Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2012/05/02
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
Non-free on English Wikipedia. I think the bird is pretty close to the old one which is PD, but it's not identical so this may not be a free derivative. Fry1989 eh? 01:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Not an own work, unfree logo. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 01:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
useless redirect with name error ŠJů (talk) 01:45, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: 0-day old redir, per requester. -- Túrelio (talk) 06:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio. There is no evidence of {{FAL}}. Khutuck (he isn't the author. he is the original uplaoder in Turkish Wikipedia) had uploaded this file as a non-free fair use file. Takabeg (talk) 02:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 11:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Recent bulding. No FoP in France Léna (talk) 14:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per request. File copied to frwp. Coyau (talk) 15:59, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Saint Jerome Emiliani Institue.jpg Bearezzan (talk) 03:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- This is not a valid deletion request. What do you want to say? Why do you want it deleted? --Túrelio (talk) 06:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Non-free logo. Please send OTRS if this file needs to be undeleted. Sreejith K (talk) 07:02, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Probable copyvio and not uploader's own work. source 1, source 2. – JBarta (talk) 13:51, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 16:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
This comic can easily be taken as a personal attack against RF, and therefore is inappropriate for us to be hosting. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- I've just been told that it can also be interpreted as a personal attack against Elen. Hadn't thought of that one, but that changes nothing. The image still needs to go. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep The comic is part of a series in the vein of Polandball, which takes a satirical look at Wikipedia. Rich doesn't see it as a personal attack, in fact he stated he laughed at it. It also isn't a personal attack against Elen, but rather it pokes fun at her; in fact it pokes fun at all concerned; which is the entire point of satire in the first place. It will be in use on English Wikipedia in my userspace in due course -- may start work on it here at Commons. There is also the additional potential scope of being used in articles on Wikipedia (of which several already are); but we'll leave that up to individual projects to decide on. Please also refer to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Poland can into Wikipedia.jpg. russavia (talk) 07:02, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep This image has been featured on Jimbo Wales' talk, multiple users saw it and no one found problem with it. As pointed above, Rich liked it. Per satirical cartoons' conventions every character is shown in a humorous way. This is not an attack and this image does not take sides and does not say who is right and who is wrong, this is just an attempt to describe the entire situation in a humorous way. See also the description of the image. GreyHood Talk 08:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep This image is valid as a parody of Wikipedia issues. If RF or Elen have been affected by this image and see it as a personal attack, they should raise it up for investigation on a sympathetic noticeboard, a deletion request not being the right place for such a matter, where they can put the case themselves and the outcome may well be a valid removal (a outcome that I would support for any credible personal attack). I have no problem with seeing File:Britain can into Wikipedia.jpg as political parody, which is similarly edgy, pointedly dedicated to my UK chapter and has been posted on my Wikipedia talk page. If we delete these images, then I see no reason to treat Wikipedia and notable Wikipedians any differently to other organizations and notable individuals who may have political cartoons about them, such as Presidents of the United States or Religious figures. Just because this project is hosted by Wikimedia, is not a reason to censor images which are intended as a parody of Wikimedia. --Fæ (talk) 08:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- Guess half or more of the images in the Category:Modified images of Jimmy Wales might be "inappropriate for us to be hosting" per Sven ;). GreyHood Talk 10:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- Nope, only one of them, File:Wikidunce.jpg. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- Guess half or more of the images in the Category:Modified images of Jimmy Wales might be "inappropriate for us to be hosting" per Sven ;). GreyHood Talk 10:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep (But thanks for the concern.) I don't see that it is a personal attack on me, it is extremely gentle satire, especially compared with the unsubstantiated allegations made almost daily on Wikipedia dramah boardz, which in turn are minor compared with off wiki "satellite" attacks, which are nothing to what really peeved people will post. Now excuse me I need to get back to vandalising all of .. er I mean editing productively. Rich Farmbrough, 01:36 4 May 2012 (GMT).
- keep if the parties involved complained, i could see a discussion, but why interject "can easily be taken as a personal attack" ? that's quite a subjunctive limb. Slowking4 (talk) 13:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- Withdraw Per RF, I suppose. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:40, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Nomination withdrawn by nominator russavia (talk) 16:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Fake flag and bad rendering. Uploading correct official version soon. Kacnepcku-Cp6uja (talk) 21:59, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep. This is a ploy by the uploader to exert ownership control over the file. Kacnepcku-Cp6uja uploaded the file based on multiple sources (1, 2), and added it to articles asserting it is real. He is simply nominating it for deletion because I added a fringe as according to both sources (and for visibility reasons). Kacnepcku-Cp6uja does not like the fringe, and has constantly tried to remove it without proper explanations for it's exclusion. I have tried multiple times to engage him on his talk page, and instead of giving reasons for it not to include a fringe, he has accused me of lying and vandalism. Please also notice that Kacnepcku-Cp6uja has continued to revert to a fringe-less version 2 minutes after this nomination. If it was fake, then Kacnepcku-Cp6uja wouldn't care, and would wait for it's deletion. That he continues to revert it shows not only an extreme ownership problem, but that Kacnepcku-Cp6uja is lying about it being a fake flag, otherwise it would not be such an issue for him. Fry1989 eh? 22:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, agree with Fry. Nomination will not solve anything. I think Fry and Kacnepcku-Cp6uja have to ask the administrators to decide who is right. D5A (talk) 09:40, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Extension of an edit war. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:23, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Useless for lack of description. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:24, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:36, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
No academic value of this image. If this image can be there on commons, why not such images from Flickr and Imageshack.us Hindustanilanguage (talk) 10:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:37, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
The supporting article on en:wp Cuzzy Media which included this guy's pic has been deleted. with the following remark: Article about a company, corporation, organization, or group which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 10:47, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:39, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
unused family pics Hindustanilanguage (talk) 10:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:39, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
unused family pics Hindustanilanguage (talk) 10:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:40, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
no longer used and desired Luxusfrosch (talk) 11:38, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Unused logo of an unknown organisation/group. -- Túrelio (talk) 12:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:43, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, likely showing the uploader himself. Does anybody see any use for it? -- Túrelio (talk) 12:25, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:44, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
I, the uploader, want it to be removed as it's no longer needed Adnan shammot (talk) 12:30, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per Uploader request and out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:45, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal photo of an likely non-notable person "Jorge"; only upload of this user. Is there any use for it? -- Túrelio (talk) 12:27, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:46, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, likely of the uploader himself. I don't see any use for it. -- Túrelio (talk) 12:30, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:46, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
I, the uploader, want it to be removed as it's no longer needed Adnan shammot (talk) 12:30, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per Uploader request and out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:45, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Unused, personal photo. Depicted might be this one http://twitter.com/#!/HTamplin. Any use for it? -- Túrelio (talk) 12:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal image of a likely non-notable person; only upload of this user. Any use for it? -- Túrelio (talk) 12:34, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal image of a likely non-notable person. Any use for it? -- Túrelio (talk) 12:36, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal image of a likely non-notable person; hardly in scope. Any use for it? -- Túrelio (talk) 12:38, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:48, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
No copyright statement on the site, most probably the picture is not free. BugWarp (talk) 00:00, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Delete This should have been a speedy delete. Clear copyvio. Banfield - Amenazas aquí 17:12, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Deleted Copyviol. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:07, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
File is corrupt. The European Circle DE (talk) 14:02, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: corrupt file George Chernilevsky talk 19:49, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
self promotion Robot Monk (talk) 14:34, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:49, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
self promotion Robot Monk (talk) 14:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:49, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE as self created artwork without obvious educational purpose. Teofilo (talk) 19:54, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE as self created artwork without obvious educational purpose Teofilo (talk) 19:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Ridiculous PD release; "author" links to file sharing site notorious for hosting copyvios. Looks like an official school picture. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:18, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom, not in PD Ezarateesteban 19:31, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Derivative work of copyrighted posters. Freedom of panorama in Japan only allows artistic works for non-commercial purposes. — ξxplicit 01:23, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:DM doesn't apply here Ezarateesteban 19:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
cpv ? Svajcr (talk) 05:34, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Ezarateesteban 19:36, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
No evidence of copyright permission - appears to be originally from http://www.overgroundonline.com/news-5219/snoop-gives-chelsea-housewife-doggystyle.html ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 00:53, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 18:31, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
is not my image this image have copyrigth http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Firma_del_artista.jpg Alberto Ospina Sousa (talk) 08:02, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Comment In which country was this signature written? Signatures are copyrighted in some countries but not in other countries, see COM:SIG. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Tiene derechos de autor With copyrigth please delete Alberto Ospina Sousa (talk) 05:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per Uploader's request George Chernilevsky talk 07:55, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Copyright vio. Rapsar (talk) 13:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 18:30, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
derivative work of sculpture. Sculptor unknown. Copyright term in Indonesia is 50 years pma. Teofilo (talk) 19:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: High Contrast (talk) 17:27, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
derivative work of sculpture from Thailand. Sculptor unknown. Teofilo (talk) 19:51, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: High Contrast (talk) 17:27, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
http://www.icty.org/sections/Copyrightandconditionsofuse/Copyright WhiteWriter speaks 22:18, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Kobac (talk) 09:20, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 18:30, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Elvin Hernandez G (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused personal photos: no educational value and therefore out of project scope.
