Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2009/10/01

proszę o usunięcie zdjęcia na którym jestem, nie myślałem że siostra wyśle je do internetu. 79.185.164.152 21:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Julo (talk) 06:27, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proszę o usunięcie w/w zdjęcia. Zdjęcie znalazło się tu bez mojej zgody. Nie chce być pośmiewiskiem. Prawdopodobnie siostra wysłała te zdjęcia za kare(dla kawału). No cóż odgryzła się, ja także czasem podsyłam jej zdjęcia. menello17@vp.pl 83.23.196.229 16:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

proszę o usunięcie zdjęcia na którym jestem, nie myślałem że siostra wyśle je do internetu. 79.185.164.152 21:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Julo (talk) 06:27, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

proszę o usunięcie zdjęcia na którym jestem, nie myślałem że siostra wyśle je do internetu. 79.185.164.152 21:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Julo (talk) 06:27, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proszę o usunięcie w/w zdjęcia. Zdjęcie znalazło się tu bez mojej zgody. Nie chce być pośmiewiskiem. Prawdopodobnie siostra wysłała te zdjęcia za kare(dla kawału). No cóż odgryzła się, ja także czasem podsyłam jej zdjęcia. menello17@vp.pl 83.23.196.229 16:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Content moved to right categories: Category:UGM-93A Trident I C-4 and Category:UGM-133A Trident II D-5. These missiles actually are even not one family. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matrek (talk • contribs) 07:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 19:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The author of the image requested deletion at Copyright questions on Wikipedia. However, the permission cited on the image description never was a permission to a free, Wikipedia compatible license or reuse terms. The original permission statement was this edit which says, that Wikipedia can use the image - we need permission for everyone and every purpose.

Also for deletion: File:Regard et étrangeté.jpg. This request is not intended for discussion but for documentation. --Martin H. (talk) 20:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Per documentation above, in the meantime the author requested speedy deletion. --Martin H. (talk) 20:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(reason for deletion)
Reason for deletion:not in use. Author and Initiator of deletion: 22:45, 25. Sep. 2009 Deror avi --Fixing request: --El-Bardo (talk) 11:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Respect the request of author--El-Bardo (talk) 11:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted typo in name: Category:Beit Hecht -- Deadstar (msg) 12:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Synonym of Fuchsia splendens
Initiator of deletion:23:40, 28. Sep. 2009 Epibase --Fixing request:--El-Bardo (talk) 11:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Should be install a redirect page? --El-Bardo (talk) 11:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment I agree that it should have been a category redirect, I regret doing the request. Can I reverse it even though it landed here? epibase (talk) 21:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept as a redirect to Category:Fuchsia splendens. –Tryphon^☂ 12:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

typo --Ervaude (talk) 13:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Tiptoety: Empty category

I got confused between en-wiki and Commons.
Initiator of deletion: 18:54, 30. Sep. 2009 Jmabel --Fixing request: --El-Bardo (talk) 13:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete unused --El-Bardo (talk) 13:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Just change the tag to {{speedy|empty category}}. Do not list them here. As I told you before, and as it says in Category:Incomplete deletion requests: "Many of these may be misplaced Speedy Requests. (Keep in mind that on most projects, including the English Wikipedia, "{{Delete}}" is a Speedy Delete tag)." /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Sorry, just tagged it wrong. Please just delete it. But what El Bardo did here is particularly confusing, because I didn't tag Category:Anglican churches, which is used, I tagged Category:Anglican churches by country, which has now been removed. Please leave Category:Anglican churches where it is and close and/or delete the present discussion. - Jmabel ! talk 15:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Good thing we talked about --El-Bardo (talk) 09:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closed per above. Deleted the incorrect discussion page. -- Deadstar (msg) 07:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image is useless due to the caption, the filter, and the crop. FunkMonk (talk) 01:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep In use. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 05:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Those may limit the contexts in which it is used, but certainly don't render it useless. Images suitable for any educational purpose can be on Commons, not just those suitable to a particular Wikipedia. - Jmabel ! talk 19:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I'll ask the user to upload the image without the caption and filter though. FunkMonk (talk) 20:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 00:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outside of Project Scope: self-created "diagram" with no educational value; uploaded for purely to motivate hate 99.237.244.186 03:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC) These comments were added by Singularity42 (talk · contribs) prior to unified account being created.[reply]

