Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2005/04

Image is PD? copyvio--Shizhao 06:05, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Deleted. silsor 11:59, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There have been suggestions on EN that the first revision of Image:Autofellatio.jpg is a copyvio. At the very least, its copyright status is suspect, so it should not be hosted here. Dbenbenn 23:07, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I have not found a discussion in which it was suspected that this image i a copyvio.

Could you provide a link and cite the relevant portion ? Maybe you refer to the photo and not the drawing ? --Mononoke 13:30, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the 21:38, 12 Feb 2005 version, as indicated above. See [1] for a long discussion of the same image on the English Wikipedia. Dbenbenn 08:03, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Deleted. silsor 11:59, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The image is tagged {{GFDL}}, with a link to [2] that does not indicate anything about the GFDL. The user's other contributions are suspicious, too. Dbenbenn 20:51, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Inconclusive. silsor 11:59, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Koko has failed to respond to multiple requests for information at User talk:Koko. Dbenbenn 19:50, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Is a clear copyvio --Sanbec 13:12, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Deleted by Thuresson 22:17, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Image:Lubinariane.jpg
• Image:Lubinisolde.jpg
• Image:Lubinbruennhilde.jpg
• Image:Lubinkarajan.jpg
• Image:Mazeppa1.jpg
• Image:Poliuto1.jpg
• Image:Callas19.jpg
• Image:Renato1.jpg
• Image:LilliLehmann.jpg
• Image:Lehmannlilly.jpg
• Image:Giuseppe Di Stefano.jpg
• Image:Litvinnenew.jpg
• Image:Germaine.jpg
• Image:Dseverac.jpg
• Image:JuiveLehman1.gif
• Image:Claude Arrieu.jpg
• Image:Renata Scotto1.jpg
• Image:Andre-gedalge.jpg
• Image:Guiraud3.jpg
• Image:ROVO - KNM! (Feat. no one version).ogg
• Image:Reynaldo Hahn.jpg
• Image:Théodore Dubois.jpg
• Image:Cécile chaminade.jpg
• Image:Daniel Aubert1.jpg
• Image:Antoine-François Marmontel.jpg

no licence and no source. If you know it, add it please. User informed. -- Breeze 08:47, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

These Lehmann images must be taken at around 1890-1910 during her best time. Your decision how to tag this. -- Stahlkocher 17:48, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Deleted due to no information on source or copyright here or on the image pages. silsor 18:47, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Looks like copyvio. http://www.tallinn.ee/linnaosade_valitsused -- Breeze 09:32, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Deleted. silsor 19:02, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Typing error (sorry!!) Picture correctly re-uploaded using the name Image:Fokker100aircraft-at-cologne-bonn-airport.JPG -- Mg22 11:01, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Deleted silsor 16:13, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There appears to be some discrepancy as to what licence it is under. It is listed here as Public DOmain, but on the Danish licence it specifically states that the image is used with permission of Odense university. Peregrine981 11:08, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

da: claims that the photo is taken by Thora Hallager, a photographer and Andersen's landlady. Details about the photo here (in Danish). According to [3], Hallager died in 1884, so the photo should be PD. Permission from a museum or university is not necessary. Thuresson 12:56, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Deleted by User:Richie. silsor 01:31, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No licence in commons and en. Source is en:Image:Karnak02.jpg. If you know the licence, add it please. -- Breeze 11:09, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Deleted. silsor 01:31, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No licence in commons and fr. Source is fr:Image:DeGaulle2.jpg. If you know the licence, add it please. -- Breeze 11:09, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, very likely not PD, see en:Image talk:Cdgaulle.jpg. Thuresson 13:08, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Deleted. silsor 01:31, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No licence in commons. In ru is no image. If you know the licence, please add it. -- Breeze 11:09, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Deleted. silsor 01:31, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No licence in commons and en. Source is en:Image:Viet-coa.PNG. If you know the licence, please add it. -- Breeze 11:22, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Deleted. silsor 01:31, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No licence. I'm not sure here, then in de:Bild:Nordholland.png stands: "da wohl kaum schutzwürdig". In nl is nothing: nl:Afbeelding:Noord-holland.png. If you are sure about the licence, please add it. -- Breeze 12:07, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Keep, just created a HiRes version. Delete the old if you want, but I say there is nothing creative with this, so there is no Copyright. -guety 02:39, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I deleted the deletionrequest. Keep it. -- Breeze 07:56, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image:Daugavpils.gif Image:Jelgava.gif Image:Riga.gif Image:Liepaja.gif Image:Ventspils.gif We don't know, why these images should be PD. -- Breeze 12:07, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Deleted, no substantiation of PD claims. silsor 02:14, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not clear wich licence, no source. If you know the licence, please add it. -- Breeze 10:04, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

On second thought, User:Smartech has been uploading many copyvio ESA images and this is probably one of them. silsor 19:04, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

More comments? The edit summary says "GFPL" which is not a license. silsor 01:07, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Deleted by Ed g2s April 16, 2005

• Image:Wizards of the Coast headquarters.jpg
• Image:Vigeland1 small.jpg
• Image:Aberystwyth-peace-rally.jpg
• Image:Emily 2.jpg
• Image:\u015aw. Józef.jpg
• Image:MTG Colorwheel.png
• Image:David Yang.jpg
• Image:462px-Francis Runner grandcoulee.jpg
• Image:KFOR-ukraincy.jpg
• Image:Coffee Plantation.jpg
• Image:Cnossos.jpg
• Image:P3092491.jpg
• Image:Farc-logo.gif
• Image:Ragdoll models tutorial reference.png
• Image:Capture1.jpg
• Image:Tatarstanmap.png
• Image:Berlin.gif

If you know the licence, add it please. -- Breeze 12:48, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Deleted all except for Image:\u015aw. Józef.jpg and Image:KFOR-ukraincy.jpg. The upload descriptions for these two appear to be Polish. Can anyone read them? silsor 01:47, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • The caption for Image:\u015aw. Józef.jpg was translated by Ausir and it reads "Picture in St. Joseph sanctuary in Kalisz. Picture taken by myself in March 2005", so this picture is GFDL. The caption for Image:KFOR-ukraincy.jpg reads "Ukrainian soldiers on patrol near the Serbian town of Brezowica", so it will be deleted as having no license or source Ausir has volunteered to email the uploader to find out the source. silsor 09:41, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Deleted it, it was a fair use picture from en:. Ausir 13:01, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Image:Emily Remler 1.jpg
• Image:Delaware state seal.png
• Image:Daron 1.jpg
• Image:Charles.jpg
• Image:Ch be flag.gif
• Image:Centralna banka Bosne i Hercegovine.jpg
• Image:Ceba.jpeg
• Image:Cayman Islands coat of arms.png
• Image:Carmona.jpg
• Image:Bielefeld.png
• Image:Belarus-anthem.mid
• Image:Begova d\u017eamija.jpg
• Image:Ball2.jpg
• Image:Area under curve.png
• Image:Jp1900.jpg
• Image:Josef Mengele.jpg
• Image:NorthOssetia-AlaniaCoatofArms.png
• Image:MordoviaCoatofArms.png
• Image:Isaf.jpg
• Image:DSCF0357.JPG
• Image:Ilja Ehrenburg 60s.jpg
• Image:Hotel dubai fawad.jpg
• Image:Horns.jpg
• Image:Gulf of Corinth.JPG
• Image:Ewkaorden.jpg
• Image:Europe Paris-005.JPG
• Image:Eu euro ermII.png

No licence. If you know the licence, add it please. -- Breeze 13:48, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Deleted all except for Image:Gulf of Corinth.JPG. How should this one be labelled? silsor 02:08, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Probably GFDL, but I asked the uploader on his/her talkpage to add the license. Thuresson 12:20, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image:Pooh.jpg

While the photography was put under GFDL, the subject itself has a design owned by the Walt Disney Company. I'm unsure about the law on this.

Keep. IANAL, but the photograph looks to me like it's far enough back that it isn't a "slavish imitation" of Disney's copyrighted design. Dbenbenn 19:23, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Even imitations are subject of copyvio IMHO. Ask villy (or someone else) he might know. But do not say keep if not sure. "I do not know" helps. Otherwise it is just an opinion like a IMHO and IANAL and that does not help really. --Paddy 21:18, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"do not say keep if not sure." Well, do not say delete if not sure. Anyway, see [4] for a closely related case. A photograph of a Skyy vodka bottle was held to be copyrighted by the photographer, not Skyy. Dbenbenn 21:16, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete. The court case is interesting in itself but I don't quite see that it is closely related. The question one should ask is if this photograph could be used by anybody for any reason without violating The Walt Disney Company's copyright? Could I sell T-shirts with this photo on the front? I'm sure I would be sued and sentenced. See also Image:Tex edhistorica001.jpg and Image:Lucky luke1.JPG that was listed on this page April 15. Thuresson 19:14, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We can't take all kinds of copyright legislation all around the world into account to figure out if something is free enough. That would be the consequence if were always to ask if this image could be used by anybody for any reason without violating someone's copyright. Of course you could sell T-shirts with this photo on as long as you removed "Pooh" which probably is a trademark of the Walt Disney Company, and not copyrighed. If you were to be sued you'd be sued over the copyright of the teddy bear itself. I think:-) --Dittaeva 12:37, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Agree with Thuresson. --Wgfinley 08:06, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Imitations are not subject to copyright imo. It is also the only possible way to illustrate articles in countries where 'fair-use' is not allowed. Michiel1972 19:34, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. What? So some rival animation company could make a series of Winnie the Pooh because their drawings are an imitation? Of course not. Disney has a copyright on the image. If it is imitation merchandise, it was sold illegaly. ed g2s • talk 09:40, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, I think. James F. (talk) 12:41, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Are you perhaps confusing copyright with trademarks, or are you arguing that it is a violation of the design of the teddy bear, or are you arguing that Disney by default has copyright on any work resembling the Pooh? If you argue on the grounds of the design I think there are a bunch of other pictures that would have to be removed too (a bunch of artworks f. ex.). --Dittaeva 12:37, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Yann 10:46, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Image kept for now, Thuresson 11:31, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I made an type in the name: this stadium is called Gelredome and not Geldredome. I uploaded the correctly-named file afterwards. But the image Geldredome.jpg should de deleted. My apologies! MartinD 09:52, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Done. David.Monniaux 19:07, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you! MartinD 10:16, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Image:Titan_composed_view2.jpg
• Image:Titan_colour.jpg
• Image:Titan_view_8km.jpg
• Image:Titan_composed_view.jpg
• Image:105738main_Crop0-H1-300-215.jpg

Again I found some ESA images that have to be deleted. Although they are from a NASA website the credit line says explicitely that they are from ESA and others. And ESA only allows the use of its images for educational and non commercial purposes only. And yes I have put very much energy in convincing ESA changing this silly image policy and I'm in contact with one ESA representative that wants to change this policy but the ESA officials have not decided yet. As long as their image policy is as it is now there is no chance in keeping these very nice and interesting images. Arnomane 10:51, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Done. David.Monniaux 19:11, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Image:SDP logo.png

Logotype of the Social Democratic Party of Finland, [5].

• Image:Jatkasaari tulevaisuudessa.jpg
• Image:Ruoholahtimerelta.jpg
• Image:Lansisatama pohjoisesta.jpg

Maps from the Helsinki local administration website, [6]. Copyright information here. Thuresson 02:21, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Deleted by Thuresson 10:26, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Image:Pope John Paul II elected.jpg
• Image:Pope JohnPaul II first time.jpg
• Image:Karol Wojtyla at 12.jpg

The source for these photos, an online store claim that they are "free photos", not that they are public domain.

