Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2008/10/03

Blatant copyvio. Original of the image can be found here; if you work up two pages to here, you'll see the text "Carlo Allegri. September 6, 2008 - 2008 Toronto International Film Festival The Secret Life of Bees Portrait, Sutton Place Hotel, Toronto, ON, Canada". A search on the photographer's name turns up this page which says "Repped by Getty Images". Tabercil (talk) 00:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 02:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speed deletion, I downloaded the wrong file. This is not the one I have authorization from the original author Mariordo (talk) 04:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Herbythyme: User request

just found out its already there.sorry --Akinom (talk) 10:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 12:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exist another image with the same title Aushulz (talk) 12:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, duplicate of Image:Isoterme di adsorbimento favorevoli e sfavorevoli.jpg, please use {{badname|Isoterme di adsorbimento favorevoli e sfavorevoli.jpg}}. --Martin H. (talk) 13:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the advice. --Aushulz (talk) 19:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This image is a derivative work from a press kit http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/News/Press_Archive/200310/03-1007E/ copyrighted Sony. --~ bayo or talk 12:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by D-Kuru: copyvio of a picture © by sony

Request for deletion. This is my own photo --Jay (talk) 13:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. User request. --Martin H. (talk) 13:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

as of COM:SCOPE. Unused and probably unusable; head photo event. a derivative. Túrelio (talk) 13:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by D-Kuru: out of scope

Out of scope GeorgHH • talk   12:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete Apparent silly vanity image, no usage found in Wikimedia. -- Infrogmation (talk) 18:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 23:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

seems like a copyvio. Similar to this image and more can found when googling, as in http:// www.mp3lyrics. org /l/laura-natalia-esquivel/laura-natalia-esquivel_2.Jpg ( had to break it cause of spam filter). Tarawneh (talk) 15:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Yann (talk) 23:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

backround looks like a copyvio from a TV kids show D-Kuru (talk) 18:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Out of scope and probable copyvio. Yann (talk) 23:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyviol. The site http://home.comcast.net/~bevjoe3/preossia/index.html says that all rights are reserved Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 18:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Yann (talk) 22:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt he made this. ViperSnake151 (talk) 18:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Watermark. Yann (talk) 22:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outside project scope. -Nard the Bard 19:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Duplicate and probably out of scope. Yann (talk) 22:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

accidentally uploaded copyvio --Snek01 (talk) 19:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Túrelio: Copyright violation

Outside project scope. Note uploader originally place the deletion tag but did not create this subpage. Their reason was simply "reason". ---Nard the Bard 20:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, per uploader nom. and out of scope. --Martin H. (talk) 22:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Private resume, outside project scope. Fuera del Commons:Alcance del proyecto. -Nard the Bard 20:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 22:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but "lego.com" will never release this. The OTRS is bogus. -Nard the Bard 21:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Yann (talk) 22:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outside project scope. Unused. -Nard the Bard 22:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 22:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice drawing but out of scope. Sterkebaktalk 04:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete I really can't think of how this could be in project scope. -- Infrogmation (talk) 18:28, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Yann (talk) 23:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice drawing but out of scope. Sterkebaktalk 04:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete I really can't think of how this could be in project scope. (And I think you're far too kind about the quality of the drawing.) -- Infrogmation (talk) 18:28, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Yann (talk) 23:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

COM:FOP#Poland does not apply inside buildings Teofilo (talk) 22:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep I think the stain-glass windows are ineligible for copyright. The artist, Stanislaw Wyspianski, died in 1907.[1] -- J.smith (talk) 01:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK  Keep. Teofilo (talk) 09:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment This deletion requests is absurdal. Do You want delete photos of all interiors in Poland. Why do You choose this one? - because it is FP candidate? This photo was made in Church of St. Francis in Kraków and doing photos in that place is allowed. Please remove delete template from my photo, and close this discuss. --Lestat (talk) 09:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I want is that people document their picture with the proper license. If this artwork is old enough to apply for {{PD-old-70}}, please add {{PD-old-70}} on its page. I want to delete all interiors in Poland who show copyrighted artwork. When you know when the original author died, write it down on the image page. When you know when the artwork was created, add it in the "date" entry. Misunderstandings like this one do not happen when the picture is documented. Teofilo (talk) 09:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kept, request withdrawn. -- Infrogmation (talk) 11:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Drawing contains a signature in lower left hand corner, so it cannot be an anonymous work. Futhermore there is no evidence this was produced prior to 1938. -Nard the Bard 03:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete per Nard the Bard Sterkebaktalk 04:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment If it's "Nazi war propaganda." (as the description says) maybe the uploaddate is "09/03/08", but it's not really interesting when the picture got uploaded. It has to be published before 1945. Moreover I don't think that the source really is "Own work by uploader" --D-Kuru (talk) 18:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Unclear if it an original work from 2008 by the uploader in 1930s Nazi style (if so, info needs to be clarified-- and what would its purpose in Commons scope be?) or a work from the Nazi government era (in which case it needs source and reason for copyright status and a change of license info). Unless these issues are resolved,  Delete -- Infrogmation (talk) 18:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the photographer made the sculpture, it's a copyright violation. 137.99.36.176 14:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep per COM:FOP#Czech_Republic. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Czech law allows making this photograph. -Nard the Bard 16:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the photographer made the sculpture, it's a copyright violation. 137.99.36.176 14:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep per COM:FOP#Czech_Republic. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Czech law allows making this photograph. -Nard the Bard 16:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i highly doubt this publicity still is self-made Mangostar (talk) 15:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

