Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2009/10/08

(reason for deletion)
Author and Initiator of deletion: 01:37, 6. Okt. 2009 Ori~ --Fixing request: --El-Bardo (talk) 14:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Respect the request of author --El-Bardo (talk) 14:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Abigor: In category Other speedy deletions; not edited for 0 days

Pogrdno
Reason for deletion: Pogrdno= Derogatory. Initiator of deletion: 23:58, 7. Okt. 2009 AmyMirka --Fixing request:--El-Bardo (talk) 13:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete vandalism --El-Bardo (talk) 13:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete scope --Simonxag (talk) 22:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete - Jmabel ! talk 05:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 00:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

more people sin autorización
Initiator of deletion:22:49, 6. Okt. 2009 Davidmartindel --Fixing request:--El-Bardo (talk) 14:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete without authority --El-Bardo (talk) 14:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. outside of scope. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 00:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

no notability, the article in ru.wiki is deleted Andrei Romanenko (talk) 21:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep: May not be notable enough for a Wikipedia article, but probably notable enough to be worth preserving one picture on the Commons. - Jmabel ! talk 05:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. – that he had an article is worth something. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 00:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This was unilaterally copied from en-wiki to Commons for no apparent reason. It was uploaded to en-wiki and not commons for the reason - as is obvious from the copyright tag - that while it is pd-1923 in the US it is not out of copyright in the country of origin (Britain) — iridescent 22:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep James Dredge died 1906, so PD-Old. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean James Dredge the designer of the Kennet & Avon Canal? Yes, that one did die in 1906, but (as the uploader of this image) unless you have something to link him to this image, there's nothing to suggest he was the creator of this image. He had no connection to Wandsworth Bridge (designed by Julian Tolmé); the bridges built by Dredge and his father were suspension bridges in the West of England, not lattice truss bridges in London. — iridescent 22:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The source page acknowledges James Dredge for the image. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're misunderstanding me. I agree it's credited to a James Dredge (as previously stated, I was the one who originally uploaded it to en-wiki with this attribution). I see absolutely nothing to confirm that "James Dredge, photographer in West London" and "James Dredge, canal engineer from Somerset" are the same person, which is what you appear to be implying. Obviously, they may be - a canal engineer would have an interest in bridges - but it's a common name and I'm not aware of anything to link them. — iridescent 12:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is from his 1897 book "Thames bridges, from the Tower to the source" (in the "Engineering" series). Of course it is the same guy. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep, clearly, per Pieter Kuiper. - Jmabel ! talk 05:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 00:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This was unilaterally copied from en-wiki to Commons for no apparent reason. It was uploaded to en-wiki and not commons for the reason - as is obvious from the copyright tag - that while it is pd-1923 in the US it is not out of copyright in the country of origin (Britain) — iridescent 22:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Published 1858, PD-Old. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surely pd-old doesn't necessarily apply? British pd-old is "life of the author plus 70 years", not the American "pre-1923", and it's easily possible that the author was alive in 1939. — iridescent 22:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep The author (a skilled working adult) would have to be alive 81 years after publication. Possible, but rather unlikely. --Simonxag (talk) 11:37, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. – beyond reasonable doubt. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 00:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This was unilaterally copied from en-wiki to Commons for no apparent reason. It was uploaded to en-wiki and not commons for the reason - as is obvious from the copyright tag - that while it is pd-1923 in the US it is not out of copyright in the country of origin (Britain) — iridescent 22:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Published 1859, PD-Old. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surely pd-old doesn't necessarily apply? British pd-old is "life of the author plus 70 years", not the American "pre-1923", and it's easily possible that the author was alive in 1939. — iridescent 22:30, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not easily possible that the author was alive in 1939. If he was a mere 20 years old on the creation of the work, that would make him a hundred in 1939, which less than 2% of males make. If he were 30, the odds would be zero; every Brit that's ever lived to 110 can be excluded.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:58, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep The author, a skilled adult, would have to be alive 80 years after publication. Unlikely. --Simonxag (talk) 11:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. – beyond reasonable doubt. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 00:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

not need anymore 202.162.160.246 22:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete: useless, in any case. - Jmabel ! talk 05:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 00:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged as cc-by-sa 3.0/GFDL but derived from two copyright logos (the Guitar Hero logo and the Linkin Park band logo). --Muchness (talk) 08:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. --The Evil IP address (talk) 10:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

for having explict content
Initiator of deletion: 00:44, 8. Okt. 2009 69.254.199.104 --Fixing request: --El-Bardo (talk) 14:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Visit history (of this file!): Federal or confederal? Object in the background see also File:DeadUnionsoldiercivilwar.jpg --El-Bardo (talk) 14:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep:- the Commons is not censored. The photos are so old there can be no doubt of their copyright status. What is being objected to is that they illustrate the truth about war, which is a reason to keep not delete them. --Simonxag (talk) 11:15, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clear keep. - Jmabel ! talk 05:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept, Commons isn't censored. --The Evil IP address (talk) 10:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

no notability, the article in ru.wiki is deleted Andrei Romanenko (talk) 21:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Leafnode: In category Unknown as of 8 October 2009; no license

no notability, the article in ru.wiki is deleted Andrei Romanenko (talk) 21:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Leafnode: In category Unknown as of 8 October 2009; no license

Kept. Huib talk 20:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The user added the OTRS ticket himself? wuh? -Nard the Bard 01:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete Given the supertiny resolution, it is almost certainly a copy vio too. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Huib talk 09:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Faked OTRS. -Nard the Bard 01:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. OTRS was not fake. It just needed checking before it was approved. MGA73 (talk) 21:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A permission just for wikipedia won't suffice. The quote given translates to "sending you a screenshot enclosed, which you can use on wiki. Nice work btw!"--141.84.69.20 20:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. i replace the template with subst:npd. The user have contact with owner, and if we dont have a better permission, we dont need to talk for deletion. Without change, the image will be soon deleted, anyway. ~ bayo or talk 11:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

yes Ferhates (talk) 13:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete History: 15:05, 7. Okt. 2009 Ferhates (Diskussion | Beiträge) (227 Bytes) (uploaded a new version of File:MittaniNexse.tif: format) --El-Bardo (talk) 13:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 23:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copy from http://gebrauchtwagen.t-online.de/sevenval.fit/7val-fit-encoding=utf-8/7val-fit-cid=331/7val-fit-sid=/7val-fit-url1=http://autoscout24.de/as24merge/t-online/wl/detail?id=bzzrgkobrrbr
Initiator of deletion: 21:17, 7. Okt. 2009 Typ932 (Diskussion

