Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2009/05/24

No date, no photographer, downloaded from the internet. Almost certainly copyvio. Sv1xv (talk) 12:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. In cases this obvious, feel free to use {{Copyvio}}. Thanks. Wknight94 ^talk 13:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Failed flickr review. No evidence the flickr owner licenses his images freely...as this is his only photo here. Leoboudv (talk) 04:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete Flickr user licenses this and other images on Flickr as non-commercial only, no confirmation this ever was free licensed. -- Infrogmation (talk) 05:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete This image was uploaded by me way back in 2005 and I think at that time I wasn't fully aware of Wikimedia policies. So, apologies for uploading this image and please delete it from Commons ASAP. --Deepak (talk) 06:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Internet download, with wrong license tag. Most likely a copyvio. Sv1xv (talk) 12:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. In cases this obvious, feel free to use {{Copyvio}}. Thanks. Wknight94 ^talk 13:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Internet download, wrong license tag, likely a copyvio. Sv1xv (talk) 12:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. In cases this obvious, feel free to use {{Copyvio}}. Thanks. Wknight94 ^talk 13:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another very suspect file by same uploader. Sv1xv (talk) 12:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. In cases this obvious, feel free to use {{Copyvio}}. Thanks. Wknight94 ^talk 13:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unused blurry image of a penis taken with a camera phone, no conceivable educational use given the existence of several better images of the subject. Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Deleted. Samulili (talk) 19:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong license. Yann (talk) 19:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. PD-self Yann (talk) 19:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong license. Yann (talk) 19:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. PD-self Yann (talk) 19:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong license. Yann (talk) 19:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. by Infrogmation Yann (talk) 10:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong license. Yann (talk) 20:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. by Infrogmation Yann (talk) 10:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong license. Yann (talk) 20:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. by Infrogmation Yann (talk) 10:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong license. Yann (talk) 20:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. by Badseed Yann (talk) 10:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong license. Yann (talk) 20:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, clearly false license; source has clear copyright notice. -- Infrogmation (talk) 00:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong license. Yann (talk) 21:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Subject's dates are 1854-1921; probably {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} applies. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. PD-EU-no author disclosure. Yann (talk) 10:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong license. No source. Yann (talk) 21:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. by Infrogmation Yann (talk) 10:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems unlikely to be own work - see TinEye report: http://tineye.com/search/5e291bc3b3c15245617a82592937ddb5fd8e6719 Tabercil (talk) 06:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete Already deleted once as File:Nadia-khan.jpg. There's also a duplicate at File:Nadia.jpg which should be included in this nomination. Also, the uploader's other contribs look pretty suspicious too. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Eusebius (talk) 09:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

unidentified maple species, unneccessary and irritating looking glass effect (normal picture would do), unused, unclear where it could be used G.Hagedorn (talk) 10:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep "Irritating" is no reason to delete; image shows magnifying glass to study nature. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep No problem with this photo. Sv1xv (talk) 12:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have a case of vandalism. Please delete the latest uploads to uncover the original file. Sv1xv (talk) 12:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Info I readded the info present on original upload that was deleted Tm (talk) 02:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC) PS: Also reverted to the image that was first uploaded Tm (talk) 02:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete "Dr Enock Tayali" is stated as author in the source. --Eusebius (talk) 09:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Issues with copyright of child in photo FAnd (talk) 13:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You mean publishing a picture of this child could be considered harmful for his privacy? Independently, I'd like to  Delete because we have no permission from the stated author. --Eusebius (talk) 14:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is not the uploader also the author of this photo? But there may be more problems with Tayali's art that he uploaded. For example File:Henry Tayali - Mother Afrika, 1974, Woodcut (6 of 20).JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log) is not own work. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Info I copied the deletion warning, to the original uploader talkpage, that i received automatically on my talkpage. Tm (talk) 14:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Info The user that requested this new deletion of this file is also the original uploader. Tm (talk) 15:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by PeterSymonds.