 Delete Not in use, not educationally useful. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 07:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 01:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

not PD, a poster of Chinese TV series produced by Huayi Brothers Media Group 221.127.127.155 09:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete obvious copyvio --Simonxag (talk) 07:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Dferg (talk) 09:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Out-of-focus poor-quality photograph of a train type for which a number of excellent quality photos already exist in Wikimedia Commons DAJF (talk) 07:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete poor quality --Simonxag (talk) 07:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the description on the right , not make in 1920s 221.127.127.155 10:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete No evidence that this is anything other than a modern image. --Simonxag (talk) 09:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

mappy.com is a google-maps like website with satellite pictures. non free. Teofilo (talk) 12:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete per nom & ununused & pretty useless & (if a picture of a modern French building) a DW with no FOP. --Simonxag (talk) 09:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not own work, see the removed watermark from an internet-quality image. Eusebius (talk) 12:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 07:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not own work: see the removed watermark Eusebius (talk) 12:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 07:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No Commons:Freedom of panorama in Belarus. Plaque installed after 1995. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete No FOP for modern art works in Belarus or other former Soviet states. --Leoboudv (talk) 19:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Fair Usage" or "fair use" picture are not suitable for Wikimedia Commons Teofilo (talk) 18:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete per above. -- Deadstar (msg) 08:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

not PD, a poster of Chinese TV series produced by Huayi Brothers Media Group 221.127.127.155 09:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete photo of a modern poster --Simonxag (talk) 07:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, copyvio. --The Evil IP address (talk) 10:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Description does not provide enough data to determine the status of the seven original pictures Ecemaml ^{talk to me/habla conmigo} 15:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete as it's ugly and unencyclopaedic. // Liftarn (talk) 22:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 09:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, per nomination comment. --The Evil IP address (talk) 10:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe this is an own work by the uploader. He claims he has published it elsewhere… yeah, on many places, under a different name (every time) and a few months ago. Moreover, given the history of the user (especially of his main account, the uploading account being just a sock), I am sure this is a copyvio. Mormegil (talk) 20:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete No exif data and picture looks suspicious. --Simonxag (talk) 09:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Mormegil (talk) 13:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the description on the left , not make in 1920s 221.127.141.219 10:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete No evidence that this is anything other than a modern image. --Simonxag (talk) 09:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Nilfanion (talk) 12:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

słaba jakość - poor quality
Initiator of deletion: 16:13, 30. Sep. 2009 Zwiadowca21 --Fixing request --El-Bardo (talk) 10:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete poor quality, undersize --El-Bardo (talk) 10:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Not in use, no description, non-descriptive filename. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Nilfanion (talk) 12:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

and File:BLR Vetka Museum of People's Art sign.jpg, File:BLR Vetka Museum of People's Art front door.jpg (modern art, most likely by same sculptor).

No Commons:Freedom of panorama in Belarus. Creator died in 1988. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Creator died in 1988 and there is no FOP in the former Soviet states. --Leoboudv (talk) 19:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted FOP in Belarus restricts to non-commercial uses only. --Alpertron (talk) 12:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the video stills in the application in the screenshot are copyrighted (non-free) --Ysangkok (talk) 15:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete No evidence of license at supposed source site [1] --Simonxag (talk) 09:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Cirt (talk) 23:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pic of me and I don't like it. For a diff one please write me michelem@kexp.org thanks 128.208.104.190 19:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete as a courtesy. I'm following up with Michele about a substitute. I'll crop a version of this so that we can have the picture of Chris: File:Chris Estey.jpg. - Jmabel ! talk 19:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: File:DJs Kid Koala & Michele Myers.jpg, just uploaded, should be an acceptable substitute. - Jmabel ! talk 23:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, courtesy to subject of image, who requested deletion; we have an authorized picture of her. - Jmabel ! talk 00:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Subject of photo, Michele Myers, has requested deletion as a courtesy because she doesn't like the photo. She's promised to provide a substitute photo of herself. I believe we should extend her that courtesy. Jmabel ! talk 19:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: File:DJs Kid Koala & Michele Myers.jpg, just uploaded, should be an acceptable substitute. - Jmabel ! talk 23:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, courtesy to subject of image, who requested deletion; we have an authorized picture of her. - Jmabel ! talk 00:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Subject of photo, Michele Myers, has requested deletion as a courtesy because she doesn't like the photo. She's promised to provide a substitute photo of herself. I believe we should extend her that courtesy. Jmabel ! talk 19:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: File:DJs Kid Koala & Michele Myers.jpg, just uploaded, should be an acceptable substitute. - Jmabel ! talk 23:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, courtesy to subject of image, who requested deletion; we have an authorized picture of her. - Jmabel ! talk 00:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Subject of photo, Michele Myers, has requested deletion as a courtesy because she doesn't like the photo. She's promised to provide a substitute photo of herself. I believe we should extend her that courtesy. Jmabel ! talk 19:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: File:DJs Kid Koala & Michele Myers.jpg, just uploaded, should be an acceptable substitute. - Jmabel ! talk 23:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, courtesy to subject of image, who requested deletion; we have an authorized picture of her. - Jmabel ! talk 00:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Architecture by Renzo Piano. No Freedom of Panorama in France. See COM:FOP#France --Teofilo (talk) 09:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 07:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. –blurpeace ^(talk) 03:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No Commons:Freedom of panorama in Belarus. Installed after 1990. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete No FOP in Belarus per nominator. --Leoboudv (talk) 19:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. –blurpeace ^(talk) 04:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Same image as File:Silver medal blank.svg, but with bigger file size Jackl (talk) 07:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete Too many things going on on the XML. The suggested version is more simplified. ZooFari 05:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Avi (talk) 06:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per note below left on image page by Rrius. Infrogmation (talk) 09:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: The original upload log cannot be relied upon. The link will demonstrate that the photograph is credited to the MLK Library, no the US Senate Historical Office; therefore the office has no right to request attribution. Moreover, Ms. Moore's assertion that the photo is in the public domain is suspect. Finally, if the photo is in the public domain, how does the office have the right to require attribution? -Rrius (talk) 19:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Avi (talk) 06:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be fake. Looks like there is no such thing as "The official Flag of Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic". The flag itself is the flag of Azerbaijan with slightly changed colours. --Blacklake (talk) 09:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Avi (talk) 06:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no image of Official Flag of Nakhchivan AR, Invaild SVG Paildens (talk) 20:09, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:47, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a similar version or a retouched version of photo or computer generated drawing marked "photo ING real estate (big jpg file) on this page (click on thumbnail or on "Global investment is becoming the norm" link) (you can see the I [heart] NY poster on the neighbouring building on both pictures, and the angle is the same) Only the color rendering seems to be different.

