obliged to delete them if they were made aware that these photos are hosted here. By deleting them first, we would save the WMF from this small trouble. --Avenue (talk) 22:58, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- Good point: the only sliver of logic I could see for opposing deletion of these is the distant possibility that the works depicted in these photos were deliberately excluded. If all of them were covered in other photos listed in the DMCA notice, then that falls away. Rd232 (talk) 08:00, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- On reflection, I think saving the WMF trouble is not a strong reason for preemptive deletion. Saving the uploaders from potentially being recorded as infringers seems worthwhile to me, however. (And yes, I see one of them has !voted keep here). --Avenue (talk) 10:29, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- Good point: the only sliver of logic I could see for opposing deletion of these is the distant possibility that the works depicted in these photos were deliberately excluded. If all of them were covered in other photos listed in the DMCA notice, then that falls away. Rd232 (talk) 08:00, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- migrate to en wikipedia with Not-free-US-FOP. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 13:37, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- keep the images and revert the deleted ones to the Canadian server. Especially the non US country images. Beauty and art is for everyone.--Kim for sure (talk) 14:50, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- The best is to write to the DMCA author, asking if these were omissions or not. Then we can take a decision with the information. All images can be copied to Wikilivres. Yann (talk) 15:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- I'd say trying to contact Claes Oldenburg personally if possible and not his agency. Yes, it would be interesting to know whether they omitted them intentionally. Nevertheless, we would need written permission and until we get it, I think it's better to delete them or better draw something black/white or whatever over the copyrighted elements, or crop them if it makes sense. -- Rillke(q?) 19:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- keep. We should delete only after a DMCA takedown and fight for FOP as best we can --FrobenChristoph (talk) 19:59, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Question When were these made? Did Oldenburg make any of the sculptures together with his wife? If the statues were installed before 1978 (and made in 1954 or later), and without any help from Oldenburg's wife, and installed without a copyright notice, then the sculptures are in the public domain in the United States. See {{PD-US-no notice}} and COM:URAA#Exceptions 1.3. (Also, what's the source for the "dual citizenship" situation in that exception?) --Stefan4 (talk) 23:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- The five sculptures depicted were made between 1983 and 2000, all by both Oldenberg and his wife. See the DMCA notice for details. --Avenue (talk) 00:26, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- right, all the "PD-no notice" ones in the US were takendown. by "dual national" i think they mean Oldenburg was born Swedish, and naturalized US citizen. so URAA applies. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 16:56, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why it says that URAA does apply if you hold dual citizenship or whether it is correct. If a work was first published in the United States, then URAA doesn't apply anyway, regardless of citizenship. The exception tells whether {{PD-US-no notice}} also applies to works first published outside the United States. Also, according to the article en:Claes Oldenburg, he obtained US citizenship in 1953. Also, if you obtained foreign citizenship before the law was changed on 1 July 2001, Swedish citizenship was automatically lost upon obtaining the foreign citizenship, so I'm not sure if there was a way for Oldenburg to keep his Swedish citizenship back in 1953, unless of course there might have been an even older law saying something different. See for example the website for the Swedish embassy which says that if you obtained Swedish citizenship before that date, then you need evidence that you have later regained your previously lost Swedish citizenship. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- right, all the "PD-no notice" ones in the US were takendown. by "dual national" i think they mean Oldenburg was born Swedish, and naturalized US citizen. so URAA applies. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 16:56, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- Keep everything that's not specifically mentioned in the DCMA notice. We have no obligation under US law to take down anything that they don't order us to take down, and we have no obligation under German law to do anything about these images. And definitely don't contact the sculptor. We have absolutely no reason to get rid of good content just because we're guessing that they forgot to mention it; if they come back later and complain, we can simply say "You didn't tell us to do this." Let them take the time to find that we didn't delete the images they didn't mention. I'll not argue with WMF legal counsel if they decide to take them down for safety, but there's no way that these should be deleted as the result of a community discussion. Nyttend (talk) 01:11, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Keep all: I personally would say that Claes Oldenbourg is intelligent and has in principle good intentions. I do not think he has omitted some of his works out of error. It may well be possible, that he notified some of his works because he himself had to do so in compliance - explicit or implicit - with contractual obligations he has towards buyers and/or exhibitors, or another reason specifically concerning the images brought to attention. I trust, that Mr Oldenbourg is aware of the courteous and swift action WMF will take in reply to his legitimate requests. Mr Oldenbourg will have no reason to hesitate to request the removal of further images as he sees the need. A removal of the images in question without request could rather be construed as an act of distrust, or even meanness, towards Mr Oldenbourg, whose gentlemanly qualities we should take for granted. OAlexander (talk) 06:56, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- That's a nice sentiment I'm sure, but all of the works were depicted in photos covered by the DMCA notice. Rd232 (talk) 10:17, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- If we keep, then revert the deleted ones... --Kim for sure (talk) 15:52, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
i regret that i cannot share the sentiment, that the agents of Oldenburg's estate are "intelligent and has in principle good intentions." we have here a false notice, where they know or should know that the US works cited are in the Public Domain. it would be interesting to find out in discovery what they knew and when they knew it.Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 16:50, 13 November 2012 (UTC) hmm, new evidence, how dissappointing. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 20:21, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Keep all - Oldenburgs agents should find out for themselves and should concentrate on users like Los Angeles Times Calgary Sun Flickriver pininterest (this one is not even freedom of panorama). But there is a change that they have to go to court - which our glorious foundation will never do - remember the image filter? --Eingangskontrolle (talk) 18:56, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Keep all The DMCAs by the artist and his agents are utterly bogus, no laws were broken or are being broken in the countries in which these art works are installed. Actually makes me angry that anyone could think that anyone should think that US courts would have extraterritoriality, to think that US laws and legislation can be used to over ride that of other sovereign nations.--KTo288 (talk) 23:03, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delete The law is the law even if it is an ass, I'm just livid that a couple of years ago the Wikimedia Foundation was willing to make a stand over PD-art, and ignore the laws of my own home nation over sweat of the brow, yet collapses so easily on this were a genuine case can be made. The thing about migrating to en:wiki under fair use is, we will not be able to keep all the images deleted, maybe just one sufficient to illustrate the art work in question. Similarly returning files back to their orignal wikis, de:wiki it seems in many instances would not negate the fact that the servers are still in the US. What we really need distributed hosting of the project.--KTo288 (talk) 14:27, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 | Proposed close: Kept the images listed here were not part of the DMCA takedown notice and we have neither need nor requirement to delete them. We would have to comply with a new DMCA notice though if they want another PR desaster --Denniss (talk) 13:26, 18 December 2012 (UTC) ~~~~  Done Closed per proposal. |
Kept per my comment above. There's no requirement to delete image not requested in the DMCA notice. We shall keep an eye on new uploads of these subjects though to prevent re-uploads. --Denniss (talk) 16:43, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
"Made by a friend, especially for Wikipedia". No evidence of permission for the free usage. Eleassar (t/p) 09:32, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- Strong keep 1) it is the coat of arms which legally could not be copyrighted in Yugoslavia and 2) that was written as a comment by the original file uploader in 2005 which is irrelevant.--Avala (talk) 01:30, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- The blason is not copyrightable, but a specific depiction is. (per [10]) The file now displayed is evidently derived from the 2005 work, so it is not irrelevant. --Eleassar (t/p) 10:28, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- No it's not, it's pretty much a book example that for an example a printer of paper versions of laws holds no copyright over that and that anyone can xerox copy such content. Coat of arms falls under that definition.--Avala (talk) 17:05, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- All in all the point is that this coat of arms is ineligible for copyright. You argument against it is a comment by some user made in some deletion request which is not a relevant source of information here.--Avala (talk) 17:11, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- The same is written in COM:Coats of arms. --Eleassar (t/p) 21:12, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- You should withdraw this nomination like you did with the Federal Coa.--Avala (talk) 13:27, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- I have revoked my withdrawal there. --Eleassar (t/p) 13:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- Then you should withdraw your revocation of the withdrawal.--Avala (talk) 00:20, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- The same is written in COM:Coats of arms. --Eleassar (t/p) 21:12, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- The blason is not copyrightable, but a specific depiction is. (per [10]) The file now displayed is evidently derived from the 2005 work, so it is not irrelevant. --Eleassar (t/p) 10:28, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- Keep utter nonsense. Fry1989 eh? 23:37, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Keep Senator2029 01:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
