Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2005/06

Applying some filters to an image does not make it your own image that can be put under a free license. --Baikonur 13:58, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Deleted, Thuresson 12:22, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The source ([1]) does not provide license information. Obviously, it is not in the public domain. --Ecemaml 16:26, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Deleted, Thuresson 12:22, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cologne is selled wrongly in the filename of the image. I uploaded the image again with the right title: Image:Inside Cologne Cathedral.jpg --Daniel 17:25, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

deleted. In cases like this, you can also use the {{delete}} template for speedy deletion. -- Duesentrieb 18:20, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is the same one as Image:Iphiclides podalirius.jpg so this one can be deleted. Thanks. Tbc 22:38, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • Deleted by Dbenbenn, Sanbec ✉ 13:29, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Uploaded by problem user User:Smeagol. Refuses to answer questions about source or license. Thuresson 22:29, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete, according to Google from spiegel.de (Artikel needs to be paid). -guety 23:54, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Deleted, Thuresson 12:22, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

delete please, replaced by image:wikiquote-logo.png. as you can see here, it's not used in the wikibooks, wikispecies, meta and wikisource, not used in the 23 biggest, in the german and english wikinews, the german and english wikibooks, the german and english wikiquote. no used in wikiprojects with less than 1 000 articles. click on any link there and you will see, that they all have a template, but in all the templates, I replaced the logo. propably you know the problems templates make from your home wikipeda Schaengel89 @me 13:22, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I disagree - just click on the link and see yourself. --Avatar 00:59, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

here you can see where RCBot rename the file to Wikiquote-logo.png and in which wikipedias it's used in a template.

others:

• wikitionaries:
  • ang; ar; bg; bs; ca; co; cs; da; de (with template); en; eo; es; et; fi; fr; gl; gu; he; hi; hr; hu; ia; ie; it; ko; ku (with template); la; lt; nl; no; pl; pt; ro; ru; sr; sv; th; tr; vi; zh
• Wikibooks
  • bg; da (with template); de (with template); el; en; eo; es; et; fa; fr; ga; he; hi; ie; it; ja; la; nl; no; **pa; pl; pt; ru; simple; sk; sl; sv; tr; ur; vi; zh
• wikinews
  • bg; de (template); en (all template); es (template); fr; it; nl; sv; pl; pt; ro (template)

Keep: On the behalf of Wikiquote community I support for keeping it. It is not a good idea to ignore small wikis. --Aphaia 16:53, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: Schaengel89 asked me if I would like to change my mind. I say - keep it. As for Wiktionary, I check this deletion will cause almost little troubles - but it is still used on several projects including English Wikinews Main Page. --Aphaia 01:54, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

that's totally wrong. it's used nowhere! all the articles listed here contain a template! Schaengel89 @me 13:56, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

and

No Derivative Works, Noncommercial ---> not free. -guety 01:28, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've asked the uploader (presumably the author) to relicense them, at User talk:KaiKotzian#Non-free maps of Poland. Let's keep them until he responds, please. If he refuses to free them, then delete. I sent an email too. I don't know whether he knows English; anyone who knows Polish willing to translate? Dbenbenn 04:14, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not in polish, but I left a note on de:Benutzer Diskussion:KaiKotzian that should do. -guety 11:36, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

-KaiKotzian's Answer on the deletion request: i made this picture by my own. It is free for use in wiki-projekts and use also on private and commercial page with non-commercial intent by the picture. What is the problem with this liscens?
So:

• Republication and distribution will be allowed
• Publication of derivative work will be allowed (based on the blank version)
• Acknowledgement of all authors/contibutors of a work is being required.
• Publication of derivative work under the same license is being required.
• Use of open file formats free of digital restrictions management is being required.

So, i changed the conditions: --KaiKotzian 11:42, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep, copyright owner has changed conditions. Thuresson 12:22, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The source's terms of use are not free - they allow only restricted commercial use. Twinxor 02:33, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My understanding is that we allow images from sxc.hu on the commons provided the copyright holder (in most cases the contributor to sxc) does not restrict usage. This seems to be the case here. Lupin 02:45, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep, of course. Dbenbenn 04:03, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This was pushed from w:Image:Coffee-beans.jpg. I don't know why User:OldakQuill converted it to PNG before uploading it here. Anyway, I've uploaded the JPG as Image:Coffee beans.jpg. (Note that version 1 of that image is identical to the PNG nominated here. Version 2 is rotated 90 degrees.) The PNG is not used anywhere according to check-usage. Dbenbenn 04:01, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Deleted, Thuresson 12:22, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Incorrect colours of the India flag. See Image:India flag large.png Nichalp 08:10, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC) (Note:uploader not informed)

This flag is used in at least 54 articles. Use Check usage to change that before image can be deleted. Thuresson 12:22, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep, if the colors are wrong change the colors of Image:India flag 300.png. This flag belong to the unique normalizated flag's serie. Why the colors of Image:India flag large.png are correct anr not the ones of Image:India flag 300.png? Sanbec ✉ 13:35, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Duplicate copy of the India flag. The duplicate was uploaded by the same user who corrected the original. Unnecessary image. Nichalp 08:10, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC) (Note:uploader not informed)

• Deleted, Thuresson 12:22, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone have information about the source? Otherwise it should be deleted. --Avatar 10:36, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

According to Commons:Licensing#Acceptable licenses "Trademarked symbols, Logos, etc (...) are generally not allowed". Image only juxtaposes the logos of two well-known Chilean political parties, therefore violating their copyright, even if the specific image is authored by User:Antoine, who has engaged in this sort of behaviour before. Taragüí @ 10:41, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Deleted, Thuresson 12:22, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We had problems with Ullstein in the past, because we used a Hitler-picture which was wrongly labeled as PD, but belongs to Ullstein-Bild. So we should use pictures especially if they have Ullstein as source carefully and put informations on the description page that proves the license is correct. --Avatar 10:51, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Duplicate of Image:User smjg.jpg. Uploaded before I realised that you have to give the image a suitable name on the local file system first! -- Smjg 11:14, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Deleted. --Avatar 14:39, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

relaced by Image:GreatBarrierReef-EO.JPG. used nowhere Schaengel89 @me 13:24, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Deleted. --Avatar 14:28, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"France map in Hindi. Gimp source file." Delete, WikiCommons is not a repository for source files. Thuresson 21:08, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In this case it's a bit strange, 'cause I can't find the ready image file and I can't check the source file right now. But sometimes it's good to have Gimp source files in Commons - if it's a map with descriptions, it's really cool to have the source file because you can translate the description to any language. --Avatar 22:20, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Being able to translate it to other languages is exactly my purpose. And it has already been done once : Image:Fr-map-gu.png. BernardM 22:44, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• keep to add to Avatar's comments. I translated the hi: map from hi: to gu: thanks to the source file. Also I have uploaded the gu: source file separately, the reason for which is that that way minor spelling errors are easier to correct later if you have the source file, if the source files are not kept then to make any small correction, I (or someone else) will have to re translate everything. Checkout Image:Fr-map-gu.png and Image:Fr-map-gu.xcf. Btw the png file for the hindi version is at hi:चित्र:फ़्रान्स का नक्षा.png which I think should be moved here. --Spundun 22:48, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oops! actually hi:चित्र:फ़्रान्स का नक्षा.png is in commons only. Image:फ़्रान्स का नक्षा.png --Spundun 22:50, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

keep - we should actually encourage uploading source files a lot more - especially as SVG (this will probably be possible when we get the next version of mediawiki - it's disabled at the moment because of javascript). Source files are a good thing - note that the GFDL actually requires to publish the source files (that's what is called a transparent copy). -- Duesentrieb 23:55, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Do we really need dozens of localized versions on commons? I think not. --213.54.199.118 02:03, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't see the problem - but thats not the point. If you have at least one source file, you have the possibility to translate it easily. So it should not be deleted. --Avatar 02:16, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think a blank version in source is fine, my comment was directed towards multiple source versions. --213.54.199.118 02:27, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

IMO We do need localized versions of both the image and its source on commons. As this kind of files increase in number, they should be better organized so that they dont get in people's way. For the reasons we need this, see Duesentrieb's comment above about GFDL, and my comment above about versioning and spelling corrections. --Spundun 18:26, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What would be better though is if we could come-up with a scheme for the gimp project files where different localizations are grouped in the same project file, then we can use just one project file to preserve all localizations, but enabling one group and disabling all the others need to be easy for this to work. --Spundun 18:28, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep of course. Yann 14:18, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Image:Roundel32.png
• Image:Wikibooks without text-35px.png

Vandalism. The images by user:BobKnob, user:Bonutz are an image of asshole. Plese delete them. If possible, this kind of project related images should be protected.--Moja 08:19, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

cleared. --Avatar 11:44, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This image is not in the public domain. Fritz Lang e.g. died in 1976. --Baikonur 11:37, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Deleted, Thuresson 13:33, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Overlapping with Category:Kitchen utensils, empty. Taragüí @ 13:30, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Deleted, Thuresson 13:33, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wrong file name. Stupid me !
Buzz 19:11, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hm. I don't get it. There are Image:Archivoltes.Loupiac.et.Puy.en.Velay.png (seems ok to me) and the duplicate Image:Archivoltes.eglise.de.Loupiac..png (two dots?) - which should be deleted? --Avatar 19:33, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OB by Image:Flag_of_SR_Macedonia.png. Zscout370 (sound off) 21:18, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)

These images didn't paint in same colors. It's arguable which one is correct. --EugeneZelenko 15:00, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

...and all images on it. The painter is not dead 70 years (died 1944). I cannot see any reason why the pictures should be in the public domain by now. If any country-specific laws should apply, that would be German or French law, I think, since he worked mainly in these countries (although there might be the one or other painting painted in Russia in that gallery, but this information is not given in the description pages). --AndreasPraefcke 21:59, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Deleted, Thuresson 13:33, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Vandalism. If there was a valid image here previously, please revert. Please see wiktionary:Wiktionary:Vandalism in progress for details on this repeat vandal. --Dvortygirl 08:33, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Deleted on June 4. Thuresson 13:33, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Misnamed, repeated, empty category. Taragüí @ 16:52, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's right. Deleted. --AndreasPraefcke 18:18, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

REASON obsolete due to the Category Location of Provinces in Turkey with better Graphics. 84.190.207.1 17:39, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Deleted Sanbec ✉ 13:57, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Double content with Image:View from Mardin to the Mesopotamian plains.jpg, sorry was in my first days Florenco 17:46, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Checked with check-usage and deleted. --AndreasPraefcke 18:24, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Most of those logos are copyrighted by the individual clubs or designers. Many of the images are from the High Quality Footbal Logos (HQFL) website, which itself is non-commercial and only requires credit for the image - this does not help, however, because they don't own the copyright to the design. We already had a deletion request for those images [2], i'm not sure what happened to it. But i'm pretty sure we can't have the logos on the commons, those images are not free, see the HQFL Disclaimer. Quote:

All logos are trademarks of their respective owners, and are offered for non-commercial use and as a convenience for their lawful use only, with proper permission from the copyright or trademark holders.

Downloading material from this website does NOT give you authorization or permission to use the copyrighted logos without the specific consent of the copyright or trademark holder.

The logos are clearly not free (unless the design is very old) and will have to be deleted. -- Duesentrieb 10:03, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Here is a list of all the logos:

• Image:Aberdeen_fc.png
• Image:Aberdeen_fc.png
• Image:Aris_thessaloniki.png
• Image:Athletic_club_bilbao.png
• Image:Atletico_de_madrid.png
• Image:Dundee_utd.png
• Image:Fc_barcelona.png
• Image:Hearts_of_midlothian.png
• Image:Hibernian_fc.png
• Image:Aek_athens.png
• Image:Bochum-logo.png
• Image:Celtic.png
• Image:Cobreloa.jpg
• Image:Escudo-corinthians.jpg
• Image:FCSantos.jpg
• Image:FCSantos.png
• Image:HerthaBSC.jpg
• Image:Inter2.png
• Image:Logo_SK_Rapid_Wien.png
• Image:Olympiakos4.png
• Image:Osasuna.png
• Image:Panathinaikos.jpg
• Image:Panionios.png
• Image:Rangers.png
• Image:Real_Oviedo_badge.png
• Image:Sao_Paulo_(Soccer)_Shield.gif
• Image:Kallithea.png
• Image:Milan.png
• Image:Paok.png
• Image:Real_madrid_cf.png
• Image:Sampdoria.png
• Image:Skoda_xanthi.png
• Image:FC Porto emblem.png

A few of the may be old enough to be PD, in that case they can be kept and the attribution to HQFL is indeed enough - if you are sure of that, just strike tem in the above list. But most of the logos are, as I said, copyrighted by the original designer or by the soccer club. -- Duesentrieb 10:42, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Same show, new guy. Delete this rotten logos. If this is the only usefull thing you can do. The Bochum 1848 logo may be 150 years old. FC Milan is founded 1899. FC Porto was founded 1893. Their logo shows the coat of arms of the city Porto. I don´t know what is your intention but it would be helpfull for anyone to accept that wikipedia is surrounded by a real world. So start to delete all pictures in Category:Politicians by nationality because there where personal rights reserved. You can use all of this logos as free as Image:Gerhardschroeder01.jpg. If you think this is not enough, please change the world. -- Stahlkocher 11:42, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is not about trademarks or coats of arms, it is about the copyright that is held by the club or the designer. If you know for a fact that some of the logos are PD by age, please document it on the description page and strike them here, I am quite happy with having them on the commons. But note that even if the club is old, the logo is not neccessarily old too, and I have no way to verify it.

