Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2009/10/27

Google isn't a valid source --Moraleh (talk) 19:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 21:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Nilfanion (talk) 01:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Private image collections, this file is not realistically useful for an educational purpose. --Duch.seb (talk) 22:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete unused personal image --Simonxag (talk) 22:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Cholo Aleman (talk) 21:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Nilfanion (talk) 01:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is made with the copyright protected program Xilix ISE --Warddr (talk) 22:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep It does not matter. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Nilfanion (talk) 01:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

created with the copyright protected Xilix ISE --Warddr (talk) 22:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Nilfanion (talk) 01:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Created with the copyright protected program Xilix ISE --Warddr (talk) 22:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Nilfanion (talk) 01:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scan of non-free diploma with logotypes and urls --Partyzan XXI (talk) 15:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete This is a piece of graphic design and must be copyrighted. --Simonxag (talk) 21:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Derivative; Contains multiple non-trivial design elements and logos. -- Infrogmation (talk) 12:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Modern stamps of France (like this 2006 one) are copyrighted according to text in Category:Stamps of France -- Deadstar (msg) 16:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Reason of nominator is accurate and sufficent to delete. Note additionally sourced as from uploader's collection but tagged as uploader's own work; incorrect copyright claim. -- Infrogmation (talk) 12:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personal photo, unused, not useful. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Original description is in Czech language and means "Female breasts". No problem with personal rights. --Dezidor (talk) 19:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep no problem with this image --Justass (talk) 04:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Usable image for articles about female breasts. No copyright problems, no problems with personality rights. --Dezidor (talk) 16:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept per above. Appears properly licensed and categorized. -- Infrogmation (talk) 12:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_Ottawa, the flag was created in 1987, so this will fall under Crown Copyright. Coat of arms drawing is from Vector Images and uses an obsoleted license. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 18:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Killiondude (talk) 07:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

probable copyvio, unlikely GFDL. Original source page on geocities is a dead link, and it's highly unlikely that a non-wiki page in 2001 would have a GFDL license. The model appears to be a professional, or at least has done similar work [3] (scroll 1/2-way down). --SB_Johnny ^talk 10:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment The Commons page claims it is an original work by a user on de:W. What is the source that it came from GeoCities, and what url? Thanks, Infrogmation (talk) 12:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep The geocities page is available through the internet archive at [4]. Based on that page, some pages linked to it, the userpage and contributions of the uploader at de.wp it seems very likely the uploader is connected with the riding stables where the photograph was taken, and thus it is perfectly plausible that the photograph is, as claimed, their own image. Regarding the license it is indeed unlikely that a non-wiki page in 2001 would have a GFDL license, but as the image page and metadata give a creation date of 2003 I don't see why this is relevant? Regardless of when it was created there is no legal reason why the owner of the image could not publish it under one license on one website and then later upload it to de.Wikipedia released under the GFDL. Equally, that the subject is a professional model does not preclude the uploader being the photographer and rights owner. So, unless you have evidence that the picture is not the work of the uploader, I don't see a reason to delete the image. Thryduulf (talk) 22:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep There is no reason not to believe the original uploader. He claimed that he first published the photo at the Geocities page, but never that he just took it from there. He even noted that the personality rights of the model were ok since she had agreed to the photo. --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 17:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep, no particular reason to expect that generally trustworthy users should not be trusted about this. - Jmabel ! talk 21:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closing as Kept. No support for deletion. -- Infrogmation (talk) 14:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Miguel Angel Cotto.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:Juanma Lopez.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:McWilliams Arroyo.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:Iván Calderón.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:Cotto vs. Quintana.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:Cotto vs Judah.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:Miguel Cotto vs Shane Mosley.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:Cotto vs. Gomez.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:Miguel-cotto-margarito01.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:Cotto vs Malignaggi.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:MiguelCottoDemarcusCorley5.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:Cotto vs Pinto.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:Firepower.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:Miguel Cotto vs Manny Pacquiao FIREPOWER.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:Iván Calderón champion.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:Calderon win01.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Low quality images from different boxing matches, some are clearly copyvio as example: File:Calderon win01.jpg[5] or File:MiguelCottoDemarcusCorley5.jpg[6] so I presume all others are not "own work" of uploader --Justass (talk) 21:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete, most probably all copyvios, --Podzemnik (talk) 11:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is made with modelsim, a copyright protected program. --Warddr (talk) 22:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept, screenshot is PD-ineligible. Kameraad Pjotr 15:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Created with the copyright protected program Xilix ISE --Warddr (talk) 22:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep It does not matter. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept, it does not matter, but if it would matter, it's PD-ineligible. Kameraad Pjotr 15:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User gave this reason "I am not the creator. The craetor expect me to remove alle his pictures in the next weeks"