marked copyrighted at source, uploaded only a few days ago so it's unlikely that it's changed since then Mangostar (talk) 16:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

even as source is written "own work" I don't believe it. Looks like a typical advertising poster or something like that. D-Kuru (talk) 17:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peinture means painting in French. It is unclear who is the painter and who is the photographer, and whether the painter agrees with the terms of the free licenses Teofilo (talk) 18:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete unless above is resolved, additionally it looks of questionable scope use, small image with huge watermark text across it. -- Infrogmation (talk) 18:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the copyright holder is not clotaire, but painter fr:Roger Davis Teofilo (talk) 18:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright holder is no Clotaire, but painter fr:Roger Davis Teofilo (talk) 19:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation of original photography Teofilo (talk) 20:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image is marked as fair use on English Wikipedia [2]. -Nard the Bard 21:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to COM:FOP, FOP applies only to buildings in the USA. This is not a building. This is a bidimensional visual art. Teofilo (talk) 21:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted - either FOPvio or out of scope. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The LimeSurvey Logo is NOT GPL nor was it authorized to be uploaded here. On the contrary - though the software is GPL the LimeSurvey logo is trademarked. Request for deletion was submitted by Carsten Schmitz, the copyright holder of this logo. 213.39.147.21 21:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Screenshots Teofilo (talk) 22:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Screenshots Teofilo (talk) 21:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Screenshots Teofilo (talk) 22:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shows copyrighted interface. Even if OTRS were received for the image it would still be a copyvio. -Nard the Bard 21:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same as this one : http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Finale_OGCN-ASNL.jpg !!!! Thank you. Axou (talk) 21:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could get this speedy deleted if you use the {{Duplicate}} tag. J.smith (talk) 02:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS pending since July. -Nard the Bard 21:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS pending since July. -Nard the Bard 22:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Screenshots Teofilo (talk) 22:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative work. -Nard the Bard 22:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

copyright violation of text, drawing Teofilo (talk) 22:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep Original is {{PD-US-no notice}} -Nard the Bard 22:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep sorry. You are right. Teofilo (talk) 22:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Quick question, what do you mean by original? Stepshep (talk) 01:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The thing you took the picture of :P -Nard the Bard 01:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • So do I need to change the license? Stepshep (talk) 02:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • No. Your photograph needs a license as well. You could note somewhere the original is public domain. -Nard the Bard 14:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contains copyrighted interface. -Nard the Bard 23:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outside project scope. Not really "for Wikipedia". -Nard the Bard 19:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outside project scope. -Nard the Bard 19:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outside project scope. -Nard the Bard 19:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outside project scope. Unused. -Nard the Bard 22:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 16:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

apparantly still copyrighted in the US as it was not in the public domain in its home country on the URAA date (January 1, 1996 for Israel). Almog (talk) 15:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Rootology: Copyright violation

OTRS pending since August. No way Microsoft is gonna release this (although it may qualify as pd-textlogo). -Nard the Bard 22:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep {{PD-textlogo}} easily. Mark with {{Trademarked}} though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. howcheng {chat} 20:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative work. Outside project scope. Not used. -Nard the Bard 22:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why would this be out of scope?  Keep per COM:FOP#India. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep Ineligible to copyright. Yann (talk) 22:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep We have a long standing practice of recognizing photos of simple text signs such as this as not derivative. Image is pedestrian but potentially illustrative; 3 relevent categories added. I see no problem with this image. -- Infrogmation (talk) 11:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree that the sign is not copyrightalbe. However, I do not think this image is realistically useful for an educational purpose. I'm willing to be proven wrong, but for now I must agree with the nominator and recommend that we  Delete this image. J.smith (talk) 18:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep - I'm sure someone has a use for it. We've got a lot of photos which are a lot less useful. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. howcheng {chat} 20:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This stamp image is not PD, because it is not more than 70 years old as required for stamps of Argentina, per the stamp PD templates on Commons:Stamps/Public domain templates. Ww2censor (talk) 02:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete It is actually 50 years (I fixed the stamp page for you) but 2001 is still only 7 years in the past. -Nard the Bard 03:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted / Copyvio--Fanghong (talk) 00:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