- File:Mamá, Abue...y Padrastro.jpg
- File:Xavier Rodriguez.JPG
- File:Elvin Hernandez.JPG
- File:Elvin & Mili (amigos).jpg
- File:Familia Hernandez.JPG
Mathonius (talk) 03:01, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Motopark (talk) 05:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Some could be kept if they were of a higher quality and we knew the nationalilty of the subjects. Chesdovi (talk) 18:53, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:31, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Derivative work of paintings on the boomrangs. Teofilo (talk) 19:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: High Contrast (talk) 16:05, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
derivative work of sculpture. Sculptor unknown. Copyright term in Indonesia is 50 years pma. Teofilo (talk) 19:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: High Contrast (talk) 16:05, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
File:US Navy 060809-N-4208W-002 Lt. Sean Holman, assigned to Commander Naval Forces Korea (CNFK), serves dinner to the children of Hye-shim Won Orphanage in Seoul, Republic of Korea.jpg
[edit]
The metadata of this file identifies a uniformed service member as an intelligence officer. This places the service member and his family at risk - regardless of whether the information is accurate or inaccurate. Please remove this entry in its entirety at your soonest possible convenience. 64.62.198.233 22:59, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep that's the information at the source, and besides, an intelligence officer is not a secret agent, they are intelligence analysts. They sit behind desks and read reports. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 03:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep The DoD routinely publishes images of individuals identified as intelligence officers. Let's not be more catholic than the pope. If the DoD published it, the officials there responsible to make sure released images don't put GIs at risk cleared this image. Geo Swan (talk) 05:38, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Your deletion argument is unconvincing, and it's the DoD's call anyway, not ours. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:52, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep according to my intelligence this image is still online. Multichill (talk) 13:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep per above, though perhaps the title of the image could be shrunk down. Wizardman 03:24, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: per comments - no reason to delete Denniss (talk) 16:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
COM:FOP#Russia. 84.61.181.19 12:56, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as per nom russavia (talk) 01:54, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Не указана категория Савельев Георгий Владимирович (talk) 08:59, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 22:49, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
How does a logo justify CC licensing? Clear copyvio of the website. Fanofbollywood (talk) 12:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 22:49, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Derivate work from http://www.dashinvaine.co.uk/inquisition%20fin%20page.htm not own work. All artwork and website design elements © Gordon Napier 2011 Copyvio. WhiteWriter speaks 22:25, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Kobac (talk) 09:18, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 22:49, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Not a valid template. Journal Officiel contents are not an exception to French copyright law. Teofilo (talk) 22:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- The official text published on the JORF are PD[ citation needed ], only analyze, translations of thoses analyze, comments on cases are copyrighted. Maybe the wording of the template has to be reworked, but the template seems to be about official text only. Keep for me. --PierreSelim (talk) 06:44, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- I added " [ citation needed ] " in your statement above. Please provide reliable evidence to your claim. I doubt you will find any such evidence. There is no such thing as PD-FrGov in France. There is no exception for Journal Officiel or for government works in French copyright law. Teofilo (talk) 12:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comment it’s not a matter of PD-gov but of PD-law. Plus, there is some PD-gov-like in France (OpenData for instance). Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 14:09, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- I added " [ citation needed ] " in your statement above. Please provide reliable evidence to your claim. I doubt you will find any such evidence. There is no such thing as PD-FrGov in France. There is no exception for Journal Officiel or for government works in French copyright law. Teofilo (talk) 12:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep The Journal Officiel is the official anthology of laws, orders and regulations in France. According to established case law, all laws, decrees, ordinances, circulars, and indeed all texts published in the official bulletins, are in the public domain. See for instance CA Paris 5 avril 1867: ‘the documents published by the Imperial Commission and inserted into the Bulletin des lois [now the JORF] have undoubtedly entered the public domain, and can be used by [the defendant, a publisher] as well as by anyone.’ To my knowledge there is no dissenting case law. My references are: Pierre-Yves Gautier, Traité de la propriété littéraire et artistique (2010), no.51; Stéphanie Choisy, Le Domaine public en droit d'auteur (2002), no.330–331; Christophe Caron, Droit d'auteur et droits voisins (2006), §109 and §137.
- This was before the creation of the modern French copyright law. Teofilo (talk) 12:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- Please read all the words. It's established case law since the 19th century. Please also refer to Cass. req. 15 mai 1878 and T. corr. 17 janvier 1968. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 13:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- 1867 is before the Article 111-1 of code de la propriété intellectuelle was changed in August 2006, adding it is "not derogated" to authorship right when the author is an agent of the state : "Sous les mêmes réserves, il n'est pas non plus dérogé à la jouissance de ce même droit lorsque l'auteur de l'oeuvre de l'esprit est un agent de l'Etat, d'une collectivité territoriale, d'un établissement public à caractère administratif, d'une autorité administrative indépendante dotée de la personnalité morale ou de la Banque de France". Reference: Loi n° 2006-961 du 1 août 2006 relative au droit d'auteur et aux droits voisins dans la société de l'information, article 31. Also in French law, there is no "case law". Legal precedents are not a source of law in France. Teofilo (talk) 13:17, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- If the 1867 ruling was still valid today, the public domain should also be applied to database rights. But the Journal Officiel claims a database right at http://rip.journal-officiel.gouv.fr/ Teofilo (talk) 13:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- Journal Officiel contents are aslo subject to Statute of 17 July 1978 on the reuse of public information, which says that reusing public information is allowed, provided you ask for permission on a case by case basis, and that you may be requested to pay a license. Teofilo (talk) 13:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- Article 111-1 CPI has no relevance to the matter at hand. Members of Parliament aren't civil servants; they were never excluded from personal copyright, yet courts have judged their work are to be in the public domain. In other words, members of parliament and civil servants would be entitled to copyright under common law *but*, according to courts, their copyright is waived in the interest of the public. The whole French legal publishing industry is built upon this exception, which has been upheld by courts for more than a century. Database rights are also irrelevant here, as they can also apply to public domain content. And finally the Public Data Act you mention doesn't apply where copyright exists (art.10c), so you can't raise both points at the same time (not to mention the fact it doesn't apply to members of Parliament).
- France isn't a common law country, but jurisprudence is de facto an important source of law. Courts refer to it in their decision. You have yourself referred to jurisprudence in the past, so I'm rather surprised by your change of heart about it. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 14:20, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- 90% or more of laws are not written by members of parliament, but by the civil servants in ministries who write the bills. MPs amend the bills and in most cases the amendments leave most of the bill intact. In French "domaine public" is a word which applies to the removal of any of the protections included in the intellectual property code. For example one can say that a "brevet" (an industrial patent) is in "domaine public" if it is old enough. When the Paris Appeals Court ruled in 1867 that the Journal Officiel's pages have undoubtedly entered the public domain, that court meant that it should be free for anyone to reuse and that no restriction whatsoever should apply. If this ruling was still valid today, it would include database rights (a part of intellectual property code). The fact that Journal Officiel claims database rights royalties at http://rip.journal-officiel.gouv.fr shows that there is no consensus in France today as regards the validity of the 1867 court ruling. I am convinced that the whole French legal publishing industry currently pays the licensing fees mentioned at http://rip.journal-officiel.gouv.fr/ and gets the data from the source, instead of copying on each other or on government publications without approval. Article 10 c) of the Public Data Act of 1978 excludes documents where a third party owns intellectual property rights. Civil servants are not considered a third party (I guess some people might want to argue against that based on the CPI L111-1 change of August 2006, but the intention of the lawmaker before August 2006 was to consider that civil servants are not a third party). See also article 15 mentioning that intellectual property royalties can be requested in addition to the normal fee. Teofilo (talk) 19:05, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- In French copyright law there is no such thing as the public domain: you will find no mention of it in the CPI (French Copyrigh Act). No law in France states that a copyrighted work enters the public domain when patrimonial rights have expired. It's a doctrinal construct, sanctioned by case law. As it happens, legal doctrine doesn't agree with you. 'Public domain' is also used to qualify works that don't attract copyright such as raw data, folklore works, and actually a lot of works which should be copyrighted but are not according to courts. This includes courts decisions (T. civ. Seine, 7 mai 1896), national exams subjects (CA Paris, 13 juin 1991), and patent descriptions (T. corr. Paris 17 janvier 1968). It also includes official texts per the case law I mentioned. You claim you know better that an appeal court what the public domain is or isn't. I beg to differ, and my position is supported by three references. They state unequivocally that to this day, official texts are in the public domain because this old case law is still upheld. I have also provided two more recent court decisions. I'm at a loss how to make this clearer to you—yes, this case is old, but it still stands, and you have given no reference to the contrary.
