Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2011/11/03

< Commons:Deletion requests | Archive | 2011/11
Commons logo
Commons logo

This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests.

You can visit the most recent archive here.

Archive
Archive
Archive November 3rd, 2011
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Template:PD-old/be-tarask

edit

Du Trotsky 82.27.115.206 19:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Nonsense nomination (nomination translates as "you trotsky") -mattbuck (Talk) 19:55, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Naphthalene2.png

edit

Unused redirect, would like to move http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Naphthalene2.png  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Your attempt to delete the redirect messed up said redirect. --Kramer Associates (talk) 07:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nom Denniss (talk) 15:42, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:FFFFUUUU.png

edit

out of scope, probably wrong license (that is PD-ineligible) and... bad file name (FU)... Saibo (Δ) 01:35, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 21:41, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:ALEXIS_SANCHEZ_2004_COBRELOA.JPG

edit

Photo of the photo published in some book or magazine Oleola (talk) 01:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Copyvio. Yann (talk) 21:41, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Young_dmac.jpg

edit

Upload to accompany article on enwiki about to be speedily deleted w:Young_D-mac_A.K.A_Darryl_Lindsey; not needed here. 124.170.53.197 06:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete as above --Funfood Funtalk 09:21, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 21:44, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:DioFansBanner.jpg

edit

promotion for myspace dio fan site, image is hosted there at photobucket, out of scope Funfood Funtalk 14:00, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 21:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Nowe_Miasto_w_Warszawie_–_ul._Freta_21_–_05.jpg

edit 
78.183.4.129 19:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: No reason for deletion. Yann (talk) 21:49, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Joelnames.jpg

edit

Unused personal image, used before for non-notable article in eswiki Jcaraballo 20:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 21:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Beşik_modelleri_erkız_beşik_zor_uyuyan_bebekler_için_bebek_beşikkleri_beşik_çeşitleri_3.jpg

edit

not notability, advertising Reality006 (talk) 22:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete Out of Commons:Project scope. Takabeg (talk) 22:21, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 21:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Beşik_modelleri_erkız_beşik_zor_uyuyan_bebekler_için_bebek_beşikkleri_beşik_çeşitleri_1.jpg

edit

not notability, advertising Reality006 (talk) 22:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete Out of Commons:Project scope. Takabeg (talk) 22:22, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 21:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Beşik_modelleri_erkız_beşik_zor_uyuyan_bebekler_için_bebek_beşikkleri_beşik_çeşitleri.jpg

edit

not notability, advertising Reality006 (talk) 22:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete Out of Commons:Project scope. Takabeg (talk) 22:23, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 21:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Padova_sak_banda.jpg

edit

The uploaders first upload (of two) was " |Source=Google" - and this simply looks highly suspicious (not sure what it is - a screen capture of TV?) like a copyvio. Anyway, it is not worth to keep a copyvio for such bad quality, I think. ;) Saibo (Δ) 00:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Copyvio. Yann (talk) 13:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:TV_Patrol_Bicol.png

edit

Still in copyright in the Philippines. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:45, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Copyvio. Yann (talk) 13:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Google_lawn.jpg

edit

Freedom of panorama in US does not extend to sculptural works (Android logo is under CC-BY, but not other ones) Daniel Case (talk) 02:41, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But, the others images are not logos, so... Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 02:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't make a difference if they're logos or not, they're still sculptures, and thus they attract copyright. Daniel Case (talk) 04:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I still beg to differ about this. These statues are pieces of marketing much in the same way a sign telling you what building you are looking at is, or a guy in a hotdog suit in front of a hotdog cart is, or the entrance way to a theme park is. They are way finding structures and neither Themendous, the company that created the statues, or Google seem to claim copyright on them. I have looked far and wide for a copyright notice or date and I can't find one. If consensus is that the statues are not free to take pictures of I do hope that the image is moved to Wikipedia so it can still be used in the article about it under Fair Use.--Found5dollar (talk) 03:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be moving it after I'm done. I repeat, none of your arguments make any difference as far as U.S. copyright law, and thus Commons policy, are concerned. I know it's not the most pleasant of learning experiences, but I'm trying to make this easier. Daniel Case (talk) 04:00, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see no difference between these and the type of structure on the roof of Randy's Donuts ( seen in this featured picture [1]) which is allowed here.--Found5dollar (talk) 04:22, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Either that donut counts as a part of the building, or it's a copyvio until at least 2024. If the latter, it gets deleted too. Dura lex, sed lex. --Kramer Associates (talk) 06:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, a major difference between this and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Randy's donuts1 edit1.jpg (both published in the USA) is that the Randy's Donuts sign is pre-1964, but the Google sculptures are post-1989. Works published in the United States pre-1964 lose copyright if the rights-holder published without a copyright notice or didn't renew the copyright within 28 years. Copyrightable post-1989 works are automatically copyrighted regardless of notice or registration. See Commons:Licensing#United States and the chart next to it. --Closeapple (talk) 08:11, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question: Has anyone tried just asking Google (which presumably is the copyright holder of these works for hire)? If they were willing to release an important asset (the Android logo) as CC-BY, the chances that they're willing to freely license the less-vital surrounding sculptures also is probably a lot higher than with your typical copyright holder. --Closeapple (talk) 08:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Copyrighted sculpture, no permission      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:15, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:180px-Flag_of_New_Brunswick-1950-Blue.svg.png

edit

Scaled down duplicate of File:Flag of New Brunswick-1950-Blue.svg ~ Fry1989 eh? 05:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Unused scaled down duplicate George Chernilevsky talk 13:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:800p_x_480p-Flag_of_Australia_non-_proportional.png

edit

Not in use, no explanation for the "scrunched" ratio, no future use. See proper File:Flag of Australia.svg ~ Fry1989 eh? 05:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 13:39, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:800p_x_480p-Flag_of_New_Zealand_non-_proportional.png

edit

Not in use, no explanation for the "scrunched" ratio, no future use. See proper File:Flag of New Zealand.svg ~ Fry1989 eh? 05:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 13:40, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ferdinand_R_Marcos_Jr.jpg

edit

Not older than 50 years, so still under copyright in the Philippines. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:35, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:15, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:HOR_Philippines_Session_Hall.jpg

edit

Not older than 50 years old, still copyrighted in the Philippines. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:15, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ph_seal_guimaras.png

edit

The province was created in 1992, so it is not older than either cut-off year. So this seal is still under copyright. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:37, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:15, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:IRRC_logotype.jpg

edit

Copyrighted logo User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:39, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:16, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Jose-de-Jesus.jpg

edit

Still copyrighted in the Philippines. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:41, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:16, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Logo-round-small.jpg

edit

Still in copyright in the Philippines User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:16, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Logo-round-small-v2.jpg

edit

Still in copyright in the Philippines User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:16, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ph_seal_zamboanga_sibugay.png

edit

Still in copyright in the Philippines. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:16, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tuguegarao_City_Seal.png

edit

Still in copyright in the Philippines. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:45, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:16, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sorsogon_City_Seal.PNG

edit

The seal was copied from just a website, which is not a text of legislative, administrative or judicial nature. Also, under Philippine law, it is still under copyright (25 years for applied art). User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:17, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Полнокадровая_ПЗС-матрица.gif

edit

No evidence of the given license at the given source of the image Artem Korzhimanov (talk) 09:45, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The same problem with the following files:
Artem Korzhimanov (talk) 09:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:22, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sibelius_monument_Helsinki.jpg

edit

Derivative work of copyrighted sculpture. The sculptor (Eila Hiltunen) died in 2003; not in Public Domain yet. FOP in Finland for buildings only. Apalsola t • c 10:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC) –– (fix) Apalsola t • c 10:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment See also:
––Apalsola t • c 10:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:22, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Nintendo_DS—Nintendogs_Skin_2.jpg

edit

COM:DW sугсго 12:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:26, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Salvator-Mundi-4-inch.jpg

edit

unable to append non commercial license, which is specifed by image owners Hniyazi (talk) 12:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: PD-Art is correct. It is the same painting as File:Salvator Mundi (around 1500, private coll., possibly Leonardo).jpg, but that file has fewer pixels, although it is brighter. I think we should keep both.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:31, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Бомбардировке_по_Нуланд.jpg

edit

Vandalism-only upload used in a hoax article in Russian wikipedia (I just marked it for speedy). Similar vandalism went on recently in en:Hohenzandriel. I don't know what to make of it - check global contribs of user:Holograph - very odd history. Perhaps, a sleeper account gone on a rampage? I mean, why would someone who edited meta in 2006 start this sophomoric lulz-game in 2011? NVO (talk) 13:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC) NVO (talk) 13:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC) It just came to me that these may be different accounts, not a SUL. - ??[reply]

  • Apart from timing, the upload connects to IP vandalism through the filename. The filename (in Russian, guess why?) translates as "bombing of Nuland" and en:Nuland, curiously, is a village three miles south-west from Hohenzandriel (the Russian hoax is about the feud between these two villages). NVO (talk) 13:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:33, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:YSL_1974.jpg

edit

Cropped version of a pic available on the internet - the previous pic seen as a redlink here was the subject of an OTRS takedown request from a magazine that stated they owned the rights and not the photographer as he was working for them when the picture was taken. I can't link to the discussion as its been deleted but an administrator may be able to review it. As I remember the OTRS report is linked in that deletion discussion. Here you can see the complete pic from a tin eye result Off2riorob (talk) 14:04, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:34, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Novák_Zoltán.jpg

edit

and other uploads by Kosztucs (talk · contribs). No evidence of permissions. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Copyvio. Yann (talk) 03:55, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Randy's_donuts1_edit1.jpg

