Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2008/07/02

This image is purely vandalism, made from Image:PG.jpg. It's been used at pt.wiki in a problematic edit. Leonardo Stabile (talk) 23:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user is claiming to be the copyright owener of an image that is property of EMI Music Group and Darenote Ltd. This is a series of images taken during the opening night of Kylie Minogue's KylieX2008 tour in Paris. The photographer is Pascal Le Segretain (who works for Getty Images). This image (along with many other) have been featured on Ms. Minogue's official website as well as news outlets and stock photography sites JAMD Alkclark (talk) 00:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Scuse me, but neither the JAMD image you linked nor any of the four similar Segretain images at Getty ([1], [2], [3], [4]) are this image. This image here shows her in a different pose, it was taken probably a second earlier. however, it is identical to this image at Getty: ID 81005866, photographer Dave Hogan.  Delete Lupo 07:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Lupo 07:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

photo of likely copyrighted poster 98.210.176.233 05:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Derivative work, no permission on OTRS. guillom 10:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

unauthorized by the 75.145.71.246 06:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason:

Image fails to follow rules as outlined by the Evergreen Aviation Museum.

This image includes notes by the photographer who claims it is free for use, when in fact, it ignores and is in apparent violation of the Evergreen Aviation Museum photo usage guidelines that exist online at: http://www.sprucegoose.org/news_events/media_pdfs/FreeLancePhotoMoU.pdf

FREE LANCE PHOTOGRAPHER

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

500 NE Captain Michael King Smith Way 􀂛 McMinnville, OR 97128 USA 􀂛 Tel. 503-434-4180 􀂛 Fax 503-434-4058 􀂛 www.sprucegoose.org

(PHOTOGRAPHER) AGREES:

1. Not to sell or use the images for any commercial purpose, nor to allow others to do so, without written permission from the Evergreen Aviation Museum;

2. Not to post images on the internet without written permission from the Evergreen Aviation Museum;

3. To place a “photo courtesy of the Evergreen Aviation Museum” label near each image during any public display, publication, and so forth;

etc.

Note that all images posted that relate to the museum, uploaded by others, should be checked as well.

Speedily kept. Whether this place allows photographs or not is irrelevant to the copyright status of this work. guillom 10:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Mexico City's Subway is prohibited taking photos. --guerreritoboy (talk) 23:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Keep, but {{Personality rights}}. Non-copyright restrictions are not within our scope. ViperSnake151 (talk) 23:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Mexico City's Subway is prohibited taking photos. --guerreritoboy (talk) 23:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Keep, but {{Personality rights}}. Non-copyright restrictions are not within our scope. ViperSnake151 (talk) 23:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taking photos in this supermarket is prohibited --guerreritoboy (talk) 23:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Non-copyright restrictions are not within our scope. ViperSnake151 (talk) 03:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfree. -Nard 00:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. All rights reserved on flickr Badseed ^talk 17:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image not available at source. -Nard 00:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Yes, user's gone from flickr Badseed ^talk 17:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

no copyright information given, copyright situation very doubtful per OTRS ticket #2008070210003528 Mbimmler (talk) 11:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image deleted --Mbimmler (talk) 17:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Avraham: Missing essential information: source, license and/or permission: Per OTRS 2008070210003528, copyright status very doubtful, no responses to initial deletion request.

Image not available at source. -Nard 00:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 15:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image is all rights reserved on Flickr. -Nard 00:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, N. Why are you asking for Flickr images whose license have changed to be deleted? Susanlesch (talk) 06:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a bug with the {{Flickr}} template that prevented the license from showing. Your image didn't appear to have any license at all. That's why. -Nard 10:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great, that's fixed. Why is this image still up for deletion then? Thanks. Susanlesch (talk) 03:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 15:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very probable copyright violation as its resolution is so low. Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 21:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, yes it is. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 15:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very probable copyright violation as its resolution is so low. Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 21:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, yes it is. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 15:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Cecil: per Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Margaretha_Geertruida_Zelle_1917.jpg

Deleted by Cecil: per Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Mata-Hari_Paris_1917.jpg

Deleted by Cecil: per Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Matahari_1910.jpg

Unfree. -Nard 00:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Greetings. N. Why are you asking for this image to be deleted but not this one? Susanlesch (talk) 06:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I see. Because I didn't see it? -Nard 10:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Why would you want to delete an image when its Flickr changed? I am not a lawyer so I won't look it up but think the first Creative Commons license stands. Susanlesch (talk) 03:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by ShakataGaNai: Unfree Flickr license