apparantly still copyrighted in the US as it was not in the public domain in its home country on the URAA date (January 1, 1996 for Israel). Almog (talk) 15:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Mardetanha: per Commons:Deletion_requests/PD_Israel_images_(Almog)

apparantly still copyrighted in the US as it was not in the public domain in its home country on the URAA date (January 1, 1996 for Israel). Almog (talk) 15:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Mardetanha: per Commons:Deletion_requests/PD_Israel_images_(Almog)

apparantly still copyrighted in the US as it was not in the public domain in its home country on the URAA date (January 1, 1996 for Israel). Almog (talk) 15:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Mardetanha: per Commons:Deletion_requests/PD_Israel_images_(Almog)

apparantly still copyrighted in the US as it was not in the public domain in its home country on the URAA date (January 1, 1996 for Israel). Almog (talk) 15:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Mardetanha: per Commons:Deletion_requests/PD_Israel_images_(Almog)

apparantly still copyrighted in the US as it was not in the public domain in its home country on the URAA date (January 1, 1996 for Israel). Almog (talk) 15:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Free according to Israeli law. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Files on Commons must be free in both the source country and the US. ViperSnake151 (talk) 13:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Mardetanha: per Commons:Deletion_requests/PD_Israel_images_(Almog)

copyright violation of the original photography Teofilo (talk) 20:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now this is something that the state of Brasil wants to be commercially used. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do we know if using this picture elsewhere than on a cigarette pack is allowed ? Teofilo (talk) 20:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Obvious copyvio of printed photo MichaelMaggs (talk) 02:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No sources for the images used. ViperSnake151 (talk) 19:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, the three images need source information; delete unless that is taken care of. After that I'd like to know about possible use within project scope. -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete - I'd guess that the rabbits are self, but the hollywood sign could be anything, and I don't see it as in scope. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Mardetanha: In category Unknown as of 5 October 2008; not edited for 9 days

Result of a disputed speedy on Image:Pink octopus toy copie.png. Had this to say:

Oppose :
1. Post a DR on the ORIGINAL picture, this is a retouched one
2. Post a DR on all the pictures in Toys category and related categories.
3. Post a DR on all pictures depicting an object that have a design.

ViperSnake151 (talk) 11:28, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, i'm just a wikigraphist editin a picture to remove the font. I had to put it on a separate file to get a transparent font (.png). That's why i told you to tag the original picture (.jpg), not the duplicate file.

For your point (that you didn't exposed here), it might touch hundreds of pictures here on commons : Category:Toys and related categories have around 600 files concerned by a possible copyright infringement if considered derivative of copyrighted items.--Lilyu (talk) 13:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you dont even explain here why this image should be deleted, how can we discuss about it ? :) Lilyu (talk) 10:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete per Commons:Derivative works Teofilo (talk) 15:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Please read COM:DW#I know that I can't upload photos of copyrighted art (like paintings and statues), but what about toys? Toys are not art!. MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:27, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOT PD: Northrop Grumman Corporation 2003. All rights reserved. Published with permission of Northrop Grumman Corporation. High Contrast (talk) 21:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete - states media people have the right to publish - that isn't free IMO, since ordinary people can't. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete I was unable to find the CC license on Northrop Grumman's site.

Deleted. As per http://www.northropgrumman.com/copyright/index.html -- Avi (talk) 07:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No quiero esta imagen aqui Rumata (talk) 03:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Porque no? -- Infrogmation (talk) 18:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kept, no reason for deletion offered. -- Infrogmation (talk) 17:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free in source country. Westminister claims copyright on this design [3] ViperSnake151 (talk) 18:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surely this design is not eligible for copyright, as per the info at Commons:Copyright#Simple_design?

