Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2009/10/15

cause i don't like it Lil scrapy (talk) 03:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy kept. Bad faith nomination. –Tryphon^☂ 06:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation: www.codelmicst.ru 132.199.211.14 17:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Túrelio: Spam or blatant advertising

Because of error, new category is Mrežnica --Vhorvat (talk) 21:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment It is for speedy deletion, see Commons:Deletion policy#General procedure. --Podzemnik (talk) 10:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Abigor: Empty category

Failed Flickr review. Image has icons of NC and ND added just after upload so it seems to me that it was NC + ND from the start. MGA73 (talk) 20:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 11:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete unfree flickr license. --Captain-tucker (talk) 00:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Failed flickr review. Unfree flickr licence. High Contrast (talk) 10:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This would be copyrighted by house md I should think. Leoboudv (talk) 00:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete, COM:FOP#United Kingdom doesn't apply (not a work of artistic craftsmanship, and not even permanently installed). –Tryphon^☂ 06:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete If it's copyrighted... --DostoHouskij (talk) 12:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete Derivative work. Infrogmation (talk) 14:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. –Tryphon^☂ 11:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence this image, taken from http://50percenthuman.com/blog/ , is freely licenced Ww2censor (talk) 00:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete, per nom. –Tryphon^☂ 06:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete, copyvio. --Captain-tucker (talk) 20:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete, without permission, --Podzemnik (talk) 10:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. –Tryphon^☂ 11:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find this image on the copyright website named as the source but based on the uploaders other two copyright violation images I very much doubt this is a freely licenced image unless he provide a working URL Ww2censor (talk) 00:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete If the image is from the source provided then it would be © Inpho Photography. So its a copyvio --Captain-tucker (talk) 20:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. –Tryphon^☂ 11:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scanned photo, probably copyvio. Herr Kriss (talk) 01:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Actually a scanned print, probably from a magazine. --Simonxag (talk) 11:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. –Tryphon^☂ 11:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence the flickrowner is the copyright holder of this old b+w image. Leoboudv (talk) 04:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete. A lot of copyvio in this gallery. --Eusebius (talk) 05:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete, per nom., --Podzemnik (talk) 10:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete Appears to be a scan from an economics magazine, annual, etc. —Willscrlt ( “Talk” • “w:en” • “m” ) 21:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. –Tryphon^☂ 11:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Shalechet (Fallen leaves) installation 2.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Berlin musee juif feuilles.JPG Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete, no doubt. There's no FOP inside buildings in Germany. –Tryphon^☂ 22:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. –Tryphon^☂ 11:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

death Gordanzurovac (talk) 08:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i dont want it up makes people upset Gordanzurovac (talk) 08:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete, out of scope and poorly sourced. –Tryphon^☂ 22:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete unused personal photo --Simonxag (talk) 11:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. –Tryphon^☂ 11:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ARR on Flickr but it's probably uploaded by Flickr user. Seems like a personal image. Image is not in use. I can't see a use for this image. MGA73 (talk) 08:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete It's a color version of the picture deleted in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sureshapexbhandari.jpg and the same rationale for deletion applies. Hekerui (talk) 09:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. –Tryphon^☂ 11:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

and derivative work File:Georgy-Malenkov Colour.jpg

Was uploaded here tagged as PD-Soviet, which has been identified as insufficient on en.wp: [1] Not old enough to assume PD-old. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 08:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding? 1930s are "not old enough" for PD-old? --Pianist (talk) 02:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it is not. Usually files become PD when the author has died more than 70 years ago. 1930s means that the file has been recorded about 80 years ago, which means that the author must have died 10 years after he created the image. This is not likely, thus not old enough for us. Usually it is safe to assume PD-old when the image has been recorded before 1860-1880, but I've also seen people accept images before 1900. 1930s, however, is definitely not old enough. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 12:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The author is unknown. So we don't know when he died. If you are so captious, you can use "PD-Russia-2008": this work was originally published anonymously before this date and the name of the author did not become known before January 1, 1992.. --Pianist (talk) 13:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This might indeed apply. Did you do any research on the author? Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 17:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Missing essential information about the author (died more than 70 years ago? anonymous?) –Tryphon^☂ 11:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative work of tombstone, no FOP in Russia. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 09:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeder Tourist kann und soll ja wohl auch das Grab sehen und ablichten. Es ist panoramafrei, also behalten'. --44penguins (talk) 17:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Panoramafreiheit definiert sich von Land zu Land unterschiedlich und ist in manchen Rechtssystemen überhaupt nicht vorgesehen, so z.B. in Russland. Siehe COM:FOP für eine Übersicht, in welchem Land Panoramafreiheit zieht und in welchem nicht. Grüße, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 17:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ich habe es nach .de übertragen [2], dort dürfen wir alles lokal hochladen, was nach deutschem Urheberrecht panoramafrei wäre - egal wo auf der Welt sich das abgebildete Objekt befindet: [3] -- Herby (Vienna) (talk) 17:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. –Tryphon^☂ 11:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dino tracks 01.png