The colorful version seems to be the same picture as the small one available on this New York Observer article published August 7, 2005 and marked with "The New York Times Company/Forest City Ratner Companies/Renzo Piano Building Workshop/ Fox& Fowle Architects".

Although the name "Raj Patel" is the same as that of journalist en:Raj Patel, Raj Patel/FCRC seems to be connected to the "Raj Patel" Chief Information Officer and Senior Vice President, Forest City Ratner Companies, this article (pdf) is talking about : "When real estate leader Forest City Enterprises (FCE) undertook building the 52-storey New York Times headquarters, the stakes were high—literally and otherwise". See en:Forest City Enterprises.

This looks more like a computer generated picture created by the architects than a true photograph created by somebody else and available through the American freedom of panorama for buidings.

Although emporis.com is a "variety of source" content provider writing "Emporis.com is the world's largest free-to-use website about buildings" and "We make this information universally accessible " on their "application" page and on their "about" page, I don't see any real free license there. Their licensing page says "Emporis offers a large amount of photos for purchase to its customers". The picture is marked with (c) Raj Patel/FCRC on source page . The only difference with the neighbouring pictures is that no "purchase" link is provided for that one. I don't think this is enough to consider that the picture is free.

I am afraid this picture is copyrighted by the architects. We have no evidence that it was released under a free license.

One or two alternative pictures for that building are available at Category:The New York Times Building

Teofilo (talk) 11:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

update : I've also found these terms and conditions. I am not sure if it applies to uploaders or downloaders, or both, and if it applies to that specific picture, but it is quite restrictive with wordings like Access to data or services provided by Emporis is exclusively for the internal use of the Customer. Sharing of the product in its original form to third parties is forbidden. Teofilo (talk) 11:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete. Incomplete source information and no evidence that the licese claim is valid. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Avi (talk) 06:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, emporis.com, mentioned in original upload log, is a non-free website. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:New York Times Headquarters.jpg Teofilo (talk) 12:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Avi (talk) 06:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, emporis.com is a non-free website. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:New York Times Headquarters.jpg Teofilo (talk) 12:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Avi (talk) 06:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, emporis.com is a non-free website. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:New York Times Headquarters.jpg Teofilo (talk) 12:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot realize that this image is a copy from emporis.com --anro (talk) 01:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Avi (talk) 06:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Dr. Martin Fackler is America's most foremost forensic expert on ballistic injuries" : source. Does not sound like he is a Navy personnel. Teofilo (talk) 13:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read the Martin Fackler Wikipedia article.
"Martin L. Fackler was a battlefield surgeon, but is better known in the field of terminal ballistics, an area requiring expertise in non medical topics such as mechanics, materials science, and structural/failure analysis. He is a retired colonel in the US Army's Medical Corps."
The template should be changed from Navy to Army, but Fackler was a US Government employee. --Francis Flinch (talk) 18:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Avi (talk) 06:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No Commons:Freedom of panorama in Belarus. Monument created in 1969. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Avi (talk) 06:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No Commons:Freedom of panorama in Belarus. Modern sign. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Avi (talk) 06:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

and File:BLR Bale Ladies by the Turau Road 1.jpg.

No Commons:Freedom of panorama in Belarus. Modern stuff. Not permamently installed. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Avi (talk) 06:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No Commons:Freedom of panorama in Belarus. Monument installed in 1993. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Avi (talk) 06:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

and File:BLR Minsk Point Zero of Mapping in Belarus 2.jpg.