- File:SFRY coa.png and File:SR Croatia coa.png have been deleted due to the stated rationale and another user agreed on this here, therefore it's a well-founded reason for deletion. --Eleassar (t/p) 19:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Consensus for keep PierreSelim (talk) 07:12, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
"Made by a friend, especially for Wikipedia". No evidence of permission for the free usage. Eleassar (t/p) 09:32, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - that is quoting the original uploader from 2005. Why the sudden interest in 2012 is beyond me but either way this image is due to Yugoslav laws ineligible for copyright (just like anyone can print laws and no one can hold copyright on those prints) so it's all quite irrelevant.--Avala (talk) 17:23, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- One has to redraw it, per COM:Coats of arms and per [11]. --Eleassar (t/p) 21:14, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- You should withdraw this nomination like you did with the Federal Coa. The same reasons apply.--Avala (talk) 13:29, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- I have revoked my withdrawal there. --Eleassar (t/p) 13:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- Then you should withdraw your revocation of the withdrawal.--Avala (talk) 00:20, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- I have revoked my withdrawal there. --Eleassar (t/p) 13:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- You should withdraw this nomination like you did with the Federal Coa. The same reasons apply.--Avala (talk) 13:29, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- One has to redraw it, per COM:Coats of arms and per [11]. --Eleassar (t/p) 21:14, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- Keep utter nonsense. Fry1989 eh? 23:37, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
- File:SFRY coa.png and File:SR Croatia coa.png have been deleted due to the stated rationale and another user agreed on this here, therefore it's a well-founded reason for deletion. --Eleassar (t/p) 19:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Keep Senator2029 01:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Consensus to keep the file PierreSelim (talk) 07:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Per talk, based on the banknote. There's no evidence that Yugoslav banknotes are not copyrighted anymore. Eleassar (t/p) 18:58, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- First off, the current rendition isn't even based off the banknotes. Second, the license is clear that Yugoslav copyright has expired and is now held in joint by the successor states. PD-Croatia-exempt, PD-SerbiaGov, PD-MNEGov and PD-Slovenia-exempt, the current laws of 4 successor states are all applicable, including to the version shown on the banknotes. Obvious Keep Fry1989 eh? 21:00, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- What is this image based upon now? "A photograph of the official layout of the coat of arms"? Where was this layout published? --Eleassar (t/p) 23:33, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter where it's from, ineligible for copyright means exactly that. Fry1989 eh? 23:34, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- The blason is not copyrightable, but a specific depiction is. (per [12]) --Eleassar (t/p) 10:26, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- Per what? You linked to someone's comment. Someone's comment is not a valid source. Keep as this is not eligible for copyright.--Avala (talk) 17:08, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- Per what? You linked to someone's comment. Someone's comment is not a valid source.
- The same is written in COM:Coats of arms. --Eleassar (t/p) 21:14, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- You already withdrew your nomination. You're running in circles. Just let it go, the licenses are clear. Fry1989 eh? 21:20, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- After having better rethought this, I have provided a further rationale why I believe it should be deleted. --Eleassar (t/p) 21:26, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- The reasons behind your previous withdrawal still stand and you should withdraw again.--Avala (talk) 13:27, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- The blason is not copyrightable, but a specific depiction is. (per [12]) --Eleassar (t/p) 10:26, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter where it's from, ineligible for copyright means exactly that. Fry1989 eh? 23:34, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- What is this image based upon now? "A photograph of the official layout of the coat of arms"? Where was this layout published? --Eleassar (t/p) 23:33, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- An obvious Keep. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 07:43, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- Hi, this is not a vote. Please provide a rationale. --Eleassar (t/p) 07:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- Well hi yourself Eleassar. Per above arguments, naturally. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, as PD in the successor states, but I will try find the yugoslavian copyright law to solve all those questions on yugoslavian copyright issues.--Antemister (talk) 20:38, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, as per reasons listed above, particularly because of Yugoslav copyright expiring and as per the PD in the successor states.--R-41 (talk) 03:28, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, as PD in the successor states, but I will try find the yugoslavian copyright law to solve all those questions on yugoslavian copyright issues.--Antemister (talk) 20:38, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
- Well hi yourself Eleassar. Per above arguments, naturally. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Kept: as above. Yann (talk) 09:55, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
No reliable source indicating that this work by Đorđe Andrejević-Kun (1904-1964) would be public domain. The license tag is missing (PD-Yugoslavia does not count as such). The image was created in Drvar (a town in Bosnia and Herzegovina) in 1943, when the town was not part of the SFRY (established in 1945), but of the Independent State of Croatia. Per Template:PD-BH-exempt, coats of arms are not copyright-exempt. Eleassar (t/p) 17:30, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- For christ's sake this is the most ridiculous thing I've seen in a long time. The file was kept, you kept adding a "no copyright status" tag trying to get a backdoor deletion, and when people wouldn't let you, you nominate it again. LET IT GO! Fry1989 eh? 17:36, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- Just FYI: I kept adding the 'no license' tag because PD-Yugoslavia does not count as such, as is clearly written in it. The removal was therefore not warranted. I have proposed the deletion again because now I have found the information about who and when created it and I don't want to edit war with you regarding whether the 'no license' tag belongs there or not. --Eleassar (t/p) 17:38, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- Just FYI, it was already shown in the previous DR that atleast 4 of the successor states have licenses making this PD. The fact you ignore that doesn't change anything, and you're wasting everybody's time here renominating a PD file. Fry1989 eh? 17:45, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- What is important is that there is no reliable source indicating that this work by Đorđe Andrejević-Kun (1904-1964) would be public domain. It's also unclear what do the PD-Yugoslavia and the licenses of the other four countries (which are not included in the file page) have to do with this image originating not from the SFRY, but from the NDH (or Bosnia)? --Eleassar (t/p) 17:46, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- That's simply not true. Any renditions of the Yugoslav coat of arms is PD under the law according to atleast 4 successor states because their copyright laws exempt Yugoslav symbols from copyright. Exempt means not copyrightable. There's nothing you have that can say otherwise because the laws are clear. Give it up. Fry1989 eh? 17:50, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- What is not true? --Eleassar (t/p) 17:53, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- Your claim there's no reliable source this can be public domain. That's already been debunked by the law of the Former Yugoslavia and 4 successor states, ALL the successor states hold Yugoslav copyrights together in trust. I'm not wasting any more time on you, this is stupid. Fry1989 eh? 17:56, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- As you wish. I've still not seen any citation for your claims. --Eleassar (t/p) 17:57, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- Read the 5 licenses! They're clear enough. Fry1989 eh? 18:18, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- I've read them and still don't see any citation for your claims. Licenses in Commons don't include this information and are not reliable sources in any case. --Eleassar (t/p) 18:18, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- Commons licenses cite the law, the very reason we have them is to serve as a reliable source that an image is acceptable to be on Commons. All the licenses listed in the first DR exempt Yugoslav symbols from copyright. That's all we need, and you are completely wasting your time trying to get this deleted when we have 5 licenses saying it's PD. Fry1989 eh? 18:56, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- Commons licenses should cite the law and should be reliable sources, but they're not always, the most reliable source is the law itself and court cases. As stated, I have not found this information about Yugoslav symbols being copyright exempt in them. Can you please show me where this is written? --Eleassar (t/p) 18:59, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- It is not my problem if you can not read. Fry1989 eh? 20:04, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- It is your problem if you can't provide a citation from a template here. --Eleassar (t/p) 20:06, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- I already did in the first DR! Fry1989 eh? 20:08, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- I don't see any citation there, except for PD-Yugoslavia, which is not a license and does not place things into the public domain (see here). --Eleassar (t/p) 20:13, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- I have already listed 4 licenses from the successor states. Just because they aren't on this file, doesn't mean they don't apply. Fry1989 eh? 22:35, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- No, you have to prove that they do apply. --Eleassar (t/p) 22:36, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- It's very simple and obvious, all you have to do is READ THEM. Fry1989 eh? 22:51, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- What is important is that there is no reliable source indicating that this work by Đorđe Andrejević-Kun (1904-1964) would be public domain. It's also unclear what do the PD-Yugoslavia and the licenses of the other four countries (which are not included in the file page) have to do with this image originating not from the SFRY, but from the NDH (or Bosnia)? --Eleassar (t/p) 17:46, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- Just FYI, it was already shown in the previous DR that atleast 4 of the successor states have licenses making this PD. The fact you ignore that doesn't change anything, and you're wasting everybody's time here renominating a PD file. Fry1989 eh? 17:45, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- Just FYI: I kept adding the 'no license' tag because PD-Yugoslavia does not count as such, as is clearly written in it. The removal was therefore not warranted. I have proposed the deletion again because now I have found the information about who and when created it and I don't want to edit war with you regarding whether the 'no license' tag belongs there or not. --Eleassar (t/p) 17:38, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- Keep No reason to delete. Yann (talk) 19:04, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
