Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2010/04/21
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
unused image, not sure what it is, small size, poor description malo (talk) 03:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Löschen. It's also a copyvio from http://www.backtoislam.com/category/allahs-miracles/. --Túrelio (talk) 08:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio: Copyright violation: http://www.backtoislam.com/category/allahs-miracles/
I don't want to have this photo on Wikimedia --Koniczek (talk) 09:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- Löschen unused personal image. -- Deadstar (msg) 10:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Common Good (talk) 19:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Personal photo I've uploaded --Hopea (talk) 13:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- Löschen personal photo by uploader/nominator. -- Deadstar (msg) 13:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Common Good (talk) 19:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
File:US_Navy_070324-O-XXXXX-001_British_Royal_Navy_file_photo_of_HMS_Cornwall_(F99),_a_Type_22_Broadsword-class_frigate.jpg
[edit]Photo courtesy British Royal Navy. Thus it is no US Navy photogpraph and as a consequence it is not in the public domain (PD-USGov-Military-Navy). High Contrast (talk) 14:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Multichill. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:06, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Copyvio http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/history/Mathematicians/Democritus.html JOC/EFR © January 1999 --Diego Grez (previously MisterWiki) let's talk 17:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Killiondude (talk) 23:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Yulia Tymoshenko, 2008.jpg, images from byut.com.ua are not (or not obviously) free for every purpose. Martin H. (talk) 11:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Butko: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Oleksandr Turchynov.jpg: per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Yulia Tymoshenko, 2008.jpg, images from byut.com.ua are not (or not obviously) free for every purpose.
The enwiki source image's original description was "SfR images; Created by Sf-Karabinier". The original uploader has confessed that images tagged that way were uploaded without permission: en:User_talk:Karabinier#Another_image_question. Quibik (talk) 00:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- Löschen Without question. -Nard the Bard 02:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 19:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
unused image, unremarkable building, unidentified structure malo (talk) 03:38, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- Löschen - The fact that the image is unused shouldn't matter, and the remarkableness of the building is a subjective opinion. In three and a half years, however, no one has identified the subject of the image and/or categorized the image. Based on the uploader's contribution history, I guessed that it was a building in Hong Kong, and it appears that it could be an image of the Miramar Hotel in Hong Kong. But the image is so poor that the best we can do is guess (and the uploader does not appear to active any longer on Commons for us to ask). Given the lack of information, and the quality of the image, I'd say delete. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 19:38, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
unused, out of focus image malo (talk) 03:41, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 19:38, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
unused joke image, out of scope malo (talk) 03:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- Löschen As per nom. And the bogus dollar bill portion of the image may be a copyvio. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 19:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
either a copyvio, or unusable, items unidentifable, image unused malo (talk) 04:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 19:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
restricted use (oeuvre personnelle aucune utilisation autorisée not usable) not compatible with a free licence. Croquant (talk) 05:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 19:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Useless image, out of scope. ■ MMXX talk 22:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 19:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Useless image, out of scope. ■ MMXX talk 22:03, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 19:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
out of scope, uploaded to self-promote in 190.94.68.230 19:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per nom. Only google hits form Commons. –Krinkletalk 14:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image. original image with ridiculous long file description. see here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AFranco_Perez.jpg&action=historysubmit&diff=33926009&oldid=33801903 Amada44 (talk) 07:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Löschen per nom, nonsense Cholo Aleman (talk) 04:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted although I like "elobaretly" descriptions, I guess, there will never be the need for an image, wich sais "let's dance together" on a blackboard in spanish. abf «Cabale!» 14:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
