Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2008/09/12
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
From the actor's official website --Ebyabe (talk) 00:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Outside Commons:project scope -Nard the Bard 01:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. No realistic educational use. MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Out of scope Sterkebaktalk 08:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Kimsə (talk) 08:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Unexperienced user declaring to be the "copyright holder" by mistake. Please check further uploads. Moongateclimber (talk) 11:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
deleted, copyvio --Polarlys (talk) 15:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
"Men's Vogue" uses the GPL now? -Nard the Bard 12:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Obvious copyvio. Photo extracted from Mens Vogue, as stated in the source link provided. Brynn (talk!) 14:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Not sure that this fits with our scope. Also, I suppose we should have model consent. Brynn (talk!) 13:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
deleted, cheap mobile camera porn, we got this each day … out of project scope. --Polarlys (talk) 15:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative work of 3D object which is not yet in PD. Herr Kriss (talk) 15:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys (talk) 15:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
"All rights reserved", according to the Flickr page Erik Baas (talk) 20:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- P.S.: User:SterkeBak (who approved the Flickr download) says "The image is a crop of a nother image on commons. The other image has the right licence.", but without giving the title of this image. He also reverts my edit to the image page... - Erik Baas (talk) 20:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- He now removed the {delete} template, and changed the source... :-( - Erik Baas (talk) 20:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
i restored the old version nothing wrong with the image. I did something wrong while editting it. Sterkebaktalk 20:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Kept. user error Bastique demandez 21:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Does this logo pass at PD-textlogo? Sdrtirs (talk) 21:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- Good question. I'd say no. It's not simple typeface. It's very simple design, but it does have some originality (the way the characters are connected, mainly). Patrícia msg 21:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Kimsə (talk) 06:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
This dancer is spinning right, not left. We already have two other versions of the right spinning dancer. -Nard the Bard 22:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Keep. You're kidding me, ITS ROTATING LEFT. ViperSnake151 (talk) 22:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)- Keep. Oh my... it's a well known optical illusion, it can be seen rotating either way. We don't delete files based on filenames (otherwise we would delete DSC0434.jpg and the alike since the name doesn't correspond to the content). -- Drini 22:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oh yes, it's rotating to the right (because of the white outline there's no ambiguity). Again, we don't delete based on filename.
- D'oh. Fooled by a trick of the eye... -Nard the Bard 22:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- She is spinning right though. -- Bryan (talk to me) 22:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- D'oh. Fooled by a trick of the eye... -Nard the Bard 22:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Speedy kept. She's spinning right on her left leg. Or something. Not a reason to delete in any case. Patrícia msg 22:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Maybe out of scope and underage boy. Sdrtirs (talk) 22:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- Also see Image:Fernando Cruz.jpg (duplicate). - Erik Baas (talk) 23:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation Erik Baas (talk) 23:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- The image is on Flickr since april 28th, and the owner of that page says he didn't even know the pic was on commons. - Erik Baas (talk) 23:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Clear copyvio. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
useless 85.177.178.182 05:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. No realistic educational value. MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
useless 85.177.178.182 05:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. No realistic educational value. MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Contains copyrighted interface. -Nard the Bard 12:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Interface deleted. --Pumk (talk) 12:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- Still looks like cv. Herr Kriss (talk) 14:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I'm not english... What's cv? --Pumk (talk) 10:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- "Copyright Violation" - you do not own the copyright to this image, so you can not release it under a free license. Please read over COM:L for more info. And yes, this is a publicity still prepared by apple, so let's delete it post haste. ˉanetode╦╩ 02:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyright violation of artistic arrangement of coloured circles shown on the screen MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Alleged public domain corporate logo, which is ridiculous considering the logo is pretty clearly not eligible for PD. Mendaliv (talk) 13:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry - no freedom of panorama in USA for sculptures --A.J. (talk) 13:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- More pictures fromCategory:Yoda should probably be deleted too. A.J. (talk) 13:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Burning courtrooms? Is this really in scope? Also these guys look suspiciously like Snap, Crackle, and Pop. -Nard the Bard 22:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Delete - looks like it's a photo of something, so I'd think copyvio is likely. EWither way, does seem out of scope. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)- With all due respect, I got this image from a foreign Forum which uploaded the original image. Now, so that I would not violate copyright laws, I did take a photo by myself of the image, developed it into physical 4R picture, using photo paper. Then I scanned it to the PC. I leave the legal discretion to you, on the matter, if this should be deleted or not. Cheers.--Judgefloro (talk) 08:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Judgefloro, this makes it a derived work and you cannot bypass copyright laws by just photographing a copyrighted object. --AFBorchert (talk) 09:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Derivative work -mattbuck (Talk) 12:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Per Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Twin Towers in fire - 911- Fema picture.jpg -Nard the Bard 01:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Credited to the OEM, which is not a federal entity. Pruneautalk 16:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. |EPO| da: 18:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Deriv work (based on photograph) --Megapixie (talk) 04:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think so. It is based on the photograph, however the author didn't use the photo itself. He only based the drawing on the photograph. This can't be copyrighted.