The main point is that the claim that logos provided by HQFL are free automatically is simply wrong. Some may be free, but, as I said, this claim has to be substantiated somehow. The images above are here because they do not have valid license information - if you can provide such information, fine.

Please keep in mind that we promise that images on the commons can be used commercially, at least as long as tradmark law etc is observed. It is not at all clear that this is the case for those logos, and the policy may be very different for the individual clubs. -- Duesentrieb 12:29, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I disagree ! From my point of view, the emblems can be used. They are used for illustration (like every sports TV show, newspaper and magazine does) and we have the authorization be the artist. If any of the clubs would disagree with the way we use the emblems they already would have blamed us. As long that we state that the clubs might have the copyright, what has to be defined by lawyers, we won´t run in any difficulties. I simply can´t understand why so many users invest so much energy in deleting things rather than writing and enhancing articles, loading up photos, etc. - If we run into trouble, we still can delete something. -- Dragao 12:46, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think Duesentrieb is completely right. He does not talk about personality, trademark, insignia rights, but about copyright. As far as I can see, none of the supporters of these images has proven Duesentrieb wrong yet. --AndreasPraefcke 13:11, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

@Stahlkocher, very productive :-( Please qualify the age of the logos, verify the design is PD and stop accusing people. Your accusations do not help! And comparing apples and oranges does not help the discussion! Only think that helps is a expert who can qualify the age of the logos. @Dragao it is not a matter of using. It is a matter of being free and commercial. --Paddy 13:13, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A few thing to clarify:

• "Use for illustration" is fair use, and fair use material is not allowed on the commons. Note that we promise that anyone can use our material for any purpose.
• We do not have the authorization of the artist. The artist is the person who designed the logo, not the person who drew the image as an imitation of the original. Imitating something does not give you any rights to it, just as reproductions don't.
• The question is not (only) if it is legal to have the images here, but if they are comliant with the commons licensing policy.
• to summ it up: HQFL does not have any rights to the logos, thus they cant allow us to use them. Very simple. Even if they did, the grant is limited to non-commercial use, thus no good for the commons.
• Detecting and removing violations of copyright and licensing policy is an important part of keeping the project running.

Thus, all logos that are not PD because of age or otherwise (or licensed explicitely by the designer) will have to be deleted. If they are PD, this needs to be documented clearly. -- Duesentrieb 14:47, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi! I'm quite new in this copyright issues. Is it enough to ask the certain clubs for admisson to show this logos? --Geiserich77 14:58, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Asking the club is a good start, but permission must be given by the copyright holder, which may or may not be the club. Also, permission to use it on the commons and/or the wikipedia is not enough: like all material here, it must be usable freely by anyone for any purpose. See Commons:Licensing for details. -- Duesentrieb 16:28, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Image:Borussia Dortmund.png is another Logo from HQFL, uploaded today. -- Duesentrieb 20:11, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I suggest a further discussion about this subject. The issue on Soccer logos is, in certain aspects, similar to another largelly and freely used logos: national flags, ONU logo, etc. A soccer club is not like an enterprise, although in Europe, some clubs have enterprise characteristics.

Some logos are old, and the designer is unknown. The logos are largely used by everyone: newspapers, television, movies, books, magazines. So, I think we should discuss a little further about this subject. I think that the logos are not merely copyrighted work by individual clubs or designers. The issue is more complex. ---Carlosar 15:57, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agreee that this should be discussed broadly. However, I would like to point out that flags and coats of arms are a different issue: there are generally defined and created by governments and are usually PD, but protected by separate laws against misuse. This needs to be discussed but is a different issue.

Logos of sports clubs are more like logos of companies, clubs, foundations, etc: there are usually protected as a trademark (which does not concern us much) and copyrighted, unless they are old or trivial. The are works of art, and as such the creators (i.e. the designers) have rights to them. If the logo can not be shown to be PD, the artist has to explcitely release it under a free license.

Logos are indeed widely used in different publications, which generally claim fair use (which the commons does not, and can not use, because we a re a media database) or they just hope that the copyright holder have no objections, which is ok if the logo is used in a descriptive articles. This does however not hold true for the commons: as I said, we are a media database, there is no descriptive context. Also we (and many wikipedias) have choosen a policy that allows only completely free content.

So, yes, we should have a general rule about Logos which are not PD. IMHO this can, following the current policy, only mean to not allow then, unless explicitely released under a free license. -- Duesentrieb 16:26, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I completly agree with Duesentrieb. Waiting for the lawyers to ask for injunction is only a good idea if you have a home page with only limited traffic. The Wikimedia project is one of the world's 100 largest web sites, we need to get things right the first time. The fact that club logos are used by newspapers and TV all the time is irrelevant; they are used in a context and the clubs probably do allow editorial use anyway. Thuresson 17:36, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

ACK Duesentrieb delete this stuff Historiograf --80.132.65.69 23:37, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Club logos are fair use on en:, see en:Template:Hqfl logos. Thuresson 15:39, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No sensible reason for deletion, I guess the main issue with sports club badges is their use in illegal merchandising/branding. As long as we make sure they are not improperly altered or mislabeled they should be fine to keep. --213.54.192.158 02:48, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's fine for fair use, but the purpose of the Commons is to provide free images, that can be used freely. Delete ed g2s • talk 15:00, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You might want to make clear why they should not be considered freely usable or which restrictions you consider inappropriate. The situation may in fact differ from on image to the next, so the summary style deletion here requested makes no real sense. --213.54.219.38 18:30, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Read Commons:Licensing and you will hopefully understand, what we mean with free. We don't wan't free-beer images, we want free reusable images we can use and modify for any purpose and that we can to sell to others. End of Discussion. Arnomane 18:57, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, that means from now on we delete all images that do not fall under your restrictive definition of "freedom". I.e. all unauthorized photos of people, places built by people, works of art etc. we can possibly find. *all rubbing hands sniggering and grimacing contemplating mayhem* --213.54.219.38 19:44, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Exactly unauthorized photos of persons that are not famous have to be deleted. You finally got it. We exactly do that what you see as small minded. If you don't like our policy here, well you can just leave and build your own project. ;-) Arnomane 20:32, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

same size as Image:Brazil flag 300.png, renamed by RCBot Schaengel89 @me 18:02, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't oppose deleting but this flag is used in at least 53 articles and it is probably best if Schangel89 would change all of them before deleting. Thuresson 08:26, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

RCBot only replaced this flag at 3 pages at de: Sanbec ✉ 23:30, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep, now used in 72 articles. Thuresson 01:02, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

renamed by RCBot to Image:LocationBritishVirginIslands.png Schaengel89 @me 18:03, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Deleted by User:Ed g2s on June 5, 2005

Not PD as indicated, I think (for information as to source see image description). Hence no valid license for commons. --AndreasPraefcke 13:36, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete this picture, if you wish to do so. It was indicated as PD on the English Wikipedia, but this information doesn't seem to be true. What a pitty... --JensG 16:10, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Deleted, Thuresson 08:45, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This image is very widespread on the web where I think http://www.marxist.org/ got it from instead of taking it themselves. Similarly, I suspect that the image could be found on the cover of some non-free publication or in a magazine (I recall having seen the image before but then all photos of Sartre with a pipe look the same). Furthermore, I suspect that the cc-by-sa license is strctly followed only with the texts of marxist.org. Even if I'm wrong, the image lacks information about the author. --CSamulili 17:35, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete. People have uploaded photos from www.marxists.org before, claiming that photos are cc-by-sa. I don't believe the web site own the copyright of any of the photos. It is possible that the editors have simply trawled the net for photos or scanned the photos from somewhere, considering the general low quality. Thuresson 01:59, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete. I sent an email to the editors of the site asking if their images could be considered free. They said only the texts were guaranteed to be in the public domain. The images come from various sources, some of which MAY be PD. Regarding this particular one, the editor in question said:

I got this image in 1998 before I joined the MIA, but quite honestly I do not remember where I got it from. I can confirm that I did not take the photograph myself and MIA makes no claim to rights on the image.

so I must reluctantly vote to delete. --Iustinus 08:38, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Deleted, Thuresson 08:45, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The image has been OB by Image:Medal_of_Honor_ribbon_bar.png. The image is not different, but the file name is. The later sounds less cyptic. Zscout370 (sound off) 15:36, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)

Deleted, Thuresson 08:45, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As previously discussed, images of the Eiffel Tower's lights are copyright by the company who installed them. ed g2s • talk 11:23, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Only ones since the new lights were put in (in 2003, IIRC); this was taken in 2002, so isn't covered. Or are my dates wrong? James F. (talk) 12:10, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• The copyright claim itself is ridiculous. The lighting design in question is not visible on this photo. Thuresson 17:33, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • The claim may be ridiculous, but they are still entitled to copyright their light installation. However James has correctly spotted that this photo was taken before the new display was installed, so keeping. (see previous discussion) ed g2s • talk 15:09, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

However: Image:Eiffelturm bei Nacht, gesehen von der Tour Montparnasse.jpg was taken in 2004 (according to exif data) and so should be deleted. ed g2s • talk 15:13, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• And Image:Paris 5.jpg. ed g2s • talk 15:16, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• The previous lighting display was also copyrighted ... FoeNyx 17:08, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep all. The photos were first published in the United States (here on the Commons), so United States copyright law applies. I don't think US law recognizes this Eiffel-lights-copyright business. Dbenbenn 00:55, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

the photo were taken at paris ... and are not free in france ... Moreover we already did the same vote for other pictures in the same case. FoeNyx 03:42, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• The location of the server is irrelevant. It is an image of copyrighted artwork which is protected by internationaly treaties. The copyright applies in the US, too. -- Duesentrieb 11:44, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. The Eiffel tower copyright claim has been discussed before. I would like to see quotations from the French law who prohibits photographs of 20th and 21st century objects to be licensed by the photographer. Commons have a lot of images from Paris featuring modern objects, e.g. Image:LouvrePyramide.jpg. Thuresson 11:58, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I have asked about this explicitely in the french wikipedia, because I found it hard to beleve, too. But I was told that this is in fact the case: in most countries, artists have rights to photographs taken of their artwork. Many countries have exceptions about artwork installed in public places, but this is not the case in france. I have also found this mentioned on pages of photography clubs, etc. I can not point you to a law stating this, because the point is that there is no exception clause.
  • The crucial point is which objects are considered art. The Eiffel Tower Lighting installation is indeed considered art, the Louvre Pyramid is too, I belive. Another example would probably be the Atomium (yes, in Belgium, which also lacks an exception about art in public places AFAIK). Other Buildings may not be considered art in france (note that in germany, architects hold a copyright to their work by default, if it's not trivial. There is an exception in place for images taken from a publically exessible place, images of the interior are problematic, however). -- Duesentrieb 12:09, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • PD: some stuff I found about this on the web (nothing definite, though): [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], and, last but not least: en:Eiffel_Tower#Image_copyright. -- Duesentrieb 12:18, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• So it seems we need to delete all of these, unless the first one (...nuit concorde.jpg) is covered by

  "In a recent decision, the Court of Cassation ruled that an architect could not claim copyright over images including one building the design of which they held the copyright of if the photograph encompasses a larger area."

  ed g2s • talk 09:48, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Maybe keeping the one with larger area but with a warning to not crop it. FoeNyx July 2, 2005 10:35 (UTC)

This sounds logical. We could have photos only of the Eifel tower with larger Paris around it, and that would be acceptable. --Komencanto 7 July 2005 04:11 (UTC)

• Keep. Yann 14:22, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Just saying keep isn't helpful at all, unless you can come up with a valid counter-argument to this copyright claim. ed g2s • talk 00:02, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I mean that your quote above applies here. Yann June 29, 2005 19:57 (UTC)
• Delete, Ed is right (even if it is a silly law). James F. (talk) 01:20, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Changed name to Hausdorff space.png - no CamelCase. --Fibonacci 00:44, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Deleted. --Avatar 17:37, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Still under copyright. See User_Talk:Balcer Balcer 16:55, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Deleted. --Avatar 17:39, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Copyright violation. Original image from: http://www.spid.es/webs/abg/Galego/Autores/1965.htm --Patrick-br ^msg 17:03, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Eduardo Pondal died in 1917, is it possible that this photo is PD? Thuresson 19:12, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Copyright violation. Original image from: http://www.vieiros.com/opinion/opinion.php?id=41839&Ed=1 Looks like every upload from Gz2005 is copyright violation. --Patrick-br ^msg 18:13, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Deleted, Thuresson 19:12, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Copyright violation. Original image from: http://www.universohq.com/quadrinhos/entrevista_miguelanxo_prado.cfm (© 2001, Universo HQ). --Patrick-br ^msg 18:38, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Deleted, Thuresson 19:12, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User has photographed a book cover. Thuresson 19:47, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Deleted, Thuresson 19:12, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Copyright violation. Original image from: http://bvg.udc.es/ficha_autor.jsp?id=FraA%F1%F3n (© 2002 Biblioteca Virtual Galega). --Patrick-br ^msg 16:49, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Francisco Añón died in 1878, is it possible that this drawing is PD? Thuresson 19:12, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Who knows? There is no info about when this draw has been done. IMHO, if we are not sure that it is really pd (in fact, there is a claim that it is copyrighted), the image must be deleted. --Patrick-br ^msg 12:52, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Deleted. --Avatar 28 June 2005 13:19 (UTC)

The following images come from the Category:Incomplete license category. They do have a license but not a source who can justify a particular license. Uploaders have been notified.