it is a fake. This picture does not designate any dinosaur track, but simply a modern track of some animal. Tatoute (talk) 12:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep, in use. You can use {{Fact disputed}} and express your concerns on the talk page of the image. –Tryphon^☂ 06:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep , in case rename it. But have in mind that paleontology advances also using moder analogies, if this is an actual track (but you should wonder about some perfect fossils track founds around in the world), so this photos can be used as actual (if it is actual) example to explain what are the fossils tracks and how are formed and what you can tell from those (see mud cracks, relative position or feet, depth of each foorprint in teh groound, etc, etc ...) if you are an expert of this field.--Bramfab (talk) 09:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator should ask the original uploader, Philca, where he got the photo from. FunkMonk (talk) 01:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The prints are quite similar to these in the American Museum of Natural History: http://www.flickr.com/photos/criminalintent/4022626282/in/photostream/ FunkMonk (talk) 16:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. –Tryphon^☂ 11:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image is cropped from http://sigep.cprm.gov.br/sitio026/sitio026.htm (direct image link) UserB (talk) 12:25, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Seems the upload info was fraudulent then. FunkMonk (talk) 06:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio -FASTILY 07:22, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

from google map H4stings (talk) 12:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. –Tryphon^☂ 11:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative work; did the artist die more than 70 years ago? Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I question the request. The figurines are most likely mass produced and the quality of the picture lies primarily in the composition. If the judgment of others is that this should be deleted, however, I suppose the same would go for most pictures in Category:Nativity scenes (and the sub-cats thereof) and about half of the pictures in Category:Christmas decorations. /Dcastor (talk) 12:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Per nom. The figurines are the main focus of the picture, and even though the composition plays an important part, it doesn't remove the copyright of the figurines from the picture. –Tryphon^☂ 11:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted, only available on special licence "trademark" it's a trademark logo. For fr.iwiki, it's only usage with this special licence on frwiki server --Archimëa (talk) 11:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete --Archimëa (talk) 12:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept as {{PD-textlogo}}. –Tryphon^☂ 11:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

self-promotion, no notability Andrei Romanenko (talk) 21:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete unused & unlicensed personal image --Simonxag (talk) 11:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Nilfanion: In category Media without a license as of 15 October 2009; no license

I guess this is a copyright violation. Cwbm (commons) (talk) 12:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

 Comment Probably ok, but uploader should indicate sources for the component images in his collage. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment What makes you think it's a copyvio? As far as I understand it it's the cover of this wikibook. --NEURO ^⇌ 19:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment I confirm this image is the front cover of this wikibook, created by rearranging images coming from wikipedia. Please let me know if I have to edit some parts of its description to make it clear there is no copiright violation whatsoever. Laghi.l (talk) 07:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which images did you take from commons? (add source on image page) --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 10:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Not indicationg the sources is a clear copyright violation. But who cares? --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 07:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

It is a copyright violation only when the license (or the law) requires attribution. The source of the flamingo image is File:Flamingo02 960.jpg, which has a CC-by-sa license. Uploader does not seem to be interested in correcting deficiences, so  Delete. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Question What about re-creating the file page using derivativeFX? --Leyo 15:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But there may be very well be a similar problem with the flower. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This means to make a DR for File:Calendula Officinalis fax01.JPG? --Leyo 17:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I had not noticed that Cwbm had traced the sources and added the to the description; thanks to his work this can be kept. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked what I think now. I originally requested deletion because I thought the image was copied from somewhere. If you take licensing seriously this piece of artwork is still a copyright violation because the licenses of the images used in it require the authors to be named. This can be easily done but that's the responsibility of the uploader. I'm also not sure if you can license a picture under FAL for example if the original images were not licensed that way.--Cwbm (commons) (talk) 10:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

•  Keep, but remove the FAL and GFDL licenses as they are not valid. Stifle (talk) 15:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. I fixed the attribution and license, everything should be correct, now. (Check the page, let me know if you have any comments.) Mormegil (talk) 15:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hzü 77.131.180.74 15:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep In use therefore useful therefore in scope. No reason to doubt PD status, therefore freely licensed. Difficult to respond to incomprehensible deletion request. --Simonxag (talk) 21:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. No reason for deletion provided. MGA73 (talk) 17:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted, only available on special licence "trademark" (i think) it's a trademark logo --Archimëa (talk) 18:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep, {{PD-textlogo}}. Trademark is not a license, and we don't take trademark restrictions into account when determining if an image is free. And I very much doubt that this image is trademarked anyway. –Tryphon^☂ 06:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete I said trademark, I wanted to say LOGO. We can't use it in france, logo must be uploaded on fr.wiki whith special licene --Archimëa (talk) 12:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This licence is wrong. This logo is not in public domain !!