124.190.24.163 12:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Guy0307 (talk) 12:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)- I think there's enough correspondence here for this to be a derivative work. Looks to be traced, and based on the positions you could reasonably conclude that the author did in fact use the photograph. 217.36.107.9 13:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- I am the author of the image...and yes it was traced. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 23:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- I think there's enough correspondence here for this to be a derivative work. Looks to be traced, and based on the positions you could reasonably conclude that the author did in fact use the photograph. 217.36.107.9 13:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- I have created a SVG version of the bowl-out, Image:Bowl-out.svg. That should serve the purpose until some clicks a real picture. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 02:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Tracing infringes the copyright in the original photo. Sorry. MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
no valid permission Brbbl (talk) 08:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete This image and all others by this user. Copied without permission. -Nard the Bard 19:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
deleted on en.wp for no source; copy-vio ian13 (talk) 09:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. No source MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
this is a poor version of an item that we have multiple better photographs of. i took this photo. --Elred (talk · contribs)
Deleted. No FOP for statues in the US MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Not a work of the US government. Source credits photo to "(Brigitte Lacombe/ Mirabai Films)" William Avery (talk) 16:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- Source http://www.america.gov/st/washfile-english/2007/July/20070703095706lmlenuhret0.5317957.html Never credits the photo to "(Brigitte Lacombe/ Mirabai Films)" as mentioned above, it only credits the films mentioned in the article to these companies, Mirabai Films is Mira Nair's own production company. Do, check the caption below the photograph (Abhishekjoshi (talk) 17:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC))
- Those words in brackets after the photo caption "(Brigitte Lacombe/ Mirabai Films)" are clearly a photo credit. More of Brigitte Lacombe's work here. It's a publicity shot from Mirabai Films, not the work of a federal employee. William Avery (talk) 16:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not in scope, source: "from my guide" ? Avron (talk) 18:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. No valid source MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Encyclopedic use difficult to conceive of. Also, the image is licenced as CC-BY but with the proviso that the creator's "signature remains on the image", which is equivalent to CC-BY-ND, a licence that is not free enough for our purposes. Sandstein (talk) 19:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Condition make the image unfree for our purposes MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I've declined a speedy request (rationale had been that it was a logo), as the intended subject appears to be a utilitarian object (see COM:DW) and the logo would, therefore, be de minimis. I've opened the normal deletion discussion for the community to discuss. --Эlcobbola talk 20:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep as the logo is pretty minimal. Love the yellowing plastic on the CD-ROM, photons have not been kind to it. Megapixie (talk) 22:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Kept. per Megapixie MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Was tagged for sppedy but in my opinion it might be {{PD-shape}} so I am changing the nomination to a dr. Anonymous101 talk 21:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- It's really simple design... I do think PD-shape holds in this case. Patrícia msg 22:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep pd-shape and pd-ru-exempt. I have taken the liberty of changing the licensing. -Nard the Bard 22:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Kept. - Anonymous DissidentTalk 21:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
According to the other uploads of Stgoblanco on the english wikipedia i impeach that this image is a free and sef-made by Stgoblanco. Martin H. (talk) 11:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
According to the other uploads of Stgoblanco on the english wikipedia i impeach that this image is a free and sef-made by Stgoblanco. Martin H. (talk) 11:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
error in the license term Nadaone (talk) 11:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
User request deletion. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
The file at Wikimedia Commons says that the source is http://estrelato.com/images/patricia-pillar.jpg. http://estrelato.com/patricia-pillar/ says that the source is "Wikipedia". The picture itself don't have a higher resolution avaiable. Lugusto • ※ 15:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Original research results --A.J. (talk) 15:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Commons isn't concerned with OR. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Unlikely to be uploader's own work, same file is at http://www.tibetheritagefund.org/media/about%20thf/andres_homepage/him47x.gif Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- The same uploader is also claiming Image:Haile Jah.jpg as "own work". Leavehoped (talk · contribs) is problay identical to this user. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
It looks like a screenhot. Sdrtirs (talk) 18:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete Photos from War of the Worlds, not the same resolution, but same image. --Martin H. (talk) 19:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- Please delete--Motopark (talk) 05:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I created this image but it is not in use (and has a fair-use logo). it is also a relatively poor rendering. --Elred (talk · contribs)
- Keep: Image is used on 8 pages over 4 different projects, excluding Commons. Logo is trademarked but not copyrighted since stylized text is not eligible for copyright. Perhaps a better version could be uploaded. →Wordbuilder (talk) 15:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per Wordbuilder. — Moe ε 16:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 11:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Please delete this image. Turns out I do not own the copyright to this photo of me and my daughter at her bat-mistzvah. The photographer Tausha Barbery does. My error. Mott12 (talk) 12:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC) --Mott12 (talk) 19:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 03:20, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
I believe that this is a derivative work of the wikipedia logo, and American Idiot. According to the licence on the wp logo, its use requires permission. I'd like clarification on the foundation's stance on the use of the wikipedia logo, and all other wikimedia logos, in anything but their original context - I find it rather hypocritical that the logos of the foundation which created commons are NOT free use, and in my opinion that means we shouldn't be hosting them. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep We already host a ton of these and the design for American Idiot is too simplistic to copyright. See my argument at Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Cdalbumicon-alt.svg. -Nard the Bard 22:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. See Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Cdalbumicon-alt.svg Эlcobbola talk 20:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Ironically, this image could only be used under fair use because its a parody of a commercial album cover. ViperSnake151 (talk) 19:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
I deleted a version of this which used the actual wikipedia logo, since that's a derivative work of one of the only non-free images we host. I personally think this is ok, but I'm not entirely convinced. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)- You mean Category:Wikipedia logo variants these? -Nard the Bard 22:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep For two reasons: 1) the design is very simplistic and not much on it is copyrightable and 2) while parody is technically a form of fair use, US jurisprudence recognizes that appropriate parody is free for everything Commons requires in a work, including commercial use and derivatives[1]. -Nard the Bard 22:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - derivative work with, frankly, enough elements to qualify as a copyvio. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted.
- A) This image is not "simple" enough to warrant exclusion from copyright protection.
- B) "US jurisprudence" does not recognize parody as free. The case cited (CAMPBELL, aka SKYYWALKER, et al. v. ACUFF ROSE MUSIC, INC.) found, in that instance, that parody, despite commercial use/success, qualified for fair use - not that it is free. Commons does not allow fair use. Эlcobbola talk 20:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Originally raised here; this is surely a derivative work as intellectual property rights to the image of the cube are reserved. Giggy (talk) 08:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- Also nominating Image:Rubik's cube.svg (featured!), Image:Rubik's cube v2.svg, and Image:Rubik's cube v3.svg. Giggy (talk) 08:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- I'm unsure, I personally think this is {{Pd-ineligible}}. ViperSnake151 (talk) 11:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- We consider the work of w:Piet Mondrian to be eligible (e.g. here and here); is this really any different? My understanding is that, during the patent litigation regarding the Cube in the 1980s (other entities were producing analogues on the grounds that patents weren't properly filed, if at all), the saving grace for Rubik was that the copyright protection was intact. Эlcobbola talk 12:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- Can you cite at least one of the court cases? It seems to me that the Rubik's cube is functional, not artistic, and so not eligible for copyright. --Carnildo (talk) 19:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- We consider the work of w:Piet Mondrian to be eligible (e.g. here and here); is this really any different? My understanding is that, during the patent litigation regarding the Cube in the 1980s (other entities were producing analogues on the grounds that patents weren't properly filed, if at all), the saving grace for Rubik was that the copyright protection was intact. Эlcobbola talk 12:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- H.C. Jehoram [1982] 4 E.I.P.R. 117 (I don't know how to cite Dutch cases, so this may be incomplete or incorrect)
