Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2005/11

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Reason : I have uploaded it again in Image:Freeciv v2.00b1 hexa.jpg, that's a better name, and there is also a picture fr:Image:Freeciv capture ecran.jpg in fr:. And yes, I have checked with http://www.juelich.de/avatar/check-usage/ and the picture is not used anymore with the old name. YolanC 23:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, Thuresson 14:33, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

This image is a work of the U.S. Army Institute Of Heraldry, taken or made during the course of the Institute's official duties. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the image is in the public domain, with the following caveat: "The images of all badges, insignia, decorations and medals on this web site are protected by Title 18, United States Code, Section 704 and the Code of Federal Regulations (32 CFR, Part 507). Permission to use these images for commercial purposes must be obtained from The Institute of Heraldry prior to their use."

Yet another template for noncommercial images. I also suggest deleting all images with this template. Thuresson 08:09, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why do they state this is "public domain" when it is not. Is this institute a non official association independant of the US Army, or is it instead already bound with the rules for all public US works? If so, the distribution restriction is not valid, as long as the work as been legally obtained from a public source, and used with the correct attribution. The existing text is similar to CC-BY-NC-SA, but I think it should be CC-BY-SA instead (the NC restriction is not valid). Verdy p 10:38, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• This statement was requested by the US Army Institute of Heraldry as the statement it uses on its website for all of the images it has national custody of. If you delete it and the images associated with it, then you will have to decimate Wikimedia's images because the US Congress has given the US Army Institute of heraldry custody of ALL images that are produced for ALL branches of the United States Government. The USAIOH is required - by law - to permit Public Domain use of its images for non-commercial use, but it is just good sense to keep their commercialization caveat since they don't require any fee of any sort for that use. They only want to be informed of who is using their images for commercial purposes, and they retain veto rights over such use. By the way, Wikimedia has numerous USAIOH images on their various sites that have yet to be properly tagged, including the United States Flag (Yes, USAIOH has custody of that image, too). Does this mean that you will stick to your guns in an objective manner and delete ALL images of the United States Government in order to avoid any complaints of hypocracy? The reason for the folderol over this tag has to do with the fact that whereas previous image reproduction was difficult when it was on Papaer or other media, it is quite easy to reproduce images from digital media for commercial purposes with little notice.

• To summarize, the template and its attendent catagories meet a legal need, and will not cost Wikimedia one penny. It will also keep Wikimedia's users on the right side of the law when their purpose is commercial use of USAIOH images.

CORNELIUSSEON 11:00, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"permit Public Domain use of its images for non-commercial use" ? It's either Public Domain, either for non-commercial use. You might as well have a square circle... Rama 16:58, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as long as the images are used for non-commercial purposes, we have nothing to worry about. The caveat is only intended for those who would try to earn an illegal buck off of Uncle Sam's images. It is not really a square circle, just an attempt by Congress to protect national images.

BTW, you have misquoted Benjamin Franklin's famous quotation. What he said was:

• "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

• Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

CORNELIUSSEON 03:12, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The images on WikiCommons are made available to everybody for any purpose. That includes making a buck off them. Commercial users should not have to ask permission, nor should there be restrictions not compatible with Commons:Licensing. Thuresson 10:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at Commons Licensing, and realized that it is incomplete, and so amended it to include the following information from Title 18 of the United States Code that speaks directly to this subject:

TITLE 18--CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

PART I--CRIMES

CHAPTER 33--EMBLEMS, INSIGNIA, AND NAMES

Sec. 701. Official badges, identification cards, other insignia

• Whoever manufactures, sells, or possesses any badge, identification card, or other insignia, of the design prescribed by the head of any department or agency of the United States for use by any officer or employee thereof, or any colorable imitation thereof, or photographs, prints, or in any other manner makes or executes any engraving, photograph, print, or impression in the likeness of any such badge, identification card, or other insignia, or any colorable imitation thereof, except as authorized under regulations made pursuant to law, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.

• The Possession aspect is taken care of by the Public Domain claim for all such items under the US Constitution and applicable laws, but the manufactures and sells aspect is addressed by the specific Copyright Statements that are posted by each agency on the Internet.

• Section 704 is more specific for Military items, as noted as follows:

• Sec. 704. Military medals or decorations

• a) In General.--Whoever knowingly wears, manufactures, or sells any decoration or medal authorized by Congress for the armed forces of the United States, or any of the service medals or badges awarded to the members of such forces, or the ribbon, button, or rosette of any such badge, decoration or medal, or any colorable imitation thereof, except when authorized under regulations made pursuant to law, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.

