Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2010/03/31

out of scope Amada44 (talk) 07:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Túrelio: Uploader request: Speedydelete

Source???Tonka (talk) 19:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Amada44 (talk) 07:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment I'd translate this file from File:DemoBIH2006a.PNG, in english Wikipedia, but now this image was deleted, I don't know because. --Goldorak (talk) 11:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems it has never existed (if it had, there would be a message with the reason for deletion). --GaAs¹¹⁶⁷¹ 15:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, this is DemoBIH2006.PNG (without the "a"): 21:38, 29 December 2006 Electionworld (talk | contribs) deleted "File:DemoBIH2006.PNG" ‎ (Moved to commons). The image on commons has also be deleted: 5 juin 2008 à 19:39 Siebrand (discuter | contributions) a supprimé « File:DemoBIH2006.PNG  » ‎ (Dupe of Image:DemoBIH2006a.png). An admin could bring back the original description.  Keep --GaAs¹¹⁶⁷¹ 16:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an admin on en-wiki. The deleted page said:

== Summary ==

Taken from Serbian Wikipedia, the Republika Srpska article. It was created by a Serbian user based on various statistical data.

There are some inaccuracies in the map (borders of Brčko district, etc.)

== Licensing ==

{{GFDL-no-disclaimers}}:<nowiki> :<nowiki>[[Category:Maps of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina]]:<nowiki> :<nowiki>[[Category:Maps of Bosnia and Herzegovina]]

So source wasn't quite clear on en-wiki, either, but might be on the Serbian Wikipedia. - Jmabel ! talk 17:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It gives 5 janvier 2007 à 00:11 Саша Стефановић a supprimé « Слика:DemoBIH2006.PNG  » ‎ (Има на остави под истим именом) (automatic translation: It has to leave under the same name). We should not delete files before ensuring the derivatives are correctly described. :( --GaAs¹¹⁶⁷¹ 13:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LoL, that automatic translation isn't ok. That is template for "File exist on commons under same name". This is file description on sr: wiki before was deleted because being duplicate. Licence was {{PD}} and author is "Varjacic Vladimir"

Autor varjačić Vladimir, podaci po proceni federelnog zavoda za statistiku, Distikt Brčko je uzet po dejtonskoj podeli iako je jedna celina da bi se video sastav stanovništva po sastavnim delovima. podaci su po aktuelnoj teritorijalnoj organizaciji 2006. godine.
{{PD}}

I deleted it just because being duplicate on sr: wiki. Саша Стефановић (talk) 19:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicates of duplicates all deleted, and at the end just stays the duplicate duplicate duplicate duplicate whith no credible license info, and everything is deleted. :( --GaAs¹¹⁶⁷¹ 21:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept --GaAs¹¹⁶⁷¹ 21:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This file was improperly transfered to wikimedia. I am asking that the file gets deleted so that it could be properly transfered from the serbian wikipedia. That way the file can show the original source and attribution. If you look at the source of this file you can see that there is indeed a significant amount of confusion going on, particularily in regards to the fact that several version have been uploaded ,and then against the copyright have been changed and altered over and over by careless users. Lilic (talk) 14:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, we had this discussion, and you continue edit war ?

It was a file under open licence. I corrected municipal borders, and national percenages. Shouldn't you stop already? You were told that you are wrong, countless timess... --Čeha (talk) 08:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The file was improperly transferred to wikimedia commons, and it should be transferred properly. Hence this should be deleted, and the original should be transferred. I see nothing controversial here. This file is a derivative of a derivative, hence that is not proper. (Lilic (talk) 03:08, 29 August 2014 (UTC)).[reply]

No, this is newer edition of original under wikipedia open license which permited such change. Original is different map from this. It has errors. I am certain that you are capable of understanding this. --Čeha (talk) 09:26, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The image was uploaded and re-uploaded so many times that the licensing was wrong. Furthermore, the author never uploads anything under such licenses. To top things off, the correct/incorrect matter of the map is not an issue here at all. I disagree with your statement that the map is not correct, and I will leave it at that, because quite frankly such opinions are not relevant to the issue at hand. (Lilic (talk) 05:55, 2 September 2014 (UTC)).[reply]

 Kept, I read carefully both conversations and I decided to keep it, because I tend to believe, that the file is licensed correctly. If the file was transferred from sr.wiki into en.wiki, then it was claimed, that the file consists errors, and Čeha said the same, so probably this is true. Čeha said, that he corrected errors, and I believe that also. So I keep the file and revert it into Čeha's version.

Sorry, there was also third discussion on file talk page. I trust Penyulap and therefore I do not revert the file. Let the current version be. Taivo (talk) 17:06, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Under Penyulap, there was a consensus which hadn't been kept (Lilic nominated that map for deletion, and I didn't see nomination for deletion). As I said (and documented) current map is more correct than previous....--Čeha (talk) 20:56, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image is too similar to this image: [1] , and it is not the first time that such an image has been deleted. I would refer to this: [2] , cheers. (Lilic (talk) 03:53, 11 December 2016 (UTC)) Lilic (talk) 03:53, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Kept, although the files are similar, there are multiple differences. Commons has enough room for both. The request qualifies for speedy keep, because the file is used (and proposed replacement is used too). Lilic, please do not nominate the file for deletion anymore. Taivo (talk) 10:32, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no freedom of panorama for sculpture in Denmark. Clearly a modern work, so presumably outside of scope as derivative of a copyrighted work. Jmabel ! talk 17:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted at the request of the uploader[3]. --Kjetil_r 12:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taken in 1976? No arguments why this is free. MGA73 (talk) 09:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by EugeneZelenko: Non-free Flickr license