- As mentioned before, database rights apply even to public domain contain, such as raw data. Weather data isn't copyrighted; weather databases are. Official texts aren't copyrighted; a repository of official texts is. How do database rights invalidate the PD-JORF licence exactly?
- As for the Public Data Act, Legifrance apparently claims its protection because the content is brought to the Web by the civil service. Fair enough. However, Commons:Non-copyright restrictions is our established policy—admins have always enforced it. If you wish to challenge it because of the Board of Trustees' resolution, you are free to do so outside of this DR. In my opinion this matter is quite beyond the remit of the closing admin. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 07:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
- Do you know which legal argument was used by the court in the 1867 ruling ? Was it based on the constitution ? On fr:Principes généraux du droit ? On the republican/imperial form of government ? It is surprising that such a powerful argument has the power of lifting the authorship right enshrined in law, but is too weak to lift the database right. Teofilo (talk) 13:01, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
- 90% or more of laws are not written by members of parliament, but by the civil servants in ministries who write the bills. MPs amend the bills and in most cases the amendments leave most of the bill intact. In French "domaine public" is a word which applies to the removal of any of the protections included in the intellectual property code. For example one can say that a "brevet" (an industrial patent) is in "domaine public" if it is old enough. When the Paris Appeals Court ruled in 1867 that the Journal Officiel's pages have undoubtedly entered the public domain, that court meant that it should be free for anyone to reuse and that no restriction whatsoever should apply. If this ruling was still valid today, it would include database rights (a part of intellectual property code). The fact that Journal Officiel claims database rights royalties at http://rip.journal-officiel.gouv.fr shows that there is no consensus in France today as regards the validity of the 1867 court ruling. I am convinced that the whole French legal publishing industry currently pays the licensing fees mentioned at http://rip.journal-officiel.gouv.fr/ and gets the data from the source, instead of copying on each other or on government publications without approval. Article 10 c) of the Public Data Act of 1978 excludes documents where a third party owns intellectual property rights. Civil servants are not considered a third party (I guess some people might want to argue against that based on the CPI L111-1 change of August 2006, but the intention of the lawmaker before August 2006 was to consider that civil servants are not a third party). See also article 15 mentioning that intellectual property royalties can be requested in addition to the normal fee. Teofilo (talk) 19:05, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- Please read all the words. It's established case law since the 19th century. Please also refer to Cass. req. 15 mai 1878 and T. corr. 17 janvier 1968. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 13:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- This was before the creation of the modern French copyright law. Teofilo (talk) 12:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with Pierre-Selim the template could be better written. The caveat in particular isn't very clear. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 06:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep too (though, I'm not sure it's always use properly ; but that's another matter), VIGNERON (talk) 07:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comment You may want to know why I am raising this issue now. It is because I saw yesterday the following 2 May 2012 upload Category:Statut_du_mineur, a consolidated version of a decree dated 1947. First of all the Statute of 17 July 1978 did not exist at that time. But we can't rule out that the mining company requested a permission and obtained it. On the other hand, Wikimedia commons has not requested a permission and has not obtained it. Teofilo (talk) 13:52, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comment You may want to know why we have to take the Statute of 17 July 1978 into account. The reason is that Commons:Licensing refers to http://freedomdefined.org/Definition which says No other restrictions or limitations: The work itself must not be covered by legal restrictions (patents, contracts, etc.) or limitations (such as privacy rights) which would impede the freedoms enumerated above. Infringing the Statute of 17 July 1978 is punished by a fine up to 300,000 € or 5% of revenue in the case of a business. Teofilo (talk) 14:05, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- You might want to read Commons:Non-copyright restrictions. Jean-Fred (talk) 16:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- Commons:Non-copyright restrictions is referenced by http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-February/027547.html , a Kat Walsh statement of 8 February 2007. Commons:Licensing's reference to freedomdefined.org is backed by a Board of Trustees' resolution : http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy dated 23 March 2007. It is clear that the board of trustees' resolution has precedence over a single WMF officer or trustee's statement. Teofilo (talk) 17:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- It is not any less clear that COM:NCR is Wikimedia Commons policy. Please have its policy status revoked before dismissing it. Jean-Fred (talk) 09:16, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
- COM:NCR was created with trademarks in mind, as trademarks require a permission only for reusers that are in the same business as the trademark owner, so that there is a wide range of permitted uses, including commercial ones that don't require a permission. In the case of the French Public Data act, there is not the slightest exception allowing uses without permission. COM:NCR, that was a reasonable policy in the case of trademarks, becomes crazy in the case of the French Public Data act. Teofilo (talk) 13:13, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
- Whatever the original intent, COM:NCR now covers more than trademarks (like database rights or Soprintendenza). As for the 1978 Public data act, the last discussion on that matter erred more on the side of deeming it irrelevant to Wikimedia Commons. Jean-Fred (talk) 14:42, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
- COM:NCR was created with trademarks in mind, as trademarks require a permission only for reusers that are in the same business as the trademark owner, so that there is a wide range of permitted uses, including commercial ones that don't require a permission. In the case of the French Public Data act, there is not the slightest exception allowing uses without permission. COM:NCR, that was a reasonable policy in the case of trademarks, becomes crazy in the case of the French Public Data act. Teofilo (talk) 13:13, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
- It is not any less clear that COM:NCR is Wikimedia Commons policy. Please have its policy status revoked before dismissing it. Jean-Fred (talk) 09:16, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
- Commons:Non-copyright restrictions is referenced by http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-February/027547.html , a Kat Walsh statement of 8 February 2007. Commons:Licensing's reference to freedomdefined.org is backed by a Board of Trustees' resolution : http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy dated 23 March 2007. It is clear that the board of trustees' resolution has precedence over a single WMF officer or trustee's statement. Teofilo (talk) 17:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- You might want to read Commons:Non-copyright restrictions. Jean-Fred (talk) 16:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep I have never heard of laws themselves being subjected to copyright. Laws by definition are public property. Restricting free distribution of laws would violate the very core values of any justice system. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 15:00, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
See discussion of that case on fr:Wikipédia:Legifer/mai 2012. Biem (talk) 07:00, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Keep the template, but the formulation may be reviewed to make it clear that the ineledgibility to author's rights must be asserted on a case-by-case basis, not by the mere fact of being published on the JORF. Biem (talk) 07:00, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep méconnaissance visible du droit français par le proposant. - Bzh-99 (talk) 09:02, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Consensus to keep the translate. Several opinions offer to improve the template text to clarify the template use. Dereckson (talk) 09:08, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Johngalea24 (talk · contribs)
[edit]CD cover and professional photo from user without contribs.
Kobac (talk) 15:54, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. There's no need for request. CD covers must be deleted if they aren't free. Ralgis 15:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete These are non-free fair use copyrighted images. --Leoboudv (talk) 06:08, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 17:33, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Mao Zedong poem shizhao (talk) 02:30, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- But, Freedom of Panorama in PRC. -- Vmenkov (talk) 03:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- It is photo of a screen erected at a public park in Yangzhou--Gisling (talk) 22:52, 4 May 2012 (UTC).