The reason to delete is unclear copyright status. PD-Yugoslavia states: "The copyright to this work was owned by the federal authorities". How was this determined? It could be PD (as an official text or sth) in Yugoslavia, but this should be proven with a citation from the Yugoslav copyright act. If it was not PD, which country should be regarded as the source country then? As it is stated that they hold the copyright jointly, I guess all the six countries that have succeeded the SFRY. All of them put the official material into the public domain, but it's not clear from their copyright acts whether in all cases this also encompasses the SFRY coat of arms. I think that it only refers to materials published as official texts and their supplements after the act has been passed, because copyright acts usually do not apply retroactively. I'll try to get a copy of the Yugoslav copyright act, so that we may at least have some reliable source to create the PD-Yugoslavia-exempt template. --Eleassar (t/p) 11:39, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
- I've verified the Yugoslav copyright act [13] and it doesn't state anywhere that the coat of arms would be public domain, free for use or the property of the federal government. It protects works of all citizens of the SFR Yugoslavia. In Article 4, it places into the public domain the following works: folk literature and art, documents, court decisions; collections of these and "similar works" are copyrighted if they are independent creations. If this coat of arms is kept, it may be tagged with a new PD-Yugoslavia-exempt tag as part of an official document (despite being in wide circulation even before it appeared in the constitution); or it may be tagged with PD-exempt tags of all the succeeding countries. --Eleassar (t/p) 16:51, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
- OR, you could just grow up and acknowledge the fact that 4 successor states say that the Yugoslav coat or arms CAN NOT be copyrighted because it is legally exempt from such protection. Fry1989 eh? 18:30, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
- What the... again?? Right away? Wow. Keep, same reasoning as before. Forgive me for saying so, but this looks "personal" :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:36, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- No forgiveness needed if you ask me. Fry1989 eh? 23:47, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- The (re)nomination is not personal. --Eleassar (t/p) 10:40, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
- No forgiveness needed if you ask me. Fry1989 eh? 23:47, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- Keep this is borderline trolling.--Avala (talk) 20:07, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
- Such comments add nothing constructive to the discussion. --Eleassar (t/p) 08:17, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
- Nothing "constructive" about these successive nominations. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 01:24, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- Such comments add nothing constructive to the discussion. --Eleassar (t/p) 08:17, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
- Keep as per comments above - the decision immediately above was to keep, and the copyright status as recognized by the successor states, shows that it is not eligible for copyright. Considering that the author of such a design submits it to a government for its use in public, if we were to follow that it is copyrighted to its original designer despite its public use, then we will have to delete A LOT of coat of arms of countries - for example that would imply that we would have to delete all use of the present-day flag and coat of arms of Croatia, Slovenia, amongst others on Wikipedia.--R-41 (talk) 23:02, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- The question is then whether it can be used by anyone for any purpose (including e.g. selling candies wrapped in this or other mentioned coats of arms) or only by the government for official purposes. In my opinion, the agreement of the author is needed for any usage of copyrighted images, including coats of arms if they're copyrighted. Per COM:Coats of arms, although the definition is usually public domain, any specific depiction is copyrighted. --Eleassar (t/p) 19:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- Your opinion would have the consequence of setting a precedent for Wikipedia to delete all usage of coat of arms because they are affiliated to an author, by implying that a specific depiction is essentially prohibited and thereby should be deleted, you are also inherently implying that any graphic based on a schematic of the design is effectively forbidden. What is the full context of the "specific depiction" section? If you are using it to suggest that a layout of a design cannot be used as the basis of a depiction of it, that sounds like only a misrepresentation that does not closely resemble the design would be admissible - which is preposterous. You have also failed to note the combined issue that the author of the state emblem is dead and that the explicit purpose of the design was for use as an emblem of a specific state which has since been dissolved. If you are concerned over potential violation of copyright, you should be aware if there even is a remaining interest amongst persons or institutions in prohibiting the usage of a symbol of a dissolved state with no direct heir, whose symbol now no longer serves any state usage. So your stressing of the need of an agreement with a dead person is preposterous; if and only if heirs of his or an organization has claimed rights over this specific work, is any such agreement with them even possible. The main copyright issue of attribution is dealt with - the original author is clearly attributed in the info section, and if there are no interested parties in prohibiting its usage, the issue of deletion is moot.--R-41 (talk) 04:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- The question is then whether it can be used by anyone for any purpose (including e.g. selling candies wrapped in this or other mentioned coats of arms) or only by the government for official purposes. In my opinion, the agreement of the author is needed for any usage of copyrighted images, including coats of arms if they're copyrighted. Per COM:Coats of arms, although the definition is usually public domain, any specific depiction is copyrighted. --Eleassar (t/p) 19:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- Keep as per reason given by R-41. --DancingPhilosopher (talk) 10:33, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- Can an admin just close this as a keep already???? Fry1989 eh? 19:50, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- There is zero community support for Eleassar's deletion proposal at this point after several days, but even as a person in favour of keep and the person who uploaded this file, I advise that the last remaining issue involving Eleassar's complaints be answered by her/him as the one who addressed a copyright issue in the first place. The issue is this question: are there remains interested parties involved in the copyright of the work that prohibit its usage? In response to one of Eleassar's points: there obviously can be no agreement over copyright with a dead author - I presume such agreement could only exist if the author's heirs, or an organization has been granted the rights over this specific work. The one organization that could have, the state of the SFRY that was given the rights to display the work as its own property, is dissolved and it has no singular heir to make such an agreement.--R-41 (talk) 05:03, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- You stating that this would be "a precedent for Wikipedia to delete all usage of coat of arms" is incorrect. You forget that most coats of arms have become public domain already and that many coats of arms have already been deleted exactly for the reason that they were a "specific depiction" (in contrast to the public domain definition). Here, it is claimed that this is an exact reproduction of the "official CoA", not made after a blason but taken from some official document or banknotes or sth. However, it has been found out that it was originally made and published already before the establishment of the SFRY, by an artist in 1943 in Drvar. As far as I know, if the work had been published before, a publication in an official document doesn't take away the copyrights from the creator. As to your claim that I want to negotiate with a dead person, this is preposterous. It is most reasonable to presume that the interested party are the heirs (unless you prove otherwise). The argument that a file can be kept if there are no interested parties is not valid, because COM:PRP specifically states: Arguments that amount to “we can get away with it”, such as "Nobody knows who the copyright owner is", "The copyright owner will not bother to sue or cannot afford to" or "The file is obviously common property", run counter to Commons’ aims. Also, the purpose the image was made for has no bearing on the copyright status. --Eleassar (t/p) 07:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- This specific design was not created before the SFRY existed, it was adopted in 1963 that was based on prior similar designs. If the symbol is adopted by a state for usage, the highly likely possibility of the author granting the state the rights to the work must be seriously considered. This is not a question of "getting away" with anything - that is assuming bad faith. Who are the heirs that represent ownership over the copyright now that the author is deceased? Where can the evidence of such heirs be obtained from? In the case that there are no heirs claiming the copyright, how can any agreement be possible?