Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2011/03/15

mistaken drummond 00:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Deleted Common Good (talk) 19:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All images in the category are derivative works of apparently copyrighted statues. No COM:FOP for statues in the United States and these are pretty clearly not old enough to be public domain. --Wknight94 ^talk 12:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... The statue of liberty is out of copyright and can be considered a building, not a statue. So any reproductions thereof are buidlings, too ;-) --PaterMcFly (talk) 15:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But the way they're colored seems to create a new copyright in my opinion. And colored with copyrighted baseball team logos - even worse. Wknight94 ^talk 16:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunatelly, I have to agree. --PaterMcFly (talk) 12:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Reluctant delete As much as I want to keep this for historical purposes (as the original creator), and though I'm not sure the statues count as original pieces since they're based on the Statue of Liberty, I have to agree that being colored with copyrighted logos does create a problem. TheCatalyst31 (talk) 22:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep I do not believe that any of these passes the Threshold of originality#United States. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see how any of the examples in your link are relevant. These are three-dimensional works of art not only colored with elaborate designs, but mostly with designs that would themselves be copyrighted. Which example are you saying relates? Wknight94 ^talk 14:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it is quite obvious that the New York Yankees statues cannot be copyrighted. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• You didn't answer my question - which examples of threshold of originality do you think pertain? You also didn't say which New York Yankees statue you were referring to, but I think both demonstrate quite a bit of creativity and originality. Even if not, how about the ones like File:Cleveland Indians Statue of Liberty.jpg and File:Pittsburgh Pirates Statue of Liberty.jpg and the numerous others which prominently feature logos which are fair use on en.wp? Wknight94 ^talk 18:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Is not that obvious? The Copyright Office decisions about the Uncle Sam bank, about the American flag, about characters would make it rather hopeless to apply for copyright on the NY Yankees statues. And for the rest, there is the Commons admin decision on Rlevse's Valentine bear. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Not obvious at all, no. The three-dimensional Uncle Sam bank was almost identical to a 19th century three-dimensional bank. And the American flag example was apparently two-dimensional. The example here is a three-dimensional statue expertly colored in a way totally different to the original Statue of Liberty, and presumably different to how any Statue of Liberty replica has been colored before. w:File:Mondrian CompRYB.jpg is fair use - certainly doing similar in three dimensions would be copyrightable. Wknight94 ^talk 19:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete I agree with Wknight94. These statues are unique art with colors and designs, therefore a new copyright applies. Additionally some have copyrighted baseball team logos.--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 20:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: not empty Jcb (talk) 20:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no FOP in South Korea, therefore this is an infringement of the architect's copyright.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep - just a landscape, not much architecture to see. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Jcb (talk) 22:36, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Insufficient author and licence information. The stated source http://danwon.hs.kr/ is too poor in order to verify that this image is really published under a free licence (note: the stated source page has the following licence information: "Copyright 단원고등학교.All rights reserved."). A permission of the site owner is not given. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.187.106.123 (talk • contribs) 18:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted and closed early. User:80.187.106.123 is correct, the source is all rights reserved, so this was a delete-on-sight.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure but I think that although the Google Chrome source is available under a free license, the UI design may not be. Somebody check on this? Dcoetzee (talk) 06:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Do you think the person has permissions to use the Wikipedia Logo? --Jjupiter100 (talk) 15:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep See this recent deletion request of Google Chrome screenshots, also see this recent deletion request of screenshots with the wikipedia logo --Chris Ssk (talk) 19:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Good enough for me. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded a new file with an English name Rattakorn c (talk) 12:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Exact or scaled-down duplicate: File:ThaiCommerceMinistry.png -- Common Good (talk) 19:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Category" forgotten Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 14:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Common Good (talk) 19:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bad name Юкатан (talk) 14:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Exact or scaled-down duplicate: File:Learner driver sign ru.png -- Common Good (talk) 19:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

gssys4 190.90.100.30 23:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep: Widely used in templates.

Kept: no reason given -- Common Good (talk) 19:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope as a PDF text file, if necessary and meaningful, put the text on the Spanish wikipedia. Seems to be an interview from a magazine, thus perhaps also a copyvio. Rosenzweig δ 22:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: copyright violation, no evidence to the contrary  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The very small size of this image leads me to think it's not really own work. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Dupe of File:Juerg Zeltner.jpg -mattbuck (Talk) 13:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bad quality, not used anymore, better alternatives exist. Yikrazuul (talk) 17:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete per nom. DMacks (talk) 07:28, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Leyo 14:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bad quality, not used anymore, better alternatives exist. Yikrazuul (talk) 17:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete per nom. DMacks (talk) 07:28, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Leyo 14:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Poor quality, not used anymore, superceded. Yikrazuul (talk) 17:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete per nom. DMacks (talk) 07:28, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Leyo 14:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Poor quality, not used anymore, superceded. Yikrazuul (talk) 17:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete per nom. DMacks (talk) 07:28, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Leyo 14:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The O-hydrogen is in an energetically highly unfavorable position. Better alternatives in Category:Propionic acid. BadJPG anyway. --Leyo 09:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete Per nom. --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Ed (Edgar181) 23:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Uploaded for user-page fake-article by serial sockpuppeteer and fantasist, see en:User:CherylK600 and en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JAT6634. JohnCD (talk) 15:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Common Good (talk) 20:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

copyright Ivor Wilkins here:http://americascupmedia.com/AC45_ARTEMIS-541,en,igf122p96n31.html Nuttyrave (talk) 18:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Common Good (talk) 19:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation! This is just a scan from a newspaper! Narayan (talk) 20:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Common Good (talk) 20:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt own work. RE RILLKE Questions? 23:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• So do I. Compare this similar image on ruwiki by the way. --ErikvanB (talk) 04:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• speedy delete, clear vio. NVO (talk) 07:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: deleted by copyvio Ezarateesteban 14:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The EXIF of the 20minutos.es photo shows, that this is an EFE photo and not a 20minutos photo. EFE photos are explicitely unfree per http://www.20minutos.es/especial/corporativo/creative-commons/ Martin H. (talk) 03:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: it isn`t a free image, property of EFE only for Spain Ezarateesteban 14:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BadJPG, unused. There are several better images in Category:Methane. Leyo 10:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Per nom. --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Ed (Edgar181) 13:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