It is likely that these photos dont belong to the online store neither. It seems they are really public photos. If you look carefully you will see that the store sells crucifixes, rosaries and postcards. They are not selling exclusive photos of the pope. So, when they wrote "free" I think that they wanted to mean that the photos are public domain. What do other people think about it?--Carlosar 01:40, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think they mean free speech, not free beer. Thuresson 04:35, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am trying to contact them. --Carlosar 11:47, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm praying for you Carlosar <grin> --HiFlyer 21:48, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think we must be sure about the freedom (as in speech) of a photo/image before using it on commons. --Patrick-br 16:04, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Image:Jp2koran.jpg
• Image:Jp2buddhist.jpg
• Image:Jp2wcc.jpg
• Image:Jp2hindu.jpg
• Image:Jp2assisi.jpg

The source for these images is an anti-John Paul II website. They claim that everything on the website is without copyright, but don't give any credible reason to believe that include the photographs. Also, they request that all publication of the photos are accompanied with a link to the web site. Thuresson 16:38, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think these should be deleted. Ausir 14:23, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Deleted by Thuresson 10:26, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

These two images should have never been. (Obsoleted by Image:Copper cathode.png and Image:Zinc anode.png). I need to study redox some more. -- Josh Lee 20:01, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Deleted by Thuresson 10:26, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This was converted by User:Campani from the media files at [7] and tagged as public domain. Unfortunately, the bottom of that page says otherwise, as does en:I Have a Dream. This seems like a clear copyright violation. silsor 19:42, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• ARGUMENTS -- The recording is not being commercially sold, nor are there any current copyright registrations on record (http://www.copyright.gov/records/cohm.html).

  No we need commercial use. Non commercial only is not sufficient for us. Despite that you don't need to registrate a record to get it copyrighted. This is unlike patents. The author has a copyright immediatly without registration. As long as he doesn't say anything else, all rights are reserved. Arnomane 06:25, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

For the umpteenth time: since many decades in the US, copyright belongs to the author without any need for registration. Your argument about the speech not being commercially sold (and Wikipedia being educational) would be good for a "fair use" defense, but the policy on commons is not to include "fair use" data. David.Monniaux 08:35, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Can't add much more to what Arnomane and David said. --Wgfinley 08:07, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Deleted by Thuresson 22:20, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Image:Vega-ESA.jpg
• Image:Huygens_surface_color.jpg

They also need to be deleted. Arnomane 07:12, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Done. David.Monniaux 09:12, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Image:Huygens_surface_color.jpg is still there --Bricktop 10:25, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • It was re-uploaded by User:Smartech on April 5. Deleted again. silsor 16:16, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am listing this for deletion because it was listed before and deleted, but then recreated by the user who had first uploaded it. It should be discussed here. silsor 21:56, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• The image is a screenshot of Windows XP. The user argues on the image page that "It is not a copyright violation to take a picture of a Windows XP desktop, no more than it is to use a picture of an iPod." Is this true? I argue that the statement in Template:Screenshot is true instead. silsor 21:56, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • If the user's argument is true any movie screenshot or anything that was scanned by the uploader could be uploaded to Commons. Thuresson 05:15, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Deleted, uploader is wrong. ed g2s • talk 16:36, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Good job, now go to Wikipedia and apply the same policy, which will only require the deletion of about 5000 files. Ludicrous.--Naryathegreat 22:13, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This already is policy on most wikipedias, the en:wp however allows screenshots as fair use. Note that the policy of the commons is the smalles common denominator of the policies of the different projects - if you want screenshots and logos on the en:wp, upload them there. Do not upload them to the commons, because they can not be used freely in most places. Have a look at Commons:Licensing, please. -- Duesentrieb 23:31, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Image:Finland coa.png (could it be PD?)
  • Added PD
• Image:Smectic phase development.jpg
  • License, source added
• Image:Kirkeugle.jpg
  • License, source added

• Image:Rmh.jpg, Image:Kirche.jpg, Image:Peinture de JFS.jpg
  • Deleted by Thuresson 18:08, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No license, if you know it, add it. \u2014Breeze 14:26, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image:Robert schuman.jpg, photograph from 1958 + (year of photographer's death + 70 years) > 2005. This picture do not seems to be in public domain as stated. \u2014FoeNyx 21:03, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Photo from Deutsche Historische Museum (www.dhm.de). They claim copyright on most images in their image databank and I can't see that they have released this to the public domain. Deleted by me. Thuresson 04:37, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Image:Wolfowitz paul.jpg
• Image:Wm buuhh.gif
• Image:Oud stadhuis.jpg
• Image:Regional Flag.jpg
• Image:Ratzinger.jpg
• Image:Rain1th53.jpg
• Image:Oleg popov.jpg
  • Tagged as PD-Soviet, Thuresson
• Image:Pic message 1.gif
• Image:Pasierb.jpg Deleted by Thuresson
• Image:Orden Kiril Metodiy.jpg
  • Asked uploader for information, Thuresson
    • Image comes from a recent photo on a web page, deleted.
• Image:PA220028.JPG
• Image:PapuaNewGuinea coa.png
• Image:Republic of China National Emblem.png
• Image:Ranizow herb.jpg
• Image:Portrait of Ping Xiao 2004.jpg
• Image:Pius xi.jpg
  • he died in 1939 - so it is maybe old enough to be PD? ...Sicherlich 15:35, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Maybe, but not sure. \u2014Breeze 16:29, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No licence, if you know it, please add it. -- Breeze 09:37, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Deleted all of these except one. Thuresson 07:19, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wrong name, no category nor linked page & I'm very dubious about the licence, claimed to be a Copyrighted free use provided that with no condition expressed and no information about the source. villy 10:58, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK.. I will edit it, sorry, what would be the wright name? This file is a family picture, so I have uploaded, with the condition that people says who is in the picture. Thanks Glum 16:03, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Uploader has despite promise not added the source. Deleted. Thuresson 07:19, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Image:Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (lesser Coat of Arms).jpg
• Image:Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania (Great Coat of Arms).gif
• Image:Mecklenburg (flag).gif
• Image:Flag de-mecklenburg vorpommern service 300px.png

I don't believe it's GFDL, UrhG § 5 (http://transpatent.com/gesetze/urhg1.html#5) is IMO not for images.\u2014Breeze 13:28, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hallo!

I don't know, what can I think about your intelligence! How do you want to explain, that "Image:Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (coat of arms).jpg" is ok, but "Image:Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (lesser Coat of Arms).jpg" isn't ok! If you can't it, the second file is a derivation of the small Coat of Arms from the first file! And "Image:Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania (Great Coat of Arms).gif" is more accurate version of the great Coat of Arms of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania! So it's legal, because it's official!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It's also interesting that "Image:Saxony-Anhalt (Flag 1947-1952).gif" is ok, but "Image:Mecklenburg (flag).gif" isn't! Both are historical flags! And how do you want to explain, that "Image:Flag de-mecklenburg vorpommern civil 300px.png" is ok, but "Image:Flag de-mecklenburg vorpommern service 300px.png" isn't ok?! Both are official flags so their using is legal! See https://www.fotw.info/flags/de-mv.html

User:Kirk 11:45, April 7, 2005

Dear Kirk, I never said that one of those images is ok, just for information. User:Mevsfotw wrote "Drawn by mevsfotw", and you just scanned the coat of arms. You are responsible for what you write and for what you load up. You write, the license is right, I say it's wrong (also: Image talk:Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania (Great Coat of Arms).gif). You can argue, why the flags and coats of arms should not be deleted, and an admin will decide. Do whatever you want with the images, it's your responsibility (copyvio is a criminal act). I don't want to see this images in Category:Unknown again, that's all. By the way, I really forgot this: Image:Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (coat of arms).jpg. This discussion is finished for me. You can sign with ~~~~. -- Breezie 14:25, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Deleted by User:Thuresson based on arguments of User:Breeze

User:Dragao has uploaded maps from the portuguese Wikipedia. The creator of the maps, pt:Usuário:Jorge, claim that they are not GFDL and request that they be deleted from Commons. I don't speak portuguese but it looks like the images are made especially for pt: and that they lack any particular license. It can be argued that by uploading his own work he is bound by GFDL nevertheless but I would like to know what other people think and if they indeed are GFDL.

• Image:LocalNUTS3AlentejoCentral.png - from pt:Imagem:LocalNUTS3AlentejoCentral.png
• Image:LocalNUTS3AlentejoLitoral.png - from pt:Imagem:LocalNUTS3AlentejoLitoral.png
• Image:LocalNUTS3AltoAlentejo.png - from pt:Imagem:LocalNUTS3AltoAlentejo.png
• Image:LocalNUTS3AltoTrasOsMontes.png - from pt:Imagem:LocalNUTS3Ave.png
• Image:LocalNUTS3Ave.png - from pt:Imagem:LocalNUTS3Ave.png
• Image:LocalNUTS3BaixoAlentejo.png - from pt:Imagem:LocalNUTS3BaixoAlentejo.png
• Image:LocalNUTS3BaixoMondego.png - from pt:Imagem:LocalNUTS3BaixoMondego.png
• Image:LocalNUTS3BaixoVouga.png - from pt:Imagem:LocalNUTS3BaixoVouga.png
• Image:LocalNUTS3BeiraInteriorNorte.png - from pt:Imagem:LocalNUTS3BeiraInteriorNorte.png
• Image:LocalNUTS3BeiraInteriorSul.png - from pt:Imagem:LocalNUTS3BeiraInteriorSul.png
• Image:LocalNUTS3Cavado.png - from pt:Imagem:LocalNUTS3Cavado.png
• Image:LocalNUTS3CovaDaBeira.png - from pt:Imagem:LocalNUTS3CovaDaBeira.png
• Image:LocalNUTS3DaoLafoes.png - from pt:Imagem:LocalNUTS3DaoLafoes.png
• Image:LocalNUTS3Douro.png - from pt:Imagem:LocalNUTS3Douro.png
• Image:LocalNUTS3EntreDouroEVouga.png - from pt:Imagem:LocalNUTS3EntreDouroEVouga.png
• Image:LocalNUTS3MedioTejo.png - from pt:Imagem:LocalNUTS3MedioTejo.png
• Image:LocalNUTS3PinhalInteriorNorte.png - from pt:Imagem:LocalNUTS3PinhalInteriorNorte.png
• Image:LocalNUTS3PinhalInteriorSul.png - from pt:Imagem:LocalNUTS3PinhalInteriorSul.png
• Image:LocalNUTS3PinhalLitoral.png - from pt:Imagem:LocalNUTS3PinhalLitoral.png
• Image:LocalNUTS3SerraDaEstrela.png - from pt:Imagem:LocalNUTS3SerraDaEstrela.png
• Image:LocalNUTS3Tamega.png - from pt:Imagem:LocalNUTS3Tamega.png
• Image:LocalNUTS3GrandeLisboa.png
• Image:LocalNUTS3LeziriaDoTejo.png
• Image:LocalNUTS3Oeste.png
• Image:LocalNUTS3PeninsulaDeSetubal.png

Thuresson 12:47, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't speak Portuguese either but the text on pt: pages inidcates that Jorge Candeias created them for the exclusive use in pt.wikipedia based on a map made by António Martins. This is of course a non free license and unless the images are relicensed they should be deleted in commons and in the Portuguese Wikipedia. Although it would be helpful to know the license of the map Jorge's maps are based on. --Baikonur 14:13, 5 Apr 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

Why aren't you satisfied with creating a GFDL free encyclopedia? If you don't like free content please don't use it. I'm very happy that in de-Wikipedia we don't have this silly "Fair Use" which ist despite that also illegal in all other nations than the US and so also illegal in pt-Wikipedia. So we really have a free de-Wikipedia and not only free text and non-free images. Arnomane 22:20, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If the language of th license text is everything you are concerned of: Do you know Creative Commons? http://creativecommons.org This project gives you licenses in many languages including portugese and spain. And yes the CC-BY and CC-BY-SA are free licenses and can be uses here within the commons. So there is no need to license an image under the "english only" GFDL. So the Commons don't need to change "linguistically". Arnomane 22:25, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Anomane, can you read?

Yes of Course. I have read your explanation that you have used non free sources and thatfor can't put the images under a free license. (I don't understand why one person can use non free sources as there exists enough free map data from Portugal). My answer was only refering to your second part. Arnomane 08:23, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I´m fed up! First, because I was on holidays I didn´t have tho opportunity to state my response. Second, from my point of view it´s completely not understandable that a license is given to just one part of the wiki community. If this is a global project, we should have global rules and stop this shortened bahaviours. - Dragao 06:54, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

new picture: Image:Offenbach Mainbogen.jpg

• Image:Kon Tiki.jpg

This looks like a photo from the movie Kon-Tiki from 1950 (IMDb). Although NASA's own material is not copyrighted, this does not necessarily extend to material from other sources, which may be used by permission. See the NASA copyright notice.

• Image:Hagstrom.logo.jpg - logotype
• Image:ShelbyGt350.jpg - no source given

Thuresson 03:06, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Deleted by User:Thuresson except the Hagstrom logotype picture.