--R-41 (talk) 15:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- According to the information available to me, this design from 1963 differs from the original only in the number of flames (six instead of five). I don't think this is creative enough to make it a new author's work. Do you have sources claiming there are other differences? If the uploader granted the Yugoslav state the exclusive copyrights, this must also be documented somewhere and there is no proof about this. Do you have it? How does it make it public domain? It's not up to me to find out who are the heirs. There are many orphan works where the current copyright holder is not known, but they're still copyrighted, because the law specifies that the copyright lasts for 70 years (in this case 50) years after the death of the creator. Please mind that the burden of proof is on the uploader. --Eleassar (t/p) 19:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- This specific design was not created before the SFRY existed, it was adopted in 1963 that was based on prior similar designs. If the symbol is adopted by a state for usage, the highly likely possibility of the author granting the state the rights to the work must be seriously considered. This is not a question of "getting away" with anything - that is assuming bad faith. Who are the heirs that represent ownership over the copyright now that the author is deceased? Where can the evidence of such heirs be obtained from? In the case that there are no heirs claiming the copyright, how can any agreement be possible?--R-41 (talk) 15:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- You stating that this would be "a precedent for Wikipedia to delete all usage of coat of arms" is incorrect. You forget that most coats of arms have become public domain already and that many coats of arms have already been deleted exactly for the reason that they were a "specific depiction" (in contrast to the public domain definition). Here, it is claimed that this is an exact reproduction of the "official CoA", not made after a blason but taken from some official document or banknotes or sth. However, it has been found out that it was originally made and published already before the establishment of the SFRY, by an artist in 1943 in Drvar. As far as I know, if the work had been published before, a publication in an official document doesn't take away the copyrights from the creator. As to your claim that I want to negotiate with a dead person, this is preposterous. It is most reasonable to presume that the interested party are the heirs (unless you prove otherwise). The argument that a file can be kept if there are no interested parties is not valid, because COM:PRP specifically states: Arguments that amount to “we can get away with it”, such as "Nobody knows who the copyright owner is", "The copyright owner will not bother to sue or cannot afford to" or "The file is obviously common property", run counter to Commons’ aims. Also, the purpose the image was made for has no bearing on the copyright status. --Eleassar (t/p) 07:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- There is zero community support for Eleassar's deletion proposal at this point after several days, but even as a person in favour of keep and the person who uploaded this file, I advise that the last remaining issue involving Eleassar's complaints be answered by her/him as the one who addressed a copyright issue in the first place. The issue is this question: are there remains interested parties involved in the copyright of the work that prohibit its usage? In response to one of Eleassar's points: there obviously can be no agreement over copyright with a dead author - I presume such agreement could only exist if the author's heirs, or an organization has been granted the rights over this specific work. The one organization that could have, the state of the SFRY that was given the rights to display the work as its own property, is dissolved and it has no singular heir to make such an agreement.--R-41 (talk) 05:03, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- For christ's sake, nobody is gonna convince Eleassar this is PD, so just keep it and tell him to move on. Fry1989 eh? 21:07, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- Suppose he is an employed watchdog for copyright status, your response to "move on" in bold, which sounds like an excusible way of telling someone to "f*** off", encourages investigation just as signs of fear or aggression by humans encourages wild animals to be suspicious. I doubt he is an official watchdog, but his behaviour indicates that he will threaten to inform authorities. I do not have, nor cannot find any information on the heirs of the authors' rights to property. If Eleassar wants to go gun-ho into this and will not accept the statements about PD of the SFRY state emblem, he can go ahead and report the image to copyright authorities, they can be informed that I will comply with their decision should they deem the use of this specific image with the attributions currently given. If this is a legal dispute involving disagreement between users over the legal conditions involved, this should be brought under examination of the proper legal authorities anyway. So in sum: let him report it to copyright authorities since he does not appear accept any consensus here will negate his strong view, the decision of them, will be the final word that determines whether this should be deleted or not, and that should they demand deletion that I as the uploader of this image will support their decision. There, dispute resolved.--R-41 (talk) 22:09, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- As said before, there's zero support here for his claim it's a vio. In other words, nobody's buying it. The respective laws are clear, it's PD, it's just his faulty understanding of the law that is out of step. As for him possibly alerting authorities, what authorities???? I highly doubt the Governments of Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, Montenegro, Serbia, and Macedonia are gonna give a damn about one file on a foreign website of a country that doesn't even exist anymore! They have way bigger issues on their minds. Also, from past Liptak experience, threatening Wikimedia isn't exactly the smartest move. Fry1989 eh? 22:12, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- I want an administrator here with background in copyright status to review this, give their view, and if bring complete closure to this issue. I don't want this topic coming up again in a month, a year, or more.--R-41 (talk) 22:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- The only way it would keep coming up is if he is unable to control himself when everybody is saying he's wrong. Fry1989 eh? 22:22, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I can control myself, so if this is closed as keep, let it be so. Nonetheless, I agree with R-41: an administrator with appropriate experience and background should review this. --Eleassar (t/p) 22:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- There is little reason for anyone here to be able to believe you when you say that you will genuinely accept a decision to keep, since you opened a new deletion immediately after the previous deletion proposal was rejected in favour of a decision to keep. Such behaviour was regarded as contempt for the decision of the previous deletion request, and disrespect for the decision of the users there.--R-41 (talk) 23:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- Now please stop accusing me of bad faith. I've explained already above that I have proposed the deletion again because I have found the information about who and when created this depiction and because I did not want to edit war with people regarding whether the 'no license' tag belongs there or not. Template:PD-Yugoslavia clearly states that it can't be used on its own. --Eleassar (t/p) 23:38, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- It is not being used on its own now, the PDs of Croatia, the Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, and Slovenia are now on the page.--R-41 (talk) 01:27, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for having added them now. It seems not all of them are relevant, though. PD-Macedonia states that "works of folk art" are public domain; in my opinion this is not a work of folk art. The copyright situation remains unclear and in such cases files are usually deleted. --Eleassar (t/p) 09:42, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- I've added the missing article to PD-Macedonia. I'm not sure what means "within the meaning of this Law," though. --Eleassar (t/p) 16:48, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- It is not being used on its own now, the PDs of Croatia, the Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, and Slovenia are now on the page.--R-41 (talk) 01:27, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I can control myself, so if this is closed as keep, let it be so. Nonetheless, I agree with R-41: an administrator with appropriate experience and background should review this. --Eleassar (t/p) 22:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- The only way it would keep coming up is if he is unable to control himself when everybody is saying he's wrong. Fry1989 eh? 22:22, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- I want an administrator here with background in copyright status to review this, give their view, and if bring complete closure to this issue. I don't want this topic coming up again in a month, a year, or more.--R-41 (talk) 22:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- Nominator withdrew. Time to keep and end this trolling. Fry1989 eh? 19:47, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
- Jesus, this is so irresponsible that Eleassar has left this open for a month after consensus has long since rejected his proposal. Perhaps he/she is hoping that keeping it open forever will eventually result in someone arriving you agrees with her/him. An administrator needs to close this. I do not want to be accused of canvassing in requesting an administrator to close this. Eleassar should be responsible and request and administrator to close this. There is zero community support for Eleassar's proposal.--R-41 (talk) 15:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
- Closures are done by administrators. In addition, one should not close his own proposal. --Eleassar (t/p) 06:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Keep Senator2029 01:36, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Keep there is no relevant reason to delete it --VargaA (talk) 12:03, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Kept. Per discussion. Further, the 1941-45 Republic of Croatia was a self-proclamed (puppet, further) State recognized only by Italy, Germany and Japan, thus PD - Yugoslavia is perfectly valid as the sovereignity of Yugoslavia was never discontinued or interrupted over Croatia. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 23:18, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
No evidence that these maps would have been based on free works or free from a different reason.
File:InnerCarniolaLocationMap.png- I withdraw my nominationFile:Kronlander Slowenien.png- I withdraw my nominationFile:Kronländer Slowenien.svg- I withdraw my nomination
File:Pokrajine spodnja stajerska.png- I withdraw my nominationFile:Slo regions marked3.jpg- I withdraw my nominationFile:Slo regions marked3.png- I withdraw my nomination
File:Slovenija pokrajine.png- I withdraw my nominationFile:Trad regions slovenia.jpg- I withdraw my nominationFile:Trad regions slovenia.svg- I withdraw my nominationFile:UpperCarniolaLocationMap.png- I withdraw my nomination
Eleassar (t/p) 11:59, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- I did not check all of them but the creator Liebeskind indicated that the PNG maps were based on sl:Slika:Pokrajine.png in the Slovenian wikipedia. This file is marked as "public domain" (Jaz, imetnik avtorskih pravic na tem delu, dajem delo v javno last. To velja po vsem svetu) by the uploader, Patrignani090. The SVG maps seem to be based on sl:Slika:Trad_regions_slovenia.svg. It is based on File:Trad_regions_slovenia.jpg, which is under GFDL and marked as "By permission of User:Andrejj (Slovenian wikipedia)".