• Undeleted as crop of previously flickrreviewed image on Commons. -Nard the Bard 22:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative work, also not available at Flickr. -Nard 00:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about contacting the uploader rather than tagging for deletion? I am the author and the license is correct. That said, I'm not using this file, and don't care if you delete it. Susanlesch (talk) 06:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative work of magazine, etc. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Promo picture" not PD. -Nard 01:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not own work. -Nard 01:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"SRHGov" is not a very clear reason for PD-Because. Does not appear to meet the requirements of {{PD-Croatia}}. dave pape (talk) 03:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Now the licence is correct. On this foto is first page of old croatian Official Gazette from 1950. The Republic of Croatia is legal succesor of the Socialist Republic of Croatia, and PD licence is OK. --Suradnik13 (talk) 09:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image has an exact duplicate. Óðinn (talk) 04:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where? -mattbuck (Talk) 00:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Nikolai Myaskovsky.jpg Óðinn (talk) 06:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Next time just use {{duplicate|Image:existing image.jpg}}.Forrester [[ hate+love letters ]] 10:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant. This is essentially the same image as Image:Betty Grable in How to Marry a Millionaire trailer 2 cropped.jpg although this is not a duplicated. This is a poor quality image and the face for example is not clearly seen. The other image is much clearer, so it's unlikely this image would be used --Rossrs (talk) 05:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, since this image isn't useful for any Wikimedia project due to it's quality and there is a much better version. Forrester [[ hate+love letters ]] 11:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan bad GIF flag, there is Image:Flag of Brazil.svg OsamaK 08:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete. Guy0307 (talk) 06:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Very bad quality, svg is better format per COM:PS. Forrester [[ hate+love letters ]] 11:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the model is on state-driven website does not provide any hint for a license. Svens Welt (talk) 12:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded it from english wikipedia, that tell us that license is in public domain. If it is not, I cannot add anything else.--Shliahov (talk) 19:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete here and in English Wikipedia. Dubious claim. Even airport site copyrighted. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Forrester [[ hate+love letters ]] 11:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative work, image not available on Flickr. -Nard 00:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I assure the image comes from Flickr and was licensed as indicated. From Commons:Flickr images: Images which are no longer freely available at time of review should be marked as possibly unfree pending a decision on what to do with them on Commons talk:Flickr images. Derivative work of what? feydey ^(talk) 13:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep The copyrighted design on this packaging (the "OB" logo) is so small as to be incidental. This needs to be treated as a utility object and the image of the bottle is thus not copyrighted. See Commons:Image_casebook#Product_packaging TimVickers (talk) 21:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The label is copyrighted, and is the focus of the image, not incidental. Further, we have no proof it was ever licensed freely on Flickr. Superm401 - Talk 00:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. The Label is copyright and is not de minimis. In any event, the licence cannot be verified. MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to [5], this photograph was taken in Paris, so PD-US cannot be applied 62.216.204.16 10:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Anonymous-EU}} may be OK. A.J. (talk) 10:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really anonymous? Forrester [[ hate+love letters ]] 11:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In case of anonymous photos, there's always a possibility that somewhere deep in some archive or library this photo is signed; the question is how much research is required to assume anonymosity. A reliable source saying "anonymous photo" or "author unknown" always helps here. A.J. (talk) 07:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the claim Copyright expired as artist probably died more than 70 years ago. is at least vague. Why shouldn't the photographer have lived another 30 years after taking this shot? (1911+30+70=2011) --Túrelio (talk) 21:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. The cited source simply says "collected from the internet". Therer is no evidence that any research whatsoever has been done to find out who the photographer was, or to demonstrate that the image was published anonymously. MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

La bandera oficial de Cuéllar tiene fondo carmesí, y no morado. Pueden confirmarlo poniéndose en contaco con la Concejalía de Cultura del Ayuntamiento de Cuéllar en www.aytocuellar.es (cultura@aytocuellar.es). Gracias Romerin (talk) 23:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Giggy (talk) 12:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

no evidence of copyright non-renewal 98.210.176.233 06:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

speedy keep - Image hosted on NYPL, which is a public commercial site. See here. If the image were copyrighted, the image would not be hosed on NYPL. miranda 17:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I agree. The conditions page indicates "most of [the material] is in the public domain for copyright purposes" (emphasis mine). Verbiage of "most" is quite distinct from "all". Is there a NYPL page that says otherwise? ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 20:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. No evidence it's free, per Elcobbola. Giggy (talk) 12:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

cropped version of photo nominated for deletion above 98.210.176.233 06:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

speedy keep - Image hosted on NYPL, which is a public commercial site. See here. If the image were copyrighted, the image would not be hosed on NYPL. miranda 17:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment See Commons:Deletion requests/Image:JessieFauset.jpg. Rastered photo, so it clearly had been published, possibly before 1923. I would say  Keep. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted per Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:JessieFauset.jpg, image of which this is derivative. Note also being on NYPL website is not a guarentee of being public domain [6]. "Possibly" published before 1923 is not good enough. If any evidence is presented that it was, or is PD for any other reason, image may be reuploaded with better info. At present, zero proof of PD status. -- Infrogmation (talk) 17:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]