 Keep copyvio? --El-Bardo (talk) 13:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like its sold/removed there, http://gebrauchtwagen-suche.t-online.de/toi/html/de/gebrauchtwagen/?tax=,makename:%22Hyundai%22,modelname:%22Santamo%22&asrt=rank&auto_start=40&auto_num=10 nro: 42, also other uploads from same user looks little bit dubiuos... --Typ932 (talk) 14:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. per Commons:Deletion requests/Images by User:Corvettec6r. User has admitted many of their uploads are copyright violations. Adambro (talk) 16:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not explicitly PD. Rights page actually says ibiblio uploaders should only upload free works. No indication of actual license for photo. -Nard the Bard 00:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment: Well, the site that originally housed the image states, as an instructions for uploaders, "Please note however that according to sunsite.unc.edu rules, all contributions should either belong to the public domain [or equivalent]" . So it appears to me that by the fact of uploading, whoever uploaded his photo agreed to the PD licence - not too differently from uploading something to flickr etc. and picking a PD-type license (assumikng they have one there). The ibiblipo people should have arranged it in a "cleaner" way, with more explicit licenses associated with each image visibly - but it's an old site, and what they've done is probably as good as one could expect at the time. Vmenkov (talk) 15:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept, site only accepts PD. Kameraad Pjotr 20:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Never really licensed cc-by-sa, see upload log (includes nd restriction). -Nard the Bard 01:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment Per image talk page, permission from photographer detailed at User:Fallout_boy/Permissions#Image:Trentreznorcc.jpg. Possibly an OTRS would now be required for this sort of thing. Can photographer still be contacted, and if not would the original emails qualify for OTRS if Fallout boy still has them? Infrogmation (talk) 12:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, I missed that. I don't have a problem with keeping this then. The ND restriction seems to have been removed. -Nard the Bard 13:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
•  Comment I did contact the Flickr author via Flickrmail and received the following response. I tried to contact the author again several times via email to get a more specific CC license but have received no other replies. Her response was not enough in my opinion to turn into an OTRS ticket. This does agree in principal with the info at [User:Fallout_boy/Permissions#Image:Trentreznorcc.jpg]].

Hey,
The photo is also on my website:
http://www.emilieelizabeth.com
I shot it and I have no problem with it being used on Wiki as long as I'm given credit.
Thanks!