Although this of en:Thor Heyerdahl photo comes from a NASA website [8], not all material from NASA are necessarily non-copyright and some material may come from other sources NASA copyright notice. This 1950s or 1960s photo I believe fall in that category. Thuresson 03:13, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Deleted by User:Thuresson

• Image:Uzi.jpg
• Image:StenII.jpg
• Image:RifleM4.jpg
• Image:RifleM4 wM203.jpg
• Image:Mp40.jpg
• Image:Mg42.jpg
• Image:Mg34.jpg
• Image:M60.jpg
• Image:M1carbine.jpg
• Image:M1Thompson.jpg
• Image:M16A2.jpg
• Image:M14.jpg
• Image:Lewis.jpg
• Image:Gewehr43.jpg
• Image:Fg42.jpg
• Image:Ak47.jpg
• Image:Bren2.jpg
• Image:Chauchat.jpg
• Image:DPM.jpg
• Image:Diegtariew DP.jpg
• Image:Diektariew Dpm.jpg
• Image:Famas F2.jpg
• Image:Fg42.jpg
• Image:Gewehr43.jpg
• Image:Lewis.jpg
• Image:M240-1.jpg
• Image:M249saw.jpg
• Image:M2HB.jpg

No license and/or no source. Some images have a license, but they are from pl.wikipedia and there is no source. -- Breeze 09:45, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Deleted all of these except Image:M60. Uploader has been active lately but ignores requests for more information about these images. Thuresson 12:27, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

very, very evil picture, please delete ASAP! I want to say: You forgot one. If I were you, I would be glad that the ECB did't take any action against this picture...! -- King 14:04, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This user is apparently being ironic. He/she has earlier uploaded images of euro coins and bills, images which have been deleted due to copyright. Unlike them, this image is not a blatant copyright infringement. Thuresson 00:49, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

He's probably upset because we had to delete his nonetheless nice images :\ Same statements apply here and we already deleted edge euro coins pictures with other ammount (and to King : be glad ECB won't take any action, the copyright is hold by the European Commission for common face coins) \u2014FoeNyx 10:16, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Very nice to see you recognizing the ironic tone. Yes, he is upset. Nevertheless this picture is a copyright infringement. Blatant or not - every copyright infringement on Wikimedia Commons has to be deleted. (this is not ironic, but a matter of fact!)
It's the same with this image. Oh no, sorry...I forgot that we apply double standards here. Continously shaking the head \u2014King 15:50, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I believe I have heard of the Wikimedia foundation somewhere. Let's delete it before their corporate lawyers find out. Thuresson 16:58, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is copyrighted, like many of the other free images on Commons, but why is it a copyright infringement? silsor 17:45, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image kept for now. Thuresson 14:01, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Image:Kagamimochi RK.JPG
• Image:Australasian Olympic Flag.png
• Image:CIS-Flag.png
• Image:EscudoSabinasHidalgo.png
• Image:Canadian Blue Ensign-360x180.gif

historical flag no longer in use.

• Image:Escudo Saprissa.JPG
• Image:Coat of Arms Guatemala.jpg
• Image:Charles.jpg
• Image:Coat of Arms Guatemala.jpg
• Image:Côte d'Ivoire coat of arms.png
• Image:Coat of arms of Egypt.gif
• Image:Ch ge armoiries geneve ville.gif
• Image:Edward Elgar.jpg (not yet pd)
• Image:Chile COA.jpg
• Image:Chechen coat of arms.jpg
• Image:Buddybolden.JPG (not sure about pd)
• Image:Belgium coat of arms large.png
• Image:Stafford Beer.jpg or is here a license?: ru:\u0418\u0437\u043e\u0431\u0440\u0430\u0436\u0435\u043d\u0438\u0435:Stafford beer.gif
  • Original image do not contains any license info. --EugeneZelenko 14:18, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Image:Stadtwappen Worms.jpg (only allowed for use in wikipedia, but no license)
• Image:Zander jungtier.jpg
• Image:Warszawa.jpg
• Image:Wappen bartholomae.jpg
• Image:Turkmenistan coa.jpg
• Image:Turku coatofarms.jpg
• Image:Valdivia centro.jpg
• Image:Tomppetenblume.JPG
• Image:SFU Crest.gif
• Image:PapuaNewGuinea coa.png
• Image:New zealand coa.png
• Image:Texas state seal.png
• Image:Villa dubai fawad.jpg
• Image:Wappen von Bulgarien.png
  • [9] seems to be the closest match to it. Not sure about the (c) status, though. Zscout370 20:06, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Image:Malta coa.png
• Image:Surco coat of arms.PNG
• Image:Mugabe in year 2000.jpg
• Image:Mit Paulus Manker.JPG
• Image:Macedonia coa.gif
• Image:Mauritius coa.png
• Image:Logoscb.gif
• Image:London Plane fruits in air.jpg
• Image:Michnik Jaruzelski 1989.jpg
• Image:Mahatma Gandhi.jpg
• Image:Lithuania coat of arms.png
• Image:Servando teresa de mier.jpg
• Image:Samrayburnlake.gif
• Image:Lambang Mongolia.png

No license, if you know it, please add it. \u2014Breeze 12:49, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have either tagged or deleted many of the images above but the following remain:

• Image:CIS-Flag.png
• Image:Ch ge armoiries geneve ville.gif
• Image:Buddybolden.JPG
• Image:Belgium coat of arms large.png
• Image:Turkmenistan coa.jpg
• Image:Texas state seal.png
• Image:New zealand coa.png
• Image:Macedonia coa.gif
• Image:Mauritius coa.png
• Image:Lithuania coat of arms.png
• Image:Lambang Mongolia.png

Thuresson 12:50, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Image:Coa bahrain small.jpg
• Image:Bandera-republica-rio-grande.png
• Image:Austria coat of arms.png
• Image:Belarus coa.png
  • The source is from [10], but I cannot read Belarussian/Russian. Plus, it is actively telling people to download these files, so I think they could be PD. Zscout370 22:57, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I read source page more carefully and found that source of image is Embassy of Republic of Belarus (\u0418\u0441\u0442\u043e\u0447\u043d\u0438\u043a: \u041f\u043e\u0441\u043e\u043b\u044c\u0441\u0442\u0432\u043e \u0420\u0435\u0441\u043f\u0443\u0431\u043b\u0438\u043a\u0438 \u0411\u0435\u043b\u0430\u0440\u0443\u0441\u044c). It's official Belarusian government source. Image should be PD (as supposed by Belarusian copyright law). --EugeneZelenko 14:55, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Image:Brunei coa.jpg
• Image:Bhutan emblem.png
• Image:Swastika flag (Nazi Germany).ant.png

  Looking at Ant's contributions, it seems he has made many GFDL images himself, including 7 or 8 swastikas. This is probably one of them that is not correctly labeled. silsor 16:51, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  He's inactive. We have also a bigger version (Image:Flag Germany 1933.png), but the swastika is not in centre.\u2014Breezie 08:18, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete, this image is redundant, Thuresson 04:14, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Keep: This flag is a variant of the swatiska flag and not redundant to the centerd version, because it was somewhat different in use (see https://www.fotw.info/flags/de1935.html) Kookaburra 19:09, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Image:Coat of arms Trinidad and Tobago.jpg
• Image:Coat of Arms Angola.jpg
• Image:Coat of Arms of Samoa.png

No license. -- Breezie 11:43, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

wow. and what about tons of other coats of arms? do they have any license? i thought it is quite ok to have official insignia in commons. does it really needed to delete these?

and it would be too drastical change to delete these coats of arms - many wikipedias depend on them. --Monk 16:33, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Since Commons has an independent license policy from the Wikipedias it can also make independent decisions about images on the basis of their licenses, without needing to know how much the images are used. In other words, from a Commons point of view, it's better to have a missing image on a Wikipedia than a copyright violation on the Commons. silsor 16:47, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

However, are insginias copyrighted? Some of them are old as the hills. Their usage may be restricted by law, but the copyright is definitely expired. -- Ranveig 22:50, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think that's what this listing needs to determine before they are deleted out of caution. silsor 22:58, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, depends - some are, some are not: first of all, in some countries (like the US) official insignia are always PD, but in many countries this is not the case. Secondly, both the design and the image have to be PD (or GFDL or whatever): the design is often PD by Age or some other law (in Germany they are for instance PD if defined by a Law); The image itself however has an independent copyright, it should be either old or re-drawn and then put under a free license.

Also, the use of official insignia is very often restricted by laws independent of copyright. It is a matter of debate if such images can be considered "free" - I tend to argue that all images on the commons must be "free" as fas as copyright is concerned, restrictions by other laws does not concern us as long as we do not violate those laws directly. Also see Template:Insignia for this issue. -- Duesentrieb 23:42, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Soccer player (?). No licence. Uploader claims he's owning the copyright (?). villy 13:44, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Deleted

Not only intensely ungly, not only a far too generic name, but also no clear licence and we don't know if "Painter: Rene Stepanoy" actually is User:Fr3d. villy 14:09, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete? Yes. But only after a good laugh! User:Quasipalm 17:39, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Deleted

I forgot to change the name to something meaningful. I'll get the hang of the process one day! --Baryonic Being 18:06, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Deleted

• Image:Sweden coat.png
• Image:Foto iglesia.jpg
• Image:Gabriel Batistuta.jpg.jpg
• Image:Doolittle03.jpg
• Image:Doolittle02.jpg
• Image:Doolittle01.jpg
• Image:Georgian COA.jpg
• Image:DSCF0323.JPG
  • Deleted, Thuresson 20:34, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Image:Keswick, Ontario map.png

This image is constructed by user data at a website [11]. The license [12] allows commercial use but also do not allow selling the maps. Section 5 allows planiglobe to change the license at any time. Thuresson 04:27, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Keep: EULA clearly states "you may use the maps for personal or commercial purposes". Somehow this sounds commercial to Thuresson but not to me. The intent of the website is to create such useful free-use maps. DoubleBlue (Talk) 05:08, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Planiglobe do not allow selling their images and reserve the right the change the license at anytime for any reason. Thuresson

Hence the Template:CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat. What's the purpose in tagging images with licences if they don't matter?

It is clear to me from reading the eula that Planiglobe's intent is a CC-by-sa licence, although they have worded it themselves. They permit commercial use and any changes, so long as their name is left on it. They just don't want people to charge others for the use of the map (share-alike). --DoubleBlue (Talk) 20:41, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Why was this deleted ? From the discussion above, I understand that we can keep this image. Yann 10:53, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Image deleted by User:Ed g2s on April 11 with the comment: Restrictions prevent free use

Discussion has been moved to Commons:Village pump by Thuresson

I feel that Administrator Thuresson is not genuine. Please read the tag: This image is in the public domain in the United States and may not be in the public domain in other jurisdictions. See Copyright. This IS against your policy. Can of worms to be opened or not -- 80.145.27.221 09:39, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Picture of the day, but no license. Veeeerrrrrryyyyyyyyyyyyyy Funny! -- 80.145.27.221 06:31, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to discuss Commons license policy at the Village pump. Thuresson 06:39, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Must have got lost (stupid servers) or I have forgotten to add it (stupid me). I'm almost sure its one of babbasteves pictures. Unfortunaly the Flickr non-Pro accounts only display 100 pics and it's not one of them. I have send him a message to confirm that it is on of his photos, hope he answers soon. -guety 21:47, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Added Licence. -guety 16:29, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The flags named <country>_flag 300.png have the correct color and ratio. There are many others with no corrects. Name format are tipically Flag_of_<country>.png, <country>_flag_medium.png and <country>_flag_large.png

I have marked the flags of countries beginning by A with {{deletebecause}}, but I have no time to continue the alphabet.