Images was uploaded under a free license up to 2 years ago. Licenses is non revokable. Has been descussed here User_talk:Marku1988#Copyvio. --MGA73 (talk) 20:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep - most of the files are in use on more than one place, this user has uploaded them and placed them under a free license and is now asking for deletion, since a free license cant be revoked I don't think we should delete them, it could be a good thing to show us where the images are taken from, my point of view is now that this is just a user that needs his own images deleted because he wants to. Huib talk 21:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
•  Neutral - Who is the author of those images? Where they were taken from? Did author contacted Marku1988? It would be nice to see any proofs, because at current policy when licences are not revocable any user who may want to delete his own images can state "it's not my work, it's copyvio" -- Justass (talk) 22:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep as Marku1988 didn't provide any evidences of copyvio --Justass (talk) 20:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  NeutralWe need some kind of proof. Until now we have only assertions and presumptions, from both sides. -- smial (talk) 00:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Delete AGF -- smial (talk) 16:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete the creator give me a Cd and mail some pictures to me, but he don't want the pictures to be publish. That what it is. And it is the only proof I can give. --Marku1988 (talk) 15:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Question Given that this is all the proof you are willing to supply at this point, please can you give us more details. What date was the CD created, and which images are on it? Also, how many emails were there, and on which dates? Finally, what reason did the author have for sending the pictures to you? What did you tell him you were going to do with them? --99of9 (talk) 21:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep If there is a copyvio, we need a source to proof this, or have the real author claiming his rights. So long ... axp_de^Hello! 17:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete. Marku1988 has done great work in retouching and improving existing images on Commons. Though what has happened here is without doubt very unpleasant, I don't see reason not to believe his claim as he incriminates himself. To speculate a bit: especially among young people sharing images is rather popular and when asked the photographer may say "ok, you can put them on your website or on Commons without knowing what that is" and later when he realizes what that meant, he doesn't want it. Of course, it was wrong that Marku1988 claimed these image to be his own if they weren't. --Túrelio (talk) 14:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep The pictures I randomly clicked are with "own work". If they are really copyvio, then all files uploaded from the user with source "own work" should be deleted and the user have to been blocked (so much copyrightviolations and giving his name as credit for other's work) from this project. But therefore it must be secure, that a third has the copyright - he/she isn't named or had said something here. No delete without an evidence. In other case - the user only not want the pictures available here - the pictures have to remain here. And @Túrelio: the user was 18 years when he uploaded the files - your "young people" argument doesn't fit in this dimension. One or two or three files - maybe - but not this list. And if - as you expected - that the photographer now say "okay, at this time not more, becuase now i know what this mean", this is not interesting. He gave the permission or the task to upload here. --Quedel (talk) 19:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep Look Axpde. --Jivee Blau (talk) 21:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete The uploader should know. The fact that he ought to have behaved otherwise at the time doesn't make any difference. And if you say "we should disbelieve him", then you should delete all his work, not just this. --Simonxag (talk) 22:07, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete Quedel you are right all picture I marked as own must be deleted. The one I retouched or I stick of course not. I you have a way to let me find the own pictures I missed, please let me know. The blocking is ok for me. I can create a new account. --Marku1988 (talk) 19:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have already voted "delete", not the number of votes but the number of voters "counts"! About "The blocking is ok for me. I can create a new account." ... is that your attitude to this project? Doing havoc and if one account is burnt just create the next one?!? Sincere congratulation ... :( axp_de^Hello! 19:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • And i think, blocking someone isn't for the used nickname, but for the person - or? So, creating a new user name isn't allowed. --Quedel (talk) 17:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Marku1988, how about what I recommended to you on your talkpage? --Túrelio (talk) 20:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep I find this hard to believe. According to the EXIF data, File:Witten-Annen Dönerbude.jpg was made just one day before it was uploaded here. File:Kemnader-See-Ruhruni01.jpg was uploaded the same morning. This must be uploader's own work. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will get a lot of trouble if I must invole the copyrightholder I work for. At the moment only my contact person knows. But he give me the deadline 2009-12-01. Please believe me. --Marku1988 (talk) 15:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So uploader admits that this was not true. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep You are also in a lot of trouble if it's true that you misled us at commons. Your only choice is to provide evidence, and if that involves the copyright holder, so be it. If they are cross at you for what you did to their images, that sounds like justice to me. --99of9 (talk) 21:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep There are cases where I think uploader should be honoured in a request for deletion of one or more pictures. An immediate - oops wrong picture - is a definite yes, A request for deletion where the uploader had overlooked some conditions, possibly. After a long time, I lied to you, and now I'm about to get into trouble - a definite no. That would open up for anyone with a grudge to come up with a lie and in fact retroactively change the license. This type of deleterequest should have verifiable evidence of copyrightviolation. Haros (talk) 16:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep No convincing arguments for deletion. Sv1xv (talk) 14:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
•  Comment I share Pieter Kuipers argument. Most EXIF is removed, but in some cases it still exists:

File:Witten-Annen Stammhaus Ostermann.jpg & File:Witten-Annen Dönerbude.jpg - taken June 16 2008, uploaded June 17

File:EndofLine.JPG & File:Witten BAB43 Brücke Hammertal.JPG & File:BAB40-52-NO.jpg - taken September 11 2008, uploaded September 13

File:BF Duisburg-Buchholz.jpg - taken October 10 2008, uploaded October 10.

The only inconsistency I found, I of course only checked some samples, was with the uploads on June 22 2008, File:Bochum-Werne Park.jpg and File:Bochum-Eppendorf Kirche.jpg from a different camera (+2 other images from that day not nominated). Per simal, some kind of proof needed that this is not a license revoke for other reasons than copyright violation or some kind of quality or privacy deletion. --Martin H. (talk) 17:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete I've no reason do not believe the nominator. Anybody could find himself in a difficult situation. IMO we could show some understanding here.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment There are valid reasons to question the statements of the nominator. Pieter Kuiper and Martin H. have shown that some of the pictures got uploaded very shortly after creation (e.g. the same morning); and they were declared "own work" by the uploader/nominator. So a suspicion that Marku1988 simply doesn't want his own images here any longer is at least understandable. However, maybe we should err on the side of caution - it's also possible that everything is as Marku1988 states (i.e. the pictures which were uploaded shortly after they were taken could have been e-mailed to him). As Túrelio already suggested on the talk page of Marku1988 (in German), a good way for clarification would be to have the real creator send a mail to OTRS. If I understand correctly what Marku1988 is saying, however, the "real" photographer and copyright owner doesn't even know yet that his rights are being violated, only a "contact person"... Gestumblindi (talk) 22:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete Please delete my job was to improve this pictures which I got by mail --Marku1988 (talk) 16:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• So you admit that the CD part of "the only proof you can give" [7] was in fact false? Doesn't sound like a very strong proof to me. --99of9 (talk) 20:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was a job to improve the pictures on the CD and afterwards I got casual some more by Mail to work on it. I don't know what proof I can give without creating a personal desaster for me. --Marku1988 (talk) 15:38, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which images were on the CD? --99of9 (talk) 20:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marcu - ich hab mir mal einige der von Dir hochgeladenen Bilder angeschaut. Diese Bilder sind von der Qualität her schlicht keine Bilder eines professionellen Fotografen. Ich selbst fotografiere als Laie mit Nikon D40 und bin andere Qualität gewöhnt. Die von Dir hochgeladenen Bilder sind nicht korrekt belichtet, rauschen stark, sind in der JPEG-Qualität sehr niedrig, es fehlt Kontrast und Brillianz in feinen Details, die Eulenburg z.B. hast Du nicht richtig aufs Bild gekriegt. Das alles lässt vermuten, dass Du mit sehr einfacher Digitalkamera fotografierst. Es entspricht einfach nicht der Qualität einer professionellen Agentur, wie der von Dir ins Gespräch gebrachten <company name removed for breach of privacy>. Fazit - Du willst einfach nur die Bilder, die Du hochgeladen hast, wieder runternehmen. Sabrina S 188.102.235.170 23:14, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sabrina, abgesehen davon, dass du mit der (von mir entfernten) Klarnamensnennung des möglichen Bild-Eigentümers Marku1988 zusätzlichem Risiko aussetzt, erschließt sich mir die Logik deiner Argumentation nicht. Wenn es die Bilder eines professionellen Photographen wären, dann hätte man sie wohl kaum einem (vermutlich) 18- oder 19-jährigen zur Verbesserung übergeben. Wenn es aber Marku1988s eigene Bilder sind und dazu noch - nach deiner Meinung - so schlechte, warum sollte er sie dann unter falscher Prämisse löschen lassen? Da hätte er einfach peu a peu reguläre Löschanträge wegen low-quality stellen können. --Túrelio (talk) 08:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gerade darum geht es ja. Dass diese CD eines nicht bekannten Fotografens (der mal nicht bekannt, mal nur mit Mittelsmann kontaktierbar, mal drohend beschrieben wird) diesem User zur Verbesserung gegeben wurde mit dem hier dargezeigten Resultat ist nicht gerade glaubwürdig. Aber darauf stützt sich ja Marku1988, der mit immer neuen Drohungen ("muss bis 1.12. gelöscht sein", "personal desaster") die Löschung will. Die Frage ist: war das ein dritter professioneller Fotograf der über Jahre hinweg immer mal wieder Bilder schickte, oder wars doch Marku mit seiner DigiCam selbst? Und Klarnamensnennung wars nicht, da stand ja nur eine Firma, mit deren Angabe man außer den Namen der Geschäftsführer keinerlei Namen bekommen kann. --Quedel (talk) 09:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mit der Klarnamensnennung der Firma kann diese bei einer Google-Suche sehr schnell auf diese Diskussion hier stossen. Es gibt Internet-Suchdienste, habe ich mir sagen lassen, die bei jeder Suche nach einem vorgegebenen Namen oder bei einer neu aufgetretenen Nennung, "Alarm" schlagen. Wenn das, was Marku1988 sagt, zutrifft, dürfte er dann große Probleme bekommen - dafür ist doch wohl nicht viel Phantasie nötig, oder? --Túrelio (talk) 10:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wenn das, was Marku1988 sagt, zutrifft, dann sollte man seinem Anliegen unverzüglich entsprechen. Übrigens stimmen IP und Fa. überein. Sabrina S. 188.102.247.200 00:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ein Copyright hängt nicht von der Bildqualität ab. Mittlerweile werden wohl bessere Bilder gemacht. Die alten sollen wohl trotzdem gebraucht werden. Lange braucht ihr nicht mehr zu diskutieren. Dann hab ich die Arschkarte. --Marku1988 (talk) 09:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vulgäre Ausdrücke stärken Deine Position wohl kaum! Im Gegenteil, angesichts Deiner Dreistigkeit, fast 200(!) Bilder vorgeblich unzulässig hochgeladen zu haben, kannst Du davon ausgehen, dass sich so mancher denken mag "... geschieht ihm recht!"