No description, no source, no author Smooth_O (talk) 12:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also duplicate of File:Cięcina herb.jpg --Smooth_O (talk) 18:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Yann (talk) 14:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong license. No source. Yann (talk) 21:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also not in use and out of scope. Sufficient reason for speedy deletion, I would think. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The simpsons are copyrighted characters. The previous Deletion Request noticed that Freedom of Panorama is allowed in Canada, but it didn't adress the point that such freedom applies to architectural works or works of artistic craftsmanship, none of wich apply to a 2-dimensional representation of copyrighted characters

For more information, see Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Canada, and Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#United Kingdom for a greater explanation about works of artistic craftmanship Belgrano (talk) 22:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Louvre pyramid is copyrighted, no FOP in France. The pyramid is a significant subject of the picture. This picture has been nominated for QI review, I request deletion because pictures getting significant exposure on Commons should really be copyright clean. Eusebius (talk) 11:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Cannot even see it is a pyramid. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Info Pei is one of the few architects actively enforcing the copyright on the image of his works in France. The pyramid can be recognized at a glance, even without the Louvre in the background. I truly think this kind of picture is risky. --Eusebius (talk) 12:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Question What about these works : Category:Louvre Pyramid ? Isn't there FOP matters with them ?   Romanceor ^[parlons-en]

There are. Most of them could be nominated for deletion (unless the pyramid is only a minor object in the picture, not the main subject). --Eusebius (talk) 12:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep I would prefer to keep the image and proceed like this one: File:Louvre_2007_02_24_c.jpg. --afrank99 (talk) 14:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You mean using {{FoP-France}}? The template says Framing this image to focus on the copyrighted work is also a copyright violation. These criteria will be enforced all the more strictly when the work is easy to identify and bears a touristic interest. I haven't invented anything. On this picture, the copyrighted work covers about 45% of the picture surface, against 15% for the FP you mention. They're only numbers, of course, but in the present case you cannot say that the main subject is the Louvre and that it is impossible not to have the pyramid in the frame: the pyramid was deliberately put in the frame. I suggest you have a look at the court decisions quoted at COM:FOP#France, which say why and how the depiction of a copyrighted building may be ok. --Eusebius (talk) 14:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Question What about Category:I. M. Pei ? Are these regulations relevant only in France ?   Romanceor ^[parlons-en] 11:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The FOP regulations depend on the country, yes (and for Commons the copyright status has to be ok in both Florida and the source country). In Hong Kong, for instance, Mr Pei cannot protect the image of the tower he has built in the same way, there is a FOP that we can take advantage of. (Side note, your signature is really annoying). --Eusebius (talk) 11:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for awnsering. For the signature, I did forgot to use the template.   Romanceor ^[parlons-en] 14:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete Obvious per no FOP in France and above discussion. Lycaon (talk) 19:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted per Eusebius MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another case of vandalism. BTW, the original upload could be a copyvio. Sv1xv (talk) 12:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Info I readded the info present on original upload that was deleted Tm (talk) 02:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC) PS: Also reverted to the image that was first uploaded Tm (talk) 02:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete Missing permission from "Dr Enock Tayali". --Eusebius (talk) 09:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe austrian stamps are not free. Sv1xv (talk) 12:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Not listed as PD in Commons:Stamps/Public domain. MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Austrian stamps are copyrighted. Also the cover has creative artistic elements. Sv1xv (talk) 12:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Not listed as PD in Commons:Stamps/Public domain. MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, stamps of Austria. Sv1xv (talk) 12:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Not listed as PD in Commons:Stamps/Public domain. MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No date or artist, but uploader claims that copyright has expired. How? Sv1xv (talk) 12:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Unlikely that this color photo would be PD according to {{PD-Azerbaijan}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep In source[1], what I wrote, is written that photo was made in beginnings of 20 century. But exactly date and author are unknown.--Interfase (talk) 16:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is not that the date of the costume? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exact date of photo is unknown, but source said that it is very old photo.--Interfase (talk) 18:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete per nom. Lycaon (talk) 05:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. No licence from copyright owner MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the cup itself is not free, so the derivative work is copyrighted as well. Can someone from Russia comment? Sv1xv (talk) 12:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What ??????? Laim (talk) 13:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment The silver cup itself is a work of art and possibly still copyrighted. A photograph of it is a derivative work and is copyrighted by the artist who created the cup and the photographer. The photographer alone cannot release it under a free license, unless the copyright of the cup has expired. Please provide further information. Sv1xv (talk) 13:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment As an example it is possible to look the image of a medal of Olympic games 2008: File:3_Lic_medals_not_lenta.jpg in RuWiki. It the sports award too.--AndreyA (talk) 10:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete That RuWiki page says the image there is not free, and is used under fair use. Thus, it would not be acceptable for Commons, and I don't think this one is either. However, it could be moved to the Russian Wikipedia under a similar fair use rationale as the medals image you linked to, assuming it was used in an article there. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. No licence from owner of the copyright in the original trophy design MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A photo of pictures in a museum can not have GFDL license. Unless the pictures are free, which I don't think they are. Ö 14:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom of panorama would not be valid here (The Swedish copyright law allows in the article 24 to take pictures of works of art that are located permanently at public places outdoors.). --Túrelio (talk) 14:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative work of a derivative work of this photo. -- ShaggeDoc talk? 15:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong license. Yann (talk) 18:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Unfree image MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong license. Yann (talk) 19:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Unfree image MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong license. Yann (talk) 19:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. No licence from Hong Kong Housing Authority MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong license. Yann (talk) 19:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. No licence from Erick Struyf MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong license. Yann (talk) 19:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Unfree image MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong license. Yann (talk) 19:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. No licence from copyright owner MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong license. Yann (talk) 19:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. No source MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong license. Yann (talk) 19:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Photo Hans Bøvre. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. No licence from copyright owner MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong license. Yann (talk) 19:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. No licence from copyright owner MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong license. Yann (talk) 19:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. No licence from copyright owner MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong license. Yann (talk) 19:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. No licence from copyright owner MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong license. Yann (talk) 19:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. No licence from copyright owner MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong license. Yann (talk) 19:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. No licence from copyright owner MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong license. Yann (talk) 19:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. No licence from copyright owner MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong license. Yann (talk) 19:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. No licence from copyright owner MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong license. Yann (talk) 19:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. No licence from copyright owner MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong license. Yann (talk) 19:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Ripped from the Liceo Mariotti web page. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong license. Yann (talk) 19:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong license. Yann (talk) 20:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. No licence from copyright owner MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong license. Yann (talk) 20:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. No licence from copyright owner MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong license. Yann (talk) 20:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. No licence from copyright owner MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No source, no permission, no athor stated. In addition the low image resolution and no EXIF data may be an indication for copyright violation. High Contrast (talk) 20:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong license. Yann (talk) 20:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete per nom; uploader description "No". -- Infrogmation (talk) 00:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong license. Yann (talk) 20:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong license. Yann (talk) 20:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. No source MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong license. Yann (talk) 20:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. No licence from copyright owner MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong license. Yann (talk) 20:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. No source. Shows copyright material anyway. MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong license. Yann (talk) 20:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. No licence from copyright owner MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong license. Yann (talk) 20:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Not used, out of scope. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong license. Yann (talk) 20:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. No licence from copyright owner MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong license. Yann (talk) 20:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. No licence from copyright owner MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong license. Yann (talk) 21:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. No licence from copyright owner MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong license. Yann (talk) 21:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete, wrong license, no evidence it would be free licensed for some other reason. -- Infrogmation (talk) 00:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. No licence from copyright owner MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong license. Yann (talk) 21:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