• (b) Congressional Medal of Honor.--

• (1) In general.--If a decoration or medal involved in an offense under subsection (a) is a Congressional Medal of Honor, in lieu of the punishment provided in that subsection, the offender shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.

• (2) Definitions.--(A) As used in subsection (a) with respect to a Congressional Medal of Honor, ``sells includes trades, barters, or exchanges for anything of value.

• (B) As used in this subsection, "Congressional Medal of Honor" means--

• (i) a medal of honor awarded under section 3741, 6241, or 8741 of title 10 or section 491 of title 14;

• (ii) a duplicate medal of honor issued under section 3754, 6256, or 8754 of title 10 or section 504 of title 14; or

• (iii) a replacement of a medal of honor provided under section 3747, 6253, or 8747 of title 10 or section 501 of title 14.

• The United States Army Institute of Heraldry - the official custodian of ALL United States governmental images - has addressed this issue with its Copyright statement, which informs the reader as to how to meet any commercial needs under this statute.

• The copyright statement I have included as part of the template addresses this issue adequately.

• I waited an additional week for additional discussion on the subject of the US Army Institute Of Heraldry template, and there hasn't been any, so I am assuming that the matter is dropped. As a result, I will remove the deletion tag from the template.

CORNELIUSSEON 04:40, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your own arguments support deleting the template. If the images can not be used commercially they will have to be deleted. Thuresson 20:18, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. Even if coat of arms are in the public domain, they are still restricted for commercial use. This applies to coat of arms in many countries, which is mentioned on the template {{insignia}}.

This image shows a flag, a coat of arms, a seal or some other official insignia. The use of such symbols is restricted in many countries. These restrictions are independent of the copyright status.

Fred Chess 21:15, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

These images are same as Image:HiroshimaUniv.jpg & Image:HiroshimaL&SUniv.jpg. So, I want to delete these unnecessary (upload-miss) images.--HU 15:14, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

here you go ! Rama 16:58, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Missing information for license. Oks 17:39, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From Gray's Anatomy, 1918. Tag added. Thuresson 10:17, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Licence is not credible and contradictionary. --ALE! 22:03, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• According to what is said about this image in the ENGLISH VERSION OF WIKIPEDIA (Image:Isabelperon.jpg) - Click here to access it, and also in the VERSIÓN EN ESPAÑOL/SPANISH VERSION OF WIKIPEDIA (Imagen:Isabelperon.jpg) - Click here to see it this image is in PUBLIC DOMAIN or ITS COPYRIGHT HAS EXPIRED - THIS APPLIES WORLDWIDE.
  Ain't both of these statements credible? If they aren't, what in Earth should we trust? Please, tell me!! Joao Xavier 20:51, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

en:Image:Isabelperon.jpg was uploaded by User:J.J. who has uploaded hundreds of photos of famous people and tagged them as PD but ignores questions about his sources. The Spanish version is obviously taken from English Wikipedia. All photos on WikiCommons should have a credible source who can verify that the photo is freely licensed. Thuresson 13:12, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, Thuresson 20:57, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File name identifies wrong group. Replaced with identical file at Image:Black Bloc demonstrators at J20.jpg with correct name and description. --Schuminweb 01:42, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done ! (by the way, double licence to CC-by-sa anyone ? ) Rama 09:07, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Es ist kein Grund für PD ersichtlich, insbesondere sind Politikerbilder keine amtlichen Werke im Sinne von § 5 UrhG. --Mogelzahn 09:33, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Paddy

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

All images in this page are Pavo cristatus, not Pavo muticus. Apparently we do not have any images of P. muticus, so this page should be deleted. -- Baldhur 15:48, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, Thuresson 14:06, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Copyvio (the uploader said on Ja WP those were captured from a videogame) and his modus operandi suggests those were uploaded to harass some person (in Image:Bukuro-king02.jpg, possibly). If possible, it could be deleted speedily. --Aphaia 17:08, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