I am leaning toward keep with these two pieces of data, the unfortunate use of on Wiki in the above email is a problem. I did send another email just now asking again for the author to license the photo as CC-BY, which could be forwarded to OTRS. BTW, this image is used on 32 pages. --Captain-tucker (talk) 13:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept, AGF on Fallout boy's behalf. Kameraad Pjotr 20:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Monnaie de Paris' disclaimer [2]: Par ailleurs, sauf mention contraire, les droits de propriété intellectuelle sur les documents, illustration, textes et photographies contenus dans le site et chacun des éléments créés pour ce site sont la propriété exclusive de la Monnaie de Paris, celle-ci ne concédant aucune licence, ni aucun droit que celui de consulter le site. En particulier, les marques et autres droits de propriété intellectuelle cités sur le site sont la propriété des entités concernées. La reproduction de tous documents publiés sur le site est seulement autorisée aux fins exclusives d'informations pour un usage personnel et privé, toute reproduction et toute utilisation de copies réalisées à d'autres fins étant expressément interdite Furthermore, unless otherwise stated, the intellectual property rights on documents, illustrations, text and photographs contained in the Site and all material created for this site are the exclusive property of the Paris Mint, it does not grant any license nor any right other than to visit. In particular, trademarks and other intellectual property rights mentioned on this page are owned by the entities concerned. Reproduction of any documents published on the site is only authorized for the purposes of information for private and domestic use, any reproduction or use of copies made for other purposes is expressly prohibited --Manu (talk) 08:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The disclaimer is only valid for images published on the website, nothing else. The source information provided by the uploader says it's a self-made picture of a coin, and the coin comes from Monnaie de Paris. So if French coins are in the public domain (are they?), these pictures are okay, and the disclaimer is irrelevant. –Tryphon^☂ 11:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept, per Tryphon. Kameraad Pjotr 21:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I before uncarefully marked the image as "missing a license" - the license removal was fixed (thx Nard). However, the video is not covered by the license, it is produced in 1956, that's after 1953 and so the license not fits the video. Per COM:L#Japan "cinematographic works are exceptionally protected for 70 years'", this screenshot is not public domain. Martin H. (talk) 03:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also File:Hayato Ikeda 1956.jpg which is from the same video. --Martin H. (talk) 03:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I wonder if wee could consider a film still as a photograph. The cut-off date for those is December 31, 1956. -Nard the Bard 13:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Read carefully. That 70-year protection clause is effective June 18, 2003, and that means the law is good on the films made on that day or after. WTCA (talk) 04:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems like the law works retroactively, not very special in copyright laws. The Template:PD-Japan-film even says, that prior 1953 were exempt from a change of copyright... please employ the rules of simple logic: copyright changed + prior 1953 works where exempt = post 1953 works are changed. --Martin H. (talk) 08:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I just had an evil thought. Read the license again. Who produced this film? If the Japanese courts have ruled that pma+38 applies for some older films, and this is an anonymous/government work, it may have fallen into the public domain as soon as 1995. ;) -Nard the Bard 03:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, per Martin H. Kameraad Pjotr 20:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Monnaie de Paris' disclaimer [2]: Par ailleurs, sauf mention contraire, les droits de propriété intellectuelle sur les documents, illustration, textes et photographies contenus dans le site et chacun des éléments créés pour ce site sont la propriété exclusive de la Monnaie de Paris, celle-ci ne concédant aucune licence, ni aucun droit que celui de consulter le site. En particulier, les marques et autres droits de propriété intellectuelle cités sur le site sont la propriété des entités concernées. La reproduction de tous documents publiés sur le site est seulement autorisée aux fins exclusives d'informations pour un usage personnel et privé, toute reproduction et toute utilisation de copies réalisées à d'autres fins étant expressément interdite Furthermore, unless otherwise stated, the intellectual property rights on documents, illustrations, text and photographs contained in the Site and all material created for this site are the exclusive property of the Paris Mint, it does not grant any license nor any right other than to visit. In particular, trademarks and other intellectual property rights mentioned on this page are owned by the entities concerned. Reproduction of any documents published on the site is only authorized for the purposes of information for private and domestic use, any reproduction or use of copies made for other purposes is expressly prohibited --Manu (talk) 08:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept, disclaimer is only for images from the website. Kameraad Pjotr 20:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Monnaie de Paris' disclaimer [2]: Par ailleurs, sauf mention contraire, les droits de propriété intellectuelle sur les documents, illustration, textes et photographies contenus dans le site et chacun des éléments créés pour ce site sont la propriété exclusive de la Monnaie de Paris, celle-ci ne concédant aucune licence, ni aucun droit que celui de consulter le site. En particulier, les marques et autres droits de propriété intellectuelle cités sur le site sont la propriété des entités concernées. La reproduction de tous documents publiés sur le site est seulement autorisée aux fins exclusives d'informations pour un usage personnel et privé, toute reproduction et toute utilisation de copies réalisées à d'autres fins étant expressément interdite Furthermore, unless otherwise stated, the intellectual property rights on documents, illustrations, text and photographs contained in the Site and all material created for this site are the exclusive property of the Paris Mint, it does not grant any license nor any right other than to visit. In particular, trademarks and other intellectual property rights mentioned on this page are owned by the entities concerned. Reproduction of any documents published on the site is only authorized for the purposes of information for private and domestic use, any reproduction or use of copies made for other purposes is expressly prohibited --Manu (talk) 08:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept, disclaimer is only for images from the site. Kameraad Pjotr 20:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable "own work"; impossible date 2007 as es:Alfonso Alcalde died in 1992. --Infrogmation (talk) 12:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 20:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unable to understand why my own work has to be permission and to answer to some one I think there is a lobby which is compose of western European,Australian against Third world user
Initiator of deletion: 18:44, 6. Okt. 2009 Chitresh verma --Fixing request: --El-Bardo (talk) 14:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete History: 13:09, 3. Okt. 2009 Tryphon (Diskussion | Beiträge) (297 Bytes) (File has no source). Work by User:Casuky --El-Bardo (talk) 14:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All I was asking for, tagging this image with {{Nsd}}, is a link to the original map (the description says changed colour —from what?— and the author and uploader are not the same person). Should be easy to fix, if the uploader wasn't too busy developing conspiracy theories. –Tryphon^☂ 14:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I totaly agree, it is a shame that so many maps on Commons are unsourced to their original. In my opinion not giving a backlink to the original map violates all principles of accuracy and it violates the wiki principe of collaborative working. Provide a link to the source map or  Delete the image. --Martin H. (talk) 22:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, per Martin H. (no source). Kameraad Pjotr 20:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, experimental image I created long ago, copied to common by a bot
Initiator of deletion: 23:06, 5. Okt. 2009 75.146.178.58 --Fixing request: --El-Bardo (talk) 13:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Initiator of deletion unknown. Vandalism? --El-Bardo (talk) 13:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment I couldn't find anything on Google about a runcinated pentagonal bifrustum. It might not be a true geometric form. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 00:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear that the file is misnamed, at any rate – Runcination only applies to objects in R^4 and greater. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 03:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep; rename if/as necessary. it's a brightly-coloured, interesting, geometric shape, reasonably well-done; not hard to see how it could be used in an educational context. (& i see that this nom is anonymous too?) Lx 121 (talk) 14:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept - no reason to delete (non-admin closure). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The game isn't made by Ubisoft, they are not allowed to license these files:

1. File:CoJBiB secr.png
2. File:Coj-duel1.jpg
3. File:CoJBiB duel2.ogv (this one isn't even a screenshot at all)
4. Category:Call of Juarez: Bound in Blood (category about the game)

--141.84.69.20 19:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS: This applies to all files in Category:Call of Juarez: Bound in Blood.--141.84.69.20 06:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep ubisoft is the publisher, see here ~Lukas talk 16:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, publisher, not developer.--141.84.69.20 17:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. – my interpretation is that the Ubisoft agreement doesn't apply here, given that they only published the game. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 00:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, I think it would be best to check with User:Avatar. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 00:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck. ~ bayo or talk 10:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Ubisoft only publish the game. They dont own all rights. ~ bayo or talk 00:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Atlantis Docked to Mir.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:Atlantis Docked to Mir - GPN-2000-001315.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:Atlantis Docked to Mir cropped.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Original source: http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/ABSTRACTS/GPN-2000-001315.html

As stated by NASA on the source page, this photo was taken and copyrighted to the "Mir- Crew" (specifically cosmonauts Anatoliy Y. Solovyev and Nikolai M. Budarin), not NASA (as claimed on Commons) or its employees. There is also no evidence that the Soviets cosmonauts were acting on NASA's orders to take pictures. Conversely, as stated at http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/history/shuttle-mir/multimedia/sts-71-photos/71p-015.htm, "RUSSIA SPACE AGENCY PHOTO COURTESY OF NASA": this Russian Space Agency photo is shown to the public through NASA's generosity.[3] As stated in our own warning on {{PD-USGov-NASA}}, "The NASA website hosts a large number of images from the Soviet/Russian space agency, and other non-American space agencies. These are not necessarily in the public domain."