license is correct, because this book was published under USSR ocupation. Suwa (talk) 08:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, the image is eligible for copyright. Yann (talk) 10:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

and who willbe copyright owner ???? Suwa (talk) 10:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most likely the photographer (or any heirs). --Latebird (talk) 20:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong license. Yann (talk) 21:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

license is correct, because this book was published under USSR ocupation. Suwa (talk) 08:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. No licence from copyright owner MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong license. Yann (talk) 21:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. No licence from copyright owner MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong license. Yann (talk) 21:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete I cannot find it on Flickr. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you cannot find it on flick it does not mean its not there. the account must have been deleted.

Commons policy requires that the license of images from flickr are revied by a trusted user (or a bot), which isn't possible in that case. --Latebird (talk) 20:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. No licence from copyright owner MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong license. Yann (talk) 21:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. No licence from copyright owner MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong license. Yann (talk) 21:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete No evidence for copyleft license on source site. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. No licence from copyright owner MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong license. Yann (talk) 21:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. No licence from copyright owner (eg photographer)MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong license. Yann (talk) 21:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete Apparently promotional or commercial image taken from a blog with no real source, clearly false license. -- Infrogmation (talk) 00:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong license. No source. No permission. Yann (talk) 21:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong license. Yann (talk) 21:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. No source MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong license. Yann (talk) 21:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. No source MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong license. Yann (talk) 21:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. No valid source MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong license. Yann (talk) 21:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. No valid source MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong license. No permission. Yann (talk) 21:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. NO valid source MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong license. Yann (talk) 21:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong license. Yann (talk) 21:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong license. Yann (talk) 21:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong license. No source. Yann (talk) 21:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong license. No source. Yann (talk) 21:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong license. Yann (talk) 21:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. No licence from copyright owner MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong license. No permission. Yann (talk) 21:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Not used, advertisement, not in scope. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Licencia proviene de Chile, ya que es una fotografía de una teleserie de Canal 13. Además, el autor de la misma no puede ser un artista argentino que haya fallecido hace 25 años, ya que la actriz es contempóranea. --Superzerocool (talk) 23:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Copyvio. Otourly (talk) 18:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. No licence from copyright owner MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.thehuntforgollum.com/downloads.htm are said to be under copyright Meneldur (talk) 15:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

duplicate of File:JohnDunsScotus.jpg, but also has a wrong filename due to an error in the depicted person. In fact, at the time of this nomination, the image was used wrongly on three projects (has been removed/corrected now). Túrelio (talk) 14:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Confusing duplicate. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, delete it! --Accurimbono (talk) 12:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment We cannot delete it as it is in use on the hu wiki. Please remove all uses and somebody will delete this for you. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced.--Túrelio (talk) 07:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Artwork may be copyrighted. Panoramafreiheit does not match, work is temporary. Habakuk (talk) 15:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Do the commons policies draw a line somewhere between decoration and "real" art? And is it only me or is this example situated quite a bit on the decorative side? --Latebird (talk) 20:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only line is the threshold of originality (Schöpfungshöhe), which I'd expect this projection to pass (even though German law tends to set the bar higher than some other jurisdictions, so I'm not quite sure). —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong license. Yann (talk) 19:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 KeepThere is no license error.--ブレイズマン (talk) 09:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. License OK now. Yann (talk) 17:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong license. Yann (talk) 19:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Local US government. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What should it be under instead then?