No Commons:Freedom of panorama in Belarus. Installed in 1990s/2000s. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Avi (talk) 06:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative of creative design on a bag (download full size if thumbnail is not displaying) Teofilo (talk) 16:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Avi (talk) 06:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Autopromotion -- User:Tamorlan. Corrected DR subpage Captain-tucker (talk) 10:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But a perfectly good photo of the dish in question. Seems to me we'd just want to clear out the overlayed text as well as we can. - Jmabel ! talk 05:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep if overlayed text can be removed. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 09:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Copyvio of this. -- Avi (talk) 06:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

reloaded under the correct title of Mitocu River Basin --Afil (talk) 20:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This can be handled just by putting {{Bad name}} on the file page, no need for the deletion request process. - Jmabel ! talk 21:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Also File:Mitocu River Basin.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log) I see no source for the underlying map, probable copyright violation. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Avi (talk) 15:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

no source
Initiator of deletion: 06:34, 24. Sep. 2009 User:Pp0912 --Fixing request: --El-Bardo (talk) 13:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete no source --El-Bardo (talk) 13:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment It does have a source: zh-wiki. If anything, someone should follow up there and see if uploader has mentioned anything about it being own work or otherwise. The original upload log seems to have information that did not appear in the upload here (like the type of camera used - the chinese characters did not come through correctly. Perhaps there is other info that can point to a source). -- Deadstar (msg) 08:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, lacks source information. Kameraad Pjotr 19:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Commons:Deletion requests/File:30 birds.jpg. These are all posters Mr. Zand made uploaded for purpose of showing off his work, which is nice but not really in scope. Article was deleted on enwp, see en:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maziar Zand. SnowFire (talk) 00:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Be-caerful.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:Be-caerful.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:Our modern family.jpg  (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:Ourmodernfamily.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:Troxler and maziar zand.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:TODAYS DIGITAL WORLD.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:Maziarzand.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

 Keep as they are used. Except  Delete Troxler and maziar zand.JPG which is possibly a derivative work and at best an unused personal image. --Simonxag (talk) 07:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I am unable to get the toolserver to work to see where exactly these images are being used but I strongly suspect that they were linked by the creators in an act of self-promotion, then. Will return and comment more if the toolserver ever comes up so that this usage can be assessed. SnowFire (talk) 03:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Right, works now. File:Our modern family.jpg is unused (as it's an alternate spelling of Ourmodernfamily.jpg ), and the rest are just being used in a gallery on a user page ( http://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/User%3AWayiran/%D9%85%D8%A7%D8%B2%DB%8C-%D8%A7%D8%B1_%D8%B2-%D9%86%D8%AF?uselang=en ). I don't think this meets the "The file is not realistically useful for an educational purpose" standard in Commons:Deletion policy, and falls closer to "advertising or promotional." I will say that if any image is kept, go ahead and keep File:Maziarzand.jpg , as rather than part of a gallery (of which several pictures in it were correctly deleted in the previous deletion request) it seems to actually be part of the user page. But still, it should be on the Farsi Wikipedia then, not here. SnowFire (talk) 00:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted per SnowFire and COM:SCOPE as Maziar Zand does not yet appear to be notable and all these images are nowhere used except on a user page. --AFBorchert (talk) 21:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Please delete Category:Tour_Eiffel_at_night and its 29 images. The reason is the modern lightning system copyright of this old building, which has already engendered some prosecution threats. For instance the official site remember it in the paragraph "Are we allowed to publish photos of the Eiffel Tower?".
  However I've got a doubt about the old images like File:Www.photolib.noaa.gov-bigs-wea00602.jpg. JackPotte (talk) 18:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  For sure not all are a problem : File:Www.photolib.noaa.gov-bigs-wea00602.jpg for example, I'm not sure that any jurist will consider the lightning system as copyrightable in this case : no prejudice since it's secondary on the picture (the main element is not at all the lightning system). In fact the law doesn't protect any lightning system. As you can see in the court decision, they seems to require that there is creativity (and that's the object of the photo is this element) : «Mais attendu que la cour d'appel a souverainement retenu que la composition de jeux de lumière destinés à révéler et à souligner les lignes et les formes du monument constituait une "création visuelle" originale, et, partant, une oeuvre de l'esprit ; qu'il en résultait nécessairement au bénéfice de son auteur un droit de propriété incorporelle, abstraction faite de l'évènement public à l'occasion duquel cette oeuvre lui avait été commandée» I think that most of those image might be considered as a copyright infringement (No FOP in France, and Main element of the image, and Autor right on lightning system), but it should be considered one by one those that can be as a secondary element of the picture for example. Loreleil (talk) 19:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  All right, let's just keep the 4 old following ones:

  File:Eiffel Tower at night cph 3b24446.jpg

  File:Tour Eiffel Citroen.jpg

  File:Tour Eiffel publicité Citroën 1925.jpg

  File:Www.photolib.noaa.gov-bigs-wea00602.jpg. JackPotte (talk) 19:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  No, let's to it the other way around. File a proper deletion request for each image containing a proper reasoning why the image is not free. Multichill (talk) 19:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the following can also be kept (with {{FoP-France}}), the tower not being the main subject and covering a limited area of the picture:

• File:Ballon9.jpg
• File:Ballondeparisbynight.jpg
• File:View from the Pont Mirabeau, Paris 25 February 2006.jpg
• File:Place dela Concorde-Obelisk Night-Tour Eiffel.JPG (but I wouldn't fight to keep this one...)
• File:Blue Eiffel Tower with blue sky.jpg

--Eusebius (talk) 19:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep And close this DR. See for example Commons:Deletion requests/File:Eiffel tower fireworks on July 14th Bastille Day.jpg for a photo that was recently kept. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pieter: this one is a marginal case, same reasoning cannot apply to the whole cat. I'd follow Multichill: close as kept, and eventually reopen DR(s) with only the problematic pictures. --Eusebius (talk) 21:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I took [File:Tour Eiffel top.jpg] and knew it was potentially going to end up here. I gave my reasons on file page. I wrote to SETE (company which owns copyrights of lighting scheme of the Tower), but got no answer. Its director said in an interview that the company wouldn't likely disapprove "reasonable" use of night photo of tower (which I believe is the case here), and my picture technically shows small part of lighting scheme. These are my reason and understanding. If I were to be very very careful though, I'd delete the picture. Benh (talk) 21:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete the 25 recent pictures: the French TV (M6) has exposed the case of a similar photo over the last year, which had been finally forbidden by the concerned protagonists. JackPotte (talk) 21:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I didn't even know that my image was classified under Eiffel Tower by Night and actually, it's not exactly the greatest image known to man. If you want to delete it, I don't have a major issue. I'll leave it up to you. Helixer (talk) 23:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Imo we should restart this DR in nominating exactly which images are concerned. It is clear that some images can be kept, but it is more important to make a list of images that will be deleted... Esby (talk) 16:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm having mail conversation with SETE to discuss about copyright issues. if you could put deletion request on hold for a few days... Without news from me within 3-5 days, you can consider my request wasn't successful. Benh (talk) 18:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment I agree that it would be better to be selective and only nominate those that should be deleted. So old images and images where you can't see the light etc. should not be nominated. --MGA73 (talk) 20:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep per MGA73. --Leoboudv (talk) 20:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IF we are to continue: Here is the list of all images in the category:

I suggest we add our votes under each line. But lets hope for some good news from Benh. --MGA73 (talk) 20:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC) }}[reply]

Sorry, but this is just rubbish. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree, I was thinking to sort the possible reasons to allow or not allow deletions. Let me try to sort something out. Esby (talk) 21:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Imo we can sort in the following maneer:

• Picture too old to be considered as 'lightning copyrighted case' => kept.

• Picture where COM:DM can be applied directly, which include panorama and when the Eiffel tower is not the main element of the picture => kept.

• Picture where COM:DM might be applied ==> case in unclear.

• 
• 
• File:Place dela Concorde-Obelisk Night-Tour Eiffel.JPG
• 

• Picture with fireworks? Dunno here what to do...

• Details of the Eiffel tower by night, while they don't show the whole lighting, they are still in my opinion infringing the copyright. Imo, they should be deleted as it's like saying a part of an homogen painting might not be copyrighted while the whole is clearly... (part are still under copyright, unless proven they come from another non copyrighted part imo...)

• 
• 
• 
• 
• File:Tour Eiffel top.jpg

• Picture depiticting the Eiffel tower at night, with no ambiguity about what was the main subject... ==> delete.

Esby (talk) 21:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Close and file individually The issue itself is too complex and the various images differ too much to make this request manageable. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 16:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. (a few Deleted.) As said more times some are ok some are not and others are doubtful. To get a proper discussion the images should be nominated one by one. I deleted the six that Esby marked as "delete" (no doubt that the Eiffel Tower is the main subject and that light is on and that the image is new). Note that the result here is "kept" for the other images does not mean that the final result should be keept. MGA73 (talk) 17:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Undeleted one - it was in two DR's --> Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tour Eiffel bleu 01.JPG. --MGA73 (talk) 17:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to Template:PD-MacaoGov/detail Official texts shall not benefit from protection. Even if I consider the comment on that page, that the law means "work" instead of "texts" it is still not covered by the second condition, that official works/texts are in particular the (texts) of treaties, laws and regulations and those of reports or decisions by authorities of any kind, and translations thereof.

The listed photographs are neither treaties, law, regulations, they are nor reports neither decisions by any authorities. The photographs missing the important aspect of the law that official documents shall not benefit from protection because of the public interest of non-protection to not hamper the use of the treatis, laws, regulations in legal regulations. There is not such public interest for photographs, it is not of public interest to have them free of copyright. --Martin H. (talk) 16:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Passing of Macau Security Law.jpg
• File:Monsignor Manuel Teixeira 1.jpg
• File:Macau20061019GCS1.jpg
• File:Ho Chio Meng.jpg
• File:Handover Ceremony of Macau Government.jpg
• File:Flag lowering ceremony at the Macau Government.jpg
• File:Edmund Ho 1.png
• File:Edmund Ho 1.jpg
• File:D. Domingos LAM Ka-tseung.png
• File:Assinatura declaracao conjunta sino portuguesa.jpg
• File:AlexandreHo and FrFrancisHung.jpg
• File:A cerimónia de encerramento da Cápsula do Tempo.jpg
• File:991218k.jpg
• File:Florinda da Rosa Silva Chan.jpg