Kept: Covered by freedom of panorama. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 18:32, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
cpv - © Succession Gisèle Freund/IMEC Svajcr (talk) 05:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyrighted picture (Gisèle Freund died in 2000), no evidence of permission. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 18:35, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
This is incorrectly described as an infrared picture. It was merely described that way at the original Flickr source but was only manipulated in image editing software with a pseudo-solarization or neon glow effect. This is what people photographed in infrared actually look like; no hot glowing effects. The picture is out of scope as having no educational value, and is even misleading. O'Dea (talk) 05:56, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per the nominator. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 18:32, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
The image (of rugby league captains at the 2008 World Cup) appears to have been taken without permission from this website
http://adam-conroy.suite101.com/rugby-league-four-nations-a161423
- Responsible? (talk) 06:24, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio, per the nominator. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 18:32, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:07, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per the nominator. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 18:03, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:07, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per the nominator. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 18:03, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per the nominator. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 18:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, no permission. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per the nominator. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 18:10, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per the nominator. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 18:11, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, no license. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per the nominator. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 18:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, no license. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:10, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per the nominator. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 18:15, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:10, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per the nominator. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 18:20, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:10, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per the nominator. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 18:21, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per the nominator. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 18:21, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per the nominator. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 18:25, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, no permission. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per the nominator. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 18:27, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 07:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per the nominator. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 18:27, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per the nominator. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 18:25, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per the nominator. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 18:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per the nominator. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 18:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per the nominator. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 18:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
See Commons:Project scope#PDF and DjVu formats Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 19:01, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 23:22, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per the nominator. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 18:40, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per the nominator. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 18:42, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
unused and un-usable file. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 10:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 18:46, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, no permission. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per the nominator. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 18:46, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per the nominator. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 18:48, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per the nominator. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 18:50, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:24, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per the nominator. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 18:55, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:24, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per the nominator. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 18:58, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per the nominator. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 18:59, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per the nominator. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 19:02, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Similar to, and no better than, existing nudity pictures. Delete per Commons:Nudity#New_uploads. – JBarta (talk) 17:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom,poor quality - adds nothing to the stock of such images Herby talk thyme 10:39, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Similar to, and no better than, existing nudity pictures. Delete per Commons:Nudity#New_uploads. – JBarta (talk) 17:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Agree per nom - not a good image and adds nothing to the stock Herby talk thyme 10:36, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Just 'cause you look cool does not mean you can have a photo on commons. Either put it on your userpage or become famous! Chesdovi (talk) 18:59, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 19:11, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
This one is just not nice enough of you. Chesdovi (talk) 19:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 19:11, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
COM:FOP#Germany is not available inside buildings. See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dübendorf - Katholische Kirche 2010-11-03 16-35-54 ShiftN.jpg Teofilo (talk) 20:46, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- OTRS-message announced for all 6 images by monastery Reute --Fredou (talk) 16:27, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: An OTRS ticket (#2012052510007905) has been provided. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 19:23, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
COM:FOP#Germany is not available inside buildings. See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dübendorf - Katholische Kirche 2010-11-03 16-35-54 ShiftN.jpg Teofilo (talk) 20:45, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- OTRS-message announced for all 6 images by monastery Reute --Fredou (talk) 16:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: An OTRS ticket (#2012052510007905) has been provided. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 19:23, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
COM:FOP#Germany is not available inside buildings. See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dübendorf - Katholische Kirche 2010-11-03 16-35-54 ShiftN.jpg Teofilo (talk) 20:46, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- OTRS-message announced for all 6 images by monastery Reute --Fredou (talk) 16:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: An OTRS ticket (#2012052510007905) has been provided. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 19:23, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
COM:FOP#Germany is not available inside buildings. See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dübendorf - Katholische Kirche 2010-11-03 16-35-54 ShiftN.jpg Teofilo (talk) 20:46, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- OTRS-message announced for all 6 images by monastery Reute --Fredou (talk) 16:20, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: An OTRS ticket (#2012052510007905) has been provided. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 19:24, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
COM:FOP#Germany is not available inside buildings. See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dübendorf - Katholische Kirche 2010-11-03 16-35-54 ShiftN.jpg Teofilo (talk) 20:46, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- OTRS-message announced for all 6 images by monastery Reute --Fredou (talk) 16:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: An OTRS ticket (#2012052510007905) has been provided. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 19:25, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
COM:FOP#Germany is not available inside buildings. See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dübendorf - Katholische Kirche 2010-11-03 16-35-54 ShiftN.jpg Teofilo (talk) 20:46, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- OTRS-message announced for all 6 images by monastery Reute --Fredou (talk) 16:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: An OTRS ticket (#2012052510007905) has been provided. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 19:25, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
No COM:FOP#France. According to French law, it is not allowed to publish picture whose the main subject is an original creation until 70 years after the death of its author. This original artwork named Personnages was created in 1976 by the well known artist Joan Miro. Tangopaso (talk) 21:36, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per the nominator. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 17:50, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
No COM:FOP#France. According to French law, it is not allowed to publish picture whose the main subject is an original creation until 70 years after the death of its author. This original artwork named Point growth was created in 1999. It is the main subject of the image (see name of the file). Commons:De minimis doesnt appy here. Tangopaso (talk) 21:45, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per the nominator. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 17:21, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Image of 2 boys of unknown notability. However, the description identifies one full name with potentially defamatory attributes "he neither knows Urdu or English properly. He ... doesnt know which hostal he was born in". The article en:Zain Zaman, for which this image was probably uploaded to Commons, has been deleted immediately. -- Túrelio (talk) 21:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 19:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Flickr image is a copyright violation. The subject, and main focus of the image is a non-free poster. This is not a permanent installation, so it doesn't qualify as "freedom of panorama" Papa November (talk) 21:59, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Also, English FOP does not comprise bidimensional works such as paintings and photographs. See COM:FOP#United Kingdom. Teofilo (talk) 22:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per the nominator and Teofilo's comments. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 19:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
No COM:FOP#France. According to French law, it is not allowed to publish picture whose the main subject is an original creation until 70 years after the death of its author. This original artwork named Les trois arbres was created in 1988. Tangopaso (talk) 22:24, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: no FoP in France Léna (talk) 17:46, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
No COM:FOP#France. According to French law, it is not allowed to publish picture whose the main subject is an original creation until 70 years after the death of its author. This original artwork named La Défonce was created in 1990 by the architect Francois Morellet. Tangopaso (talk) 22:30, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per the nominator. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 19:39, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Enganei-me a carregar a imagem e carreguei a imagem errada por ser semelhante àquela que queria carregar no commons Sílvia Gomes (talk) 23:28, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Taken from a website, no evidence of permission. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 19:43, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Files in Category:Sculptures in Tiel
[edit]Derivative work of sculpture located indoors. Commons:FOP#The_Netherlands : museums are not public places for the purpose of article 18
- File:Ad Arma Voertuig van de geest 1.JPG
- File:Ad Arma Voertuig van de geest 2.JPG
- File:Ad Arma Voertuig van de geest 3.JPG
- File:Balkonscene Erik Buys.jpg
- File:DresselhuysZW.jpg
- File:Riesjart Bus Briljant1.JPG
- File:Riesjart Bus Briljant2.JPG
- File:Riesjart Bus Briljant3.JPG
Teofilo (talk) 21:29, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- Both sculptures are located in the public area of the Agnietenhof theater in the town of Tiel, not in a museum. The sculpture File:DresselhuysZW.jpg is in the same place and has since long been accepted. The list of sculptures in Tiel has been drafted under the close supervision of User:Gerardus Kattiel (talk) 16:32, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- I think the public area of a theater is similar with "entrance halls of businesses" and "opera buildings" mentioned at Commons:FOP#The_Netherlands. Teofilo (talk) 19:45, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- You are probably right. Is there a way out if I obtain permission from the management of the theater and the artists concerned? File:Balkonscene Erik Buys.jpg can be deleted, is in a school. Kattiel (talk) 08:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- If you obtain a permission, it must be sent to COM:OTRS. Then an "OTRS ticket" would be generated, meaning that the pictures can be kept. Teofilo (talk) 13:43, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- I'll send a note to the theater and let you know asap. Kattiel (talk) 14:43, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- If you obtain a permission, it must be sent to COM:OTRS. Then an "OTRS ticket" would be generated, meaning that the pictures can be kept. Teofilo (talk) 13:43, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- You are probably right. Is there a way out if I obtain permission from the management of the theater and the artists concerned? File:Balkonscene Erik Buys.jpg can be deleted, is in a school. Kattiel (talk) 08:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- I think the public area of a theater is similar with "entrance halls of businesses" and "opera buildings" mentioned at Commons:FOP#The_Netherlands. Teofilo (talk) 19:45, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- Both sculptures are located in the public area of the Agnietenhof theater in the town of Tiel, not in a museum. The sculpture File:DresselhuysZW.jpg is in the same place and has since long been accepted. The list of sculptures in Tiel has been drafted under the close supervision of User:Gerardus Kattiel (talk) 16:32, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
The permission is on its way. However, the management of the theater has not used the standard form. I have requested them again to do so. Kattiel (talk) 10:45, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
- Received permission for three images.
- Ad Arma Voertuig van de geest 2.JPG,
- Riesjart Bus Briljant3.JPG,
- DresselhuysZW.jpg.