 Delete No evidence of a free license. --Latebird (talk) 20:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Published by State of Georgia, so not PD. Sv1xv (talk) 16:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong license. Yann (talk) 19:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. License OK now. Yann (talk) 17:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong license. Yann (talk) 20:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 KeepThere is no license error.--ブレイズマン (talk) 09:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. License OK now. Yann (talk) 17:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong license. Yann (talk) 20:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 CommentI think no problem.Why is it wrong license?--KENPEI (talk) 14:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 KeepThere is no license error.--ブレイズマン (talk) 09:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. License OK now. Yann (talk) 17:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong license. Yann (talk) 20:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. no source, wrong license, no permission, not used Yann (talk) 17:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong license. Yann (talk) 21:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Certainly {{PD-Australia}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Per above. Just change the license, if it is incorrect. Although I believe it is correct. Chicken7 (talk) 05:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. PD-Australia Yann (talk) 17:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No permission. Yann (talk) 21:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. No permission from sated author. MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong license. No source. Yann (talk) 21:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong license. Yann (talk) 21:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. No valid source MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong license. Yann (talk) 18:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete. Contains original authorship, so not PD-ineligible. http://www.taringa.net/posts/manga-anime/2820754/Evangelion-[Curiosidades,-explicaciones,-datos,-información.html —LX (talk, contribs) 09:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. No basis for assertion that image is ineligible for copyright. WJBscribe (talk) 20:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong license. Yann (talk) 19:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 12:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong license. Yann (talk) 19:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Wknight94 ^talk 13:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong license. Yann (talk) 20:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep with {{PD-self}}; the sign is {{PD-USGov}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. with license replacement. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 05:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong license. Yann (talk) 20:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep probably the uploader's intention was {{PD-self}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. with license replacement. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 05:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong license. No permission. Yann (talk) 21:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Permission only for Wikipedia. Uploader did not respond for several months. --Alpertron (talk) 14:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong license. Yann (talk) 21:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Probably intended to be {{PD-self}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Google translator translates the source as own work. However, I'd feel very uncomfortable deciding what the license is on behalf of the copyright owner. I think we need a word from the uploader. Samulili (talk) 06:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. The source is himself. I translated the source field and changed template to {{PD-self}}. --Alpertron (talk) 16:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong license. Yann (talk) 18:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Web resolution; there is no evidence that uploader represents the company. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Issues were not fixed. MGA73 (talk) 21:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quinceratops is a non-notable speculative dinosaur created by a sculptor, not an actual dinosaur genus as thought by the image creator. J. Spencer (talk) 18:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The editor probably saw this and created the article on en.WP, including a taxobox and this illustration. The sculpture, though, is fictional, not a real fossil.[2] Firsfron (talk) 18:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no reasonable use for this image. Nyttend (talk) 00:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong license. Yann (talk) 20:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep with {{PD-self}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, creator says that it's an own work and that it's PD, so it's PD. Nyttend (talk) 00:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong license: the background map is subject to copyright. Yann (talk) 21:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep As the file description says, the background map is from wikipedia and not difficult to find: File:Uk topo de.jpg. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The map ypu mention is not exactly the basis for this image. Furthermore, the other map is {{Bild-GFDL-GMT}}, so GFDL. So this map has also to be GFDL. --ALE! ¿…? 06:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept - changing license (non-admin closure). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong license. Yann (talk) 19:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep per Commons:Deletion requests/US holocaust memorial museum images (link is in the file description). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is the right license? Yann (talk) 20:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One could write a rationale using {{PD-because}}, maybe "because USHMM says so" would be simplest. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is part of a series of images taken of the December 1941 massacres in Liepaja, which apart from the obvious historical value of the images, include the image at right. One Carl Strott, an SS man, is customarily supposed to have been the photographer, but sources differ on this. I would say that if the Bundesarchiv has concluded that one of the images from the series is in the public domain, that should be good enough for the rest of them. Mtsmallwood (talk) 02:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But has "the Bundesarchiv concluded" that? --Túrelio (talk) 06:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think so. Here's the explanation that the project gives: Commons:Bundesarchiv Nie rozumiem dlaczego ktos chce wymazac to zdjecie. Ludobujstwo Zydow nie mozna zapomniec. Porque quieren sacar esa foto, no podemos olvidar la masacre de los Judios. Yesterday the Jews, today the Dafur Christians/animist and tomorrow you and me. KEEP THE PHOTO.Please,

With some denying the Holocaust, even by a head of state as recently as Sept.2009 during the opening of the new session of the United Nations, it is important to keep as much documentation of the horror on the Internet available for the World to see. It would serve the public interest better if this item is left on Wiki.