- Politechnika Ipari Szovetkezet v. Dallas Print Transfers Ltd [1982] F.S.R. 529 at 538
- Ideal Toy Corporation v Chinese Arts & Crafts Inc. S30 F.supp 375 (SDNY 1981)
- Ideal Toy Corporation v Plawner Toy Mfg Corp 685 F. 2d, 78 (3rd Cir. 1982)
- Of the aforementioned cases, the first one is an explicit finding by a Dutch court of subsistence of copyright (overturning a previous decision that it did not subsist - i.e. this is "appellate" level decision). The others deal with a myriad of trade practices and IP protections; Ideal Toy Corporation v Chinese Arts & Crafts Inc. is significant, for example, as it dealt with trade dress. It seems this should almost be treated as we treat action figures (i.e. not allowed). Yes, there is a function beyond aesthetics (i.e. entertainment), but the object is still sculptural in nature. Our thoughts as Wikimedians aside, however, the subsistence of copyright in this object has been adjudicated. Эlcobbola talk 20:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per my above comments. Эlcobbola talk 12:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete All Derivative works. I'd think we could contact them to allow its usage on WMF, but for now, it's gotta go. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Colores cant be copyrighted. This is nonsense --Jodo (talk) 16:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- The colors aren't the issue. Toys (such as this, or action figures, or whatever) are considered derivative works; check out the chart on the right side of the page. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- This is not in the nature of an "action figure". The claim is not that Rubik's Cube is a derivative work, but rather that the cube is itself the original copyrighted work, and therefore that any photograph of the cube is a derivative work. EVula, you're just not paying attention to the facts or the arguments. 16:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC) Michael Hardy (talk) 04:54, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- Rubiks cubes are build from many different sellers and are invented by a hungary ingenieur Ernő Rubik. So if there is a copyrightholder for the toy, it is he. Where is the difference between this foto and all photos of Category:Rubik's_cube, Rubik's cube and Rubik's magic. If you want to be strict, you have to start with Category:Toys. There are much more obvious copyright violation than this toy is. --Jodo (talk) 20:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- Who holds the copyright is not the point, it is that the copyright exists. BTW, "The copyright belongs to Ernő Rubik, the originator of RUBIK'S CUBE® who has given Seven Towns Ltd full and exclusive authority to license and administer his rights" [2]. OTHERSTUFF arguments are as unhelpful here are as on WP. Эlcobbola talk 20:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- Rubiks cubes are build from many different sellers and are invented by a hungary ingenieur Ernő Rubik. So if there is a copyrightholder for the toy, it is he. Where is the difference between this foto and all photos of Category:Rubik's_cube, Rubik's cube and Rubik's magic. If you want to be strict, you have to start with Category:Toys. There are much more obvious copyright violation than this toy is. --Jodo (talk) 20:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Comment http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2004/11/rubiks_cube_r_a.html . I think companies have resumed selling copies of the toy in question in the US. I think they only ever had trademark and patent protection, the later of which has already expired. Your mileage in other jurisdictions may vary - but in the US, self created images of "the cube"(tm) appear to be copyright free (but not trademark free). As for the companies claim of copyright - it would appear to be standard legal FUD. They aren't going to stand up and say "please copy our toys!" Megapixie (talk) 07:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I suppose it wouldn't help if I claimed I just drew some generic cube with colors on it, and I've never heard of this "Rubik's Cube" thing? ;) I don't know enough about free licensing to weigh in on this discussion, but to make an aside here: Even if it's deleted here, this image is still fair game on the Wikipedias, where "fair use" is king, right? It is used in Rubik's Cube articles to illustrate the subject. ~ Booya Bazooka 13:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, it could be used under fair use on projects that accept (with a good fair use rationale, etc. etc.). If someone needs it temporarily undeleted or anything like that so they can reupload a copy elsewhere, that could be done too (once it's deleted). Giggy (talk) 20:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Absurd discussion. The copyright of the cube is still for rebuildings of a 3D-Dimmensional Cube and not for a Photo or Picture of it! HBR (talk) 22:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- It's called a derivative work. Your dismissive "absurd" is inappropriate and disrespectful. Эlcobbola talk 23:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- And one might say the same about your dismissing his dismissal :) The discussion isn't by any means absurd, but the issue certainly does feel absurd, and perhaps it's worth inquiring why. Several people want the image to stay, but can't provide much argument for it. Do they just lack understanding of the rules? Perhaps the copyright law in itself contains a bit of absurdity. Sorry about my little devil's advocacy, I'll stop musing aloud now. ~ Booya Bazooka 07:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- It's called a derivative work. Your dismissive "absurd" is inappropriate and disrespectful. Эlcobbola talk 23:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- What is the distinction between a photograph of the cube, and a drawing of the cube? As I see it, this svg is just a cleaned-up version of the original photo, and a JPG vs SVG file format shouldn't make any difference as far as copyright. If this image is deleted, shouldn't that mean every Rubik's cube image needs to go as well? ~ Booya Bazooka 07:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Whoops, I didn't realize the jpeg was up for deletion as well. ... just ignore everything I say. ~ Booya Bazooka 18:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. It's pretty clear that rights to the work are still asserted, strongly, and no evidence has been provided that this does not apply. It is undeniably derivative. This discussion is important because it is scheduled for use on the English Wikipedia in tomorrow's featured article. 150.203.230.27 04:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep The copyright on the cube is dubious at best as it is just simple geometry which would make it ineligible for copyright. The company also has a few US patents, making at least those drawing the public domain. Further more, the precedent that pictures all 3d object created post-1928 is worrying, we'll need to flag every iPod and a majority of automobiles. Dispenser (talk) 14:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Bad faith deletion proposal. The image sat here for THREE YEARS and no one proposed to delete it until it got scheduled to appear at the top of Wikipedia's "main page" on the following day. (The image was at the top of Wikipedia's article title "group (mathematics)", the Featured Article for November 5th. Now it's been replaced with an inferior image in the article.) So this nomination was just in time to derail that. Great. I hope you're proud. 17:14, 4 November 2008 Michael Hardy (talk) 04:54, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep: The arguments that the photograph is a derivative work is based on a misunderstanding of copyright law. 129.22.182.136 18:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I'm no expert but my understanding of the Dutch case was that the only copyright they found was on the design of the the workings of the cube and not on the external shape of the completed cube. Dmcq (talk) 18:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Whether 2D depictions of 3D objects are considered derivatives works (or not) varies throughout the world. See Panoramafreiheit for a discussion. Under U.S. copyright law, which is the only one that matters here, there is no clear rule. Only pictures of buildings are explicitly exempt for the architect's copyright. So, keep until they send a DMCA takedown notice. The foundation cannot be sued beforehand, thanks to the DMCA. That way at least they'll get some bad publicity for their efforts; Slashdot reported on the Nielsen media market case. Also see Freedom_of_panorama on this site. VasileGaburici (talk) 18:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Neutral, but transwiki to en.Wikipedia while the dispute is in progress. There may be other countries in which the image is not public domain (or belonging to the photographer, who has licensed it appropriately), so I'm not sure about the regulations for commons:, but it's clearly allowable for en.Wikipedia. Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)- Changed to Keep, there seems no credible assertion that the cube is or was subject to copyright. Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- Comment In the U.K., even in the 1980s when copyright might have been held to subsist, I believe that publication (however widely) of a mere photo (rather than, say, a replica product) of what had become a highly familiar everyday object would be considered "not a significant taking" -- no copyright threat to the Rubik licensees' legitimate interests, and not something that they would be considered to have any expectation of controlling. I suspect that would also be the result, by whatever legal reasoning locally appropriate, everywhere elsewhere in the world too - by one route or another this would be considered de minimis. I suspect there is therefore no substantive copyright objection to its use, anywhere in the world, and it should therefore be considered free.