Yes this design seems really straightforward. I wonder why the Westminster Council’s Director of Transportation bothers to insist on such a claim. Compare with a Paris street sign : Image:Street sign avenue de Tourville Paris.jpg ! ! Teofilo (talk) 19:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the original author of this image should also be notified on en.wikipedia. Mike Peel (talk) 19:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a little more digging into this. As it's a government work, crown protection would apply rather than standard copyright. It was created in 1967, which means that if it is under copyright then that ends in 2017 (a 50 year term). I think (but am not sure) that freedom of panorama applies to crown copyright protection, in which case we're fine. It seems that UK copyright doesn't have an exception for simple designs; see User:Lupo/Simple Photographs. I have emailed Mr. Low of Westminster Council, whose email address is in the linked-to press release, to ask him whether freedom of panorama does apply here. I will post any reply I get here. Mike Peel (talk) 10:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep Not eligible for copyright. Yann (talk) 22:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Closing as kept; per policy simple text not copyrightable design; likely FOP in any case. -- Infrogmation (talk) 17:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative work of fashion design Teofilo (talk) 20:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain this comment. What is the problem of taking a photo of the front window of a fashion store, in contrast to taking a photo of the front window of a toy store?--Imrich (talk) 06:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if photographiing a toystore window enabling to see details of potentially copyrighted toys is OK. As far as you did not design the clothes yourself I don't see how you can claim copyright ownership on this photo. Teofilo (talk) 09:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please forgive me, but this is total nonsense. What is the difference between taking a photo of a window store with these garmets in the window, and taking a photo on Avenue des Champs-Élysées and taking a photo of a lady walking down the street dressed in this white dress? Or taking a photo of anyone dressed in any clothing whos' designer is recognizable? Next thing you will delete the whole LEGO category...

And here is another picture of the same nature. There is no copyright problem with either one. --Imrich (talk) 15:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kept -- Infrogmation (talk) 17:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No permission from author Finn Rindahl (talk) 12:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who exactly do we need permission from? The original artist, Jacob Gløersen, died in 1912. And per [[Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-Art_tag#Why do we allow the {{PD-Art}} tag to be used for photographs from any country?]], we now accept PD-Art as being valid for photographs from any country. --Kjetil_r 13:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Seems a mechanical reproduction of a public domain work. Unless there is reason to think the PD-Art is not accurate or appropriate in this case,  Keep -- Infrogmation (talk) 18:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. PD-art now works for this. MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Photograph not taken from roads, streets, squares or gardens, and stained glass artist's name is missing. See COM:FOP#Poland Teofilo (talk) 15:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep --Lestat (talk) 19:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. per nom MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation FOP does not apply inside a building in Poland Teofilo (talk) 16:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep --Lestat (talk) 19:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the character is most likely copyrighted Teofilo (talk) 18:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, maybe so. Sidewalk sign with street view. I've added a "trademark" notice. Other thoughts? -- Infrogmation (talk) 18:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the USA a work enters Public Domain if it was painted before 1923. This shop is from 1921, so the character could have been painted before 1923, but you seldom see "since 2006" signs in 2008. So it is quite unlikely that it was painted as early as 1923 or before. Teofilo (talk) 19:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Evidence needed that the figure actually is old enough to be in the PD. MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Three problems: 1) source website does not own this image. The permissions email says they have an archive of 20,000 images, which is not the same as owning this. 2) Permissions email grants permission only to "use" the image, and does not mention a license. 3) This image is hotlinked from [4] thus we are providing non-free content to a third party. This is not acceptable. -Nard the Bard 20:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete as Nard the Bard. Yann (talk) 22:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

COM:FOP#Greece says "not OK" Teofilo (talk) 20:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep It's a memorial more than a work of arts, I thought. And what about those several monuments? They are works of arts too and „permanently situated in a public place“ alike. I can't see any difference. And by the way, all buildings are „works of architecture“. Do you want to delete all those including the subcategories? --DorisAntony (talk) 08:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One should check who the sculptor is, and if he died. If he died, when, and if that was 70 years ago or more, so that {{PD-old}} applies to the original 3-dimensional work. Teofilo (talk) 09:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sinking of the Heraklion took place in 1966 … --DorisAntony (talk) 09:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

COM:FOP does not apply inside buildings in Germany Teofilo (talk) 21:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