A photograph from 1999 uploaded from the website of the Windsor, Ontario fire department. There is no indication on the website (at least that I can find) that images and/or other content is either freely licensed or released in the public domain. Uploader appears to have misinterpreted the {{PD-ineligible}} tag that (s)he used -- that tag certainly does not apply to copyrighted photographs such as this one. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Löschen Agreed. Site has copyright notice. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 15:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Löschen Already exists on en.wiki as a fair-use image. I have spoken with both the secretary and the legal representative for Windsor Fire, and they told me that they received this photo during the period following the crash amongst several hundred other photos from others. The images were given to them as gifts, but they do not know from whom and as such have told me that they do not possess the copyright on the image in order to give permission for its use. - Floydian (talk) 05:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 14:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
This person was placed on 15 Wikipedia versions by the same person: 100% cross-wiki self-promotion. All articles were removed in 2007, except for the Commons entry (gallery) and both pictures (see above). I'd say it's about time. --Erik1980 (talk) 16:45, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete as per above. --Nikkirikki (talk) 16:15, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Löschen per nom. Amada44 (talk) 10:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 14:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
This picture belonged to a series of cross-wiki self-promotion articles that were all removed in 2007 (all made by the same person). I guess the image removals were forgotten. Erik1980 (talk) 16:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by ABF: per del-req
This picture belonged to a series of cross-wiki self-promotion articles that were all removed in 2007 (all made by the same person). I guess the image removals were forgotten. Erik1980 (talk) 16:42, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by ABF: per del-req
The clouds are stolen (http://www.tineye.com/search/ba15f9b47f105df30744eadfe74d07392980870f). The tower is probably too. 78.50.136.49 06:06, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- Temporary Tineye-link doesn't work. Here's a solid one –Krinkletalk 10:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 16:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
1987 painting. I don' t know if this painter is notable enough (no article on Wikipedia) but anyway we don't have his permission. Teofilo (talk) 09:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- Löschen per nom. -- Deadstar (msg) 10:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 16:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Source= "Streekarchief Bommelerwaard", yet licensed with a Self license. Similar image here, but I can't find an exact duplicate. It might be self-made, but the information is conflicting. -- Deadstar (msg) 10:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. No permission. Uploader ignored notification of this DR. Wknight94 talk 13:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Signed photograph of people posing in front of an artwork. This is not self made, and i don't believe uploader can release it into the PD. -- Deadstar (msg) 10:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 14:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't believe this close up shot of a speed cyclist is self made. -- Deadstar (msg) 10:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 14:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
replaced by File:Xzibit 2004-3.jpg without blue cast (blue socks in the washer?). not in use --Cherubino (talk) 12:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 14:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Source= ush.nl which means it's not self made. -- Deadstar (msg) 13:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 14:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
recognizable faces Duhjeroen (talk) 19:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- Wrong photo Duhjeroen (talk) 19:06, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- So did you upload the wrong photo? Is that what you're trying to say? The photo with the teenagers looks ok to me, no one is looking straight at the camera but the person on the right (who can be cropped). But if it's a concern, it can be deleted imo. The photo of the building - if you give a description, it might be useful. -- Deadstar (msg) 19:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- Löschen Since this has now gone through two cycles of changes, the history is messed up and the title doesn't match the image. Let's just delete it and let the uploader start over. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 16:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Uploader request. Image unused anyway. Wknight94 talk 14:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Derivative work, toys are art --KTo288 (talk) 20:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- Löschen /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:17, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- Löschen And it violates the copyright on the movie. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 16:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 14:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