personal photo, not used, not in scope Avron (talk) 10:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: personal photo, caribe vacations Ezarateesteban 14:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Author (Editor182) requests deletion. Editor182 (talk) 14:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: already deleted Ezarateesteban 14:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

personal photo, not used, not in scope Avron (talk) 22:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Ezarateesteban 14:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

personal photo, not used, not in scope Avron (talk) 22:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Ezarateesteban 14:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

personal photo, not used, not in scope Avron (talk) 22:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Ezarateesteban 14:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope as a PDF text file, if necessary and meaningful, put the text on the Spanish wikipedia. Rosenzweig δ 22:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Ezarateesteban 14:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope as a PDF text file, if necessary and meaningful, put the text on the Spanish wikipedia. Rosenzweig δ 22:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Ezarateesteban 14:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

wrong file, sorry! tetraktys (talk) 05:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete User requested, recent upload, unused  Chzz  ►  03:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The uploader was banned on English WP and has a list of other copyvio images, hence giving me all the more reason to think that this image copyright claim is dubious as well. Dave1185 (talk) 17:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Moneda Islas Malvinas anverso.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• Category:Coins of the Falkland Islands

Falklands coins are all non-expired crown copyright. —innotata 22:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete As you said, those coins are still copyrighted. It was a mistake on my part uploaded in Commons. Banfield - Amenazas aquí 02:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Ezarateesteban 14:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No metadata, angle suggests a pitch-side photographer rather than joe public in the stands. Copyvio? -mattbuck (Talk) 01:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:49, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A better one with the correct name exists (File:Weisskopf,Victor 1963 Kopenhagen.jpg). GFHund (talk) 05:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete the File.--GFHund (talk) 05:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:49, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Es exists a better one with the correct name (File:Rubinowicz,Wojciech 1963 Kopenhagen.jpg). GFHund (talk) 05:16, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete the old File.--GFHund (talk) 05:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:49, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who's the real author and copyright holder of this professional photo? ~ Kobac (talk) 05:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• who really cares? the answer requires a proper provenance audit, and I highly doubt that A.V.'s PR staff keeps all receipts. delete. NVO (talk) 07:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Es exists an better one with the correct name (File:Klein,Oskar 1963 Kopenhagen.jpg). GFHund (talk) 05:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete the old File. --GFHund (talk) 05:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These are two different pictures though..--Narayan (talk) 20:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Neither is good, but they are different. Someone who knows, please put {{Rename}} on whichever name is wrong.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional photo of an individual. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY ^(TALK) 05:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Original research and POV. Furthermore, there are no sources for most of the images used. FunkMonk (talk) 06:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Commons does not actually have a "no original research" policy as such. The only critical problem would appear to be the sourcing of the hurricane photograph (the others are abstract symbols or public information signs)... AnonMoos (talk) 11:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The blue sign is a very specific design and is arguably copyrightable. Images have been deleted in the past because they were too POV, see the whole Latuff affair. Also, it has to be within scope. The image cannot be used on Wikipedia because it is original research (and not in the allowed sense that a picture of something is original research, this is a compilation with a libellous, political message), and is therefore out of scope. FunkMonk (talk) 11:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

However, as a governmental public information sign, it's more likely to be uncopyrighted than copyrighted. And the message of the "Latuff affair" would appear to be that racist bigoted hatemongering images will not be deleted off of Wikimedia Commons -- as long as their target is Jews. For some reason, anti-Jewish hate images seem to have a large contingent of loud vocal defenders here on Commons -- though if the same hate were to be directed at any other religious/ethnic group, such images would be deleted off of Commons so fast it would make your head spin.

Somewhat more relevant is that fact that the original purpose of the image as intended by its original uploader was actually to argue that the الزوبعة is not specifically similar to a Nazi swastika, as seen at en:Talk:Antun Saadeh (though I'm not sure it's all that convincing)... AnonMoos (talk) 14:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your conspiratorial perception on the Latuff thing seems unwarranted (it is a mere coincidence that a notable anti-Zionist cartoonist releases his stuff under a free license, if notable pro-Zionist cartoonists did the same we would have them here too), but anyway, there are no sources for any of the images here apart from one, so unless such is provided and the licenses are Commons compatible, the image has to go. FunkMonk (talk) 17:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The image may have to go, especially if there's no source on the hurricane photograph; however, your deletion nomination and subsequent "contributions" to this discussion were based in large part on misunderstandings and misconceptions... AnonMoos (talk) 20:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a matter of opinion, obviously, and I could say the same about yours. FunkMonk (talk) 23:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: My only concern here is that is a montage without sources, therefore must be deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

COM:DW (The poster on the right.) 92.227.0.19 07:16, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very low resolution, almost certainly not own work. –Tryphon^☂ 09:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I cut the picture in Microsoft Office Picture Manager, so maybe the resolution has dropped. -Babita18 07:27, 15 March 2011 (BRA)

Could you upload the original image? That would be great. –Tryphon^☂ 10:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've done it! It is the original photo has other people besides Sergio Britto. -Babita18 17:29, 15 March 2011 (BRA)

Sorry to ask, but did you take the picture yourself, or is it from TV? It looks a lot like this (at a different moment, but same point of view, same resolution, etc.) –Tryphon^☂ 20:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not, this picture was taken from a photographic equipment (than mine), not a television! I I sent the picture to the site that you saw. I WORK in program production. -Babita18 00:14, 16 March 2011 (BRA)

Kept      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope? -mattbuck (Talk) 10:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Low res, no metadata, dated a year in the future... I think this is a copyvio. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

self created artwork, not used, not in scope Avron (talk) 10:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

personal artwork, not used, not in scope Avron (talk) 10:48, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

personal artwork or promotional meterial, not used, not in scope Avron (talk) 10:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No non-commercial Freedom of Panorama in Estonia Lymantria (talk) 11:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I confess that this image IS NOT my own work, so it violates copyright policies Razghandi (talk) 12:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am the uploader of this file and I want it to be deleted as soon as possible. THANKS. Razghandi (talk) 12:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by User:Túrelio (non-admin closure). Jujutacular ^talk 12:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

personal photo, not used, not in scope Avron (talk) 12:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

personal artwork, not used, not in scope Avron (talk) 12:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

self-scanned, but self made? I really doubt the uploader. additionally not used Avron (talk) 12:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