 Comment: I am no Macanese, nor do I understand Portuguese. When critically reading the Chinese text, Template:PD-MacaoGov/detail says that "official works" are not protected in the first paragraph, but Macanese governmental English translation says "official texts". The second paragraph shows what "official" works especially are, while not necessarily limited to them, meaning that official photographs may be official works. Reviewing the file pages, these are my suggestions:

• File:Passing of Macau Security Law.jpg ( Delete as "Government Information Bureau of Macao SAR" as the source and author are unclear and unverifiable.)
• File:Monsignor Manuel Teixeira 1.jpg ( Delete due to similar reason as above. The source and author are unclear and unverifiable.)

I will come back later to comment about other files.--Jusjih (talk) 01:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep:File:Passing of Macau Security Law.jpg, File:Monsignor Manuel Teixeira 1.jpg & File:991218k.jpg, File:Assinatura declaracao conjunta sino portuguesa.jpg source is found. (MSAR Government Information Bureau & Handover Ceremony Photos) Other picture maybe like these. File:D. Domingos LAM Ka-tseung.png is File:991218k.jpg cut version.--Ch.Andrew (talk) 03:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: Macau law is not written in English, the english version "Official texts shall not benefit from protection" by Government Printing Bureau is maked with (Unofficial translation, for reference only) see[2]--221.127.141.191 05:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the Chinese version is "官��作品不受保護", see[3]. The chinese 作品 = works in english --221.127.141.191 06:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep, "particular" means "special" here, therefore the 2nd paragraph is just pointing out the special cases, but not setting a concrete scope for the works. However,  Delete File:Ho Chio Meng.jpg, File:Edmund Ho 1.jpg, File:Edmund Ho 1.png and File:Florinda da Rosa Silva Chan.jpg, due to the sources of those files cannot be found.--CDIP No.150 repair meter 06:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept most after verifying the Macanese governmental sources, but deleted File:Macau20061019GCS1.jpg as I cannot find a verifiable source.--Jusjih (talk) 23:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This file was tagged for speedy deletion with the reason his is a recent navigational map, changed it in to a normal DR Huib talk 04:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Obvious copyright violation. Why was it restored without an undeletion request? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 05:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment. - There has been a request on my talkpage so I undeleted and made a DR because when there is a dr people can see the image and give there opinion and more people see a dr Huib talk 07:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, it was claimed on your talk page that the map is in the public domain because created by the Royal New Zealand Navy in 1997. But works made by the New Zealand government are not PD, they are covered by the Crown copyright, which lasts 100 years (see en:Crown copyright#New Zealand). So  delete. –Tryphon^☂ 07:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Here's the image that shows, who made the map File:Navigational map of the way of our icebreaker in Ross Sea info.jpg (This image should be deleted, if the other one is deleted, or kept, if the other one is kept). As you see it is a chart of w:International Hydrographic Organization. Most publications of International Hydrographic Organization are free of charge and are available to general public. Of course I did not make the chart, but that other image I just uploaded could be added to the first image description, and I am 100% sure nobody will ever complain about copyrights violations for that 1997 map.--Mbz1 (talk) 09:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Free download" does not imply "public domain". The map was made by the Hydrographer of New Zealand (not by the IHO). Such a map can also be downloaded for free from here, but Crown Copyright is explicitly reserved. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If a new map could be downloaded for free, does it mean that it is OK to keep an old and used one on Commons, if I am to provide the right source in the source tab, as it is shown in the other image I uploaded? I mean come on, who's going to try to do something with that old partial map with our course drawn on it, and even, if somebody will, who's going to complain about this? --Mbz1 (talk) 13:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Question I emailed to Mr. Adam Greenland, who is National Hydrographer LINZ Hydrographic Services, and asked him about copyright for the chart. He sent me that link. So as you could see it is allowed to download, reproduce, derive or copy the charts from LINZ material free of charge. My question is, if I am to add the required acknowledgement note to the source of the image (actually I am going to add it right now) could the image stay then? I mean isn't it the same with all the images uploaded to Commons that copyright of the creator of the image should be acknowledged, when reproduced?--Mbz1 (talk) 03:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As you can see from the link you provided, these maps are indeed non-free: Crown Copyright Reserved. This does not mean public domain, or any kind of free license. –Tryphon^☂ 05:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yet the chart could be downloaded, reproduced, derived or copied for free, and besides aren't my own copyright for my own images is reserved too? Few weeks ago Swiss TV showed my image with no my name. They payed me 400 Euros for the violations of my copyrights, and I have other stories like this.--Mbz1 (talk) 09:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is not what they say. They only indicate that when these images are used (by authorized people, who may have had to ask for permission, payed a license fee, whatever), there should be a copyright notice accompanying it. Crown Copyright Reserved means that they keep all the rights granted by the Crown Copyright; in other words, they don't release these rights to you or anyone. –Tryphon^☂ 09:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry, I provided a wrong link. Here's the right link.--Mbz1 (talk) It said it could be reproduced, so I reproduced it, and have now acknowledged their copyright.--Mbz1 (talk) 09:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • But you can't put a free license on it. The Crown Copyright still applies. –Tryphon^☂ 10:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • But what is copyright and what is free license. Am I loosing my copyright, if I am uploading my own image with a free license? Is NASA loosing theit copyright, when their images are upload to Commons? In any case I will email to Mr. Greenland again, and will ask the more specifiq question. It probably will be after weekend.--Mbz1 (talk) 10:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Please take a look at that image's license.Isn't it the same situation here?--Mbz1 (talk) 10:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
