Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2005/03

Broken Picture, is replaced by Image:Kettcar Band.jpeg. Please delete --Svencb 13:42, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Deleted. — Dan | Talk 01:33, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think the idea was to create links to articles about animals in different languages, but interwikilinks do that way better. 80% of all links from that template link to not yet created articles. Delete. --Conti|✉ 20:38, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This has been listed for a week with no comments. However, commons does not have a "Templates for deletion" template yet, so it's unlikely that this template's creators and users are aware of its listing here. (Plus it's used on a lot of pages). Perhaps a template for templates should be created? — Dan | Talk 00:40, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I created Template:Templatedeletionrequest and put it at the top of this template, so whoever normally uses it will know it's been listed here. If, after a week, there are still no comments, it should be deleted. — Dan | Talk 23:58, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This template also does not work properly, many language links lead to empty pages. I have deleted it as it brings nothing and is rather misleading. notafish }<';> 08:38, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have done it. replaces all templates with interwikis from all wp. I am very very very proud of myself, and know everything there is to know about the Trumpeter Swan ;-) Just thought I'd auto congratulate myself :) notafish }<';> 23:10, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Deleted by User:Notafish. — Dan | Talk 17:26, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

According to the template, fair use may apply to certain images which is in conflict with Commons policy where fair use images cannot be uploaded to this site. RedWolf 17:32, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Full Ack: Despite some problems with images of money which are (in case the copyright is expired, which is not in most cases of actual currencies in use) somewhat similar to insignias. But Fair Use has absoluteley nothing to do here as it is not according to the license conditions of the commons. And despite that: "Fair use" only exist within the US. In Germany there even does not exist an equivalent. Arnomane 22:33, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Template deleted; linked images listed for deletion as well. — Dan | Talk 17:26, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Upload error (licence unknown)

Deleted. — Dan | Talk 17:26, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This image is almost useless as a map, especially if used as a thumbnail. It just has too much detail and colour. Image:Location berlin in germany.png is in all respects better than this one. — Richie 23:29, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Deleted. — Dan | Talk 17:45, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is from Stock.xchng. I find it obvious we are here in a case where the copyright holder states conditions discordant with Commons copyright policy. villy 21:29, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Deleted. — Dan | Talk 17:45, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Nice one but than again not funny enough ;-) --Paddy 18:13, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose Read the article en:Invisible Pink Unicorn first, at least...
• Oppose en:Invisible Pink Unicorn

Kept. — Dan | Talk 17:45, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

All image of Frederic upload. "Copyright Frederic Logghe 1996-2005 - Maritime photo collection". copyvio? see Special:Contributions/Frederic--Shizhao 19:29, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Not too sure to see where is the probleme Shizhao. I can read a GFDL licence on right on http://www.ibiblio.org/maritime/ main page. Moreover, from I've read on his page, Frederic seems to be Frederic Logghe. So what is the point Shizao? :-) villy 21:40, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, his all image no linese--Shizhao 03:15, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What is the added value to have thousand of image of the same subject (here fishing boat)? If we start to accept this kind of massive upload soon people will start to post their holiday pictures. Greatpatton 10:20, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Here I agree, Greatpatton. Maybe Commons should express more insistently the necessity for the file to have *some* interest for the Foundation projects. villy 07:32, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In my first upload, I made a mistake, so no copyright message was attached. The reason for this'massive' upload was by request. I would not have done it by my own, since my personal site is fully available under the conditions of the GNU Free Documentation License. --Frederic Logghe 20:32, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Kept. — Dan | Talk 17:45, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Logo, copyrighted --Shizhao 19:43, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Deleted. — Dan | Talk 17:45, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

People seem to believe that images of coins and bills are public domain by default. The Swedish central bank claims on its web page [1] that it discourages the use of images of its currency and that is has so far not have to invoke its copyright. There is no reason to believe that the Riksbank has issued the currency to the public domain and the following images should be deleted:

• Image:Svezia 1 corona.JPG
• Image:Svezia 10 ore(2).JPG
• Image:Svezia 10 ore.JPG
• Image:Swedish 20 kronor.jpg
• Image:50 krornor bill with Jenny Lind.jpg

Thuresson 01:37, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

All deleted. — Dan | Talk 17:45, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Not image. No commons page--Shizhao 11:36, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Deleted.

Book cover, publish in 1997. fairuse, no free copyright --Shizhao 11:49, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Deleted. — Dan | Talk 17:45, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

1 banknote of Ringgit (Malaysian money). Money pic no copyright?--Shizhao 11:49, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's necessary to look into Malaysia copyright law. For example, in Belarus/Russia/Ukraine money are not copyrighted.