--Sanbec 09:06, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is opening up a can of worms. Please see Commons:Deletion requests/Archives01#Flag images by user:Marc Mongenet. Thuresson 09:28, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have found it yet, thanks. I think the flag's serie by Marc Mongenet are very good and must be promoted. I would like to change National insignia to use these flag. Is there any reason for not to do it? Thank you very much. --Sanbec 11:33, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think question which flag set is better doesn't have simple solution. In any case all other flag images must be replaced on all project before deletion (if this idea will be approved at all). I think User:RCBot (User:Richie) could be asked for help. I'm personally against deletion. --EugeneZelenko 00:59, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Regardless of what flag you use in various contexts, I object to the wholesale deletion of other versions of them. First of all, they're used in Wikipedia. And second, the "correct" colors for most flags aren't that well defined, so there's some room for variation. I hope you've removed the {{Deletebecause}}, because they absolutely aren't candidates for speedy deletion. I will go revert you if you haven't. Dbenbenn 13:32, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I put {{Deletebecause}} because I don't known the existance of tags por slowly deletion. Is there any? --Sanbec 13:54, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Use {{Deletionrequest}} for that please. Dbenbenn 13:55, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks.--Sanbec 14:02, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The gif is an unfree format. Is technically very best the png, and is free. Only some animated gifs are justified. --Sanbec 09:06, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's true that GIF is an unfree format but I don't see any copyright issue. They should be replaced by PNG but only when replacements are available. Thuresson 09:14, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The GIF-patents have expired, so the GIF technology is free. So a Free Software implementation of GIF is no problem and the GIF format definition itself is now free (although PNG is technically supperior and desireable). Arnomane 12:58, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You're wrong, the unisys patent has expired but IBM still holds a patent on it, see en:GIF#Unisys_and_LZW_patent_enforcement. \u2014Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 15:28, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. Feel free to convert any non-animated GIF you find to PNG, then nominate the GIF for deletion here. Until then, we'll keep them. Dbenbenn 13:33, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's O.K. --Sanbec 13:57, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Image:Stroke order of Japanese Hiragana \u97f3.png
• Image:Stroke order of Japanese Hiragana \u96e8.png
• Image:Stroke order of Japanese Hiragana \u738b.png
• Image:Stroke order of Japanese Hiragana \u4e00.png

Sorry, I misstaked filenames.Hiragana->Kanji.

• Image:Stroke order of Japanese Hiragana \u5de6.png
• Image:Stroke order of Japanese Hiragana \u53f3.png

I misstaked filenames.Hiragana -> Kanji. And the mistake was found in the content. The replacement has already been up-loaded.(Image:Stroke order of Japanese Kanji \u5de6.png)Tcyiswalk 08:34, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Deleted by Thuresson 22:20, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No license, no source and a copyright note in the image. --Baikonur 08:54, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The source is [13]. Still, it should be deleted. Thuresson 09:02, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Deleted by Thuresson 22:20, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

GIF image, replaced by lighter PNG Image:Austria flag 300.png --Sanbec 13:57, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Deleted by Thuresson 22:20, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Image:Cfl touchdown atlantic.jpg - Uploader first claims that anybody can use this image for any purpose. When asked he/she backtracks and refers to "Promotional use". I can't find any license info on the CFL website.

Keep: I resent the statement that I "backtracked". I tried to answer your question by adding more information not backtracking. The CFL released this image to promote their event. I used this image in a wikinews story. It is copyrighted but may be used for this or any purpose. DoubleBlue (Talk) 05:08, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you could provide a link to the CFL license info. "Promotional use" is not the same as any use for any purpose. e.g. selling T-shirts with this image. Thuresson

I have re-thought this; particularly when you mentioned "selling T-shirts". Although the CFL released this image in a press release, which I can no longer find under the re-organisation of the website (my notes say it came from http://www.cfl.ca/CFL/Announcements/2005/03/29/975714.html but it is no longer there), I doubt they would relinquish the rights to earn a licence fee from sales of objects with the logo. I therefore agree to have it deleted. --DoubleBlue (Talk) 20:41, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Deleted by James F. (talk) 17:55, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NASA images generally are not copyrighted. This general permission does not include the NASA insignia logo (the blue "meatball" insignia), the NASA logotype (the red "worm" logo) and the NASA seal. These images may not be used by persons who are not NASA employees or on products (including Web pages) that are not NASA sponsored. The use of the NASA name, initials, any NASA emblems (including the NASA Insignia, the NASA Logo and the NASA Seal) which would express or imply such endorsement or sponsorship is strictly prohibited.

NASA license info available at [14]. Thuresson 23:19, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• done, logos are are mostly a problem. --Paddy 00:13, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I accidentally uploaded a fair use file, could someone delete it for me? Dori | Talk 04:26, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Deleted. Thuresson 04:53, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Deleted by Thuresson 22:20, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This user is well known in es: (es:User:Antoine) by his lies about licences. All Antoine's images at es: were deleted. Here there are only three images by him:

--Sanbec 08:19, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• The two logos are clearly not public domain (as they are marked). The screenshot is copied from a normal website with no usage information. These should be deleted. silsor 18:29, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Deleted by Thuresson 22:20, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

simle fair use.--Shizhao 12:43, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Deleted by Thuresson 22:20, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Stahlkocher has uploaded a range of images of the time of World War II which he claims to be PD-US. The German image-law expert de:Benutzer:Historiograf sais, that this tagging method is absolutely nonsense and that he cannot explain in any way that he knows how these images can be public domain in the US.

Many of these images are listed in [15] and can be found there.

Here is a short collection of his images, which I list for deletion because of this circumstance:

• Image:Ju390.jpg
• Image:Fw190 A8.jpg
• Image:BMW801.jpg
• Image:Me109K 1.jpg
• Image:1924LincolnLimosine.jpg

More will follow, if Stahlkocher is not able to disprove Historiograf's explainations. --Leipnizkeks 21:44, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ah - moving you war against images to the commons. Have you seen some of the image descriptions where these images came from ? The 801 image is a scan from a engine manual, the Me 109 image is a of a captured plane taken in 1945. Stop this war unless you are able to prove these image descriptions and taggings are wrong ! --Denniss

Wrong @Denniss you have to prove that your images are PD if you want to upload them. If you are not sure you may allways ask. There is nothing such as a war here by the way! --Paddy 19:37, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Agree with Paddy. The only war that is in progress in here is the one between people like you and everyone who tries to save the idea and the policy of Wikimedia Commons. --Leipnizkeks 19:55, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

delete Sorry, i cant see a war. I just see someone who tries to look after the copyright status of our images. It's not Keks carrying a war to commons, it's stahlkocher carrying the images to commons which have been deleted on de. --Crux 19:57, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oh - all the image killers are here - why don#t you move over to the english wikipedia and try to kill all the images over there ? Sorry it seem you don't know anything about german/european copyright law. You try to expand the 70 years pma nonsense over all and everything looking like an image. -- Denniss 22:25, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Because unlike the English Wikipedia there is no fair use here. There is nothing like "killing" images BTW. Do not be polemic please! Concerning the law: we have qualified lawyers here on commons who will tell us if we are wrong or not. The "70 years nonsense" caused already a great hassle with a Hitler Image. And since this is a free project in the terms of free license there is nothing to discuss about really. Please get your facts right. There is nothing like a discussion on copyright if you have not checked the facts. A good argument is worth more than your polemic talk about "killing images". Be staid and we may have a good decision. --Paddy 02:20, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In case of doubt the uploader should provide information so that others may verify the copyright status. Claiming that images come from an unspecified catalogue is not helpful. Thuresson 02:03, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oh, the complete german Image-deletion-crew is after me. Probably it would be the best idea to ask a US-Image-law-expert instead of a self-appointed German image-law expert? There may be some differences. For further information read this http://blog.librarylaw.com/librarylaw/2004/09/copyright_in_go.html, where Historiograf proofed that PD-USGov is copyrighted abroad. These pictures will be deleted next. -- Stahlkocher 13:03, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The game is easy, play the ball and not the player. What you do is what I would call the second foul in this game. Now it is the yellow card from me. You had one warning already from me remember? What you are trying to do here is utterly not in the interest of commons. I repeat not. If you want to have a good fight go to de or en Wikipedia. To be frank I do not want do see any images of you here that have not been checked for copyright (Urheberrecht). Your assumption does not interest me or others at all. Proof that you are right and try to prevent offending other commons users. mfg --Paddy 22:49, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Deleted by User:Thuresson on the grounds that Stalkocher has not provided any sources to explain why the images are PD.

The logo is definitely not free. There was again talk on the debian-legal mailinglist [16] and the whole thread [17] and talk with the author. There is hope but at this stage it is clear that the logo is unfree. And having a tag like {{DOULL}} is a joke really. Therefore the images must be deleted. And the template too. Or at least there sould be some hint that this license is not usable for commons. --Paddy 15:30, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

delete until the logo is free. --Hendrik Brummermann 21:05, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, please delete. silsor 05:44, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Deleted by Thuresson 22:20, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image with same name in Wikipedia. User:Baryonic Being, 17:21, April 9, 2005

Deleted. Uploader changed same image with different file name. Thuresson 22:50, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The absence of a copyright indication does not mean that there is no copyright protection. --Baikonur 11:29, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Deleted, this Donald Duck magazine cover was a clear copyright violation. First upload of first time user.Thuresson 14:27, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I accidentally uploaded this twice. Please delete this one. Dcoetzee 22:00, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Deleted. silsor 23:06, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:Bern, proper name for category is Category:maps of Canton of Bern as a subcategory of Category:Maps of Switzerland. Category Bern can therefore be deleted. pjetter 22:59, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Recycled into Category:Cities and villages in Switzerland. Wojsyl 07:45, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Created by me. I think it is no longer needed since Image:Sound-icon.png scales better now. silsor 19:12, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Deleted by Thuresson 22:50, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User CO-RE uploadet URVs in de-wp. This is suposable another one. -- Avatar 21:50, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In de-wp it is still not proved, if they are URVs. CO-RE says, it are own photographs. --80.129.23.234 15:47, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

At least two URVs proved. There is no need to 'assume-good-faith' anymore. CO-RE should prove, she has the rights or the pics should be deleted as copyvio. --Avatar 18:50, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Deleted by Thuresson 22:50, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The following images are tagged with Template:CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat but the conditions for use are not compatible with Commons:Licensing. This is only sample.

• Image:00250118.JPG - photographer do not allow selling the image
• Image:URlogo.gif - owner must grant permission to all uses
• Image:Embraer supertucano.jpg - noncommercial use only
• Image:Chomsky by john soares.jpg - Copyright holder must grant permission for all uses
• Image:West Wing of the Riksdag from Vasabron.jpg - Noncommercial use only
• Image:Chamber of the Riksdag.jpg - Noncommercial use only
• Image:Helgeandsholmen and the Riksdag.jpg - Noncommercial use only
• Image:Mesopotamia 4 3 th BC.jpg - Conditions for use written in kyrillic
• Image:Flag of padania.png - Noncommercial use only
• Image:Invisible Pink Unicorn Logo.png - Only use relating to atheism
• Image:Oasis group photo.jpg - Copyright holder must permit use
• Image:Liam Gallagher photo.jpg - Copyright holder must permit use
• Image:Woomera Detention Centre - November Compound.jpg - may not be sold or altered
• Image:Woomera Detention Centre - India Compound.gif - may not be sold or altered

• Image:DrSmith.jpg - conditions for use in portuguese -> I translated to english, read there, please. Campani 17:39, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Request withdrawn, Thuresson 18:19, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Image:Area 51 28 August 1968 1.jpg - image may not be altered
• Image:Laura 2002feb02.jpg - may only be used in an internet encyclopedia
• Image:Nickshanks.png - User photo may only be used on user's own pages
• Image:User Renildo Photo.jpg - User:Renildo must authorize all use of image

Thuresson 01:02, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I support a purging of this category. Conditions must not restrict use, the only feasible provisions are "must be credited" or similar. ed g2s • talk 15:12, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

All these images are nonfree as far as I can tell, the terms for their use are: This image is copyrighted. The copyright holder allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that credit to DigitalGlobe appears next to or beneath the photo in print, presentation and web material. Additionally, if used in broadcasts, credit to DigitalGlobe must appear on-screen throughout the entire air-time and must be verbally attributed to DigitalGlobe if products are referenced verbally during the program.' \u2014Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 15:20, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Image:Meluaboh_may18_2004_dg.jpg
• Image:Meluaboh_jan7_2005_dg.jpg
• Image:Gleebruk april12 2004 dg.jpg
• Image:Gleebruk jan02 2005 dg.jpg
• Image:Banda aceh south ov april12 2004 dg.jpg
• Image:Banda aceh south ov jan02 2005 dg.jpg

I was thinking of the DigiGlobe license yesterday. Crediting the creator is one thing, doing their marketing campaign something else. When using Creative Commons license cc-by the user must give credit to the author but does anybody know exactly what giving credit means? What is a fair amount of giving credit? Thuresson 18:04, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Give credit to the author = CC-by. DigitalGlobe's licence is basically the same; it just defines where to give the credit. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:30, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And doing that makes it a nonfree license. \u2014Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 10:21, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Then CC-by are non-free also and should be deleted from Commons. Actually, CC-sa are non-free as well since you can't use them however you like. In fact, why don't we just delete all files from the Commons and be truly pharisaic! DoubleBlue (Talk) 20:42, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I see an awful lot of conditions on:

• STOCK.XCHNG. One would think images such as SMS message on a Nokia phone.jpeg should be deleted too.
• PixelQuelle. I should think Water drop.jpg should definitely be deleted with these terms. I don't understand German but it looks like "non-commercial", "don't sell", and "credit to PixelQuelle". DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:26, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pixelquelle is non-free according to the defintion of "free" used on Commons. It's also listed as a bad source. --Baikonur 13:20, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Our policy is to ignore stock.xchng's conditions on the images as they are not the copyright holders, see Commons:Stock.xchng images. I imagine we should deal with pixelquelle in much the same way, but my lack of knowledge of German rather prohibits me from giving a well informed opinion. However with respect to digitalglobe, it is difficult to decide where to draw the line with respect to providing credit, but I would suggest that requesting image be overlayed with a credit is too prohibitive to class as "free use". Although digiglobe does not require this, I would suggest that their license is still too prohibitive, especially for broadcast purposes. ed g2s • talk 16:08, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Deleted by Thuresson 22:50, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This has been uploaded from en: and tagged as PD. The truth is that the source for this image is pixelquelle.de ([18]) whose license is incompatible with Commons license, in particular pixelquelle do not allow images to be part of an image gallery or to be made available for download.