COM:FOP does not apply inside buildings in Germany Teofilo (talk) 21:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Just a normal church interior. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No proof this is public domain. {{PD-PhilippinesGov}} redirects to copyvio. -Nard the Bard 21:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The license for this image isn't even public domain, I used creative commons for this. I know the Section 176 of the copyright says there is no copyright applied to works of the Philippines Government, but they have some odd clause about commercial reuse of images (thus why the template redirects as copyvio). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 01:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And what prevents your version from being a derivative work? -Nard the Bard 02:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it was a derivative work, the copyright protection on the seal, if any, would have expired by now. Copyright protection lasts for 50 years in the Philippines, and the seal with the lion and the eagle were was created in 1946. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 04:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Zscout370's last statement. If finding for a new license would be a problem, I suggest this with this. I hope that this problem will be solved soon. -Ianlopez1115 (talk) 11:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Absolutely no reason has been given to justify a claim that this is PD or is PD-ineligible. MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative work. Even if OTRS were received it would still be a copyvio. -Nard the Bard 22:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Probably COM:FOP#India applies also here. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Ads are 1) not permanently placed and 2) Indian copyright law being modelled on the UK system, 2D works are not covered. 3) Ads are from different companies. A permission to photograph the scene does not release the rights of the underlying works. -Nard the Bard 22:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete - we'd need permission from all the ad companies. Individually they may be subject to de minimis, but it's clear that the object of the photo is the adverts, and thus it's a DW. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No authorship given, looks like contemporary art, in which case it would be copyvio. Please provide authorship --User:G.dallorto (talk) 23:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete -- no FOP in Italy. :( J.smith (talk) 01:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Professional logo of modern institution, no indication of copyright release or source MBisanz ^talk 05:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep per BVerfG GRUR 2005, 410 for this image. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kept per Pieter Kuiper and the cited decision of the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany. Please note that this is a logo of Gymnasium Nieg Wulmstörp, a German high school in Lower Saxony. --AFBorchert (talk) 19:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No FOP in Bulgaria. -Nard the Bard 22:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep Looks like a 19th century statue. --User:G.dallorto (talk) 23:28, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the city changed its name into Botevgrad in 1934. The statue could have been erected at about the same time. Teofilo (talk) 10:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello, Nard! The only information I could ever find about this monument is that it was erected on 2 June 1939 and it was sponsored by a Czech called Karl Papousek who lived in Bulgaria. I have searched for the sculptor's name but have not discovered it so far.
  I am interested whether you have a particular reason for this DR - complaint by a copyright holder or anyone whose rights have been violated? I'm eager to understand if this was the case, as this would become the first TTBOMK case concerning practical enforcement of FOP in Bulgaria. Not being a lawyer, I am not able to competently take a side in this IPR case, and I would prefer to leave this job to the professionals. Yet I'd gladly delete the image by myself if it really threatens someone's rights.
  Ever since BG WP took the uneasy decision to abandon fair use and stick to WMF Resolution, I have deleted more images than ever - either fairuse, or implausibly "free" or even obviously free but lacking all data necessary to formally prove what's evident by commonsense. Thus, I have transferred to Commons only those images which fully comply with all written and tacit requirements (free license, source, author, original upload log, exif data, copyvio-clean history of uploads of the particular user, etc.) and this does include many images that might be considered FOP. I myself often make pictures of monuments and buildings and upload them here, conscious of this so-called "freedom of panorama". Yet, I am open to reconsider my neglectful view of BG-FOP any time it has raised a real issue. Regards, →Spiritia 09:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello to you Spiritia. There is no particular reason I nominated this file for deletion. I didn't realize your wiki had made the painful transition to no fair use and I can see how sensitive you are about your remaining "free" images. Given the obvious age of this monument and it having been dedicated to the people of Bulgaria, I withdraw this request. -Nard the Bard 13:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you mean by "obvious age". If the sculptor was alive in 1939, this work is not elligible for {{PD-old-70}}. Teofilo (talk) 08:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete COM:FOP#Bulgaria says "not OK". Teofilo (talk) 08:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted per Nard the Bard and Teofilo, i.e. there is no freedom of panorama in Bulgaria and it is unlikely that {{PD-old}} applies if the memorial was erected in 1939. --AFBorchert (talk) 21:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this work will enter Public Domain on january 1st 2009 delete until then Teofilo (talk) 21:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. January 1st, 2009 has passed. rimshot^talk 21:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this work will enter Public Domain on january 1st 2009 : delete until then Teofilo (talk) 21:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Don't worry about three months. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Please don't be so meticulous! --Jacopo Werther (talk) 23:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete Per Teofilo. If it is not yet become public domain, that means it is at present currently a copyright violation? I see nothing wrong with being meticulous when we're aware of a problem. Delete with a note kept reminding to undelete in January. We've done that sort of thing before. -- Infrogmation (talk) 10:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The auther has been dead for longer than 70 years. Stop nitpicking. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't PD begin 70yrs after author's death, not 70 new years days. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Council Directive 93/98/EEC of 29 October 1993 harmonizing the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights Official Journal L 290 , 24/11/1993 P. 0009 - 0013 : "Article 8 - Calculation of terms - The terms laid down in this Directive are calculated from the first day of January of the year following the event which gives rise to them. " eur-lex.europa.eu (en:Directive harmonizing the term of copyright protection) Teofilo (talk) 09:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's annoying. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. January 1st, 2009 has passed. rimshot^talk 21:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the stamps on this image are not PD, not being more than 70 years old as required for stamps of Argentina, per the stamp PD templates on Commons:Stamps/Public domain templates. Ww2censor (talk) 02:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It should actually read 50 years, and I am going to amend it (see Image:060101-03-cents-10c1E-I-175.jpg). I don't know whether that helps though since I don't know the ages of these stamps. -Nard the Bard 03:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Vorschlag: Ein anderes Foto mit Marken eines anderen Sammelgebietes wäre für diesen Zweck hier ebenfalls denkbar... Ich finde die Abbildung sowieso nicht sehr glücklich gewählt, weil im abgebildeten Einsteckalbum die Marken ja garnicht "eingesteckt" sind, also hinter den Folienstreifen stecken, sondern nur aufgelegt worden zu sein scheinen, wahrscheinlich, um sie besser zur Geltung kommen zu lassen. Aber gerade dies ist hier ja nicht Sinn der Sache: Es sollen dem interessierten Leser ja keine perfekt abgebildeten Argentinien-Marken geboten, sondern ganz allgemein gezeigt werden, wie Briefmarken in einem Album stecken. BrunoBoehmler (talk) 03:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I would say this is a case similar to, say, a photo of a Christmas tree, which is generally agreed to be the copyright of the photographer, even though the designs of individual ornaments may be copyrighted by someone else, and if one were to focus in on a particular ornament, that photograph would be a derivative of the ornament's artwork. Yes, it's not a nice algorithmic decision process (what about a photo of two ornaments? what about a group of 20?), but I think this image is clearly about the aggregate of physical stamps, rather than simply being a copy of individual stamp designs. (There is a page that discusses aggregation, and how a PD image could be become not-PD by cropping to a small piece, don't remember where it is.) So this image should be fine to keep. Stan Shebs (talk) 21:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep per Stan Shebs. --Michael Romanov (talk) 10:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Each stamp is shown clearly and in high resolution. It is no less problematic to infringe 25 copyright designs at once, than it is to infringe one. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Soldering iron pbfree.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:Ceramic sold iron.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:Gas sold iron.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:Gootlogo.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:TaiyoElectric.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