I wonder why this image licensed under GFDL. I think PD is more appropriate in this case.

EugeneZelenko 03:52, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Kept and re-tagged as PD. — Dan | Talk 17:45, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

These images originate from book published in 2001. Taken from Russian site which lack legal/publisher/author information (possible pirate copy). --EugeneZelenko 15:43, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

All deleted. — Dan | Talk 17:45, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• screenshot from a computer game, Thuresson 19:37, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

deleted as non-free screenshot -- Duesentrieb 23:16, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• REASON -- Title is wrong, corrected by Image:Inferno Canto 3 line 9.jpg
• ARGUMENTS -- The image appears at line 9 in Canto III and not line 27, my blunder. -User:Wikibob 00:27, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

deleted as requested by uploader -- Duesentrieb 23:16, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Image:Dci logo.jpg, Image:Magic worlds logo.jpg, Image:Magic protour logo.jpg, Image:Magic grandprix logo.jpg

• Copyrighted Logos. -guety 20:17, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

deleted because of copyright --Roger Zenner -!- 14:09, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• REASON: Title is wrong, corrected by Image:Inferno Canto 1 lines 87-88 Virgil.jpg
• ARGUMENT: The image appears in Canto I and not II, another blunder. -Wikibob 23:54, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

deleted, duplication --Roger Zenner -!- 14:09, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

NOTE: Please delete only the latest three versions of this image, the 7:09 20 Mar 2005, the 7:02 20 Mar 2005, and the 1:09 19 Mar 2005 versions.

• REASON: These are duplicates of the other versions on this page. I was unsuccessfully trying to load or revert to the 1:03 19 Mar 2005 version when I made these extra entries inadvertantly. I want the 1:03 19 Mar 2005 version to be the current one. H Padleckas 17:41, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

done as requested --Roger Zenner -!- 14:09, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No indication who this is. Image is needlessly processed. -- Paul Richter 09:04, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Maybe it is User:Garinps. -guety 16:13, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

wikipedia is not a personal webspace provider -> deleted --Roger Zenner -!- 14:09, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Low quality private family pic. imho no use for one of the projects. not to speak of licenses. --Elya 13:33, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

deleted --Roger Zenner -!- 14:17, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• REASON: Wrong name.
• ARGUMENTS: A new image with correct name exists in Image:Magnolia_fruit.jpg

deleted --Roger Zenner -!- 14:17, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

REASON: Copyright violation Pethan 19:44, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

deleted --Roger Zenner -!- 14:17, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

REASON: Copyright violation Pethan 19:44, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

deleted --Roger Zenner -!- 14:17, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• REASON: Wrong name.
• ARGUMENTS: A new image with correct name exists in Image:Magnolia_flowers.jpg

deleted --Roger Zenner -!- 14:17, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• REASON: No copyright status has been added for months.
• ARGUMENTS: Other photos by Doug Wechsler are clearly copyrighted material [2], hence I don't believe this photo to be any different. --Martin, Eichendorffschule 21:00, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

deleted --Roger Zenner -!- 14:17, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• REASON: Image is redundant
• ARGUMENTS: uploaded again as Laokoon1.jpg because of a name conflict with Laokoon.jpg in Wikipedia, since Laokoon1.jpg shows the statue after restauration and Laokoon.jpg from Wikipedia before the work, both should be kept.

kept, why then a deletion request? --Roger Zenner -!- 14:17, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• REASON: Image is redundant
• ARGUMENTS: uploaded again as Kos_Platane1.jpg because of a name conflict with english Wikipedia.

deleted "speedily", no need for discussion (i hope). -- Duesentrieb 23:09, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Category:Polish mountains should be renamed to Category:Mountains of Poland for consistency with similarly named categories. RedWolf 17:31, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

renamed and all content moved --Roger Zenner -!- 14:49, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• REASON: Wrong name (my mistake).
• ARGUMENTS: I have re-uploaded the same picture on Image:Sunrise_at_angkor_vat.jpg (wat => vat) Oxag 02:26, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

deleted --Roger Zenner -!- 11:37, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• REASON: Accidently uploaded the original version which is nearly uncompressed - a compressed version is availlable -- Srbauer 10:54, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Of course, when you modify an image, you should always upload the original first. But in this case, the first version was modified, too. I've gone ahead and uploaded the original unmodified version (which is even bigger!), so I won't object to deleting the 11:33, 21 Mar 2005 revision of this image. By the way, don't you think Image:Condoleezza Rice.jpg would have been a better name? Dbenbenn 23:26, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