gone -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 18:13, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Unfree, as public speach is still copyrighted (otherwise no author could held a public lecture of a book) unless explicitely excluded by copyright terms (e.g. in case of PD-US-Gov, which does not apply here). See also it's context at en:Alberta Alliance Party leadership election, 2005, my question to the uploader en:User_talk:Cloveious#Copyright question and his answer en:User talk:Arnomane. -- Arnomane 19:47, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this is part of the article source and a response to a message put out in the public domain as part of an election campaign. The message was in a response to this letter [1]. and part of an on-going public battle between en:David Crutcher and en:Ed Klop and en:Randy Thorsteinson see here Response to the Response of Ed Klop by David Crutcher, Personally I don't see how this is different then anything on published WikiQuotes--Cloveious 02:09, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• delete No argument was given for PD. Wikiquote en is based on FAIR USE which we don't accept here. --Historiograf 01:56, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• @Cloveious: you say that it's "a response to a message put out in the public domain as part of an election campaign". Now, where does it say it ways put into the publy domain? How can you infer this? delete if this claim is not substantiated. -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 03:18, 6 November 2005 (UTC) Btw... en wikisources claims "fair use" on such metarial? WTF? Fair use relies on editorial context, which does not exist in wikisource, per definition.[reply]
  • Wikiquote is fair use, as a collection of famous quotations. dbenbenn | talk 05:36, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  Side note: The Problem with Fair Use is (and that's what Duesentrieb meant) that e.g. in Germany you cannot separate the content which you use under fair use from the context you use it within. E.g. some quotes of an author within a text or an image "quoted" within a text is allowed but extracting the quotes and the quoted image out of that article and make a separate article (a collection on Wikiquotes) only out of it without further own explanatory text is not allowed at least in Germany and probably within the whole European Union (there were court decissions exactly about collections of quotes that stopped selling these collections, Wikimedia Germany had also asked this Wikiquotes issue to a lawyer see: meta:Rechtsfragen März 2005 and they confirmed that Wikiquotes is highly problematic; unluckily the text is only in German, we should translate it to English as well). So apart from that our policy does not allow Fair Use at Commons it would also be prohibited by law... Arnomane 10:20, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Stop playing lawyer, this has nothing to do with the European Union or German law, this is statements made during an election. This is entirely a statement made in the public domain, and thus documents an ongoing news event, no politician can copyright what they say during an election it's a matter of public record. This statement was made to the public, and concerns people interested in the Alberta Alliance leadership election I have provided a source and contact information of the party to which has made the statement, please contact them to settle the matter, I have recorded this statement myself in an open file format, there is no point of view, no copyright violation, this is not unfree, this has no commercial value to begin with anyway. This is also a source for the election article. I don't see how this is different than having Image:1941 Roosevelt speech pearlharbor p1.ogg in the commons. I really hope you all have somthing better to do like oh maybe write a freakin article, instead of wasting my time by subjecting my contributions to non sense --Cloveious 23:02, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This has nothing to do with EU law or fith fair use (although the same restrictions apply to fair use in the US afaik, but this is not the point here). You said: "no politician can copyright what they say during an election it's a matter of public record. This statement was made to the public". Is this just your personal oppinion, or do you have anything substantial to back up this claim? The difference to the speach be Roosvelt is simple: that is ia speach given by a President of the US, acting in his office, i.e. it's a work of the US goventment, and thus PD. I don't know if the same applies to works of the Canadian goventment, but it wouldn't matter here: this rule applies to works of the govenment, not to messages by politicians, during election or otherwise. "A metter of public record" has nothing to do with being PD. Campaign posters, stickers and pamphelts etc are definitely not PD, for instance. How and where you recorded it does not matter either. -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 23:46, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cloveious I'm not playing lawyer but please note: Public Domain is not the same like public place. This was a statement made in public but public domain in contrast is about lack of ownership. If I read in public place a poem of mine this doesn't mean I give my copyright away with that. So simply ask Mr Crutcher if we can keep this record under a free license. You are the uploader so you are in duty to provide legality of your claims. I'm not a copyright fanatic but we want freely licensed content not this kind of content that you can get everywhere. This is a unique place for freely licensed multimedia content. If we would give up this Wikimedia Commons would be the same as many other image servers and nothing special. Arnomane 00:36, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, I see not substantial difference between this recording and the recording of Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" speech, deleted in April, see archive. Thuresson 14:27, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Article Tamil language is more specific than Tamil. Ilse@ 20:23, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as redirect. // Fred Chess 02:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

REASON: Category:Coats of arms of the Netherlands exists as well and is the right name --pjetter 22:41, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are actually languages other than English, you know. 'Nederlands' is how people that live in the Netherlands spell it. ¦ Reisio 11:38, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Call it then 'Wapenschilden van Nederland', which I could support. But 'Coats of arms of the Nederlands' sounds ridiculous for English as well as Dutch speakers. Donarreiskoffer 17:12, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, Thuresson 14:06, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