In short,

• not taken by NASA
• Russian Space Agency property shown to the public through NASA's courtesy

Where NASA employees took the photos, even at Soviet locations, they clearly state themselves as the creators.[4][5][6] NASA publications use material from Russian Space Agency.[7] Note that this photo does not appear in NASA's images of STS-71 (the mission in which this request's photo was taken). Jappalang (talk) 02:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Oy vey, please don't delete those space masterpieces :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by Horst-schlaemma (talk • contribs) 16:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• If an image is hosted on a nasa.gov gallery (and certainly this one), it is not copyrighted unless explicitly stated otherwise (see gallery terms), be it because NASA employees created them, or otherwise. The news items of the website, and many other elements outside the NASA galleries are indeed much more uncertain. However just because a NASA employee did not create the image does not mean it cannot be PD, or that NASA does not own all rights to the image. There are SOOOO many contracts that deal with image and other types of goods and legal transfers between NASA and friends, we cannot be expected to call NASA for the contract of each of those. Example:

  Many of the images taken aboard ISS are taken by russians. Sometimes in the russian section, sometimes in the USA/EU section. Mostly with USA camera's, but not always. The legal footing is that the russian section is russian "soil", USA section is US soil, Harmony is EU soil etc... No one is claiming any rights on any of those images however. It would be an impossible task to verify the exact "legal" status of any image taken by a russian from the Zvezda module, and no one bothers to dive into that, with good reason. When Wikipedia receives a complaint (as we recently had with a photo of a lightning strike on the Shuttle launchpad, because NASA messed up the copyright), we should respond, but where NASA messes up, that is their responsibility.

To get back to this case. "The primary objectives of this flight are to rendezvous and perform the 1st Shuttle docking between the Space Shuttle and the Russian Space Station MIR."[8] This was a media thing (They also had IMAX camera's on board). And you can bet on it that NASA wanted to exploit this moment in the media. As such they made sure they could. I'm fairly certain that it was NASA that arranged for the fly around of the Soyuz (not part of the original missionplan as far as I can determine) and it was probably NASA that footed the bill for it (NASA paid a lot of the en:w:Shuttle-Mir_Program because Russia was dead broke). I think we can be fairly certain that NASA made sure they could use those images in any way they wanted. It was what the whole mission was about. Getting pictures to prove that Americans and Russians could work together post Cold war. And it's tough luck, but without a whole lot of effort, we are never going to find out what those exact terms of usage are. As a matter of fact, I doubt anyone at NASA knows. It's their responsibility. Courtesy can mean any number of things. It can mean they paid to get all the rights, or that it's just an unwritten thanks or whatever. No one cares but us, and no one will bother digging trough the archives of NASA contracts to find out.

• Gallery pointed to by Jappalang. These are not all the mission photo's of course. These are only the Kennedy Space Center photos (only launch and landing images).
• The GRIN id points to mission photo: STS071-S-072, which means that it is catalogued by the Johnson Space Center and part of the official mission image collection.

I'm all for being diligent about the legal status of our images, but we shouldn't go overboard where it isn't necessary. NASA has used this image many times, if there is a problem, it is their problem. So perhaps not PD-USGov-NASA but certainly PD in my opinion. TheDJ (talk) 14:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The circumstances of the photo taking might be true, but we would need evidence to verify it. On another note, NASA's many uses of the image does not factor into what is its license; they have the permission of the Russian Space Agency to do so. NASA also specifically stated the photo belongs to the Russian Space Agency. Jappalang (talk) 11:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It Clearly if NASA is passing it around freely then they are the party responsible copyright issues and until they pull it for copyright related reasons then it should stay here credited as is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cygnusloop99 (talk • contribs) 19:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I'd argue that given the photo was taken during a joint RKA-NASA programme, we're OK copyright-wise. No complaints have been received, and the image is used extensively in various NASA publications. Unless someone writes to the Russian government to ask and they say to remove it, lets keep it. This is verging on image Wikilawyering (see en:Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board#Copyright status of Canadian flag (for ISS) for another, similar issue brought up by Jappalang). Colds7ream (talk) 14:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep If the Russian government didn't want this being spread they would never have released it, or told NASA to make sure that it does not get used publicly. I think it should be kept because of its historical relevance and it is in the public domain.Navy blue84 (talk) 15:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete This image was not created by a US Federal Government employee during the discharge of his duty. Therefore an explicit release to the public domain by the copyright holder (the photographer or the Russian Government depending on the exact circumstances) is required in order to keep it. Sv1xv (talk) 08:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete I'll have to agree with Sv1xv on this one. Hekerui (talk) 09:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. There is no reason to believe that the Russians have released this to the Public Domain. I agree with TheDJ that NASA certainly has the right to use this image in any way they like, but that doesn't mean they became the copyright holders or can distribute it to others under the licence they want. Historical relevance and the quality of the photos are not copyright arguments and so are irrelevant to this discussion. The Russian space agency probably doesn't mind that these photos are being displayed online, but again, this does not mean that they have released under a free licence. As far as I can see, there is only one way these images could be in the Public Domain, and that is if they had been PD-US-gov-NASA; this is clearly not the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pruneau (talk • contribs) 08:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Next self-made photo of penis. Do we need more like this? I think that only reason of uploading it is to replace used pictures to show friends - "hey, my penis is on Wikipedia!". Herr Kriss (talk) 21:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted as out of scope. Tabercil (talk) 23:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Erection.jpg

it is my picture and i want to delete it but dont know how Justinfletchly (talk) 02:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Mentifisto (talk) 02:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Erection.jpg

blurry and we have more than ample photos already in the Penis category both clearer and larger Tabercil (talk) 00:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete nopenis! -Nard the Bard 00:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep hey tabercil; now i remember how we first met >__<

ah well, at least we don't disagree about everything... lol

aside from the basic disagreement about having sexual material on wmc at all, there are at least 3 things i don't like about they way these deletions are being handled:

1. the arguements/rationales for deletion are almost always sloppy; at best pro forma, at worst not even that. if one is going to delete an item, or nominate for deletion, one should be able to put forth a clear arguement, & one that is in accord with policy.