• Mexico: Image:AMEX.jpg, Image:Azcarraga.jpg, Image:CSG.jpg, Image:EZPL.jpg, Image:JLP.jpg
• Switzerland: Image:Aufbruch-schweiz-cvp.gif, Image:Cvp.gif, Image:Logo.gif, Image:Pdc.gif, Image:Lepartisuisse.gif, Image:Signet-cvp-alt.gif, Image:Joseph-deiss.jpg

• Africa: Image:Mobutu.jpg, Image:Patrice lumumba.jpg, Image:Joseph kasa-vubu.jpg, Image:Joseph Kabila.JPG, Image:CSKatangaTCongoBel1950a.jpg

• Various people: Image:Chapman Revercomb.jpg, Image:Dean Martin & Jerry Lewis.jpg, Image:Rat pack.jpg, Image:Hank azaria.jpg, Image:Actor-jalexander.gif, Image:Hunter Stockton Thompson.jpg, Image:Paul6.jpg, Image:Sophiabreyner.jpg, Image:Stephen Hawking in his lab.jpg, Image:Tony hawk crossbone.jpg

• Various: Image:Espresso3.jpg, Image:Espressokanne.png, Image:La Pavoni - Professional - PN.jpg, Image:Finnish rail network 2004.png, Image:Glory4crop.jpg, Image:Gonzo brand.gif, Image:Logoautobianchi.gif, Image:Logofortaleza.gif, Image:Logouai.JPG, Image:Escudouai.JPG, Image:Virgin Mary.jpg, Image:WHO.png

Thuresson 02:46, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Both of images Image:Stephen Hawking in his lab.jpg and Image:Glory4crop.jpg were uploaded from en: and have had a copy on at least one of other national Wikipedias, so in case of deletion, please, correct the original references, too. I have nothing against deletion, this is only to make clear where they came from. When I uploaded it, I retained all copyright info the originals contained. You might want to notify original uploaders of the deletion request instead of me. Also note that the original of Image:Stephen Hawking in his lab.jpg was already deleted (because it was moved here). Helix84 19:30, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tagged or deleted the images above. Thuresson 23:47, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Obviouly not meant for commons. JesseW 08:08, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A wrongly to PNG converted orginal JPEG-image. The original can be found at Image:Anders-Celsius.jpeg. So Image:Anders Celsius.png can be deleted (although the png has a much larger file size it has because of the conversion no better picture resolution/quality). Arnomane 06:28, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Deleted, Thuresson 21:54, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Image:Eleagnus.jpg must be deleted (replaced with Image:Elaeagnus.jpg), ther was a mistake in the name. Jean-Jacques MILAN 10:14, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Deleted, Thuresson 21:54, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Copyright violation. Original image from: http://www.lusografia.org/amizadegp/imagensII-2.htm --Patrick-br ^msg 12:51, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Deleted, Thuresson 21:54, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Copyright violation. Original image from: http://bvg.udc.es/ficha_autor.jsp?id=JoaGuisa (© 2002 Biblioteca Virtual Galega). --Patrick-br ^msg 12:56, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Deleted, Thuresson 21:54, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Copyright violation. Original image from: http://www.los-poetas.com/k/biorosa.htm --Patrick-br ^msg 13:21, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Rosalia de Castro died in 1885, this photo must surely be PD? Thuresson 21:54, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Although claimed that it is in the public domain, the Chile goverment place (www.presidencia.cl) doesn't seem to provide information supporting such a claim. --Ecemaml 18:35, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Deleted, Thuresson 21:54, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Unknown copyright status. -- Lusheeta 03:40, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Photo from web site allaboutapple.com. There is some kind of authorization at it:Wikipedia:Autorizzazioni ottenute/All About Apple but I don't really understand Italian. Thuresson 05:18, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes we have autorization. I forgot to put the template {{Museo Apple}}. It is now corrected. --Beavis 13:17, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

{{Museo Apple}}

Thanks! This request withdraw. -- Lusheeta 26 June 2005 11:58 (UTC)

The images of Henri Matisse are marked with the PD-US template (this is not PD-US-GOV) as they were published before 1923. But those images were published outside the US so US-copyright-laws do not apply. You can only safely claim an image PD-US if it was first published before 1923 in the US. See golden rule in Commons:Licensing: The copyright of the nation where the image was first published gets applied to that image (and this contry-specific law decides if we consider the image as public domain in general or not). So e.g. in case of a painting that was published in France please do not apply e.g. US-Amercian copyright laws but French copyright laws to determine if this image can be considered public domain. This rule makes very much sense as we would get otherwise strange problems with applying all existing copyright laws to an image.

So here are the images in question: Image:Henri Matisse (1869-1954) - Blue Still Life (1907).jpg Image:Henri Matisse (1869-1954) - Interior with Goldfish Bowl (1914).jpg Image:Henri Matisse (1869-1954) - Still Life with Asphodels (1907).jpg Image:Henri Matisse (1869-1954) - Still Life with Geranium (1906).jpg Image:Henri Matisse (1869-1954) - The Conversation (1909-1912).jpg Image:Henri Matisse (1869-1954) - Vase of Flowers on Dressing Table (Bed Reflected in Mirror) (1919).jpg Image:Henri Matisse (1869-1954) - Woman Reading at a Dressing Table (Interior, Nice) (1919).jpg Image:Henri Matisse (1869-1954) - Woman with the Hat (1905).jpg Image:Henri Matisse (1869-1954) - Bouquet of Flowers (Daisies) (1919).jpg Image:Henri Matisse (1869-1954) - Bouquet of Flowers in a White Vase (1909).jpg Image:Henri Matisse (1869-1954) - Bouquet of Mixed Flowers (1916-1917).jpg Image:Henri Matisse (1869-1954) - Carmelina (1903).jpg Image:Henri Matisse (1869-1954) - Greta Moll (1908).jpg Image:Henri Matisse (1869-1954) - Harmony In Red (La Desserte Rouge) (1908).jpg Image:Henri Matisse (1869-1954) - Interior with Aubergines (1911).jpg Image:Henri Matisse (1869-1954) - Pale Blue Vase with Flowers on Dark Blue Tablecloth (1913).jpg Image:Henri Matisse (1869-1954) - Portrait of Michael Stein (1916).jpg Image:Henri Matisse (1869-1954) - Portrait of Sarah Stein (1916).jpg Image:Henri Matisse (1869-1954) - Still Life with Aubergines (1911).jpg Image:Henri Matisse (1869-1954) - Still Life with Blue Tablecloth (1909).jpg Image:Henri Matisse (1869-1954) - The Window (1916).jpg Image:Henri Matisse (1869-1954) - Bathers with a Turtle (1908).jpg Image:Henri Matisse (1869-1954) - Guitarist I (1902-1903).jpg Image:Henri Matisse (1869-1954) - Guitarist II (1903).jpg Image:Henri Matisse (1869-1954) - Male Model (1900).jpg Image:Henri Matisse (1869-1954) - Mme. Matisse in Japanese Robe (1901).jpg Image:Henri Matisse (1869-1954) - Notre-Dame in the Late Afternoon (1902).jpg Image:Henri Matisse (1869-1954) - Nude in the Studio (1899).jpg Image:Henri Matisse (1869-1954) - Nude with White Towel (1902-1903).jpg Image:Henri Matisse (1869-1954) - Poppies, Fireworks (1919).jpg Image:Henri Matisse (1869-1954) - Self-Portrait (1900).jpg Image:Henri Matisse (1869-1954) - Self-Portrait (1918).jpg Image:Henri Matisse (1869-1954) - Sideboard and Table (1899).jpg Image:Henri Matisse (1869-1954) - Still Life against the Light (1899).jpg Image:Henri Matisse (1869-1954) - Still Life with a Top Hat (1896).jpg Image:Henri Matisse (1869-1954) - The Blue Jug (1900).jpg Image:Henri Matisse (1869-1954) - The Dinner Table (1897).jpg Image:Henri Matisse (1869-1954) - The Girl with Green Eyes (1908).jpg Image:Henri Matisse (1869-1954) - The Painter's Family (1911).jpg Image:Henri Matisse (1869-1954) - Woman Reading (1895).jpg Image:Henri Matisse (1869-1954) - Blue Nude (Memory of Biskra) (1907).jpg Image:Henri Matisse (1869-1954) - Fruit and Bronze (1910).jpg Image:Henri Matisse (1869-1954) - Game of Bowls (1908).jpg Image:Henri Matisse (1869-1954) - Girl with Tulips (Jeanne Vaderin) (1910).jpg Image:Henri Matisse (1869-1954) - Goldfish (1912).jpg Image:Henri Matisse (1869-1954) - Interior with Young Girl (Girl Reading) (1905-1906).jpg Image:Henri Matisse (1869-1954) - Le Bonheur de Vivre (The Joy of Life) (1905-1906).jpg Image:Henri Matisse (1869-1954) - Le Luxe I (1907).jpg Image:Henri Matisse (1869-1954) - Le Luxe II (1908).jpg Image:Henri Matisse (1869-1954) - Mme. Matisse (The Green Line) (1905).jpg Image:Henri Matisse (1869-1954) - Music (1910).jpg Image:Henri Matisse (1869-1954) - Nude with a White Scarf (1909).jpg Image:Henri Matisse (1869-1954) - Pink Onions (1906).jpg Image:Henri Matisse (1869-1954) - Portrait of Marguerite (1906).jpg Image:Henri Matisse (1869-1954) - Self-Portrait (1906).jpg Image:Henri Matisse (1869-1954) - The Dance I (1909).jpg Image:Henri Matisse (1869-1954) - The Dance II (1910).jpg Image:Henri Matisse (1869-1954) - The Idol (1905-1906).jpg Image:Henri Matisse (1869-1954) - The Open Window (1905).jpg Image:Henri Matisse (1869-1954) - The Red Madras Headdress (Mme. Matisse) (1907).jpg Image:Henri Matisse (1869-1954) - The Young Sailor I (1906).jpg Image:Henri Matisse (1869-1954) - The Young Sailor II (1906).jpg Image:Henri Matisse (1869-1954) - View of the Sea, Collioure (1906).jpg Image:Henri Matisse (1869-1954) - Woman in Japanese Robe beside the Water (1905).jpg Image:Henri Matisse (1869-1954) - Woman on the Terrace (1906).jpg

All images that got tagged with PD-US should be looked at (many are clear "normal" PD). The images of Henri Matisse are only one point to begin with. Arnomane 20:41, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: - Que triste, mais c'est la vie. To make clear, please let me ask a question. If I recall correctly, works of Matisse are protected under French law primarily and he died in 1954 - it means copyrightable till the end of 2024, hence now they should be deleted from Commons. Do I understand correctly? Aphaia 02:00, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  Yes this is the problem. Matisse died in 1954 so his work is still protected until 2024. I like these images very much too but they are not free and thus needs to be deleted (there are images of other painters too). I would be glad if we all can have a look at the PD-US-tagged images, as they are often wrongly tagged and of course they are a lot of images. Arnomane 07:00, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Thank you for clarification, Arnomane. C'est la vie en fin. (;_;) --Aphaia 19:11, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I think this was correct - but in such big cases please wait the conventional 7 days. Thanks. --Avatar 07:23, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• It's sad, but Arnomane is completely right, I think, so the images will have to be deleted. I think the case is very similar to the Kandinsky pages mentioned above - could you pleae all leave your comment there, too. Thanks. --AndreasPraefcke 22:53, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The first listed image is Image:Edvard Munch (1863-1944) - Madonna (1894-1895).jpg. I assume that was an accident; I've crossed it out. I don't know anything about Norwegian copyright law, or whether Munch's Madonna was even published in Norway. Dbenbenn 00:51, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Munch's paintings (all published in Norway) are still protected; we have the same law as France, which means they will not be PD until 2014. The Munch Museum in Oslo administrates the rights on behalf of the heirs, and they have sued successfully in several countries. All Munch paintings should therefore be deleted from Commons. Cnyborg 02:40, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No it was no accident. As Cnyborg has pointed it out the same problem exists for Munch-pictures. There are a plenty more images of other painters with the same problem. Arnomane 05:09, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The gallery article is at Henri Matisse and is then obsolete too, as we have no other images on Matisse. The images of Munch that are also still protected can be found at Edvard Munch, so there are three pictures:

• Image:Edvard_Munch_(1863-1944)_-_Madonna_(1894-1895).jpg
• Image:Edvard Munch.jpg
• Image:Munch-scream.jpg

Some more images with the same problem:

• Gottfried Kumpf (still alive)

To be continued... Arnomane 09:58, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

All images Deleted, 01:57, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Three photos without source, advertisements for building projects in Dubai:

• Image:BurjAlArab.jpg
• Image:\u0411\u0443\u0440\u0436 \u0410\u043b \u0410\u0440\u0430\u0431.jpg
• Image:Burj Dubai.jpg

Thuresson 01:42, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Deleted, Thuresson 17:50, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Pelican Vandal - User:TheDaveRoss

• already deleted: 00:37, 10 Jun 2005 Thuresson deleted "Image:G431a.jpg" (Image used for vandalism)

a lot of files in the range from Image:Thumb_zeilschip1.jpg to Image:Thumb_zeilschip218.jpg (1, 10-20, 100 to 218). As far as I can see, these are thumbnails of existing images Image:Zeilschip1.jpg to Image:Zeilschip218.jpg. I think they are useless and should be deleted. --AndreasPraefcke 12:59, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC) As to the large images, they are pretty near useless themselves since the uploader did not give any information as to what is actually depicted on these pictures. I put up a gallery of them here. Can anyone help out?