I make a mistake ! I erase : Image:Pieter Aertsen 001.jpg Please restore it. I am very sorry ! Thanks :-(( --Valérie75 13:54, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You did not erase the old image, you uploaded your version over the old one (despite beeing asked to check the old image before uploading the new one ...). There's a small button labelled as Rev next to the original image, this is to be used to restore an older version. --Denniss 15:33, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for your help. Promise, I will be very careful in the future. :-) --Valérie75 15:42, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

delete people should have their own page, not their own category, which Alanis Morissette already has. --Arniep 01:20, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, put all Alanis photos in the category and the best ones in the article. Thuresson 20:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

I reloaded this under another name Image:Wang and Nazis.jpg because nobody uses caps for file types, so I'm requesting the old one deleted. Thanks. --Miborovsky 04:07, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm the uploader. --Miborovsky 04:07, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to let you know that Photoshop converts Graphic files to PNG format - making use of Caps - instead of lower case. CORNELIUSSEON 04:34, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, that's strange since my Photoshop saves to .png... nevertheless my request stands as the photo is redundant. Miborovsky 04:41, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hello? I'm the uploader and I uploaded the photo to the correct name... can someone delete this? All the pics below have been deleted with no questions asked so why is this still here? Miborovsky 04:01, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

deleted. For redundant images like this, please use {{db|redundant, see [[:Image:xyz.jpg]]}}. -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 11:33, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Requesting speedy deletion of the subject image from WikiCommons. I am the user that uploaded the photo to begin with. I forgot to crop it before uploading it. H Padleckas 11:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, Thuresson 20:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Das Plakat ist sicherlich urheberrechtlich geschützt und hier hilft auch nicht die Panoramafreiheit --Mogelzahn 00:37, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete copyvio. German Panoramafreiheit does not apply, because the poster is not installed permanently. -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 01:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

deleted by Paddy

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

This is simplytext and shouldn't be in Commons--216.169.213.2 10:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• ARGUMENTS --216.169.213.2 10:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete - this does not belong on the commons. It could be incorporated into the article on the english Wikipedia, which already as a lengthy article about her, see en:Thalia Sodi. -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 14:52, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, all text, no media. Thuresson 16:24, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

According to the 1998 law on copyright in Serbia and Montenegro photos ([2]) are protected for 50 years after the death of the phtographer. Works by anonymous are protected for 50 years after publication. Photographers have the right to be credited for their work for an indefinite time, eg. forever.

There is nothing in the law that suggest that photos from schoolbooks are exempt from copyright. Thuresson 13:51, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The image of President Tito’s funeral was published not only in the school books, but all over former (no more existing) socialist Yugoslavia. You could see this picture in any shop and in any house (I’m born in Yugoslavia, so I know what I’m talking about), the picture was given away to everyone who ask for it, and as such the picture does not enjoy any copyright protection. Bobby 19:22, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You said "and as such the picture does not enjoy any copyright protection" - do you have anything substantial to back up that claim? Maybe government propaganda of former Yugoslavia is in fact PD - maybe not. But your arguments don't help any - a lot of copyrighted graphics are all over the place (think advertisements for instance), this has nothing to do with their copyright status. -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 20:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This Image was taken and published in the former, no more existing Socialist State of Yugoslavia, and as such does not has any copyright protection according the Yugoslavia law, because that state and that law don’t exist any more. The Yugoslavia is divided in many different small states with own laws.

Zabeleška: Ova slika je snimljena i izdata u bivšoj, više nepostoječoj Jugoslaviji, i kao takva nema postoječu zaštitu u sklopu sa Jugoslovenskim zakonom, pošto ta država i taj zakon više ne postoje. Jugoslavija je podeljena u više raznih država/državica koje imaju svoje zakone. --Bobby 01:46, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Again, where does this claim come from? States usually have a legal successor which takes care of legislation for stuff like this. For instance images taken/published in the GDR are now protected under the laws of the FRG, there are special laws for works created in the sovjet union, etc. Are you saying that everything created in Yugoslavia is now PD, including all books, movies, artwork, everything? That's kind of hard to belive. -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 02:19, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, Thuresson 04:34, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

This picture is horrible and should be deleted directly. We should not have pictures like this in Commons. /E70 18:26, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nonsense. Body parts are encyclopedic, and need to be documented photographically just like any other encyclopedic topic. dbenbenn | talk 21:52, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and delist, the user first listed it for speedy deletion and hasn't responded as to why sie thought it qualified for it. Furthermore hir reasons for listing it are invalid. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 23:54, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image kept, Thuresson 04:34, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Claimed to be PD, but no specific source cited ("Google search") and it's almost certainly copyrighted and not released by the owner. MosheZadka 15:52, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is a picture from copyrighted website Homestar Runner. More specifically, this is the image used for Homsar's page on the HRWiki. Definitely not PD. I've changed the tag to {{fairuse}} - Kookykman|(talk)