All blatant copyvios, as he does not seem to have any connection to "TAIYO ELECTRIC IND.CO.,LTD" ViperSnake151 (talk) 02:28, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. I picked these up via contributions rather than the DR. I agreed with the reason on the nom & deleted them all. Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will be good idea to blank presentation. EugeneZelenko 15:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment I don't understand the reason of that DR... --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 09:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The presentation on the screen showing pictures of musical instruments. --AVRS 14:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh! Do you think there's a copyright on that? A long time ago, I asked if there was a problem with category:Screenshots and I had no answer... --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 15:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. May be undeleted if someone wants to blank the copyrighted presentation (COM:DW), not COM:DM. [[ Forrester ]] 23:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please put back the picture? This request is nonsense. There are no rights on the pic shown on the screen at all. Please put this pic. I've no understanding of all your GNY Free etc etc, but I took the photo's of the guitars myself and they are totally right free to use for your websites. Thank you very much. I will try upload it myself again also. Best wishes, Yuri Landman (Yuri Landman Hypercustom)

Rights are never "shown", but they may be affected. You did not write that you took the photo's of the guitars yourself. That's why I deleted it. But "free to use for your websites" is not enough for us. The image must be free for everyone, and for any kind of use. Do you really agree with that? And next time please do a undel req. [[ Forrester ]] 13:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reuploaded after deletion. Without blanking slide it's Commons:Derivative works. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Yuri Landman's own work. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:28, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