This is not how a prism separates colors; not used, not educationally useful, out of scope. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- Löschen I agree, although I suspect we don't understand the creator's intention -- why is it sitting on a rough floor? What's the point of having a video of a static prism? . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 16:22, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Kommentar Ok, I know it's not at all the exact way a prism separates colors, I just did this for a presentation, showing my class Newton's findings in Optical domain. We're 14 years old. It could just be as useful as File:Optical_Prism.png it doesn't show the exact way a prism separates colors but it gives an idea. --PaulK (talk) 17:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- File:Optical_Prism.png is qualitatively correct. Your animation, however, has the colors separate in directions perpendicular to the apex of the prism, blue going to the left and red going to the right. That is not what happens. Nice animation skills for your age, but the physics is wrong. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:08, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- Kommentar I like to cut newbies a lot of slack, particularly 14 year old newbies, and double particularly for ones who have good graphic skills. But, I find it hard to see how this rather strange (rough wood floor, etc.), physically incorrect video is going to be useful for any Commons' purpose, especially since it would have to be prominently marked as "incorrect". Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- Löschen Ok, that's a wrong animation, so I agree with you, it should be deleted. --PaulK (talk) 12:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 14:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
No evidence that city of Karachi photos are public domain, the site even has a copyright notice on it. The EN article about this person has a long history of falsely licenced images being added, this seems to be more of the same O Fenian (talk) 06:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- Note that File:Syed Mustafa Kamal.png is the same image and will also need dealing with. O Fenian (talk) 19:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 11:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
It seems this statue was made by Jozef Cantré, who died in 1957, and there is no FOP in Belgium. –Tryphon☂ 11:31, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- Same for
- These last two might be de minimis, although I'm not so sure given their description:
- –Tryphon☂ 11:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- I did not know the sculptor. Anyway, that's why I stopped taking and uploading pictures because there seems to be more energy available to delete pictures than to get them. Anyway, doubting on "de minimis" here looks not very good faight to me. --Foroa (talk) 12:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I'm really not assuming bad faith on your part; those FOP issues are tricky. I just happened to see one of these pictures and tried to find who the sculptor was in order to better describe/categorize the image. Unfortunately, by doing so I found out that the sculpture was still protected by copyright, so I nominated it for deletion. I was absolutely not spending my time and energy trying to find a reason to delete these files, I was just trying to find more information about it. Again, I'm sorry if you felt like I was blaming you for anything. –Tryphon☂ 12:38, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- No need for apology. It is an ugly statue anyway. What pisses me off is that the outdated copy right and FOP laws combined with the preemptive Commons approach favour hardly 0,01 % of the famous artists (which are already wealthy and have lawyers to chase infringements), while leaving 99,99 % of the other artists in the dark. This seem completely against the whole Wiki philosophy. Artists will soon need consultants, managers and agencies to make sure that they are not forgotten before they retire. --Foroa (talk) 13:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I'm really not assuming bad faith on your part; those FOP issues are tricky. I just happened to see one of these pictures and tried to find who the sculptor was in order to better describe/categorize the image. Unfortunately, by doing so I found out that the sculpture was still protected by copyright, so I nominated it for deletion. I was absolutely not spending my time and energy trying to find a reason to delete these files, I was just trying to find more information about it. Again, I'm sorry if you felt like I was blaming you for anything. –Tryphon☂ 12:38, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- I did not know the sculptor. Anyway, that's why I stopped taking and uploading pictures because there seems to be more energy available to delete pictures than to get them. Anyway, doubting on "de minimis" here looks not very good faight to me. --Foroa (talk) 12:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- Löschen Artists are free to post their own work here if they choose. Some do, most don't. It's their choice if they want their work here, not ours. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 15:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- Difficult if they died 53 years ago? --Foroa (talk) 17:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 11:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I doubt uploader has created the sponsorship logo apparent on this sports outfit. -- Deadstar (msg) 13:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- Also same for File:Kit body singlet Spartaan.svg and File:Kit body singlet AVdeSpartaan.svg. -- Deadstar (msg) 13:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 11:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Does this logo qualify for PD-text? Logo is clearly not self made. The main logo for the Dutch railways company is listed as fair use on en: wiki. -- Deadstar (msg) 14:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Delete, IMHO it does not qualify as text. Barcex (talk) 18:56, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 11:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
date=1941, author is "uschi" . cannot be put into the PD by uploader. -- Deadstar (msg) 14:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- Löschen unless someone can find some clever PD'ish license to apply. Wknight94 talk 14:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 11:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