personal artwork, not used, not in scope Avron (talk) 12:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The license is incorrect IMHO. Is the logo old enough to be in the PD? Leyo 13:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete - to answer the above, the article says Established:1991 - so not much chance of that. Looks like non-free logo. I'll upload to enwiki as nonfree (under another filename) for the enwiki article.  Chzz  ►  03:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done, w:File:Olympic Heights Community High School.jpg and diff  Chzz  ►  03:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: already deleted non-free logo, no permission to use it under free license Ezarateesteban 14:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, just moved/renamed: File:Olympic Heights Community High School.jpg. --Leyo 15:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: 16 March 2011 by Túrelio, closed by      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No Freedom of Panorama in Estonia, building apparently not PD-old. Lymantria (talk) 14:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a copyright violation, sorry for uploading. Because this ist not a simple 2D reproduction but a picture of a three-dimensional fresco, the copyright expires 70 years after the death of the photographer, not the painter. THe photograph was taken at approx. 1943. Adornix (talk) 14:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• additional comment: German jurisdiction quite clearly makes this picture a copyright violation. This is because there are structures of the room visible, so the image is obiously no simple 2-D repro. But that would be requirement (in germany, I do not know inernational jurisdiction) for beeing free of copyrights. --Adornix (talk) 17:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete room structure visible. Category:Undelete in 2014. MKFI (talk) 21:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: I think this is a delete, because there are 3D objects at the bottom.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Permission is incorrect. This image is not public domain due to its age since it's age cannot be determined by information given. This is a drawing/painting, by an unknown author of an unknown date. Per COM:L, it’s not the date of the Subject, it’s the date of Creation that is the determining factor for copyright, and for media that are considered to be in the public domain because the copyright has expired, the date of creation is crucial. While it is possible that this image is PD, none of the information provided shows that this image was create more then 10 minutes before upload, so it's status cannot be determined. --ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 14:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is charter of Russian Orthodox Church. Document contains non-trivial images. We can't use PD-RU-exempt, because Russian Orthodox Church is not state organization. We can't use PD-old, because it is relatively modern document. Dinamik (talk) 15:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: 1966 date.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely to by own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

and File:Merka hairflip.jpg. Unlikely to by own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

unclear copyright status This file comes from [1]. At flickr it is licensend under an other license than here and it is not cofirmed, that the license once was suitabel to Commons. --Pilettes (talk) 16:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: NC license on Flickr, also probably Flickrwashing      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I highly doubt this Flickr uploader actually took this image in 1960s, she would be at least 60 year old but photos that appear to be her in her Flickr stream look like a 20-30 year old girl. The image looks like a scan from a book and I recall seeing this image in a book but cannot find any that show it. Ww2censor (talk) 16:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This constitutes a derivative work of the Taz character, copyrighted material. It is thus not free and cannot be hosted on Wikimedia Commons. Jean-Fred (talk) 17:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I believe COM:FAN does not apply since this takes creative elements from the copyrighted original. Jean-Fred (talk) 17:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also doubting that COM:FAN can be applied to w:pepakuras. Esby (talk) 17:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC) Actually unsure of that Esby (talk) 10:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete. Doubt that COM:FOP can be applied. We don't even know where the photograph was taken. Esby (talk) 17:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Source : Travail personnel d'Archivaldo ! (cf. Galerie) --Warp3 (talk) 01:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's a creation derived from an official model, I am a bit puzzled. On a similar matter, photograph of cosplay (costume) according to copyrighted characters / models can be hosted on Commons (supposed there is no personnality rights issues) - See Commons:Deletion_requests/Images_of_costumes_tagged_as_copyvios_by_AnimeFan - I believe that fanart are like costume and cosplay here... This Taz might not an official artwork, but it also contains its own originality, so I do believe we could host it on Commons, now, that does not imply it should be used on the french wikipedia for depicting Taz, but it's not our decision as Commons members here. 09:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Deleted      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The copyrighted bridge looks too prominent to obtain the Commons:De minimis (DM) exception to the lack of Freedom of panorama in France. But, if the community decides this is below the DM threshold it would be a good example to add to the DM guideline. Hence this nomination for discussion intends to determine the consensus, I am neutral. 84user (talk) 17:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This file does not meet project scope condition "Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose" and is not in use. Homo lupus (talk) 18:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is under the same style as fictional flags and other anti-extremism illustrations we have on Commons. Not a valid reason to be deleted. Fry1989 (talk) 00:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the word allah is a holy word in islam and this shows that the word is put on a dump , this is like a big degrade for muslims , so not delete the file , just correcting that thing GhiathArodaki (talk) 16:54, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep COM:Not censored. We also have files like File:No Israel.svg. darkweasel94 18:01, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep -- If File:No Israel.svg is allowed, this must be allowed. Some would say that the true blasphemy is the rapists and murderers of Zahra Kazemi identifying themselves with the will of God. Khamanei seems to think that he's god himself, but most outside of Iran don't feel like worshipping him. AnonMoos (talk) 21:28, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Muslims doesn't sees Khamanei as god , i don't know what in iran , but the thing here isn't a country , because i'm not iranian , so it's not my buisness to say it's insulting or degrading iran , while it's doing , but the thing i'm oppose here that making the word allah in the dump and it's a holy word in muslims religion , so it's a religious thing , the meaning here isn't deleting the file but just fixing that thing , just for keeping problems away , because file like this and No israel would make a religious battles and fights in wikimedia .GhiathArodaki (talk) 06:26, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What do you propose when you mean "fixing that thing"? What kind of edit would you want to make? darkweasel94 07:06, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