•  On hold Wrote an email for permission [[ Forrester ]] 16:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting for permission.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 16:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep I don't understand why it need a permission if the photo + the illsutration on screen is the work of the uploader and if this person gives us the right to use it. I don't get it! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 12:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's available on the internet. [[ Forrester ]] 20:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not. I've the h-res and there is no place on the internet which shows the h-res, so this is wrong. Yuri Landman Hypercustom (talk) 10:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So what? It doesn't matter if it's available eslewhere, that's not a reason of deletion! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 06:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It definitely is since third parties rights could be infringed upon. [[ Forrester ]] 16:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep landman's own work afaik indeed, used in article. oscar 09:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"afaik"? How far do you know? Is it enough to be sure for us? [[ Forrester ]] 23:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I send Forrester as well as commons a reply for permission and received a reply in which wikipedia commons confirmed all is okay currently, So this request for deletion can be closed savely. Please ask commons for a confirmation or otherwise mail me again on the email address mentioned on my website www.hypercustom.com to repermit me again. Oscar knows all about me and my work from the Dutch wikipedia, so you can pretty well trust his opinion as well as mine. Yuri Landman Hypercustom (talk) 20:03, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, the OTRS agent that has dealt with your email asked you to choose a specific free license (2008100310026237). —Pill (talk) 18:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is wrong. I did reply and filled in a license spec. You didn't contact me about anything after I send the mail. You confirmed you've received it and it must be good now, otherwise ask me on www.hypercustom.com. Help, suggest and I'll confirm all needed licenses. Keep in mind I've to deal with English, while I'm Dutch, so it's easy for you to corner me with difficult words. Yuri Landman Hypercustom (talk) 10:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yuri, please send them a specific free license because saying "choose one free, I don't care" is not that safe. [[ Forrester ]] 19:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is 100% safe. It means: You are allowed to use it in every way, I don't care which license you propose and I'll agree on every needed one. I'm Dutch not native English. Can you understand this is limiting my language and explanations? Yuri Landman Hypercustom (talk) 10:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted again since there was never any follow-up. The image could be restored upon receipt of permission.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 22:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a derivative work of the original Jesusland map (see en:Image:New map WEB.jpg), and so is subject to copyright restrictions by the original creator. —Bkell (talk) 20:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The most maps of Earth are drawn and painted before Wikipedia and Wikicommons were born. The many-many maps on Commons are redrawing of pre-existing maps. Alex Spade 16:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep, the idea of a map with "blue states" transfered to Canada is ineligible for copyright protection. Kjetil r 00:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Why is that? If so, then we should replace this with the original image (en:Image:New map WEB.jpg). —Bkell (talk) 02:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  May be. But this image is more accurate. It's in PNG, not JPEG, there are borders on them. Alex Spade 16:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Perhaps I should elaborate more. It seems to me that there are three general possibilities here:

  1. Neither the original map (en:Image:New map WEB.jpg) nor the redrawn map (Image:Jesusland.png) enjoys copyright protection.
  2. The original map enjoys copyright protection, but the redrawn map is free from copyright restrictions.
  3. Both the original and the redrawn map are subject to copyright restrictions.

  The second possibility is easiest to dispose with: The redrawn map is very obviously a derivative work of the original, so if the original is under any kind of copyright protection, this protection applies to the redrawn map as well. Thus, there is no reason to have this redrawn map; it can be no freer than the original.

  So the question comes down to whether the original map is eligible for copyright protection. I believe it is, as a form of an editorial cartoon. While Kjetil r is correct that ideas cannot be copyrighted, the expression of an idea can be. Open any newspaper to the editorial section, and you will find cartoons expressing political or social ideas in a creative (and often humorous) manner. This is exactly what this map is doing. I don't believe there is any dispute that editorial cartoons are copyrighted; why is this image any different? It is a novel and creative expression of frustration with the outcome of the 2004 U.S. presidential election.

  So it is apparent that the second possibility above cannot hold; either the first or the third must be the case. I think it is clear that the original map enjoys copyright protection as a creative work, so this redrawn version is bound by the same restrictions. —Bkell (talk) 02:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think the original may have problems passing the threshold of originality. // Liftarn

The easiest would probably be to ask Jeff Minter, I don't think he'll have a problem with it. // Liftarn