- If all that were in order it looks like there would not be a licensing problem. What exactly is the problem?
- -- Aisano (talk) 13:04, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- The problem is that it provides no information about how it was created. Is it a derived work of a copyrighted or free map or photo? The same for the other file. --Eleassar (t/p) 13:25, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- These maps can easily produced by usual cartographic work, and even if a non-free source was used for it this completely okay for Commons. I explained it here. Cartographic work cannot be compared with the way how free photographs are made. NNW (talk) 17:28, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- All these files seem to have the same outline as the map at GURS: http://e-prostor.gov.si/uploads/RTEmagicC_OB_m_07.jpg.jpg: "All rights reserved." --Eleassar (t/p) 18:39, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- The map you quote has a dimension of only 200×132 pixels. I suppose that at this resolution most maps of Slovenia (and many other countries) look alike. Even if this map had been taken as a basis for the files in the deletion request NNW has pointed out that this would be quite legitimate, and what he says sounds reasonable. Under these circumstances I see no reason to delete the maps. (I only refer to the maps mentioned in this request, not to all maps mentioned in Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Maps_of_Slovenia; I agree with NNW that there are some candidates for deletion.) -- Aisano (talk) 20:15, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- He said: "It is forbidden to redraw an existing map but it is allowed to combine different sources to create a new, self-contained map." The files File:Bela krajina v Sloveniji.png, File:Goricko.png, File:Obcine-Prekmurje.png and File:Slovenia Prekmurje districts.png seem like redrawn to me. --Eleassar (t/p) 20:27, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- O.K. I tried blowing up the map you quoted to a width of 640 pixels (or even just 301 pixels), and it requires a great deal of phantasy to imagine that File:Bela krajina v Sloveniji.png, File:Goricko.png, File:Obcine-Prekmurje.png and File:Slovenia Prekmurje districts.png were "redrawn" from the 200×132 source you quoted. But I am a layperson on cartography, and probably do not have the right kind of phantasy. I withdraw from this discussion. -- Aisano (talk) 21:07, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- I agree that it could not be derived from this specific file, but see this SHP file from the same source (the same map in a vector format). As written in File:Slovenia municipalities.png, "Converted from Shapefile to SVG with shp2svg and prepared for Wikipedia". See also [14], listing such images all ascribed to GURS. This does seem like "redrawing a map" to me. And the GURS site states "All rights reserved." --Eleassar (t/p) 21:53, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- All these files seem to have the same outline as the map at GURS: http://e-prostor.gov.si/uploads/RTEmagicC_OB_m_07.jpg.jpg: "All rights reserved." --Eleassar (t/p) 18:39, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- These maps can easily produced by usual cartographic work, and even if a non-free source was used for it this completely okay for Commons. I explained it here. Cartographic work cannot be compared with the way how free photographs are made. NNW (talk) 17:28, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Keep - see my last comment (09:35, 11 November 2012) here for an explanation about GURS as a (potential) source. With one remark: the borders between traditional regions were app. drawn freely without any template (they are not official ever since the Habsburg monarchy spitted into several new countries), the only data that could be obtained from GURS (or from plenty of other sources) is data about state borders, which can't be copyrighted for obvious reasons (see Rd232's argument here). --Miha (talk) 09:50, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- I agree for the borders between the traditional regions (unless these were taken from Slovenija: pokrajine in ljudje by D. Perko and M. Orožen Adamič), but not for the borders between municipalities. I've explained my opinion at the linked page. --Eleassar (t/p) 10:20, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- So the only possibly problematic file is File:Slovenia_Prekmurje_districts.png. (Another reason why deletion of categories should be prohibited) --Miha (talk) 11:21, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- No, all that are based on GURS (the listed four) are problematic, per what has been said at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Maps of Slovenia. I can't see what this has to do with mass proposals, because these files were reviewed one by one before they were proposed in a batch. I also don't see much copyright-related difference between these four files. Where do you see it? --Eleassar (t/p) 11:34, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- How do you know that File:Slo_regions_marked3.jpg (randomly selected file from the above mentioned files) is based on GURS data? There is no such court that would consider a work as a copyright infringement because we do not know whether they may be in violation. This is known as "lack of evidence" argument, which is sufficient for acquittal. (again if I cite Rd232's argument: It could be argued that if it's impossible to tell now what map it's based on, then it can't be a copyright violation. At some level of abstraction (and this map is fairly abstract) all reasonably accurate maps will look virtually identical, because they're supposed to be reflections of reality, and not purely artistic works. Information is not copyrightable, and there is a core of information in a reasonably accurate map. So if we can't tell what map was the source, maybe all we're left with is the uncopyrightable information) --Miha (talk) 11:41, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- As stated, this file is not among the four still not cleared. It has been determined to be ok. --Eleassar (t/p) 11:47, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- So why don't you withdraw your proposal where needed. --Miha (talk) 12:03, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- I didn't consider it important, because the conversation should make it clear. At your particular wish I'll tag it a such. I only have to verify Perko&Orožen Adamič. --Eleassar (t/p) 12:36, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- Hm, although I don't have this book at my hand right now, I have seen it yesterday and as far as I remember the borders are the same. I'll try to get a copy of that map. I'll wait before I withdraw any nomination for the reply to my doubts here. Your proposition that this is only information is incorrect, because databases and maps are copyrighted in Slovenia. --Eleassar (t/p) 10:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- Keep for now - these files are too different to be packed in one request, please open a request for each one of them, some might be eligible for deletion but many are not so we can't delete them in a group.--Avala (talk) 17:31, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- Why not? We may delete some and keep the others. There's no need to repeat this discussion on multiple pages and it would just disperse it. --Eleassar (t/p) 10:37, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- I've withdrawn the nomination for the majority of files, except for the following four:
- These four are based on the information by GURS and derived from a copyrighted database. See Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Maps of Slovenia. --Eleassar (t/p) 21:38, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- After this conversation, I'd conclude that the original map is not copyrightable and the database right is not accepted as the reason for deletion from Commons; however, users uploading these files may be liable for not respecting it. The files based on the GURS map should therefore not be deleted, but relicensed with {{PD-ineligible}}. If I'm wrong, I ask the concluding administrator (or anyone else) to correct me. --Eleassar (t/p) 12:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- To summarise my last comment, this means I withdraw my nomination. --Eleassar (t/p) 12:32, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Withdrawn. INeverCry 21:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Maps of Slovenia
editNo evidence that these maps are based on an original free map (or that they were created in a different manner that makes them free).