2. "we already have ample" is not a legitimate rationale. wmc is an archive; we are supposed to have lots of material, on every subject. in an archive, there is no such thing as "too much"; so long as the material is on relevant topics, & is not literally exact duplication of the same file.

arguements based on image quality have their merits (blurry is a fair point, tho it's not good enough to get most non-controversial material removed), but simply arguing quantity doesn't. (& if you would like, i can provide a nice, detailed breakdown of what materials the male human genitalia category is lacking)

i won't even bother commenting on the "nopenis" thing, except to say that the tacky, unprofessional looking, low-quality templates some users are spamming around these categories (without any real community consensus) fall somewhere in between litter & vandalism; they certainly don't help to get wmc "taken seriously", & i can't imagine anything like that being judged as acceptable behavior on other wikimedia projects.

finally; if wmc ever does implement a quantity-limit rule, there are other categories in far more urgent need of a cleanout than any of the "dirty, sex" stuff (which gets cleaned out pretty regularly). commons has massive quantities of images of: cats, dogs, plants/flowers, & endless landscape/vacation trip photos, etc., ad nauseam. if the worry is truly about "having too much", then those categories require higher cleaning priority! :P

3. the way the deletion process is being carried out now, in many cases, is clearly in violation of both policy, & its' intent. it is not a "debate" when a deletion listing opens & closes in the same day; usually within a few hours (or less!), & with little or no comment, & no reasonable opportunity for the uploader to respond. that makes A JOKE of wmc policy (not that this is the only area where commons has its' problems... ). but, by the standards of wikipedia, or any well-run wikimedia project, such actions are unacceptable. there is a defined process for deletions, it should be followed.

b.a.r. doesn't cover this; wikimedia is NOT a banana republic.

...if we're really being honest here, there is a long, running battle about the admissibility of sexual content on wmc. i think commons should have a clear, wide open debate on that. if the decision is to censor, then "commons is not censored" needs to go, & we need to define the terms of censorship. if "not censored" stays, then all this crap about "cleaning up commons" via backdoor, sloppy half-assed deletion procedures needs to stop.

it is not freedom of expression when the only kind of expression that is free, is the kind that people "like" (even if a majority of people actually manage to agree on what they "like").

^ my wikimedia rant/op-ed piece for the day week

XD

Lx 121 (talk) 04:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lessee...

1. True, some of the arguments are less than compelling, but the result is still the same: the picture is given a good look to see if it is proper and within scope.
2. Take a look at Commons:Nudity, which is an official guideline. It states there: "Category:Male_reproductive_system and Penis show that the Commons has an ample supply of images of men's groins and penises erect and flaccid, circumcised and uncircumcised, in various skin colours and with varying degrees of pubic hair." (emphasis mine)
3. Oh? If the deletion process is so fast, then how come we still have RfDs open from April '09? (See Commons:Deletion_requests/2009/04)

I'll be revisiting this as I have time to think over... Tabercil (talk) 12:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

look up in this list of deletion debates; the erection.jpg "discussion" #1 of 3 (presumably the same name is getting recycled) was opened & closed after less than 3 hours! no comments were entered in the "discussion".

if nobody defends right away a nom is often deleted in less that 24 hours (especially if it's a "dirty" picture), always gone within a week; but for pictures where there is some kind of significant opposition to deletion, the nomination tends to linger as a "discussion" listing for extended periods of time.

so, basically if you look at deletion practices @ wmc cumulatively:

undefended images are getting deleted faster than they should be for "non-speedy"

images where there is either no consensus, or where the discussion tends to favour keep, but there's a faction strongly in favour of deletion, the "discussion" is kept open.

i could also dig up a few cases where the consensus favoured keep, or no concensus was reached, but an admin deleted anyway,

kind of an unbalanced approach really & not a practice that would be considered acceptable @ wikipedia, but there aren't as many people @ wmc, so a lot of things seem to kind of slide, which isn't helping the project, & isn't going to attract more people, or enhance our credibility here...

Lx 121 (talk) 07:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete Another undistinguished poorly focused self-penis photo by someone with no other uploads. (As different images of the same character have been uploaded to this file name then deleted repeatedly, I further suggest "File:Erection" be added to Category:Commons prohibited file names.) -- Infrogmation (talk) 12:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts exactly. In fact, if this image somehow survives the RfD, I'll be moving it to a new name and blocking the "File:Erection". Tabercil (talk) 12:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 22:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

so great, now we are banning a common english word (usable as both noun & verb) as a filename :P

doesn't anyone "get" how futile this approach is?

btw: the link provided is to a guideline & a rather opinionated one, not a policy; commons is a media archive, & there is no policy @ wmc applying quantity-limits to material that a) is within scope re: subject matter & b) is of acceptable technical quality.

frankly i'm getting really tired of the attitude: "ho-hum, another "dirty" pic, delete away"; nor do i like the way users who upload such images are being treated. it is not vandalism, it's certainly not a good way to get more people interested in contributing to wmc.

for every deletion nom, the onus is on the nominator to argue their case in favour of deletion, not the other way around. the default option is "keep"; to delete requires valid arguements & concensus.

if wmc is going to implement a policy of "no dirty pictures allowed" after discussion & a vote/consensus for approval, then fine, i can accept a community decision; i'll probably just spend even less time working @ commons than i do now. there are lots of other wikimedia projects

but

until/unless the wmc community decides to go for a "sex-free/smut-free" wiki, & votes in a policy clearly stating that, then current practices re: deletions, no penis templates, etc. violate both the letter & the intent of the wikimedia commons project.

"commons is not censored" either means something, or it doesn't.

if it doesn't mean anything, then let's get rid of the policy, & stop "pretending"

at this point i'm ready to call a vote on the issue; i would be really interested in the results

Lx 121 (talk) 07:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment The Commons is not censored. We have plenty of material on this subject and there is a strong consensus that we keep it that way. Also new material that actually adds something useful is always welcome. The knee-jerk reaction that has built up can be a problem and I do agree that it can result in censorship. But an endless stream of guys saying "Hey, look at my dick!" is exasperating. --Simonxag (talk) 10:40, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete: We'd presumably delete a similarly poor photo of this non-notable person's face, why should we be keeping one of his penis? - Jmabel ! talk 05:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted (again). In addition to the usual issues, I'm very suspicious as to the age of the subject. Also added filename to the prohibited list - irrespective of people's stance on the whole penis issue, this generic name isn't useful.Nilfanion (talk) 01:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Erection.jpg

per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pussy drive.jpg 99of9 (talk) 01:44, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. While the usual policy is that CC licenses are not revokable, the text makes it likely that CC license was never intended; image is of a very common object, of which Commons has a wealth of superior free licensed images. -- Infrogmation (talk) 17:18, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

another penis Ю. Данилевский (talk) 18:05, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted -FASTILY 10:20, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