- Currently the cube would not be considered a work attracting copyright in the UK, since it would not be considered either a sculpture now (CDPA 1988 s.4(a)); nor a work of artistic craftsmanship (CDPA 1988 s.4(c)) (Hensher vs Restawile [1975] RPC 31 and subsequent cases) - unlike, perhaps, the action figures considered above. It would attract design rights, but these are only infringed by products, not by photographs. This is a change from the 1980s, when the cube quite possibly would have been seen as a sculpture. With the advent of EU-wide legislation on design rights, similar shifts may have occurred elsewhere in Europe. -- Jheald (talk) 21:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Bullies. Cowards. This discussion started two months ago, so someone has lain waiting for the moment when the preacher says "Speak now or forever hold your peace". Just waiting until the final hours when it would be too late, just to humiliate people who've done good work. Whoever did this should be banned. Whoever did this does not belong among decent people. 00:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC) Michael Hardy (talk) 04:54, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- Whoever nominated this should be banned if, as appears to be the case — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Rubin (talk • contribs) 02:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- What are you talking about? Giggy (talk) 04:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- This discussion was started over 2 months ago. It was not resolved in that time. If anyone is to be banned, it should be those who made the FA, who failed to review the images, not those who raised a dispute in good faith. The fact that this came up before this image again was to be featured is not surprising. That's probably because other people are doing the work the FA authors should have done and reviewed the images and realised there was an active dispute. Our FAs are supposed to be our best work. It is imperative that all the images we use are free images and if they are not, they are used in accordance to our NFCC policy. If the authors of FA are not doing their work properly, people who do their work for them should not be the ones blamed. As to why this came up when the article was scheduled, that's kind of obvious. We have over 2000 FAs. On the whole, we expect problems with them to be recognise by existing editors. When an article is scheduled for FA, editors who may have never checked out the article before review them and they may then notice if there is a dispute. In many ways I still feel that Raul really needs to start giving people more time and I've raised this issue before but no one seems to be concerned another. Be that as it may, scheduled TFAs are always going to get a lot more attention then other FAs and people are far more likely to notice if there are potential problems with their images. If editors of said TFAs don't want issues to come up just before they are featured, they need to do their jobs properly and not blame other editors who review their work later, and notice that they didn't do their jobs properly Nil Einne (talk) 19:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- Whoever nominated this should be banned if, as appears to be the case — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Rubin (talk • contribs) 02:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- "Giggy", are you asking about my comments or about the incomplete comments below mine? Given the incomplete nature of those comments and the fact that they don't say much, I will provide an answer based on the latter assumption. Only about four hours before the Wikipedia article titled "group (mathematics)" was to appear at the top of the "main page" as a "Featured Article", someone raised this copyright concern about the image that appeared right at the top of the article. It looked as if they were trying to derail the event by bringing this up right at that time, even though the image had already sat there for three whole years during which nobody objected to it. Some time after that someone pointed out the astonishing fact that this proposed deletion discussion had begun two months ago. Two months and the discussion was never closed. It is apparently supposed to go on undecided for all eternity. I had of course assumed it was a new discussion brought up four hours before the event, in order to derail it. This absurd situation, that it's still undecided after two months, would never have occurred to me. So it sat here for those two months, and then someone, just four hours before the event, brought it to the attention of the administrator who handles "Today's Featured Article". I don't really know who's behind all this. Whoever it is should get a life. Michael Hardy (talk) 07:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- It is in fact you that needs to get a life. Rather then blaming others for 'ruining your hardwork' you need to realise that other editors don't have the time to continually monitor every single featured article, let alone every single featured article, to make sure there are no problems. Therefore it is always going to be the case thet TFA are subject to much more scrutiniy then other article, because in fact other editors do have a life and don't try to check out every single other article 24/7 but those which they feel are most important, and therefore notice problems with TFAs that they don't notice with other article. If you genuinely expect other editors to monitor every single other article 24/7, then I simply don't know what to say Nil Einne (talk) 19:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- Question Is there some rule requiring this discussion to remain open forever and ever and never get closed as a decided issue. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:54, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I was referring to you. Ease up on the personal attacks, or else give some evidence (diffs) of the misbehaviour you are claiming. And no, there is no rule that discussion goes in indefinitely. We're backlogged because many admins don't want to get involved of having to choose between copyright and people arguing to keeps something because they like it (not accusing anyone of anything here, just saying...). Your hyperbole is not helping get this closed any faster. Giggy (talk) 12:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- Have I not given plenty of evidence? As I said, I don't know who did this, but somebody waited until a moment before this became consequential and blew the whistle at that moment. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- You have already concured that the discussion was started 2 months ago. Why then didn't any of the FA authors notice that there was a dispute? It appears to be that the problem is the FA authors didn't do their jobs properly and didn't bother to review the images properly and notice there was a dispute. If anyone is to blame, it's surely the FA authors for not noticing there was an FA dispute, not whoever raised this dispute two months ago. It seems to me that your so called hard work has not actually been done as well as you seem to think, and you've in fact been a bit lazy. So far I have seen no evidence for your claims, other then wild conspiracy theories that show a fundamental misunderstanding of how wikipedia works. As to why you cannot assume good faith, I don't know. I do assume good faith in that you genuinely believe that editors are trying to ruin your good work, it's simply that you are serious mistaken due to an apparent insane expectation of other editors Nil Einne (talk) 18:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- BTW, the editor you are accusing of trying to ruin your good work is Mostlyharmless, see here Wikipedia:User talk:Raul654#Group (mathematics) image possible copyvio. Seemingly Giggy and Elcobbola are in fact the people that usually review images at FAR. Technically it's possible that for some reason Giggy and Elcobbola have a hatred of either you or the article on groups but this is the sort of wacky conspiracy theory I'm not going to give time for (even more so since Elcobbola did in fact raise the issue of other problematic images in the FAC Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Group (mathematics)). It's technically possible also that Mostlyharmless was patiently waiting to 'ruin' the TFA, who knows, perhaps he/she even carried some sort of satellite based phone which would receive a call the moment the article was scheduled so that he/she could carry our his/her evil plan. Who knows, perhaps the German speaking, commons admin and OTRS team member Elcobbola who first raised this issue, Giggy the bureaucrat and Mostlyharmless the kiwi intermediate spanish and Indonesian speaker are colluding to carry out their dastardly deeds of ruining this FA, or 'gasp' maybe they are even the same person under three identities perhaps created so they could ruin this FA. As to why Elcobbola and Giggy risked someone noticing by raising the issue 2 months ago, I guess we will never know. However at least for me, far more likely though, my story is correct. Elcobbola and Giggy noticed this issue 2 months ago when the issue was under FAC but they seem to have forgotten to raise this issue in the FAC itself (at least I couldn't find anything) and was not resolved in that two months. Perhaps neither of them was that sure so they wanted to see what others said before they mentioned the issue in FAC or perhaps they felt that mentioning it in the FAC wouldn't help (from the standard of a lot of the discussion so far, they may have been right). It doesn't seem to matter much to be. There are likely quite busy, with all the other stuff they work on. When this article was scheduled, mostlyharmless I guess was reviewing the article and notices the cornerstone image was under dispute and raised the issue with Raul. One thing all this does make clear is the image was under dispute when the article was under FAC even if it was fairly late in the game. While Giggy and Elcobbola unfortunately didn't raise the issue, other editors, including the ones who wrote this article, and yes, including you, could have looked at the images and noticed that one of them was under dispute. Sadly no one did. Personally, I don't really feel anyone is strongly to blame here, my comments above were more intended as sarcasm about the ridicilous fallacy of blaming other editors for bringing good faith disputes when you yourself should share a part of the tiny blame that is deserving to anyone for this mess. Yes editors should review the images but particularly since the dispute only came up late in the game, it's understandable. And yes, it would have been good if Giggy or Elcobbola had mentioned this image was used in a FAC and raised the issue in the FAC, at the very least it would have avoided this hoohaa but they didn't. All I can say is, shit happens. Wikipedia is never going to be perfect, and something things happen that we don't like. The only question is, whether we presume malice to others when things go wrong, when we ourselves