edit

Sorry, but there is no freedom of panorama for sculptures in the United States. Dura lex, sed lex. Please crop the donut from the image. 84.62.204.7 17:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep: Object in question is a pre-1978 work first published in the United States. The donut at Randy's Donuts was erected in the United States, in 1954 or earlier, as the second location of the Big Do-Nut chain. If it is considered part of the architecture, then there is no copyright against photography because there is indeed freedom of panorama in the United States for architecture. (This is why {{FoP-US}} exists.) Also, regardless of whether this is architecture or another sculpture, the donut is a work "published" prior to 1978, and almost certainly published by its rights-holder without a copyright notice. (As a pre-1978 work with the copyright notice omitted by the rights-holder, the donut itself becomes {{PD-US-no notice}}.) In either case, no prohibition on photography of it; the only copyright is that of the photographer. (I note that the deletion nominator, 84.62.204.7 (talk · contribs), seems to be nominating this image as a response to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Google lawn.jpg, but is having trouble understanding the "lex" part of "dura lex, sed lex", as demonstrated in User talk:84.62.204.7.) --Closeapple (talk) 06:06, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, lest someone say I missed a loophole: From what I can tell, because this donut was first published around 1950 (and therefore before 1964), any alleged copyright holder also would have had to file a renewal on paper before about 1978 (1950 + 28 years) for it to still be copyrighted. Note that the article en:Randy's Donuts and some of its sources that the chain was originally called Big Do-Nut Drive-In, and that the owner of Big Do-Nut sold off all the shops to various other people in the mid-1970s. So, for the giant donut to still be copyrighted today:
    1. the copyright holder of the giant donut "sculpture" would have had to place a copyright notice on each pre-1978 giant donut when it was erected; and
    2. the original copyright holder from 1950, despite selling his shops off separately to various people throughout the 1970s, would still care enough about his giant donut "sculpture" to pay for filing a renewal around 1978. (Or, if you want to really stretch credibility: It is theoretically possible that, despite none of the new owners of the various buildings using the Big Do-Nut name anymore, someone decided they just had to have the copyright to make copies of that particular version of an enormous donut, and then, having convinced themselves that every donut been duly inscribed with a copyright notice, payed to renew it, all before 1978, instead of just making their own original giant donut sculpture instead.)
    I hope that clears things up. --Closeapple (talk) 07:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Searched on "Donut" in the usco renewal database. 112 hits, but none of them were any of the possible names here. Therefore this is PD-US-norenewal.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Diacetone_alcohol_prepn.png

edit

Poor quality, should be two acetones, superceded by that, unused. Yikrazuul (talk) 18:35, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Per nom. Poor duplicate George Chernilevsky talk 13:43, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:4-Hydroxy-4-methylpentan-2-one.png

edit

Unused, not well drawn chemical structure (en:WP:CSDG), in comparison to 1, 2, 3 or 4 Yikrazuul (talk) 18:40, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Per nom. George Chernilevsky talk 13:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Alloxan.gif

edit

Unused, poor quality, alternatives given. Yikrazuul (talk) 18:45, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Per nom. George Chernilevsky talk 13:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Jurassic_Custom_drapeau_Suisse_15.jpg

edit

Scaled down duplicate of File:Flag of Switzerland.svg ~ Fry1989 eh? 23:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention the use of jpg instead of png for a 15 pixel drawing. --Kramer Associates (talk) 01:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Scaled down duplicate George Chernilevsky talk 13:49, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Rolled_a_Six.jpg

edit

Dieses Bild ist sexistisch und hat nichts mit dem Thema "Würfel" zu tun. 134.102.124.119 15:16, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Translation: This image is sexist and has nothing to do with the topic of "cube".
See also: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rolled a Five.jpg

Kept: No valid reason for deletion. Even if you think it contributes nothing to the subject of dice, it's still an ok example of nude art photography, and a number of other uses like those mentioned in the discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rolled a Five.jpg can be imagined. Rosenzweig τ 12:55, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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


File:Rolled_a_Five.jpg

edit

Auch dieses Bild ist sexistisch, ein signifikanter Beitrag zum Thema "Würfel" nicht erkennbar. 134.102.124.119 15:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Translation via Google: This picture is sexist, a significant contribution to the theme of "dice" is not recognizable.


  •  Keep - not sure I see a particular reason to delete this - I don't see how it's sexist, and while I admit it doesn't contribute much to the idea of dice, we could just remove it from that category. I must ask, would it be less sexist if, say, the dice were resting on a man's crotch instead of a woman's breasts? -mattbuck (Talk) 16:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: No valid reason for deletion. Even if you think it contributes nothing to the subject of dice, it's still an ok example of nude art photography, and a number of other uses like those mentioned in the discussion can be imagined. Rosenzweig τ 12:55, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Granufunk_logo.svg

edit

(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Wurde fälschlicherweise hochgeladen! Granufunk (talk) 10:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Translation: Was mistakenly uploaded!
  •  Delete - You mistakenly uploaded it two years ago and only now want to correct this? Seems a bit curious. It's PD-textlogo rather than copyrightable anyway, but I'm inclined towards deletion on grounds of scope. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination and as it doesn't seem to be in scope. Rosenzweig τ 22:09, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Maharaja_Brijendra_Singh.jpg

edit

This is a clearly scan from somewhere, not self-created in the WP sense Sitush (talk) 16:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: clearly not uploader's own work as claimed, and not enough solid info about the image to keep with PD-India. Rosenzweig τ 22:14, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:65LBugnard.jpg

edit

Contrary to author entry not own work of uploader, who conceded - after an unpleasant communication - that he does not know who is the author and that is was given to him by the wife of the depicted (see permission entry). Likely an official UN photo. Finally uploader himself requested deletion[2]. -- Túrelio (talk) 21:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment - what about Commons:United Nations Photo Library, did that project get anywhere? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:35, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: The indirect author claim of User:Royonx/Credits is wrong. For the UN: Multichill never said what that is about. Also this photo is not from UN, not from WHO (as said in the fr.wp article) but from IAEA. Martin H. (talk) 03:27, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Cinta_ligas_009.jpg

edit

I can't see any educative purpose in this bad photoshop of panties... Out of SCOPE, I belive. From user with 10 uploads in 2006, all same style. Shakko (talk) 22:09, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

+

 Delete all. Out of scope. Commons is not for publishing own art work. --P199 (talk) 16:04, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept the two which were in use, deleted the other five - agreed that these were personal artwork and not educationally useful. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:18, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ormeloxifene_structure.png

edit

now orphaned, svg version (File:Ormeloxifene structure.svg) in use  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:45, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: High resolution PNG. No other reason for deletion given. NEURO ⇌ 13:42, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Golan_evacuation.jpg

edit

User:Jiujitsuguy nominated the Golan evacuation image based on his claim that: "The photo has no author, comes from an obscure and unreliable blog calling into question its veracity and it also may be in violation of copyright laws. The source site has no license specified" [3]