• Keep, our source says that it's PD, and I don't see why we should presume to say that both the US archive and the Bundesarchiv are wrong. Nyttend (talk) 00:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept, sources state the image is PD and I see no reason to doubt it. Kameraad Pjotr 20:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Claimed to be PD because USHMM said so, but actually there is no photograph 19121 on their servers: [3] nor could the photograph be located by searching Liepaja. Unclear copyright status. Buidhe (talk) 07:51, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment I have not been able to find this image on the USHMM web site, although I found this film from the same Gestapo source, with no indication of a Commons compatible license. It is referenced here to USHMM, but with credits to the Bunderarchiv and Carl Strott. It is available on the Bundesarchiv website, with an attribution to Carl Strott, based on which I doubt we can consider it PD. Nevertheless, the image is notoriously part of evidences presented at the Nuremberg trials [4] [5] [6]. This raises the interesting question of the copyright status of the evidence presented at the Nuremberg trials, discussed here. There seems to be a distinction to make between 'English' and Russian and evidence and the photograph seeo be part of the Russian evidence (hence the credit here to Novosti Press Agency. — Racconish ^💬 21:02, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Racconish: Thanks for the info. Apparently Strott was born in 1902 and was still in good enough health in 1971 to stand trial. [7] At least the US evidence at Nuremberg was seized by the en:Alien Property Custodian, but I don't see how we can keep the file on commons since both Germany and Lithuania protect for death + 70 years. Buidhe (talk) 23:20, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• For what it is worth: this picture is also archived as "Yad Vashem Photo Archives 85DO2." As the site reads: "The photographs were discovered by David Zivcon, a Jew who worked as an electrician in the SD Headquarters in Liepaja. A few weeks, or even months, after the massacre, he was called to fix something in Strott's home and he noticed rolls of negatives in an open draw. He took them, made copies with the help of a friend, and later returned them to the apartment under the pretext that there were electrical problems. He put his copies in a box and buried them in a stable. After the liberation he handed them over to a Soviet Intelligence Officer. The copies were then used as evidence in the Nuremburg Trials." Maybe it helps for the discussion.Jeff5102 (talk) 10:21, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: I think we had a really thoughtful discussion here that proves that image couldn't be in PD yet. --rubin16 (talk) 12:32, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong license. Yann (talk) 20:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The uploader lacks the experience, and the English language skills. Please keep the picture around for a few more days, I explained him what needs to be done. The picture is a family picture, and they gave their permission to publish, but it wasn't formalised. The uploader will request a formal cc-by-sa license permission, and I'll update the description after it's done. Probably in around a week or so. Until then I'll put in some better suiting license for an informal permission to use. --grin ✎ 07:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Until then I replaced the improper PD with a more restricting one until the permission arrives. Uploader wanted to use the picture, that's why I asked it not to be deleted until then. --grin ✎ 08:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Probably {{PD-heirs}} applies. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, lacks proper permission. Should it arrive, the image can be restored. Kameraad Pjotr 20:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong license. Yann (talk) 20:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you know the correct license then just put it there ;-) . (It would have been better to say that the license is not applicable.) --ALE! ¿…? 12:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep User:Yosh3000 changed the license, seems ok. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept, current license seems genuine to me. Kameraad Pjotr 20:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong license. Yann (talk) 20:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, clear copyvio. Kameraad Pjotr 20:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong license. Yann (talk) 20:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, clear copyvio. Kameraad Pjotr 20:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong license. Yann (talk) 21:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Too recent for {{PD-Norway50}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The picture of Torrey Mosvold should not be deleted. Next year it will be 15 years next since Torrey Mosvold died, and then it is ok according to PD-Norway50. Anyway, this is a picture my wife, the grand daughter of Torrey Mosvold has given me to post on wikipedia, and there are no issues related to owner right on this. Please undo delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.209.35.92 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PD-Norway does not say that images become PD 15 years after the subject dies. But you should change the license to an appropriate one. If your wife owns the copyright, maybe {{PD-heirs}} would be best. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, lacks suitable permission. Kameraad Pjotr 20:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader does state that the image is released under CC-BY-SA, but then goes on to add "(...)Please Ask Author if you wish to publish it" (emphasis original). To me that seems like an attempt to "override" the parts of the CC-BY-SA license that allow anyone to publish it without any furhter permission, and so it should probably be considetred non-free. Unfortunately the uploader on enWikipedia seems to have left years ago and didn't provide an e-mail adress. Sherool (talk) 01:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep People make these requests all the time for their photos but its no good reason to delete the image. Its just a request to be notified if the image is used elsewhere. It doesn't merit a DR, I feel. Besides, the image has a clear author. --Leoboudv (talk) 04:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep The terms of the CC-BY-SA license still apply. The additional term should be A notification to the author if this photograph is republished would be appreciated or something like that. Perhaps some guidance must be included in uploading pages forms, to avoid such problems in the future. Sv1xv (talk) 04:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep The cc-by-sa statement is unambiguous, the additional request legally non-binding, the interpretation of the wording should take into account that the author is not a native speaker. --G.Hagedorn (talk) 10:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm not sure how the legal works, if you sign a contract that say one ting and then add below your signature add "I don't actualy agree to following section 1 of this contract at all" or something like that would it still be a binding contract? Most likely the other party would have it declared void or something... Either way in cases where an uploader write "This file may only be used on Wikipedia" and then pick a CC-BY-SA license template the file would almost scertainly be (speedy) deleted despite the free license tag since we assume what the uploader actualy write is more likely to match his intention than the boilerplate produced by the template. Telling uploaders who do this essentialy "ha ha you picked a free license so you are stuck with it" while maybe strictly speaking true is not to my knowledge the way we do things. We don't want to "trick" people into releasing their content, we want people to know the implications and choose an acceptable license knowingly. Yeah if a disgruntled user try to change their license after the fact they can rightfully be reminded that the license is non-revokable, but in cases where the custum text endered by the uploader have always contradicted the boilerplate produced by the license they picked I don't think we should just dismiss it as "not legaly binding", but instead take it as a sign that the uploader didn't fully agree to the terms of the license they picked. --Sherool (talk) 18:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete Incompatible license terms. "Please ask" is clearly not the same as "please notify", like the keep votes so far seem to have assumed. And I'm really not sure if it is legally permissible for another editor to just remove such a condition because he doesn't like it. --Latebird (talk) 09:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
•  Comment Another editor can change the condition or wording of a license, in my view, if he/she then immediatedly tells the original uploader what he/she has done. (And the original uploader does not complain). Most people don't care as long as they are attributed. That is the key! And if they care, the original uploader can always tell the second person to revert his/her actions. As an aside, the last time I checked, cc by sa licensed images here are non-revocable..unless there is a good faith uploader request. The uploader (AnnaZ) has not asked the image to be deleted and has not made edits to wiki since mid-2007. This is another image by her: File:SanGiorgioMN.jpg Here, she asks only for attribution. I just moved it to Commons because it is a first rate image and...no, I did not change the wording of the text. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So just because the uploader isn't hanging around anymore to complain, you think you can change her intentions for her on your own whim? "We'll get away with it" has never been a valid argument on Commons. --Latebird (talk) 23:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep License is clear, the additional request does not change this. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, the license overrides the statement. Nyttend (talk) 00:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, uploader terms overrule the license. Kameraad Pjotr 20:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong license. Yann (talk) 20:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment certainly wrong license. What is the copyright status for pre-Soviet era Latvian publications? -- Infrogmation (talk) 00:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This was published in Nazi controlled newspaper as part of Nazi propaganda campaign in Latvia. Although published in the Latvian language, the newspaper was entirely under the control of the German occupation authorities. The headline blames the Jews and the Bolsheviks for the burning of the St. Peter's Cathedral in Riga. (The fire was actually caused by German aerial bombardment).Mtsmallwood (talk) 02:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC) Possibly better tag might be {{PD-GermanGov}}[reply]