deleted --Roger Zenner -!- 11:37, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Image:Mbegin.jpg (Menachem Begin)
• Image:Alan Perlis.jpg (Alan J. Perlis)
• Uploader has published both these photos with the comment "Assumed license due to publication on Wikipedia:GFDL" This is obviously a farfetched assumption since Wikipedia is filled to the the brim with stolen images. Also, adding the GFDL license for good measure does not change a thing. On English Wikipedia, the Alan Perlis image is lacking both a source and license and the Menachem Begin picture was deleted from en: yesterday. Thuresson 12:37, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

deleted --Roger Zenner -!- 11:37, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The page is empty, Image:Jk_beatles_george.jpg is missing. Sunny256 23:22, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

deleted --Roger Zenner -!- 11:37, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

wrong name, replaced by Image:Telescope cassegrain principe.png

Cdang 16:05, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Deleted. — Dan | Talk 01:08, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This image is used on Thomas7's French user page (fr:Utilisateur:Thomas7). This user uploaded it on Commons without mentioning its source. The problem is that the picture has been edited and is not a genuine reproduction : one could see an Nazi eagle and a svatiska twice on it on transparency, at the top of the picture (right and left). villy 18:46, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That is not the truth. Look for the history of this image. The user Thomas7f (not myself Thomas7 without f) is abusing my Userid and is uploading nazi-images to bring down my reputation. In the german wikipedia and as a queer I had conflicts with right wing Studentenverbindungen. This kind of mobbing is typical for their behaviour. The picture of the famous painter Adolph Menzel was imprinted with nazi-emblems in watermarks by this mobber. Menzel died in 1905, his pictures could be seen in international galeries and are public domain. The picture of Eduard Magnus is public domain too. My original computer image was without this watermark falsifications. I have reloaded the original file. The mobber try to camouflage by bringing citations of my discussion texts on his disuccion page. Thomas7 00:00, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Okay, the new upload is clean so I've removed the deletion tag. I have protected the image page to avoid new uploads for now and blocked Thomas7f. Yet, it is a shame that Commons becomes a new playground for the everlasting conflict between Thomas7 and evil restoftheworld. And I'm not sure that Thomas7 and Thomas7f are not the exact same person ... villy 06:38, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No, it is not a conflict between Thomas7 and evil restoftheworld, but a conflict between Thomas7 an group of right wing fans of right wing Studentenverbindungen. No I'm not this person Thomas7f, who tries to damage my reputation. You are trapped by this right-wing groups, if you give reasons, that thomas7 and thomas7f are the same person. Thomas7 00:29, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Kept. — Dan | Talk 01:08, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This image has been obsoleted by Image:Amoeba_Music_San_Francisco_Facade.jpg which is of better quality. The original was overly bright due to a miscalibrated monitor and appeared washed out.

Of course, when you modify an image, you should always upload the original unmodified image first. I went ahead and uploaded the "Exterior" washed-out version to "Facade". Otherwise I'd object to the deletion. Dbenbenn 23:34, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I didn't realize it was possible to replace an image. The original image I uploaded was brightened -- I had forgotten that the monitor I am currently using is dying and is too dark. The second image I uploaded was the original, not brightened at all, which I checked with a fully bright monitor and looks fine. I don't understand what you've done here, can you clarify? Why did you re-upload the poor quality washed-out version to the better quality facade? The washed-out version was a mistake and doesn't belong. --Bungopolis 00:39, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oh, my bad. You wrote "the original" above: I thought you meant the original from the camera. I assumed you had darkened the image with Photoshop or something. And "miscalibrated monitor" I thought meant "miscalibrated lightmeter". Sorry, Dbenbenn 01:30, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What I did exactly: I uploaded the bright version with the name "Amoeba_Music_San_Francisco_Facade.jpg". Then I clicked on the "rev" link in the "Image history" next to the version you uploaded. "rev" stands for "revert": I simply restored the dark version as the current one. The "(0 bytes)" is a bug.

It's possible to get that lighter version deleted from the "Image history" if you really want. Dbenbenn 01:34, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No problem, sorry about my confusing wording. Thanks for your help. --Bungopolis 02:30, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Deleted. — Dan | Talk 01:08, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This image is a collage out of several images. The image of asteroid Ceres is not free it is for educational and informational purposes only, see [3]: These images may be used by the public and the media for educational and informational purposes only.