- Edoderoo (talk) 20:57, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- Update. Today I received permission for all but two images. DresselhuuysZW.jpg is still under discussion, Balkonscene Erik Buys.jpg can be deleted. Edoderoo (talk) 21:00, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Kept: I deleted the one remaining file. All other files are kept. Trijnsteltalk 21:07, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
That's not Richard Gere. 91.66.184.220 18:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 09:15, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope: unused personal photo; educational value unclear. Hystrix (talk) 19:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:23, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope: unused personal photo; educational value unclear. Hystrix (talk) 19:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Simple geometric and/or text. Who are we kidding? Woodcutterty (talk) 17:47, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep (sort of) There have been two images uploaded. The original which does quality for PD-textlogo, and another that does not. I've reverted it back to the text only version. If the more complex image were removed from the history, we should be all set. To users Weltforce and Darkquest21... the more complex logo with the soldier cannot be uploaded to Commons because it is a copyrighted and non-free image that conflicts with Commons' licensing policies. The text only logo is not copyrightable because it is simple text, therefore it is public domain and can be uploaded to Commons. The more complex logo may be uploaded to a specific wiki as a non-free image as long as certain guidelines are followed. See Commons:Licensing for more information. – JBarta (talk) 04:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry. Let's keep the original. — Weltforce Contribs Talk 11:47, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Deleted copyrightable versions - kept original version Lymantria (talk) 12:15, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Author wants it down Lumastan (talk) 08:40, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Kept. Denniss (talk) 09:35, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
I am the author and I want it down Lumastan (talk) 00:28, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep. Whether you are the author or not, it was released under a free license, that is non-revocable. Fry1989 eh? 22:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- If the author is Nuno A. G. Bandeira and if Nuno A. G. Bandeira did not give a permission, the file must be deleted. See also Commons:Deletion requests/Coats of arms images uploaded by Lumastan. Teofilo (talk) 02:16, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- And that person is whom? If you're saying that's the real name of user:Lumastan, I again refer you to the fact that uploading an image under a free license is non-revocable. Fry1989 eh? 02:19, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- I guess the real name of Lumastan is the one written on User:Lumastan. Teofilo (talk) 19:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- And that person is whom? If you're saying that's the real name of user:Lumastan, I again refer you to the fact that uploading an image under a free license is non-revocable. Fry1989 eh? 02:19, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- If the author is Nuno A. G. Bandeira and if Nuno A. G. Bandeira did not give a permission, the file must be deleted. See also Commons:Deletion requests/Coats of arms images uploaded by Lumastan. Teofilo (talk) 02:16, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
I uploaded it without his permission, please take it down. Thank you, Lumastan (talk) 20:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- But you said that you're the author in your second nomination. Which one is it? Fry1989 eh? 05:50, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept. - no valid reason given --Denniss (talk) 10:59, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
It's almost impossible to recognize the subject and we already have File:Fredericvion.jpg PierreSelim (talk) 16:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Support--Sammyday (talk) 17:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted, per nom. Thanks to the author for the effort, but the photo is really blurred. Badseed talk 13:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
לללללללללללללללללללללללללללללללללל 212.117.145.50 17:49, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- Seems fine to me, though of pitifully low resolution. And need I mention that "לללל..." is a rather weak reason for deletion? – JBarta (talk) 21:07, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: No apparent reason to delete. Badseed talk 13:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:57, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
No proper licensing. See http://www.monarchie.be/copyright-belgian-monarchy.Ricjac (talk) 17:28, 2 May 2012 (UTC) Ricjac (talk) 17:28, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:59, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
small size picture without exif. other occurrences can be found with google image search. Teofilo (talk) 20:10, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 12:47, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Unused image of an unknown person; out of scope. E4024 (talk) 22:53, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
- Please note that we have a couple of other (similar) images of her which are used in user pages. NOTHOST. --E4024 (talk) 22:55, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:42, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
No COM:FOP#France. According to French law, it is not allowed to publish picture whose the main subject is an original creation until 70 years after the death of its author. This original artwork named Colonne oiseau was created in 1980. Tangopaso (talk) 21:18, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 13:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Derivative work of copyrighted logo. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Some doubt whether uploader is really the photographer. Images in same outfit/setting are on the artists website, see http://www.lizabronner.co.za/fotos/49-live-shows. -- Túrelio (talk) 08:49, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
This is supposed to be "Self Portrait of Martin Melicherčík". But does the uploader has the permission to upload this image? Hindustanilanguage (talk) 11:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Uncertain if the (unknown) author really died more than 70 years ago. The depicted person died in 1919. Leyo 11:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Unused image, claimed to be self-portrait. Likely the same person here http://es-es.facebook.com/Douglasalonzosalgado and here http://douglasalonzo.blogspot.de/. Not sure whether we should retain it. -- Túrelio (talk) 12:17, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Not PD modern photo of relief. We have free photos of subject Category:Medallions by Fyodor Tolstoy Shakko (talk) 12:40, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Copyright violation Rapsar (talk) 12:49, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
This file has been replaced by a sng vector graphic. I have changed all global uses of this file to use the .svg file. It is no longer in use and has a better quality replacement. It is therefore just taking up server space and should be deleted Oddbodz (talk) 14:04, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:27, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:29, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
A violation of the privacy policy Carluvmost (talk) 15:45, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
A violation of the privacy policy. Carluvmost (talk) 15:45, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
A violation of the privacy policy. Carluvmost (talk) 15:46, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Author died in 1955. Tekstman (talk) 16:23, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Author died in 1943. Could be reuploaded in 2014. Tekstman (talk) 16:25, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- Restored per UDR, has entered the Public Domain in the meantime - Jcb (talk) 18:08, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
Author died in 1943. Could be reuploaded in 2014. Tekstman (talk) 16:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Totally unfocussed image; it might be considered insulting to upload such an image. Unusable. Túrelio (talk) 19:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
As there is no freedom-of-panorama exemption from copyright in France, this is likely a copyviolating derivative of the shown painting. -- Túrelio (talk) 21:02, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
As there is no freedom-of-panorama exemption from copyright in France, this is a copyviolating derivative of the shown maps. -- Túrelio (talk) 21:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
No COM:FOP in France for Architectural works. The bridge is the main subject of the photo. 24.190.185.169 21:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
No COM:FOP in France for architectural works. The bridge is very prominent in the photo. 24.190.185.169 21:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 21:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
own work? no metadata, slow resolution Ezarateesteban 21:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I have doubts on the "own work" claim. The map is similar to the one on http://www.libertycontrol.net/uploads/mbp/heritagerosedistrictpacket.pdf page 3. The logo on the bottom left corner passes the threshold of originality. We need a permission from the copyright owner of the map and from the copyright owner of the logo. If you are the copyright owner, please send an E-mail as requested at COM:OTRS. Teofilo (talk) 21:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio. Sq page have nothing useful to establish licence. http://www.beepworld.de/memberdateien/members/pashtriku/Djegjeshkaterrime/barbaret/djegjalidhjesPz/heqjaelapidareveteabdylitey.prizrenit2.jpg WhiteWriter speaks 22:38, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
O ficheiro possivelmente não virá a ser utilizado por nenhum dos projectos Wikimedia Sílvia Gomes (talk) 23:27, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
O ficheiro possivelmente não virá a ser utilizado por nenhum dos projectos Wikimedia Sílvia Gomes (talk) 23:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
This is a Registered trademark uploaded and used without a fair use notice OrenBochman (talk) 19:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep - Is not eligible for copyright protection. Copyright and trademark are two different things. Copyright is what we're concerned about here. – JBarta (talk) 21:02, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep Too simple for copyright. Marked as trademark. Satisfies Commons:Project scope and Commons:Trademarks.--GrapedApe (talk) 01:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Per discussion. Leyo 12:08, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Duplication Ruthless4Life (talk) 00:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:UBC_COA.svg which is a copyrighted file. Badseed talk 22:31, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Looks suspiciously unlike own work to me - professional, no metadata... -mattbuck (Talk) 07:23, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- Suspiciously? Innocence presumption! Where proofs? 94.179.155.16 08:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- No, we have the opposite approach when copyrights are involved - see Commons:Precautionary principle. We're not dealing with "is this possibly useful" but "is this possibly illegal". -mattbuck (Talk) 09:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- These are my photos. It is difficult to me to explain in English. Metadata look: File:HansburgGlaza2.jpg (The metadata similar). If my photos aren't necessary to you, delete. Григорий Ганзбург (talk) 18:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Looks legit. Badseed talk 22:28, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
From SOHO, which does not allow commercial reuse, see http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/summary/copyright.html. License hence not free enough for commons. Lymantria (talk) 14:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. It does not says it is not allowed, it only says it is encouraged. Ralgis 23:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- And does not say explicitly that commercial re-use is allowed, and thus we must presume it isn't. Because SOHO is not NASA-only there is not PD-USGov alike license. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 08:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: All SOHO material is not free for commercial etc use. Badseed talk 22:24, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
From SOHO, which does not allow commercial reuse, see http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/summary/copyright.html. License hence not free enough for commons. Lymantria (talk) 14:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. It does not says it is not allowed, it only says it is encouraged. Ralgis 23:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- And does not say explicitly that commercial re-use is allowed, and thus we must presume it isn't. Because SOHO is not NASA-only there is not PD-USGov alike license. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 08:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: SOHO images can't be hosted on Commons - Badseed talk 19:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC) Badseed talk 19:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Blatant derivative work of a non-free logo Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:32, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
The logo depicted on the photo was the logo of MY HIGH SCHOOL - MY ALMA MATER - Trinitas Senior High School The school is located in Bandung, Indonesia.
- File:High School Girl Holding a Volley Ball.JPG
- File:Highschoolgirlsinschoolgym.JPG
- File:SMATrinitasGymnastic1.JPG
- File:SMATrinitasORPria.JPG
- File:SMATrinitasORWanita.JPG
They are all photos of my high school friends I use to support the article about my highschool Dennis Kwaria (talk) 02:30, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
I use Indonesian language for most of my files, please TRANSLATE them before you judge. thank you. Dennis Kwaria (talk) 00:35, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- I know you were using Indonesian. I read/write it and contribute to both the English and Indonesian Wikipedia. However, you do not own the the copyright to the logo itself; the school does. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:34, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
But you said that the logo was derived somehow. I didn't derived it using any program. Just photographed the logo on my suit, and the purpose was to show the changes of my school's logo.
- See Commons:Derivative works for an explanation of what a derivative work is in relation to copyright law. For the Wikipedia article on the school, it is best to use the actual logo (coloured) under a fair use rationale (and uploaded to the Wikipedia in question) Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:26, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:40, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Blatant derivative work of two non-free logos. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Same as
, The logo depicted on the photo was the logo of MY HIGH SCHOOL - MY ALMA MATER - Trinitas Senior High School The school is located in Bandung, Indonesia.