- File:Barracks of Slovenia-map.gif - I withdraw my nomination
- File:Europe map slovenia.png - I withdraw my nomination
- File:Interesting part of the border between Slovenia and Croatia in Zumberak region.png - I withdraw my nomination
- File:KP goricko1.gif - delete (copyvio)
- File:Kras v Sloveniji.jpg - delete (copyvio)
- File:KrasMapka.png - I withdraw my nomination
- File:Location Slovenia EU Europe.png - I withdraw my nomination
- File:Loiblpass und Loibltunnel.png - I withdraw my nomination
- File:LowerCarniolaLocationMap.png - I withdraw my nomination
- File:Mapa3 o.jpg - delete (copyvio)
- File:NSA 55 - 402.png - I withdraw my nomination
- File:Občina Miklavž na Dravskem polju.png - I withdraw my nomination
- File:Postaja tolmin map.jpg - I withdraw my nomination
- File:Prekmurje Republic EN.svg - I withdraw my nomination
- File:Prekmurje Republic HU.svg - I withdraw my nomination
- File:RegioniSlovenia.png - I withdraw my nomination
- File:Slovenia municipalities.png - I withdraw my nomination
- File:SlovenianIstriaLocationMap.png - I withdraw my nomination
- File:Slovensko-hrvaška meja pri Metliki.svg - I withdraw my nomination
- File:Steiner Alpen.png - delete (copyvio)
- File:Styrie en AT & en SI.PNG - I withdraw my nomination
- File:Szlovenia2.hires.wikipedia.jpg - I withdraw my nomination
- File:Territorio-Libero-di-Trieste final 3.JPG - delete (copyvio)
- File:Triglavski narodni park.svg - I withdraw my nomination
Eleassar (t/p) 12:50, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- Are you kidding; so am I: let's delete this page. Maps are based on publicly available information ("informacije javnega značaja") obtained from reality; reality can not be copyrighted. --Miha (talk) 13:13, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- No need to lose nerves. See [15] and [16] for an explanation. Unless evidence is provided that these maps were derived from free original ones, they must be deleted. --Eleassar (t/p) 13:30, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- This is completely contradictory and inconsistent. What's the difference if I say that the map is my own work (I decided to publish under Commons-compatible permissions) or if I say that it is based on OpenStreetMap, where someone else's guaranteed for it to be his own work (freely offered for further usage). --Miha (talk) 13:55, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- Their content is published under the CC-BY-SA 2.0 license. I don't know the project in detail, but sincerely hope they apply similar deletion mechanisms. If it is found out that a map licensed to OSM actually derives from some other copyrighted map, it will surely be deleted. Otherwise, I suggest you ask this at Commons:Village pump. --Eleassar (t/p) 14:02, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
The question is: What is an "own map"? Eleassar says based on an original free map (or that they were created in a different manner that makes them free). This is a too strict way to discuss cartographic copyright and isn't practiced in cartographic reality (I'm a cartographer). There are only very few ways to get a really free (that means self-made) map: a) I start a triangulation, b) I hire a plain, make orthophotos and start to analyse them. Unfortunately this is impossible to do for a whole continent or the world. Even the PD licensed CIA maps use data created by other sources because they obviously weren't allowed to triangulate in every other country. And of course not all of their sources were PD, either. Additionaly boundaries and names of hills or rivers cannot be seen in an orthophoto. So in the end you always need some further sources. I don't know where the boundaries in OSM come from but we can be sure that they weren't made by someone following the boundary with a GPS.
Cartographers work differently. It is okay to use different (and copyrighted) sources as long as the threshold of originality is respected. It is forbidden to redraw an existing map but it is allowed to combine different sources to create a new, self-contained map. One way (beside a new graphic: colours, thickness of lines, elements which are shown...) for this is the cartographic generalisation. The boundaries in File:Slovenia municipalities.png are not the "real" boundaries. This is quite obvious when we compare the boundary between Slovenia and Hungary in this file and in Google Maps. The "real" boundaries were strongly generalised. This is the very own creation of the mapmaker and it is impossible to replicate this exactly, even by the same mapmaker. This makes a map an "own work" even if only one source was taken for it, lets say an administrative map of Slovenia. As a result of this all file of Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Maps of traditional regions of Slovenia, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Europe countries.svg and most of this DR can be kept.
- File:Barracks of Slovenia-map.gif has got an OTRS ticket. What about it?
- File:Kras v Sloveniji.jpg and File:Territorio-Libero-di-Trieste final 3.JPG use a scan, some lines or names were added. The black names in File:Kras v Sloveniji.jpg are added quite amateurish compared to the rest of the map. That indicates that the uploader didn't make it completely on his own. This is a clear copyvio and has to be deleted. The file description of File:Territorio-Libero-di-Trieste final 3.JPG names the scan: "Atlante del TCI - 1947". If Commons:Copyright rules by territory - full#Italy is correct this file has to be deleted, too, because maps that were published in 1947 are still copyrighted.
- The background of File:Mapa3 o.jpg seems to be a screenshot from a map site and some names are added. {{PD-old}} is rubbish, this and source s internetu demand a deletion.
- Maps like File:Postaja tolmin map.jpg are usually copyvios. Especially the contour lines are a clear sign that this was copied from another map. Contour lines have a high level of threshold of originality in cartography. But perhaps User:Gap was part of a surveying team and this is the result of their expedition. He should be asked.
- File:Steiner Alpen.png (and all the derivative maps of this file) is a redrawn map of http://www.bergalbum.de/uebersichtskarte_ostalpen.htm. It copies even the style of the original map. A personal contribution cannot be find.
Please excuse the long text. The listed maps are very different, it is impossible to talk about them in two or three sentences. NNW (talk) 17:15, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the valuable input.
- I have two questions:
- How we can be sure that the generalisation in the files in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Maps of traditional regions of Slovenia and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Europe countries.svg was done by the uploader and not just copied from somewhere? The source maps are not known so that we may compare whether there is any original contribution.
- GURS, which is cited as the source of some files, e.g. File:Slovenia municipalities.png, states at its page: "All rights reserved". What about it?
- I've asked User:Gap for File:Postaja tolmin map.jpg.[17] The author cited in the map is Gašper Šubelj, which could easily be him. As for the OTRS: I guess it does not apply to the map but to the location of the barracks. It's a general permission for the usage of material from the pages of Slovenian Ministry of Defence and I doubt this map was prepared by them, because in general this is work of the Geodetic Institute of Slovenia. --Eleassar (t/p) 17:31, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- We cannot be sure, we just have to trust. It's like with every photo that is uploaded here. A friend could have taken my camera but I upload it as an own work. Nobody knows. Maps like these can be made quite easily, you don't have to be cartographer.
- Ok, I withdraw my nomination for this file. --Eleassar (t/p) 18:16, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- Uh, I missed that it was taken from a website (shame on me). If the boundaries are exactly the same then it is not okay. And I wouldn't agree Rarelibra that data which costs 0 € and is free for commercial purposes is PD. The terms demand that the source is named everywhere, that is different from PD. Unfortunately the Terms and Conditions are from 2008, Rarelibra uploaded it 2006. So we don't know if the terms have changed. NNW (talk) 18:04, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- I think this is based on this image; the boundaries are therefore not exactly the same, however not much different. --Eleassar (t/p) 18:09, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- In the file description Rarelibra mentioned a shapefile. He/she must have downloaded it from the GURS website, converted it to SVG and rendered a PNG from it. NNW (talk) 20:42, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- Keep File:Slovensko-hrvaška meja pri Metliki.svg (free draw; the same applies for Slovenian municipalities.png) --Miha (talk) 18:03, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination for this file. For File:Slovenia municipalities.png, see above. --Eleassar (t/p) 18:18, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, here is the list of files that are still a copyvio or not clarified to be free:
- File:Barracks of Slovenia-map.gif - unclear OTRS status (see above)
- File:KP goricko1.gif - copyvio
- I personally worked with this map to get it right - park border (my own work with help from another map), country names, info below, added location of Lendavsko jezero (orignating from http://www.naravovarstveni-atlas.si/ISN2KJ/profile.aspx?id=NV@ZRSVN). So, if this is still copyvio, then let it be - and I really dont know how to draw a map from a scratch. --Pinky sl (talk) 19:28, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination for this file. I think this meets the criteria for "own work" above. --Eleassar (t/p) 20:12, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- No, background map is a screenshot of the 1:500.000 map that can be seen here: http://www.naravovarstveni-atlas.si/ISN2KJ/profile.aspx?id=NV@ZRSVN. This map is definitely not free. You could redraw that map with OSM data. NNW (talk) 20:33, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- I agree: The data is not problematic, but the background is. --Miha (talk) 09:59, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- No, background map is a screenshot of the 1:500.000 map that can be seen here: http://www.naravovarstveni-atlas.si/ISN2KJ/profile.aspx?id=NV@ZRSVN. This map is definitely not free. You could redraw that map with OSM data. NNW (talk) 20:33, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- File:Kras v Sloveniji.jpg - copyvio
- File:KrasMapka.png - seem to have been redrawn from http://e-prostor.gov.si/uploads/RTEmagicC_OB_m_07.jpg.jpg: "All rights reserved."
- File:Mapa3 o.jpg - copyvio
- File:Občina Miklavž na Dravskem polju.png - based on GURS: "All rights reserved."; seems to have been redrawn from http://e-prostor.gov.si/uploads/RTEmagicC_OB_m_07.jpg.jpg
* File:Postaja tolmin map.jpg - OTRS confirmation requested I withdraw my nomination The uploader Gap self-identifies as Gašper Šubelj. See e.g. [18] ('User' in the file history).
- File:Slovenia municipalities.png - based on GURS; seems to have been redrawn from http://e-prostor.gov.si/uploads/RTEmagicC_OB_m_07.jpg.jpg: "All rights reserved."