That is how it is used, isn't it? It shouldn't be deleted, but rather the copyright notice amended accordingly.

Urhixidur 12:56, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sorry but this is not in accordance with the allowed licenses of the commons. I noticed that couse there was the very same image in de-wikipedia and it was deleted because of that (de-wikipedia has the same image conditions as the commons)

But (as I also I like the image itself) I would suggest to you to simply drop them a mail and ask for public domain use and I'm quite confident that they will do so. Arnomane 00:03, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A licence request is now pending. We'll see.

Urhixidur 14:25, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This image Image:1_Ceres,_2_Pallas,_4_Vesta_and_10_Hygiea.png has the same problem. Arnomane 07:15, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

deleted --Roger Zenner -!- 19:07, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Image:Margrethe2 10 ubt.jpeg
• Image:1pound2000back.jpg
• Image:1pound2000front.jpg
• Image:FiveSomKyrgizstan1997.jpg

Money images are not copyrighted in Kyrgizstan. Quote from Russian translation of Kyrgizstan's copyright law:

Статья 8. Произведения и подобные им результаты деятельности, не являющиеся объектами авторского права
Не являются объектами авторского права:
...
официальные символы и знаки (флаги, гербы, гимны, ордена, денежные знаки и т.п.);

I think this image should be labeled as PD. --EugeneZelenko 05:05, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

These images were tagged with the now-deleted Template:Money (see the archived discussion), which stated that some of them might be fair use; I am therefore listing them here in the hope that someone familiar with copyrights on money will know which are public domain and which are not. — Dan | Talk 17:29, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As stated here : « The copyright on the design of the common face of the euro coins belongs to the European Community represented by the Commission. The European Commission has assigned to each of the Member States adopting the euro all the Community rights as regards the territory of such Member State. The Commission will assign the copyright to the other Member States once they adopt the euro. ». Though their their reproduction regime allow photographs, it's still copyrighted content not for commons: (ex: derivativ works of the photos released under gfdl could be an infringement with commission copyright).

• Image:TheEuroCoins.jpg
• Image:Eurokolikko.jpg
• Image:Euro coins.jpg
• Image:Edge 5eurct 1eurct.jpg
• Image:Edge 20eurct.jpg
• Image:Edge 50eurct 10eurct.jpg
• Image:Edge 1eur.jpg
• Image:Edge 2eur.jpg

FoeNyx 21:07, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Image:Coins.jpg - I don't sure that this image should be deleted but it contains same kind of coins. --EugeneZelenko 15:09, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I added the deletion request tag on it. FoeNyx 18:37, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you are perfectly right. It's a fact that the ECB owns the copyright for euro coins (and for the banknotes, but shuush!, dont tell anyone). But it is also a fact that the ECB does not take any action against a person violating this copyright unless he does anything really evil... Let's keep cool. Law is not to irk people but to protect them. So I think we should see over the "copyright violation" in this case. Every big store - e.g. ALDI does it in its advertisements every small store does it in its ads... By the way... You have concerns about copyrighted work on Wikimedia Commons? I have a hint for you, underhand... All the images on this page are copyrighted. Maybe someone should propose them for deletion...
What I want to say is: please don't delete the euro-pics. a) we would lie on ourselfes (because s.o. would upload the pics in a wikipedia instead of uploading it here at commons) b) we would take unneccessary action. again: ecb doesnt care unless we do s.th. bad —King 00:55, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Every GPL and GFDL image on Commons is copyrighted. This does not mean we cannot use them. The question is whether or not they are available for use under a free license. silsor 21:49, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is not a question of risk, it is a question of principle. Commons is not the right place to match any copyright law. Commons need a clean database that can be used everywhere in the world without question nor fear. In my opinion, there is no question that this material has to be deleted. Contrarily to what you've said, I can't see any copyright infringement on this page. again: ecb doesnt care unless we do s.th. bad : I'm not going to be comfy if we are supposed to wait for a counterfactor to get his material from here to take care of the situation. Again, Commons is based on free material. This is quite simple actually. You next step will be predictably to accept Fair Use in here ... villy 20:12, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi villy, this dream is proofed to be wrong. Think of usage restriction in North Korea, China or Kuba. Even think of usage restriction in germany or france. Usage restriction of every picture must be proofed in every wikipedia and according to local law. You have to accept reality, that GFDL is not the world and not the answer to all questions. Please keep in mind, that certain words have usage restriction, there actually was a lawsuit concerning the WORD Düsseldorf (500000 € penalty, no joke!). And tell me about clean database. Is this another word for empty database?