- File:High School Girl Holding a Volley Ball.JPG
- File:Highschoolgirlsinschoolgym.JPG
- File:SMATrinitasGymnastic1.JPG
- File:SMATrinitasORPria.JPG
- File:SMATrinitasORWanita.JPG
They are all photos of my high school friends I use to support the article about my highschool
If you ask about the only change from "U" to "A" or vice versa, I do not know why but I were used to "SMA" (Sekolah Menengah Atas), but recently, after the rise of new Minister of Education IN MY COUNTRY, "SMA" was changed to "SMU" (Sekolah Menengah Umum). Dennis Kwaria (talk) 00:33, 4 May 2012 (UTC) I use Indonesian language for most of my files, please TRANSLATE them before you judge. thank you. Dennis Kwaria (talk) 00:35, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- I know you were using Indonesian. I read/write it and contribute to both the English and Indonesian Wikipedia. However, you do not own the the copyright to the logo itself; the school does. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:34, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- migrate to en:wikipedia with "non-free logo" Slowking4 (talk) 13:18, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:40, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Duplication Ruthless4Life (talk) 00:45, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- Of? Fry1989 eh? 22:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- It's a parody of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_Democratic_Progressive_Party.svg, a copyrighted file. The nominated file is only used in userpage of Ruthless4Life - Badseed talk 22:35, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:41, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
I am the author and I would like it deleted Lumastan (talk) 06:57, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- If this is really your wish, then I support your wish. --Roxanna (talk) 14:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- See also Commons:Deletion requests/Coats of arms images uploaded by Lumastan. Teofilo (talk) 02:17, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:41, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Copyright info is vague at best. The source web site that is claimed on the image clearly states "Copyright 2012" though there's also some wording on his licensing page about CC. Which license this image has is not stated nor could I actually find the image on the site. Dismas (talk) 08:47, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete This is a copyvio and a obvious speedy deletion candidate (source: https://secure.flickr.com/photos/chiropractic/6787585685/). The author, who has other photos from the same event (which validates that he is the original photographer), has marked it © All Rights Reserved. Senator2029║talk 09:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
I asked for the license of the photo to Michael de Rausch(the owner of copyrights) and i gave credits to him.But i don't know what i have to put in the wikitext or license tag to use.Please help me giving me info,Thanks a lot. User:Nathanael Everton|Nathanael Everton 16:10, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:41, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Не указал категорию Савельев Георгий Владимирович (talk) 08:57, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep - "Does not have category" is not a valid reason to delete. – JBarta (talk) 16:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio. This painting looks too modern. There is no evidence of {{PD-Art}}. Takabeg (talk) 11:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed. Appears on the University of Kansas' website as "©1981 by Ghazi Emet" and this webpage is associated with a scholar specializing in Central Asian linguistics. In other words, if anyone should know what the proper credit is, this website should know, and they say it is not a free image. Note that the image is also here.--Brian Dell (talk) 11:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 08:41, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
This image is not licensed for commercial use, as declared in swedish on http://www.kungahuset.se/pressrum/pressmeddelanden/2012pressmeddelanden/prinsbertilskullehafyllt100artisdagenden28februari2012.5.70e7de59130bc8da54e800021109.html Ricjac (talk) 17:32, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep with {{PD-Sweden}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:26, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: "Editorial use" is nowhere near free enough for Commons. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:31, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Good greif - not another unwanted useless image. Chesdovi (talk) 18:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep part of a meaningful series about a YWCA affiliated group in Columbia (see es:Usuario:Adria Mar). Must be kept by the same token that File:1902 YWCA domestic science Boston.png is being kept. Teofilo (talk) 20:18, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: es:Usuario:Adria Mar has been deleted for abuse of user page. This looks out of scope to me. Although I respect Teofilo's opinion, this looks way out of scope to me. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:34, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
And what exactly is this useful for? Chesdovi (talk) 18:56, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep part of a meaningful series about a YWCA affiliated group in Columbia (see es:Usuario:Adria Mar). Must be kept by the same token that File:1902 YWCA domestic science Boston.png is being kept.Teofilo (talk) 20:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:34, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
For what purpose is this image useful for? To represent pensive students sucking a pen? Enough of these silly images here! Chesdovi (talk) 18:57, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep part of a meaningful series about a YWCA affiliated group in Columbia (see es:Usuario:Adria Mar). Must be kept by the same token that File:1902 YWCA domestic science Boston.png is being kept. Teofilo (talk) 20:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:34, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Jbarta as Speedy (Probable copyvio given the user's other related uploads/copyvios.) FASTILY (TALK) 19:47, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:34, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Jbarta as Speedy (Probable copyvio given the user's other related uploads/copyvios.) FASTILY (TALK) 19:47, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:34, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Jbarta as Speedy (Probable copyvio given the user's other related uploads/copyvios.) FASTILY (TALK) 19:47, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comment There is an OTRS ticket about this and other images (2012050310007205) by this user. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:02, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: OTRS ticket is from anonymous e-mail, and does not give any license. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:37, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Jbarta as Speedy (Probable copyvio given the user's other related uploads/copyvios.) FASTILY (TALK) 19:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:37, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
own work? slow resolution, no metadata Ezarateesteban 21:34, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Yo hablo español eh!! Esta foto la saque el sabado 18 de agosto de 2007 a las 9 de la mañana viajando a Bahia Blanca. La resolucion original es de 2048x1536 y fue sacada con una camara Canon Powershot A560. No tiene datos EXIF porque no estaba configurada la cámara.--Gustavo9089 (talk) 02:21, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:42, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
own work? slow resolution, no metadata Ezarateesteban 21:37, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- Es un trabajo propio, el que aparece en la imagen soy yo. Pero corté la imagen con el paint para que no aparezca mi cara. Me pareció interesante colocarla en la sección de Yabrán en la cultura popular, pero si quieren borrarla no me opongo. --Mister Roboto (talk) 23:17, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Not useful for educational purposes, also probably DW of tee short art. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Uncertain if also the contained photographs and icons are own work. Leyo 23:02, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- It seems to me, that Lazaruslongmedia is an employee or admirer of the research institut "Centro Ricerche per le Energie Non Convenzionali - Istituto Eni Donegani". He added a big amount of later removed pictures, see here. If he has the rights to publish this pictures under a free licence is uncertain. We must ask him and demand a proof like an e-mail from his boss. So long --Ras67 (talk) 21:02, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- It is not even sure that a person working for CRENC is the author of the photographs. Many people have false ideas of copyright. --Leyo 13:54, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- The uploading user was infinitely blocked (abuse of multiple users), so this images could be a copyright violation.--Ras67 (talk) 00:48, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
- The account used for this upload was never blocked. --Leyo 11:57, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- Maybe never blocked on commons, but the presumable home account, it:User:Lazaruslongmedia, does indeed appear to be indef'ed on that WMF site:
- 15:24, 17 feb 2012 Vituzzu (Discussione | contributi) ha bloccato Lazaruslongmedia (Discussione | contributi) per un periodo di infinito (creazione account bloccata, e-mail bloccate) (Abuso di utenze multiple)
- and (according to global-contribs) it.wp is the only wikimedia-sphere site where this particular account appears to have made edits (other than uploading the images to commons). DMacks (talk) 03:23, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- Maybe never blocked on commons, but the presumable home account, it:User:Lazaruslongmedia, does indeed appear to be indef'ed on that WMF site:
- The account used for this upload was never blocked. --Leyo 11:57, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- The uploading user was infinitely blocked (abuse of multiple users), so this images could be a copyright violation.--Ras67 (talk) 00:48, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