Deleted every thumbnail. Apparently there are still two versions of each image, e.g. Image:Zeilschip218.jpg and Image:Normal zeilschip218.jpg. Thuresson 28 June 2005 04:53 (UTC)

• Image:Bill Gates talking 2004.jpg
• Image:Bill Gates 2004.jpg
• Image:Sibirian-Tiger, Hanover.jpg

Licence changed to cc-by-nc-sa. -guety 23:50, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Once deVos releases the image under a free license, he can't remove that license. Is it worth making a fuss about? Have you asked him if he minds us keeping the image under cc-by-2.0? Perhaps he merely changed his default license, and is still willing to let these particular images be free. Dbenbenn 00:14, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just tried it on Flickr. I have uploaded Image:Aert de Gelder 007.jpg to [8] and can change the licence as much as I want to. Chancing the defaul licence does not affect the previously uploaded pictures, I have to do 4 clicks to change the licence. I will ask him about it tomorow and send a mail to Flickr to ask why they allow those (dangerous) licence changing. -guety 00:26, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just got Mail from him, he will take care of it when he returns from vacation. So probaly no need to delete them. -guety 17:51, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks to Kees, there are back to cc-by-sa -guety 16:04, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Copyright is not only a matter of the photographer, but also of the original artist. While the photography may be in the PD, the work of art is certainly not (Beuys having died in 1986, it will only become PD in the year 2057). German Panoramafreiheit law does not apply since the work is obviously not installed permanently in a public place outdoors, as German law requires for the PD status. Unfortunately, the image has therefore to be deleted from commons. --AndreasPraefcke 15:50, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Under United States copyright law, User:Kurmis holds the copyright to this photo. According to Commons:Licensing#Country-specific laws, "the copyright of the nation where the image was first published gets applied to that image". The image was first published here on the Commons, which is in the United States. So as I understand it, German laws don't apply in this case. Dbenbenn 00:44, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You misunderstand: the fact that User:Kurmis has rights to the photo does not mean Beuys (or his hires) do not have rights. Since Beuys created the original Artwork, he's a contributor to the work as it stands (the photo) - it can not be licensed without the consent of the hires; This is true by both, German and US law. Thus, we will have to delete the image. -- Duesentrieb 18:18, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

From what I understand of United States law, the photographic act, including the choice of lighting, framing, and view angle, is considered sufficiently creative that the photo is not a derivative work. Of course, I could be wrong; I'm no lawyer. I found the case of ETS-HOKIN v. SKYY SPIRITS INC. to be interesting reading. The issue in that case was whether a photo of a vodka bottle was a derivative work of the bottle itself.

"Given the low threshold for originality under the Copyright Act, as well as the longstanding and consistent body of case law holding that photographs generally satisfy this minimal standard, we conclude that Ets-Hokin's product shots of the Skyy vodka bottle are original works of authorship entitled to copyright protection."

dbenbenn | talk 18:55, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

When this was obtained by a violation of German law it will have to go. --Mayhem 19:42, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Of course, the photgraph of a threedimensional work of art has a copyright, and may be put under GFDL. Still, the image cannot be used on commons, since the work of art depicted is not copyright-free (as would be the case with the "Venus of Milo", for example) or put under GFDL (as may be the case with a piece of art created by a user that puts it under GFDL). I think you really confuse two very different things here, Dbenbenn. Your argumentation might even lead to an understanding of US copyright law that makes it legal to film a movie with your video camera in a movie theatre abroad, publish your movie on a US server and obtain copyright by that. (I hope this example shows pretty clearly that this is _not_ the case.) --AndreasPraefcke 22:53, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The assertion was made that "the photographic act [...] is considered sufficiently creative that the photo is not a derivative work." That is a misunderstanding of copyright law. The photographic act is sufficiently creative that it is an original, copyrightable work at all. It still is a derivative work. According to the US Copyright Act (17 USCS Sect. 101), a derivative work is

a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted.

In other words, if you make a Harry Potter movie, then that movie obviously might constitute a tremendous creative effort, if only because you have to find visual representations for all the characters and places that are only described in writing in the books. But you still have to ask Mrs. Rowling for permission to use her characters and stories.

My understanding is as follows: Say, for example, you make a collage that contrasts images from Iraq with images of similar scenes in the United States (e.g. placing a picture of Iraqi boys playing soccer on a dilapidated field next to a picture of soccer moms and their offspring on a neat field in the US). For the Iraq images, you use images made by a press photographer; the American images you shoot yourself. You now own the copyright to your images and to the collage as a whole, but not to the parts made by the press photographer. That is, if I want to display the collage, I have to have your permission. Your permission to use the individual images is not sufficient, because the collage with its skillful and expressive selection and arrangement of images is a work of its own, requiring a permission of its own. But I also need the permission of the press photographer, because I'm at the same time displaying his photographs, and these are also works of their own.

If one of the Iraq photographs shows a mural of Saddam Hussein, the question arises whether I need the permission of the painter (setting aside for a moment Iraq's position in the international copyright system, which I know nothing about). Here I can only talk about German law: Works of art that are permanently visible from publicly accessible places may be shown the way they are visible without agreement of the copyright holder. But if you enter enclosed ground, or simply step on a ladder that you brought along, so as to get a certain view of the object, then this freedom, called "Panorama freedom," is not applicable anymore. The same holds true if a work of art is only displayed in a public place for a short time. A famous example was fought out in German courts: Christo had wrapped the Reichstag in white sheets, and a postcard publisher wanted to sell postcards with a photograph of this sight. It was ultimately ruled that that was forbidden. --Sebastian Koppehel 06:01, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Full ACK. Thanks for this every illustrative explanation. This may be worth putting on the talk page of Commons:Licensing, for future reference - especially the bit about Cristo, I didn't know that. -- Duesentrieb 13:05, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Full FACK. BTW: In France and Belgium there is definitively no freedom of street images (see de:Panoramafreiheit) Historiograf = --172.181.107.74 18:42, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Here's a English news item about the case and here's the verdict itself. (Please note that the BBC article incorrectly states that the ruling was by the "Constitutional Court." It was actually the BGH, which is indeed the highest German court of appeal, but doesn't rule on constitutional matters.) Keep in mind that at this point we are talking about intricacies of German law. I read that in France, for example, there is no Panorama freedom at all. Other details might concern works that are "coincidentally" visible on a photograph, but are not really part of the motive, and so on. --Sebastian Koppehel 14:11, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Image:Bruno Manuel Sal y Rosas Castillo.jpg
• Image:Rodrigo Alejandro Sal y Rosas Castillo.jpg
• Image:Merci Carla Castillo Diaz.jpg
• Image:Alejandro Rafael Sal y Rosas Sanchez.jpg

Unencyclopedic family portraits. dbenbenn | talk 07:48, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dbenbenn has tagged these with {{ownwork}}. Do you still want to have them deleted? Thuresson 03:35, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think they are not potentially useful to any Wikimedia project, which is what I meant by "unencyclopedic" above. dbenbenn | talk 2 July 2005 21:42 (UTC)

Deleted, no response from uploader for a month. Thuresson 21:41, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This picture is not changeable and not for commercial use. Not working with the wikipedia philosophy. --Daniel 08:37, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Deleted. --Avatar 10:30, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This picture is not changeable and not for commercial use. Not working with the wikipedia philosophy. --Daniel 08:37, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Deleted. --Avatar 10:31, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is a 1927 photo by a photographer who died in 1973. What does the US copyright law say? Thuresson 17:42, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The image was published in 1927 so its initial copyright expired in 1955. If it was renewed at that time, it is copyrighted until 2023 at least. Rmhermen 15:28, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

According to [9], Library of Congress consider Steichen's work protected by copyright but useable under "fair use". Thuresson 06:48, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Deleted, Thuresson 03:35, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've uploaded it and a couple of days later I found a much more better one on en.wiki. The old one is quite ugly (and also redundant :-P)... --Civvi 09:29, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep. It isn't like Category:Hydrozoa is overloaded. Though more source information, including a link, would be useful for Image:Physalia Physalis.jpg. dbenbenn | talk 19:35, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

=> Not deleted. James F. (talk) 17:36, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

cc-by-nc see zh:Image:Railroad car.jpg--Shizhao 14:09, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The linked page seems to indicate {{CopyrightedFreeUse}}. dbenbenn | talk 01:00, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I left a note at uploader's chinese talk page, please wait a few extra days. Thuresson 03:35, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Licence details now fixed. James F. (talk) 17:36, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

=> Not deleted. James F. (talk) 17:36, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All money in the UK is copyrighted. These are copyrighted to the bank of England. Zeimusu 14:50, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep I doubt this fact means that I can't take a picture of a british coin and publish it. I think it's just a way to say that you can't mint your own british coins or banknotes ;) --Snowdog 15:01, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Actually it means exactly that you can't take a picture and publish it, except as fair dealing. These can be transwikied to en and wherever else needs them, but they are under crown copyright. Zeimusu 14:56, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Zeimusu is correct. James F. (talk) 14:26, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

=> Deleted. James F. (talk) 17:36, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image listed as public domain as a US government work but the work is copyright either of Ben Opps or the National Parks Conservation Association where he was an intern. That organization is a private non-profit organization, not part of the US government. However they claim that their reuse policies are liberal. Rmhermen 15:11, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The image is in use at w:sv:Björnar and w:sv:Brunbjörn, guess we have to find another picture fore those pages =) // Solkoll June 30, 2005 16:31 (UTC)

=> Deleted. James F. (talk) 17:36, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No info about source/copyright. --Patrick-br ^msg 15:45, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

keep pt:Victor Meirelles de Lima died 1903, the copyright is expired. A link to the source of the image file would be good to have but is not neccessary. The images is PD-art. -- Duesentrieb 21:31, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

=> Not deleted. James F. (talk) 17:36, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There exists no species named "Chorisia spinosa" - see also The International Plant Names Index. (Probably there was a name confusion with Chorisia speciosa.) Anyway, IMO we need no redirect page from a non-existing species name to the name of a genus. --Franz Xaver 00:32, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oppose. Obviously someone thought there was such a species to create the article in the first place. The purpose of such a redirect is to help whoever makes the same mistake. Redirects are cheap. dbenbenn | talk 00:56, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Chorisia spinosa" is a name formed to mean a species - a non-existing one. Chorisia is the name of a genus. These are two different things. --Franz Xaver 01:17, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wrong spelling in name. The correct name is Armeria maritima. No redirect needed. --Franz Xaver 00:36, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oppose. Again, someone made that typo. The purpose of this kind of redirect is to help whoever makes the same typo again. dbenbenn | talk 00:57, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There is a big number of possible spelling mistakes which all of them probably happen sometimes here and there. Keeping such redirects concedes some legitimacy to such mistakes. Probably you would not keep a redirect from "New Yorck" to New York? --Franz Xaver 01:18, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If someone had started an article at New Yorck, I would indeed be in favor of keeping it as a redirect. dbenbenn | talk 21:43, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I belive most wikipedias have a plicy against typo-redirects, and I think we should handle it the same way on the commons: do not create redirects from misspellings - for very common mistakes, we could however keep a regular page that sais something like "xyz does not exist, but maybe you meant foobar". We could have a template for that, like {{Typo}} or something - we had that on the de:wp (but i'm not sure if it was accepts). -- Duesentrieb 22:25, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Photo from a fan web site who assumes that all photos are in public domain. This assumption is used by web sites all over the world, serving as an excuse to build image galleries. I would prefer if the copyright status was quite clear. Thuresson 06:20, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I uploaded this photo, I agree and I have put this photo on en:WP:IS --Spundun 16:29, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Spundun, sorry, but I too doubt that this picture is PD. Yann June 29, 2005 22:18 (UTC)

Deleted, image sleuths appears to be on vacation. Thuresson 21:41, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Munch died 1944, as a self portrait, the Image is firstly public domain in 2014. --Leipnizkeks 16:15, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Already under discussion above, see 8 June. Cnyborg 23:40, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Deleted, Thuresson 04:02, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Reason ? Don't you like this image or what ?