Deleted, Thuresson 03:42, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Was a speedy-deletion-candidate, but I doubt the Creation-High (Schöpfungshöhe auf deutsch), so it should be PD. --DaB. 23:03, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, obviously a case for {{PD-ineligible}}. Thuresson 00:03, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

A never used category that duplicates the populated Category:British railway coaches. Thryduulf 14:31, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, Thuresson 14:10, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Pointless category, it contains no images and all its subcategories (Category:British diesel locomotives, Category:British electric locomotives and Category:British steam locomotives) are already sub-categories of category:Railways of Great Britain directly. Thryduulf 14:31, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, Thuresson 14:10, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

All images should be in either Category:British diesel multiple units or Category:British electric multiple units which are direct sub-directories of Category:Railways of Great Britain. Thryduulf 14:31, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, Thuresson 14:10, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Has a deletion request dated 30 March 2005 on the image description page, but obviously was neither deleted nor was the deletion request removed. Therefore I list it here: "This image is IMO not PD -- Breeze 20:25, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)". --Baikonur 15:21, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Who would own copyright of images from surveillance cameras in American schools? Fred Chess 03:16, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My guess would be the school, or possibly the school board. AIUI only works of the US national govt are routinely PD. I haven't been able to find whether Colorado does or not, but as its official website has "©2005 State of Colorado, Denver, CO" at the bottom of every page I think it unlikely their images are PD. Wikipedia says the school is located in the Jefferson County Public Schools school board. Their website [3] does not explicitly claim copyright on its webpages, but I have not found a statement on the site stating anything about their copyright polices. Alternatively, the copyright owner may ahve sold the rights to the cctv footage. Thryduulf 02:32, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep until it has been established that images from automatic surveillance cameras are copyright-eligible. // Fred Chess 06:06, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image kept, Thuresson 19:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Pictures from regering.nl are copyrighted. Only text from this site can be used while mentioning the source. Michiel1972 22:03, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, Thuresson 14:10, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

No source but looks higly like apple material (all the servers and 3 of the 4 client pcs are obviously macs and neither of the two pcs are identifiable as any one brand). I doubt this is PD as claimed on the image description page. 130.88.171.52 16:09, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: Image of macs is brush of program Omnigraffle. I have created the outline and the release in the PD. Hellisp 18:47, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image kept. Also, please log in before requesting deletion so users can contact you if necessary. Thuresson 03:49, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

I uploaded the same image three times by mistake. These images are duplicates of Image:BSOB öfverhandsknop.jpg. /EnDumEn 17:32, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Paddy

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

This image is redundant to (and looks much worse than) Image:Karelo-finnish ssr flag.svg. According to the check usage tool, it isn't used anywhere. Krun 20:08, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, Thuresson 14:03, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

REASON: Wrong name, the pictures are saved under proper names Polimerek 12:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• ARGUMENTS I am the author of these pictures Polimerek 12:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, Thuresson 14:03, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

per template:BJB -author did not read permission email properly, grrr. (and I would do it myself but only a select elite can become admins, it seems). Dunc|[[User talk:duncharris|☺]] 23:10, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I understand you want the photos listed below deleted? But why should Template:BJB be kept? Thuresson 13:55, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:BJB is only important because it's used on all those photos. It should be deleted, but after everything else has gone first. Dunc|☺ 18:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:45158GlasgowYeomanry22559.jpg Image:46205 Whitley1959.jpg Category:Photographs by Brian Boardman Image:6115-ManLonRdDNE.jpg Image:80063LNEST.jpg Image:45523Whitley.jpg Image:42504Plaistow310560.jpg Image:55215Perth21559.jpg Image:54502Dumfries1960.jpg Image:30338NineElms1960.jpg Image:33017NineElms1960.jpg Image:30533NorwoodJc29560.jpg Image:42670CreweWorksDNE.jpg Image:80026Polmadie22559.jpg Image:56152Eastfield22559.jpg Image:32106StewartsLane10558.jpg Image:50850SouthportDNE.jpg Image:31265StewartsLane10558.jpg Image:31261StewartsLane10558.jpg Image:69821LNEST.jpg Image:31722NineElms10558.jpg Image:31905StewartsLane10558.jpg Image:40043Willesden310560.jpg Image:46256Standish1959.jpg Image:69660Stratford010660.jpg Image:61663Stratford010660.jpg Image:47226Cricklewood31560.jpg Image:68080LNEST.pg.jpg Image:69299TraffordPark020358.jpg Image:45593StandishJc59.jpg Image:51217Bank-Hall1958.jpg Image:41273LNEST.jpg Image:52162ManVic1960.jpg Image:06984Worcester010258.jpg Image:47190LNEST.jpg

Deleted by Thuresson 03:24, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Empty duplicate of better-named category:Museums of the United Kingdom. Thryduulf 23:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Dbenben

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

No Licence, no source, probable copyvio.--Michael 10:07, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, Thuresson 02:24, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

• Image:TYTalimTrack.gif:copyright belong to Unisys.