Highlights from the license include: Ausgeschlossen ist eine Nutzung in Bilddatenbanken, Bildkatalogen und die Bereitstellung von Bildern zum Download oder zum Verkauf. which means (I think) "Out of question is use in image databanks, image catalogues and making image available for download or sale." License here: [19] Thuresson 02:38, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I must admit you are right, it is not exactly Commons licence. I have taken this pic from enWiki, where secretlondon had tagged it as a {{PD}} and I haven't checked it myself. Sorry for all the jazz, my mistake, I'll be more careful in future. In future I would suggest talks with the server about possibility of usage of their pics here (however it seems to be unprobable for me). Greetings. Aegis Maelstrom 10:18, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vanity image only used to illustrate a vanity article in the Wikipedia article space. RickK 05:52, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Deleted by Thuresson 22:50, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, mispelt name - should be Coogee, will upload again -- Wm 10:50, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Done! // Solkoll 01:10, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No source information and appears to be a copyrighted image as I have seen thing like this before.Zeimusu 13:48, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Deleted by Thuresson 22:50, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Work of the Nevada state government, not US Federal so not PD. ed g2s • talk 15:10, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Deleted by Thuresson 22:50, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

wrong titel --Walter 16:11, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Done! // Solkoll 01:07, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wrong title. See en:User talk:Dbenbenn#IFD nomination - Hosho. Replaced on EN and PL by Image:Japanese aircraft carrier Hosho.jpg. Dbenbenn 19:46, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Done! // Solkoll 01:05, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

cc-by-nc-sa-2.0, non-commercial-use only. No free copyright.--Shizhao 06:26, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Discharged. // Solkoll 01:02, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

not copyright info--Shizhao 12:10, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Uploader has provided info. Thuresson 22:50, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No source or copyright information. Copied from en:Wikipedia which also has no info. Poorly chosen image name. -- Netoholic 16:55, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Deleted by Thuresson 22:50, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Image:Zh-Beijing2.ogg This audio-file is removed but is in use on Wikipedia EN and maybe on other also --Walter 16:22, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Audio files can not be undeleted. Ask User:Karmosin to upload it again. Thuresson 23:27, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Copyrighted media. Fair use tagged on en.wikipedia. -- Lusheeta 11:27, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Is this image not old enough to be in the public domain? (how old is it?). Maybe Nippon (Japan, if you ask a Japanese =), does not have a law like that? Most contrys has got that. // Solkoll 00:53, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Request withdrawn. -- Lusheeta 10:49, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

this map is better: Image:Bucharest-Metro-Map-2005.png --Jcornelius 13:54, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Now, long gone and forgotten. // Solkoll 00:56, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Done. (Duplicate, ergo speedy deletion) \u2014 Richie 10:34, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Replaced by his autor. Exist Image:Peru flag 300.png and Image:Flag of Peru.png--Sanbec 07:20, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Done. (Duplicate, ergo speedy deletion) \u2014 Richie 10:34, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

logo, no free cpyright--Shizhao 11:28, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Deleted. // Solkoll 00:44, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Copyrighted images hidden with PD and Attribution tags. I think will be great if more experienced administrator then me will review contributions of these users.

BTW, does Commons have black list of users who violate copyrights?

EugeneZelenko 04:19, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have added Template:Incomplete license to Calvin Ballantine's images and left a message on his/her talk page. Thuresson 02:54, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image:Wallpaper - Per Anhalter durch die Galaxis (The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy).jpg is clearly copyrighted. I find via Google Images for "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" next file: http://hitchhikers.movies.go.com/downloads/h2g21280x1024a.jpg . I don't sure this user deserve trust. --EugeneZelenko 04:18, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have added Template:Incomplete license on Hugo López' images and left a message on his talk page. He claims that they are PD but has not told why they are PD. Thuresson 15:23, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Deleted all the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy 2005 movie images uploaded by Calvin Ballantine. He has tagged them as PD and do not deserve to be trusted. Thuresson 23:14, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

Hugo Lopez claim that these images are free and have added sources. I have checked the sources, I can't find any claims about free licenses but I don't really understand spanish that well. Can somebody who understand spanish check these:

• Image:15fe5f0dubovskyg.jpg

From [20]. I found "© Copyright 2005,Terra Networks, S.A"

• Image:Grupo18.jpg

This is from a fan page, www.offspring.com.ar. I can't find any license information on the web page but they probably don't own the copyright anyway.

• Image:Buenafuente.jpg

Some kind of magazine, no license information at [21]

• Image:166 1g.jpg
• Image:Magnoescudob.gif

From the official web page of a soccer club, [22]. No license information found

Thuresson 14:16, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have left a message to Hugo in spanish. I think the images must be deleted, the sites linked have All rights reserved. --Sanbec 13:24, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Deleted by Thuresson 18:16, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Image:Tex edhistorica001.jpg

User:Mschlindwein has drawn my attention to these images as possible copyright violations. In my view, these images infringe on copyright and would be impossible to use commercially. Thuresson 05:45, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • I am the uploader of this picture. It is a (bad) picture of a toy. In my opinion nobody can claim copyrights from such a picture. It is also the only possibility the illustrate articles in countries where 'fair use' is not allowed. Keep! Michiel1972 19:31, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Dear Thuresson, I never said this two images were possible copyright violations! What I meant was exactly the opposite: I thinks that these images, as pictures of 3D objects, represent no copyright violation. This subject (3D pictures) was already discussed in Commons, and I was told that such images would be OK. As Michiel1972 says, this is the only way to illustrate articles where fair use is not accepted. I would also like to inform you that we, in the portuguese Wikipedia, do not accept fair use images, following the example of Commons and the German Wikipedia, and that such images would be for sure accepted in both german and portuguese Wikipediasas no copyright violation. Keep both images, please. Mschlindwein 23:53, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Image:Lucky luke1.JPG
• Keep Yann 10:56, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

fair use, no free --Shizhao 07:30, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

and Lm.dziagwa other

• Image:Braszkiewicz Daria 01.jpg
• Image:Braszkiewicz Daria 05.jpg
• Image:Braszkiewicz Daria 07.jpg
• Image:Daria b artyk 01.jpg
• Image:Braszkiewicz Daria 02.JPG

--Shizhao 07:34, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• now it's: GNU Free Documentation License

corrected by autor, look! --Lm.dziagwa 06:45, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Deleted the magazine scan, tagged the GFDL photos with Template:Incomplete license. Thuresson 16:12, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Image:TOYOTA Vitz Pokemon Car.jpg
• Image:Pokemon The Park 2005 in Nagoya Aichi\u3000Japan 01.jpg
• Image:Nagoya Castle Golden S\uff48achi-Hoko Statue01.jpg

The three above-mentioned pictures are the mistakes of a file name.

• Image:Chubu-Centrair-International-Airport-International-Flight-Terminal.jpg

The above-mentioned thing is momentary disposal for moving here from a Japanese version. Please delete a file.Gnsin 10:30, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Deleted, Thuresson 16:12, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We have got two identical photos; Image:DzwonZygmunta.JPG is the correct one (used on Polish-speaking Wikipedia). Reytan 14:06, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please use Redundant template for this purpose. May be other Wikipedias use this file? Just my personal opinion - Image:DzwonZygmunta.JPG doesn't looks good after corrections. --EugeneZelenko 14:23, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, I'm sure. It's a new file. My mistake. Reytan 16:23, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Deleted. --EugeneZelenko 04:11, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image:Ch be canton map.png redundant to Image:Map of Canton Bern.png, both 205773 bytes, but the first one was wrongly licensed as PD, when it should be GFDL. Therefore please delete :Image:Ch be canton map.png, but keep Image:Map of Canton Bern.png. Meanwhile I have repaired the license, but not yet found the original source, and removed from Category:Maps of Canton of Bern. Also note that the artist has since improved the up-to-date image to make it larger and better quality. -Wikibob 22:31, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Speedy deletion, because duplicate. Deleted Image:Ch be canton map.png and resolved all links to it to the other map. You could upload the newer version or (better) persuade the author to move his maps to the Commons. \u2014 Richie 23:54, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image:Kanton Zürich.png is a far better, GFDL, image. Also, could not find image at the given source. -Wikibob 00:35, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Deleted, Thuresson 16:12, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Picture released for press" != GFDL or cc-by-sa --Baikonur 10:14, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Deleted, Thuresson 16:12, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image:Wallpaper - Per Anhalter durch die Galaxis (The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy).jpg wallpaper from the new movie, copyright violation. --Baikonur 10:29, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Deleted, Thuresson 16:12, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Contributions of User:Dusar Images seem to be copyrighted but are all tagged as {{PD}} or {{PD}} and {{CopyrightedFreeUse}} without any information about the source. I contacted the User:Dusar on his talk page but got no response. Instead he/she continues uploading images without information about the source. --Baikonur 08:39, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A user with the same user name has used these images on english Wikipedia [23]. He/she obviously understands English, I have tagged the images with Template:Incomplete license and I have left a request for more information on the user talk page. Thuresson 09:51, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Update The uploader has deleted the PD license and the Incomplete license template. I left a new message on his/her talk page. If this doesn't help the images may have to be deleted. Thuresson 05:53, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Deleted. Uploader has benevolently added his/her sources - all from websites that claim exclusive copyright. I left a message on talk page with request not to upload other people's work. Thuresson 16:14, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image:Anais 2004 004 Taipei MRT.JPG ; Image:Anais 2004 007 Taipei MRT.JPG, Image:Anais 2004 005 Taipei MRT.JPG Non-Commercial-Pictures --Jcornelius 13:10, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Deleted! --Sanbec 13:34, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

These images are licensed under Cc-by-nc-sa-1.0. On December 9, 2004, the uploader promised to ask the photographer if he would allow them to be published under a free license. Nothing has happened.

• Image:Ieei 2004 001 Shalun Beach Tamsui.jpg
• Image:Ieei 2004 002 Shalun Beach Tamsui.jpg
• Image:Ieei 2004 003 Shalun Beach Tamsui.jpg
• Image:Ieei 2004 006 Shalun Beach Tamsui.jpg
• Image:Ieei 2004 007 Shalun Beach Tamsui.jpg

Thuresson 15:15, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Update: Uploader has replied: "Thuresson,thanks for your notification about the status of these images. Since I got no response from the original author after sending him email, I guess they should be removed from the Commons. Best, --Wdshu 05:46, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)".