just delete the position of making allah word put on a dump , and change it with anything else that doesn't degrade the word , like making the person make his hand like stop , or change the word with that person with a writing in his hand or paper says dump islamic iran .GhiathArodaki (talk) 08:05, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can always create such an image yourself, but that doesn't mean this one should be deleted - we don't delete images only because they might offend some people. darkweasel94 08:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you read what did i said , i said not deleting it but fixing that , and it's not offend some people it offends a whole religionGhiathArodaki (talk) 09:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A religion is not a person. It doesn't have feelings. It can't be offended. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:40, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes , but the people who follow this religion are persons have feelings and degrading the religion means degrading their thoughts and ideas and degrading them , i saw here many degrading photos to different religions , all of them must be deleted , if not that means WikiMedia does not respect the religions and this is something unacceptable.GhiathArodaki (talk) 12:59, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, Wikimedia doesn't accord any more respect to religions than it does to any other topic. If this is a problem for you, then you should propose a site-wide policy change rather than attempt to delete individual images. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:53, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep We don't remove images simply to indulge baseless susperstitions. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:40, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think if that happened to a symbol for Christianity or Jew you will say that , or just because it's for muslims , this is the Racism against Islam , do you accept if the same image was put but rather than the word allah a cross ? or a david star ? , i don't think anybody will accept that , i thin your going to block any person do this , i my self will not accept that , because it's a Racism , and allah in muslim religion is the father in the christian religion , but the different is that allah is one god who doesn't have a child or a father or family , if you don't accept a degrade to your country or religion then don't degrade others people country or religion .GhiathArodaki (talk) 12:53, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is not true, we have symbols such as File:Pagan2.png, File:No cross.svg, and certainly some others I didn't find in ~10 seconds. And that doesn't have anything to do with racism since Islam is not a race but a religion. darkweasel94 13:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course we also host anti-Christian and anti-Judaism symbology. There are entire categories for this: Category:Anti-Christianity and Category:Anti-Judaism. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:53, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If this is the policy to wikimedia , then don't be angry for any fights that happen for a religion or country , these policies are wrong , make many fights and battles in wikimedia , but if that what do you want then it's ok .GhiathArodaki (talk) 14:41, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GhiathArodaki -- If the current rulers of Iran make something be the symbol of the current Iranian regime, then people who don't like the current Iranian regime will naturally have a negative attitude towards that symbol. If Muslims don't want the word "Allah" to be roughly treated, then they should refrain from using it in political symbolism. If the word "Allah" is to be off-limits for purposes of political criticism and satire, then it should be first removed from the flags of Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia, from the name of the group Hezbollah, etc. etc.

P.S. The only graphic (created by me from scratch) that I uploaded here with the word "Allah" was File:Turs-ul-Iman Shi'ar-uth-Thaluth.svg -- I thought I was being very respectful, but some people on Arabic Wikipedia didn't like it! AnonMoos (talk) 22:17, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Commons is not censored. Fry1989 ^eh? 04:09, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept - per the many explanations here, this will not be deleted. It is within our project scope, is appropriately licensed and is in use. Further, Commons is not censored - be that with regards to religious imagery, nudity, nazi imagery, etc. That people find something distasteful is no reason for deletion. I'm sorry you feel insulted, but Commons hosts many things which many people find insulting, nauseating or otherwise unpleasant, but so long as it is in scope and freely licensed it stays. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:15, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No FOP im Belgium. 84.61.186.139 19:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No FOP in Belgium. 84.61.186.139 19:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Restored: as per {{FoP-Belgium}}. Yann (talk) 19:28, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coat of arms, doubt uploader is copyright holder (claimed PD-self) Part of an ongoing CCI on enwiki. Acather96 (talk) 19:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source and uploader name differ, while the file is claimed PD-self. Note that the while the uploaders username and the source are similar, Sochi is the name of the town this image was taken in. Henceforth, it is unlikely that the uploader is simply using Sochi as shorthand for his own name. As the source and uploaders name differ, the file is of unclear copyright status. Part of an ongoing CCI on enwiki. Acather96 (talk) 19:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No FOP in Belgium. 84.61.186.139 19:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Claimed PD-self, uploader's username, source and author all differ. File is of unclear copyright status. Part of an ongoing CCI on enwiki. Acather96 (talk) 19:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No FOP in Belgium. 84.61.186.139 19:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep There are other buildings on the picture, it can be a de minimis case. Can be kept with renaming if needed. Jeriby (talk) 17:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Claimed PD-self, however as this is a coat of arms I doubt the uploader is the copyright holder. Part of an ongoing CCI on enwiki. Acather96 (talk) 19:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Claimed PD-self, however uploaders username, source name and authour name all differ. File is of unclear copyright status. Part of an ongoing CCI on enwiki. Acather96 (talk) 19:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation, this professional picture is too recent to be copyright-free Narayan (talk) 20:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This picture was allready nominated and deleted in march 2011, see this link. This is a copyrighted picture! Narayan (talk) 19:13, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(deleted and closed 10:36, 17 June 2011 by Yann)      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:48, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation. I highly doubt that the uploader is the copyright holder of this picture. Narayan (talk) 20:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: The uploader is apparently in the photograph, therefore cannot be the photographer who would own the (C)      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation. I highly doubt that the uploader is the copyright holder of this picture. Narayan (talk) 20:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No FOP in French Guiana. 84.61.186.139 21:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Absurd. What is the architect ???? FOP = ....Typically, the owner of such copyright would be the architect. Many but not all countries include such a rule in their copyright law, and allow photographs taken under the freedom to be published and used without infringing the architect's copyright. --Pline (talk) 09:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Photo of utilitarian objects, not sculptures. -- Asclepias (talk) 12:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep Not architectural. Jeriby (talk) 17:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep Not under copyright. Sémhur (talk) 16:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept (non-admin closure). Jujutacular ^talk 12:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Former Error in Mediawiki. I don't think it is usfull, because not used. Avron (talk) 22:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Actually, it's in use. Trycatch (talk) 05:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

derivated work of protected creation --MGuf (d) 22:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Trycatch (talk) 05:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

personal artwork, not used, not in scope Avron (talk) 23:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

personal artwork, not used, not in scope Avron (talk) 23:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyrighted by Николай Товаровский, 2010 (Nikolay Tovarovsky), need permission from him. Carn (talk) 09:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep See http://ksoftware.livejournal.com/147176.html The user have created this diagram specially for Wikipedia. Trycatch (talk) 05:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok,  I withdraw my nomination. It's just incorrect attributionCarn (talk) 11:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete I can't read the cited source, but "created this diagram specially for Wikipedia" does not describe an image that we can keep -- Commons is not Wikipedia and many of our users are commercial. Even if the Livejournal user released it, Livejournal itself is (C).      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, the livejournal user created this chart by himself, and later uploaded it to Commons by himself under a free license (CC-BY-3.0). So there is hardly a problem. Trycatch (talk) 14:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Thanks. I'm not sure why Trycatch didn't close this, but apparently it's a keeper.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a copyright violation, sorry for uploading. Because this ist not a simple 2D reproduction but a picture of a three-dimensional fresco, the copyright expires 70 years after the death of the photographer, not the painter. THe photograph was taken at approx. 1943. -- Adornix (talk) 14:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment are there any 3D-elements visible? It looks to me like a simple fresco on a wall and qualifies as a 2D reproduction. Even if the wall (ceiling?) is curved, this detail of the fresco should quite clearly satisfy 2D requirements. MKFI (talk) 11:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone cut off the bottom part of the image (see versions). Parts of the room structure were clearly visible. I don't think cropping the image solves the problem. Or does it? --Adornix (talk) 17:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are these really room structures? They look like paintings, parts of the fresco to me:

Deletion requests/File:Df wm 0004607.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/File:Df wm 0004607.jpg 3 786 1594 297 1600 1087 Room structure 451 515 694 272 1600 1087 Painting or structure? Compare to file 0004607. Room structure visible (File:Df wm 0004601.jpg)

Is this structure or painting? File:Df wm 0004607.jpg

 :::MKFI (talk) 22:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added some image notes (this DR only) on the picture on the left to help illustrate what I mean. Note that picture on the right is the one that belongs to this DR. MKFI (talk) 22:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Upper note/box: painting. Bottom part of the image: room structure. Please note, that the image on the right is a crop of the original 0004601.jpg. Colors are a bit pushed up of course. --Adornix (talk) 19:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: This, on the other hand, seems to be a keep, because it appears to be flat art. I don't think the fact that the 3D portion is cut off hurts us here.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation. I highly doubt that the uploader is the copyright holder of this picture. Narayan (talk) 20:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation. I highly doubt that the uploader is the copyright holder of this picture. Narayan (talk) 20:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation. This is a magazine cover/poster. I highly doubt that the uploader is the copyright holder of this picture. Narayan (talk) 20:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation. I highly doubt the uploader's claim. Narayan (talk) 20:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No educational purpose: the mechanism depicted cannot work. It is based on a misunderstanding of the design and purpose of the mechanism at the cited website. Carnildo (talk) 20:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Another one where KVDP can't even copy straight. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be copied from a newspaper, i highly doubt that the uploader holds the copyright. Narayan (talk) 20:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

missing source information, wrong permission, missing author and date. 91.67.138.29 21:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I highly doubt that user:Muxr4t is the author of this image: low image resolution and no EXIF information may underline this 80.187.106.166 21:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a professional individual picture, as mostly found on clubsites. I highly doubt that the uploader holds the copyright. This image was allready used on several websites in january 2009 ( [2]]) Narayan (talk) 21:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

personal photo, not used, not in scope Avron (talk) 22:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not covered by Freedom of Panorama Denniss (talk) 22:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. It is an official memorial, integrated into a bus stop as a creative means. You, sir, have no idea of what you are talking about. --188.192.204.89 22:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Of course it is (it is located in Berlin, Germany). Why should it not be? Read de:Panoramafreiheit. If it was not covered by FOP I would not have uploaded it. ;) Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 22:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The source image is covered by FOP - no question here. The close zooming in on parts of the image is not covered by FOP and the Eichmann image in question was not made by the exhibition commitee. It's at best of unknown source and has to be deleted. --Denniss (talk) 22:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

German law does not forbid derivative work of this kind. Close zoom-ins of FOP photos are treated just like the source images. It is legal, so there is no reason to delete it. Prove me wrong, if you can. But you can't. --188.192.204.89 22:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

+1. UrhG § 62 Abs. 3 Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ) 23:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FOP allows derivative works of copyrighted images if they are not the main part of the image. Using the memorial as whole is covered by FOP, using the image not if the source is not explicitely stated like coming from Bundesarchiv or other free sources. As an Army/SS image the copyright holder is the photograph who made this image. --Denniss (talk) 23:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can find your interpretation nowhere in the text of the law. Will you admit that you are pulling that out of thin air? --188.192.204.89 23:48, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once again: please read de:Panoramafreiheit#Deutschland (and the cited law texts therein). It seems you are confusing FOP and de minimis (which would only be relevant if a country does not have FOP). Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ) 02:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. I'mnot confusing anything here. FoP is an option for a photographer to create (and reuse) images from otherwise copyrighted material if it's permanently placed and accessible by the public. It does not tangle the rights of the creator(s) of the original artwork(s). If you use a FoP work but zoom-in on copyrighted or possible unfree artwork it becomes a derivative work and has to be deleted. Let's assume there a FoP object using several reproductions of Picasso paintings. Photographing it as a whole is covered by FoP but zooming-in onto a reproduction of a Picasso painting is a derivative work. --Denniss (talk) 09:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See also: COM:FOP#The right to modify. --Túrelio (talk) 10:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This photo ("work") is in the public and FOP applies. There is no rule in German FOP law that forbids FOP for photos. Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ) 11:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lets make it more simple. If somebody uploaded a scan/copy of the original photography of Eichmann (such as en:File:EichmannAdolfSS.jpg), would we let it stay or delete it? The image is claimed to be from 1942. If the photographer was killed on the next day, we would still have to wait until end of 2012 (1942 +70). --Túrelio (talk) 10:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - but because it is not in the FOP. Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ) 11:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC) changed --Saibo (Δ) 23:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With "not in the FOP" you refer to the original File:Eichmannreferat BusStop3 2009.jpg? If yes, well, I fear it needs to be, as there is too much copyrighted content in this scene. --Túrelio (talk) 11:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With no in FOP I refer to the file you asked about: en:File:EichmannAdolfSS.jpg Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ) 23:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This entire discussion is useless. German law is clear: If a copyrighted work - both three-dimensional or two-dimensional - is part of something that is permanently on display in a public space or even only visible from public space, you can take photos of it, produce derivative work of it (including zoom-ins) and also publish the resulting photos. Why do certain people here at Commons not understand this simple principle? Why should anyone bother and upload a perfectly legal image file here instead of uploading it locally with Wikipedia, if the risk of deletion out of ignorance is so high? --188.192.204.89 13:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, seems to be not so clear or at least not undisputed, if you read this recent expert assessment by a law-office in Germany (see 3.b.), asked for by Wikimedia Germany. To be sure, IANAL, but the situation seems to be less clear than we would like to have it. --Túrelio (talk) 14:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "expert assessment" you've liked to does not contain "panoramafreiheit". And if it does: please cite the paragraph. Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ) 23:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC) Den Miniaturhinweis auf 3b habe ich überlesen. --Saibo (Δ) 00:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mag sein, dass es nicht ganz klar ist. Aber die grundsätzlichen Probleme sind nicht bei deisem Bild sondern global in Commons zu diskutieren - wenn du meinst das das so ist. Das Gutachten scheint mir reichlich ungenau zu sein. Etwa: "Eine Lizenzierung unter einer Creative Commons-Lizenz, die die Bearbeitung des Fotos gestattet (z.B. CC BY – SA), ist hingegen nicht möglich ..." Toller Satz - irgendwas kann in ihm nicht stimmen (etwa, dass sie die CC-Lizenzen nicht verstanden haben), wenn sie Ahnung von der WP haben (wo ausschließlich Lizenzen verwendet werden, die ausdrücklich Bearbeitungen erlauben) oder sie haben keine Ahnung von der WP, was auch schlecht ist. Kurzum: das Gutachten scheint mir irrelevant zu sein, da unklar geschrieben oder einfach mit Unkenntnis erstellt. Zum Schlechtachten siehe auch: de:Wikipedia Diskussion:Urheberrechtsfragen/Hausrecht und gemeinfreie Werke Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ) 00:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oder, Achtung Überraschung, Option drei: Sie haben Ahnung von der Lizenz und Wikipedia, halten es aber für eine eher schlechte Idee, ihre rechtliche Einschätzung davon abhängig zu machen, welche Lizenzen in Wikipedia verwendet werden. Aber klar, es ist natürlich auch sehr schön, Leuten "keine Ahnung" zu unterstellen und das Gutachten erstmal ein paar lustigen Wortspielereien zu unterziehen. —Pill (talk) 22:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Der Sinn des Gutachtens ist doch der Wikipedia zu helfen (wofür sicher ordentlich bezahlt wurde - monetär und mit Werbung für die Kanzlei in der Wikipedia) - mit der Aussage im Gutachten ist das (aus welchem Grund auch immer) verfehlt. Disclaimer: Mag sein, dass ich etwas übersehe oder falsch interpretiere. ;) Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ) 00:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Da ein Großteil hier Deutsch spricht: Panoramafreiheit gibt uns das Recht das zu fotografieren. Ich seh grundsätzlich folgende Punkte:

1. Panoramafreiheit dieses Bildes: ist das Bild selbst legal dort abgebildet? Ich gehe mal davon aus, dass diese Werbetafeln rechtlich legal sind, dann müsste für das Foto selbst ja auch ein Nutzungsvereinbarung vorliegen, die das permanente Zeigen auf öffentlichem Grund erlaubt. Somit musste der Lizenzgeber auch Nutzungen durch die Panoramafreiheit dann hinnehmen. Oder gibt es hier noch andere Möglichkeiten, solch ein Bild zu verwenden?
2. Dann ebenfalls noch eingeworfen wurde §62 UrhG sowie das Rechtsgutachten, welches Veränderungen des Werkes nicht gestatten. Das stimmt zunächst, doch scheint es mir hier falsch ausgelegt zu werden. Zunächst §62: „Soweit nach den Bestimmungen dieses Abschnitts die Benutzung eines Werkes zulässig ist, dürfen Änderungen an dem Werk nicht vorgenommen werden.“ Damit wird hier argumentiert, dass man an dem Foto nichts verändern dürfte, damit legt man das aber falsch aus. Denn: nach Teil 1 des Satzes dürfen wir ein Werk benutzen, das ist hier die "Schautafel-Bushaltestelle". Teil zwei des Satzes beruft sich auf das Werk (i.S.v. dieses Werk). Also auf das gleiche Werk wie in der ersten Satzhälfte. Legen wir den Gesetzeslaut vom Allgemeinen in das konkrete um, so kommt folgendes raus: „Soweit nach den Bestimmungen dieses Abschnitts die Benutzung der Schautafel-Bushaltestelle zulässig ist, dürfen Änderungen an der Schautafel-Bushaltestelle nicht vorgenommen werden.“ Ich hoffe es wird klar: es wird verboten, die Schautafel in ihrer Abbildung zu verändern. Das wird hier aber nicht gemacht, die Tafel bleibt gleich, wir vergrößern nur einen Ausschnitt. Zu gleichem Schluss kommt man auch, wenn man das Rechtsgutachten, was Túrelio einwarf, in genau jenem von ihm genannten Abschnitt anschaut: „da § 59 UrhG keine Bearbeitung des abgebildeten Werkes gestattet, so dass z.B. Fotomontagen mit Abbildungen von urheberrechtlich geschützten Gebäuden unzulässig sind.“ Hier wird eindeutig auf Fotomontagen verwiesen, also veränderte Darstellungen des Gegenstandes, die das geschützte Werk (hier die Tafel mit den Abbildungen) so darstellen, wie sie real nicht sichtbar sind. Es gab da mal ein ähnliches Urteil zu einer Skulptur, die farbig eingefärbt wurde (in regelmäßigen Abständen). Die durfte man auch darstellen. Jemand hat dann aber mal einfach eine Nikolaus-Version gemacht (die es nie gab), das aber wiederum war verboten, weil man es nie so sah. Kurz wird es in de:Panoramafreiheit#Entstellung_und_Bearbeitung_des_Werks und in de:Holbeinpferd#Rechtsstreit_um_Postkarten erwähnt.

Solange also man nicht davon ausgeht, dass die Infotafel an sich illegal ist (Punkt 1), so kann man das Foto hier benutzen. --Quedel (talk) 00:19, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Schön auf den Punkt gebracht. --Ralf Roletschek (talk) 07:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Denniss's own interpretation of German copyright is indeed only his own, and is not shared by anyone else I know of, let alone by any of the literature. Finding a suitable detail and photograph angle does not equal creating a derivative work from the original. Otherwise, the whole concept of FOP would be nonsense. Hence, keep without any doubt. --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 13:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)—[reply]