- It is not even sure that a person working for CRENC is the author of the photographs. Many people have false ideas of copyright. --Leyo 13:54, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Possibly unfree file FASTILY (TALK) 09:43, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Unsure if author really died more than 70 years ago. Several incorrect information. Leyo 11:10, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Hevesy (born 1885) as a young man, old photo, most likely anonymous. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep So tired of seeing these noms, especially on borderline cases where the copyright is almost expired no matter how old the guy is. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 13:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- So tired of seeing these images with nonsense/useless information in Date, Source and Author. BTW: The photo could be less than 100 years old. --Leyo 13:54, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- Photos from 1920 show Hevesy alread balding. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:02, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- So tired of seeing these images with nonsense/useless information in Date, Source and Author. BTW: The photo could be less than 100 years old. --Leyo 13:54, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- Original source was this page, showing some of the more famous members of the Stefan Meyer Institute (Radium Institute originally). von Hevesy apparently went there in about 1913; probably a staff photograph as it looks similar to some of their other photos. Anonymous-EU is probably a better tag though if kept. That source did not mention an author. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- That page is now at a wwwt server (an archive it seems): http://wwwt.oeaw.ac.at/smi/photo.htm /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 05:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- Well, then how about asking the institute oeaw.ac.at whether they have any idea who was the photographer? --Túrelio (talk) 18:58, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- Did that (hopefully by being diplomatic enough). Thanks, --Flominator (talk) 10:05, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
- and received no reply. --Flominator (talk) 06:52, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
- Well, then how about asking the institute oeaw.ac.at whether they have any idea who was the photographer? --Túrelio (talk) 18:58, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Diligent research has not uncovered the actual author (the photographer). So Anonymous-EU suffices. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:22, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Wrong author is given. The author can be researched, but the uploader did not do it. So we don't know if he/she is dead for more than 70 years. It is not safe, that the photographer died within 39 years after the photo was taken. Quedel (talk) 14:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- The rights were not retained by the photographer. The image was made at the behest of the subject, who paid for the making, processing and rights to the subsequent image. As the subject died in 1903, no exisiting copyright can still be in force. Chesdovi (talk) 18:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- Where is this clarified, that the subject had own the copyrights? As copyright-owner at this point the wiki-user is named, but this is wrong, or? --Quedel (talk) 09:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep A reliable source *has* been given. Just because a book is in physical format doesn't mean it isn't real. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 15:06, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
- Where I said, a book isn't real? Strange missinterpreting my words. In this book there can will be the answer of "Who is the copyright owner", so we have to look inside there to get the truth. --Quedel (talk) 09:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - 19th-century photo, no reason to suppose that the photographer is known. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:46, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
- Pre-1903 can be 20th-century-work. At the source states, more information are available. Have you read the book so that you can say that there is no photographer / copyright-owner named? --Quedel (talk) 09:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Per discussion. MBisanz talk 23:24, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
O ficheiro possivelmente não virá a ser utilizado por nenhum dos projectos Wikimedia Sílvia Gomes (talk) 23:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep - Is simple text. Changed license to {{PD-textlogo}}. – JBarta (talk) 15:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: , . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Files of User:Anana1234
[edit]- File:Inheritance of fornicators, covetous, and idolators Eph 5 5.jpg
- File:Obtain kingdom of God - gal 5.jpg
- File:Hell fire pool Rev 21.jpg
Out of scope. – JBarta (talk) 20:36, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- What does out of scope mean? I should be able to keep these pictures up. I make them. The text I used is in public domain. It should not be deleted. They are like pretty backgrounds. Please leave them. Anana1234 (talk) 20:43, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- My pictures are supposed to be educational but full of illustration. Hence the leaves in the background, the pretty font, the glow aroud some words, and having stuff slanted. Anana1234 (talk) 20:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- Your images, while certainly pretty, are more suited to a personal web page or blog than an encyclopedia. Project scope refers to the types of images that are accepted on Commons. The images are out of scope because they are images of textual material that are not realistically usable for educational purposes. If bible quotes are desired for an encyclopedia article, they are best done using text and wiki-markup rather than with an image. – JBarta (talk) 20:57, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- I could see it as a poster in a Catholic religious ed classroom. And best done doesn't mean only way. Anana1234 (talk) 21:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. We do not keep images of text. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:40, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Looks like a copyvio-spamming.
- File:Bildsonhz.jpg
- File:CampsbInge.JPG
- File:Mauerfall.jpg
- File:1952 buecher.jpg
- File:Flowerpower.jpg
- File:Cdgh.JPG
- File:Rundfunk.jpg
Kobac (talk) 11:42, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 23:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF.
- File:MIss Potosi 2012.jpg
- File:Naida.jpg
- File:Estefani.jpg
- File:Valeria potosi 2010.jpg
- File:Miss Potosi 2010.jpg
- File:Potosi31.jpg
- File:Potosi orko.jpg
- File:Mirador Potosi.jpg
- File:Museo 108.jpg
- File:Potosi-Convento-Santa-Teresa.jpg
- File:B-02-1.jpg
- File:Museo-cerro-rico.jpg
- File:Casa-de-la-Moneda-Potosi-Bolivia-1.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:56, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete copyvios (in order of appearance) from (examples) 04.2012, 2011, 2011, 2010, 2010, 2008, 2011, etc. etc. Gunnex (talk) 10:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
- Delete copyvios, per Gunnex.Érico Wouters msg 01:48, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
After identifying today about +/- 18 uploads by Dieguitv (talk · contributions · Statistics) as copyvio (grabbed from panoramio/flickr/etc.-accounts and blogs/official /etc.-sites) this is unidentified rest. Per COM:PRP: IMHO untrusted user who uploaded a bunch of copyrighted material with the consequence that the remaining rest can't be believed either. Nearly all uploads are related to the Spanish city es:Potosí. See also above Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Dieguitv (open since 05.2012).
Gunnex (talk) 09:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 09:00, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:18, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. Hystrix (talk) 20:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Dhanushka123 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
- File:Duwa Passion Play Director with Nanda Malini.jpg
- File:Nanda Malini and Dinesh Subasinghe.jpg
- File:Maestro Khemadasa with Dinesh Subasinghe.jpg
- File:Dinesh with his principle A.R.Rahman.JPG
- File:Dinesh Subasinghe with srilankan legend pandith amaradewa.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:25, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. Hystrix (talk) 20:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Amineslaoui (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF.
- File:Babsebta 125018808033263400.jpg
- File:Kasbah-gnaoua 125018123115745000.jpg
- File:Babkhmis 125025985870407300.jpg
- File:Medersa-abou-el-hassan 125026057245367700.jpg
- File:Cierges 1.jpg
- File:Cierges 4.jpg
- File:Cierges 3.jpg
- File:Cierges 2.jpg
- File:Bab lamrissa.png
- File:Cièrges de sidi abdellah benhassoun.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- Among those images :
- The same picture can be found on http://www.darnna.com/phorum/read.php?2,32131,96544, where it has been posted by the user Le Debdoubi on 1st avril 2007 (message: Re: Bouregreg ou la transformation de Rabat - Sale.) --Frenchinmorocco (talk) 10:29, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Same picture found on http://www.wassila.ma/bons-plans/monuments/monuments-sale/kasba-gnaouas-c12-s526-ss528-d527.html. --Frenchinmorocco (talk) 10:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 09:00, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Amineslaoui (talk · contribs)
[edit]2nd mass deletion DR and same reason: Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF (except: File:Bab maalka.JPG, excluded from this DR) + some mysterious watermarks (File:Imagesalé08.jpg, File:Imagesalé07.jpg, File:Bab Dar Sina'a.jpg). After today identifying around +10 uploads as copyvio it´s difficult to believe that these remaining files would be own work: IMHO untrusted user uploading a bunch of copyrighted material (small/inconsistent resolutions, missing exif) so these ones (per COM:PRP) can't be believed either.
- File:Borj el Mellah.jpg
- File:Bab chaafa.jpg
- File:Bab bouhaja.jpg
- File:Bab sebta.jpg
- File:Bab jdid.jpg
- File:Dar el Qadi 2.jpg
- File:Dar el Qadi 1.jpg
- File:Ahmed hajji.jpg
- File:Benhassoun 4.jpg
- File:Sidi benachir 1.jpg
- File:Sidi benachir 3.jpg
- File:Sidi benachir 2.jpg
- File:Imagedesalé14.jpg
- File:Imagesalé12.jpg
- File:Imagesalé11.jpg
- File:Imagesalé10.jpg
- File:Imagesalé08.jpg
- File:Imagesalé07.jpg
- File:Imagesalé06.jpg
- File:Imagesalé04.jpg
- File:Imagesalé03.jpg
- File:Imagesalé01.jpg
- File:Imagesalé02.jpg
- File:Moussem des cièrges 1.jpg
- File:Bab Dar Sina'a.jpg
- File:Bab khmiss.jpg
Gunnex (talk) 16:59, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:49, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
- File:Anugrah-Nurul-Khumaerah.jpg
- File:Hasbullah Marwan.jpg
- File:Fekis Sombolayuk.jpg
- File:Innal Hamda.jpg
- File:Nur Ayu Chesti Maharani.jpg
- File:Rahmi Rezkiani.jpg
- File:Muhammad Risal.jpg
- File:Tri Hartina.jpg
- File:Rahmawati Moh S.jpg
- File:Devy Nur Azalia.jpg
- File:Fandy Rusli.jpg
- File:Greacella Veronica PB.jpg
- File:Lutvi Harnantik Zalsabila.jpg
- File:Dian Kurniasari.jpg
- File:Asriati.jpg
- File:Sarti Amelia Malewa.jpg
- File:Muhammad Zulkifli.jpg
- File:Hildayana.jpg
- File:Khatibul Umam.jpg
- File:Nurrafidah Ramadhani.jpg
- File:Resky Esa Putri.jpg
- File:Kesita Enggar Dwi Tami.jpg
- File:Muh Idil Qhatir.jpg
- File:Fitrah Annisa.jpg
- File:Diana Anjelina.jpg
- File:Suci.jpg
- File:Aeni.jpg
- File:Azayakana1.jpg
- File:AzayakanaFam.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- Considering the nature of the image use, it's pretty much impossible that the people in the images do not know and approve of the images being on Wikipedia.