Publications in a party controlled newspaper don't automatically count as "statute, ordinance, official decree or judgment". --Latebird (talk) 20:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Generally that may be true. Certainly this newspaper (Tēvija_ carried rather ordinary advertisements. However, as a Nazi-controlled publication, articles purporting to be "news" are in fact statements of official policy. This particular image, when paired with the headline announces that the Jews and the Bolsheviks were responsible for burning the cathedral. It was the officlal policy of the Nazi occupation authorities to spread false rumors about the Jews, and to link them to Communism, in an effort to stir up murderous anti-Jewish riots among the native Latvian population.Mtsmallwood (talk) 02:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC) In support of this please refer to Ezergailis, The Holocaust in Latvia, at page 84, where he states:[reply]

Unfortunately all irrelevant. See related nomination above. --Latebird (talk) 15:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that a further review of Ezergailis, at pages 165-166, may show to the contrary:

Ezergailis is considered one of the principal authorities writing in English about the Latvian Holocaust. Thus it appears that according to the principal source, the content of this newspaper Tēvija was completely controlled by the SD, which is the abbreviation for Sicherheitsdienst, a German word which translates to Security Service in English, but is usually referred to by its German abbreviation. The SD was an official organization of the German Government. Therefore, this announcement, that the Jews and the Bolsheviks burned down St. Peters in Riga is an official announcement of the German government.Mtsmallwood (talk) 16:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, image is copyrighted by the orignal photographer (or the newspaper) and is not a publication of the German government and as such, usual copyright rules apply. Kameraad Pjotr 20:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong license. Yann (talk) 19:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This was published in Nazi controlled newspaper as part of Nazi propaganda campaign in Latvia. Mtsmallwood (talk) 02:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC) Possibly better tag might be {{PD-GermanGov}}[reply]