have arguably made a mistake, or whether we accept that a series of events, with no one at strong fault, can lead to an outcome that we are not happy with, but that's what the world is like. Anyway, I've wasted too much time on this silly dispute. If you, or anyone, want to go around and make baseless claims of other editors then go ahead, I think the facts speak for themselves Nil Einne (talk) 20:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- For my part, I started this deletion request when Elcobbola brought it to the village pump, and I agreed that it seemed to be a copyvio. I didn't know it was at FAC at the time (though Elcobbola may have found it that way). Giggy (talk) 00:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- BTW, the editor you are accusing of trying to ruin your good work is Mostlyharmless, see here Wikipedia:User talk:Raul654#Group (mathematics) image possible copyvio. Seemingly Giggy and Elcobbola are in fact the people that usually review images at FAR. Technically it's possible that for some reason Giggy and Elcobbola have a hatred of either you or the article on groups but this is the sort of wacky conspiracy theory I'm not going to give time for (even more so since Elcobbola did in fact raise the issue of other problematic images in the FAC Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Group (mathematics)). It's technically possible also that Mostlyharmless was patiently waiting to 'ruin' the TFA, who knows, perhaps he/she even carried some sort of satellite based phone which would receive a call the moment the article was scheduled so that he/she could carry our his/her evil plan. Who knows, perhaps the German speaking, commons admin and OTRS team member Elcobbola who first raised this issue, Giggy the bureaucrat and Mostlyharmless the kiwi intermediate spanish and Indonesian speaker are colluding to carry out their dastardly deeds of ruining this FA, or 'gasp' maybe they are even the same person under three identities perhaps created so they could ruin this FA. As to why Elcobbola and Giggy risked someone noticing by raising the issue 2 months ago, I guess we will never know. However at least for me, far more likely though, my story is correct. Elcobbola and Giggy noticed this issue 2 months ago when the issue was under FAC but they seem to have forgotten to raise this issue in the FAC itself (at least I couldn't find anything) and was not resolved in that two months. Perhaps neither of them was that sure so they wanted to see what others said before they mentioned the issue in FAC or perhaps they felt that mentioning it in the FAC wouldn't help (from the standard of a lot of the discussion so far, they may have been right). It doesn't seem to matter much to be. There are likely quite busy, with all the other stuff they work on. When this article was scheduled, mostlyharmless I guess was reviewing the article and notices the cornerstone image was under dispute and raised the issue with Raul. One thing all this does make clear is the image was under dispute when the article was under FAC even if it was fairly late in the game. While Giggy and Elcobbola unfortunately didn't raise the issue, other editors, including the ones who wrote this article, and yes, including you, could have looked at the images and noticed that one of them was under dispute. Sadly no one did. Personally, I don't really feel anyone is strongly to blame here, my comments above were more intended as sarcasm about the ridicilous fallacy of blaming other editors for bringing good faith disputes when you yourself should share a part of the tiny blame that is deserving to anyone for this mess. Yes editors should review the images but particularly since the dispute only came up late in the game, it's understandable. And yes, it would have been good if Giggy or Elcobbola had mentioned this image was used in a FAC and raised the issue in the FAC, at the very least it would have avoided this hoohaa but they didn't. All I can say is, shit happens. Wikipedia is never going to be perfect, and something things happen that we don't like. The only question is, whether we presume malice to others when things go wrong, when we ourselves have arguably made a mistake, or whether we accept that a series of events, with no one at strong fault, can lead to an outcome that we are not happy with, but that's what the world is like. Anyway, I've wasted too much time on this silly dispute. If you, or anyone, want to go around and make baseless claims of other editors then go ahead, I think the facts speak for themselves Nil Einne (talk) 20:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- You have already concured that the discussion was started 2 months ago. Why then didn't any of the FA authors notice that there was a dispute? It appears to be that the problem is the FA authors didn't do their jobs properly and didn't bother to review the images properly and notice there was a dispute. If anyone is to blame, it's surely the FA authors for not noticing there was an FA dispute, not whoever raised this dispute two months ago. It seems to me that your so called hard work has not actually been done as well as you seem to think, and you've in fact been a bit lazy. So far I have seen no evidence for your claims, other then wild conspiracy theories that show a fundamental misunderstanding of how wikipedia works. As to why you cannot assume good faith, I don't know. I do assume good faith in that you genuinely believe that editors are trying to ruin your good work, it's simply that you are serious mistaken due to an apparent insane expectation of other editors Nil Einne (talk) 18:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- Have I not given plenty of evidence? As I said, I don't know who did this, but somebody waited until a moment before this became consequential and blew the whistle at that moment. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- I think the problem is that we need a real lawyer to look at this, to assess whether there ever could be a valid copyright claim. I am confident that eg in the UK there isn't; and I'm also very dubious that there are any circumstances where the image could be found infringing anywhere else. (T-shirts?) But I wouldn't trust either my or anybody else's amateur assessment as definitive, either way, without input from somebody with genuine professional specialist legal knowledge; and that we haven't yet seen. The claims by 7 Towns Ltd look like an unjustified land-grab to me. I don't think we should just roll over and accept them (but nor ignore them out-of-hand either), until we have a lot more legal certainty on the underlying principles of this than I have yet seen. Quite apart from anything else, we need to realise the scale of the possible collateral damage -- if this is not allowable, then presumably neither is the depiction of any other commercial object here. That would be an extraordinary restriction. Hence I am not surprised if people feel they want to see a more definitive legal analysis first, before anyone rushes to a close on this. Jheald (talk) 13:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- Footnote. Regardless of its copyright status, the image of the Rubik cube is also trademarked in the EU. That is perhaps a more reasonable mode of IP protection. The trademarked nature is not a barrier to the image appearing here - we warn about trademarked images, using a template, but do not forbid them. Jheald (talk) 13:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I was referring to you. Ease up on the personal attacks, or else give some evidence (diffs) of the misbehaviour you are claiming. And no, there is no rule that discussion goes in indefinitely. We're backlogged because many admins don't want to get involved of having to choose between copyright and people arguing to keeps something because they like it (not accusing anyone of anything here, just saying...). Your hyperbole is not helping get this closed any faster. Giggy (talk) 12:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep or move to en. If the copyright holders want to sue Wikipedia over the idea that a photograph of a Rubiks cube is a derivative work, then let them. Such a court case would clarify copyright law. Is a photograph of a particular car a derivative work? I hope not and would not envy the editors who would have to go through all articles on cars and all images of cars to remove them or add fair use rationales. Geometry guy (talk) 18:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- You appear to have a misunderstanding of wikipedia and the wikimedia commons. In the case of wikipedia, our policy is to provide free images, which can be reused, including derivatives, in accordance to the license. It is not to goad other people into suing us or anyone else who reuses our images. I have no idea whether the copyright claims here are valid so I'm not going to comment on whether this should stay or go but dumb claims like keep it until someone sues us are NOT helpfully and clearly show a lack of understanding of wikipedia's goals Nil Einne (talk) 18:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- I have no such misunderstanding. I am instead arguing that any reasonable court (in particular a US court, which is what is relevant for en) would assert that this image is free, just as a photograph of a car or a train is a free image if the photographer releases it. I do not advocate keeping all images until someone sues: that is an idiotic position. Geometry guy (talk) 22:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- Why only only American courts be relevant for en? Michael Hardy (talk) 04:08, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- The Wikimedia Foundation is registered in the US, with HQ in San Francisco, and virtually all of the servers for en are in Florida. So, while the rulings of other courts may influence the understanding and interpretation of copyright law, ultimately if someone wants to sue Wikipedia, they will sue under US law. By contrast images on commons are used by other Wikipedias which have servers and organizations based all over the world. Geometry guy (talk) 13:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Why only only American courts be relevant for en? Michael Hardy (talk) 04:08, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- You appear to have a misunderstanding of wikipedia and the wikimedia commons. In the case of wikipedia, our policy is to provide free images, which can be reused, including derivatives, in accordance to the license. It is not to goad other people into suing us or anyone else who reuses our images. I have no idea whether the copyright claims here are valid so I'm not going to comment on whether this should stay or go but dumb claims like keep it until someone sues us are NOT helpfully and clearly show a lack of understanding of wikipedia's goals Nil Einne (talk) 18:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- Comment If it is kept, will it need a marker saying the image is trademarked? The company claims it is a 3D trademark and that all images are likewise a trademark. Wouldn't this mean the image can't be used freely?