no notability (cover of the single of not notable Russian musicians) Andrei Romanenko (talk) 14:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 11:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
File is taken from http://www.indymedia.be, a website where it states "you can be the media". Both the new site http://www.dewereldmorgen.be and the old indymedia site have a cc-by-nc-nd license. Copyvio. -- Deadstar (msg) 14:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 11:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
No source or author, also seems to be copyvio of this picture. junafani (?) 16:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Er mankeerd niets aan de opname, hooguit iets te donker. Hoeft niet weg. MVG . -- Jan Oosterhuis 13:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)Spoorjan (talk)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 11:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
This is a recent statue. COM:L doesn't have a section on Kosovo, but it is likely that the statue is still under copyright and that this is, therefore, a derivative work. --. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 17:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 11:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
This is a recent statue. COM:L doesn't have a section on Kosovo, but it is likely that the statue is still under copyright and that this is, therefore, a derivative work. --. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 17:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 11:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Ontario highway images
[edit]- File:400 Wilson.jpg
- File:400 Wilson.png
- File:400 Woodbridge.jpg
- File:400 Woodbridge.png
- File:400 at 401.jpg
- File:400 at 401.png
These are all photos of Highway 400 in Ontario, Canada, from 1951 and 1953. Assuming that the images were works-for-hire produced for the Ontario government, they are public domain in Canada (if they weren't works-for-hire, the PD status in Canada would be in question). However, Commons requires that they also be PD in the United States. To be PD in the States, they would have to have been PD in Canada by January 1, 1996 (the URAA date) - instead, they were PD in Canada in 2001 at the earliest. Therefore, delete for not being PD in the United States. Skeezix1000 (talk) 00:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- URAA date? This makes no sense. They are protected by Canadian copyright, not US. Can they not be uploaded to wikipedia either? The jpg's can all be deleted, I thought I had nominated them right after uploading them. - Floydian (talk) 03:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- On the Commons, an image must be in the public domain in both the country of origin and the United States where the Commons servers are located (see Commons:Licensing). It's the same rule on the English Wikipedia IRCC. However, at least on Wikipedia you would have the option of uploading them on a fair use basis, which isn't an option here on Commons. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 10:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- But what's this Mickey Mouse act of 1996? Why wouldn't images by the Canadian governmen that are cleared of copyright here be extended to the States as well? Who in the states could charge for copyright infringement if they are Canadian property? - Floydian (talk) 15:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- Copyright status of an image can vary from country to country. Just because an image is in the public domain in Canada does not mean that it is in the public domain elsewhere -- Canadian law doesn't govern copyright status in other countries, even if it is a Canadian image. While I completely agree that the Ontario government is unlikely to seek to enforce its copyright in the U.S. of an image that is now public domain in Canada, the likelihood of copyright infringement litigation is not the litmus test here on the Commons. It needs to be either public domain or freely licensed in the U.S. Although undoubtedly annoying, this shouldn't be a problem, because images that are used in the Highway 401 article on en-Wikipedia can be uploaded locally under a fair use rationale. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:06, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- You don't think that the historical fair use would be challenged since there are other earlier historical images available that are free? - Floydian (talk) 22:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- Anyone can challenge anything, as you well know on enwiki, but the 1950s was an important decade in highway building in Ontario and these images are qualitively different than the earlier ones from the 1930s and 40s, showing the highways in a different stage of development. There is no free equivalent. I would add that since the images are already PD in their source country, their use on Wikipedia does not make them as a whole less valuable to the copyright holder. I think that would be a stronger fair use rationale than a lot of the rationales being relied upon. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