Deleted, Thuresson 02:24, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Template:SouthAfricaCopyright states "This image was produced by the Government of South Africa. It may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium provided it is reproduced accurately". That makes it a form of non-derivative license. If this interpretation is right, the images with this tag should be deleted. User:dbenbenn 22:37, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

en:Template:SouthAfricaCopyright also claims that the material can not be used commercially. Thuresson 03:29, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I made a redirect to Template:Nonderivative. Thuresson 13:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Redundant to the already existing image:portuguese_vowel_chart.png. It's also completely inaccurate, since it's just a selection of cardinal vowels, which are purely theoretical entities. No one pronounces Portuguese as described in this chart. / Peter Isotalo 10:23, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, Thuresson 13:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Copyrighted cover of a videogame en:American Conquest ~ bayo or talk 17:36, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• delete ~ bayo or talk 17:36, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted screen shoot of a videogame en:American Conquest ~ bayo or talk 17:36, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• delete ~ bayo or talk 17:36, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, Thuresson 13:20, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

This tree is the Lone Cypress Tree at the 17-mile drive operated by Pebble Beach Company at Monterey, California. (en:Pebble Beach, California) According to the company, the Lone Cypress Tree and their respective images are trademarks of the company and therefore cannot be shared. For details, please see here. Similarly worded warnings are posted at the Lone Cypress Tree telling visitors that they are welcome to take pictures of the tree but cannot display them on their homepage or whatsoever.--Wing-Chi 09:31, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm pretty sure that in the United States, you can't impose that kind of limitation on any outdoor area, even if the land is privately owned. User:dbenbenn 16:59, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Picture of copyrighted work

(Sorry! Look for other serigraphies, please!)84.141.27.126 16:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, Thuresson 00:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Read & Delete! (Don't think that those texts are wanted in Commons) Jonas L@nge ¿!¡? 21:29, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Deleted by Dbenbenn

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

I doubt that this picture is under GFDL / CC License, since it seem to be a copy from here, at the official Betis Betis page [4]. The user who uploaded the picture has obviously modified the picture, but not given any proof that he took the picture. --Matt314 22:15, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, Thuresson 19:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

copyrighted work --Shizhao 11:06, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This Image is from http://www.kurnik.org/intl/en/about/ . But I have consent from Marek Futrega to publish it with GNU FDL license. Lzur 12:38, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Wrong name, the correct one was Category:Yamaha motorcycles. The only thing left to do is to delete category.

Deleted by Dbenbenn

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File name is spelled incorrectly. Correct file is Image:Ueno Hikoma.jpg. I uploaded both files so I can't imagine an argument... Pinkville 15:31, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, Thuresson 19:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

REASON: Something went wrong when I named the image file. I've uploaded the exact same image under the right name, Image:Angular Parameters of Elliptical Orbit.png.

• ARGUMENTS: No need to let the wrong-name image take up 189 kbytes for no reason, eh...?

Peo 21:07, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Dbenbenn

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

The reasons are made clear in German (at Commons:Forum and [5]). There is no known case that a court has seen a photograph as a work according § 5 II UrhG. I cannot see a public interest that everybody should be able to use the photograph. Accepting 5 II the legal literature and jurisdiction in Germany ist extremely restrictive. Thus delete! --Historiograf 23:48, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Paddy 00:20, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Reason: Uncategorized Image, that's not linked to any article. It has obviously been uploaded to provoke disgust. --Zinnmann 15:59, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete, "Pigeons feeding on vomit...". I can't really see a need for this image. Thryduulf 21:10, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• delete - The only intention of this picture is to provoke. --Herrick 09:12, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. This was first uploaded to en: "with permission" but uploader did not specify who gave the permission. That uploader left the project 18 months ago. Thuresson 09:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Add Image:Hayabusa - 20051120-19-58b.jpg Image:Hiten.png Image:Hayabusa - MINERVA.png Image:Hayabusa - Aproximação.jpg Image:Hayabusa - Esquema.png