It's in use on de: --Sebastian Koppehel 14:41, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Any copyright problem ? PS: Check usage. -- Get_It • 16:59, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This picture is very blurred. --Daniel 05:42, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, the picture is in use (in de and wikinews) - so unless you provide an equivalent better one, it should stay. --Avatar 06:46, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Was uploaded as GFDL. I changed the license for the photo to PD, since it's just a reproduction of a two-dimensional work. The license for the painting depicted is unclear, if Austrian stamps are generally PD, this needs to be clearly stated in the description page. If not, the image has to be deleted, since the author of the stamp has not died more than 70 years ago (indeed is still alive). --AndreasPraefcke 07:18, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There is no need to provide more information. If it is not forbidden, it is allowed. If you think, it is forbidden, please cite the respective law. --NeoUrfahraner 6 July 2005 02:35 (UTC)

The question, of course, is whether it is allowed. US stamps aren't PD. Unless someone provides some reason to think Austrian stamps are, this will be deleted. dbenbenn | talk 6 July 2005 03:34 (UTC)

How do people produce a catalogue of stamps? Do they ask every single artist for permission? --NeoUrfahraner 6 July 2005 05:39 (UTC)

Deleted, Gottfried Kumpf hasn't been dead for 70 years, in fact he's still with us. Thuresson 21:41, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image name error. have reupload Image:Flower of locust tree.jpg--Shizhao 11:46, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Marked it for speedy deletion. --Sebastian Koppehel 14:47, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Deleted, Thuresson 19:14, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I uploaded this image and recognized that its resolution is to low. There is already an alternative for it: Image:Konqi-klogo-official-400x500_b.png which is much better. No site uses this image anymore. --Maestroalubia 14:20, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Deleted, Thuresson 19:14, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I uploaded the image again with the another title: Image:Blue Box in museum.jpg --Daniel 15:02, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Deleted, Thuresson 19:14, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wrong name. I've uploaded it again with correct name: Image:Apus apus cm01.jpg Meteor2017 16:58, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Deleted, Thuresson 19:14, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Entry without any image or link to it. The corresponding entry de:Berg am Laim is more substantial --Schwindp 20:37, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Deleted. --AndreasPraefcke 27 June 2005 06:47 (UTC)

Typo on my part. The correct file is in Image:en-us-entrance.ogg --Dvortygirl 22:45, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Image:Microsoft sign closeup free.jpg
• Image:George Stephenson-zuado.jpg

These images have been used in pt.wikipédia just for trolling by User:FML. --Patrick-br ^msg 13:19, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete -- Get_It • 13:54, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep --FML 22:12, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) Trolling? Come on kid.
• Delete: not potentially useful to any Wikimedia project. dbenbenn | talk 02:13, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Leslie ^Talk 05:32, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- confirmed trolling. -- Nuno Tavares ☜ ^PT 04:52, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Deleted, Thuresson 02:01, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There are quite a few images there showing some ort other nondescript building hidden behind trees which I don't think meet Commons:Criteria for inclusion. Examples:

• Image:Freie Universitaet Berlin - Mensa I.jpg
• Image:Freie Universitaet Berlin - Henry-Ford-Bau (Suedseite 2 - Ausschnitt).jpg
• Image:Freie Universitaet Berlin - Silberlaube - Innenhof.jpg
• Image:Freie Universitaet Berlin - Physik 1.jpg
• Image:Freie Universitaet Berlin - Institut fuer Informatik.jpg
• Image:Freie Universitaet Berlin - Konrad-Zuse-Zentrum fuer Informationstechnik Berlin - Campus 1.jpg

I would recommend deleting at least some of them for lack of relevance. --Mayhem 13:25, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep the lack of relevancy isnot a reason for deleting! Schaengel89 @me 18:36, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep, indeed. They're relevant to the Freie Universität Berlin. dbenbenn | talk 02:10, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep! They're relevant to the university, and besides some images are already used in the German Wikipedia (examples: [10], [11]). / Of course, they agree with the criteria for inclusion: "Material would be eligible for inclusion in the Commons if it is useful to at least one Wikimedia project. This includes plausible future usefulness." (Commons:Project plan) --Torinberl 20:12, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Image:PimFortuyn.jpg - Is said to be public domain, but no reason given why it is so, and I strongly doubt it. Already deleted on the Dutch Wikipedia for the same reason. - Andre Engels 17:41, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• You can delete it. I have no further information about the license. I took the picture from the nl.wikipedia and uploaded it to commons. I have not changed any information belonging to the license. --FEXX 22:44, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Deleted, Thuresson 02:01, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

empty page --Franz Xaver 21:03, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please don't delete. I can make it non-empty. It's useful. -- Hike395 04:39, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OK, as it is not empty any more, I cancel the deletion request. --Franz Xaver 10:32, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

no images on page --Derbeth 23:19, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Deleted, Thuresson 02:01, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No permission to publish the picture was given by the pictured people (see User talk:RicMedio). Die Einwilligung zur Veröffentlichung der abgebildeten Personen wurde nicht eingeholt. --Martinroell 12:54, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep, this aspect of copyright law can be found in German law, not in other countries, AFAIK. Thuresson 21:40, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

if the pictures where taken in germany, german law applies. Privacy-Laws exist in other countries, too, btw. This has nothing to do with copyright. -- Duesentrieb 23:00, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, one could argue that the photos were first published in the US and Florida law should apply. For those interested, see Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2005/04#People in Photos. Thuresson 23:55, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree, Florida law seems to apply. And anyware, are any of these people "recognizable"? I don't think so. dbenbenn | talk 00:05, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

They are. To be "recognizable" it is sufficient that somebody is able to tell who they are (at least under German law). In all the pictures I have put up for deletion, this is the case. --Martinroell 12:32, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That is not quite correct: In german law, you have to ask for permission if the person in the photo is the purpose of the image like in portraits. That exception is called acessory. If the person/s is an acesssory for the image and not the main theme then a permission is not needed. Other exceptions are: famous people need not to be asked for permission.

Another exception is if you attend a congregation a demonstration or something alike. Then you have to be prepared to be photographed. Since these pictures are taken on WikipediaTag that is again a reason not to delete.--Mononoke 1 July 2005 20:57 (UTC)

Your first point is not correct: Even if people are only "accessories" you need their permission, if they are recognizable. (See de:Recht_am_eigenen_Bild.) However, this is not relevant for these pictures, as the people are their central motive. Therefore, the permission of the people photographed is necessary. --Martinroell 2 July 2005 15:02 (UTC)

On the photo I count 9 people. Therefore I would suspect that the intention of the picture is to show the WikipediaTag and not an individual. Concerning your objection towards "accessories":

I have read the law and wrote my POV and not the Wikipedia article. That is supported by the Links in the Wikipedia article. Sakowski.de eg. writes:

"c) Personen als "Beiwerk"

Zulässig ist die zustimmungsfreie Ablichtung von Personen als Beiwerk neben einer Landschaft oder Örtlichkeit. Die Person darf nicht Zweck der Aufnahme sein.

d) Personen bei Versammlungen

Auch auf Veranstaltungen (Versammlungen, öffentliche Feste, Demonstrationen usw.) dürfen zustimmungsfrei Aufnahmen in die Menge hinein gemacht werden. Allgemein gilt, dass in jedem Einzelfall zwischen dem Recht der Öffentlichkeit auf Berichterstattung und dem privaten Recht auf Bildnisschutz abgewogen werden muss. " You did not react to the last argument about congregations. --Mononoke 3 July 2005 01:46 (UTC)

After German law, even when you take pictures at congregations, you may only take pictures of "the mass" of people and not picture out individuals as your quote above explains (d). This picture is centered around one single person. A picture of a full lecture hall would have been different. But these pictures have individuals as their central motives, which is not permitted by German law.

(Das Recht auf Bildnisschutz der Blondine ist IMHO hier sehr viel höher einzuschätzen, als das Recht der Öffentlicht über Bildberichterstattung vom Wikipediatag.) --Martinroell 3 July 2005 10:44 (UTC)

As you said both arguments are disputable. If the person was the only one on the photo and not a snapshot of a scene i would support your position. Furthermore the collection of photos were made to document Category:Wikipedia Tag. Is the privacy right of the individual more important than freedom of press. That balance was established by the lawmakers by making exceptions to "Pictures require permission." These exceptions furthermore are restricted by an flexible extension: Not if a rightful intererst of the person seen on the photo is hurt. So it is very difficult to be fully certain if any picture is rightful. But by making exceptions to the general rules it is my perception that the exceptions overrride the general rule and are therefore more important than the general rule. Otherwise they couldn't be exceptions. See w:DMCA and its exceptions for libraries as a practical example. Since Wikipedia does not write useful things about the provisions: [12]

("§ 23 KUG: (1) Ohne die nach § 22 erforderliche Einwilligung dürfen verbreitet und zur Schau gestellt werden: Bildnisse aus dem Bereiche der Zeitgeschichte; Bilder, auf denen die Personen nur als Beiwerk neben einer Landschaft oder sonstigen Örtlichkeit erscheinen; Bilder von Versammlungen, Aufzügen und ähnlichen Vorgängen, an denen die dargestellten Personen teilgenommen haben; Bildnisse, die nicht auf Bestellung angefertigt sind, sofern die Verbreitung oder Schaustellung einem höheren Interesse der Kunst dient. (2) Die Befugnis erstreckt sich jedoch nicht auf eine Verbreitung und Schaustellung, durch die ein berechtigtes Interesse des Abgebildeten oder, falls dieser verstorben ist, seiner Angehörigen verletzt wird.) --Mononoke 3 July 2005 15:28 (UTC)

Maybe for the aspect of publication, Florida law is applicable. As the picture was taken in Germany, German law is definately applicable too. It states that publishing a picture of another person without the permission of that person is illegal. --Martinroell 12:32, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So the uploader broke the law; who cares? The question is whether the image can be kept here on the Commons. dbenbenn | talk 19:36, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Who cares? I do. And you should. Have a look at Commons:Criteria_for_inclusion: All files uploaded must be free of use in any jurisdiction. This is not the case. Therefore the pictures must be deleted. --Martinroell 09:49, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Any juridiction is too broad. I think the criteria free of use in all places relevent for copyright issues is good enough. Don't know it changes the issue here. Yann June 29, 2005 22:43 (UTC)#

That's a very big question. For example in arabian countries [13] Pictures Are Prohibited ( of living beings). If we comply to all laws in any country there are many other nasty prohibitions. But the isslamic example would make the whole Wikimedia Commons obsolete ( or at least a collection of Photos of rocks). I also favor the practical solution: Let's comply to the laws of Florida, USA. We cannot make all happy. --Mononoke 1 July 2005 20:21 (UTC)

Has this general theme been discussed elsewhere before? We won't be able to solve the "under any jurisdiction" issue here. Is there a better place where we can move the general discussion to?

Until we have a general solution for which legislation is applicable, I think we should stick to the laws of Florida, USA and to the laws in which the picture was taken. This protects the people in the pictures (if you are in Germany you can expect that pictures of you are taken and published according to the laws of Germany and not according to the laws of the country in which the server stands on which the photographer has decided to publish your pictures) and the photographers (if you take pictures in Germany, you do it according to German law, protecting you from future claims). --Martinroell 2 July 2005 15:02 (UTC)

Nach deutschem Recht kann eine abgebildete Person die Entfernung des Bildes fordern wenn ihr dannach ist, solange das nicht passiert kann es bleiben (vgl. de:Recht am eigenen Bild). -guety 00:08, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Das ist nicht richtig. KunstUrhG § 22 bestimmt: "Bildnisse dürfen nur mit Einwilligung des Abgebildeten verbreitet oder öffentlich zur Schau gestellt werden." (Genau an der von Dir genannten Stelle.) Die Einwilligung ist erforderlich. Wird sie nicht eingeholt, kann ein Schadenersatzanspruch entstehen. (Vgl. auch [14]). --Martinroell 12:32, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hast wohl recht, habe nicht genau genug gelesen. You are right, should have read mor carefully. -guety 21:06, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Deleted. 3:3 without me. Reason for deletion: no permission. -- Breezie 14:40, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No permission to publish the picture was given by the pictured people (see User talk:RicMedio). Die Einwilligung zur Veröffentlichung der abgebildeten Personen wurde nicht eingeholt. --Martinroell 12:54, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Deleted -- Breezie 14:40, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No permission to publish the picture was given by the pictured people (see User talk:RicMedio). Die Einwilligung zur Veröffentlichung der abgebildeten Personen wurde nicht eingeholt. --Martinroell 12:54, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Deleted -- Breezie 14:40, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No permission to publish the picture was given by the pictured people (see User talk:RicMedio). Die Einwilligung zur Veröffentlichung der abgebildeten Personen wurde nicht eingeholt. --Martinroell 12:54, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Deleted -- Breezie 14:40, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No permission to publish the picture was given by the pictured people (see User talk:RicMedio). Die Einwilligung zur Veröffentlichung der abgebildeten Personen wurde nicht eingeholt. --Martinroell 12:54, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Deleted -- Breezie 14:40, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thought it was a congressional portrait, but seems to be done by his re-election committee, so not free. --Tomf688 02:44, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Those images contain only decorated text, and are useless.

• Image:Azabu-chara..jpg
• Image:Edo Meisho Zukai.jpg
• Image:Gyoran-ji.jpg
• Image:Gyorann zaka chara.jpg
• Image:HASEGAWA Seitan.jpg
• Image:Hasegawa Settan.jpg
• Image:Hijiri-zaka.jpg
• Image:Isarago slope.jpg
• Image:Isarago slope-1-.jpg
• Image:Kamezuka Kohen.jpg
• Image:Kamezuka Park.jpg
• Image:Kouya-hijiri-chara..jpg
• Image:Mita-hatiman-jinjya.jpg
• Image:Mita-hatiman-jinjya-chara.jpg
• Image:Morinosuke TIWAKI chara.jpg
• Image:Naidaijin.chara..jpg
• Image:Saikai-ji.jpg
• Image:Shiomizaka.jpg
• Image:Tamachi.jpg
• Image:Temjin zaka.chara.jpg
• Image:Tukinomisaki chara-1-.jpg
• Image:Tukinomisaki chara2.jpg
• Image:Yadoukai.jpg
• Image:Yuurei-zaka.jpg
• Image:Zakuro zaka.jpg

• Image:Gyoran ji.chara.jpg
• Image:Gyorann zaka chara-1-.jpg
• Image:Hebi zaka.kanji.JPG
• Image:Kanji for Anzenji zaka.jpg
• Image:Teki juku.jpg
• Image:Tuna zaka.chara.jpg

--Sylphie 13:04, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC) (add images --Mnd 01:34, 11 July 2005 (UTC))[reply]

• Delete All すべて削除。必要のない画像。賛否の資格がなければコメントということで。―Rh-Kiriki 9 July 2005 08:05 (UTC)
• Delete All: These all can display by HTML code. These make no sense at all. --Complex01 9 July 2005 16:09 (UTC)
• Delete All: Similar images in Japanese Wikipedia had been deleted as useless images. See ja:Wikipedia:削除依頼/文字のみの画像. --Mnd 01:34, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deletionrequest since 5 May 2005 by Breeze, reason no licence. -guety 20:17, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What is the difference between fair use and this template? Such kind of images are not for Commons. Could be redirected to Template:Fair use. --EugeneZelenko 20:28, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I put this for deletion some time ago and it seems to have be recreated. Redirect to fair use should prevent it from comming back. -guety 20:46, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC) (PS.: Here is the old deletion request)

I just checked all my uploads from Flickr because its possible to change the licence (see #Image:Bill Gates talking 2004.jpg and Image:Bill Gates 2004.jpg), these are now All rights reserved. -guety 20:46, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The user changing the license stated on Flickr does not invalidate the previous statement of license. Thus, we are not required to now delete the images. Morven 21:30, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

But how to prove the licence was changed? It could have been All rights reserved all the time. -guety 01:07, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, we can't really "prove" that any of the photos here are free. You checked them at the time, didn't you? dbenbenn | talk 15:51, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright holder of this image does not allow anyone to use it for any purpose. See the Info at the link given on the description page [15] (quote):

Die Fotos dürfen nicht gegen Honorar / Kostenersatz an Dritte weitergegeben werden. Eine Herstellung von Papierabzügen (Hardcopy) ist auch für den privaten Gebrauch NICHT gestattet. Origianlfotos können bei HOPI-MEDIA bestellt werden. Jede Nutzung zu kommerziellen u./o. werblichen Zwecken bedarf der schriftlichen Zustimmung des Urhebers (HOPI-MEDIA).