- You don't think that the historical fair use would be challenged since there are other earlier historical images available that are free? - Floydian (talk) 22:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- Copyright status of an image can vary from country to country. Just because an image is in the public domain in Canada does not mean that it is in the public domain elsewhere -- Canadian law doesn't govern copyright status in other countries, even if it is a Canadian image. While I completely agree that the Ontario government is unlikely to seek to enforce its copyright in the U.S. of an image that is now public domain in Canada, the likelihood of copyright infringement litigation is not the litmus test here on the Commons. It needs to be either public domain or freely licensed in the U.S. Although undoubtedly annoying, this shouldn't be a problem, because images that are used in the Highway 401 article on en-Wikipedia can be uploaded locally under a fair use rationale. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:06, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- But what's this Mickey Mouse act of 1996? Why wouldn't images by the Canadian governmen that are cleared of copyright here be extended to the States as well? Who in the states could charge for copyright infringement if they are Canadian property? - Floydian (talk) 15:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- On the Commons, an image must be in the public domain in both the country of origin and the United States where the Commons servers are located (see Commons:Licensing). It's the same rule on the English Wikipedia IRCC. However, at least on Wikipedia you would have the option of uploading them on a fair use basis, which isn't an option here on Commons. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 10:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- URAA date? This makes no sense. They are protected by Canadian copyright, not US. Can they not be uploaded to wikipedia either? The jpg's can all be deleted, I thought I had nominated them right after uploading them. - Floydian (talk) 03:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Keep - just tag them {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} if you must; delete the duplicates. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)- Keep I retract my earlier endorsement of delete. While I am delighted to see Peter's solution, why isn't it better publicized? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:05, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete the jpg's anyways. They aren't used and they are inferior quality when resized/thumbnailed. - Floydian (talk) 02:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept the PNGs. Deleted the JPGs. Feel free to change the license tag. Wknight94 talk 13:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Ontario highway images
[edit]Per original nomination above, these photos are from 1951 and 1953, which on the URAA date had a copyright term of 50 years after creation for photos. Hence they were all still in copyright on the 1996 URAA date, and were restored under the URAA in the US until at least 2047. I can move these to Wikilivres after deletion since they're PD in Canada. I can also help move them as fair use candidates to English Wikipedia with {{Fair use delete}} if desired. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:31, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- the URAA does not apply to crown copyright, which explicitly states that the copyright expires after 50 years. The Crown Copyright office has confirmed this. See en:WT:CANADA. - Floydian on phone
- Since you weren't able to link the specific discussions, being on your phone, here they are:
- The letter from the Crown Copyright office, as explained by Skeezix1000 and Resolute, does not in fact confirm that "the URAA does not apply to Crown Copyright" - merely that such works are PD in Canada after they expire, and their Canadian copyright is unaffected by the URAA. The URAA is a US law regarding US copyright, and it has no language in it that would exclude Crown Copyright works of Canada from restoration. Even if you secured a letter in which the Crown promised not to ever enforce their US copyright over Crown Copyright works, there would be no way to enforce such a contract. Dcoetzee (talk) 13:03, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Floydian, Dcoetzee is correct in respect of the email you received. It did not say anything about copyright status in the U.S. I would like to pursue that issue with you, but at present we do not have what we need. In any event, these images belong to the Ontario government, not the federal government. The provincial Crowns are completely separate from the federal Crown, and we'd need separate sign-off from Ontario. Did you not have some sort of email from the Ontario gov't? I've lost track of it over the course of these discussions.
As for Dcoetzee's comments about contract, I am not sure that is true. Commons has accepted similar confirmation in respect of U.K. crown copyright (see {{PD-UKGov}}). --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:58, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Floydian, Dcoetzee is correct in respect of the email you received. It did not say anything about copyright status in the U.S. I would like to pursue that issue with you, but at present we do not have what we need. In any event, these images belong to the Ontario government, not the federal government. The provincial Crowns are completely separate from the federal Crown, and we'd need separate sign-off from Ontario. Did you not have some sort of email from the Ontario gov't? I've lost track of it over the course of these discussions.
- the URAA does not apply to crown copyright, which explicitly states that the copyright expires after 50 years. The Crown Copyright office has confirmed this. See en:WT:CANADA. - Floydian on phone
Deleted, per Dcoetzee -FASTILY (TALK) 20:41, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Contains non-free logos (Atlantis and the drawing of the door). I'm not nominating the whole file for deletion, but just asking for the removal of those two logos (and then deleting the older revisions of the file). –Tryphon☂ 12:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep These images exist on commons (File:Universe stargate.png and File:Patch atlantis.jpg). Moreover, there is Commons:Deletion requests/File:Milky way stargate with very detailed glyphs2.svg for Stargates Promethee33127 (talk) 08:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC).