These images are copyrighted.Copyright is here[6] [7]ja:日本語.Not PD.Not for commercial.--Los688 11:48, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, these would be fine on en.wp (and presumably other fair use projects) but not on commons. Thryduulf 13:05, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Commercial use is prohibited. --っ [Café] [Album] 02:54, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, These aren't allowed Commercial use of the work. --Peka 06:38, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, Thuresson 18:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

The following ten flags are duplicates, incorrectly or inconsistently named, and orphaned:

• Image:Flag of the british indian ocean territory.svg
• Image:Flag of Comoros.svg
• Image:Flag of Congo-Brazzaville.svg
• Image:Flag of the Democratic Republic of Congo.svg
• Image:Flag of Czech Republic.svg
• Image:Flag of the isle of man.svg
• Image:Flag of Marshall islands.svg
• Image:Micronesia flag.svg
• Image:Flag of Tyrol.svg

Speedy delete, please.  ナイトスタリオン ✉ 13:58, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Saperaud

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

This is a photo I uploaded. There are better ones, so it is useless.--Moja 15:53, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, Thuresson 18:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

This category is empty. Oks 18:06, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, Thuresson 18:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Redundant, we have Category:Images from encyclopedias which is being used. There is only one subcategory (and it is also a subcategory of the proper one). --pfctdayelise 01:22, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• keep, I've added a {{Seecat}} template to the in-use category. This is a British English/American English spelling difference, and I think it likely that someone would just recreate one with the BE title if it were deleted. This way we can keep them together as best we can before category redirects work. Thryduulf 00:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK that's fine, I didn't realise this policy existed. Should I remove the {{Deletionrequest}}? I think 'paedia is well on the way out though - and that's as a speaker of Australian English (descendant from British). pfctdayelise 00:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Coyright violation. The original photo is the book Brazilian Trees (Árvores brasileiras, in the original edition) from Harri Lorenzi, and is under copyright, as pointed in the site cited as source. --Ligia 04:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, Thuresson 18:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Essentially duplicates Image:Flag of Belarus (1991).png, but worse: is does not have border, white color merges with background, and the flag looks like a narrow red strip, rather than white-red-white. Since it is possible that it is already linked wrom somewhere, I'd suggest to replace it by Image:Flag of Belarus (1991).png. (for some reason I failed to upload/replace it myself) Mikkalai 07:37, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Object. Upload a correct SVG image, please. All PNG flags should be replaced by SVG flags. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 11:01, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. SVG is a superior format, and flags shouldn't have borders built in. It's easy enough to add a border with Template:Border:

User:dbenbenn 01:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are people on other wikimedia projects going to realise that? Are they able to use the Border template? Somehow I doubt it, so I think two versions should exist. pfctdayelise 02:32, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are people on other wikimedia projects going to realise that?

Well, people on en & commons figured it out.

Are they able to use the Border template?

Can't all projects use templates or simple HTML/CSS?

¦ Reisio 12:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mikka, what color do you prefer to use? I'm open to suggestions, but I think RGB 255-0-0 would be the best. Zscout370 00:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC) (author of both images)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Because I uploaded Image:Nagoya-shikou-3050.jpg newly. An error of the item name.Shinkansen 10:36, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, Thuresson 18:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

These four should be the last ones.

• Image:Flag of China.svg
• Image:Flag of Taiwan.svg
• Image:Flag of Peoples Republic of China.svg
• Image:Flag of México.svg

The first two are POV, the third one is bad grammar, the fourth is against naming standards. Delete, please. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 12:08, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Paddy

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

This is the same as Image:Flag of Switzerland.svg, except there's some transparent padding on the left and right. I can't think of any time that would be beneficial; and anyway, if you really need padding you can always do it with HTML by sticking the flag in a <div>. User:dbenbenn 01:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you can, but in complex template like this:[8] it is impossible. --Li-sung 08:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the transparent padding actually isn't transparent in Internet Explorer, so around 90% of Wikipedia readers see the flag as having ugly grey boxes to the sides. Also, there are a number of alternatives. For example, one could simple use the unpadded flag at cs:Švýcarsko. Or, one could edit cs:Šablona:Infobox stát so that it limits a flag's height as well as its width. Or, one could subst: the template and then make padding with HTML. User:dbenbenn 20:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, there is a version of the Swiss flag in a 2:3 ratio already at Image:Flag of Switzerland (ensign).svg. Zscout370 04:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, Thuresson 16:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