- Keep I agree with Geometry guy. Jacopo Werther (talk) 10:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep --DerAndre (talk) 23:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
- Please give some rationales, this isn't a vote. --Kanonkas(talk) 14:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per Mike Godwin (en:User talk:MGodwin#Is this a derived work?). He wasn't aware that the picture is computer generated, rather than a photograph, but this doesn't seem to make a difference. --Hans Adler (talk) 20:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
uploader has previously uploaded news photos and tagged them as being freely licensed. this one never had an explicit statement that he took it himself. looks like a news photo, and tineye.com shows that it has been previously been used on at least one news site (though perhaps they got it from here?) Mangostar (talk) 15:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- This is an image that I moved here from the English Wikipedia because the initial uploader (I assume you mean him rather than me by "the uploader") indicated that it was his own work. I can't say anything more than that about its origins, for obvious reasons. Why don't you ask him directly? Aridd (talk) 16:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yes I did mean Africa Festival, and not you. I did ask him (well, I tagged the en.wiki version for no source, and notified him). I'll keep an eye on that and see if he responds. 140.247.225.142 18:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, finaly found it on Getty Images: #80476394, 01 Apr 2008, By: ALEXANDER JOE/AFP. --Martin H. (talk) 06:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Original wikipedia uploader appears to have a problem with copyvio uploads - see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Oliverdp2003 can't find a source for this - but no exif and a strange resolution. Megapixie (talk) 14:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete user probably found the image here. Unbelievable that it made it to the main page.... --83.227.73.27 15:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - The date of the blog is March, 2008. The original upload log from en Wiki indicates an upload date of September, 2007. The blogger almost certainly took the image from Wikipedia, not the other way around. Also, has anyone asked the uploader if, perhaps, it's his blog and photobucket account? The photobucket account isn't public, you'd have to dig for it. Assume good faith. Night Ranger (talk) 15:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Indeed. The Last-Modified header of the Photobucket image says 12 March, 2008, which was likely when it was uploaded there. So yes, it was almost certainly taken from Wikipedia, not vice-versa. No comment on whether to assume good faith here or not. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 20:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - No conclusive evidence that this violates a copyrights from the Miss Universe organization or anyother. The weblog is pretty much private and the picture on the weblog and wikipedia could well be from the same accounts (his/her own digital camera as it said in the descriptions). Unless we know considerably more there isn't much grounds for violation. Lihaas (talk) 16:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
- Comment User's only contribution. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 20:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep We have to assume good faith in that the person says that it is his or her camera is telling the truth.--Lan Di (talk) 16:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
- Comment User's only contribution. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 20:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Too dodgy. A legitimate, verifiably free image can easily be obtained --59.189.40.3 16:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Until an issue arises, the image may be kept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.238.49.65 (talk • contribs) 19:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
- Comment "Until an issue arises"? Did you bother to read the nomination before !voting? There already is an issue: this was a low-resolution upload by a user with a history of copyright violations. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 20:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually, enough. We only assume good faith to the extent that we should assume good faith; the user has a history of copyright violations (and doesn't seem to understand copyright at all) and therefore anything the user has uploaded is automatically suspect. In cases like this, we should look for compelling reasons to keep it, not for compelling reasons it should be deleted.
In this case, all the evidence points to it being a copyright violation. The low resolution, the fact that the user would have to be a professional photographer to have taken most of the images he uploaded, that this is a photo of a "Miss Universe" (something that people get very obsessed about, and that attracts more than its share of blatant copyvios), and so on. Viewed in isolation, these things would normally be irrelevant, but they take on some weight when one bears in mind the user's history.
tl;dr all of it stinks; despite the fact I can't find it anywhere else, this has been deleted. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 21:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
According to the other uploads of Stgoblanco on the english wikipedia i impeach that this image is a free and sef-made by Stgoblanco. Martin H. (talk) 11:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- Right.... [3] Megapixie (talk) 01:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Keep - There is no evidence to indicate a possible plagiarism. --BetoCG – ¿decías? 22:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)Change BetoCG – ¿decías? 17:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)- Come on - look at the uploaders other images Image:Hannelly Quintero.jpg Image:Daniela Torrealba.jpg Image:Dayana Mendoza.jpg are a random collection of mixed resolution, mixed camera uploads that I've long come to associate with copyvio uploaders. The user's talk page on en has more image deletion templates than I've got hairs on my head. We have a duty to challenge dubious images. Megapixie (talk) 23:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- IMO it is obvious, but of course you are right, i searched (wasted) maybe one hour for this image and can not find it on the net with a proper source.
- The image is postet in this forum, it is exactly the same image (metadata), the other images in this single post can be sourced to HO/Miss Universe L.P., LLLP (metadata). So the boat images are copyvios, that makes our image very suspicious which was uploaded to en.wp on 19 July 2008.
- The en.wp uploader has several other uploads, Image:Hannelly Quintero.jpg and Image:Daniela Torrealba.jpg are nominated for deletion on commons. Our image is taken with a NikonD200, an other image has no metadata, and the third was taken with a NikonD40... thats suspicious.