Done. --Sanbec 13:39, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image broken, replaced by image:Sportfreunde Stiller Band.jpeg. --Svencb 16:48, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Deleted, Thuresson 16:14, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Image:Tytan_-_bryly_i_ich_rozmiary.png
• Image:Phobos hires mars express.jpg - new one. --EugeneZelenko 05:01, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

deleted those two. --Avatar 20:24, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Again an ESA image of Titan... Non commercial only. Arnomane 20:15, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Image:NASA-Mars-Express.jpg and very probably also Image:Mars-express-volcanoes-sm.jpg are also ESA-images see, credit line at: [24]. Arnomane 20:48, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think that at least the second image is indeed a NASA artwork and is therefor in PD. If you look at the source page [25] you'll see that most images there are credited to ESA, but not this one and some others that look very similar. --Bricktop 21:07, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes with the second image I'm unsure muyself (couldn't find it at the NASA photo journal and also not at the main ESA photo gallery). I simply wanted to add it here as it has quite some stylistic similarities (speaks for the same source) to the other image and so I wanted some feedback how to handle that one. Hm that credit line thing seems to be a good point, as it seems accurate at all other images. Arnomane 21:34, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I even think that the first image is also in PD, as at the photojournal page [26] they say that the image is produced by JPL. Also this image looks very similar to the other images from the second source (and so is most probably from the same computer rendering produced by NASA/JPL), that aren't credited to ESA. So it can not be an ESA image and the credit line there schould be taken as a mistake. --Bricktop 22:05, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

JPL is a joint laboratory between NASA and Caltech, a private university. As far as I know, materials produced by the Caltech side of JPL are not public domain. David.Monniaux 09:24, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes I also have had this question myself, as the JPL is a joint program of NASA and Caltech but they have this image policy http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/images/policy/index.cfm . So as I read this they (this joint organisation of NASA and Caltech) have put the images under Public domain. Arnomane 10:02, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I don't read this policy this way. I read it as follows: for material published on JPL public sites, unless noted otherwise, if the material is not in the public domain, a free license to use it is granted provided that proper credit is given.

This is different from public domain. David.Monniaux 10:18, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Come on that is a rather unnecessary distinction. Also NASA wants you to name the source. As you need to prove that some content is pubic domain you have to name the source anyways. Public domain is practical "name the source and do what you want", we don't need yet another template for the same thing. Arnomane 10:54, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree that this is the same for all practical purposes. (Note, however, that this seems to concern only official, public JPL sites — i.e. material unofficially released from JPL may be copyrighted by Caltech). David.Monniaux 12:14, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What about the both Mars Express images? Should we leave them? Then I would remove the "deletion request" tags from their pages. --Bricktop 00:46, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well could a least the first two pictures be deleted, as their status is clear and they are now sitting here quite a long time. (I don't want people to come again with "this was here for months without problems" arguments) Arnomane 20:13, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• in nl:wp (nl:Afbeelding:Soc-map-standard3-4p-euro.jpg) there is no source to the image, it is probably only "fair use" and not gfdl --BLueFiSH 13:22, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. 29 Pages of Google Image results and I couldn't find the source, uploader needs to clarify or it should be deleted. Studio image if I ever saw one. --Wgfinley 08:35, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Deleted by Thuresson 22:17, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• in en:wp (en:Image:Soc-klaus-teuber.jpg) the image is listed as "unknown", so it's only "fair use" and not gfdl --BLueFiSH 13:22, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete -- I found the source and that site indicates its content is ©2004 by its author. Contacted EN uploader suggesting he contact author about a free license for the image. --Wgfinley 08:29, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Deleted by Thuresson 22:17, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• "This is a picture of Jack Kerouac that was found on images.google.com ..." - and the source webpage doesn't mention it being public domain. regards, High on a tree 13:39, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Umm, don't think so!! --Wgfinley 08:12, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Deleted by Thuresson 22:17, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• PD? Don't think so. Ausir 23:18, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • Same user uploaded Image:Hilary Duff 01.jpg from the Warner Brothers 2004 movie A Cinderella Story. Fair use on en:. Both are obvious copyright violations, deleted by myself. Thuresson 05:25, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• No source info provided, no evidence picture is even of who it says it is, needs seme source information. --Wgfinley 03:38, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Without proper source these images are not PD. --Paddy 06:55, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• In this photo he is in the Hitler Youth, so he must have less than 18 years, so must be before 1945 and so this image is PD
  • www.washingtonpost.com claim this is a photo from Ratzinger's days in an anti-aircraft unit shortly before the end of the war. Regardless, German law protects intellectual property for life + 70 years, that's why Bavaria will sue you if you publish Hitler's Mein Kampf. Thuresson 16:44, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I suppose the Mein Kampf then will be public domain in some 10 years?
• Keep. Private photo from early 40s, no one will claim copyright for it, as he is the Pope now. Most likely nobody knows who the photographer was.
• Delete. May be a candidate for inclusion in 2015 though. Thuresson 06:32, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Deleted by Thuresson 06:58, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• No source, same uploader as above. --Wgfinley 04:41, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Paddy 06:55, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Picture was Public Domain under German law until recently. However, most likely the photographer is not known and nobody will claim copyright for it. The picture have so high historical significance that copyright isn't really important.
  • This 1952 photo has never been PD. Rasing the flag on Iwo Jima, Nixon leaving the White House and the photo of Kim Phuc Phan Thi during the Vietnam war have high historical significance, but this? Thuresson

• Deleted by Thuresson 06:58, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Uploader claims its from "the 1930s or 1940s" so it is not obviously PD. Probably late 1940s. Thuresson 06:02, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete --Paddy 06:55, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Note: Photos before 1950 are PD in Germany, I think. -- Chris 73 09:16, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Update Wasingtonpost.com has this photo and claim its a family portrait from 1951. Thuresson
  • No this is not true. Until 1999 images in Germany had a copyright of 50 years but in 1999 Germany has changed its copyright law according to an EU-law and expanded it to 70 years so many images that were in the public domain in 1999 (so the right year would be 1959) are now again coyrighted. This has already lead to court cases with clear decissons that these images are copyrighted e.g. with pictures of the Wagner family that were taken around 1955. So there is no way this picture has to be deleted according to international and German copyright law. Arnomane 16:11, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- I'll believe the PD claims when they show up on the Vatican site marked as such. --Wgfinley 08:04, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Deleted by Thuresson 06:58, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

COA of cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. No source for claiming PD either here or on en:. Thuresson 06:24, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete --Paddy 06:55, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Isn't there an excemption for COA? Mattes 19:50, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Every coat of arms is a personal interpretation by the artist who illustrated it. This should be enough of a creative work that their permission is required. silsor 22:31, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete can claim Fair Use on it as from Holy See but Fair Use is not allowed on Commons. --Wgfinley 08:10, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Deleted it. \u2014Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 13:55, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

En: claims this is PD released by the US Navy Chaplains but the US Navy Chaplains website do not have this image. Uploader has promised to do further research. Thuresson 11:16, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Comment agree with listing but hold until uploader can respond. --Wgfinley 08:09, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Apparently US navy staff has been emailing this photo to each other. See en:User talk:Husnock#Military Pope Image. Source and license status for this photo still unknown. Thuresson 11:31, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I doubt that the US government has sent some personnel, military or otherwise, to take a photo of the new Pope. Remember: the US government can purchase licenses from external providers (such as news agencies), but this does not put the content into PD. David.Monniaux 20:43, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Deleted by Thuresson 06:58, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

2-D reproduction of a copyrighted work. --Baikonur 15:20, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Deleted by Thuresson 06:58, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oops, I incorrectly named this file. Can someone delete please? ta, Nicklott 19:59, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Deleted (replacement: Image:The Wasa from the stern.jpg). Thuresson 20:21, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actress/singer Jennifer Lopez. Image was first uploaded to en: by a user who labelled everything, movie posters or celebrity photos with PD before he left the project in November. Later transferred here bc of the false license. Thuresson 23:01, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Deleted by Thuresson 06:58, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This image is for non commercial and educational purposes only (see source link in image description). We already had deleted it some weeks ago... Was reuploaded by User:Smartech. I fear he doesn't really understand the Commons image license policy. Arnomane 08:04, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:Smartech also re-uploaded Image:Huygens surface color.jpg after it was deleted, but then that was re-deleted, and Smartech re-uploaded this one. Maybe a confused user? silsor 08:54, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Deleted by Thuresson 23:31, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This includes Image:Paul martin.jpg, Image:CANcoat-thb.png, Image:Canada coat.png and Image:Bigcancoat.png. The template was copied from en, so it should also be deleted and links to it should be removed. Canadian Crown copyright forbids commercial use without permission[27][28], but Commons:Criteria for inclusion says "No restrictions except that of attribution (mentioning the name of the author) should apply. For example, all files uploaded on Commons must allow commercial use." silsor 22:49, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And what about PD because of age? Thuresson 23:01, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

According to [29], this particular rendition of the arms was approved in 1994. silsor 23:59, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete template but Keep coats of arms

To clarify, the coat of arms was approved in 1921 [30]. The 1994 rendition is just the updated drawing of that granted coat of arms.

And, the Trade-marks Act prohibits adoption "in connection with a business, as a trade-mark or otherwise, any mark consisting of, or so nearly resembling as to be likely to be mistaken for" the coat of arms. Typical, I expect, of any country's regulations regarding coats of arms and our use would not violate this condition.

I believe the Template:CanadaCopyright is not actually intended for the coat of arms images. The text from it comes from the standard Important Notices link on every Government of Canada web page and is intended for web page information. I think the Paul Martin image, therefore, clearly follows that template and it (and the template) should be deleted since it specifies non-commercial use. DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:44, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK, I agree that Template:CanadaCopyright is not a reason for deleting the coats of arms. However, I disagree that these images date from 1921, even as an updated version. What was granted in 1921 was a string of words such as "Gules three lions passant guardant in pale". Our images are a personal artistic interpretation of this en:blazon, like all drawings of coats of arms, and rightfully belong to the artist ("Mrs. Cathy Bursey-Sabourin, Fraser Herald at the Canadian Heraldic Authority"), unless she has given up her copyright and rights. What needs to be determined is who owns the 1994 image we use, and what rights to the image they have or haven't reserved. silsor 03:57, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Also, even if the template is not sufficient reason to delete the images, why are we hosting these images if the Government of Canada site gives an address to write in for permission to use them commercially? I think this is unfair to reusers of our content, who expect no commercial restrictions on the images. silsor 20:02, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I do concur with silsor here. Stating that The Trade Marks Act, chapterT-13, Revised Statutes of 1985 (sect. 9), protects the Arms of Canada against unauthorized commercial use, the Canada gov. - furthermore giving an address to write in for permission to use the Arms of Canada - expressly releases the Arms with conditions discordant with Commons policy. The only way to bypass it, would be to give evidence that the Canadian gov. should not be considered as the author of the Arms as to the copyright law. Good luck with that. For me, it is a strong support to deletion on the Commons. villy ♦ ✎ 20:33, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well go ahead and erase every useful image out of the poorly named "Commons" (it's not terribly useful to other wikis if it doesn't host images) but at least recognise that the Canadian government is not the author of the coat of arms. It was granted and specified in heraldic terms by George V in 1921. Furthermore, I already gave you the link for the Trade-Marks Act clause dealing with the coat of arms but you can ignore that as well as you like. Who will care about this useless project anymore once it is recognised how empty and bland it is? All you really had to do was tag the images with the correct licence and this would have been a great and definitive source of information. Whatever. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:31, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In response to your two arguments here, the image is an artistic interpretation of a specification, and the trademark act is irrelevant because the government requires permission for commercial use. silsor 00:00, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

But the commercial use restriction is independent of copyrights, isn't it? The restrictions are for using it as trademark/for advertising, not for using it in commercial sources of information like encyclopedias, which we should, in my opinion, be concerned about. Ausir 14:13, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't know enough to definitively answer those questions. silsor 01:21, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

According to en:Crown copyright, the crown copyright (UK and Canada) requires accurate reproduction, which makes it a non-free license because publication of derivative work is not allowed. The same aplies to all images tagged with Template:CrownCopyright, Template:LearningandSkillsCouncilCopyright, Template:NationalAuditOfficeCopyright, and Template:NHSCopyright. I will ask about this on the village pump first, but I belive all images tagged like this will have to be deleted. (BTW: I belive this does not apply to the coat of arms, because the design is PD by age - we may however have to draw our own version). -- Duesentrieb 14:08, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. James F. (talk) 12:43, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The image is copyrighted by Hajime Sorayama. -- Trevithick 08:22, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Someone done it. Sanbec ✉ 13:02, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The image was a badly transfered image from en-Wikipedia. The user transferend the preview but not the maximum resolution image, which I now uploaded at Image:Convento_do_Carmo_ruins_in_Lisbon.jpg. So the poor resolution version can be deleted. Arnomane 21:33, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Done. (redundancy, ergo speedy deletion) \u2014 Richie 21:38, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This template is unusable. The text of it reads, "This image is copyrighted. As the commons allows only for "free" images, the image will be deleted." However, many of the free images on Commons are copyrighted, including all GFDL images and all Creative Commons images. This template should be deleted instead of rewritten, because the title would still be "template:copyrighted", which is misleading.