I think it's fair to assume that this zoom-in version is fine. While I wouldn't consider the DR itself nonsensial or absurd, as some seem to suggest, I don't find Denniss' argument particularly convincing. The reason is that it is already legitimate to create a photograph of (only) Mr. Eichmann's portrait as displayed on the information board. The reason here is that the portrait is a work of its own, thus FOP would equally apply (note that, in the case of photographs, the restrictions Denniss and Quedel describe serve to protect the creator of a [displayed] work from inacceptable modifications of this work as shown in an "FOP image" of this work -- you cannot infringe these restrictions if you take a photograph of the original work and do not modify this photograph at all). But if we assume then for a moment that Denniss is right this would lead to the contradiction that while it would be acceptable to publish a photo of A, it would not be acceptable to take a picture of B and A and then removing B before publication. This would, however, for no apparent reason lead to the different treatment of an entirely identical work (i.e. the resulting photograph of a photograph) depending on how it was produced. (Let me add that the only thing I'm not sure about at first glance is whether the (original) photograph does really comply with FOP (frankly, it doesn't look particularly "bleibend" to my eyes ...), but as I have no clue about that, in my comment I just, as you seem to do, assumed it to be a permanently installed information board (which it probably is anyway, given the location, but I don't know).) Best wishes, —Pill (talk) 18:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: German FOP is very broad -- "works" -- without limitation, may be copied.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heinrich Hoffmann photo that isn't public domain in its source country. See File:Adolf Eichmann (1942).jpg. Christoph Braun (talk) 18:02, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hast Du mitbekommen, dass es sich um einen Zuschnitt aus File:Eichmannreferat BusStop3 2009.jpg handelt, welches von der Panoramafreiheit gedeckt ist? -- Rillke^(q?) 18:07, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did. As we have seen in the first RfD, the argument to keep the image is entirely based on Germany's FoP. While I do not object the prevailing interpretation of Germany's FoP in principle, I have doubts about the image's compliance with our current licencing policy.

Per Commons:Licensing "[a]ll copyrighted material on Commons must be licensed under a free license that specifically and irrevocably allows anyone to use the material for any purpose [...]", furthermore Wikimedia Commons only accepts media "that are explicitly freely licensed, or that are in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work."

The current use of {{PD-Old}} doesn't really make sense in this context. Neither Sargoth, Der Bischof mit der E-Gitarre nor Heinrich Hoffmann comply with 70 years PMA. Therefore I propose to remove {{PD-Old}}.

AFAIK there is no reliable case about the interaction of FoP and free licences (especially Creative Commons licences). The image in question is a further derivative work per COM:FOP (which is neither official policy nor guideline).

Quedel pointed out that unrestricted editing wouldn't be possible (referring to §§ 59 and 62 UrhG), which IMHO contradicts the applied CC licence: Per Section 3. b) of CC-BY-SA 3.0 Unported the licensor grants the right "to create and Reproduce Adaptations provided that any such Adaptation, including any translation in any medium, takes reasonable steps to clearly label, demarcate or otherwise identify that changes were made to the original Work." If there are restrictions to the creation and reproduction of adaptions, the licensor would be unable to grant this right in the first place.

Conclusion: A frictionless interaction of Germany's FoP provision and free licences seems unlikely without reliable cases or legal comments. Independant of this RfD's conclusion: an improvement in re-user communication is due.

Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 22:12, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the detailed explanation. -- Rillke^(q?) 22:28, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous. If we delete this one on these dubious grounds, we have to delete every single of our thousands and thousands FOP images from Germany (pretty much all public art and all modern architecture), plus all images of living people (since personality rights apply and hence the images cannot be altered as freely as one could imagine).  Keep --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 15:49, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bearbeitungskonflikt: Wollte gerade Nonsense schreiben und das gleiche Argument wie Andreas anführen. Nun halt auf deutsch: behalten und den Troll verwarnen --Historiograf (talk) 15:52, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that Creative Commons licenses do not waive or otherwise affect rights of privacy or publicity to the extent they apply. Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 16:08, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete - German FOP requires that a work is permanently placed in the public; menaing the work's more or less "lifetime". Such posters/billboards in bus stops are exchanged after a while (mosty after some months); such works are not covered by FOP. In this specific case the original picture shows the bus stop as main subject - with some goodwill, the Eichmann poster can be seen as inevitable "accessory". While the crop is not an "accessory", thus not covered by FOP - especially not in regard to derivates of a protected original work. --Martina talk 18:24, 28 June 2013 (UTC)/18:25, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong objection to the last statement. This is not a poster at a bus stop, but an official, permanent memorial, integrated in a bus stop in Berlin. rgds --h-stt !? 10:05, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep. FoP in Germany is a broad limitation of copyright, this memorial is public and permanent. Therefore it is covered by German FoP. We can and should use the picture. Or ask a Berlin Wikpedian to take a new better one with the cropped part in question at the center and in better resolution. rgds --h-stt !? 10:05, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a memorial but a simple bus stop. Posters/Billboards are exchanged after a while, and do not stay permanently in the public. --Martina talk 12:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a memorial, permanent since 1998, when it was erected. The bus stop stands in front of the building that once hosted the infamous "Judenreferat Berlin", the agency where Eichmann worked. And it is covered by German FoP. rgds --h-stt !? 16:19, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is apparently a permanent installation, which would mean that it satisfies German FOP rules -FASTILY 22:02, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The image added 04:06, March 26, 2016 is not from the bus stop, and needs to be removed, as it is not released under the stated license. Diannaa (talk) 19:00, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Diannaa, why would this image be under copyright? Is it not an official (government) image of him? SarahSV ^(talk) 21:34, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Government documents are PD in the United States, but not in all countries. Canada for example has no such rule. And we don't know if it's an official government document. This page at the USHMM credits the image to "DIZ Muenchen GMBH, Sueddeutscher Verlag Bilderdienst", ie. a German publishing house. The image may be in the public domain in the US and UK as seized enemy property, but we have no proof of that. I can't find it at NARA or the Library of Congress. Given that there's no proof it's in the public domain, we have to assume that it's not. Diannaa (talk) 22:31, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep FoP in Germany. --Ralf Roleček  22:44, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: kept the file, reverted to the last version that was actually excerpted from the FoP photo and hid the version from another source that was uploaded over the earlier versions. --Rosenzweig τ 00:44, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bestaat al een andere van, zelf geupload Rickvdgronde (talk) 22:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

file:stemma golino jpg 79.18.197.147 14:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no deletion reason specified Jcb (talk) 12:19, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No FOP in Belgium. 84.61.186.139 14:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: no artistic originality in the building, it is just an office block.82.35.18.139 16:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept Jcb (talk) 12:20, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No FOP in Belgium. 84.61.186.139 16:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No artistic originality, it is simply an office block. FOP restrictions don't apply to such nondescript buildings.82.35.18.139 16:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept Jcb (talk) 12:21, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No FOP in Belgium. 84.61.186.139 19:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is just an office block in the distance of a park, there is no artistic originality that would lead it to be covered by FOP restrictions.82.35.18.139 19:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Clear COM:DM case. Jeriby (talk) 17:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept Jcb (talk) 12:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No FOP in French Guiana. 84.61.186.139 21:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Technical building, where do you see any "unique" architecture? It has been built like that, for containing an Ariane inside. Jeriby (talk) 17:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept Jcb (talk) 12:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly not own work, but maybe PD? -mattbuck (Talk) 13:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: PD-textlogo Jcb (talk) 18:51, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flag, claimed PD-self, doubt uploader is the copyright holder considering it was made in 1864. Part of an ongoing CCI on enwiki Acather96 (talk) 20:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, your claimed deletion rationale doesn't seem to make too much sense -- the physical fabric flag could have been designed and sewn and stitched in 1864, while the uploader could have photographed the flag in 2010 and chosen to place the photograph in the public domain, without the slightest copyright contradiction or anomaly... AnonMoos (talk) 20:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete User:AnonMoos has it right, but does not go far enough. The image has a border and a title at the top -- is this, perhaps, evidence of a scan or some other source of the image? I think we probably should delete this unless we can get some explanation.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: PD-ineligible, this is too simple to be copyrightable Jcb (talk) 08:30, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