You don't have right, to use it for commercial or other things, this mus be deleted. This is part of art design --Archimëa (talk) 13:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep US rules: renders of fonts are public domain. ViperSnake151 (talk) 19:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are DRAWINGS, parts of comics books, do you understand it's not commons logo ? it's a piece of "art" design by the creator of the book, it's not a "render of font" --Archimëa (talk) 21:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you'll understand better with some examples: File:Microsoft wordmark.svg, File:IBM logo.svg, File:Adidas Logo.svg are all logos, protected by trademark laws. But from a copyright point of view, they are free because you cannot put a copyright on font characters (they are utilitarian objects). You'll find more details at en:Wikipedia:Public domain#Fonts. –Tryphon^☂ 21:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is illegal, It's not a common logo, it's a drawing. It's not font (even if it's letters... :)), it's a drawing, do you understand this drawing ? --Archimëa (talk) 12:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Under U.S. law, renderings of typefaces are PD, defined as "a set of letters, numbers, or other symbolic characters, whose forms are related by repeating design elements consistently applied in a notational system and are intended to be embodied in articles whose intrinsic utilitarian function is for use in composing text or other cognizable combinations of characters." It is just text spelling out something. Other than that, there is no originality. While such design can be protected by trademark law in the US, and the fonts themselves can be protected as computer programs, this is not. ViperSnake151 (talk) 22:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, i red this law... but it's not simple reproductions of font, but drawing taken from a comic book. This letters have been crooped from an art page, the first page of a comic. This one [4].

It is just NOT text spelling out something. Other than that, there is TOTALLY originality, representing the comic Lucky Lke. Nowhere else is font i used (i've nothing else to argue...) --Archimëa (talk) 13:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No they mean originality as in the difference between say...File:NASA logo.svg and File:Ferrovial.png. While the NASA logo would be protectable, its not due to a different law. Your logic is completely flawed, they mean originality as in something that comes from the author. But still, even if its a logo, it is still subject to this, no matter how it was created. Besides, the fact that it was printed on a cover doesn't mean it is still protectable alone. ViperSnake151 (talk) 13:12, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem in this case is that's not a logo, as all files i requested to delete. Lucky Luke is not a BRAND. In fisrt i said trademark, it was a lanagae problem. I want or wanted to talk about brand, It's not a brand, and it's not a logo. That is wrong, i think. (ps: i'm not sure your last sentence is right. At least in France it's totally wrong) --Archimëa (talk) 19:30, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trademark law is unrelated to copyright law, although they are both considered intellectual property. And, actually for all intents and purposes, the threshold of originality applies to any work, even this so-called "not a logo". It is just a title, no fanciful design, just text. ViperSnake151 (talk) 19:51, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep. I added {{Trademarked}}. Multichill (talk) 19:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Keep it with notice. Do not overrate copyright issues. Kasaalan (talk) 21:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. –Tryphon^☂ 08:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt User:Evawen is the creator of this famous portrait of Mao. If not, the user does not have rights to license it as own work. --Infrogmation (talk) 14:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete - makes sense. --Damiens.rf 18:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Nilfanion (talk) 12:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I question uploader's own work claim; web resolution size, same as seen on person's Facebook page [5] --Infrogmation (talk) 14:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 11:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Nilfanion (talk) 12:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A book cover. --Alakasam (talk) 18:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete Obvious copyvio. Alakasam (talk) 18:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Nilfanion (talk) 12:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probable copyright violation. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete unused personal curriculum vitae. --Simonxag (talk) 11:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Nilfanion (talk) 12:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted, not even available on special licence "trademark" it's not a logo it's a signature. We don't have right to upload this. --Archimëa (talk) 11:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete --Archimëa (talk) 12:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep as {{PD-signature}}. Franquin often signs in a very original way, but this isn't one of those. –Tryphon^☂ 11:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Nilfanion (talk) 23:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted, not even available on special licence "trademark" it's not a logo it's a signature. We don't have right to upload this. --Archimëa (talk) 11:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete--Archimëa (talk) 12:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep as {{PD-signature}}. –Tryphon^☂ 11:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Nilfanion (talk) 23:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted, only available on special licence "trademark" (i think) it's a trademark logo. For fr.iwiki, it's only usage with this special licence on frwiki server --Archimëa (talk) 11:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete --Archimëa (talk) 12:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Cirt (talk) 23:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted, only available on special licence "trademark" , it's a trademark logo. For fr.iwiki, it's only usage with this special licence on frwiki server --Archimëa (talk) 11:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete --Archimëa (talk) 12:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Cirt (talk) 23:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted, only available on special licence "trademark", it's a trademark logo. For fr.iwiki, it's only usage with this special licence on frwiki server --Archimëa (talk) 12:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete --Archimëa (talk) 12:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Cirt (talk) 23:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