no more use Loueshan (talk) 02:54, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. INeverCry 01:17, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Monnaie de Paris' disclaimer [2]: Par ailleurs, sauf mention contraire, les droits de propriété intellectuelle sur les documents, illustration, textes et photographies contenus dans le site et chacun des éléments créés pour ce site sont la propriété exclusive de la Monnaie de Paris, celle-ci ne concédant aucune licence, ni aucun droit que celui de consulter le site. En particulier, les marques et autres droits de propriété intellectuelle cités sur le site sont la propriété des entités concernées. La reproduction de tous documents publiés sur le site est seulement autorisée aux fins exclusives d'informations pour un usage personnel et privé, toute reproduction et toute utilisation de copies réalisées à d'autres fins étant expressément interdite Furthermore, unless otherwise stated, the intellectual property rights on documents, illustrations, text and photographs contained in the Site and all material created for this site are the exclusive property of the Paris Mint, it does not grant any license nor any right other than to visit. In particular, trademarks and other intellectual property rights mentioned on this page are owned by the entities concerned. Reproduction of any documents published on the site is only authorized for the purposes of information for private and domestic use, any reproduction or use of copies made for other purposes is expressly prohibited --Manu (talk) 08:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Stifle (talk) 16:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Monnaie de Paris' disclaimer [2]: Par ailleurs, sauf mention contraire, les droits de propriété intellectuelle sur les documents, illustration, textes et photographies contenus dans le site et chacun des éléments créés pour ce site sont la propriété exclusive de la Monnaie de Paris, celle-ci ne concédant aucune licence, ni aucun droit que celui de consulter le site. En particulier, les marques et autres droits de propriété intellectuelle cités sur le site sont la propriété des entités concernées. La reproduction de tous documents publiés sur le site est seulement autorisée aux fins exclusives d'informations pour un usage personnel et privé, toute reproduction et toute utilisation de copies réalisées à d'autres fins étant expressément interdite Furthermore, unless otherwise stated, the intellectual property rights on documents, illustrations, text and photographs contained in the Site and all material created for this site are the exclusive property of the Paris Mint, it does not grant any license nor any right other than to visit. In particular, trademarks and other intellectual property rights mentioned on this page are owned by the entities concerned. Reproduction of any documents published on the site is only authorized for the purposes of information for private and domestic use, any reproduction or use of copies made for other purposes is expressly prohibited --Manu (talk) 08:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Stifle (talk) 16:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Monnaie de Paris' disclaimer [2]: Par ailleurs, sauf mention contraire, les droits de propriété intellectuelle sur les documents, illustration, textes et photographies contenus dans le site et chacun des éléments créés pour ce site sont la propriété exclusive de la Monnaie de Paris, celle-ci ne concédant aucune licence, ni aucun droit que celui de consulter le site. En particulier, les marques et autres droits de propriété intellectuelle cités sur le site sont la propriété des entités concernées. La reproduction de tous documents publiés sur le site est seulement autorisée aux fins exclusives d'informations pour un usage personnel et privé, toute reproduction et toute utilisation de copies réalisées à d'autres fins étant expressément interdite Furthermore, unless otherwise stated, the intellectual property rights on documents, illustrations, text and photographs contained in the Site and all material created for this site are the exclusive property of the Paris Mint, it does not grant any license nor any right other than to visit. In particular, trademarks and other intellectual property rights mentioned on this page are owned by the entities concerned. Reproduction of any documents published on the site is only authorized for the purposes of information for private and domestic use, any reproduction or use of copies made for other purposes is expressly prohibited --Manu (talk) 08:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Stifle (talk) 16:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Monnaie de Paris' disclaimer [2]: Par ailleurs, sauf mention contraire, les droits de propriété intellectuelle sur les documents, illustration, textes et photographies contenus dans le site et chacun des éléments créés pour ce site sont la propriété exclusive de la Monnaie de Paris, celle-ci ne concédant aucune licence, ni aucun droit que celui de consulter le site. En particulier, les marques et autres droits de propriété intellectuelle cités sur le site sont la propriété des entités concernées. La reproduction de tous documents publiés sur le site est seulement autorisée aux fins exclusives d'informations pour un usage personnel et privé, toute reproduction et toute utilisation de copies réalisées à d'autres fins étant expressément interdite Furthermore, unless otherwise stated, the intellectual property rights on documents, illustrations, text and photographs contained in the Site and all material created for this site are the exclusive property of the Paris Mint, it does not grant any license nor any right other than to visit. In particular, trademarks and other intellectual property rights mentioned on this page are owned by the entities concerned. Reproduction of any documents published on the site is only authorized for the purposes of information for private and domestic use, any reproduction or use of copies made for other purposes is expressly prohibited --Manu (talk) 08:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Stifle (talk) 16:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This was unilaterally copied from en-wiki to Commons for no apparent reason. It was uploaded to en-wiki and not commons for the reason - as is obvious from the copyright tag - that while it is pd-1923 in the US it is not out of copyright in the country of origin (Britain) — iridescent 22:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Stifle (talk) 16:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This was unilaterally copied from en-wiki to Commons for no apparent reason. It was uploaded to en-wiki and not commons for the reason - as is obvious from the copyright tag - that while it is pd-1923 in the US it is not out of copyright in the country of origin (Britain) — iridescent 22:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Seems initialled, "HR" (?) in the lower left corner. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Stifle (talk) 16:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restored: as per [9]. Yann (talk) 16:10, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed only after upload, that this image ist not good for WP Artikels due to the people appearing at bottom-right of the picture. Thanks. K.Weise (talk) 16:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please notice that I'm the uploader of this photo--K.Weise (talk) 18:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Assuming author does not have permission from the people in question, which are recognizable. OTOH, this image just requires a little retouch to blur faces in order to be OK, so perhaps you could upload a modified version afterwards. -- IANEZZ  (talk) 17:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I take it the problem with the people is something under French law? Because in the US, this picture would have no problem: this is clearly in public space. - Jmabel ! talk 05:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep, don't be silly, you don't need permission from the people for such an incidental inclusion (or, in the US, any inclusion at all). Stifle (talk) 16:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. legitimate deletion request by author directly after upload (same day; usually we delete in such cases assuming "upload by mistake"), file is unused, similar motifs are available at Category:Pau Castle, nobody took the (long lasting) chance and cropped the image --:bdk: 18:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright lasts only until 70 years after the death of the designer of the coin. Therefore, if enough is known, it can happen that pictures of one specific coin (actually, any coin designed by a specific artist, died before 1939) are ok. And old coins (like 19th century) are always ok --Manu (talk) 15:49, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also believe that modern french coins (pre-Euro) are copyrighted by the artist and not free. However there are lots of them in Category:Coins of France with wrong licenses, like {{PD-self}}, creative commons, GNU etc. Sv1xv (talk) 17:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete; this coin was definitely not in circulation for even 20 years, clearly copyright. Stifle (talk) 16:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. The Evil IP address (talk) 13:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Monnaie de Paris' disclaimer [2]: Par ailleurs, sauf mention contraire, les droits de propriété intellectuelle sur les documents, illustration, textes et photographies contenus dans le site et chacun des éléments créés pour ce site sont la propriété exclusive de la Monnaie de Paris, celle-ci ne concédant aucune licence, ni aucun droit que celui de consulter le site. En particulier, les marques et autres droits de propriété intellectuelle cités sur le site sont la propriété des entités concernées. La reproduction de tous documents publiés sur le site est seulement autorisée aux fins exclusives d'informations pour un usage personnel et privé, toute reproduction et toute utilisation de copies réalisées à d'autres fins étant expressément interdite Furthermore, unless otherwise stated, the intellectual property rights on documents, illustrations, text and photographs contained in the Site and all material created for this site are the exclusive property of the Paris Mint, it does not grant any license nor any right other than to visit. In particular, trademarks and other intellectual property rights mentioned on this page are owned by the entities concerned. Reproduction of any documents published on the site is only authorized for the purposes of information for private and domestic use, any reproduction or use of copies made for other purposes is expressly prohibited --Manu (talk) 09:30, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept, 1 Franc coins are in the public domain, see Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Frech francs. --The Evil IP address (talk) 13:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Monnaie de Paris' disclaimer [2]: Par ailleurs, sauf mention contraire, les droits de propriété intellectuelle sur les documents, illustration, textes et photographies contenus dans le site et chacun des éléments créés pour ce site sont la propriété exclusive de la Monnaie de Paris, celle-ci ne concédant aucune licence, ni aucun droit que celui de consulter le site. En particulier, les marques et autres droits de propriété intellectuelle cités sur le site sont la propriété des entités concernées. La reproduction de tous documents publiés sur le site est seulement autorisée aux fins exclusives d'informations pour un usage personnel et privé, toute reproduction et toute utilisation de copies réalisées à d'autres fins étant expressément interdite Furthermore, unless otherwise stated, the intellectual property rights on documents, illustrations, text and photographs contained in the Site and all material created for this site are the exclusive property of the Paris Mint, it does not grant any license nor any right other than to visit. In particular, trademarks and other intellectual property rights mentioned on this page are owned by the entities concerned. Reproduction of any documents published on the site is only authorized for the purposes of information for private and domestic use, any reproduction or use of copies made for other purposes is expressly prohibited --Manu (talk) 09:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image is a personal scan of a coin from my personal collection. It should be removed from Commons but should be kept in French Wikipedia with the license {{Fair use monnaie}}. I uploaded it a quite long time ago when I didn't know about the rules. Moreover, Oscar Roty, designer of this coins is dead in 1911, so more than 70 years ago. But the coin was stamped in 1999. I don't know if the image is in public domain in this case.--Choloepus (talk) 12:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept, 1 Franc coins are in the public domain, see Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Frech francs. --The Evil IP address (talk) 13:59, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence of a free license This is a file from Category:Flickr images not found-old, it was deleted from Flickr before FlickreviewR could verify its license. The known facts:

• I contacted the Flickr author billtex48 listed as the source and he said that it was not his image. The flickr author has probably 1000 bird photos in his flickrstream so he could have just forgotten the photo since it was from 2007. And Flickr does say the file listed as the source was deleted by that author billtex48

From:(Bill and Mavis) - B&M Photography  Bill and Mavis T
Subject: Re: Looking for a photo - (Bill and Mavis) - B&M Photography
I have never seen this picture before, don't know anything, sorry:) If it was mine I would tell you.
Bill

• There is one archive from Oct 2007 which show images licensed as CC-BY-SA. This photo was taken in August 2007.
• There is one other image from this flickr author on Commons which passed Flickrreview also licensed as CC-BY-SA.
• Images uploaded by the flickr author in the time frame of August 2007 are all licensed as CC-BY-SA [10].
• The uploader User:Conny has uploaded 250 images, only two others that were Flickr image and no other flickr photos deleted because of licensing issues.
• A duplicate File:Image-Two bee-eaters sharing food.jpg was uploaded by User:Conny and deleted the next day as a duplicate.
• The image is used on two pages.

Captain-tucker (talk) 20:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not support. User billtex48 deleted the picture from Flickr, but before, he give it into the net in a free license.

• Why to delete all flickr pictures, when flickr gets down or people delete their pictures?
• The archive.org does not have the picture, maybe the time till deletion was to short.
• Like you see in snapshop Oct 2007 other pictures are also under the given license.

Thank you, Conny (talk) 07:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]

•  Keep There is lots of evidence the picture would be cc by sa from your comments. Given all these other images from their account here are cc by sa, I am willing to accept the image was indeed on the flickrlink but they deleted the image. I suggest this DR be closed and passed with Conny as a trusted user. Why? Because they also conveniently deleted this photo from flickr after it had passed flickrreview. And the license is also 'cc by sa.' I suggest Bill is not telling the truth here since these are the types of nature pictures he takes....birds, etc. As an side, this image was uploaded in August 2007--before the archive evidence. --Leoboudv (talk) 10:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete If the image links to Bill and Bill says it is not his I think we have a problem. As far as I can see Bill lives in the US at the moment. On enwiki the article says "It breeds in southern Europe and in parts of north Africa and western Asia." I think he would have rememberd if he had been in Europe, Africa or Asia at the time the image was taken. If the link is wrong then the license could be wrong too. Further more we can't credit the right photographer if uploader made a mistake during upload. It could however be a trick from the uploader to get the image deleted. --MGA73 (talk) 21:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
•  Comment: That is what I think too. He just wants it deleted because he licensed it freely. But if the closing Admin decides to delete, then so be it sadly. --Leoboudv (talk) 04:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete Conclusive evidence of its previous flickr licence is lacking. Is there anything in an look-back archives? It is a good image, but that must not influence the decision on its copyright status. Snowmanradio (talk) 22:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment There are other images from this users Flickr stream in Oct 2007 where he did license images as CC-BY-SA but there are no archives of this image. --Captain-tucker (talk) 16:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, while we might assume it to be CC-BY-SA, we have no evidence for this. --The Evil IP address (talk) 13:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• File:1centime1968revers.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:2centimes1961revers.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:5centimes1964revers.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:5centimes1996revers.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:10centimes1984revers.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:20centimes1997revers.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:50centimes1962revers.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:2Francs1996revers.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:5Francs1970revers.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:10Francs1965revers.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:10Francs1977revers.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:10Francs1986revers.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:10Francs1990revers.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:20Francs1992revers.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:50Francs1974revers.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:100Francs1983revers.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:100francliberationparis rev.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