However, there are usage restrictions. These may be comparable to ones of the coat of arms. Please ask your local bank of issue. Pictures of currency must be published in a very certain way. We should accept these conditions and should keep pictures with currencies -- Stahlkocher 18:26, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I cannot make head or tail of this. This is not a question of "local law" — this is a question of copyright law, which is somewhat standardized under the Berne agreement. Those images are copyrighted by the ECB, and we do not have authorization, period. Nobody talked about the GFDL. David.Monniaux 19:04, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Guys, don't panic. I have found this, an official website of the ECB where you can upload all kinds of Euro images (photos) "for your use". There are no restrictions noted. It seems the ECB wants to use "us" those images. So we don't have to care about a deletion anymore. CON DELETION Mattes 22:50, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Even if Commission (European Central Bank own (c) on bills see next entry) allow reproduction in photographs, as they own the (c) it's not releasable in GFDL. Here the restrictions on derivative work (which is part of gfdl or ccbysa):

FoeNyx 00:23, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I do not understand it and I do not have an answer to my question! The images on this page are NOT released under the GNU FDL. So please do not tell me that the missing GNU-license for the Euro-Pictures is a problem! You apply double standards and this is not ok! —King 21:07, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The problem is not the missing of GNU-license, it is the GFDL license put on thoses pictures while that content can not be released under that license. —FoeNyx 15:38, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You do not want to understand me, do you? If the problem was the wrong declaration, we had to put a different copyright-note below the euro-pics. but you want to delete them, because they are not usable without restrictions. I say it once again: the use of the wikimedia-logos is restricted like the euro's is! —King 18:00, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikimedia logos are indeed copyrighted King. The owner is Wikimedia Foundation, since the copyright of most of these have been assigned to WMFoundation or are about to be assigned. Which makes their reproduction on Commons, a WMFoundation projetc, perfectly valid. On the other hand, WMFoundation does not own copyrights on Euro coins and banknotes. Do you get it now ? villy 18:09, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete I trust villy and his view as a judge. I do not see any point to trust Stahlkocher. If I want to know about law I ask a lawyer and not some person trying to understand law the way he does. --Paddy 19:23, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

delete I also prefer trusting villy.. If commons isnt free without restrictions, it would be better to cancel the whole project. --Crux 19:34, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

delete reason see villy --193.159.105.94 19:40, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC) delete I believe villy and Foenyx have made it quite clear that we cannot use those pictures. notafish }<';>

These images must be deleted. This is a question of copyright infringement, not copyright. silsor 21:49, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

From europa.eu.int :

What about Image:Eurovatican.jpg then ? does someone know about Vatican's copyright law ? FoeNyx 14:51, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Euro bills have « (c) BCE » on them ... as stated here

• Image:PIC 0258.PNG
• Image:Euro banknotes.jpg
• Image:Security features 50EURO.jpg
• Image:Euro-1 neu2.jpg

FoeNyx 21:07, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

These Pictures are ok, because they can´t be used for creating false banknotes. Only picture suitable for creating false notes are banned (very high resolution scans of full notes without "specimen" oder "void" on them i.e.). (btw: ever read the last sentence of the above quote?!?) GNU-FDL would be wrong. PD would be it. Keep them. ((o)), Ja, bitte?!? 08:43, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The problem here is the licences of the images : you can not release by yourself a picture under gfdl if you do not hold the copyright on the content except if you have autorization to do so. Here you have right of reproduction, not to release under gfdl. —FoeNyx 16:01, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

all Euro-related pictures have been deleted --Roger Zenner -!- 19:07, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

image have deleted. --Shizhao 14:39, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

done --Roger Zenner -!- 19:07, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I just cannot image how this could be in any way useful. -- Paul Richter 05:54, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I want to show the capabilities of payable astronomical telescopes in comparison to the images of cassini-huygens in the article Titan (Moon) in the german wikipedia if someone wants to observate the moon Titan. The image shows , what you can see practically, if you have a telescope which has an enlargement of 200x. The paragraph were I use the image is about the optical observation of titan. I hope that explains the usefulness of this image. DO NOT DELETE IT. --kl833x9 22:05, 27 Mar 2005 (CEST)

Baaad quality, deleted --Roger Zenner -!- 19:07, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Converted to PNG - Image:Regular space.png. --Fibonacci 06:43, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

deleted --Roger Zenner -!- 19:07, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Converted to PNG - Image:Normal space.png. --Fibonacci 06:43, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

deleted --Roger Zenner -!- 19:07, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

tbd April 3

Uploader to Commons claims it's from es: Spanish Wikipedia claims es:Imagen:Sallende.jpg comes from en: The image on english Wikipedia en:Image:Sallende.jpg is uploaded by the notorious en:User:J.J.