A good replacement with clear terms could be Template:CopyrightedRightsReserved. silsor 22:00, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

May I suggest the name Template:Copyvio? Thuresson 06:36, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that would be best I think. -- Duesentrieb 12:17, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I created Template:Copyvio, please have a look. If noone objects, we should make Template:Copyrighted an alias for the new template and deprecate the old categories, telling people to use the noew ones. -- Duesentrieb 12:34, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That looks better. To be more generic, we could say "not published with acceptable terms" or something, not "not published under a free license", because not every free copyrighted image follows one of the cookie-cutter licenses we have. silsor 21:04, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ok, as there have been no objections, I have made Template:Copyrighted an alias for Template:Copyvio and marked it as deprecated. The template can be deleted after the current contents of Category:Copyrighted have been delt with. I also marked the category as deprecated and it should be deleted too. Images tagged with Template:Copyvio are now placed in Category:Copyvio. -- Duesentrieb 20:23, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Heh, it may be too late to say this, but I've realised Template:Copyvio is a bit of a misnomer as well. We're not violating the copyright by keeping some of these images here, since that would be expressly allowed by the license; instead, we're violating Commons policy. silsor 23:14, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, yes and no. Technically, it is a copyright violation because the uploader agreed to publish under a policy compliant license when uploading. But I belive you are right that this is a little confusing - the main category for bad stuff should be Category:Unfree copyright statuses, things tagged with Template:Nonderivative and Template:Noncommercial should be listed there, not a copyright violation. So, we need to do some more cleanup, but I think a tag called "Copyvio" is needed and is named correctly. -- Duesentrieb 14:40, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We already have Category:Aircraft and Category:Military planes - no need for this category.
User:CristianChirita created severel other subcategories in this area such as Category:B-2, Category:B-29 (and others) - they are not needed as well because there are already articles covering these planes. --Denniss 13:24, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC) I agree, make a redirect from Military Aviation to Military planesCristianChirita 17:27, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC) (Maybe military aircraft? because it must be a category for rockets and helicopters) :-)

If you want to delete a category, you should make sure that the category is empty first. Don't leave it to somebody else to recategorize loads of images. This time, all images changed to Category:Military planes. Thuresson 16:39, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

REASON : I created and saved this file today. But I did unfortunately use a wrong file name, Linolic acid instead of the correct Linoleic acid. The file name should show the correct chemical name linoleic acid to avoid confusion. I did save the image already with the correct name and the wrong page is now redundant. Wolfgang
-- WS62 14:14, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Deleted. --EugeneZelenko 04:26, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Deletion request only for version 22 Apr 20:36 and 21:08 1474 bytes
REASON : I created and saved this file today. Anyhow, I did upload a wrong formula (Stearic acid instead Oleic acid) by mistake. The wrong image (version 20:36, 1474 bytes) should be deleted because the formula is not corresponding with the file name and image description and thus could create confusion. The correct image is the version uploaded 21:02 (1470 bytes) and has a double bond "=" in the middle of the molecule. I did upload also the correct image with a different name: Oleic_acid_shorthand_formula_2.PNG; this additional page can be also deleted if the current one has been corrected. Sorry for my mistake! Wolfgang
-- WS62 14:14, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Done. James F. (talk) 12:48, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded a higher res version at Image:Guadalupe_Peak_summit_2005-03-12.JPG -- I should have read the FAQ first so I would have known that uploading a high res version is okay. - Gjking 20:32, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Deleted, Thuresson 07:15, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Screenshot of Microsoft Word. Contains many nonfree elements. silsor 00:52, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Deleted, Thuresson 07:15, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Like the above: screenshot of Microsoft Word for Mac. Contains many nonfree elements. -- Duesentrieb 12:18, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Deleted, Thuresson 07:15, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Screenshot/photo of a registered trademark. silsor 00:52, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Deleted, Thuresson 07:15, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, sorry. Reytan 08:10, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC) Deletion requests Deletion requests

• Deleted, Thuresson 07:15, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader licensed this as GFDL but do not know the source. Probably press photo. Thuresson 08:32, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

German Wikipedia user ALE! got permission from the president of Argentina's website to use their pictures as GFDL. However, delete as a better version Image:Body of John Paul II Daniel Scioli.jpg See: de:Benutzer:ALE!/Bilder Presidencia Argentina. Ausir 22:38, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Excellent! My spanish is a bit rusty though, is it really GFDL and not PD? Thuresson 22:53, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand Spanish at all, but it seems that the German user asked specifically about GFDL, and they basically said "OK". But it might also mean that they're generally PD... Ausir 23:45, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No license. Thuresson

• Deleted, Thuresson 07:15, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Proportions and colors are no correct. Image:Basque Country Flag.png uploaded from en:Image:Basque Country Flag.png. Willy 18:34, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Deleted after checking major wikipedias if they used old flag, Thuresson 07:15, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Very poor quality, we have better photos of Tu-160 here: Tupolev Tu 160 - Pibwl 21:51, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hardly reason to delete it. Further, it's the only image of the aircraft and flight, and where no part of the plane is obscured. Keep. Dan100 11:09, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Deleted, The photographs used in FM 44-80 have been furnished to the US Army for official training use only, and may be copyrighted or proprietary. We cannot give permission to use the photographs for commercial purposes. [31]. Thuresson 16:39, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

REASON : Because they tried to move Wernher von Braun to Wernher Magnus Maximilian von Braun and failed to get a correct name. There was no reason for the move and even less reason since they spelled it incorrectly. -- Grenavitar 00:36, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Deleted, Thuresson 00:01, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re-uploaded as Image:Rumengol port de brest.jpg because of error in the filename and impossible to rename --Julien Carnot 13:16, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Deleted. --EugeneZelenko 15:34, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Re-uploaded as Image:Table Mountain from harbour.jpg because of error in the filename and impossible to rename --Julien Carnot 15:04, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Deleted. --EugeneZelenko 15:34, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Silly drawing, I don't think this is very useful. Also, the user had uploaded the same image as Image:Wiki horsie.gif which was deleted on his request as an accidental upload. I'm not sure if it was an acceident to upload it at all, or just that he uploaded it twice. Maybe he can clarify. -- Duesentrieb

I first uploaded to Wikipedia, then saw I lost all rights to the image (there's a BOOK coming out with Horsie soon, meaning I don't really need somthing like this), so I overwrote it with a blank image because I couldn't delete it, then went to Commons as suggested, uploaded the same pic, felt unsure about losing rights here too, then went back to Wikipedia to upload a pic of just Horsie's head, saw the original file was restored BECAUSE it needed to be deleted, so I overwrote both images with a text image with the question to PLEASE delete it, but both versions got restored too, after which I gave up and wanted to delete everything.

Why are people restoring stuff so they can delete it? (And even claim I'm not the original uploader?) DarkSkywise 16:36, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ok, first of all: I deleted the image, so be consoled. Please note a few points about the Commons, Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects:

• Everything here is under a free license, if it is not it will be deleted. Do not upload material that you do not want to share with the world. See Commons:Licensing for details.
• You did not lose any rights, you granted rights to others. When you uploaded your image here, you klicked a checkbox in the upload for that is labeled "I affirm that the copyright holder of this file agrees to license it under the terms of the Wikimedia Commons copyright" (this is badly worded and should be changed, but you did agree to place your work under a free license.
• If you want an image you uploaded to be deleted, please do not blank it but put {{delete}} on the description page along with a short explanation. The image will then be deleted soon.

I don't really understand why you uploaded the image in the first place... Have a nice day. -- Duesentrieb 18:36, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is a .gif and it's really small so I downloaded the same image but in .jpeg from NASA, Image:Apollo 1 prime crew, April 1 1966.jpg. I'm uncertain if they technically are exact duplicates so I list the .gif here instead of speedy deleting it. Thuresson 21:05, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Deleted after checking largest wikipedias if they used it, changed in es:. Thuresson 00:01, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Uploaded wrong filename; meant to overwrite existing file located here. --Tomf688 01:59, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Excellent, I think I have used that image somewhere earlier. Deleted. Thuresson 02:04, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The file has an incorrect name, and a file with a correct name Image:Cooking yakitori.jpg ,I uploaded. Searobin 09:59, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Marked as redundant. Good idea to ask RCBot help to replace this image on all Wikipedias. --EugeneZelenko 14:54, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Deleted, Thuresson 04:19, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete this file, I put the same file but in .png. Bionet 20:10, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Deleted. --EugeneZelenko 00:19, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please delete this picture as it infringes the copyright on the lighting of the Eiffel Tower. Julien Carnot 12:19, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How can lighting be copyrighted? Strange world. \u2014 Richie 11:05, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This has been discussed earlier. There are many good reasons for keeping this. It can be argued that the copyright claim is nonsense. Thuresson 12:13, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Very strange. The uploader claims the deletion of an image due to a ridiculous law. If they can copyright the light I will to copyright the air. --Sanbec 13:07, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

See the previous discussion (as linked to by Thuresson). The light installation is actually their work of art - so it is protected in the same way a photo of a sculpture is protected. ed g2s • talk 14:50, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Deleted. ed g2s • talk 14:50, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Maybe it's too late now, but i'm wondering if this is really true by french law. In germany for instance, a pice of art, including architecture, is protected by copyright law and you can not publish pictures of them without permission - unless the picture was taken from a publically acessible place (this is called "Panoramafreiheit" in Germany). So can someone please check what french law says about this? -- Duesentrieb

As far as I know there is no "Panoramafreiheit" equivalent in France. Arnomane 17:52, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Most of these images, uploaded by Nemo5576, only have a license but do not have a verifiable source. Some images are claimed to come from militaryimages.net where members can upload images whose copyright they own. The terms for the web site clearly states [32] that the copyright is not transferred to the web site. A few images have been taken from en: or fr: without further sources.

I have asked the uploader to provide more information so that others can verify that the images indeed are public domain, e.g. name of photographer, name of web site or anything else that will help others identify the copyright owner or that copyright has expired.

• Image:Maxim M32-33MACHINEGUN Finland.jpg
• Image:69US M1919A4 30 Cal MG.jpg
• Image:69303 Vickers MG.jpg
• Image:Colt M1914.jpg
• Image:Mp40.jpg
• Image:Rpg-7.jpg
• Image:44russ nagant rev.jpg
• Image:126nagant03.jpg
• Image:C9A2 1.jpg
• Image:44ak47 drum.jpg
• Image:44sten mk5.jpg
• Image:69US Model 1903A4 Springfield.jpg
• Image:Pks.jpg
• Image:Pk icon.jpg
• Image:M 14 prone flash suppressor bipod.jpg
• Image:Firearms rifle ak47.jpg
• Image:PKM machine gun.jpg
• Image:Anti-tank rifle wz 35.jpg
• Image:Rifle wz.38M.jpg
• Image:Polish rifle wz 1960.jpg
• Image:Wist1.jpg
• Image:Pistolet P-83 wyt\u0142umiony.jpg
• Image:P83.jpg
• Image:P64.jpg
• Image:Submachine gun Bechowiec.jpg
• Image:PM wz 63 2.jpg
• Image:PM wz 63.jpg
• Image:Mors.jpg
• Image:SWD.jpg
• Image:Johnson Type R.jpg
• Image:Springfield 1903 rifle.jpeg
• Image:Lewisgun.jpg
• Image:Wist-94L.jpg
• Image:RPG2 and PG2.jpg
• Image:RPKwz1961.jpg
• Image:RPK-74.jpg
• Image:Hotchkiss wz 14.jpg
• Image:PPD 40.jpg
• Image:PPD 34.jpg
• Image:RPD wz.44.jpg
• Image:Fiat Revelli mod.14.jpg
• Image:Garand M1 (P).jpg
• Image:G11 (USA ACR).jpg
• Image:DSzK38.jpg

Thuresson 11:07, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Deleted by Thuresson 23:31, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I found a copyright in these images. Sorry !