File:SlovenianIstriaLocationMap.png - seems to based on GURS; cf. http://e-prostor.gov.si/uploads/RTEmagicC_OB_m_07.jpg.jpg: "All rights reserved." I withdraw my nomination Per [19]- File:Steiner Alpen.png - copyvio
- File:Territorio-Libero-di-Trieste final 3.JPG - copyvio
![[18]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:FAO_WRB_world_soils_map.gif?uselang=it){kind=link}
- Per [20], GURS had no different terms of usage in November 2006 than they're now. Eleassar (t/p) 12:50, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- Keep I agree with NNW:
- These are maps redrawn from public information. Information is not copyrightable - just like I can write an article about an insect species using bibliography, I can draw a map using information from bibliography. For example, for the municipal limits maps, all maps of municipalities in Slovenia are expected to show the same limits. Then, showing the same limits is no evidence of copyvio, and further evidence should be provided to delete it.
- You are assuming all maps are copyvios except when strong evidence of own work is provided. This should work in the opposite way, as usual in Commons: we assume good faith in "own work" statements, unless we find evidence of copyvio. If we were going to delete maps just based on "no proof of own work", we should delete 90% of Commons content by the same reason. I have uploaded some thousands of photos taken by myself but I can't prove I haven't stolen them - fortunately for me, in most countries I'm innocent until proven guilty, just like these maps.
- Anyway, some images might be copyvios. For example, File:Territorio-Libero-di-Trieste final 3.JPG seems to be based on a topographical map. It shouldn't be hard to find which map is it and find if it is free. Then, such maps should be discussed in a one by one basis. I suggest closing this deletion request and opening individual deletion requests for maps with evidence of being copyvios.
- Btw., please notice that File:Mapa3 o.jpg is a map of Slovakia, not Slovenia.--Pere prlpz (talk) 21:37, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for your input, particularly in regard to Mapa3 o (it's interesting that you're the first one who has noticed this). I think we have already mainly determined which works are copyvios and which not. As for those files derived from GURS, I agree that it could not be derived from this specific file, but see this SHP file from the same source (the same map in a vector format). As written in File:Slovenia municipalities.png, "Converted from Shapefile to SVG with shp2svg and prepared for Wikipedia". See also [21], listing such images all ascribed to GURS. This does seem like "redrawing a map" to me. Or using a copyrighted database, if you wish. And the GURS site states "All rights reserved." For File:Territorio-Libero-di-Trieste final 3.JPG, it has already been established above that the original map is non-free, because it was published in 1947. --Eleassar (t/p) 21:59, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- This case with Slovakian map is clear showcase that deleting images based on categories is not a good practise at all. How can it be copyvio, if it is almost unrecognizable even to Slovene users :-) For the map about Morgan line near Trieste, I guess it would be nice if nominator for deletion can also ask some experienced user to recreate it, since it has military, historical and such values. --xJaM (talk) 06:43, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for your input, particularly in regard to Mapa3 o (it's interesting that you're the first one who has noticed this). I think we have already mainly determined which works are copyvios and which not. As for those files derived from GURS, I agree that it could not be derived from this specific file, but see this SHP file from the same source (the same map in a vector format). As written in File:Slovenia municipalities.png, "Converted from Shapefile to SVG with shp2svg and prepared for Wikipedia". See also [21], listing such images all ascribed to GURS. This does seem like "redrawing a map" to me. Or using a copyrighted database, if you wish. And the GURS site states "All rights reserved." For File:Territorio-Libero-di-Trieste final 3.JPG, it has already been established above that the original map is non-free, because it was published in 1947. --Eleassar (t/p) 21:59, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Keep File:Občina_Miklavž_na_Dravskem_polju.png (and the other derivative works of File:Obcine_Slovenija_2006.svg; there should be app. 200 of them) - it is public domain, please see the explanation here --Miha (talk) 09:09, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- "Informacije javnega značaja" (publicly available information) are generally not free, but in this specific case the GURS explicitly allowed it's further usage at the time. However, the government changed several times since 2006 (as also did the borders between the municipalities) and the Terms of usage have changed according to the changes in law, but this doesn't affect our maps as the data was acquired under the old terms.
- According to Price list "Grafični podatki o občini" (graphical data about a municipality) are still free of charge, even for commercial purposes. There is no also other way to depict the borders apart from taking the official data. (To illustrate how absurd this case is: Imagine we would copyright the border with Austria even though they put it into the public domain - the very same border). Moreover, as explained here there was quite a lot of additional work needed to convert raw geographical data into the current graphical representation. --Miha (talk) 09:35, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- Miha, free of charge does not mean copyright-free and their usage is strictly limited. For 2006, what you mean with "the GURS explicitly allowed it's further usage at the time"? Where can this be verified? What were the conditions for this "further usage"? It's unclear. The database copyright has been the same since 1995.
- XJaM, anyone can ask some experienced user to recreate the map, it's not my job. Currently I'm removing non-free files, then I'll do something else, for example complete the article on breast cancer. The nomination was not based on the country but on the category and the stated reason for it doesn't depend on whether it was a map of Slovenia or Slovakia. At full resolution this map of Slovakia is clear enough to be copyrightable (also confirmed by NNW). --Eleassar (t/p) 10:04, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- The uploader claims so, he even provided with links (in the meantime these pages were deleted - 404 error), it cannot be verified anymore so we have to trust him. The burden of proof is in this case up to you. --Miha (talk) 11:19, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, here is the proof: [22] As you may see, this was added yesterday. --Eleassar (t/p) 11:31, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
![[22]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Slovenia_municipalities.png&diff=82702893&oldid=82701768){kind=link}
Keep unless the plan was to attract someones attention for some issues (unknown to me) then it's pretty silly to list the whole category for deletion with a whole bunch of different images. Either way I agree with others, copyright cannot be created when drawing out of PD.--Avala (talk) 17:35, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Minor note: File:Občina Miklavž na Dravskem polju.png and File:KrasMapka.png are obviously not "based on GURS' map", but a version of the free File:Obcine Slovenija 2006.svg with highlights, so Keep both. I don't know why it says otherwise in the description. — Yerpo Eh? 08:49, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- You seem to have missed that the "free File:Obcine Slovenija 2006.svg" is itself based on GURS. --Eleassar (t/p) 08:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- If "based on GURS" means based on the map you linked (http://e-prostor.gov.si/uploads/RTEmagicC_OB_m_07.jpg.jpg ), I don't see the point of claiming that a detailed svg is based on such an small and less detailed jpg. Furthermore, it just shows municipality borders - e.g. public information non copyrightable. Or do you claim that municipality borders in Slovenia are copyrighted?--Pere prlpz (talk) 09:24, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- As explained above, a vector version of the image is available at the same site; please note the source: "Converted from Shapefile to SVG with shp2svg". The borders can't be copyrighted, but the database containing their coordinates and in particular the map that shows them could be, and I have not seen any evidence that they were not. On the contrary, the site clearly states "All rights reserved." --Eleassar (t/p) 09:32, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- As referred to at the description page of File:Obcine Slovenija 2006.svg, the dataset was free to use for all purposes at the time the file was created. On what do you base your opinion that this is not important? Current terms forbid the use for commercial purposes (see [23], tab "Brezplačni podatki"), but this cannot apply retroactively for older versions that were free. — Yerpo Eh? 09:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- Let me repeat: per [24], GURS had no different terms of usage in November 2006 than they're now. And this file was uploaded in November 2008. --Eleassar (t/p) 10:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- This is a non-copyright restriction, similar to the one prohibiting commercial use of reproductions of cultural monuments. Databases containing naked facts without a creative element aren't protected under Slovene copyright law, as far as I understand ZUJF (although articles 8 and 141.a conflict a little and 141.a is very poorly defined). Moreover, the "database right" is not regarded a copyright at all in Commons. — Yerpo Eh? 13:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- Commons does consider the database right (see here) and per the Slovene copyright and related rights act,[25] databases are protected for the period of 15 years. Article 8 states: "Collections of works or of other material, such as encyclopaedias, anthologies, databases, collections of documents, etc., which, by virtue of selection, coordination or arrangement of their contents, are individual intellectual creations [i.e. a copyrightable work per Article 5], shall be deemed independent works." It is true, per [26] (pg. 28), that those maps that are part of an official text can be used freely; see e.g. [27] (Article 2) or [28] (Article 3) etc. However, the GURS database in general and the discussed map as the graphic presentation of its significant part are copyrighted because they have never been published as part of an official text. --Eleassar (t/p) 22:45, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- I don't see how is a list of official coordinates a "collection of material which, by virtue of selection, coordination or arrangement of its contents, is an individual intellectual creation". Article 141.a, on the other hand, clearly states that database right is independent of copyright and I'm not sure how is that regarded on Commons. I don't know German good enough to understand whether the German case is completely or only superficially analogous. — Yerpo Eh? 06:20, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- As you've stated and also is written e.g. in [29] (pg. 60), a database is an author's and thus copyrightable work only in the case it is an individual intellectual creation, as demanded by Article 8. My opinion is that this map, which is a graphic presentation of a significant part of the Registry of Spatial Units (Register prostorskih enot, RPE), qualifies as an intellectual creation due to the manner in which it was assembled.[30] From the excerpt there one may see that a lot of effort, knowledge and experience was put into creating it. The question is then whether it is an individual creation. Per this comment, a map would be an individual creation if it had "a cartographic generalisation and a graphic of its own". I don't think it has had any generalisation and also doesn't have its own graphic.[31] In my opinion it therefore does not qualify as an individual creation and is thus not an author's work, which means I have to admit you're correct in this. I have followed this court case in my interpretation.