The same, local, image is used by es, en, nl and sv but none of them have a license tag or source. Thuresson 10:21, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Deleted. silsor 01:16, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Uploader refers to a fair use provision in the Chilean copyright law which allows for cultural, scientific and educational use

• Image:Allende nacionalizacion del cobre.JPG
• Image:SalvadorAllende-victoria.JPG
• Image:Pablo Neruda.JPG
• Image:Allende balcon de la Moneda.JPG
• Image:Allende conferencia.JPG
• Image:Allende cadaver.JPG
• Image:Fidel Afiche.JPG
• Image:Fidel Castro2.JPG
• Image:Fidel y Allende.jpg
• Image:Allende Caricatura.jpg
• Image:PinochetFotoOficial.JPG

Uploader claims its from a specific source, but source most likely does not own the copyright.

• Image:Allende-salvador-.jpg

Thuresson 10:48, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please visit the page www.cepchile.cl , they saw Permitida su reproducción en conformidad al artículo 38 de la Ley 17.336 sobre Propiedad Intelectual. in english The material this site can be reproduced accordance with Article 38 of the Chilean Law 17.336 on Copyright. In chile don\u2019t have fair use, this are used whit page expressly it allows it(excuse me I don\u2019t speak english). Napoleón333 13:15, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Web page claims: The material in this site can be only reproduced in accordance with Article 38 of the Chilean Law 17.336 on Copyright. Copyright Centro de Estudios Públicos © Santiago, Chile, 2003. As long as uploader do not provide more specific URL:s which prove images are in fact PD, they should be deleted. Thuresson 01:54, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Deleted. silsor 01:16, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Description page without image. --Baikonur 14:31, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Probably deleted, image was identical to Image:Adolf Hitler und Benito Mussolini in München 1940.jpg, Thuresson 01:54, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Deleted. silsor 01:16, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This image is listed at en:Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because nobody has so far credibly shown that the image is PD or GFDL. Despite its listing there, one user uploaded the image to Commons. A fair use claim can be made for including it elsewhere, but it should be deleted from Commons. Thuresson 20:15, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Deleted. silsor 01:16, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

tbd April 5

BBS screenshot. fair use no free copyright--Shizhao 07:31, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Deleted by persons unknown. silsor 02:55, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Logos uploaded by Brutu

All the logos uploaded by User:Brutu lack license tags and are probably copyright violations. Because I have no time to do so, they aren't individually tagged for deletion. --Baikonur 13:04, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• All deleted as well as their custom categories. silsor 03:08, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The maps in Category:Portuguese districts were uploaded from portugese Wikipedia by User:GloriosoRocha claiming they are GFDL. They are in fact only used by permission on Portugese Wikipedia and clearly marked as such. Hence the following images should be deleted:

• Image:Local PT Distrito Aveiro.png (from pt:Imagem:LocalDistritoAveiro.png)
• Image:Local PT Distrito Beja.png (from pt:Imagem:LocalDistritoBeja.png)
• Image:Local PT Distrito Braga.png (from pt:Imagem:LocalDistritoBraga.png)
• Image:Local PT Distrito Bragança.png (from pt:Imagem:LocalDistritoBraganca.png)
• Image:Local PT Distrito Castelo Branco.png (from pt:Imagem:LocalDistritoCasteloBranco.png)
• Image:Local PT Distrito Coimbra.png (from pt:Imagem:LocalDistritoCoimbra.png)
• Image:Local PT Distrito Faro.png (from pt:Imagem:LocalDistritoFaro.png)
• Image:Local PT Distrito Guarda.png (from pt:Imagem:LocalDistritoGuarda.png)
• Image:Local PT Distrito Leiria.png (from pt:Imagem:LocalDistritoLeiria.png)
• Image:Local PT Distrito Lisboa.png (from pt:Imagem:LocalDistritoLisboa.png)
• Image:Local PT Distrito Portalegre.png (from pt:Imagem:LocalDistritoPortalegre.png)
• Image:Local PT Distrito Porto.png (from pt:Imagem:LocalDistritoPorto.png)
• Image:Local PT Distrito Santarém.png (from pt:Imagem:LocalDistritoSantarem.png)
• Image:Local PT Distrito Setúbal.png (from pt:Imagem:LocalDistritoSetubal.png)
• Image:Local PT Distrito Viana do Castelo.png (from pt:Imagem:LocalDistritoVianaDoCastelo.png)
• Image:Local PT Distrito Vila Real.png (from pt:Imagem:LocalDistritoVilaReal.png)
• Image:Local PT Distrito Viseu.png (from pt:Imagem:LocalDistritoViseu.png)
• Image:Local PT Distrito Évora.png (from pt:Imagem:LocalDistritoEvora.png)