This is inaccurate as the photo is a historical image taken in Syria in 1967, and under Syrian copyright law, images taken before 1994 have they're copyright expired. Thde image is also not from an "obscure blog" as he calls it, its from syrianhistory.com/ which is a website entirely dedicated to Syrian history and run by Sami Moubayed, he has his own wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sami_Moubayed, has articles published in the Huffinfton post, [4] Asia Times:[5], The Washington post:[6], Gulfnews:[7] more info here about the site: [8]. So far not one shred of evidence or argument has been presented by Jiujitsuguy to delete this image, so the image should definitely not be deleted:  Keep --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should be possible to find the original source of the image if we ask Moubayed perhaps. FunkMonk (talk) 08:40, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete Clear cut case of copyright violation if ever there was one. The source site does not specify a license. For that reason alone it should be deleted. In addtion, there are serious reliability problems here. The photo has no author and comes from an obscure Syrian blogger. We don't even know when the photo was taken as there is merely an imprecise date. The year 1967 is a rather large net.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 14:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As has already been explained above, the source site does not need to specify a license as all photos taken in Syria before 1994 are free, so the image is free. What reliability problems? The photo is not from an "obscure Syrian blogger", its from syrianhistory.com, more about the site and who runs it has been provided above, which you have ignored. The source says: "during the 1967 War" Israel occupied the area during the 1967 war, which was 6 days. So the source is specific that it was taken during the six day war of 1967. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't "clear cut" at all. If it was published in Syria first, then it's PD and will stay here forever. If you can demonstrate that it wasn't, then it's "clear cut". As is, the precautionary principle is what could get it deleted. FunkMonk (talk) 14:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If one follows the paranoia principle, the best thing is to close down Commons. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete The latest copyright law from Syrian can be found here [9]. It doesn't seem to say anything about 1994. Anyone can start a history site and put what they choose up as valid. (I have one myself) That doesn't mean that everything they put up is valid history. It appears the author is an opinion columnist in his other life. Stellarkid (talk) 16:04, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This source:[10], says on page 6, Article 25 "Copyrights of photographic, fine arts or plastic arts shall be enforceable for ten years as of the date of producing such work." Article 26: "All unprotected works or works with expired protection periods according to the stipulations of the law herein shall fall in the public domain.", this source: [11] says "the term of protection begins for 50 years from the date of production of the work and reduce the protection period of ten years from the date of production of seed with regard to photographic works", either way, this is further evidence that the image is infact free. Furthermore, Stellarkid is a blocked sock on Wikipedia [12] and I have evidence that he and Jijutsuguy are part of an of wiki canvassing group. So Jijutsuguy probably just sent him another email telling him to come here and back up his bogus attempt to delete this photo. Notice that he hasn't made one single edit on Commons for 1 year and then just "magically" showed up here. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Get real, SD. I like to keep my eyes on things here. Talk about the paranoia principle. Just deal with the issues, not personalities. Stellarkid (talk) 20:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SD I’d rather not indulge you on your paranoid and asinine insinuations. If you’d like to talk about canvassing, I can easily link to a mysterious user who in one day contacted more than 30 editors with the message “Hello, I don't know who I should speak to about this important matter. The Golan article has been taking over by Israelis and they have removed everything mentioning an occupation and changed it to "disputed" They have also removed the "the neutrality of this article is disputed" that was on top of the article while it is written in a completely pro-Israeli way. Please do something about this!” Do you want me to link to that user? Please stick to the issues and stop engaging in endless paranoia and hypocritical personal attacks.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:37, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I did post that a very long time ago when I was new and didn't know anything about the rules at Wikipedia, I acknowledged that I made an error, this is not the same thing as you did, your attempt of mass canvassing of wiki when you was an experienced editor and then pretended to apologize to stay at Wikipedia and then your participation in an of wiki email ring was exposed some months ago (together with Stellarkid). --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep As there doesn't appear to be any evidence to the contrary, ie that the photo is of what it says it is and taken when it says it is then all is fine and dandy and should be kept as a valuable archival image. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 02:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete I don't contribute to Commons all that often but have had User:Supreme Deliciousness' Talk page watchlisted for a while and uploaded a file from an old phone of mine just now, which is how I got here. When I try to access samimoubayed.com I get redirected to http://www.cunemagazines.com/sami, with a message in the browser window that says "Bad Request (Invalid Hostname)." Is anyone else able to access his blog? We should check if Moubayed has other photos there that are obvious copyright violations, which would then indicate that he freely uses images without consideration of their copyright status. Otherwise, although I'm withholding voting temporarily, my inclination is to say that this photo doesn't depict Syrians at all and that Moubayed was either misled or is misleading for propaganda purposes. The issue came up once at in a Wikipedia discussion at Golan Heights, where an editor pointed out that the subjects' dress doesn't correspond to what Syrian inhabitants of the Golan would have been wearing at the time. That's a valid concern that needs to be addressed in order to convince me that this photo authentically depicts what Moubayed is claiming it depicts. In the event that this discussion should move to be closed before I can comment again, my vote can be considered  Delete on account of there being no accompanying data indicating who the photographer/publisher was, which would allow us to corroborate Moubayed's claims.Biosketch (talk) 07:03, 4 November 2011 (UTC) Edited to move Template:Vd to front. Biosketch (talk) 11:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep because I see no evidence of copyright violation and other reasons sound too subjective. The request sounds biased, especially the characterization of the source site as "unreliable" and the requester not addressing clarifications about the source when presented by others. What exactly makes that site unreliable? And why is it relevant (to the deletion request) that it is Syrian? Why is it "obscure"? Is it obscure (or unreliable) *because* it's Syrian? The requester also does not seem to be able to justify or respond to the clarifications that have been made about copyright, either, while seeming to repeat that the request is "clear cut." These things smell fishy to me. I'm sorry if I'm contributing to an attack on users instead of content - I'm trying to look at the content of the request. Anyway, I guess an anonymous vote doesn't carry much weight but I'm not a regular contributor other than random minor edits from time to time.--99.171.125.144 08:29, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The anonymous IP above has never made a contribution to Commons[13] and, by some miraculous force of nature, finds this discussion to post its first comments--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 05:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's what I mean - your reasons for the deletion request all seem to have been strongly refuted, but you're continuing only to beat up on contributors here including me. Not that anyone should have to justify offering an opinion even if it's their first one, I found the Golan Heights article, was intrigued by its (sadly childish) discussion page, saw this. If you can't stick to the issues, it does your *cause* a disservice, and it becomes clear that you are in fact here for a cause other than sharing fair knowledge with the world.
  •  Delete - I was reading about Golan and noticed this illustration. I looked again and, very peculiar, what did I see? A picture of a family with a basket that shows two dark ladies without scarf or headcovering. One in trousers and one in a sari. As I read above, I see this impression has been had before. How can I believe what I read in Wikpedia if people can upload any picture they didn't take and add fake captions. --Idont (talk) 20:03, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow great argument! Two women without scarves can surely not be Syrians! Your lack of knowledge is clear.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 04:02, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete No evidence of original source or location to even claim that there is no copyvio or that the location is the Golan or Syria or anywhere else. The claimed source is not an RS.--Shuki (talk) 00:47, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Syrianhistory.com/ is reliable for Syrian history images as its run by Sami Moubayed, so its RS. furthermore there is a lot of RS that shows that the Syrian refugees went deeper into Syria, and not to any other country, so it doesn't matter in what part of Syria it was taken, in the part that Israel occupies today or any other part of Syria.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 04:02, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - looks pretty clear, so i agree with the comments way above. 89.138.28.54 16:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete - Copyvio per Template:PD-Syria (image reportedly published after 1954, therefore it is not yet public domain in Syria). The public domain tag currently present on the image page is incorrect - there is no basis under Syrian copyright law to claim that an image from 1967 is no longer copyrighted. To summarize, this appears to be a copyrighted image with an unknown author, and unclear authenticity. Marokwitz (talk) 16:11, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are incorrect, I have no idea where you got 1954 from, there are two conflicting sources about this, either way the image is free, one saying photographs are free ten years after they are created the other one saying 40 years: [14], either way its free. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:19, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep The arguments for deletion based on copyright are incoherent, and the discussion keeps being distracted by questions of the image's merit. That's not for us to decide here. I detect an agenda. — Alarob (talk) 21:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another "new" SPA who just "happened" to find this discussion. Interesting. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:12, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment This is the funniest thing I've seen for ages. All this childishness over a single picture. A not especially good picture at that. Is it really worth all the Machiavellian shenanigans? There's now more socks here than there is in my bedroom drawer. What is it about the Middle-East that brings the juvenile out in people? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 22:14, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What other pictures of Syrian refugees from Golan are you referring to? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just a google image search on b/w photos, "golan refugees" for example. I know it is not evidence, and I the SyrianHistory site would of course know better than me, but it remains possible that this is from somewhere else. It would not be the first time that editors trust a caption more than the image. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:14, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have to show me the specific images as you used it in your argument above. I have never seen any another images and when I google what you typed I cant find any other. Btw this one:[15] is not real as can be seen here:[16] "Computerized reproduction of photo" --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:35, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking of this (but it may be a 1948 photo). Stuff does get mislabeled. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 01:38, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in that photo would justify you saying about the other one "does not really fit in very well" with this photo, there are many different types of ethnic people in Syria and the clothes are very mixed, you could find people in Syria wearing clothes like this today.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you referring to their attire? Many different groups were relocated at the time, but the one you posted actually looks older. FunkMonk (talk) 14:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Sure there were different groups, but I would associate this style of clothing more with the Indian subcontinent. Could they be Bengali refugees in 1971, for example? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:06, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whether they are are reasonable or not, whether or not the pic is what it is purported to be is no excuse for the behaviour shown in this discussion. It's gone beyond a straight-forward deletion request, it's now a competition and there are several people who seem to want to win at all costs. FFS it's just a picture, let's have some perspective here. This isn't directed at you Pieter by the way. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 23:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh, it seems like some else thinks this pic is as described. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 00:00, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Eh... sorry Fred, don't think so. That's from a blog called the Alternative Information Center (emphasis added). We deal with what's reliable not some gibberish from one borrowed blogger to another dealing with Alternative information. The fact of the matter is the photo is so fought with COPYVIO and reliability problems, that its immediate deletion is warranted.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea whether what you say is true about the site as I just came across it when googling images with the "1967 golan refugees" search term. Regardless, the way you are talking you seem to think that we should consider you to be a reliable source. So far you haven't given any reason whatsoever why it should be deleted other than the fact that you think it should be. So please, tell me who holds the copyright for this image? Tell me what evidence you have that proves that it isn't what it is purported to be. The car, the clothing, the style of photo all look to be from the 60s. There's nothing to say that these aren't refugees from the Golan Heights other than "no head scarves". Your evidence isn't looking too strong. Now as nominator you have to persuade the closing admin that the image needs to be deleted and why, and so far you're doing a pretty shitty job of it. So please stop with the paranoia, the rhetoric and the hyperbole and give us some facts to chew on as at the moment your signal to noise ratio is through the roof. Remember it's not up to us to prove that it shouldn't be deleted, it's up to you to demonstrate that it should. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 03:14, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fred, my guess is that the bitter "you are, no YOU are" things on this page stem from the bitter nature of the conflict in that region and thus it's not so surprising. The image isn't "just a picture" - it's an evocative one, showing women and children fleeing their homes, which you may well imagine would be something an occupying force (justified or not) would not like the world to see, since it evokes sympathy with people being forced from their homes - by foot, no less. It's hard to set those things aside for a lot of people, since it IS a terrible thing.
In this case, it looks to me like the requesting user is not being honest - the original reasons seem to have been solidly refuted, yet that person merely repeats that the case is "clear" and doesn't even warrant anything more than immediate/speedy removal, and, as just above, seems to be resorting to casting illegitimacy on anything counter to the goal of deletion with no real facts or reasons - it's not enough to call a site unreliable because it has "Alternative" in its title or because it's a Syrian history site. That's just name-calling and it wreaks agenda, and for me as someone new here, I wish there was a reasonable authority that could come in and shut down this kind of thing that makes a mockery out of the ideals of this project.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.154.151.161 (talk • contribs) 05:56, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
UPI holds the copyright to this picture [17] which comes from the same blog as the photo in question. I was able to track it down to a book authored by Zeev Schiff (1974) page 300. So it appears that this blogger simply lifts photos from legitimate copyright holders and pastes them on his blog with whatever caption he fancies. Now it becomes clear to me why the photo has no author and a rather vague year. Others on this thread have accurately pointed out other discrepancies with the photo and corresponding caption. I think that under the totality of evidence, this photo is at best unreliable and more than likely infringes on copyright laws and when it comes to copyright laws and infringement, it is better to err on the side of caution.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:28, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The photo in question does not come from a blog, it comes from Syrianhistory.com. According to Syrian copyright law, the photo you linked to would have automatically fallen in PD either in 1983 or in 2013 if it hasn't already been PD some other way. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:01, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That would depend on what year the photo was taken. Once it hits PD status according to Syrian law it makes no difference what book it came from. Once it's public domain it stays there. It cannot then become copyrighted by the book's author. So if what you say is true, we need to found out its provenance so that it can have an accurate caption, not so that it can be deleted.--Fred the Oyster (talk) 17:12, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PS: You do realise don't you, that the image you linked to above, from 1973, is also PD? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 17:14, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Freddy, that picture didn't originally come from the book. It originated with United Press International, which owns the rights to the photo. The book republished the photo with attribution which is the way it's supposed to be done if one is to operate within legal parameters. Like I said, there are real serious issues with the subject photo and when we are dealing with serious issues such as reliability as well as copyvio concerns, we best err on the side of caution.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:04, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion request is about this photo:[18], which has been proven to be free and under PD above, while you are talking about this one:[19] which is a different photo. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:10, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case then you've put the wrong file up for deletion, as you are talking about the 1973 image whereas the rest of us are discussing the 1967 image. As for the book, I'd be grateful if you could give us the title as Zeev Schiff has been involved in a few books with the discussed subject matter. This way we can all find out for ourselves, independently, whether the book contains the 1967 image that is under discussion. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 19:21, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My point is clear. The blog is an unreliable source. The photo has no author, a vague date, inconsistencies in the caption have been pointed out by more than one editor on this thread (excluding me) and as I've shown, the blogger lifts works created by others, posts them on his blog and cites whatever caption fancies him raising serious infringement issues. There are lots of issues concerning this photo and erring on the side of caution is the most prudent course of action.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:41, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No one has brought a blog here as a source for anything. Concerning the syrianhistory website it says in the caption it was taken in the six day war, so there is no problem with the date. What inconsistencies in the caption? Everyone who has "voted" to delete the image here is either an obvious sock and/or a notorious non neutral pro-Israel editor from Wikipedia (Shuki, Biosketch, Marokwitz, yourself, Stellarkid, Chesdovi). You haven't shown anything to back up your claim. No blogger has been presented here, concerning the other 1973 photo its PD according to one source and you haven't shown any source confirming that it isn't. Everything you have said about UPI is not proven [Personal attack removed --99of9 (talk) 23:57, 13 November 2011 (UTC)]. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jiujitsuguy keeps repeating phrases like "totality of evidence" and "unreliable" to apparently make it seem like his case is "clear", but provides no reasons at all that these sources are "unreliable" except personal opinion (dubious opinion at that, if that opinion seems to be based on things like "Alternative" being in the title). He continues to claim the source is a blog, for example, when this is not the case at all. He doesn't acknowledge AT ALL that the original reasons he requested (speedy no less) deletion have been soundly refuted, continuing to bugle the need for swift removal. This repetition of a point that has not been backed up is a tired tactic that needs to be retired. It's quite clear this user comes here with an agenda. What gives? Why does anyone take this seriously? Where are the mods who can put an end to this childishness? Why can't the Wiki* projects be a better place than that?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.154.151.161 (talk • contribs) 22:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete After looking at this pic, i find it highly doubtful this picture was taken at the Golan Heights. Both landscape and the outfit of the people are quiet strange (especially Indian clothing style on one of the women). A reliable source needed for such claim that it was taken at the Golan.Greyshark09 (talk) 22:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After reading your comment I find it highly doubtful that you know anything about the Indian diaspora. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 23:52, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is the original image here [20], which is said to be copyrighted. In any case, I still doubt it is authentic.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:10, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter if whomever uploaded to Flikr says it's copyrighted. Once an image becomes Public Domain, it cannot then be copyrighted by anyone. It sounds like the Flikr uploader doesn't have a clue what he's doing. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 20:27, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Greyshark09 having "found" the "original" image on Flickr of all places - did you see that it says "Uploaded on Nov 15, 2010"? If you still think that's the *original*, did you contact that user for a detailed and helpful response that would be MUCH more helpful to us here? Or are you just reaching for anything to justify your agenda? Why do you make a mockery of the Wiki* community? Do people like this get their deletion votes removed for being dishonest? This is pathetic.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.154.151.161 (talk • contribs) 02:20, 9 November 2011‎ (UTC)[reply]
With regard to votes, point of order. These discussions do not depend on numbers of votes, they depend on which side gives the most compelling reasons to the closing admin. This is why sock voting makes no difference and why vote stacking can work against an argument, ie a load of new users or IPs all coming on and saying the same thing will demonstrate to the closing admin just what is going on. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 09:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification
  • Comment. I've voted already but would like to add that syrianhistory.com, whence the "refugees" photo originated, is full of photographs that were obviously taken by professional photographers and none of them have any attribution whatsoever as to their sources. The photos there are by no means only Syrian in origin; on the contrary, the overwhelming majority are of dignitaries from a long list countries. It's inconceivably that all these photos are uncopyrighted. Furthermore, I notice that per this page, we're required to "attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor." Here we (a) don't know who the author is, and (b) don't have a licensor - because that information doesn't accompany any of the photos at syrianhistory.com. We need to treat this site as an informal blog that doesn't consider itself subject to copyright laws. And as such, we shouldn't be relying on it to determine whether an image is public domain or not.Biosketch (talk) 11:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What license other images at that website have is of no importance here, the only thing that matters here is this one photo and its not under Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported license so there is no need to have the name of the photographer, this image has already been proven above to be PD. Were not relying on any blog or the Syrian history website that its PD, there are two other sources above were relying on for that. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The other photographs are of importance because they establish that Moubayed, or whoever it is that's behind the website, doesn't consider it subject to copyright restrictions; otherwise he'd have attributions for at least some of the historical photographs there. Furthermore, looking above, I don't see anywhere that you proved the photograph to be public domain, as you're claiming. What I do see, however, is you calling an editor a liar and calling me, a seasoned Wikipedia editor who's never even once been sanctioned or anything close, "a notorious non neutral pro-Israel editor from Wikipedia." This kind of behavior is altogether inappropriate.Biosketch (talk) 07:15, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter what copy rights other images have, only this one, evidence was presented here:[21] that its PD. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 02:25, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as you brought it up, and as your contributions on Commons amounting to 54 edits hardly amount to being "seasoned", who are you on WP? I only ask so we gan gain perspective on your above claims. Cheers. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 09:28, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete - I changed my mind; there is no reliable documentation or internal evidence for assuming that {{PD-Syria}} applies to this photo. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete - syrianhistory.com must make it clear that the image is PD or release its rights. We cannot assume things. The slanted roofed dwellings are typically uncommon in Arab buildings which generally have a flat roofs. I am also not aware of any ethnic Syrian minorities who wear saris. Am not sure if the 1973 Beetle Mexican sedan model had made it into Syria by '67. The Eucalyptus does grow in the area, but it also grows in Oz. Chesdovi (talk) 19:43, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We are not assuming this, other sources have been presented confirming that its PD:[22] Its difficult to see exactly what it is those in the back are