- The remaining question is then whether Commons considers the database right. As can be seen from this diff, the database right was considered part of the policy until 7 September 2012, when it was removed by User:Rd232 for an unknown reason. As I have not found an explanation and agreement about this removal at the policy's talk page, I've asked him to explain why he has removed it. I guess it was considered relevant only for the United Kingdom, as it has been moved to Commons:Copyright rules by territory - full#United Kingdom. Its discussion there and its mention at Commons:Derivative works#Maps apparently mean that Commons does consider it relevant for the material inclusion. --Eleassar (t/p) 10:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- After this conversation, I'd conclude that the database right is not accepted as the reason for deletion from Commons; however, users uploading these files may be liable for not respecting it. The files based on GURS should therefore be relicensed with {{PD-ineligible}}. If I'm wrong, I ask the concluding administrator (or anyone else) to correct me. The remaining ones, recognised as copyvios, should be deleted:
- --Eleassar (t/p) 12:53, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- Let me repeat: per [24], GURS had no different terms of usage in November 2006 than they're now. And this file was uploaded in November 2008. --Eleassar (t/p) 10:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- As referred to at the description page of File:Obcine Slovenija 2006.svg, the dataset was free to use for all purposes at the time the file was created. On what do you base your opinion that this is not important? Current terms forbid the use for commercial purposes (see [23], tab "Brezplačni podatki"), but this cannot apply retroactively for older versions that were free. — Yerpo Eh? 09:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- As explained above, a vector version of the image is available at the same site; please note the source: "Converted from Shapefile to SVG with shp2svg". The borders can't be copyrighted, but the database containing their coordinates and in particular the map that shows them could be, and I have not seen any evidence that they were not. On the contrary, the site clearly states "All rights reserved." --Eleassar (t/p) 09:32, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- If "based on GURS" means based on the map you linked (http://e-prostor.gov.si/uploads/RTEmagicC_OB_m_07.jpg.jpg ), I don't see the point of claiming that a detailed svg is based on such an small and less detailed jpg. Furthermore, it just shows municipality borders - e.g. public information non copyrightable. Or do you claim that municipality borders in Slovenia are copyrighted?--Pere prlpz (talk) 09:24, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- It would be good to add some disclaimer explaining database and property rights to files in question. I agree with deletion of the remaining files. — Yerpo Eh? 20:49, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- I agree. I've asked User:Rd232 if there is some available.[32] --Eleassar (t/p) 20:58, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Eleassar, now it is my turn to respond. First off, there is no possible way with the resolution of the image that you are claiming was used compared to the resolution of the map that I created. Each and every single map that I created is digitized in its own right by my hands from sources that are available as a reference. As I stated, I started with a SHP file, converted it to SVG, but then I altered it, by hand, to be updated to each and every single source map as accurately as possible so that the boundaries may match even the countries that surround Slovenia. You have the burden of proof and you haven't proven anything. GURS data is only restricted for COMMERCIAL usage. If it is used as a base map for modifications to create a resultant map, there is nothing wrong with that (and nothing wrong with my authored map being used under GNU with my own permission). So kindly remove your request and stop going after maps with what amounts to accusations without proof. Your efforts are noteworthy but your methods are suspect, at best. Rarelibra (talk) 16:15, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- Keep File:Steiner_Alpen.png (even though it is based on a map found on copyrighted website, the borders are raw data which can not be copyrighted; in comparison with other maps still proposed for deletion no other copyrightable elements (such as background) are visible). --Miha (talk) 22:44, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- It has been recognised above as a copyvio by three users. It is evident that not only borders, but also e.g. the outlines of rivers and lakes, the outline of the coast etc, have been directly taken and depicted in the same or almost the same manner like on the copyrighted map. As stated, it copies the style of the original map. A personal contribution cannot be find. --Eleassar (t/p) 06:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Additionally nominated (with the same rationale as File:Steiner_Alpen.png):
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
--Eleassar (t/p) 21:41, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm completely lost in this discussion. We started a discussion about a lot of maps and a quite general reason to delete. Now, we are discussing a few maps with different reasons. I suggest closing this discussion and starting again a new deletion request for each map, or for each group of map that fit the same rationale.--Pere prlpz (talk) 22:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- I understand and apologise. In short, we've reached consensus about deleting as a copvio:
- Today, I have also added File:Alps_-_Regions_(Eastern_Alps).png to this request, because it has been made in the same way as File:Steiner Alpen.png.
- I have no problem starting a new discussion if needed. However, this short list should be viewed as the remaining non-free files. --Eleassar (t/p) 23:18, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- If map of "Steiner Alpen" is problematic, so are also all the derivative maps of this file: Bayrische Voralpen.png, Berchtesgadener Alpen.png, Bergamasker Alpen.png, ... (see Category:Maps_of_the_Alps). For this a new discussion really should be opened. Personally, I don´t think that the process of creating the maps on which files on Commons are based as regards the basic shapes (lakes and rivers you were referencing to) was a creative process which is a requirement for one to be entitled of holding copyrights. The same applies for File:Mapa3 o.jpg (it's a Slovakian map, maybe they have different legalisation that makes all maps a priori free). Additionally, at least File:Territorio-Libero-di-Trieste final 3.JPG and File:Kras v Sloveniji.jpg should be kept or archived elsewhere (because of valuable data) unless someone redraws these maps using a free background. --Miha (talk) 11:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- No problem opening a new request for other files similar to "Steiner Alps", when this one gets deleted. For the Slovak map being copyright free, this is nonsense. Section 7 clearly mentions cartographic works as copyrightable. In any case, the burden of proof is on the uploader or one that wishes to keep it. It should only be kept if such evidence is provided. As for the remaining two, the criteria for deletion are clear and copyvios can't be kept just because there is no free alternative available at the moment. It will be great, though, if you archive them elsewhere (mind only that they can't be used under the fair use). --Eleassar (t/p) 12:04, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- For better transparency, a new request should be opened for the entire series, before deleting "Steiner Alps". --Miha (talk) 19:23, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- Transparency is not a factor in deciding whether an image should be kept (provide a clear case if you think otherwise). Copyvio is. --Eleassar (t/p) 19:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- As it can be seen from the discussion above, it is plausible whether or not the particular photo should be deleted. As this also applies to other pictures in the series a separate discussion should be opened. --Miha (talk) 21:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- If I were a sysop - which I am not - it would be hard for me to find the rationale and discussion about each of the remaining proposed file are copyvios or not. This is my reason to suggest a new request.--Pere prlpz (talk) 21:59, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- As it can be seen from the discussion above, it is plausible whether or not the particular photo should be deleted. As this also applies to other pictures in the series a separate discussion should be opened. --Miha (talk) 21:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Kept: The withdrawals and the image added at the end do seem to make this a bit confusing. A new DR should be opened in order to facilitate a more clear discussion. INeverCry 21:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)