Thuresson 14:08, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

These are not the only maps that should be deleted from Commons. In fact, all the portuguese subnational maps (Category:Maps of Portugal) should be deleted from commons because they were either made by me or made by changing my maps. My maps cannot be in commons because I made them using someone else's map as basis. Even if I changed the original map substantially, my maps are not entirely original work and therefore I cannot put them under GFDL unless the author of the original map agrees to it. So far, he didn't. The maps were used in the portuguese wikipedia under fair use. This is the only reason for the deletion of these images. But I thik I should also stress out that until commons behaves linguistically in a way that I'm satisfied with, these maps will always remain under a non-GFDL license (unless the original author puts his map under GFDL, in which case I'll have no option but to put mine under GFDL as well). Jorge

• The original images have been deleted. The other four categories have also been emptied and deleted. silsor 03:28, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Replaced by the larger, better-named version at Image:C Phrygian dominant scale.png. --bdesham 18:38, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Deleted. silsor

Well-known (but still copyright) "Every_time_you_masturbate..._God_kills_a_kitten"-image. -- Steve

Same user also uploaded Image:Cliche-DomokunKitten.jpg which is all but identical. Delete also. Thuresson 01:21, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Both deleted. silsor 02:55, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This image has been renamed Image:La_Palma-MAGIC_Telescope.jpg as the old name was incorrect -- Rnt20 08:44, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A new copy has been created, and it is misleading to leave an old version which is called something which it is not -- Rnt20 08:44, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Deleted. silsor 02:55, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This image is not PD. If you follow the link to the NARA site [4] you will find this photo is copyrighted by the Associated Press. Per NARA: Generally, materials produced by Federal agencies are in the public domain and may be reproduced without permission. However, not all materials appearing on this Web site are in the public domain. Some materials have been donated or obtained from individuals or organizations and may be subject to restrictions on use. [5] As copyrighted this image should not be on Commons. --Wgfinley 17:37, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Today I received an email from counsel at AP granting Wikipedia use of this photo and another. The photo needs to be attributed and cannot be redistributed. Since this is a nonfree license this image should be removed from Commons and has already been moved to Wikipedia where I will be so noting the file. --Wgfinley 21:02, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

From NARA: (ARC identifier 520748) " Creator: Department of Defense. Department of the Navy. Naval Photographic Center. Restrictions: Unrestricted. Use Restrictions: Unrestricted" Thuresson 18:10, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It may be unrestricted for NARA to use but not the public. I talked to AP on this image and others today and they have denied permission and confirmed this image is not PD. --Wgfinley 18:15, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Seems like Wgfinley has a case. Thuresson 18:41, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I would be among the list of those who would love to use it, sadly isn't looking possible. --Wgfinley 18:54, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• One seems to be wrong, AP or the US-administration. Why don´t you call 301-837-3530 for the NARA office and ask there for a permission or clarification? I doesn't make to much sense to me for calling someone who sells pictures for proofing one of its pictures to be in public domain. It is the same in germany, where you can buy pictures (at high resolution) which content is public domain. -- Stahlkocher 18:01, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well known fact this photo was taken by Joe Rosenthal of the AP, it won the Pullitzer Prize, AP owns the image, there is no doubt about that. NARA makes it clear they have copyrighted work on their site and it is up to the user to obtain permissions to use it. Here's some independent confirmation of the copyright though [6] --Wgfinley 18:49, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• A little note: the works of US government employees during their duties falls automatically into the public domain; however, this does not extend to government contractors, employees of press agencies embedded in military units, etc. Rosenthal was not a soldier (who would be an employee of the US government), but was employed by AP. Unless AP has released the picture into the public domain (which it hasn't, from what they say), they own the copyright. I suspect that the National Archives have a wrong "use restrictions" field. In all cases, we should contact them. David.Monniaux 19:20, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I've just deleted this picture, considering AP friendly attitude for a limited use outside Commons. villy 21:25, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