One user requested speedy deletion of this photo since it is out of focus (fuzzy). That's not a reason for speedy deletion so I list the image here instead. But the photo is pretty useless quite out-of-focus. Thuresson 06:42, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What? Keep. This has been in use since I uploaded it at en:Hack (technology slang). --SPUI 12:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you mark Image:Lobby 7 hack in progress.jpg for deletion? This image is in use at en:Hack (technology slang), and may be blurry, but captures an event that is rather difficult to get a photo of. --SPUI 15:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the topic of the article ?: This article needs to be cleaned up to conform to a higher

standard of quality. In my opinion the text is suitable for the image because it is meaningless and very

bad.--sherz.net 15:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How about you try getting a better photo of a hack in progress (under a free license). --SPUI 17:52, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep until such time as Stephan Herz takes his own picture of a hack. Ashibaka 13:26, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

• Image:0 out of 4.png
• Image:0hv out of 4.png
• Image:1 out of 4.png
• Image:1hv out of 4.png
• Image:2 out of 4.png
• Image:2hv out of 4.png
• Image:3 out of 4.png
• Image:3hv out of 4.png
• Image:4 out of 4.png

I released the images of 5 star images (0/5, 0.5/5, 1/5, 1.5/5, 2/5, 2.5/5, 3/5, 3.5/5, 4/5, 4.5/5, 5/5) under Attribution ShareAlike License, v.2.5, but this uploader merely removed one star from each and changed the license to Public Domain and failed to mention me. -- WB 11:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, Thuresson 16:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

My fault, i've uploaded twice the same picture. It is a personal picture that is already listed on Commons as Image:Catalonia nation.JPG

• Colocho 07:22, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, Thuresson 16:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

3D art, apparently no authorization by the photographer. --Phrood 07:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this pictures was tagged PD in the english wikipedia, it's a mistake, the licence in the site is : Images and documents downloaded from this database can only be used for educational and personal purposes [9]. Petrus 16:28, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, Thuresson 18:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

As can be seen at en:User:Amir85/Permission from Iran Chamber: "We do not have any objection for using information from our site as long as the source is mentioned, and of course being used for non-commercial purposes." --Phrood 07:59, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I've contacted the original uploader, see [10]. Maybe he can do something. Mattes 10:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Available at en:Image:Derafsh.gif under a non-commercial-use-only license. Thuresson 18:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

• Does not seem to be a NASA image, there's a (c) ESA/CNES/... notice at the bottom of the image. --Phrood 09:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• ESA Portal Multimedia Gallery Copyright Notice I've added a "Photo: ESA" on the page.
• delete as unfree image. --Saperaud 23:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Ok, we have to delete it... Sassospicco 09:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, Thuresson 16:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

The Terms of Use of this site are not compatible with commons licensing rules. Sanbec ✉ 11:46, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I haven't read Template_talk:Vector-Images.com. I will edit {{Vector-Images.com}} to link to Template_talk:Vector-Images.com --Sanbec ✉ 11:58, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Salma Yaqoob.jpg was used on w:Salma Yaqoob but has been replaced by w:Image:Salma yaqoob smiling.jpg and w:Image:Salmayaqoob.jpg which are both superior. Image:Salma Yaqoob wide.jpg is a wide angle version. They are both of low quality and generally useless now better pictures have been found. --JK the Unwise 15:59, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom--JK the Unwise 15:59, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the original Image:Salma Yaqoob wide.jpg. Note that w:Image:Salmayaqoob.jpg will be deleted in a week unless the uploader provides copyright information; and anyway, there's no reason we can't have multiple pictures of her. Delete the cropped Image:Salma Yaqoob.jpg if it isn't used anywhere. User:dbenbenn 16:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted as per Dbenbenn, Thuresson 21:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

I just deleted this image on wiki-en because it did not have any source or copyright info, so I was a bit suprised when this one tagged as GFDL showed up in it's place and refering to enwiki as it's source (it's the exact same image). I very much doubht it's released under GFDL so it should be deleted. --Sherool 20:50, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a clear copyright violation it can be speedy deleted. Is it? Thuresson 13:52, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno, with no source I don't know if it can qualify as a clear copyright violation, I could have tagged it as "no source", but there is still a 7 day delay on that if I'm not mistaken. --Sherool 16:20, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, Thuresson 14:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Like in Image:Aroeira5.jpg--5-5-5 01:21, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. The uploader has not been active on WikiCommons since January. Both photos from [11]. See Image talk:Aroeira5.jpg for details. Thuresson 14:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]