In short: no commercial use (so: no GFDL, no PD) except when asking the owner (Hopi Media) in advance and after getting their ok, no hard-copy on paper.--Tsui 13:55, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Support: More details can be found in http://www.hopi-media.at/ -> AGB (right below). --Franz Xaver 16:32, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Deleted, Thuresson 29 June 2005 02:27 (UTC)

About twenty years old, most certainly not Public Domain. The source has no idea about the licence status (we don't know, but we assume PD). --DaTroll 07:20, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

First, note that an image can be PD for reasons other than age.

Admittedly, the source says "We believe that most of the images are in the public domain". This isn't the most definitive copyright statement one could hope for. On the other hand, one can never be absolutely sure about the copyright status of anything. The important question for the Commons is, how much certainty do we require? This question probably ought to be discussed somewhere else. My own feeling is that we should tolerate a fair amount of ambiguity, as long as we have some reason to think the image is free, and no reason to think it isn't. dbenbenn | talk 14:50, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Sanbec ✉ 22:49, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) You must be sure. This is a free project not a possibly free one.

Again, what do you mean by "sure"? No image is ever absolutely sure. Perhaps I'm not the photographer of Image:Bolton Abbey 7.jpg, and actually downloaded it from the web instead. As another example, we have lots of photos from the US Library of Congress where the copyright status is somewhat ambiguous. dbenbenn | talk 19:30, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete. You can never be 100% certain but I would accept if there was an explanation why the photo is assumed to be PD. Hungarian copyright laws? Photographer is the official NSA photographer? Thuresson 16:27, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My impression of the St.Andrews mathematician bibliography site is that they chose to ignore copyrights. We haven't taken the same decision and in light of the fact that nobody knows who the photographer of these pictures is or which license status they actually have, there is only one thing certain: we don't know that they're free. --DaTroll 26 June 2005 20:13 (UTC)

Deleted, Thuresson 29 June 2005 02:27 (UTC)

As above, the photo is from the 1950s and most certainly not Public Domain. The source has no idea about the licence status (we don't know, but we assume PD). --DaTroll 07:24, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Deleted, Thuresson 29 June 2005 02:27 (UTC)

As above, probably from the 70s and most certainly not Public Domain. The source has no idea about the licence status (we don't know, but we assume PD). --DaTroll 07:27, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Deleted, Thuresson 29 June 2005 02:27 (UTC)

As above, probably from the 70s and most certainly not Public Domain. The source has no idea about the licence status (we don't know, but we assume PD). --DaTroll 07:29, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Deleted, Thuresson 29 June 2005 02:27 (UTC)

Unknown licensing. -- 68.23.110.57 00:25, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Deleted, Thuresson 28 June 2005 04:45 (UTC)

The following images come from Category:Copyrighted free use provided that but they have restrictions not compatible with Commons:Licensing

• Image:Erj135.jpg - no modification, no commercial use

  Deleted. --Avatar 22:21, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Image:Gripen.750pix.jpg - image may not be altered

  Deleted. --Avatar 22:21, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Image:Lockheed Martin x-7a-1.jpg - not for commercial use

  Deleted. --Avatar 22:21, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Image:MAC logo.jpg - no source for claim that anybody can use this

  Deleted, Thuresson 28 June 2005 04:45 (UTC)

• Image:Minhocampusparty2002 logob.gif - nonderivative

  Deleted. ed g2s • talk 13:46, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Image:Minhocampusparty2004 logobanner.jpg - nonderivative

  Deleted. ed g2s • talk 13:46, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Image:Woomera Detention Centre - hunger strikers sheltering under bedding.jpg - not commercial use

  Deleted. --Avatar 22:21, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thuresson 23:17, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

in regards to Image:Erj135.jpg, I concur. the copyright restrictions are, in fact, incompatible with the purpose of the commons. though it is unfortunate that we do not have an image for this article at this time, i did learn more about the commons.

my vote DELETE

Zvesoulis 03:16, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The following 50 images from Category:Unknown have no license. Thuresson 13:09, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Image:-00000red.JPG Image:000 1646.jpg Image:000 2405.JPG Image:000 3847.JPG Image:0aaa.JPG Image:1255a.JPG Image:13 05 001.jpg Image:131-3143 IMG.JPG Image:132.JPG Image:14d sassoon photo2.JPG Image:180px-Time-magazine-cover-charles-kettering.jpg Image:1francosvizzero1983back.jpg Image:2004-45-a-large web.jpg Image:2004gopconventiongiuliani.jpg Image:2004logo.jpg Image:228 1.jpg Image:357 Magnum.jpg Image:55 kg issyk yourta.jpg Image:600px-Ngc1818.jpg Image:68aff nepasvote.jpg Image:727367.jpg Image:758157.jpg Image:7deckollie.jpg Image:94daytonamarlin.jpeg Image:A380 envol 27-05-2005.jpg Image:Aac logo.png Image:Abdullah Öcalan.jpg Image:Adamkus.jpg Image:Ainaro detail map.png Image:Alan broughton.jpg Image:Aldtsjerk.jpeg Image:Ale cop.jpg Image:Animatedroflcopter.gif Image:Anker ingrid 1990.jpg Image:Anker 8 aar.jpg Image:Antonio araya.jpg Image:Antoniogiflololol.gif Image:Antoniolol.jpg Image:Aníbal Acevedo Vilá en Mensaje.jpg Image:Arachnopedia.png Image:Argynnis niobe-Europe.png Image:As1.jpg Image:AubreyHuff.jpg Image:B757.png Image:Bandera.jpg Image:Batter Farm (Human Error).jpg Image:Bing.crosby.spo.jpg Image:Bolchoi-live.jpg Image:Bild009.jpg Image:Baucau detail map.png

Concerning Image:Arachnopedia.png, I just forgot to put the license on it : GFDL (this is a photoshop of two GFDL images found on Commons) - I add the {{GFDL}}. But is this the right place for me to explain this :) Vlad2i 08:41, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Which two GFDL images? Wikimedia logos are not GFDL. Thuresson 15:57, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

depends - the wikipedia logo is older than that policy, some versions of it have been published under the GFDL. -- Duesentrieb 16:21, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

delete if the foundation does not allow it. See User talk:Vlad2i for more info -- Duesentrieb 11:58, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[:Image:600px-Ngc1818.jpg] ist PD from NASA. I added the source and the new category.--CWitte 29 June 2005 10:25 (UTC)

Tagged or deleted all images. Please wait a few days extra for User:MG to deal with Image:1francosvizzero1983back.jpg. Thuresson 30 June 2005 12:46 (UTC)

The following 50 images from Category:Unknown have no license. Thuresson 00:44, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Image:Beijing bridge xizhimen 2005 05 24.jpg Image:Ben haim corks.jpg Image:Ben haim logo.png Image:Benfica - sporting.jpg Image:Bergson.jpg Image:Bitner.JPG Image:Bobonaro detail map.png Image:Brain.jpg Image:Brazauskas.jpg Image:Bruno cardeñosa.jpg Image:Buddybolden.JPG Image:Bulat Okudzawa.jpg Image:CACHOEIRINHA 00.jpg Image:CACHOEIRINHA 01.jpg Image:CASCAVEL-CENTRO.jpg Image:CIMG0057.JPG Image:Cabopalos1.jpg Image:Cabopalos2.jpg Image:Calderon edited.jpg Image:Capadoccia.jpg Image:Capuchino.jpg Image:Cduc small.jpg Image:Ceausescu.jpg Image:Chaika rys01.jpg Image:Chandrasekhar.jpg Image:Chinese insurgency 1989.gif Image:City seal lincoln ne.gif Image:Clarice lispector.jpg Image:Claude martin.jpg Image:Collage2002.gif Image:CommerceEquitable.jpg Image:Coppola1.jpg Image:Cosey.gif Image:Cropped euro coin.png Image:Crw 3826 titre.jpg Image:CrtCantonElbeufFbiot.png Image:DSC00510.JPG Image:DSC01331.JPG Image:DSC03060.JPG Image:Dabala.jpg Image:Dada.jpg Image:Dana reeve.jpg Image:Demirhan Baylan.jpg Image:Demirhan1.jpg Image:Devdays mini.jpg Image:Devdays.jpg Image:Dial-up.png Image:Dibujo.jpg Image:Dibujo2.jpg Image:Digg.PNG Image:Dining fly (tent).png

Image:Chinese insurgency 1989.gif is listed in enwiki as This article or image contains materials that originally came from a National Security Agency (NSA) website or publication. It is believed that this information is not classified, and is in the public domain. This info has been added manually, as the template didn't work. --Manscher 08:45, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have searched the NSA website before listing the photo here but I can't find it. Regardless, the photo is likely not an original work of NSA and hence not public domain. Thuresson 15:55, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Likely not an original work". If we can't trust the licensing info provided by the users (in this case for the image on enwiki), we should delete all images on commons. --Manscher 09:47, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I see your point but the original uploader to en: only contributed to the project for two hours on February 27. Every image needs a verifiable source - this photo does not have one. Thuresson 22:40, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

About Cosey.gif...I put a license in this one....and as we found it in all the net, I thaught that it was allowed to take it jonathaneo

You claim that The copyright holder of this image allows anyone to use it for any purpose but that's not what the source you give says, in fact it has nothing to say about copyright. Thuresson 22:40, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tagged or deleted all images above. Thuresson 2 July 2005 04:29 (UTC)

Image is not from the NASA but from http://www.digitalglobe.com. Source: [16]. No commercial use. --BLueFiSH ?! 19:37, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that there is a reason to delete this image and there is an Public domain indication. why deleting ? jonathaneo

Because of No Commercial Use as i have written. --BLueFiSH ?! 20:03, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Deleted. --Avatar 22:12, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Image:Apollo 12 Al Bean stepping on moon.jpg is much better quality and not a gif --Evil Monkey 03:06, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Deleted. Changed in pt. --Avatar 22:09, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Duplicate (but not identical to) Image:Grand Teton in Winter-NPS.jpg. Discussed with mav, Image:Grand Teton in Winter-NPS.jpg has better contrast.-- Hike395 04:11, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the second version may have better contrast, but it also loses some detail in the highlights. Look at the top of the peak on the right, for example. Perhaps the fact that the higher-contrast version is more aesthetically pleasing is trumped by the fact that it carries less information. Just a thought! —HorsePunchKid→龜 June 26, 2005 07:07 (UTC)

Apparently, AP has allowed that this photo is used on Wikipedia. Third party users may not use this in any way. Thuresson 18:56, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Is Template:Permission accepted on commons? Just wondering. -guety 22:05, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

no, and the respective category, Category:Images used with permission is a subcategory of Category:Unfree copyright statuses. Images that are allowed on the wikipedia (or only on the commons) are not free and will have to be deleted. -- Duesentrieb 22:33, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand what you say, Duesentrieb "images that are allowed will have to be deleted?" Please clarify. --Manscher 09:43, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

He meant, that our media has to be free for all users. To allow usage only on wikimedia projects, makes media unfree. --Avatar 22:06, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Deleted, Thuresson 2 July 2005 04:29 (UTC)