wearing. Do you have any evidence that the car in the picture is from 1973 and not an older model?--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 02:25, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The very un-arab style of those buildings in the background really shows that this "Golan" photo is a fraud. If they are evacuating, why are both men standing outside the car? It is obvious that they have parked and everyone has got out to go to a picnic somewhere on the Indian subcontinent. Chesdovi (talk) 10:57, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All of which is irrelevant, not to mention total fiction, unless of course you can back up your conjecture with facts. There are only two things to consider 1) is the image from a reliable source (if yes we are obliged to take the image on face value) 2) is its copyright status commensurate with the rules of Commons. So enough of Jackanory, let's get back to the important matters. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 13:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are not going to a picnic somewhere on the Indian subcontinent. They are fleeing four Israeli brigades that occupied the land that their homes sat on in the Golan. The men are likely standing outside their car because it ran out of fuel and they are faced with choosing which of their possessions to abandon and which to carry the rest of the march to Damascus. The caption at Corbis reads: "Women and children on the march as a result of the Israeli advancement into Syria during the Six-Day War." YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 18:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Hard to read though all this but the only relevant issues posed by the request seem to be:
    • copyvio - mere age and this [23] seem to refute this
    • Some vague claim of unreliability (?) - While the source site may have made some inadvisable decisions for how it presents and credits its media, this in no way means its material is falsified. The site in fact seems to be fairly legitimate/authoritative. No evidence beyond conjecture have been presented to justify the claim that it is not reliable, if that's what the request is based on.