tbd 6 April

Images from 1929 are not public domain by default and the uploader has previously uploaded copyrighted material. Thuresson 16:10, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Agreed, the photographer could be alive and kicking today, which would make a copyright apply. notafish }<';> 09:42, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Deleted. silsor 07:57, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Der Hochladende hat das Bild mit {{PD}} versehen. Es liefert die Worte \u201cThis file has been released into the public domain by the copyright holder, its copyright has expired, or it is ineligible for copyright. This applies worldwide.\u201d Oder, oder, oder, aber was denn nun? Auf der Bildbeschreibungsseite hat der Uploader keine Begründung geliefert. Auf seiner Benutzerdiskussionsseite hat der Hochladende zwar auf eine Anfrage bezüglich des Bildes geantwortet, jedoch konnte ich die Antwort \u2012 bis auf die \u201efreundliche\u201c Empfehlung an Breeze \u2012 nicht nachvollziehen. --Blaite 16:59, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

DELETE The Bürgel website claims "(c)2004 BÜRGEL Wirtschafsinformationen GmbH & Co. KG" [7]. Thuresson 17:38, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete -guety 00:44, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC) (and maybe block User:Anonymus when he continious like this) sorry for this -guety

Delete Sicher gibt es ein Copyright dazu. notafish }<';> 09:45, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Deleted. silsor 08:00, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not PD, didn't find any info about the copyright. I checked de, en, fr, it, ja, nl, sv, not being used in any of them. I removed it from pt. -- Get_It • 20:49, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Deleted by Duesentrieb. silsor 07:57, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Unknown, can't find any info about the copyright. I'll remove the image from articles at WP:PT, the only project using it. -- Get_It • 21:03, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Deleted by Duesentrieb. silsor 07:57, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This image is IMO not Public Domain. -- Breeze 20:24, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep This is video of the shooting from the Columbine High School, the school is a public school and as such I believe the video is in PD. --Wgfinley 18:56, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What are the laws of the State of Colorado on this (as you know, the PD thing applies to the US government and some state governments, but not all)? How about, possibly, laws restricting the distribution of CCTV images, or pictures on which victims appear? David.Monniaux 09:09, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - Image is possibly from en: who lacks source and license. Court evidence is PD I believe - but this never became a court case. Thuresson 03:17, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Not deleted since discussion is inconclusive. Please leave this entry on deletion requests for now. silsor 07:57, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep; 67.71.121.57 12:01, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: the image is on wikipedia is as fair use, however see the talk page en:Image_talk:Eric_harris_dylan_klebold.jpg which indicates it's public domain. See also the link to http://www.co.jefferson.co.us/ext/dpt/officials/sheriff/chsmaterials.htm -- Joolz 23:18, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Jefferson County sheriff's office has a long list of material [8] that is available to the public for a small fee. For most of this material, a citizen can only get access to it after agreeing that it will not be used for commercial purposes. However, this "non-commercial use" requirement does not include the video footage from the cafeteria and it could be argued that the video footage likely is public domain. Thuresson 02:34, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep when in doubt,don't delete. 67.71.121.57 11:59, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

tbd April 7

Warner Bros. still own the copyright to this 1942 movie, don't they? Or is it Ted Turner? Still, it's not PD or GFDL. Thuresson 00:36, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I looked up for Casablanca at www.copyright.gov and did not found this movie, but the TV-Series Casablanca. Someone should prove this. -- Stahlkocher 18:47, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I looked it upp too: registration number PA-431-870, registered 1943, renewed 1970. Thuresson

The movie does date from 1942, and thus, by default, it is copyrighted. Unless somebody finds a reason why this image should be PD, we can presume with great certainty that it is copyrighted without a free license, and it should be removed. David.Monniaux 09:16, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Deleted. silsor 11:19, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Uploader claims that this aerial photograph of the Scandinavium Arena is PD but did not leave a source to substantiate this. Image looks like a cropped version of the image used at [9] or [10]. Same image was uploaded to en: by a known copyright violator and marked with PD. Thuresson 03:43, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC) Deleted. silsor 11:19, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The licence is wrong. The source is en, and in en is the source de. I know, that an administrator in de deleted this image, because it had no licence. BTW, in en is also no licence. -- Breeze 18:06, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I have deleted this, created a new version in Inkscape and uploaded it with the same filename. silsor 11:52, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)