The following 50 images from Category:Unknown have no license. Thuresson 06:00, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Image:DocS-0004.jpg Image:Dorothy day.jpg Image:Dos Cavalls, 2002 (Mallorca).jpg Image:Dsc02985.sized.jpg Image:Durkheim.jpg Image:EDU.JPG Image:East-north-southpole.png Image:El Chojin.jpg Image:Electrico28.jpg Image:Eli2 copy.PNG Image:EliPictures 029.jpg Image:Emilybronte.jpg Image:Ernesto Bozzano.jpg Image:EstebanFOTO.jpg Image:Estopa13.jpg Image:Estúdio Doni.JPG Image:Euro banknotes.jpg Image:Eurovatican.jpg Image:EuropePol.png Image:FIRST Logo.gif Image:FLF~AGF Mai Hime - 26 - Spanish sub 120 0001.jpg Image:Fischler.jpg Image:Fitness to Practise album cover.jpg Image:FlorenceSymbol-giglio.png Image:Folder email.jpg Image:Foto1.jpg Image:Foto11.jpg Image:Fr logo.gif Image:Franco9circle.jpg Image:Frank lloyd wright.jpg Image:French maoist poster of nepal.jpg Image:G8bilkura.jpg Image:Gage2.jpg Image:Gage1.jpg Image:Galicia.jpg Image:Gateau joyeuses fiancailles fawad.jpg Image:George-orwell.jpg Image:Gerstamp-ddr-25jahre.jpg Image:Gilbert Newton Lewis.jpg Image:Gildert Newton Lewis.jpg Image:Girl with bubbles.jpg Image:Golf dataset.png Image:Gorkin alexandr pavlovich.jpg Image:Granada Nicaragua 1.JPG Image:Granada Nicaragua 2.JPG Image:Granada Nicaragua 3.JPG Image:Granada Nicaragua 4.JPG Image:Granada Nicaragua.JPG Image:Guadia map.jpg Image:Guitimeline.jpg Image:H 4 ill 654638 villepin.jpg

I'm working on this. --Avatar 2 July 2005 13:48 (UTC)

I tagged or removed (checked with check-usage first) all, but: Image:Eli2 copy.PNG, Image:Euro banknotes.jpg, Image:Eurovatican.jpg, Image:Gerstamp-ddr-25jahre.jpg. --Avatar 3 July 2005 02:39 (UTC)

Audio file that is obsoleted by a video Image:Apollo 15 feather and hammer drop.ogg of the same event. --Evil Monkey 06:16, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's a lot easier to listen to Ogg Vorbis than it is to play Ogg Theora. Let's keep the audio-only version. dbenbenn | talk 14:24, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree, audio-only is useful, also for people with a slow connection. But the file should probably be re-uploaed under a better name, then. -- Duesentrieb 12:12, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Okay seems like a good idea to keep, though I agree that it should be renamed. Evil Monkey June 27, 2005 04:30 (UTC)

It is a good idea to keep both, audio and video. Campani June 27, 2005 13:17 (UTC)

This is a image of a coin. There is a lot of coins pictures in Commons. What is your opinion? --Carlosar 14:18, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We should try to find the source for this photo, since it shows the late Pope John Paul II on it. Zscout370 (sound off) 2005 June 27 06:00 (UTC)

Found a few: http://www.minfin.nl/default.asp?CMS_ITEM=0471B09F3E6F414AA4FCCE906E09DB2DX1X47087X26. Since it is from the Dutch Ministry of Finance, we could claim Fair Use. Zscout370 (sound off) 2005 June 27 06:04 (UTC)

The following 50 images from Category:Unknown have no license. Thuresson 02:14, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Image:HEAT destroys tank.jpg Image:Hack japan.JPG Image:Harikrishna.jpg Image:Hausa-spoken countries-map.png Image:Heliox-Batista-Avatar.jpg Image:Hermes launch.jpg Image:Hermes reentry.jpg Image:Herve le blouch.jpg Image:HiddenMickey1.jpg Image:HiddenMickey2.jpg Image:HiddenMickey3.jpg Image:HiddenMickey4.jpg Image:High18.jpg Image:Hiweed logo.gif Image:Hiweed logo.xcf Image:Hkgolden.gif Image:Horma.jpg Image:Hubble3243e.jpg Image:Huebeneruch.gif Image:Hugo Quintas.jpg Image:Huygensprobe.jpg Image:IM000445.JPG Image:IMG 4500enc.jpg Image:ISRAIR.jpg Image:Idióta tejreklám.JPG Image:Iguacu brasil.jpg Image:Imagen.jpg Image:Imagen2.jpg Image:Index.jpg Image:Infierno.jpg Image:Ion WM.gif Image:Isqueiro.jpg Image:Israeli palestinian separation fence (1).JPG Image:Israeli palestinian separation fence (2).JPG Image:Israeli palestinian separation fence (3).JPG Image:Israeli palestinian separation fence (4).JPG Image:Israeli palestinian separation fence (5).JPG Image:Itaipu 003.jpg Image:JacquesJones.jpg Image:JacuqesJones1.jpg Image:Jairant.jpg Image:Jamiemcmurray.JPG Image:JanuszSiadlak.jpg Image:Jason.jpg Image:JasonSept03.jpg Image:Jb-100.gif Image:Jesús Callejo.jpg Image:Joe locke.jpg Image:Joergensen anker liselejestrand.jpg Image:John stockton 01.jpg Image:Jp2baptize.jpg

Plz, delete this image I was trying to substitute by this one: Image:Póvoa_de_Varzim_-_Trajes_de_Festa_Tradicionais.jpg, but the difference in the name JPG and jpg created two different pictures... -PedroPVZ 17:47, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Deleted. Changed in pt. --Avatar 22:01, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Scanned images from copyrighted source(s) (Hibiki Reine, a Japanese illustrator, all of images are illustrations to a series of young adult novels, ja:マリア様がみてる, published by Shueisha, Tokyo, Japan). The poster claimed the books has no copyright information on illustrations but (c) isn't neccesary a work protected under copyright law according to the Berne Treaty. --Aphaia 01:24, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete --Aphaia 01:24, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yup delete, I put them on my watchlist when I saw them first to find out there copyright status. Thanks for saving me the work. -guety 01:38, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Uploader replied when I asked him/her: The reason is, these pictures don't have any copyright beacuse is an additional work to the novel; the copyright apply only the novel of Konno Oyuki, but not to the pictures of Hibiki Reine. Sorry for my bad english. Uploader also referred me to [17]. I don't understand Japanese more than the next guy but I asked User:竹麦魚(Searobin) for any comments. Thuresson 01:47, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete--These are copyrighted.see my talk page.Searobin 08:52, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Deleted, Thuresson 6 July 2005 01:52 (UTC)

The following 50 images from Category:Unknown have no license. Thuresson 01:41, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Image:Juan Antonio Cebrián.jpg Image:JuergenLogo.png Image:Juninho.jpg Image:Kadir Aydemir.jpg Image:Kanye West.jpg Image:Katyn-ZdjLotn1.jpg Image:Kay.jpg Image:Keithcrofford.jpg Image:Kghs01.jpg Image:Khomeini.jpg Image:Kirchner-Madres de Rosario1.jpg Image:Kirchner-Madres de Rosario2.jpg Image:Kirchner-Madres2 acto amia 04.jpg Image:Kocatepe.jpg Image:KocatepeMosque.jpg Image:Kwaj tank5.jpg Image:Kwj pop.gif Image:Kwj tank.gif Image:Kwj tank2.jpg Image:La noche de los cristales rotos.jpg Image:La renga - Logo.jpg Image:Lasmarias.JPG Image:Laura Chorro (noche).jpg Image:Legalise cannabis alliance emblem.jpg Image:Leoarms.jpg Image:Leon Schiller.jpg Image:Lluis Llach.jpg Image:LockeShockeWikijuniorTheSun.jpg Image:Logo conf gif.gif Image:Logo disip.jpg Image:Logo disip2.jpg Image:Logo gue-ngl.gif Image:Logo-print.gif Image:LuandLau4green62.jpg Image:Lucena1.jpg Image:MG Edificio Guadiana.JPG Image:MG Neptuno.JPG Image:MHP0028.jpg Image:MITRAI1.jpg Image:Mafia party (La Cosa Nostra).jpg Image:Manuel Azaña 01.jpg Image:Mapa cas.jpg Image:Mapa cs.jpg Image:Marcel Dupré.jpg Image:Maria de lourdes2004 175.jpg Image:Mariano Rajoy 01.jpg Image:MarkHunter.jpg Image:Marlin 1995.jpeg Image:Marlin 40.jpeg Image:MascotteExpose.jpg Image:Md resnickcol.jpg

Deleted except Image:Katyn-ZdjLotn1.jpg, awaiting more info. Thuresson 6 July 2005 16:56 (UTC)

Drawing of Spiderman. Copyvio or not? Thuresson 16:48, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Deleted, Thuresson 6 July 2005 16:56 (UTC)

Both photos included here before had been misidentified. Their correct ID is Vicia sativa. After moving these photos there the page is empty now. --Franz Xaver 18:59, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

... but it will be filled, eventually. So keep. James F. (talk) 01:46, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is very easy to create this page again. However, until someone will upload a photo of this plant, a lot of people will find this name in a category and will be disappointed to find an empty page. --Franz Xaver 26 June 2005 14:26 (UTC)

• delete --Steschke 4 July 2005 21:44 (UTC)

Deleted, Thuresson 6 July 2005 16:56 (UTC)

This category is redundant with article Pavia --User:Gvisconti

Keep, put every Pavia photo in the category and the best ones in the article. Thuresson 6 July 2005 16:56 (UTC)

Both photos included here before had been misidentified. Their correct ID is Helianthemum nummularium subsp. glabrum. After moving these photos there the page is empty now --Franz Xaver 20:17, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

... but it will be filled, eventually. So keep. James F. (talk) 01:45, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is very easy to create this page again. However, until someone will upload a photo of this plant, a lot of people will find this name in a category and will be disappointed to find an empty page. --Franz Xaver 26 June 2005 14:28 (UTC)

Deleted, Thuresson 6 July 2005 16:56 (UTC)

This is a copyrighted photo of a 3 dimensional object, I uploaded the image based on the date, not looking first to see if it was a 3D image. --File Upload Bot (Cobalty) 21:20, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is a copyrighted photo of a 3 dimensional object, I uploaded the image based on the date, not looking first to see if it was a 3D image. I will upload both of these to wikipedia under Fairuse. --File Upload Bot (Cobalty) 21:20, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The following 50 images from Category:Unknown have no license. Thuresson 01:21, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Image:Mika waltari.jpg Image:Millennium dome.jpg Image:Mięśnie..gif Image:Mo2euros.jpg Image:Molobrzezno.jpg Image:Morysin2.jpg Image:Movie eo lucas jackson coppola.jpg Image:Mufti husseini hitler.jpg Image:Mufti2.jpg Image:NISSAN - Skyline GT-R.jpg Image:Nakamichi rx-505 brochure1.jpg Image:New Horizons 01.jpg Image:Nolpetite.jpg Image:Norah & ray charles.jpg Image:Norah jones car.jpg Image:Norah jones grammy 2003.jpg Image:Norah jones piano.jpg Image:O J Simpson.jpg Image:ONTClose.jpg Image:Orcasitas.jpg Image:Orla11.jpg Image:Oth10.jpg Image:Otto von Guericke stamp 153.jpg Image:P1000233.jpg Image:P54446WQXBF.jpg Image:Pablo Iglesias.jpg Image:Party affiliations in the Council of the EU (1 May 2004).png Image:Paul Hermann Müller.jpg Image:Paulcrnd.jpg Image:Peje pejos.jpg Image:Paulus III-Tiziano Vecellio.jpg Image:Pelloud Peintre 1989.jpg Image:Penis .jpg (added) Image:Perdita Anthony Frederick Augustus Sandys.jpg Image:Perlas.jpg Image:PeruPolitico.jpg Image:Peyos.jpg Image:Philip2.jpg Image:Photoshootjj3.jpg Image:Photoshootleather2.jpg Image:Picture002.jpg Image:Pink Floyd.jpg Image:Plcarplates16.jpg Image:Plcarplates379.jpg Image:Plcarplates49.jpg Image:Press shot.jpg Image:Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.jpg Image:Prokofiev.jpg Image:Purcell-220869 TS.jpg Image:Puros mano.jpg

Manmohan Singh's image is taken from Public Domain. I've tagged it. Nichalp June 27, 2005 10:25 (UTC)

Image:Paulus III-Tiziano Vecellio.jpg is PD, but of extremely poor quality compared to Image:Pope-paul3.jpg (which is PD, and by the same artist). Cnyborg June 28, 2005 23:00 (UTC)

Perdita is PD - the artist died in 1904. Lotsofissues 30 June 2005 10:57 (UTC)

Tagged or deleted all images not already tagged. Thuresson 7 July 2005 10:42 (UTC)

Below are images from Category:Copyvio that probably have to be deleted. If you feel an image should be kept, please diskuss at the respective line. If an image is found to be ok, please strike it from the list. -- Duesentrieb 26 June 2005 13:46 (UTC)

• Image:800px-Antica-war.jpg (some game)
• Image:Fosforiverdi articolo.png (maybe OK)
• Image:Gpsdrive sim.png (sotware and map data)
• Image:Msfweb.png (contains logo)
• Image:Msnlocal.JPG (MS screenshot, but rather trivial)
• Image:Nagios service detail.png (Nagios is GPL, credis needed)
• Image:Room.JPG (Yahoo)
• Image:SHS website.jpg (website)
• Image:Serv-U Screenshot.gif (win software - license?)
• Image:Su screen.gif (win software - license?)
• Image:Star Wars III Filesharing.png (Kaaza)
• Image:Sinistar 2.png (sais "Screenshot of the arcade game Sinistar by Williams, 1982")
• Image:Wikinews.PNG (probably free, but credits are missing)
• Image:Wikinewsbigblue.JPG (probably free, but credits are missing)

Deleted, except Image:Fosforiverdi articolo.png and Image:Nagios service detail.png. Left messages at uploader's talk pages that uploads needs to be slightly modified. Thuresson 7 July 2005 13:30 (UTC)

I modified my upload just now, adding GFDL and specifying the image is free. Now Image:Fosforiverdi articolo.png should be OK... (Kormoran on it.wiki)