Wenn Du aus Selbstschutz keine konkreten Angaben machen willst, wessen Bildrechte Du verletzt hast, dann wende Dich doch an das OTRS-Team. Die sind zwar eigentlich dafür da, Beweise für die Rechtmäßigkeit zu prüfen, aber vielleicht machen sie in Deinem Fall eine Ausnahme und bestätigen die Unrechtmäßigkeit ... axp_de^Hello! 08:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Die Arschkarte ist doch längst gezogen, denn die Fristen sind alle mehrmals abgelaufen, sei es nun im Oktober innerhalb weniger Wochen, oder zum 1. Dezember [8] [9] oder nun "irgendwann". @Turelio: Außerdem, wer soll denn Ärger machen? Sowohl die Kontaktperson als auch der Rechteinhaber wissen doch von den Bildern hier. Und wie du sagtest, wenn das stimmt was er sagt. Aber dass es stimmt mag ich nicht glauben. Beispiel: „I will get a lot of trouble if I must invole the copyrightholder I work for. At the moment only my contact person knows.“ 20. November ←→ „the creator found saw picture last week.“ 27. Oktober (man beachte das jeweilige Datum). Ein weiterer ziemlich klarer Widerspruch. Und @axpde: Gegen OTRS wehrt er sich ja nun seit zwei Monaten [10] [11]. Mittlerweile wäre ich ja fast (neben dem Behalten aller Bilder, da die Widersprüche eher für keine URV sprechen) für eine Sperre von Marku1988 für mind. 1 Jahr inklusive Sperrumgehungsverbot wegen Irreführung und Projektschädigung. --Quedel (talk) 10:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• keep until there is a proof for copyvio and block Marku1988 --Historiograf (talk) 18:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept, absolutely no evidence of copyvio. As long as we do not know the author, or he sends a mail to OTRS, we have no evidence that these images are real copyvios. Kameraad Pjotr 15:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

better version availeble see File:Beleg van Breda 1624 bevoorrading1.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by Druifkes (talk • contribs) 16:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete SVG does not render; not a very suitable format anyway. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Stifle (talk) 21:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Photograph of artwork placed inside a building, not covered by COM:FOP#Hungary Martin H. (talk) 19:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete No FOP indoors in Hungary. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, forgot: I dont know the sculpturer or his livespan. But it looks like recent artwork. --Martin H. (talk) 20:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Stifle (talk) 21:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