    It's also pretty clear that most of the delete votes here are agenda-based (and the source of way too much irrelevant fluff). =( Sad. Hon89 (talk) 04:26, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hon89's account was created on November 12, 2011, and this is Hon89's first and only contribution since. Chesdovi (talk) 11:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC)—[reply]
So you must be saying that new people are unwelcome to contribute, because surely you are not trying to avoid staying on topic by trying to find fault with the people who are participating, right? Maybe you should point out the policy that says that newcomers are unwelcome. Otherwise, maybe you shouldn't participate yourself if you have nothing of value to add.Hon89 (talk) 06:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This may or may not be the case, but what you don't do is attempt to 'out' someone in a deletion debate regardless of their shenanigans, what you do do is take it to COM:SPI. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 09:02, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As the above comment from JJG hasn't been redacted, and for fairness, it should be pointed out that JJG's request for a checkuser on Hon89 was declined on the grounds that too much personal info would be given away should the result be confirmed. As such JJG's accusation is unproven and is just supposition and opinion. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 12:29, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you're really worried, IP "votes" can be struck and asked to log in. But please do not strike the comments, because discussion is actually what decides copyright issues like this, not votes. --99of9 (talk) 12:59, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, not worried, I know how these RfDs go. I just believe in fairness and that a possibly innocent 'person's' name shouldn't be sullied until it's proof positive that they have done what they've been accused of. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 16:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks and I appreciate the well intentioned policy that tries to protect users, but in this case it was just my mistake and I'm sorry for just adding to the ridiculous part of this debate. I am under the impression that registered accounts' votes are taken more seriously, so I made an account and it was just me being dumb not realizing I could remove my non-account vote when I was logged into my account. I don't mean to give the impression of cheating, and I have removed my previous vote. Sorry again. I only wish the others here including the original user would be more transparent about their motivations, even if it's quite clear what they are anyway.Hon89 (talk) 06:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. In contrast to the above claims, the source of this image is not SyrianHistory.com. The picture on SyrianHistory.com site has a watermark, while the image uploaded to commons does not. Furthermore the version on commons is higher resolution, making the source claim impossible. Evidently the image was copied from somewhere else. The image uploader should clarify the actual source. Marokwitz (talk) 15:47, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Its from the same site, previously the images on that site didn't have watermarks, but that was changed later on. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 04:35, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So they reduced the image resolution and added a watermark? Do you have any evidence? Why would they add a watermark to deter copying, if the image is indeed public domain ? Marokwitz (talk) 08:21, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence for what? I uploaded the image from the site before they changed it. Big deal. FunkMonk (talk) 16:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Or more likely to demonstrate provenance attribution based on the likelihood that most people wouldn't know the image is actually in the public domain. Guesswork of course, but it seems like a reasonable assumption to me. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 09:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How the hell did this DR become a battle-ground for pro-Israelis? Accounts like "IsraelForever1000" coming out of nowhere? Who is warning these people? FunkMonk (talk) 15:01, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
en:User:CommonsNotificationBot gives notifications on talk pages, which is a good thing. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:24, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Questioning someone's motives is not a personal attack. Neither is wondering why your introduction to Commons has been to go straight to Israeli-related deletion requests? It seems a strange way to take part. Most people's introduction to commons is to upload an image they got from the 'net. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 18:54, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your snarky, "Is that based on your wide knowledge of Commons and copyrights?" was a personal attack. My introduction to Commons was through w:Golan Heights, which I have been improving. A bot posted a notice about this deletion request on its talk page. Remember that just because you may have been introduced by uploading an image, that does not mean that everyone has to be introduced that way. Remember to assume good faith. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 19:09, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do hope you're using better grammar on the w:Golan Heights article. The use of sarcasm is not an "attack", it's sarcasm. Telling what I think of your good self and your lofty attitude could be considered to be an attack. Pointing out your unlikely familiarity of the darker depths of Commons is not though, neither is your knowledge of inter-wiki markup. I don't suppose you've ever worked in the fishmongery business have you? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 19:21, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I used "your" correctly -- English is my third language and I'm still better at it than you. For what it's worth, figuring out things like adding "w:" to a link to direct it to a Wikipedia article is very simple for people of reasonable intelligence. Unfounded claims of sock-puppetry are personal attacks. You may be trying to troll me, so I am going to ignore you in the future. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 19:38, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually sunshine, you didn't use it correctly. The correct way of saying it is "you are snarky", therefore if you wanted to contract it you would use an apostrophe. And people with "reasonable intelligence" might be more likely to use "en" as the prefix rather than "w" which could have related to Wiktionary, or Wikimedia. Just a thought. I always wonder what goes through a non-native English speaker's mind when they try to correct the grammar of a native English speaker. Must be that lofty manner again eh? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 19:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update - Corbis Rights Managed Photo by Terry Fincher Because of Fred the Oyster's personal attack on me, I was inspired to track down the photo's origin. Since I have such wide knowledge of Commons, copyrights, photography, and Israeli history, it took me only a few minutes. As I suspected, it's a Terry Fincher photo. It's a Rights Managed photo that is part of the Hulton-Deutsch Collection/CORBIS collection -- http://www.corbisimages.com/stock-photo/rights-managed/HU006703/women-and-children-during-war. Everyone who responded "Delete" here due to copyright issues was clearly in the right, and, unfortunately, everyone who responded "Keep" appears to be extremely biased and nonconstructive. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 17:40, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now who's doing the personal attacks eh? People voted keep because they didn't make wild assumptions about its provenance and its location ("Women and children on the march as a result of the Israeli advancement into Syria during the Six-Day War.") basd on little or no evidence to the contrary. We didn't even wax lyrical about the year of the Herbie car. The strange thing is that I also did a Tineye search, before !voting, and the only image it pointed to was the image we're discussing now, It didn't lead to the Corbis image.
  • That wasn't a personal attack. Anyone who followed the source link could clearly see that the site included no authorship information. You can't just assume that a random image is in the public domain. So "Keep" responders were either biased, or too lazy to do even a superficial investigation. I guess there is also the possibility that some of them were just confused about copyright or who chose to ignore Wikimedia Commons's copyright policies. Tineye is sometimes useful, but not in this case. It is no substitute for decades of relevant life experience and a keen intellect -- both of which I possess. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 19:21, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, Damn, I think I've finally got it. Anything negative you say is fine and dandy as it is purely descriptive. Whereas anything negative I say is a personal attack. Right, got it. Thanks for that. How confused I must appear to be. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 20:06, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Everyone who responded "Keep" appears to be extremely biased and nonconstructive"? Do You have problems with paranoia, or are you just cursed with the gift of hyperbole? On the bright-side though, at least we were right about its location, or do you just think the location naysayers were just being "extremely biased and nonconstructive"? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 18:54, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither, and please do not use negative words to describe me. I think that the location naysayers were confused because they expected the rocky terrain of the Golan and the picture shows a flat plain that is probably close to the Purple Line. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 19:21, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does that mean I'm not allowed to say no in a sentence that is directed at you? Now this is more like the lofty attitude we've come to know and love. Kindly descriptions of assumptions for people on your side of the argument, yet strangely acrimonious ones for the others. There's nothing like neutrality to keep a discussion going now is there? So what do you think my fellow lazy, young (can I quote you when my grand-daughter refers to me as old?), biased and low-intellect editors should do when we think the descriptions of us are personal attacks. Should we just throw the feeling to one side with a "tish tosh" because The Hammer says it cannot be so? I think there's only one person in this sub-thread showing bias and making attacks, and I have this suspicion that it isn't me. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 19:35, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • And there's goes Yehuda throwing in the anti-Semitism card. he seems to have lasted longer than many, but quicker than a few. You do realise that this is contrary to Godwin's Law don't you? When all arguments fail, throw in the anti-Semitism card. See? I knew you knew more about Wiki discussions than you're letting on. You see, throwing that taunt is a classic, admittedly a watered-down classic due to over use, but a classic debating technique nonetheless. Now there's a good Jewish chap, please point out examples of my anti-Semitism. Perhaps at this juncture I should mention that I take the piss out of the Jews, the Moslems, the Catholics, the Protestants, the Scientologists and the Amish. I'm an equal opportunities atheistic piss-taker. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 19:58, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm prepared to change my vote from keep to delete but have some questions (as no, I'm not a copyright expert). To a newcomer, it does look clear that the owner of the image is Corbis, but the copyright says "Hulton-Deutsch Collection/CORBIS", both of which seem to be US companies (Hulton-Deutsch having been bought by Getty), and the date being more than 30 years ago, does that have an impact or not?
YehudaTelAviv64, your aggressive style is not helpful (and surprisingly/shockingly pompous - are you joking? If you are, I'd advise against - too hard to "get the joke") . As was pointed out, your characterization of "everyone who responded 'Keep' appears to be extremely biased and nonconstructive" is ridiculous, given there was no good/solid prior evidence to base the delete request upon... what is more "nonconstructive" is making statements such as you have. Similarly, stating "Everyone who responded 'Delete' here due to copyright issues was clearly in the right" is quite "nonconstructive" and preposterous - many of the delete votes made spurious claims and used misdirection as a debate tactic, several claiming that the location was wrong as well. You've more or less waved your hand and appologized for that behavior and labeled everyone who voted keep as biased. YOUR bias comes across clearly in your manner here and I hope reasonable people can see that for what it is.Hon89 (talk) 08:43, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that some of the "Delete" responses used spurious claims, which is why I specified "'Delete' here due to copyright issues'. So do not claim that I apologized for behavior that I did not apologize for. You are the one who is handwaving and accusing me of bias. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 06:40, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, in fact you very specifically apologized for the people grasping at straws as it were: "I think that the location naysayers were confused because they expected the rocky terrain of the Golan and the picture shows a flat plain that is probably close to the Purple Line." Come on, it's all too clear that you are whitewashing previous questionable arguments. If you're so unbiased, why not let your arguments stand on their own without using the kind of language you have?Hon89 (talk) 00:46, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete The citation provided is certainly not an obscure blog, but the creator of the site is definitely not the one who created the photo as the public domain notice would seem to imply. From what I can tell Sami Moubayed was born about twelve years after the Six-Day War. I had not known of Corbis until seeing it brought up here, but it does appear to very much be an authority on this question and if it says this image is part of a copyrighted collection then this is most likely the case. Someone who knows more about fair use in the UK, where the rights are held, can comment on whether it would be acceptable to move it to Wikipedia under such a descriptor.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's moot whether it's UK or US. Fincher was a freelancer so he most likely held the copyright rather than a client, but as he only died in October 2008 it means that the image is indeed copyrighted still. Mind you, I'm surprised there's no WP article on him as he was certainly notable, well at least notable enough to get an obit in the Guardian. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 10:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? The fact that it was found on Corbis and its author and evidene of where it was taken proves that the image is real, it also proves that it was taken in Syria, so that also proves that its in the public domain.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 02:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? The evidence proves its in the public domain. The corbis link proves it was taken in Syria and the Syrian copyright laws presented above proves its in the public domain. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:18, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The photo is by Terry Fincher, not a Syrian citizen, he did not live there, and he did not publish there; it is not justified to consider Syria as the country of origin. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Doesnt matter if it wasnt taken by a Syrian, the photo was taken in Syria, so it follows Syrian laws. Lets say there is a country where its legal to beat children, and someone from that country travels to a country where its illegal and the person beats children there, then the person is still going to jail, because you follow the laws of that country. Not the country where the person came from. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On this I have to agreed. The best you can hope for SD is that the photo is PD in Syria, however the rest of the world is quite another matter. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 08:32, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The source claims copyright to two American companies. Is copyright irrelevant to public domain? Or are you saying their claim could be wrong if the photo was taken in Syria? No matter where the copyright is, doesn't it expire (or something like that) after so many years? I'm a little surprised there's so much uncertainty here about things like this that I would think would be well established in this community.Hon89 (talk) 00:46, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I'm aware, it isn't where the photo was taken that counts, it's where it was first published and under what terms it was published. So if the pic wasn't published in Syria then Syria's copyright rules don't apply. My original keep !vote was based on the premise that this image was published in Syria. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 02:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted:

  • If the image was first published outside of Syria, then it will be under copyright for many years, most likely until 2079 (Terry Fincher, the photographer died in 2008). At the time of this photograph, Fincher worked for the Daily Express, so it seems most likely that it first appeared in the Daily Express.
  • It is also possible that it was taken for the Daily Express, but never used in the newspaper.
  • In either case, it seems very unlikely that it was first published in Syria.

Therefore it is a copyvio and must be deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Quartier_de_La_Défense.jpg

edit

No COM:FOP in France for architectural works. The Arche is the dominant subject in this image. 69.118.30.50 21:35, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Building still protected by copyright, no freedom of panorama in France, De Minimis non applicable. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 15:15, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dasma_old_seal.png

edit

Unless we know the date of seal adoption, we cannot keep the image here under the template requirements. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MBisanz talk 18:43, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:OccupyEverything-LiberateOakland.jpg

edit

Comes from http://www.occupyoakland.org/ but it would not be surprising if the author(s) allow(s) it to be under a free license. Yann (talk) 06:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Use of this image on Wikimedia commons appears to be within fair-use guidelines. The image is sourced from the Occupyoakland.org website, on which posters are encouraged to be freely printed and disseminated. Furthermore, there is no claim of copyright on the website, the poster has no original authorship, it appears to be common property per the manner in which dissemination is encouraged, and appears to be entirely in the public domain. Also, this image is unique, and isn't able to be reproduced in a similar fashion or copy. The image serves to document the Occupy Oakland events. Northamerica1000 (talk) 05:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair use is not allowed on Commons, but you may get a free license if contacting the author(s). Yann (talk) 06:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If the image is not allowed in Wikimedia Commons because Commons disallows fair use images, then delete it. However, the nomination to delete also exists on the Wikipedia page here, despite the fact that Wikipedia allows fair use images. How should this matter be dealt with? Should the nomination for deletion on the Wikipedia page be removed, and only retained on Commons? Any input is welcomed. --Northamerica1000 (talk) 09:21, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The image you see on here is the one hosted on Commons. You need to upload it on Wikipedia here under a fair use claim. Yann (talk) 11:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The image you said was being considered for deletion on en.Wikipedia is only a mirror of the image uploaded on Wikimedia Commons. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 14:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MBisanz talk 18:44, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Luftfoto_av_Shaare_Zedek-anlegget.jpg

edit

This appears in various copyrighted palces on the web, we will need a license using the procedure at Commons:OTRS in order to keep it.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MBisanz talk 18:45, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Belairlab1.jpg

edit

and File:Belairlab.jpg. Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MBisanz talk 18:45, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ranabai1.jpg

edit

The uploader is having problems with images that are supposedly "self-created". This looks like another of them. Sitush (talk) 16:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Looks very much like a scan of a print (raster). "Own work" is highly implausible – why would anyone draw (?) a picture, scan it, print it and then re-scan it in order to upload it to Commons? --El Grafo (talk) 15:45, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MBisanz talk 18:45, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:ARTRIO_TRES_TORRES.jpg

edit

(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

I would like to re-upload this image because I made a mistake in the destination filename. It should be ATRIO TRES TORRES. Thank you. Circo M+T Circo M+T (talk) 17:10, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Has already been reuploaded as File:ATRIO TRES TORRES.jpg, so this one can be deleted. Please consider using {{Rename}} instead next time. Greetings, --El Grafo (talk) 16:03, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MBisanz talk 18:45, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Putsch_türkei.png

edit

The stamp is under copyright still in Turkey; it was released in 1960 and the cut-off for PD-Turkey is 1941. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MBisanz talk 18:47, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Nusretmayingemisi.jpg

edit

The stamp is under copyright still in Turkey; it was released in 1955 and the cut-off for PD-Turkey is 1941. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MBisanz talk 18:47, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:KoreanWarpostalstampTC.jpg

edit

The stamp is under copyright still in Turkey; it was released in 1955 and the cut-off for PD-Turkey is 1941. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MBisanz talk 18:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Turkey_circular_emblem.png