This was previously deleted as non-free (w:File:Christina Stead.jpg is considered non-free) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:08, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 01:23, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

unused personal image Amada44 (talk) 07:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete, no information about the image given --> out of scope --Isderion (talk) 04:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 22:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

no source, no author. Amada44 (talk) 07:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 22:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Reichpostdirektion isn't a part of the british Goverment, but a part of the German postal service. Kragenfaultier (talk) 11:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deutsch: Die Karte wurde mit Genehmigung der Militär-Regierung (609/SVY/644) im Britischen Sektor herausgegeben. Die Reichspostdirektion ist zwar eine deutsche Behörde unterstand aber 1946 der britischen Militärregierung. Von daher kann in diesem Falle entweder wahlweise das "UK-Gov" oder das "amtliche Werk Deutschland" angewandt werden. In beiden Fällen kann das Bild behalten werden. Ich bitte daher um Entferung des Löschhinweises.

kandschwar (talk) 07:40, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Mbdortmund (talk) 22:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

copyvio, one can find source of copyvio in the description --Blacklake (talk) 12:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Данный файл можно удалять, т.к. я создал новый для статьи Бионический глаз, с привязкой к близкому по содержанию в статье Бионический глаз файлу. (См. [4])--Moisey (talk) 06:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Killiondude (talk) 06:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

copyvio, one can find source of copyvio in the description --Blacklake (talk) 12:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Killiondude (talk) 07:25, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This file seems to come from another site not specified in the information and is not working at all that disrespects own license and copyright and the files are not allowed on commons Elberth 00001939 (talk) 18:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete - no source, author and permission is a joke Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Even has the watermark on it still.  fetchcomms☛ 21:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Wknight94 ^talk 14:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously some artist's copyrighted work, no info Pibwl (talk) 21:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously? Wuold you please explain from where did you draw such conclusion? Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 13:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. No source, no author information (and never had source or author information), and there is a signature in the image which was not the user name but something different that indicates, that it was created by someone different than the uploader. Martin H. (talk) 10:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flickr user is most likely not copyright holder. At one of the images (http://www.flickr.com/photos/hugo90/4477837841/) he says "I've been collecting auto advertising for decades...". MGA73 (talk) 08:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE! Moebiusuibeom-en (talk) 15:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, copyright violation. Kameraad Pjotr 19:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not public domain: see http://blog.librarylaw.com/librarylaw/2010/03/factoids-what-is-the-oldest-work-protected-by-copyright-in-the-us-what-work-will-have-the-longest-protection.html 84user (talk) 16:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It was a work created under the laws of the United Kingdom, in the public domain in the UK in 1989, and therefore was not protected by American copyright law, common or otherwise.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:08, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep I think this is too extreme to delete -- highly theoretical. It was created before the existence of U.S. copyright law (before the U.S. itself even). It was also published before 1978, and there is a question on whether the letter itself was published without a copyright notice. The copyright on the book is to the Massachusetts Historical Society, which is neither the author nor the owner of the diary -- so they are likely just claiming copyright on whatever editorial matter, arrangement, etc. was authored by them in 1966. (That is explicitly the case for the other work mentioned in that blog article.) To claim copyright on a work, you need to be the author, or have had the rights transferred by the author -- not clear at all how that could be the case here. If not, then it is PD-US_no_notice at the very least. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:28, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But the argument is that the Adams Manuscript Trust transferred the rights to them. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:47, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This was a work discovered in the 1960s in the archives of the Vermont Historical Society... would that have been covered by a previous (1956) transfer which had no knowledge of its existence? Secondly, even for other publications of Adams works, the MHS copyright claim (per the blog posting) stated that "letters, reports of committees, polemical writings, & state papers of John Adams” were preexisting, and the basis of its copyright claim was therefore only in the new matter: the compilation, editing, and introductory materials. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:57, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I now read http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/ADAEAR.html /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete First published in 1966 and has 95 years of protection from that date. U.S. law is very plain that previously unpublished works from before 1978 used to have perpetual protection, with a cut-off date set in 2047 at the earliest. Even if you reject the copyright claim of the MHS or their legal right to publish the work, it is copyrighted until 2047. -Nard the Bard 21:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you reject their legal right to publish the work, their publishing doesn't count, so it was an unpublished work in 2002 and hence became life+70 and thus public domain. US law is not very clear about perpetual protection; it was all buried in common law and state copyright. The MHS only made a copyright claim over the compilation, editing and introductory materials, which given the state of the law at the time probably lost them any copyright they could have had in anything else.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; the copyright registration entry specifies that the MHS was an "employer for hire" -- that would only be possible for the content authored in 1966. And yes, anything old first (legally) published 2002 or later has explicit limits of life+70 for individual authors, 120 years from creation for others. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - http://blog.librarylaw.com/librarylaw/2010/04/the-search-for-the-oldest-copyrighted-work-in-the-us-goes-on.html —Ed (talk • contribs) 23:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]