Publications in a party controlled newspaper don't automatically count as "statute, ordinance, official decree or judgment". --Latebird (talk) 20:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Generally that may be true. Certainly this newspaper (Tēvija_ carried rather ordinary advertisements. However, as a Nazi-controlled publication, articles purporting to be "news" are in fact statements of official policy. This particular image is of Otto Drechsler, who was appointed to be some kind of Nazi procounsel in Latvia, and was basically an announcement to the Latvians of what their new ruler would look like.Mtsmallwood (talk) 02:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, the NSDAP was not (formally) a "state authority" as referred to in this template. And secondly, even a state authority has many ways to communicate with the public that do not result in a "statute, ordinance, official decree or judgment", and therefore do not automatically become PD. If at all, then a publication in some paper might only fall under that category if it was in a section formally titled "Offizielle Bekanntmachungen" or something to that effect. If they only instruct a journalist to write something, then that journalist owns the copyright of the text he writes (and some photographer of the pictures ue uses). --Latebird (talk) 14:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that a further review of Ezergailis, at pages 165-166, may show to the contrary:

Ezergailis is considered one of the principal authorities writing in English about the Latvian Holocaust. Thus it appears that according to the principal source, the content of this newspaper Tēvija was completely controlled by the SD, which is the abbreviation for Sicherheitsdienst, a German word which translates to Security Service in English, but is usually referred to by its German abbreviation. The SD was an official organization of the German Government. Therefore, this announcement, that the Jews and the Bolsheviks burned down St. Peters in Riga is an official announcement of the German government.Mtsmallwood (talk) 16:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Such an "official announcement" is not what is meant by "statute, ordinance, official decree or judgment". --Latebird (talk) 22:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how this can fail to be an official announcement. It is an image of a Nazi government official, showing him in a uniform in a formal portrait, published in a newspaper controlled by a state agency, which announces his name and official title. What more would one require? Mtsmallwood (talk) 00:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One would require the template (and the law) to cover "official announcements" or "formal portraits", which doesn't happen to be the case. --Latebird (talk) 12:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The law in question states, at least to the extent it seems relevant to me:

Using my admittedly faulty knowledge of German, I would translate that as:

"Bekanntmachungen" described paragraph (1) includes "official announcements" like this image. The announcement here is simply an official image of an official wearing a state uniform, with an official title. And even if paragraph 1 doesn't apply here, paragraph (2) covers the point. The exceptions referenced in paragraph (2) contain nothing, at least to my reading, which would grant this image copyright protection. I would also point out that the image at right of Hinrich Lohse is from the same source and employs the official announcement justification for public domain status.

I strongly suggest examination of the page of the newspaper from which both the challenged image and the Lohse image are taken. It is here: Tēlvija, page 1, August 8, 1941. While I know little of the Latvian language, it appears quite clear to me that that this entire page is stating that new "Gebietskommissars" (territorial commissioners) have been appointed by the Reich for Latvia, here are their images, and the Latvians are to obey them. Note that both Lohse's and Drechsler's images are published on the same page.Mtsmallwood (talk) 16:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was the relevant text and/or the image formally and explicitly declared to be an official government announcement at the time of first punlication? Because that would seem to be a necessary condition for them to fall under those paragraphs. The nazis may well have evaded that by pretending that the stuff was written by journalists instead. --Latebird (talk) 23:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think so. I can only read a few words of the Latvian, but much of the page is in German, and on the right hand side is a statement that Otto Dreschsler has been appointed as the territorial commissioner for the Reich government in the formerly independent state of Latvia etc etc, and this image seems clearly linked tot this announcement which is called an"Aufruf" in the paper). Mtsmallwood (talk) 00:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So there is NO explicit statement to make it an "official government announcement". Your conclusions seem to be based on wishful thinking here. --Latebird (talk) 12:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. Read the announcement, which is in the German language. The first paragraphs state, in summary and rough translation, "Hey, Latvians, the Fuehrer has set up a government for you. I, Otto Dreschler, am going to be the Fuehrer's caporegime for Latvia." The photo is placed right next to the article and the caption (in Latvian) states, at least to my reading, "Otto Dreschler -- Administrator for Latvia".Mtsmallwood (talk) 10:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, the exact same announcement ("Aufruf") is also in Wiki Commons and is coded as public domain as a formal document of the German government. I hardly see how the accompanying photograph can be any less a matter of a formal government decree or announcement.Mtsmallwood (talk) 11:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And now, finally, you give us the relevant information: "Image was published accompanying a text written by the subject himself in official government capacity." If you had said so at the beginning of this debate, we could have both saved a lot of time and effort. Well, unless you just now figured it out yourself, of course. Either way, that does indeed make it PD and legal to  Keep. --Latebird (talk) 23:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 07:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]