edit

Duplicate of File:Turkey emblem round.png. To the uploader, please stop uploading duplicates of your files. ~ Fry1989 eh? 02:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MBisanz talk 07:27, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Garib_Das.gif

edit

No-one creates a GIF of this size for subject matter of this type. I do not believe that it is self-created - probably a part of a book cover Sitush (talk) 16:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MBisanz talk 07:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Thelma_and_Gloria_Morgan_later_Thelma_Furness.jpg

edit

Another silly DR by me, because Herbythyme is edit warring over his copyvio tag:
{{copyvio|1=Published 1959 so likely still copyrighted}}
Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Delete Life magazine has a good reputation when it comes to noting sources of photos and paying attention to copyright issues. The source for the pictures in Life (Vol. 46, No. 9), March 2, 1959 are listed on page 2. The source for this particular photo is listed as "Courtesy Gloria Morgan Vanderbilt and Thelma Lady Furness". Some of the other photos in the same article in this issue of Life are credited to Double Exposure (the twins' autobiography, published a year earlier in 1958, which is now PD due to lack of renewal (online at archive.org), but this photo does not appear in that book. Given that Life is careful to note which photos were previously published in the twins' autobiography, and which photos were directly supplied by the twins, I think it is fair to assume that this photo was first published in this issue of Life. This issue of Life has a valid copyright notice on page 2 and every issue of Life since Nov. 23, 1936 whose copyright has come up renewal, has been renewed. Since this photo was first published between 1923 and 1963, with notice, and the copyright was renewed, the copyright term for this photo expires 95 years after publication — that is, on January 1, 2055. —RP88 23:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete Thank you. But the copyright is of course only theoretical: Life does not own it, and the twins were not interested. (Also, there may very have been previous publication.) /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course Life doesn't hold the copyright, absent prior publication, the heirs of Gloria Morgan Vanderbilt and Thelma Morgan Furness do (perhaps someone could try to ask the surviving daughter, i.e. Gloria Laura Vanderbilt, for permission?) If you're saying that the Vanderbilt family is very unlikely to enforce their rights against Wikipedia, I agree. —RP88 08:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MBisanz talk 07:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:John_Sokol.jpg

edit

Out of scope. Not educationally useful. Self-promotion. Hairyns (talk) 21:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that self-promotion is case here :-) At least this person organized live streaming of interview with Arthur Clark from Sri Lanka in 1990s. Sure, Internet fame could fade very fast :-) --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:42, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. MBisanz talk 07:30, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Cinta_ligas_001.jpg

edit

I can't see any educative purpose in this bad photoshop of panties... Out of SCOPE, I belive. From user with 10 uploads in 2006, all same style. Shakko (talk) 22:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MBisanz talk 07:30, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:AlanMcCurdy.jpeg

edit

False claim of copyright - see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alan_McCurdy&diff=prev&oldid=458750997 - Uploader's claim that this is his own work is not true MikeWazowski (talk) 23:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree with Delete I was involved with article and conversations with the article and image, and yes, the uploader not only misrepresented the copyright, but tried to baffle everyone with BS on the "rule" that allowed him to claim it was his photo to begin with, which of course, that rule on the source website doesn't exist. This is a simple copyvio where the uploader was dishonest about the source, then use the photo to misrepresent an image of someone twice the age of the person in the photo. All and all, a big mess. Dennis Brown (talk) 14:03, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for all the reasons given above. A copyright infringement, uploaded by a person who claimed it was his own work, but has now admitted that the claim was false, and that in fact it was copied from another web site. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:58, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MBisanz talk 07:30, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Some(!) files in Category:Soft_drink_bottles with drawings or photos

edit

Similar to Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Almdudler2l033l.jpg: DWs of the copyrighted design (especially the drawings/photos) of the packaging. See Commons:Image_casebook#Product_packaging. I propose to delete those four files:

Saibo (Δ) 01:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC) clarified (only four) 16:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Dear Sir, Thank you for the message. Airplane, car, train or present to a mobile phone manufacturer. Images were noted, as a product, product manufacturers are manufacturing a product is much smaller than the listed cases. Therefore, the shape of the bottle and label designs with its competitors and identify the product stand out. My first illustrated products is a big product formed. These pictures are allowed, and why you think this picture is not permitted, please explain what logic do. If judged only if the difference in size, planes, cars, mobile phones, industrial products, including, trains, and I think should be removed.

Thanks for reading.

Mj-bird (talk) 04:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mj-bird, thanks for your comment. On all those four listed files are prominent photos or drawings. On your upload File:Photo - ITO EN, TEAS TEA new york , 4 types.jpg there are photos of fruits. Those photos were not made by you. Therefore I regard your photo of the bottles as derivative work of these fruit photos. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 16:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reply comments. Now, I understand your point there. However, if trademark law is due, and believe that the laws of the Trademark Law in Japan or the Japanese design of this bottle is the country of origin. In Japanese law, there is no appeal can not respond from the right. Therefore, you report it to the right holders, and must receive an official request for deletion from the right.If you pointed out that many people get lost, you will also measure the image Coke and Pepsi Department believes the work should continue to take effective measures. In other words, if a person lost in a world manufacturer,unless their right to remove the original request, preferably a big problem keeping order and decision are probably not good. Could you withdraw a request for deletion.
Mj-bird 12:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 Comment - the julmust label is based on drawings by Jenny Nyström (died 1946). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:17, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Pieter! Article 43: "Copyright in a work shall subsist until the end of the seventieth year after the year in which the author deceased ..." (exceptions apply for some photos - but this is a drawing/artwork). So this image (File:Apotekarnes julmust.jpg) can be undeleted in 2017 (Category:Undelete in 2017). Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 00:38, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise Jenny Nyström's heirs will sue Wikimedia. So keeping this pic is very dangerous ;-) --Amga (talk) 08:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
COM:PRP. :-) --Saibo (Δ) 19:00, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know. But so what? I can live with it since it has wide acceptance among editors but it's plain stupid anyway. That's all I said (and, from my side, there's no need for any further discussion). --Amga (talk) 07:33, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: clear infringement of copyrighted artwork on bottles      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:06, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bertrand_Russell_1950.jpg

edit

source claims copyright; does not appear to fall under "photographic pictures" in the sense of images of the press; nobelprize.org has: For permission to use photos and other material about the Nobel Laureates, please contact Annika Pontikis, Public Relations Manager: info@nobel.se; appeasr this image needs a free license from such a contact 84user (talk) 16:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Source does not claim copyright for expired photos, {{PD-Sweden}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep --ESC Fan (talk) 20:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep per Pieter. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Mbdortmund (talk) 21:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


File:Bertrand_Russell_1950.jpg

edit

"image probably taken in the 1930s": the author is therefore clearly not the Nobel Foundation...! And therefore it cannot fall under Swedish law. Jarry1250 (talk) 11:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep The Nobel Foundation was founded in 1900 so the logic of this nomination makes no sense. In any case, this would seem to be a simple error in filling out the template; I would think the uploader meant author: unknown, source: Nobel Foundation. SpinningSpark 10:26, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete there is a problem, it was not first published in Sweden, but in The Observer on 30 January 1949. It is a portrait by Jane Bown, [27], [28]. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:25, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Cinta_ligas_009.jpg

edit

I can't see any educative purpose in this bad photoshop of panties... Out of SCOPE, I belive. From user with 10 uploads in 2006, all same style. Shakko (talk) 22:09, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

+

 Delete all. Out of scope. Commons is not for publishing own art work. --P199 (talk) 16:04, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept the two which were in use, deleted the other five - agreed that these were personal artwork and not educationally useful. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:18, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sanchita_Choudhary_FilmiTadka.jpg

edit

Moved from speedy. The nominator said: http://www.filmitadka.in/page3-parties/umair-zafar-fashion-shoot/sanchita-choudhary-39611.html - the site states: © 2011 FilmiTadka.in Digital Marketing by RedPencil. All rights reserved. while the uploader claims No copyright violation.Image is licensed to use under the following license http://www.filmitadka.in/static/filmitadka-creative-commons-attribution-share-alike-license.html WikiMan88 (talk) 09:29, 1 November 2011 (UTC) Yann (talk) 06:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep - Fixed license --Sreejith K (talk) 07:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. User:Neozoon deleted this file while it was still up for AfD. We have many images from FilmiTadka that are legitimately released under a free license, and the file was under this DR, so they acted too quickly. Dcoetzee (talk) 15:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If someone can help clear the backlog at Category:Filmitadka review needed, it will be nice. Can save a few DRs. --Sreejith K (talk) 18:53, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per Sreejith K. Rosenzweig τ 20:06, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Безымянный.png

edit

Screenshot: (c) 1987 Borland Int., Inc. ~ NVO (talk) 12:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure there's enough here to deserve a copyright.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:33, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per discussion. Rosenzweig τ 20:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Simas.jpg