COM:DW of a photo, de minimis doesn't apply. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 14:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete per nom, surely photo of non-free work. Herr Kriss (talk) 19:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Could you please explain me more the problem, I take myself the picture in a Tibetan place, local people agree I take a picture of it. Both picture on the austel are public available ??? Could you eventually report the reason on my fr.wikipedia page I read more often ? Thanks in advance.

Looking more at the page, I suppose this is because there are picture on this page, do you think we should remove all picture of Tiananmen place, because there is Mao painting ? Those picture are publicly available, as every governementt chief pictures. I suppose this is more for political reason as Rédacteur Tibet and me are often opposed on Tibetan situation subject. There are some unfair usage of terms on the french Tibet page, as 'Historical Tibet map' without date (opposed to every historical), but as every country map of Tibet change several times per century, depending on war, alliances, agreements, etc... For example, some parts of Tibet are still discussed between India and China for 50 years for example, Hawaii is in USA only since 1959, Alsace and Lorraine switched several times between Germany and France in less than 100 years. Popolon (talk) 20:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete Photos of the historical architecture which might have copyrighted photos visible as minor elements would qualify as de minimus, but the main subject of this particular photo is clearly the two photographs. This is not to say you haven't photographed how they are displayed like a shrine creatively, but rather that the majority of the visible work is actually the work of someone else, whoever took the original photos. Thus it is a derivative work, so unless those two photos can be shown to be free of copyright or free licensed, it is not allowed on Commons. -- Infrogmation (talk) 12:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• The main art piece here is the religious hostel, do I have to ask for this too ? I suppose that China Ambassady could give answer for paintings ? These are not photographies. Does the fact that pictures are exposed in public area don't mean this is public stuff ?

I found a partial answer on another pictur of the wikipedia :

File:Mao Zedong portrait.jpg

, any form or art exposed in an outdoor public area can be photographied, copied, etc...

And another here : File:Mao and Chiang1945.jpg 'After this, picture become public domain in China after 50 years'. Intellectual property is recent in China, because marxism exclude any form of properties. Popolon (talk) 14:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. howcheng {chat} 17:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright claim seems irrelevent to the file. This is a photograph, not "part of a decision or a statement by an authority or a public body of Finland". --Infrogmation (talk) 02:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Insofar as an official publication of the defence forces is a statement, it is. --Tungsten (talk) 15:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, lacks suitable permission, copyright violation. Kameraad Pjotr 18:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scan of non-free diploma --Partyzan XXI (talk) 15:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep pd-ineligible, contains no original authorship. -Nard the Bard 02:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete Looks like a piece of graphic design to me. --Simonxag (talk) 21:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, DW. Kameraad Pjotr 18:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scan of non-free diploma with logotypes --Partyzan XXI (talk) 15:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep the logos are COM:DM. -Nard the Bard 02:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept, per Nard the Bard. Kameraad Pjotr 18:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free emblem of Russian federation of aikido (in Mari El) --Partyzan XXI (talk) 16:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Sorry, I have deleted the article of this federation, but this is a logotype of organization. See [12] - site of it. Partyzan XXI (talk) 13:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, lacks suitable permission. Kameraad Pjotr 18:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

67 years old picture, {{PD-Old}} license 4ing (talk) 21:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep So change to {{PD-Norway50}} for a few years. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept, per Pieter Kuiper. Kameraad Pjotr 19:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uncertain if I used a computerprogramme to make the image which allouds me to publisch it or not. Better delete it. Freddan183 (talk) 14:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Don't worry, be happy. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept, per Pieter Kuiper. Kameraad Pjotr 19:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Artwork by artist who died 1990 placed in Szeged Pantheon according to the description. So this is not covered by COM:FOP#Hungary, photograph of non-free artwork, derivative work. Martin H. (talk) 19:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep According to [13], Szeged Pantheon is a display of artwork outside in a public square. Even the photo makes it look like it's outside. So FOP applies. --Simonxag (talk) 21:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept, FOP does apply. Kameraad Pjotr 19:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]