I believe that User:Choloepus's images are all copyvios because Monnaie de Paris' disclaimer says:[11]: Par ailleurs, sauf mention contraire, les droits de propriété intellectuelle sur les documents, illustration, textes et photographies contenus dans le site et chacun des éléments créés pour ce site sont la propriété exclusive de la Monnaie de Paris, celle-ci ne concédant aucune licence, ni aucun droit que celui de consulter le site. En particulier, les marques et autres droits de propriété intellectuelle cités sur le site sont la propriété des entités concernées. La reproduction de tous documents publiés sur le site est seulement autorisée aux fins exclusives d'informations pour un usage personnel et privé, toute reproduction et toute utilisation de copies réalisées à d'autres fins étant expressément interdite
Furthermore, unless otherwise stated, the intellectual property rights on documents, illustrations, text and photographs contained in the Site and all material created for this site are the exclusive property of the Paris Mint, it does not grant any license nor any right other than to visit. In particular, trademarks and other intellectual property rights mentioned on this page are owned by the entities concerned. Reproduction of any documents published on the site is only authorized for the purposes of information for private and domestic use, any reproduction or use of copies made for other purposes is expressly prohibited.--Manu (talk) 10:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact the site mentionned does not allow copying images from their site (which is a normal policy) does not restrict the usage of other photographs of those coins. It would be better to know what the (local) laws say, and determines if it is a copyright issue or not. Esby (talk) 17:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep IMO, the mention on the site concerns the web site design, pictures, etc., not the design of the coins. Yann (talk) 17:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep « the intellectual property rights on documents, illustrations, text and photographs contained in the Site [...] are the exclusive property of the Paris Mint »: these files are not photographs taken from The French Mint's site. You can see such photographs here ou a much better one there. The files are personal scans of coins (of poorer quality) found in a pocket. The Banque de France doesn't hold any copyright on coins, only on banknotes (that it produces). - Seherr (talk) 21:33, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show us by which exemption to the Code de la Propriété Intellectuelle and to the Code Monétaire et Financier does the Banque de France not have copyright over the coins? Let's see what the article L-123-1 of the latter code says:

Les billets de banque et les pièces de monnaie bénéficient de la protection instituée au profit des oeuvres de l’esprit par les articles L122-4 et L335-2 du Code de la propriété intellectuelle. Les autorités émettrices sont investies des droits de l’auteur.

It currently concerns Euros (the national face) and could be constrained by a European legislation, but I'm not aware that an exemption was active for coins before that. --Eusebius (talk) 05:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See L121-3 of the same code : The issuing authority (autorité émettrice) is Monnaie de Paris. The Banque de France buys coins to the MdP ans sells them (without profit) to banks. But that is not about the files proposed to deletion. If it's done, these Category:Commemorative coins of France should be deleted too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CR (talk • contribs) 21:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Seherr (SUL) & CR are usernames for the same wikipedian. - Seherr aka CR 22:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info, thanks for correcting me. So BdF does not hold copyright, it's the Monnaie de Paris (I guess I didn't understand the first remark about it, sorry -- plus I should have known that). Same issue, though. The stuff is copyrighted by default. There might be a copyright exception for coins (although I doubt it) but we need some kind of evidence for it. About the category: it might contain coins old enough to be in the public domain, but yes, the current content looks problematic. --Eusebius (talk) 21:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete The copyright on French coins and banknotes (Francs and French side of Euros) is held by the Banque de France Monnaie de Paris and lasts until 70 years after the death of the designer of the coin (there is simply no exception to the general copyright law for French currency, just like for the work of the government or central administration). Some older coin designs may be in the public domain, but in this batch I don't think there are any PD coins. Coins, not being 2D, are not eligible to the PD-art WMF policy. --Eusebius (talk) 20:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• These images are personal scans of coins from my personal collection. They should be removed from Commons but should be kept in French Wikipedia with the license {{Fair use monnaie}} since a decision on French wikipedia decided to allow scans or photographs of coins. I uploaded it a quite long time ago while I didn't know about these rules. --Choloepus (talk) 12:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A precision : none of these images come from the site of the Monnaie de Paris neither from any other website. They are personal scans.--Choloepus (talk) 12:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other precision : Oscar Roty, designer of the Semeuse type coins (1, 2, 5 francs) is dead in 1911, so more than 70 years ago. The Semeuse type was created in 1897. But the coins were stamped after 1959. I don't know if the image is in public domain in this case. Moreover, 2 francs coins design has been modernized in 1979.--Choloepus (talk) 13:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The coins (and stamps) made on his original design, at least, should be PD. Did he design both faces, or only the Semeuse, as I understand it from the article? --Eusebius (talk) 13:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both. Proof : this coin of 1899--Choloepus (talk) 13:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to doubt the statement, but why is it a proof? Couldn't the foliage have been designed by someone else (and not signed)? --Eusebius (talk) 14:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At least, it's a proof that it is more than 100 years old.--Choloepus (talk) 21:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right, sorry. --Eusebius (talk) 05:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I mark the concerned files as kept. --Eusebius (talk) 09:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Monnaie de Paris' disclaimer is about pics on their site. --Carlomorino (talk) 08:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How does that support a keep? --Eusebius (talk) 09:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, derivative work, no evidence given that they're already in the public domain (unless 1,2 and 3 Franc, which are kept). --The Evil IP address (talk) 14:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]