• weak delete because the colors and text are very similar. If it was a map which marked the provinces and states in a different color scheme I think this would be ok as it would be factual information. But here, elements of the design have been copied, not just the facts of which state is which. --Astrokey44 13:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cool. In many cases USSR is painted as RED, accroding to you, for Commons, we must paint it as GREEN. This is nonsense. Alex Spade 16:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly keep This is not der.works. This map consist of North America Map (there many free of them), five words (words are uncopyrighted), and some color scheme for coloring. It's consist of trivial facts: this state is painted by red color, that province - by green color and etc. There are many another fictional maps of Earth (not Middle Earth, Tatooine and etc.) see Category:Maps of alternate histories. The color scheme for coloring of Earth map is trivial, so it's uncopyrighted. Statement "State A (country, region, town, city and etc.) is a part of the union Super WWW" is fact, facts are uncopyrighted. In other case, the many-many maps from Commons are der.works. Alex Spade 16:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So again, if what you are saying is true, then the original image is uncopyrightable, and it is the original that should be here on Commons, not this redrawn version. —Bkell (talk) 17:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can see my answer above, after your second thesis. But in additional to my previous answer - we don't know, is the contour map of original image copyrighted? For new image, all there components are free (free contour map + trivial words + trivial color scheme), for original image the freedom of contour map is unknown. Alex Spade 18:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, some users here (most notably User:Rtc) would claim that the original is ineligible for copyright. Personally, I do not think I agree, but I consider Image:Jesusland.png to be sufficiently original so that it is not a derivative work. Kjetil r 19:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Ok, should the colours be changed? That is a trivial change. Unless "Jesusland" is a trademark the name shouldn't be a problem. // Liftarn
  • On the one hand, I doesn't see necessity of changing for colors.
  • But the other hand, wny not? Color isn't principal ;-) Alex Spade 16:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If we're going to keep this, we should at least change the colors to the conventional red and blue. It's certainly going too far to consciously copy the arbitrary color scheme of his particular map.--Pharos 02:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Here's another version of this map: Image:Jesusland_map.png. Andrew pmk 13:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep, though I created Image:Jesusland map.png, so feel free to discount me as having some kind of conflict of interest. On the plus side, however, the version I created at least uses red and blue ;o) — OwenBlacker 09:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

kept --ALE! ¿…? 08:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, superseded, outside project scope. -Nard the Bard 20:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If someone bothered to supersede it, it's clearly in scope. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Banksy - Grin Reaper With Tag.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:Banksy - Rat Photographer.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:Banksy - Sweep at Hoxton.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:Banksy Hitchhiker to Anywhere Archway 2005.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:Banksy Kissing Policemen.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:Banksy MIld Mild West and poster.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:Banksy lovers.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:Banksy pulp fiction.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:Banksy-ps.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:30032008192.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:ArrowFenceTremeBanksy.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log) (USA - same argument applies)
• File:Banksy-rat-result-part.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:Banksy.bomb.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:Banksy.in.bristols.park.street.arp.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:Banksy.in.bristols.park.street.longshot.arp.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:Banksy.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:Banksy.on.the.thekla.arp.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:Banksybomb.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:Banksyguantanamo.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:Banksytruck.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:Bansky one nation under cctv.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:DropInCenterGustav.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log) (USA - same argument)
• File:GentlemanRat.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:Graffiti of a cat in Liverpool City Centre DSC00018.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:Guess who's back?.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:Jay Zeavis.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:L9W27Aug2008NoLoiteringFriedIce.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log) (USA - same argument)
• File:LibertyHardwareSept08A.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log) (USA - same argument)
• File:Mayor BoJo.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:MelroseOrange.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log) (USA - same argument)
• File:OzoneAngel.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:Photo-rat.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:PhotographingBanksyAug2008DropIn.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log) (USA - same argument)
• File:Scousebanksy.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:The Cat.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:ToxicRat.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:TremeRain15Sept2008.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log) (USA - same argument)
• File:What are you looking at.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

The UK does not have freedom of panorama for 2D works, so all public art (eg graffiti) in the UK is a copyvio. See Category:Banksy. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Images taken in different countries in different circumstances; I suggest considering at least some seperately. -- Infrogmation (talk) 21:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I will make an arguement for keeping the following images I took which include visible Banksy work (so I added them to the Banksy category) but are not focused on attempted photographic reproduction of the artwork and IMO have project scope relevence outside of Banksy:
  • Image:ArrowFenceTremeBanksy.jpg  Keep, Photo of building and context in registered historic neighborhood; Banksy work on building only partially visible obscured behind fence. (Has the fact that Banksy added grafitti made it impossible to make a free licensed photograph of this building from the only side visible without trespassing on private property?) -- Infrogmation (talk) 21:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:LibertyHardwareSept08A.jpg  Keep General view of hardware store in New Orleans vacant since flooding by Hurricane Katrina. -- Infrogmation (talk) 21:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:DropInCenterGustav.jpg  Keep Photo of building damaged by Hurricane Gustav. Work by Banksy is visible as only part of photo; positioning of grafitti makes it hard to photograph the building without the grafitti being visible. -- Infrogmation (talk) 21:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:PhotographingBanksyAug2008DropIn.jpg Hm, maybe this is more debatable, as it is a photo of people taking photos of a Banksy, with the original work seen at an angle partly obscured. What do others think of this one? -- Infrogmation (talk) 21:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be fair, I just mass nominated all banksy works in the UK or USA, I guess some could probably qualify as de minimis. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]