and other uploads by PKUSZ (talk · contribs). Unlikely to by own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF or different cameras. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: All uploads by PKUSZ, unreliable claims of own work. Martin H. (talk) 20:46, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

and other uploads by SWORM (talk · contribs). Unlikely to by own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Jcb (talk) 18:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No FOP in Saudi Arabia. 84.61.186.139 14:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete: no FOP and previous DR. Nemo 20:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: No FOP in Saudi Arabia. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 16:36, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• File:06-Egorov.jpg
• File:KulaginBoris.jpg
• File:1974.jpg
• File:1957-2.jpg

Copyrighted files without licenses and permissions. Postoronniy-13 (talk) 12:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by User:ABF (non-admin closure). Jujutacular ^talk 12:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

and other uploads by Udk48 (talk · contribs). Unlikely to by own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Jcb (talk) 15:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Out of scope as a PDF text file, if necessary and meaningful, put the text on the Spanish wikipedia. Rosenzweig δ 22:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's fake, vandalism, promotion of irrelevant person 83.50.248.115 20:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Turélio Ezarateesteban 21:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative work. Most likely not permanently installed so FOP does not apply. –Tryphon^☂ 11:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See also Commons:Deletion requests/Madame Tussauds, Commons:Deletion requests/Wax figures, Commons:Deletion requests/Wax figures at Tussauds or more recently Commons:Deletion requests/File:Michael Caine.jpg or Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hardcandy madonna jellybeans.JPG.

I did not upload MT photos after my visit to London because I was not sure about CR status. But one of the admins User:Jameslwoodward drop this note on my talk page last week: User_talk:Nevit#Mme_Tussaud.3F

I note also that Category:Madame Tussauds London has two images of sculptures, one of which has been kept after a DR.

The deletion request referred in message is located here. Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:The_Beatles_wax_dummes_(2).jpg

Whatever the result of this discussion, the below images I uploaded in same session might be affected too. --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 11:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Wayne

Nicholas Cage

Alfred_Hitchcock

Alfred_Hitchcock

 Keep, mostly. I agree that some of these -- Shrek, for example -- are likely to be short term (several years), but others -- Hitchcock, Darwin, Einstein -- are permanent. There is probably room for disagreement in the middle.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. - I don't see consensus for deletion, permanent is also relative, nothing will remain anywhere forever - Jcb (talk) 01:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changed into a regular deletation request. Electron  ^<Talk?> 08:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep One of users marked the file as a derivate work. It is true but it is irrelevant if the work is shown on a permamant display or in a museum... The UK FOP is in force. Electron  ^<Talk?> 08:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hulk Madame Tussauds 02.jpg: Madame Tussauds London claims ownership of its wax statues, and say they "will take legal action" if somebody makes commercial use of photos like these ones. Apart form this, at least Marvel characters are *not* permanently exhibites, so FOP does not apply. --Dodo (talk) 13:59, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see but if we take in accont the UK FOP this statement is irrelewant... Of corse we can discussed what "permament display" does mean... Electron  ^<Talk?> 16:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Madame Tussauds London legal threats aside, I think that if they say Marvel characters are displayed thanks to a deal limited in time (see the above DR), then it is not "permanent". Do you think this is a matter of opinions and debate, or that we should trust them? --Dodo (talk) 07:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of corse we can disscuss what is permament and what is not. Sometimes permament can mean e.g. 3 days (for the ice sculptures that are melted out). In my opinion if a figure is changed because of its natural "cycle of live" (wear and tear) it was on a permament display. But I am not a lawer... Electron  ^<Talk?> 08:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Commons cannot host images that cannot be freely published in the United States. Those photos, derived from unfree works, cannot be freely published in the United States, can they? On Commons, they are copyright violations, aren't they? -- Asclepias (talk) 03:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not as clear as you think. There in US not a freedom for panorama, too, but here on commons we stored such photos because there are many cautries where FOP is... So here on Commons some exception of the US law system are alowed. Electron  ^<Talk?> 08:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment You are not a lawyer, I remind you. And wax figures are not «changed because of its natural "cycle of live" (wear and tear)»: their period of exhibit is decided by their owners. If they say they are NOT permanently displayed, who are you to say the opposite? --Dodo (talk) 09:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete While some of Mme Tussaud's London exhibits are permanent within the meaning of the UK law (Mme Tussaud herself and Queen Elizabeth II come to mind at once) others, like Shrek, are transitory. While the Shrek series are fun movies, they are by no means classics, and I have no doubt that he will be removed from display for new material. Therefore I do not think we can keep this. That is reinforced by the citation above.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. - Mme Tussaud's charges admission and you have to buy a ticket. FOP does not apply to places that the public cannot enter freely. Moreover, these exhibits are not permanently installed in the sense of a statue, but (in all likelihood) part of a rotating collection of exhibits. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jameslwoodward notes that I was in error in stating that "FOP does not apply to places that the public cannot enter freely." The remaining concerns apply. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but there is no FoP in the UAE. Dura lex, sed lex. 84.62.193.194 19:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: all possible FOP issues are DM Jcb (talk) 20:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No permission. 84.61.186.139 19:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. If you mean a permission for reproducing the photo, the source with the licence is mentioned and linked on the description page. Perhaps it could be a good idea to have a reviewer add a confirmation tag, just in case the source website becomes unavailable. If you mean a permission for taking a picture of a construction site, you probably don't need one, and anyway that would not be about a copyright. -- Asclepias (talk) 03:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep - permission clearly stated - Jcb (talk) 12:16, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]