edit

There's no source for the image, uploader refuses to add one and removes no source tags Denniss (talk) 15:22, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • The source his there. The uploader doesn't refuse to add one (because it's there), therefore the "no source" tag has to be remove. The request for deletion has two lies and should not be accepted Boni-pt (talk) 17:00, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  •  Keep Family picture: what else do you want uploader to write? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Thanks Peter. That's what I've told to that idiot Denniss but I think that he his not able to read. The fact his that the photo was taken around 1917, it's a studio photo. It's impossible to determine in what Studio was taken. The photo was paid by the person depicted wich died in 1927, therefore his a public domain. Moreover, the photo in paper was given to me by the only living descendent os General Simas to be used in his Wikipedia article which I've written.
  • Two questions.
    First:I've uploaded a file of an Portuguese packetship. Prior to the uploading I've contacted the depositary of the photo (wich has them in the Flickr) and he personali (on an e-mail granted me authorization to upload to ilustrated wikipedia articles (I've shown this to tha guy Denniss, but he didn't care. What should I do? Uploading again the picture?
  •  Delete The photo was taken around 1917 by a photographer that is unknown to us, but not necessarily anonymous under the applicable law. The EU rule is 70 years pma or 70 years after publication in the case of anonymous works. Since we don't know the name of the photographer, we cannot say that he died before 1941. There is no evidence of publication, so we cannot say that publication happened before 1941. So we cannot say that it is PD.
The other possibility requires the uploader to have gotten permission. The only way that could happen is if the photographer had transferred the copyright to the subject, something that almost never happened in those days. Then we have to assume that the only living descendant of the subject owns the copyright -- that is not at all clear without better evidence. Then, finally, we must accept permission "to be used in his Wikipedia article which I've written", which is far too limited for our purposes. Any of these three items are be enough to prevent our keeping this. We would need a lot more information here to do so, and certainly an appropriate license from the copyright owner using Commons:OTRS.
Finally, as far as Denniss's behavior goes, at the moment he added the {{No source}} for the first time, the template was written as "Source:familia" which is incorrect (Should be "Source = familia") so that the source did not show. Whether "family" is an adequate source is not clear, but all Denniss saw was a blank source line. When Denniss added it for the second time, the markup shows "Source: Private colection", which again is incorrect usage and does not show a source unless you look at the markup. The line was changed from "Source:" to "Source = " by User:93.167.80.125 at 17:03, 3 November 2011‎, after Denniss had added the {{Delete}}. Therefore Denniss acted completely correctly -- no source was displayed in the file description and when adding a {{No source}} or a {{Delete}} you are not required to look at the markup to see whether the uploader made a mistake.
On the other hand, "Boni-pt" uses the word "lies", which is a completely incorrect accusation. I suggest to him or her that he or she should take more care to fill out templates correctly and to avoid untrue accusations.
Making mistakes, as Boni-pt, not Denniss, did here is not unacceptable -- it happens to all of us. Using words like "lies" is, however, unacceptable under almost all circumstances and is certainly so here. An apology from Boni-pt would be a good thing.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:14, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This his not an art photograf! This is a commercial photo that the portraited person paid to the photographer, Therefore the rigth to use the photo was transfered to the owner. Like when you take a passport picture and you paid for it, only you can use the photo not him. By your point of vue, the photographer could sell your passport picture to anyone who need it! The portraited person - the bearer of the rigths died in 1926!Boni-pt (talk) 17:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Personal rights do not affect copyright. While it may be true that the photographer who took General Simas Machado's picture cannot publish the photograph without the General's permission, it is equally true that the General or his heirs cannot publish the picture without the permission of the copyright holder. It is very rare now, and almost unheard of in 1917 for a portrait photographer to transfer copyright to the subject. Selling copies of the image to the subject and his family was the way that commercial photographers made money.
As I said above, without evidence
  1. that the General purchased the copyright,
  2. that your donor is the copyright holder, and
  3. that your donor is willing to give us an acceptable license,
we cannot keep the image.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:22, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Denniss. He his an administrator, therefore he should have some caution in his procedures. If the code was wrong, it his an administrator duty to inform the user which are not very expert in using commons! Not close the eyes and propose the elimination due to a simple mistake!Boni-pt (talk) 17:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Commons Administrators make about 1,000 Administrative actions per day -- six of us, including Denniss do about half of those. There is no way in the world that an Admin can or should spend time examining markup to see if an editor made a mistake. If you had taken the time to look at the file description as it appeared after you edited it, you would have easily seen that it did not match what you thought you had written. The fact that you failed to do that three times speaks, perhaps, to a lack of care on your part. Calling Denniss a liar remains unacceptable behavior, and, as I said above, deserves an apology.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:17, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


After consulting my lawyer he sent me the rule of law inline with european legislation and respecting the Bern convention.
If you read the number 2 of article 165, in the case of ANY commissioned photo. As the case of a personnel photo that you take and pay (Contract/commission) in a studio) the copyrigth belongs to the portrayed person. Like in this case, the portayed person died in 1927 therefore the copyright expired in 1997, the photo his now in the public domain!
I advise also the reading of the number 2 of article 167 and the number one of article 168.
The below mentioned articles are from the code of copyright and related rights, Decree-Law No. 63/85 of March 14, and amended by Laws 45/85 of 17 September and 114/91 of September 3, Decree-Law No. 332/97 and 334/97 , both of Nov. 27, and by Laws 50/2004, of August 24, 24/2006 of June 30, and 16/2008 of April 1) and international (Bern Convention and the Universal Copyright Convention, 1886, 1952, revised 1971). and has to be enforced in all Countries that undersigned international treaty.
Section VIII - THE PHOTOGRAPHIC WORK
Article 164 - Conditions for protection
1 - For the a photo to be protected is necessary that the choice of their subject or the manner of their execution can be considered as a personnel artistic creation of its author.
2 - Do not apply the provisions of this section to photographs of writings, documents, business papers, technical drawings and things alike.
3 – Are considered to be photo frames of cinema films.
Article 165 - The rights of the author of a photographic work
1 - The author of the photographic work has the exclusive right to reproduce, broadcast and put on sale with the restrictions concerning exhibition, reproduction and sale of portraits and subject to the copyright of a work reproduced in relation to photographs of works of art.
2 - If the picture is made in implementation of a contract of employment or on commission, it is assumed that the right referred to in this article belongs to the employer or the person who placed the order.
3 - Any person who uses for trade photographic reproduction must pay the author an equitable remuneration.
[…]
Article 167 Mandatory indications
1 - Copies of a photographic work shall include the following:
a) Name of photographer;
b) photographs of works of art, the name of the author of the work photographed.
2 - can only be repressed as abusive to reproduce photographs containing the details above, the author can not, in the absence of such information, require the fees as provided in this Code, unless the photographer to prove bad faith of who made reproduction.
Article 168 - Of the Reproduction of a commissioned photography
1 - Unless otherwise agreed, the photograph of a person, when this photograph to be executed by order, may be published, reproduced, or sent to play by the person photographed or by his heirs or transferees without the consent of the author photographer.
2 - If the photographer's name appears in the original photograph should also be indicated in the reproductions.

Boni-pt (talk) 10:33, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The american law (Act 92, chapter 2) his far more in-depth than the portuguese one. While in Portuguese law all other works under copyrigth, the author remain with the copyrigth, in the US, all the works produced under a working contract, or under commission the copyrigth is transferred to the employer or commissioner.
U.S. Copyright Law - Title 17 of the United States Code, chapter 2, section § 201 - Ownership of copyright
(b) Works Made for Hire.—In the case of a work made for hire, the employer or other person for whom the work was prepared is considered the author for purposes of this title, and, unless the parties have expressly agreed otherwise in a written instrument signed by them, owns all of the rights comprised in the copyright.
Boni-pt (talk) 14:05, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: already deleted. Rosenzweig τ 20:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Charlie_Watts_and_Delfin_Fernandez.jpg

edit

Same picture in higher resolution exists, information about the picture here should be added there because incomplete in comparison (date): File:Defin Fernandez and Charlie Watts.JPG Miss-Sophie (talk) 20:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

to delete : {{duplicate|File:Defin Fernandez and Charlie Watts.JPG}}, and see this oldid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manuguf (talk • contribs) 21:22, 3. Nov. 2011‎ (UTC)

Deleted: already deleted as a duplicate. Rosenzweig τ 14:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ji_Han_Jae_en_méditation_w.jpg

edit

Moved from speedy. Available on http://www.nasmhf.com/index.cfm?page=6 and other sites. The uploader complains: You take this picture on my website a lot of years ago. I have all this old website on my computer : www.sinmoo-hapkido.com It's incredible ! Yann (talk) 06:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

J'ai parlé avec Monsieur Ken MacKenzie, reponsable du site http://www.nasmhf.com/index, il m'a dit qu'il n'avait donné aucun ordre quant à une restriction et que je pouvais tout à fait utiliser cette photo. "Kenneth P. MacKenzie : You can use any photo that I have."
<phone and email removed for privacy reasons> --Nicolas TACCHI (talk) 15:21, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, this is not enough for Commons. We need a written permission with a free license including commercial use which should be sent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. See COM:OTRS for details. Yann (talk) 16:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And please first replace this terribly wrong information you added with your upload. You uploaded it with the option "Ce fichier est de mon propre travail" - thats wrong! --Martin H. (talk) 19:32, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And p.s.: in this exact size the photo is most likey copied from http://hapkido-ua.org/photo/history/005.jpg of http://hapkido-ua.org/his_1.php. Its likely that the uploader not toke the file from nasmhf.com but from that source. The uploader simply grabbed a file from some random website and now claims to have permission. --Martin H. (talk) 19:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Tiptoety talk 07:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just see you delete MY picture. Jürg ZIEGLER (10th DAN) give me the picture saying I can use. I scan it myself and I put on internet (my website). Jürg ZIEGLER is responsible from Sin Moo Hapkido in Europe also in Ukrainia. I am responsible for France (pays francophones) and all Africa. What you do is "incomprehensible" !--Nicolas TACCHI (talk) 21:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Damage_to_Buckingham_Palace_1940.jpg

edit

Gettyimages claim that the image is still under copyright: http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/78961027/Popperfoto. DrKiernan (talk) 15:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment - the photo is familiar, but the photographer is not credited, just Popperfoto: "Founded by Czech photo-journalist Paul Popper in 1934, Popperfoto is one of the UK's oldest and largest independently-owned image libraries. " They do not disclose what their copyright claim is based on. Problem is that they do not need to do that. LIFE is crediting "Graphic Photo Union". /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Tiptoety talk 07:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mistinguett_C-Est_Vrai_sample.ogg

edit

Copyvio : en:Albert Willemetz and fr:Casimir Oberfeld are not dead more than 70 years ago --MGuf (d) 19:57, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can I use it for free in a commercial? Or to include it in a song for a public show? If "yes", keep this file, if "no", it's not a free file, not for Commons. The use of "samples" is legal, but with restriction (education...), and Commons is only for free documents, with no restriction of use. Perhaps possible to upload on Wikipedia...? ----MGuf (d) 17:43, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Tiptoety talk 07:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Machu Picchu pueblo (2).JPG

edit

this is a personal photo that I put by mistake.Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 02:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Rosenzweig τ 20:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sskwarmemorial.jpg

edit

and other uploads by Ravi813 (talk · contribs). Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: The uploads do look suspicious, but I couldn't find any actual hint they are copyvios. Rosenzweig τ 20:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Orthographic projections

edit

doubt about the contradicting licenses - source?? 80.187.152.68 19:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