- Keep All of images are on commons, the argument of "non-free logo" didn't need to be and the derivative work is OK.--M.A.D.company (talk) 14:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- I think the two other images are copyright violations too, and I will also nominate them for deletion. File:Milky way stargate with very detailed glyphs2.svg was kept because it is a loose diagram, and not an exact reproduction of the prop; I'm not sure this argument would hold for File:Universe stargate.png. –Tryphon☂ 12:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, derivative work of two copyrighted logo's, who are not small enough to be de minimis. Kameraad Pjotr 20:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't believe this is self made, but I can't seem to pinpoint the source website using google. -- Deadstar (msg) 10:41, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- Kommentar User had another upload deleted as clearly being promotional content, with the description "Maquina Rotativa FAMEX para hacer suelas de Espansos, PVC y Hule Termoplastico", presumably this is from the same source. -- Deadstar (msg) 10:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- Löschen. Agree it doesn't appear to be own work. Wknight94 talk 13:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 11:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
copyvio -- the sign itself is copyrighted, see Commons:Image casebook#Road signs. I had hung a speedy delete tag on it, but User:Pieter Kuiper removed the speedy delete (without adding a delete tag), so here we are. --. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 22:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep The sign is not protected by copyright, for one thing, because it is too simple. Jameswoodward should remember that the template {{Copyvio}} should only be used for obvious cases. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- Kommentar
is a simple road sign. The subject of this discussion is not.
,_a_Type_22_Broadsword-class_frigate.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
,_a_Type_22_Broadsword-class_frigate.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_a_Type_22_Broadsword-class_frigate.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
- In the casebook, it says,:
- "You should assume that a road sign is copyright-protected and may not be uploaded unless you can demonstrate to the contrary."
- This is in three languages and has graphic design. The instructions on it are not trivial and could be worded differently. If I were buying this sign for commercial use in the USA, I would, as a matter of course, get a copyright release from the writer, the translators, and the graphic designer. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 16:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- For US, see Threshold of originality#United States. But a different reason why this is no copyright infringement is COM:FOP#Serbia. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:56, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
- Kommentar Pieter, I don't see either as relevant. This is not a work of art, it's a complex set of rules, in three languages. FOP doesn't apply to writing. I'm familiar with the threshold of originality in the US, and this is, for the same reason, way past it.. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 21:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
- Now, why would FOP not apply to writing? A third reason is that this kind of regulations by authorities are exempt from copyright (yes, I know, this is Eulex, but should be {{PD-SCGGov}} anyway). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
- A good question. I'll grant that there is some uncertainty on the issue -- we don't know the Kosovo law, but FOP does not apply to writings in the USA or the EU:
- "Member States may provide for exceptions or limitations to the rights provided for in Articles 2 and 3 in the following cases: ... works of architecture or sculpture, made to be located permanently in public places;"
- You can hardly argue that this is either architecture or sculpture.
- On the other hand, I think {{PD-SCGGov}} might be the key. Is there any reason to believe that Kosovo has enacted new copyright laws? Or should we simply assume that the Serbian law applies? If so, you're right, this is a Keep. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 11:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- A good question. I'll grant that there is some uncertainty on the issue -- we don't know the Kosovo law, but FOP does not apply to writings in the USA or the EU:
- Now, why would FOP not apply to writing? A third reason is that this kind of regulations by authorities are exempt from copyright (yes, I know, this is Eulex, but should be {{PD-SCGGov}} anyway). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
- EU directives are not law, and you gave a crucially incomplet quote. It says:"(h) use of works, such as works of architecture or sculpture, made to be located permanently in public places;" you left out the words in bold. Serbia is probably working on harmonizing its copyright legislation in near-verbatim accordance with the directive, but this is by no means universal in the existing Member States. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, too simple to be copyright-protected. Stifle (talk) 11:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- If {{PD-SCGGov}} covers it, then Keep, but it's not simple enough not to be protected by copyright, IMO.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:45, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept. I agree that there is enough text to be copyrightable, but Serbia has freedom of panorama for all types of works including 2D works ("It is permitted to make two-dimensional reproductions of works permanently located on streets, squares or other open places accessible to public, and to distribute such reproductions, without author's permission or paying author's fee."). Dcoetzee (talk) 22:40, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