• Image:AAC logo.png
• Image:Ab-coat-thb.jpg (Canada Gov - my be OK)
• Image:Arsenal crest.png
• Image:Arsenal logo.gif
• Image:Aston villa logo.gif (also TM)
• Image:Birmingham city logo.gif (soccer club)
• Image:Chelsea logo.gif (soccer club)
• Image:Condorito main180.gif (copyright Rene Rios)
• Image:CostaRica coa.jpg
• Image:Clubdeportivouniversidadcat.jpg (HQFL)
• Image:Eua.gif
• Image:Flight001 logo.gif
• Image:Herb Obojga Narodow.jpg (also no source)
• Image:Iaea logo.png (UN logos are not free - are they?)
• Image:Logo ehu.gif
• Image:LogoPininfarina.gif
• Image:Northern Ireland flag.gif (may be PD)
• Image:Nottingham forest logo.gif
• Image:Pope John Paul II Coat of Arms.jpg (vatican CoA...) Christus Rex, Inc claims for copyright of Coat of Arms of Pope John Paul II? ROTFL -- Stahlkocher 4 July 2005 17:28 (UTC)
• Image:Rhongkongpolicelogo.png (possibly PD)
• Image:Sadc logo.gif (logo of a multinational org)
• Image:Scilab logo small.gif
• Image:UDI Popular.jpg (party logo) > El derecho de autor se le cede como describe en http://www.udi.cl/multimedia/grafica.htm e incluso, ponen a disposición formatos Freehand --Antoine 5 July 2005 02:20 (UTC)
• Image:UCV LOGO.jpg
• Image:X-Files intro.jpg

(to be continued)

Deleted all except Image:Ab-coat-thb.jpg, Image:Northern Ireland flag.gif and Image:UDI Popular.jpg. Asked User:Zscout370 if he can draw a free-license Northern Ireland flag. Thuresson 7 July 2005 18:00 (UTC)

Wrong spelled name. The correct spelling is Cirsium japonicum. Anyway, the photo that was included here before does not show Cirsium japonicum. The correct ID of the plant is Carduus acanthoides. I moved the photo there. --Franz Xaver 26 June 2005 14:35 (UTC)

Deleted, Thuresson 8 July 2005 18:55 (UTC)

The photos included here before had been misidentified. Their correct ID is Onopordum acanthium. After moving these photos to O. acanthium the page is empty now. --Franz Xaver 26 June 2005 18:22 (UTC)

Deleted, Thuresson 8 July 2005 18:55 (UTC)

It's a copy of Image:EBU Colorbars.png, only used on nl:Testbeeld at the moment; I'll correct that image link. I'm confused about the copyright status, though; Joghurt42 released it into the public domain on de:Bild:Farbbalken.png. --Gpvos 26 June 2005 19:01 (UTC)

Well, the german copyright law does not seem to allow people to put their work into PD. I think the image is trivial enough to classify as PD, but I wanted to be on the safe side for the commons version. -- Joghurt 8 July 2005 02:04 (UTC)

Keep, removed deletion request from image description page. Thuresson 8 July 2005 18:55 (UTC)

Appears to be a photograph of a copyrighted encyclopedia. Possible fair use. Zeimusu 27 June 2005 13:35 (UTC)

• Keep - --FML 27 June 2005 18:39 (UTC) It's a 3D image. But if you all think it must be deleted, do it, no problem. Thank you!
• Delete. It's a closeup photo of a page in a book. I don't think it can be kept. dbenbenn | talk 27 June 2005 19:35 (UTC)
  • It's now been partly blurred. I still doubt it can be kept. You're using it to illustrate pt:Artigo: Why not photograph some old public domain newspaper article instead? dbenbenn | talk 28 June 2005 00:40 (UTC)
    • Now it's ok, because isn't possible to read any complete line. See again, no problem with this. Thank you, --FML 28 June 2005 08:19 (UTC)
    • Please people, see the image again, thank you! --FML ^hi 29 June 2005 13:11 (UTC)

Comments

Hello, I changed de image, please see again. Thank you! --FML 27 June 2005 21:03 (UTC)

Deleted by Breeze on July 2.

Uploader claims this work by Frida Kahlo is PD. I claim that Mexico's copyright laws protect author's rights for life+100 years (source [18]). Thuresson 27 June 2005 15:40 (UTC)

Delete, not PD until 2054 under Mexican copyright laws. Cnyborg June 28, 2005 22:55 (UTC)

Deleted, Thuresson 7 July 2005 20:08 (UTC)

The following 50 images from Category:Unknown have no license. Thuresson 27 June 2005 23:57 (UTC)

Image:PvRx paoche.gif Image:Quarto v002 pl.pdf Image:Quarto v002 ru.pdf Image:Quiff.jpg Image:Quiff.png Image:R1anverso.jpg Image:R1reverso.jpg Image:RMI Pres Kessai H Note.jpg Image:RMI.jpg Image:Radiohead.jpg Image:Rajini cm1.jpg Image:Randylolton.JPG Image:Remfeldt 4.jpg Image:Remfeldt 6.jpg Image:Rene maltete.jpg Image:Restrepia antennifera.jpg Image:Restrepia chocoensis2.jpg Image:Restrepia falkenbergii2.jpg Image:Restrepia muscifera.jpg Image:Rjs.jpg Image:Robert Sanderson Mullliken.jpg Image:Rodriguez Zapatero.jpg Image:RomanHerzog.jpg Image:Rose.JPG Image:Rosendo divino 05.jpg Image:Sait Faik.jpg Image:Samael7.jpg Image:Samovar.jpg Image:Sanjosemaria.jpg Image:Santana1.jpg Image:Santana2.jpg Image:Sarkozy2005.jpg Image:Sc escudo.jpg Image:Schneider CAI.jpg Image:Seal of the University of Szeged (bw).png Image:Seal of the University of Szeged (color).png Image:Seal of the university black and white.gif Image:Sean Kennedy-Suicide.ogg Image:Senado.jpg Image:Senadora Penepé.jpg Image:SergioAlfredo.JPG Image:Set.jpg Image:Silvia cartwright.jpg Image:Skarimbas giannis.jpg Image:Skinshot.png Image:Sleeping-on-job.jpg Image:Stamp Comte.jpg Image:Stamp Descart.jpg Image:StephenDay.jpg Image:Sterlingmarlin.jpeg Image:Stravinsky picasso.png

Tagged or deleted photos above. Thuresson 8 July 2005 10:52 (UTC)

The following 10 images are stock photography need to be deleted due to being copyvio. Gmaxwell 28 June 2005 03:47 (UTC)

Image:Hiker_drinking_water.jpg Image:Woman_in_Lotus_pose.jpg Image:Girl_with_braces_in_for_checkup.jpg Image:Hand_holding_a_tablet.jpg Image:Bicycle_rider_with_helmet.jpg Image:Physical_therapy_exercise.jpg Image:Family_playing_wiffleball.jpg Image:Old_man_reading_in_library.jpg Image:Ambulance_in_action.jpg Image:Old_couple_reading.jpg

Who owns the copyright? Thuresson 28 June 2005 04:58 (UTC)

I imagine these folks probably do. See the relevant copyright info here. "Government information at NLM Web sites is in the public domain.", for what it's worth. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-06-28 06:36:48 (UTC)

Nope, afraid not. Next time I'd appricate it if you'd at least assume I've read the labeled source on the images. The images were obvious stock photography, so I did an amazingly unobvious thing: I just emailed the claimed source and asked about the images. I got a reply right away, as typical of government webmasters, and it said: "These images are commercial images that we purchased. They were purchased from Getty Images (as part of their PhotoDisc software). They weren't produced in the public domain." We need to stop assuming that just because material is on a federal government website that it is public domain. Federal government sites, like any other, make use of a lot of material that they have purchased in addition to material they have created. That notice is clear to note that only material they have produced is in the public domain. They are very responsive, so we should make it a rule to ask not for permission but just if the images are PD. In the long term this will not only reduce our copyright liability, but might result in some agencies actually helping us out. Gmaxwell 28 June 2005 13:49 (UTC)

Deleted, Thuresson 00:40, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use image. --RadioActive June 28, 2005 16:06 (UTC)

Deleted. From en:Image:Para Para Paradise 2nd Mix, arcade cabinet.jpg, no license, no source. Thuresson 00:51, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The following 43 images from Category:Unknown have no license. Thuresson 29 June 2005 01:25 (UTC)

Image:Szukam domu.jpg Image:Szuros matyas.jpg Image:Tapa de Página 12 - 21-12-01.jpg Image:TedBundy.jpg Image:Telesketch.PNG Image:Terream.jpg Image:Theodore von karman.jpg Image:Thomas Edison 2.jpg Image:Thomas Sowell.jpg Image:Tiso.jpg Image:Titol eurowin.jpg Image:Tombatosals cs.jpg Image:Tombatosals.JPG Image:Tsunami2004 Page 09.jpg Image:Tung009.jpg Image:Ubvlogo.JPG Image:UniaWolnosci.jpg Image:Universidad del Pacifico seal.png Image:Userinfo.jpg Image:Vancoug.gif Image:Vangaal.jpg Image:Viktualienmarkt München.jpg Image:Vor-Elian.gif Image:W-M-Zarubin.JPG Image:Walter Benjamin.jpg Image:Walter-ong.jpg Image:Walter2.jpg Image:Walterdisney.gif Image:Wikisun1.png Image:Wikisun2.png Image:Wikisun3.png Image:Wikisun4.png Image:Wilhelm Busch.JPG Image:Wilhelm Reich 0.jpg Image:Wilhelmcanaris.jpg Image:WinxpN.jpg Image:Woomera.jpg Image:Worm1.jpg Image:Worm2.jpg Image:Worm4.jpg Image:Yakuzafirma.JPG Image:Yogi in Kathmandu.jpg Image:Zambrano-0256.JPG Image:Zuzanna Ginczanka.jpg

Tagged or deleted all images above except Wikisun1, 2, 3 and 4, asked uploader about license. Thuresson 8 July 2005 23:01 (UTC)

I created Wikisun1 - 4 as suggested logos for Wikisource, and obviously forgot to tag them. Full details are available on my talk page at Wikisource, but not here unfortunately. I have updated the license for these images. --HappyDog 01:51, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re Image:UniaWolnosci.jpg: As can be seen from the description, the image is taken from the Polish wikipedia [19], where it was allegedly uploaded by a representative of that party's leadership on 23 Sep 2003 and labelled as public domain on 15 Mar 2005. While this information is not verifiable, the fact remains that the logo's copyright owners have tolerated its presence on pl:Unia_Wolności for close to two years by now. If you decide to delete it, then so be it - but in my opinion this is copyright paranoia, esp. considering the huge amount of "fair use" images on Wikipedia. --Thorsten1 29 June 2005 16:14 (UTC)

This isn't Wikipedia. Thuresson 8 July 2005 23:01 (UTC)

You mean common sense counts even less over here than it does on Wikipedia? Thanks for letting me know... ;) --Thorsten1 9 July 2005 13:59 (UTC)

Re Image:Universidad del Pacifico seal.png: Seals of Private Universities in Peru are absolutely found in a lot of places, so I don't believe that by putting it on Wiki-Commons we are doing something wrong. Messhermit 3 July 2005 18:46 (UTC)

I agree, uploading them to Commons is perfectly harmless. But all images need a license and a source, this one has neither. Thuresson 8 July 2005 23:01 (UTC)

Blank category; was redirecting to category:India.

What's the problem to keep a redirect ? Yann 3 July 2005 14:56 (UTC)

Copyvio. -guety June 29, 2005 16:28 (UTC)

Deleted, same uploader also contributed several suspicious photos of other jazz musicians. Thuresson 8 July 2005 23:01 (UTC)

No license. -- Breezie June 29, 2005 18:43 (UTC)

I removed the COA from en:Template:Austria-geo-stub, but it is still used in 102 articles. Thuresson 00:56, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:000 2405.JPG Image:000 1646.jpg Image:000 3876.JPG Image:000 3810.JPG Image:0000 2463.JPG Image:000 3847.JPG Image:000 4398.JPG Image:000 4324.JPG Image:000 2066.JPG Image:000 20025.JPG no license -- Breezie 29 June 2005 18:57 (UTC)

Deleted, Thuresson 8 July 2005 23:01 (UTC)

Reason: 1) Redundant with the Category:Animalia, which is already further classified by taxonomic criteria. 2) Impossible to manage - do we really want all genera and species here?. Also, i think the eventual mix of genera and species of all taxnomic parentage in one category is not informative. muriel@pt June 30, 2005 17:47 (UTC)

Deleted, Thuresson 00:57, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Inglés no hablo, ni escribo, ni entiendo, pero me han mandado un mensaje diciendo de borrar la foto de el entrenador Louis Van Gaal. No se porqué si está foto aparece en la wikipedia en inglés...¿porqué no se puede subir a la commons? Tanooo 20 june 2005 3:44 (UTC)

This is a maschine translation, I hope it makes any sense.

Desafortunadamente no hablo español, sino que espero ayudas de esta traducción del maschine. La imagen debe ser cancelación en el Wikipedia inglés también, pero son imágenes que suprimen muy lentas del copyright desconocido. -guety July 1, 2005 02:30 (UTC)

A translation Spanish -> Spanish? I guess this is about Image:Vangaal.jpg - no license, no source + no license or source in English Wikipedia. Thuresson 1 July 2005 03:38 (UTC)

My Answer is an maschine translation, the questin was why a image that is displayed on enWikipedia can't stay on commons. -guety July 1, 2005 23:59 (UTC)