- --Martin H. (talk) 00:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - Verifying exhaustive, you are right. --BetoCG – ¿decías? 17:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted as probable copyvios. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
deriveative work of copyrighted helmet Anonymous101 19:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- Derivative? Help me sort this out, please. The follow images feature helmets:
- Image:NFCE-Uniform-NYG-Helmet.png
- Image:NFCE-Uniform-NYG.PNG
- Image:Redskins vs Giants line of scrimmage throwbacks.jpg
- Should they also be deleted as derivative or should they, along with the image I added, be allowed to remain? →Wordbuilder 19:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Other images here feature copyrighted logos or items (t-shirts, purses, vehicles, baseball games, etc.) as a small part of the whole. →Wordbuilder 20:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- Those other images should be deleted. Using them is permitted under the fair use section of US law. Commons explicitly bans fair use. The difference between the one I nominated and the ones yyou added is one thing -- one focuses on a copyrighted design, one doesn't (User:Anonymous101)
- The helmet is a generic graphic, not an accurate representation of an actual design licensed by any company (e.g., Riddell). The logo on the helmet is not eligible for copyright ("Titles, names, short phrases, and slogans; familiar symbols or designs; mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring; mere listings of ingredients or contents" are not protected) as stated here. Indeed, larger versions of the Double T logo only bear a trademark designation, not a designation of copyright. →Wordbuilder (talk) 16:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Not a COM:DW since that isn't a copyrighted work. Forrester [[ hate+love letters ]] 23:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I created this image but it is not in use (and has a fair-use logo). it is also a relatively poor rendering. --Elred (talk · contribs)
- Comment: In point of fact, the image is in use (see w:Eyeshield). The logo is a trademark and cannot be copyrighted since it is merely stylized text. Therefore a fair-use rationale is not required and it can remain on Commons. Since it is a poor rendering, I would like to see it replaced by a better version, if possible. However, I do not oppose the deletion request. →Wordbuilder (talk) 15:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep No reason to delete. Forrester [[ hate+love letters ]] 16:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Images of Paulwhiteway
[edit]- File:Angry.gif (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Reading.gif (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Ill.gif (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Kisses.gif (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Yawn.gif (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
All of them have the description page with own work from http://www.myemoticons.com/. But it is true or it is a sockpuppet faking licenses? See also luxo:Paulwhiteway and SUL:Paulwhiteway. Lugusto • ※ 15:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Site's terms are not libre free. There is no OTRS confirmation. -Nard the Bard 02:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Website says "Copyright © 2006-2008 My Emoticons. All rights reserved." This would need OTRS confirmation. MichaelMaggs (talk) 03:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Below are 3 maps created by Micheal Postmann, a German banned on the German Wikipedia (link) for an indefinite period of time for POV-PUSHING, using DOUBTFULL SOURCES and EUPHEMISING NAZISM and was said to DAMAGE WIKIPEDIA. He was not however banned from other projects, such as Wikimedia commons. Now I know that this information alone is not enough to remove these images below, people can change (though this one definately did not) so individual reasons are listed below.
For those who are planning to oppose the deletion, remember this: No matter how usefull a map can be for a subject, or how pretty they look. They are lies, and lies harm all wikipedias and those who read them.Rex 15:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- Beweise von dir, mein Lieber :-)
- (Sonst machst du dich des Rufmordes schuldig!) -- Postmann Michael 13:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- PS:Elian, die dumme Kuh, ist des Beweises immer noch schuldig... -- Postmann Michael 13:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep All Invalid reason to delete. Our images do not have to be NPOV. We're not the ones saying these are fact or even verifiable. (If we are in image descriptions, we shouldn't be) We just host the images. It's up to others to decide if these images fit their purpose. If you have a problem with some image, don't use it. Why is that so hard? Or fix it. We're not hear to decide what is or isn't "correct". We let our users decide. I didn't have to look at the images. We can have completely fictional maps. As long as it's free and there's some use for it (which there currently is for these), we keep it. NPOV-pushing is just as wrong as POV-pushing. We don't need to examine our files with any POV. They just are whatever they are. Take it, leave it, or fix it. Rocket000 04:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
- Totally and completely: Unreferenced.
- Treats Dutch and Frisian as being German.
- Overall German POV-pushing.
- Treats the Nazi-German occupation of Poland as expansion of the German language area.
- Bad English.
Rex 15:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- Wie wäre es mit "Die deutsche Ostsiedlung" (1989), "Kleine Geschichte der Deutschen" (1989) oder auch "Die Verbreitung der Deutschen 1888" von Nabert? Der Rest von dem Gedöns ist hier uninteressant!
- Am besten durch ndl. und poln.-tsch. POV ersetzen, dann hat die Mimose ihre Ruh'. -- Postmann Michael 13:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- PS:Ausserdem stand in der ursprünglichen Beschreibung "sogenannte deutsche Ostsiedlung"...wenn man richtig lesen könnte, Rex...
- ist ja leider nicht mehr herzustellen, du Mimöschen :-) -- Postmann Michael 13:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- I am sympathetic to your claims, Rex, but it does not appear to treat Dutch or Frisian as German languages, at least not in the present. However, it does foolishly treat the Nazi-German occupation of Poland as a German language area. I thus reluctantly call for Delete, as it can be encyclopedic, and it is unsourced, without prejudice to recreation with sources. As for the POV pushing, it is a problem: it treats areas not owned by Germany, if they speak German, as German linguistic, but if an area is owned by Germany, but doesn't speak German, it's also treated as German. This is a double-standard, and thus calls for deletion. Patstuart 17:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Kept. —Angr 14:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Related images also up for deletion
[edit]
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
- The image is unsourced, despite the myriad of supposed "references" (backed up by terrible English). The image claims to portray the German language area of 1910. However, it says it based on the 1910 National census of Germany (German Empire). The national cannot provide information on any linguistic situation outside the borders of the country it was held in. This one does however, in fact it portrays the German language in France, the Netherlands, Belgium, Poland, Denmark, Luxembourg, Switzerland, Austria-Hungary, Liechtenstein, Italy and Russia. 11 country's more than the source could ever account for.
- This map portrays 2 independant languages, as German: The Dutch language (with a documented history of 1500 years) and the Frisian language (a documented history of over 1200 years).
- From what I can make out from the terribly written summary, this map uses information from different censuses and the locators on German speaking populations were drawn at random and give a gross simplification of the linguistic situation in Poland.
- Overall German POV-pushing.
Rex 15:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- Genau!
- Und jetzt folgt die Niederländische!
- Schwachsinn *lol* -- Postmann Michael 13:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete I hate to call for delete based on this kind of argument, but Postmann's flippant response above, the fact that he's banned on German Wikipedia, and the fact that he has other improper images lend me to trust Rex's arguments that he's a POV pusher more than anything Postmann has said. Patstuart 17:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Kept. Given the history of this file (110 deleted edits!) and its heavy use (14 sites, 31 pages), I don't think deleting it is the best thing to do. →Яocket°°° 09:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
- Again based on a national census, this time of 1919, but again showing information on German speakers outside of Germany.