- Extensive contact details are provided which would allow the uploader or another suitable person to address the issue of licensing. I do not use Twitter, which might be the fastest way to contact them. It would be a good idea to use the Indonesian Wikipedia Embassy because there is a better chance of getting a response to an inquiry when the appropriate language is used. Penyulap ☏ 21:50, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
This images were cropped from group photo. This is explain small resolutions and EXIF missing --Butko (talk) 09:43, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 09:02, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Shuhratbek98 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Different authors - one uploader. No info about permission.
- File:Top League.jpg
File:FK Alga Bishkek Logo.gif- File:Aravan mosque inside.jpg
- File:Tank in Aravan.jpg
- File:Chil Ustun.jpg
Kobac (talk) 16:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 23:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
This file isn't taken in Romania as the license states, the author given at source is in Czech (at en:Mariánské Lázně), where there is 70 pma. But the photo is taken 1930, so It could be protected. No reason given for PD Quedel (talk) 14:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep The location was in Czechoslovakia, but the photographer was most probably Romanian or possibly Polish, and being Jewish, he was unlikely to have been left alive after 1942. Chesdovi (talk) 17:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
- Will probably qualify for {{PD-Poland-unknown}}. Chesdovi (talk) 10:49, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- This template doesn't exist (have polish copyright-law such phrases?). Why should he not be alive? Not all jewish were death after 1942 (even if this is pure speculation of beeing jewish). And if the photographer died within 1942, it is still protected by law. As Commons:PD#Poland states, there are 70pma today, too. Additionally, the photo is protected in the USA because of URAA (because even if the photographer died within 1930, the picture was copyrighted until 31.12.2000, where URAA has be active). --Quedel (talk) 09:46, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- It is most probable that no copyright still exists on this image. If the copyright holder ever enforced his rights, we would know about it. Chesdovi (talk) 10:01, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- This template doesn't exist (have polish copyright-law such phrases?). Why should he not be alive? Not all jewish were death after 1942 (even if this is pure speculation of beeing jewish). And if the photographer died within 1942, it is still protected by law. As Commons:PD#Poland states, there are 70pma today, too. Additionally, the photo is protected in the USA because of URAA (because even if the photographer died within 1930, the picture was copyrighted until 31.12.2000, where URAA has be active). --Quedel (talk) 09:46, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Unclear copyright status. Unless we have clear, written/textual, tangible evidence indicating that this file is indeed freely licensed under a Commons compatiable license, we cannot host it on Commons FASTILY (TALK) 02:46, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
We do not know, if we have a polisch photographer, so we cannot assume that it was one. We cannot assume too that this picture was first published in poland. So it is unclear if this PD-template can be used. As the template states, we need a date and source where a publication was - but this information isn't given. So PD isn't demonstrated. Quedel (talk) 14:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- This is a famous pre-war posed photo taken in Eastern Europe, most probably in Poland. The man himself was killed in 1941 and his grandson claims there is probably no viable copyright on the image anymore. Chesdovi (talk) 19:37, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- Will probably qualify for {{PD-Poland-unknown}}. Chesdovi (talk) 10:49, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- But it was taken in Eastern Europe which is bigger than poland. And for a probably PD-Poland-unknown (the template doesn't exist, is there any law for unknown copyright-owner within polisch copyright-law?) we need to know if this is a polish photographer and if this photo was taken in poland. Both we don't know. --Quedel (talk) 09:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Will probably qualify for {{PD-Poland-unknown}}. Chesdovi (talk) 10:49, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep Relative of photogrpah subject maintains there is no copyright on this image. Obviously, if another liscense is needed, "PD-unknown", which exists for a number of European countries, will suffice. Chesdovi (talk) 12:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Unclear copyright status. Unless we have clear, written/textual, tangible evidence indicating that this file is indeed freely licensed under a Commons compatiable license, we cannot host it on Commons FASTILY (TALK) 02:46, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
copyvio? not pd-old, as only of 1940 and unknown designer. h-stt !? 14:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- Die vorliegende Postkarte wurde am 19.12.1940 in Hannover abgestempelt, ein Künstler wurde explizit weder auf der Vorder- noch der Rückseite erwähnt und lässt sich auch nicht ermitteln. Ich bin davon ausgegangen, dass in diesem Fall eine Sperrfist von 70 Jahren einzuhalten ist, d.h. die Zeichnung / Postkarte ab dem 1.1.2011 als gemeinfrei zu betrachten ist (pd-old). --Geolina163 (talk) 15:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- @H-stt, nach derzeitigem Kenntnisstand wäre zumindest EU-anonymous gerechtfertigt. Da das Gemälde/Zeichnung m.E. keine direkten Nazi-Symbole enthält, wäre es durchaus denkbar, dass es noch älter ist. Eine Google-Suche zeigt, dass genau dieselbe Zeichnung[1] auf dem Cover des "Hausbuch Deutsche Weihnacht"[2] erscheint, das ein ewiggestriger gewisser de:Dietmar Munier im Jahr 2003 herausgegeben hat. Leider gibt es das (vermutliche) Machwerk nicht als Volltext bei Google-Books[3], sonst hätte man schauen könne, ob dort ein Künstler angegeben wird. --Túrelio (talk) 18:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 02:46, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Author died in 1944. Could be reuploaded in 2015. Tekstman (talk) 16:29, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Uit de email van Peter Van Dam <vandam.peter@gmail.com> op 6 juni 2010:
Ondergetekende researcher en publicist Peter Louis Charles van Dam Rijswijkse Landingslaan 314 2497TH Den Haag
Verklaart hierbij dat auteursrechten van al het fotografisch materiaal voortkomende in de publicatie van zijn hand en Prof. Dr. Philip van Praag Stefan Schlesinger, Atelier voor Reclame uit 1997 volledig in handen zijn van ondergetekende. Prof. dr. Philip van Praag overleed in 2000 Uitgeverij Uniepers te Abcoude is ondertussen failliet. Verder verklaart hij dat er geen erfgenamen meer zijn van Stefan Schlesinger, Het gezin Schlesinger (kinderloos) is in directe lijn geheel uitgestorven tijdens de oorlogshandelingen van 1940-1945 Het werk is hierdoor rechtenvrij gekomen en kan vrijelijk kan worden aangewend ter ondersteuning van zijn Wikipedia pagina. Een onderdeel in de auteurswet geeft ruimte om daarbij enkele afbeeldingen permanent af te beelden bij een artikel dat een goed inzicht geeft in leven en werk van de kunstenaar Stefan Schlesinger en streeft daarbij geen enkel commercieel doel na. Den Haag, 6 juni 2010 Peter van Dam (1948)
Zie:http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_van_Dam_%28auteur%29
- Het is echter de fotograaf die het auteursrecht bezit tot 70 jaar na zijn dood. Als redelijkerwijs aangetoond kan worden dat de fotograaf niet te achterhalen is of dat de foto is uitgegeven door een instantie zonder vermelding van de naam van de fotograaf kan de afbeelding behouden blijven aangezien deze uit 1928 dateert. Tekstman (talk) 20:20, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 02:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Serious doubt whether Peter van Dam is the author, he seems to be the biographer. Tekstman (talk) 16:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Uit de email van Peter Van Dam <vandam.peter@gmail.com> op 6 juni 2010:
Ondergetekende researcher en publicist Peter Louis Charles van Dam Rijswijkse Landingslaan 314 2497TH Den Haag
Verklaart hierbij dat auteursrechten van al het fotografisch materiaal voortkomende in de publicatie van zijn hand en Prof. Dr. Philip van Praag Stefan Schlesinger, Atelier voor Reclame uit 1997 volledig in handen zijn van ondergetekende. Prof. dr. Philip van Praag overleed in 2000 Uitgeverij Uniepers te Abcoude is ondertussen failliet. Verder verklaart hij dat er geen erfgenamen meer zijn van Stefan Schlesinger, Het gezin Schlesinger (kinderloos) is in directe lijn geheel uitgestorven tijdens de oorlogshandelingen van 1940-1945 Het werk is hierdoor rechtenvrij gekomen en kan vrijelijk kan worden aangewend ter ondersteuning van zijn Wikipedia pagina. Een onderdeel in de auteurswet geeft ruimte om daarbij enkele afbeeldingen permanent af te beelden bij een artikel dat een goed inzicht geeft in leven en werk van de kunstenaar Stefan Schlesinger en streeft daarbij geen enkel commercieel doel na. Den Haag, 6 juni 2010 Peter van Dam (1948)
Zie:http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_van_Dam_%28auteur%29 Keeshu (talk)
- Het is echter de fotograaf die het auteursrecht bezit tot 70 jaar na zijn dood. Als redelijkerwijs aangetoond kan worden dat de fotograaf niet te achterhalen is of dat de foto is uitgegeven door een instantie zonder vermelding van de naam van de fotograaf kan de afbeelding behouden blijven aangezien deze uit 1930 dateert. Tekstman (talk) 20:19, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 02:46, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