as one can easily see, the creator loaded them up as CC and later one put them in the public domain -- Southgeist (talk) 21:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)
  •  speedy keep - There was an online tool that allowed individuals to generate maps -- maps they could then liscense however they chose. I used it to create about one hundred maps, including the maps above.
When I first started to creat these maps, I wasn't aware of the commons, and uploaded them to en.wiki, using the default liscense -- {{Gfdl}}.
Later more experienced contributors recommended double liscensing images under both {{Gfdl}} and {{Cc-sa}}.
About two years ago I decided I would start putting my images into the public domain. I went through the maps, intending to add {{PD-Self}} to all of them. Should I have replaced the early liscense with {{PD-Self}}? I don't think so. The {{PD-Self}} tag, when instantiated, says not all jurisdictions recognize {{PD}}. In those jurisdiction any potential re-user can use one of the earlier liscenses.
It turns out I missed some of my maps. When I come across some of those I add the {{PD-Self}} liscense. I did that recently, which, presumably, attracted the attention of User:80.187.152.68.
I uploaded some of my earlier maps to en.wiki, and some were transwikied by volunteers who transwikied them in a way that gave the surface appearance the map was their work -- not mine. When I wanted to add {{PD-Self}} to one of those images I asked for advice, and was told to go ahead.
User:80.187.152.68, if you have questions like this in future, do you think it would make sense to pose your question directly to the uploader? Geo Swan (talk) 22:04, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 KeepGood images, useful. Beta M (talk) 11:06, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment if you don't give a link to the 'online tool' you ripped the maps from, how are we supposed to verify your PD claim? To rip something from a website yourself doesn't make it free of any other copyright. Could you show us that the source site allows you to publish their maps with PD-self? Actually this non-answer about the copyright doesn't encourage me to avoid a deletion nomination. This needs to be treated as copyright violation until you can prove the contrary. 80.187.216.113 15:05, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first image in your list is File:Orthographic projection over Gough Island.png. You say you didn't see any links to confirm the online tool allowed "free" re-use compatible with the commons rules? You didn't see that {{GFDL-GMT}} was added to that image -- the first image you nominated? You didn't see that it provided a link to w:Generic Mapping Tools? You didn't see that it provided a link to one of the Generic Mapping Tools mirrors?
  • In addition to the hundred or so maps I created, and uploaded, there were a number of other individuals who also used the same tool. The tool used a database of geographic information that was in the public domain, and the tools themselves are an open source project.
  • I encouraged you, in the interests of civility and collegiality, to stop short of initiating nominations for deletion over doubts like this. I repeat that encouragement and I repeat my encouragement that you start first by communicating concerns like this directly to the uploader. Geo Swan (talk) 17:39, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept per discussion. --Rosenzweig τ 20:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Antey_III.jpg

edit

Sorry, but there is no freedom of panorama in Russia. Dura lex, sed lex. 84.62.204.7 19:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not clearly what claim to this image. And it is not clear that the phrase means: "no freedom of panorama in Russia". Someone has rights to this image which have been broken? It would be good to designate more clearly the reason on which file it is exposed on removal. Gregory A. Kharikoff (talk) 15:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination (copyright on architecture, no freedom of panorama exception in Russia). Rosenzweig τ 21:09, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Alain_Jund_Schiltigheim.jpg

edit

No encyclopaedic value - subject (Alain Jund) is barely visible, technical quality is low. Edelseider (talk) 20:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This kind of picture rather reminds me of Where's Wally? than of a portrait of a politician.--Edelseider (talk) 07:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know this picture is really bad and I would be happy to replace it if someone can provide a better one. --Pierre Rudloff (talk) 18:22, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: since that seems to be the only picture we have of that person at the moment. Rosenzweig τ 21:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Beşik_modelleri_erkız_beşik_zor_uyuyan_bebekler_için_bebek_beşikkleri_beşik_çeşitleri_2.jpg

edit

not notability, advertising Reality006 (talk) 22:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete Out of Commons:Project scope. Takabeg (talk) 22:22, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: already deleted. Rosenzweig τ 21:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Orthographic_projection_over_the_Heard_Islands.png

edit

doubt about the contradicting licenses - source?? 80.187.152.68 19:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Orthographic projection over Gough Island.png. Rosenzweig τ 21:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Orthographic_projection_over_Macquarie_Island.png

edit

doubt about the contradicting licenses - source?? 80.187.152.68 19:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Orthographic projection over Gough Island.png. Rosenzweig τ 21:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Orthographic_projection_centred_over_King_George_Island.png

edit

doubt about the contradicting licenses - source?? 80.187.152.68 19:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Orthographic projection over Gough Island.png. Rosenzweig τ 21:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Orthographic_projection_centred_over_Kerguelen_Island.png

edit

doubt about the contradicting licenses - source?? 80.187.152.68 19:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Orthographic projection over Gough Island.png. Rosenzweig τ 21:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Orthographic_projection_centred_over_Fernando_de_Noronha.png

edit

doubt about the contradicting licenses - source?? 80.187.152.68 19:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Orthographic projection over Gough Island.png. Rosenzweig τ 21:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Seal_of_the_Philippine_House_of_Representatives.png

edit

Still in copyright in the Philippines. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This version, but if I understand our conversation, we can make an SVG of this and it will be free. So I would suggest we do that. Fry1989 eh? 23:59, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no legislation or blazon, which is what we need first before we can even try an SVG Version. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 01:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would disagree. Except for the coat of arms in the middle, it's just basic circles, a ring of stars, and basic text. If the coat of arms wasn't in it, this would be PD-ineligible. I would say that as long as we make our own with your SVG of the coat of arms, it would be free. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure about that. Fry1989 eh? 02:17, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It did, but still the aspect of Derivative Works (and also I wasn't credited with the use of the arms image I did). Unless there is a law or a legal text that could be found, the image needs to go. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 02:57, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The House seal is described in text under "House Rule XXVI: The Mace and the Official Seal", as you can see here. That should facilitate us making an SVG. Would you agree? Fry1989 eh? 03:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: PD-Philippines as a work of the government. It is credited to a parliament website, so I'm not quite sure why the nominator seems to assume it is copyrighted in the Philippines. Rosenzweig τ 22:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Seal of the Philippine House of Representatives.png

edit

Unused render dupe of File:Seal of the Philippine House of Representatives.svg. -- User: Perhelion 11:40, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep The original PNG version (which I have reinstated) is not a duplicate of the SVG version. --Rosenzweig τ 19:53, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosenzweig: that seems very meaningless. User:Exec8 is the creator of both versions. He has overwritten his "own" version (with good reasons)!? The old PNG version is also user made (and high probably unwanted (as we can also see on the SVG versions history). -- User: Perhelion 20:33, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why "meaningless"? As far as I can see, he didn't "make" the first version, but took it from the website of the House. And then, after a new seal was adopted late in 2015, he overwrote the old seal with the new seal. That is bad practice. If a seal, coat of arms or similar changes, you don't just overwrite the old version. You save the new version as a separate file. And you do not delete the old version because someone overwrote the file with the new version. --Rosenzweig τ 22:35, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you are right, then of course I agree with you. Maybe Exec8 (or someone else) could easily confirm this. Unfortunately absolutely nothing at all is documented on both file-descriptions. That is bad practice too. -- User: Perhelion 23:32, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Actually the one created in 2005 is actually copied by some congressmen in the House, which it appears that the one in the House is the original but it is not. The version used officially is using a Sans-serif font rather than Roman. Since the seal was changed in 2015, this file is best done deleted as it duplicates Seal of the Philippine House of Representatives-pre-2015.svg. --exec8 (talk) 02:00, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Exec8 and SimmeD: please do not move files which are on DR, this gives a couple of unpredictable technical problems. This is also in approach mentioned under COM:MOVE. On the other hand it is also very senseless, if the file get deleted. -- User: Perhelion 01:19, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Perhelion: - Yah I know. It was my mistake, did not see the DR before I moved it. Sorry about that. But on COM:MOVE it only talks about: "Files with copyright issues should NOT be renamed until copyright issues are resolved" - not anything about DR. But I do agree, it should not have been moved. ----SimmeD (talk) 06:17, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: I see no urgent reason for deletion. What about our external reusers?. --Jcb (talk) 21:34, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Elizabeth_Bowes_Lyon_1902.jpg

edit

There is some question over whether the public domain tag is appropriate as the image does not seem to have been published before 1923, and it is rights managed in the United States http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/2635685/Hulton-Archive DrKiernan (talk) 14:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Rationale amended mid-discussion in light of information provided. DrKiernan (talk) 21:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The PD-old is beginning to look reasonable if Thurston senior is the photographer, but we need a Not-PD-US-URAA as the image will still be copyrighted in the United States for 95 years from publication, so if that was 1941 then it will be still copyrighted in the US until 2036. DrKiernan (talk) 20:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Publication at the time can be assumed. See for example http://www.paul.english.btinternet.co.uk/elizabeth_II.htm (later, but with photo cards by Fredk. Thurston & Son). That is how they made money. It would have been worth the trip from Luton to Scotland. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The picture was clearly taken at St Paul's Waldenbury not Scotland. It's not far from Luton. DrKiernan (talk) 21:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Photos from around 1900 are credited to Thurston alone, see Category:Frederick Thurston where I upload some. Photos from the 1920's are credited "Fredk. Thurston & Son", etcetera. This photo is the father's work, {{PD-Old}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, pre-1923 publication is a safe assumption. This looks to be {{PD/1923|1933}}. It's irrelevant at this point (now that the photographer has been identified) but Life (Vol 10., No. 11), March 17, 1941 notes on page 24 that their source for this photo was "Pictures, Inc." (presumably a photo service, not terribly helpful in this case). —RP88 23:59, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is a safe assumption because she wasn't famous before 1923. I doubt whether any pictures of her were released to the public before then. DrKiernan (talk) 10:16, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Argh! You're right, I somehow misremembered her marriage to Prince Albert as occurring in 1921, but looking at her page on Wikipedia I see it was 1923. —RP88 10:45, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Pieter 23:31 11/3/11: At NPG it is credited too both artists. Is it possible that you created your own fallacy? Only search for photos of one artist from that time = only finding photos of one artist from that time = claiming that only this artist was active at that time (alert: fallacy!) --Martin H. (talk) 11:36, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I found the dates for Hubert here: (1887-1979). In 1902 he maybe could have held up a flash or something, but it is hard to imagine him being the photographer. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:52, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We have 15-year-olds contributing photographs to commons that they've taken themselves all the time. I see no reason to suppose that someone of that age is incapable of taking a photograph. He is credited as co-creator, and for joint works copyright expires 70 years after the death of last living creator. DrKiernan (talk) 20:53, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Shared authorship of texts is common, paintings can also have shared authorship, but photographs? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:22, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: because we unfortunately can't rule out that the son, who died in 1979, was the photographer here. Rosenzweig τ 21:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Wallis_Simpson_1916.jpg

edit

It was published with a copyright notice between 1923 and 1964, and the copyright was renewed[29]. Copyright expires 95 years from first publication, so if first published in 1936, it will not expire until 31 December 2031. DrKiernan (talk) 15:41, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment I see no evidence for renewal or anything in that link. Please help me understand. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It says "Copyright: 2010 Getty Images" in the table of information below the image. DrKiernan (talk) 19:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So the rest is just something that you made up? This tagging is misleading, do not do that again. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't misleading in the least. I'll continue to provide full explanations as I have always done. DrKiernan (talk) 20:59, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are just talking about the whole journal, that is not interesting for this image. The image source column for this issue just says that it is "international" (if I understand it correctly). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
International became part of UPI, which is now part of Corbis[30]. DrKiernan (talk) 10:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. "It was found that only a few images were registered for copyright and those copyrights were not renewed." /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: There is insufficient information to keep this image. It is unlikely that it was published before 1923, since she was unknown then, and anyway there is no proof for that. There is also no proof that it was published without a copyright notice or that the copyright was not renewed. Identifying the image source International as a photo agency of that name clashes with the information from Getty, who identify this image as a Keystone photograph. Once again, not enough solid information. Rosenzweig τ 21:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2011/11/03&oldid=66476740"