•  Comment It seems the only restriction is to retain the copyright notice (which is the attribution too). I haven't looked into what "Crown Copyright Reserved" implies though. I doubt it's compatible with the GFDL. Rocket000 (talk) 21:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All I can see is a permission to download scanned maps ("chart images") for free; that is not a free license. The permission to redistribute etcetera is for "chart data" (coordinates, depths). It should be quite obvious that this is not a free image. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that it may be "downloaded, reproduced, derived or copied".--Mbz1 (talk) 22:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, the Antarctic map for free download on the LINZ site is an old one from 1987. The map that you reproduced here is from 1997. Without permission. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I emailed to Mr. Adam Greenland, who is National Hydrographer LINZ Hydrographic Services the link to this image File:Navigational map of the way of our icebreaker in Ross Sea info.jpg, which clearly specifies the year the map was made. Here's contest of my email:
"Dear Mr. Greenland,I happen to have the navigational chart of our cruise in Antarctica, Ross sea in 2001. Here's what written on the chart: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ea/Navigational_map_of_the_way_of_our_icebreaker_in_Ross_Sea_info.jpg Could you please tall me who is the copyright holder for that chart? Thank you for your time. Mila."
Here's his response:
"Dear Mila,An acknowledgement note must be shown on the reproduced chart for the NZ data. Details on the LINZ website at http://www.linz.govt.nz/hydro/charts/digital-charts/chart-images/index.aspx " That's it.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see no acknowledgdement note on your reproduction. You are obviously and willfully in violation of the conditions that Mr. Greenland stated. Clearly not free enough for commons. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When was the last time you've looked? I added the acknowledgdement note for the image nominated to be deleted almost 24 hours ago! I also linked it to LINZ web site. Right now I also added it to the other image with info about the chart, but of course there's no reason to keep that one anyway. I only uploaded it to show who made the chart.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greenland wrote only two sentences. The condition is that an acknowledgement not "must be shown on the reproduced chart." I looked at the image, I purged my cache, and it is not there. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean that you cannot see in the image description that the source and author fields are set to "=Sourced from Land Information New Zealand data. Crown Copyright Reserved" or you mean it I put it in a wrong place or with a wrong format?--Mbz1 (talk) 23:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, what part of "on" is difficult to understand? It is a requirement that makes the image unfree (according to commons standards). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No it does not.Once again I repeat the chart could be downloaded, reproduced, derived or copied for free. The only requiremner they asked for is an Attribution, which I added now. There's no difference between this image and any image from Flickr or any of my own images. I also would like to have Attribution on my images. This map is a free image under Commons standards.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete As Mbz1 notes, releasing an image under a free licence doesn't necessarily mean the creator is giving up copyright. The point that she misses though is that whilst someone retains their copyright, they retain the right to decide whether or not to release it under a free licence. LINZ specifically say "Crown Copyright Reserved" so it should be clear that Mbz1 cannot decide to licence this content under the GFDL or Creative Commons licences. As Mbz1 has herself acknowledged, "This image is not in the Public Domain", meaning she cannot decide to release it under a free licence. So, straight away it is obvious that, at the very least, the current licences are invalid. The next question is then, if it isn't public domain, what free licence has it been released under? The suggestion seems to be that this would be {{Attribution}}, where the only restriction is that the creator is attributed. However, we have to be careful here not to confuse free, as in zero cost, and free, as in a licence which offers some freedom. http://www.linz.govt.nz/hydro/charts/digital-charts/chart-images/index.aspx says that content may "downloaded here free of charge" and that the acknowledgement note must be shown. It doesn't say the content can be used for any purposes, including commercial use, providing LINZ are credited. In the absence of an explicit statement allowing use for any purposes we have to assume it isn't permitted and therefore we cannot treat this as {{Attribution}} and so this content should be deleted. Adambro (talk) 19:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Adambro, as I said below, if the image should be deleted, so it be, but just to make it clear, it was not me, who came up with "This image is not in the Public Domain". I took the text from that image File:Meerkat_feb_09.jpg, and we have thousands of the images with the same text on Commons.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I emailed to Mr. Greenland one more time. Here's my email and his response:

"Dear Mr. Greenland,

Thank you very much for your response!