- Overall German POV-pushing.
- German and English are mixed in the map, which not only makes this ugly map hard too read, it also makes it look unreliable. (which it of course is)
Rex 15:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- Welche "Volkszählung"? Polnische, Ungarische oder Russische? (Komisch, ich habe die Ergebnisse von 1910-39 ... bei mir stehen andere Zahlen *LOL*
- Keine Quelle, aber viel Phantasie...
- kauf dir anständige Bücher und Atlanten, mein Guter :-) -- Postmann Michael 21:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- PS: Ich schreibe hier wie ich es will! EOD -- Postmann Michael 13:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete See my comments above. Keine Quelle, aber viel Phantasie... : No source, but a lot of imagination ... says it all. Postmann, if you could try to put together a better response, you might get more sympathy. Patstuart 17:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Kept. The original has been restored (Rex's version), so I'm not sure if there's still reason for deletion and he tag has already been removed, so I'm just closing this up. →Яocket°°° 09:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- delete all - where are the "Quellen" (sorry) for this Images? --Marcela (talk) 01:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
- For sources (and more discussions), see Image:Historisches deutsches Sprachgebiet.PNG.--Matthead (talk) 01:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Map consists of false data (exaggerates German linguistic area, doesn't show mixed linguistic areas, considering them as full-German), author doesn't give any sources (no wonder ;-) 79.189.230.42 14:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Kept. In use on 14 wikis. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
That's NOT an argument! It just means that on 14 wikis there is a misleading information!!!
- Please read COM:PS#"Neutral point of view". --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- England should also be in green, at least before AD 1066. Sv1xv (talk) 18:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Dont you know what means "The request is closed"? Next time anyone will edit I'll protect the page! abf /talk to me/ 19:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Uploads by User:Mrmariokartguy
[edit]uploader does not understand licensing and has several copyvios, as well as high resolution images with different cameras and some that are plain out of scope. Request deletion of all uploads by this user ---Nard the Bard 16:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Images:Smileys.Png is my own work, therefore it may not be deleted. Mrmariokartguy (talk) 01:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- I deleted all replacement images he introduced and gave him a warning. Yann (talk) 00:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Image:Smileys.PNG as it is a user-created image with no realistic educational use.--MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted some as out of scope, kept others. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
loocks like an old newspaper scan, maybe old enough, maybe not. abf /talk to me/ 15:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Same with Image:Oscar quinones2.jpg. abf /talk to me/ 15:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Image:Oscar_quinones1.jpg looks like a publicity shot. El gran amor de Bécquer is a 1946 Argentinian film (IMDB). Image:Oscar quinones2.jpg is definitely not self-made either. -- Deadstar (msg) 10:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- I received the following message on my talkpage, which might change things:
- I would like to know about this request, because I have all those pictures that are from movies he made about 50 years ago. I am his daughter and own those pictures that are online. Is that forbbiden? I think not in Argentina. --mlqu 20:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Not sure where that leaves us, as presumably she nor her father took the images, although he probably owns rights to the film alright. I will ask if perhaps Template:PD-AR-Movie or Template:PD-AR-Photo applies. -- Deadstar (msg) 08:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- No progress? —Giggy 07:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Kept. The photos are derivative works from an Argentinian movie. According to Template:PD-AR-Movie, this copyright has expired. Will retag the images. Patrícia msg 13:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
PD-AR-Movie can not be used because the director died not more than 50 years ago. In fact he died in 1988. ALE! ¿…? 22:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Uploaded by daughter of copyright holder. See above deletion request. -Nard the Bard 23:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Well then use a different license. The license currently used can not be used! --ALE! ¿…? 11:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. According to the Spanish Wikipedia, Óscar Quiñones, whose daughter the uploader claims to be, participated in this film as an actor, not as the scriptwriter, producer or director. Thus, it seems unlikely that he ever owned the copyright to this image, such that his daughter could have inherited it. (Note that merely owning a copy of the image does not grant ownership of the copyright.) Meanwhile, the image is also clearly not {{PD-AR-Movie}}. Ilmari Karonen (talk) 17:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
wrong name of the picture Atgnclk (talk) 16:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Please request renaming if need be. MichaelMaggs (talk) 23:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
en:Horst P. Horst died 1999; I doubt that this is a free image Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- From a cursory Google search, it is likely this image was first published in Vogue in 1937. With proper copyright renewal that means the copyright will last for 95 years (until the end of 2032). -Nard the Bard 21:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
That's what can be read following the link to copyright notice. A non-commercial reference may mean that this image can only be available as fair use. Sdrtirs (talk) 21:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)As for permission, you do not need anything special from us. We consider Wikipedia a non-commercial reference site so you do not need written permission to use DSS images, but an acknowledgement is appreciated. http://gsss.stsci.edu/Acknowledgements/DSSCopyrights.htm
The same to:
- OK, delete it. Eleferen (talk) 10:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Maxim(talk) 17:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
It looks that it was cropped from a flyer. Sdrtirs (talk) 20:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- Or a really old print as the date (1976) indicates. I'm neutral on this one. -Nard the Bard 22:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. No source for the base photos, and the images were heavily and crudely photoshopped anyway. Lupo 20:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
loocks like an old newspaper scan, maybe old enough, maybe not. abf /talk to me/ 15:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Same with Image:Oscar quinones2.jpg. abf /talk to me/ 15:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Image:Oscar_quinones1.jpg looks like a publicity shot. El gran amor de Bécquer is a 1946 Argentinian film (IMDB). Image:Oscar quinones2.jpg is definitely not self-made either. -- Deadstar (msg) 10:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- I received the following message on my talkpage, which might change things:
- I would like to know about this request, because I have all those pictures that are from movies he made about 50 years ago. I am his daughter and own those pictures that are online. Is that forbbiden? I think not in Argentina. --mlqu 20:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Not sure where that leaves us, as presumably she nor her father took the images, although he probably owns rights to the film alright. I will ask if perhaps Template:PD-AR-Movie or Template:PD-AR-Photo applies. -- Deadstar (msg) 08:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- No progress? —Giggy 07:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Kept. The photos are derivative works from an Argentinian movie. According to Template:PD-AR-Movie, this copyright has expired. Will retag the images. Patrícia msg 13:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
PD-AR-Movie can not be used because the director died not more than 50 years ago. In fact he died in 1988. ALE! ¿…? 22:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Uploaded by daughter of copyright holder. See above deletion request. -Nard the Bard 23:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Well then use a different license. The license currently used can not be used! --ALE! ¿…? 11:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. According to the Spanish Wikipedia, Óscar Quiñones, whose daughter the uploader claims to be, participated in this film as an actor, not as the scriptwriter, producer or director. Thus, it seems unlikely that he ever owned the copyright to this image, such that his daughter could have inherited it. (Note that merely owning a copy of the image does not grant ownership of the copyright.) Meanwhile, the image is also clearly not {{PD-AR-Movie}}. Ilmari Karonen (talk) 17:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)