out of scope. Yann (talk) 21:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep personal image uploaded & licensed on the very first day of a new user. Nominated for deletion on same day. User should be given some reasonable time to set up their userpage, which is presumably where this is intended for. Excessively speedy deletion of a user's first efforts could simply demoralize them. --Simonxag (talk) 11:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Cirt (talk) 23:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess this is a copyright violation Cwbm (commons) (talk) 12:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

•  Comment What makes you think that? As far as I understand it, its the cover of this wikibook. --NEURO ^⇌ 19:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
•  Comment Interesting edit --Leyo 15:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Info There is a posting of the uploader on the talk page. --Leyo 14:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Killiondude: No OTRS permission

Looks like a scan from a newspaper. Nakor (talk) 13:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Missing proper source. Delete after 7 days if not solved. --Eusebius (talk) 14:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment The claim that uploader owns the copyright is absurd, but this could be {{PD-Jordan-Photo}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but only if the uploader is able to provide a clear source, with the origin country and date of the newspaper. --Eusebius (talk) 08:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a duplicate image at File:FLQJordanie22.jpg. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 02:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted as dupes, examining closely this strangely similar account. --Eusebius (talk) 07:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Missing essential source information (name and number of the newspaper). –Tryphon^☂ 08:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Larger version exists File:EpsonPX-8onWhite.JPG, resized version is not needed as it can be generated automatically by MediaWiki software. --GreyCat (talk) 09:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Duplicate of File:EpsonPX-8onWhite.JPG. Please use {{Duplicate}} next time. –Tryphon^☂ 22:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted, only available on special licence "trademark", it's a trademark logo. For fr.iwiki, it's only usage with this special licence on frwiki server --II...Richard...II (talk) 11:57, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Nothing copyrightable that I can see. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Logo must be uploaded on fr.wiki whith special licene

This licence is wrong. This logo is not in public domain !!

You don't have right, to use it for commercial or other things, this mus be deleted. This is part of art design--II...Richard...II (talk) 15:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep {{PD-textlogo}} + {{Trademarked}}. Decltype (talk) 22:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. As per Pieter Kuiper and Decltype: there is no originality in this logo. rimshot^talk 17:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Photo of a copyrighted temporary art instalation. Dodo (talk) 06:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment According to w:LOVE Park it has been permanently placed since 1978; was it copyrighted? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep the en:Love sculpture has been installed worldwide, this is a mere copy of many such, it bears no copyright notice. As a copy, it has been published under U.S. law. -Nard the Bard 00:04, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept, per Nard the Bard. (PD-no-notice) Kameraad Pjotr 19:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Previous DR was closed as kept because of FOP. This is in Germany, which means that this would need to be a permanently installed work. It is, however, a decoration, which obviously relates to the current season, so definitely not permanently on display at that location. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 10:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment There is lots of similar stuff, see for example Category:Nativity scenes. Clean-up before the season? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for pointing that out, that might need to go as well. Maybe some of those designs are already out of copyright, but I think most of them are not. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 11:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment What is the work here? A window decoration consisting of a box, a cloth thrown over, a piece of wood and some random pieces of christmas decoration? --Martin H. (talk) 10:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  The decoration itself is probably copyrighted; the compilation might also be. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 11:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep I do not think that this stuff fullfill what in Germany is called "Schöpfungshöhe". In accordance to that "de minimis" apllies here, too. Roman 17:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)~

 Keep - This is a decorative installation (as already stated in the nomintion) and not an artistic work with sufficient level of creativity to be copyrighted. The individual items shown fall under de minimis. --Latebird (talk) 12:04, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Just folkloristic craft, copys of designs centuries old. -- Herby (Vienna) (talk) 18:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, FOP does not apply. Kameraad Pjotr 19:40, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]