Could you please tell me, if besides the required acknowledgment are there any other restrictions, which apply on redistribution of the chart?

Maybe you could give me a link to the complete text of the license for those charts?

Thank you for your time."

"Dear Mila,

We do not have, easily to hand, any further licence text.

Regards"

From this response I came to conclusion that there's no any license associated with "Crown copyright reserved", and that the only restriction is to acknowledge their copyright. It

is absolutely the same restriction, which applies to all images uploaded to Commons - copyright of the images creators is reserved. That's why I believe it is absolutely save to

keep the free image that could be copied, reproduced and derived on Commons.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greenland wrote to you in his first answer: "Dear Mila, An acknowledgement note must be shown on the reproduced chart for the NZ data."

Repeat: "on the reproduced chart". So the important word here is: On.

You have not complied with that, and anyway, the requirement of watermarking makes an image unfree according to commons standards. If you want to have that changed, I would probably support you in that, but it does not fit current policy. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see what you mean now. Thanks for explaining it to me. The thing is that this notice is nowhere to be found on the chart I have in my possession either. That brings me back to where I started from. Please once again take a look at File:Navigational map of the way of our icebreaker in Ross Sea info.jpg As you see it is a chart of w:International Hydrographic Organization and is a chart from international chart series (that is written on the chart). The data from few countries (including USA and Russia) was used to make the chart. So, maybe it has nothing to do at all with Crown copyright reserved after all. Of course I will not email to Mr. Greenland once again. The poor man is probably sick and tired of my questions by now --Mbz1 (talk) 16:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The chart that you have says: "Produced under the superintendence of the Hydrographer, Royal New Zealand Navy," which automatically implies Crown Copyright. Also: "The Producer Nation has rendered all names in accordance with its own national policy. " Clearly not produced by the IHO. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is impossible to conclude from Mr Greenland's response that there "no any license associated with "Crown copyright reserved", and that the only restriction is to acknowledge their copyright". Greenland didn't say there wasn't any, just that he wasn't able to provide that information. Adambro (talk) 19:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is that IMO it is still not established for sure that "Crown copyright reserved" is applied to the chart anyway. As I said it is nowhere to be found on the original that I have. It was an official chart our Capitain used to navigate the icebreaker. Where they got it from and why the acknowledgements is not there? In any case I believe that this DR has taken lots of time already. If community believes the image should be deleted, so it be. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like to explain why I uploaded the image in the first place, and why IMO it has an educational value. It was used with this image File:Iceberg B15-D in January, 2001.jpg, where we actually landed on iceberg B15, so I thought it might be interesting to see the huge icebergs on the chart.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• We've had a permission ticket at Ticket:2009092410077341 in OTRS but it is permission for Wikipedia only. I have requested a more specific permission. Stifle (talk) 10:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid that permission ticket we have is not from the right person. In the beginning I believed that copyright holder of the image is the company icebreaker belongs to. That's why I emailed them and asked for their permission. Now I know it is not the case. Of course the company will gladly give the permission to use the image on Commons, but apperantly they are not the copyright holder of the chart. I am very sorry for misunderstanding and for extra work I created for OTRS team.
On the other hand I emailed one more time to Mr. Greenland. Here's my email and his response:

Dear Mr. Greenland,

Sorry to disturb you once again, but could you please take a look at the image that I uploaded to Wikimedia Commons:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Navigational_map_of_the_way_of_our_icebreaker_in_Ross_Sea.jpg

It has the summary:

Description: Navigational map of the way of our icebreaker in Ross Sea.jpg w:Navigational w:map of the way of our w:icebreaker in

Ross Sea Date January 2001(2001-01)

Source: Sourced from Land Information New Zealand data. Crown Copyright Reserved

Author: Sourced from Land Information New Zealand data. Crown Copyright Reserved

Permission:

(Reusing this image) This image is not in the Public Domain.

In order to comply with the license this image is released under, any reproduction of this image, in any medium, must appear with

a copy of, or full (hyperlinked) URL of the GFDL license.

In addition, attribution of this image to Sourced from Land Information New Zealand data. Crown Copyright Reserved" is required in

a prominent location near to the image and you are required to release the image (or any subsequent derivatives of it) under the

GFDL.

Here's info about GNU Free Documentation License:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:GNU_Free_Documentation_License

I am sorry, I know it's too much reading involved, and I promise do not bother you with this any more.

Just one more last question, please: Do you believe it is OK to publish the chart on Wikimedia Commons with the above summary and

license or you believe the image should be deleted?

Thank you for your time.

Mila.

Dear Mila,

If this a NZ chart published by LINZ the inclusion of the Acknowledgement Note would permit you to publish the chart.

I cannot offer any advice if this is not a NZ chart published by LINZ. I suggest you contact the relevant hydrographic office -::all details will be on the original chart.

Regards

As I said before, although I doubt very much that Commons will ever have acopyright issue because of this image, but, if keeping it is against the rules then of course it should be deleted. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. recent copyrighted map :bdk: 18:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]