• Image:Plasmide pBluescript.png
• Image:ADNmt marchantia polymorpha.png

• Deleted, Thuresson 20:13, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template:TW-cc-by-nc-nd-2.0, Template:TW-cc-by-nc-sa-2.0 and Template:TW-cc--by-nc-nd and all pictures using those templates

These are tags for the taiwanese version of a non-free CC license. I belive the general tags for non-free CC licenses are sufficient (they may be useful when someone errounouly wants to put an image under such a license).

There are only a few images using those tags, all uploaded by User:Wdshu. He has been notified about the non-free status of the copyright repeatedly, with no effect. Thus I belive the following pictures should be deleted from the commons:

1. Image:DZ DZ and May 2004 001 Amis.jpg
2. Image:DZ DZ and May 2004 002 Qingshui Hualian.jpg
3. Image:Keelong Harbour in the Morning.jpg
4. Image:Badouze around Keelung.jpg
5. Image:Yeliu Taiwan.jpg
6. Image:Sun 2001 001 Amis.jpg
7. Image:Kenming 2004 001 Taichung.jpg
8. Image:Kenming 2004 002 Taichung.jpg

-- Duesentrieb 16:20, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

images deleted, templates still pending. I got feedback from Wdshu now, he told me to delete the images as he got now response from the original author of the images. -- Duesentrieb 11:22, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Templates now deleted. James F. (talk) 18:05, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1. Image:DonFrancisco-RicardoLagos.jpg
2. Image:MonttBusto.JPG
3. Image:JorgeMontt.JPG
4. Image:Kirchner-Lagos.jpg
5. Image:LagosMinistros.jpg
6. Image:Saramago.JPG
7. Image:LagosConferencia.jpg
8. Image:LagosMetro.jpg
9. Image:LagosConferencia2.jpg
10. Image:Lagos-Errazuriz.jpg
11. Image:LagosONU.jpg
12. Image:Lagos-Pastrana.jpg
13. Image:Lagos-Zamorano.jpg
14. Image:Lagos-Aznar.jpg
15. Image:Lagos-Fox.JPG
16. Image:LagosConferencia3.jpg
17. Image:LagosConferencia4.jpg
18. Image:LagosConferencia5.jpg

-- Duesentrieb 16:42, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Deleted all photos from Zaratustra. Thuresson 06:39, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1. we don't need this category
2. someone who can't add an image in a category, shouldn't have his own category
3. wrong category name
4. he has only some edits, one for the image and the rest for the category

-- Breezie 16:47, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Deleted, Thuresson 06:55, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pixelquelle is a bad source. --Baikonur 21:14, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Done! --Sanbec 12:33, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A press release does not mean that the image is released into the public domain. --Baikonur 21:14, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. Wikinews needs its own image repository for cases such as this. James F. (talk) 21:38, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete, website greenpeace.org.uk do not mention anything about image copyrights. Also, "7014" is not a sensible file name. Thuresson 22:00, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, there is no copyright info on the site. But does that no indicate that it's PD? I've e-mailed Greenpeace's press office to try and sort this out. Dan100 11:06, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Deleted, asked Dan100 on his/her userpage 3 days ago if Greenpeace had replied, got no answer. Thuresson 06:55, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

no source, no license, copyright notice in the image(?) --Baikonur 21:20, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Deleted, Thuresson 06:55, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have uploaded the image under the new name of Image:Trust Territory Pacific Islands flag large.png. This seems to be the norm used here for flag image names. - Hoshie 03:28, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Done! Sanbec ✉ 12:47, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:Camera type and subcategories. Should we now list all photos by type of camera used ?!? -- Denniss 22:06, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • agree, it's not the sence of an encyclopedia to categorize images by camera type used. There are special sites for that purpose --Bricktop 22:27, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This isn't an encyclopedia; it's a media repository, and consequently categorization by camera type is quite relevant. — Dan | Talk 22:58, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why should this be relevant? Please explain ! -- Denniss 23:30, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. I've populated Category:Canon PowerShot A310. What parent category should it have besides this one? I agree that type of camera used isn't a terribly useful piece of information, but it doesn't hurt anything to have. Obviously someone finds it useful enough to bother putting some pictures in the category. Dbenbenn 11:53, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Ulenspiegel 18:38, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The following images are under a non-free and should thus be deleted:

• Image:NorthDakotastateseal.jpg (may be arguable, because the seal itself is PD, restriction to non-commercial result from a law independent of copyright)
• Image:Ssc2004-05b medium.jpg
• Image:Trans-Neptunian object 2003 VB12.Sedna.orbit comparisons.jpg
• Image:56755main sedna-comp-330-264.jpg

-- Duesentrieb 16:31, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template:CrownCopyright, Template:LearningandSkillsCouncilCopyright, Template:NationalAuditOfficeCopyright, Template:NHSCopyright and all images tagged with those templates

The British Crown Copyright requires accurate reproductions, which makes it non-free for the purpose of the commons. I would suggest to delete these templates or redirect them to Template:Nonderivative. The respective categories should be deleted too.

The following images are licensed under the British Crown Copyright and thus do not allow derivative work:

1. Image:David blunkett.jpg
2. Image:George-cross.jpg
3. Image:Scottish homeless football team 2004.jpg
4. Image:MountTongariroMap.jpg
5. Image:Ascension-island.jpg
6. Image:Ascension Island Location.jpg
7. Image:Churchill & Montgomery am Rhein (04. 03. 1945).jpeg
8. Image:Strigops habroptilus 5.jpg
9. Image:James Callaghan, small formal portrait.png
10. Image:Aclarkson.jpg

-- Duesentrieb 17:27, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Delete. James F. (talk) 12:38, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted the images above but not the templates. Thuresson 01:58, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PZFUN has uploaded several images referring to the South African Intellectual Property Law which allows for publishing of copyrighted works for noncommercial purposes and licensed these as GFDL. He has also uploaded several photos from various cities in South Africa without source. Thuresson 06:48, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Image:South African woman voting.jpg
• Image:Mbeki taking the oath of office.jpg
• Image:Political Rally in 1985 in South Africa.jpg
• Image:Nelson Mandela Being Sworn In.jpg
• Image:South African Police in Alexandria Township.jpg
• Image:Apartheid Segregated Washroom.jpg
• Image:Apartheid Passbook.jpg
• Image:Apartheid Beach.jpg
• Image:FW de Klerk Voting.jpg
• Image:Line in Soweto to vote.jpg
• Image:South African educational ballot.jpg
• Image:1994 Election Ballot.jpg
• Image:Johannesburg from Carlton Centre 4.jpg
• Image:Johannesburg from Carlton Centre 3.jpg
• Image:Johannesburg from Carlton Centre 2.jpg
• Image:Johannesburg from Carlton Centre 1.jpg
• Image:Johannesburg Skyline.jpg
• Image:CentralPretoria.jpg
• Image:CentralDurban.jpg
• Image:DowntownCapeTown.jpg
• Image:TableMountainPanorama.jpg
• Image:CentralCapeTown.jpg
• Image:CapeTownHarbour.jpg
• Image:CapeTownBay.jpg

• Delete all'. Sanbec ✉ 12:38, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I left messages on PZFUN's talk page here and at en: but although he/she is active daily on en:, PZFUN has not bothered to reply. All images deleted. Thuresson 01:53, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think vatican.va pictures are free of copyright. Ausir 05:53, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Deleted. Thuresson 01:53, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete, as this is not the best quality of this image (I uploaded the original at Image:Satellite_image_of_Cape_peninsula.jpg ) and the name is deceiving. Julien Carnot 09:53, 28 Apr 2005

I agree that the image is badly named and the new version should be used instead. However, please check other wikis carefully before deleting, this is an excelent picture and may be used in many places (it was for instance a featured image on the de:wp). I have switched the german wp to the new one, but please check other projects. Thanks! -- Duesentrieb 00:14, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Deleted. Checked af, de, fr, ja, bg, ca, da, eo, es, fi, fy, he, it, nl, nn, no, pl, pt, ro, ru, simple, sl, sr, sv, uk and zh. Changed in de, it and nl. Thuresson 17:13, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As Edvard Munch died in 1944, his paintings are still under copyright. This is administered by the Munch Museum in Oslo, and they have successfully prosecuted before. They do not accept the fair use-principle (Norway has no such thing), but they might be willing to give permission for limited use. Cnyborg 07:54, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The image has been tagged has fair use on WP:EN, see Munch scream.jpg. -- Get_It • 19:04, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, Thuresson 14:18, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This case is similar to the one above. Uploader has photographed this him/herself but what does the Andy Warhol Estate say? Thuresson 20:39, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Deleted, Thuresson 14:18, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Have not read it, but I am sure it does not belong here. -guety 01:23, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Deleted, Thuresson 14:18, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a promotion picture to me, certainly not like a PD pic. --Conti|✉ 17:26, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Deleted. Thuresson 15:06, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm, what is the purpose of this category? "little clothing" is not so easy to define, and this category makes as much sense as "Category:Fully clothed people" IMHO. Category:Nudity is ok, but this is a bit over the top. --Conti|✉ 17:34, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete this silly category. This is a nonsense category imported from en-wikipedia. As far as I know it was created there from some people that said that they were afraid that they could be offended by such images and thought creating a category would help them avoiding looking at these images... We don't need that. If someone hs a problem with a naked person, well it is his private problem but not the problem of Wikimedia Commons, as long as the person shown on the picture and the fotografer agreed publishing this image under a free license. Arnomane 18:54, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete. I second Arnomane. This category is indeed silly. Category:Nudity is ok. --Avatar 19:55, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete. There are cultures for which various types of "little clothing" are problematic as "nudity" is for others, but "little clothing" is too vague - you'd have to have cats like "uncovered womens hair", "bare midriff", etc if you really wanted to be serious about this, and it would have to be undertaken by people who really know the cultures at issue. Stan Shebs 03:03, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Deleted. This category included athletes with appropriate clothing, Britney Spears with bare midriff, a woman wearing a skirt, Venus de Milo (naked) and various saints being crucified (very little clothing). Thuresson 15:06, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lower-resolution copy of Image:Ovidius Metamorphosis - George Sandy's 1632 edition.jpg. I moved the former here from en: without bothering to check if there was one here already :-P Blankfaze 00:21, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I was going to list Ovidthepoet.jpg at WP:IFD earlier this week but never got around to it. Duplicate, hence speedy deletion. Thuresson 03:29, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I uploaded pictures with wrong content. Mikkalai 18:21, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Done. \u2014 Richie 18:39, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:People by country. Much more logical and less awkward sounding. Neutrality 20:15, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• No, "People of Foo" stresses where somebody is active or lives, while "Fooish people" instead stresses issues of ethnicity or citizenship, which creates problems for countries with several ethnic groups. Changing "People of Finland" to "Finnish people" would exclude several former presidents of Finland, etc. Thuresson 06:35, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed with Thuresson. Don't move. James F. (talk) 12:32, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Images from encyclopedias. A Google search shows that "encyclopedia" gets 278,000 hits, while "encyclopaedia" gets 20,400; in other words, "encylopedia" is more than 13 times more widely used. Neutrality 20:15, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• A google search is no argument for decision in favour of some particular spelling. Much better is wikt:Encyclopedia: "(chiefly British): encyclopaedia. The spelling encyclopedia is standard in American, Canadian, Australian and International English and is also common in British English." This is a better argument. \u2014 Richie 23:54, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Seems sensible. I agree, move. However, I agree with Richie that using the outputs of Google as not such a good idea. James F. (talk) 12:36, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Presidents of the United States of America → Category:Presidents of the United States
• Category:Politicians of the United States of America → Category:American politicians
• Category:United States actors → Category:American actors
• Category:United States astronauts → Category:American astronauts
• Category:United States composers → Category:American composers
• Category:U.S. philosophers → Category:American philosophers
• Category:US scientists → Category:American scientists
• Category:Scientists of the United States → Category:American scientists
• Category:United States singers →Category:American singers
• Category:US writers → Category:American writers

Neutrality 20:15, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• To all above (April 30): these are not deletion requests. You will need to discuss renaming the categories somewhere else. I furthermore oppose the term "American", because there is more to America than just the US. \u2014 Richie 23:54, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Well, this page is good enough, I suppose, as deletion is a part of the process, and there isn't another place for naming, really. However, I agree - they should all be moved to "United States". "U.S." is ugly, and "American" is ambiguous. James F. (talk) 00:02, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• No America, no renaming, please, "United States" is good enough. Miaow Miaow 14:33, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree. They should be kept either at United States or move the categories to say United States. Zscout370 16:45, 2005 May 3 (UTC)