Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2011/02/16
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
Wrong file name Gazzosa (talk) 13:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Exact or scaled-down duplicate: File:American Airlines Flight 1420.jpg -- Common Good (talk) 19:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
duplicate Jetijones (talk) 15:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Exact or scaled-down duplicate: File:AH-1Z Line Drawing.svg -- Common Good (talk) 19:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 17:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Keep Personal photo, in use. Jujutacular talk 19:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)- Keep ... and again another nonsense deletion request by Reinhardhauke. Photo in use. -- smial (talk) 21:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Clearly _not_ out of scope! — YourEyesOnly (talk) 03:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
and other uploads by Lcmarques (talk · contribs). Source: Internet. No evidence of permission. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Delete copyvio, CC license not verifiable for lack of source information. MKFI (talk) 22:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Julo (talk) 09:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
author mission, permission is questionable, file has a watermark in the lower right which cannot be read but which implies copyright 7 (talk) 04:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Source: IMDB.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted DieBuche (talk) 14:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Copyrighted screenshot Rondador (talk) 08:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted DieBuche (talk) 14:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Copyvio Edelseider (talk) 08:24, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- Also concerned are the files:
- File:Carriès, Portrait de Madame Hals ( Musée d'art moderne et contemporain, Strasbourg ).JPG
- File:Carriès, Masque autoportrait ( Musée d'art moderne et contemporain, Strasbourg ).JPG
- File:Ringel d'Illzach, Crédulité.JPG
- File:Ringel d'Illzach, IXeme symphonie (dite Sarah Bernhardt).JPG
- File:Ringel d'Illzach, Jeune prince de la famille Médicis.JPG
- File:Ringel d'Illzach, Masque du poète Maurice Rollinat.JPG
- File:Ringel d'Illzach, Portrait de Sarah Bernhardt en buste.JPG
- File:Ringel d'Illzach, Le singe et le dauphin.JPG
- File:Rodin, Buste de Gustave Mahler.JPG
- File:Ste Madeleine et les Apôtres ( MOND ).jpg
- File:Vierge de Niedermorschwihr.jpg
- File:Bourdelle, Buste de Ludwig van Beethoven ( Musée d'art moderne et contemporain, Strasbourg ).JPG
- File:Medardo Rosso, L'enfant au soleil ( Musée d'art moderne et contemporain de Strasbourg ).JPG
- Delete per nom. Photographs of three dimensional works produce new copyrights. COM:ART#Photograph of an old sculpture found on the Internet, or in a book. Jujutacular talk 21:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. Sculptures are not PD-Art DieBuche (talk) 14:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
No permission and licensing for the pictures shown beyond the window. Yellowcard (talk) 15:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Keep: In such case, deletion is not necessary if background picture was blurred or hidden. I'll plan to do it immediately. --Shoulder-synth (talk) 00:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- Good work by Shoulder-synth, thanks a lot! Now this deletion request just refers to the first version. Yellowcard (talk) 16:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept: First revision deleted DieBuche (talk) 14:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
The Flickr uploader himself admits that this photograph was taken from the Egy.com website. He is thus not entitled to release it under a free license. Egy.com explicitly states that "reproduction of photos from this website [is] strictly forbidden." BomBom (talk) 19:58, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete obvious copyvio, this could have been speedy. --ELEKHHT 02:48, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Common Good (talk) 19:25, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
(1) The file has been uploaded to be used in an article in Thai Wikipedia. (2) The said article has now been deleted for lack of encyclopedia characters or significance. (3) BY THESE REASONS, the file is not used or necessary any further. Aristitleism (talk) 09:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Unused, ambiguous, out of scope Ed (Edgar181) 16:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 16:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- delete for a different reason - this is clearly a spin off a commercial franchise owned by Sony. NVO (talk) 08:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Common Good (talk) 19:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 16:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Common Good (talk) 19:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
A user at en.wp uploaded this image with the summary "unknown, {{PD-self}}". I believe this item was not created by the uploader, based on the fact that the subject was deceased 30 years before it was uploaded, that it is a very up-close picture, and that the uploader put such a questionable summary on during the upload. It may be public domain for other reasons (which I cannot tell for lack of source), but I highly highly doubt the uploader created this image. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete unknown, PD-self doesn't make much sense.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't believe the image is free. The source is just a mirror copy of her Wikipedia article and the author is "unknown". MikeAllen (talk) 01:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:06, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
no FOP for 2d works: Commons:FOP#Canada. The photo and the sculpture depicted must both be {{PD-old}} to be allowed here. Saibo (Δ) 01:58, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- I have no idea what you are talking about. Could you express yourself without using acronyms and wikispeak. Secondarywaltz (talk) 03:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- I believe the problem is the large "The Urban Angel" advertisement visible in the photograph. Such advertisements are copyrighted, and a photograph of it is considered a derivative work requiring permission from the creator of the advertisement. MKFI (talk) 14:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you. If that is the case, then it will have to be removed. To me it was just a picture that captured the character of the hospital. Too bad. Secondarywaltz (talk) 15:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry Secondarywaltz, sometimes I get too used to it. Yes, the large advert photograph is the problem. Your photo is a derivative work of it - currently without permission by the copyright holder of the photo or any proof the it is out of copyright due to age. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 00:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you. If that is the case, then it will have to be removed. To me it was just a picture that captured the character of the hospital. Too bad. Secondarywaltz (talk) 15:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- I believe the problem is the large "The Urban Angel" advertisement visible in the photograph. Such advertisements are copyrighted, and a photograph of it is considered a derivative work requiring permission from the creator of the advertisement. MKFI (talk) 14:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: @Secondarywaltz. It is true we use acronyms and Wikispeak, but Saibo linked both to explanations. We go though more than a thousand images a day and are falling behind -- full explanations with every DR are simply not possible. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:11, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Company logo used in a now deleted advert on Commons and en.wikipedia. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 03:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:11, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Source: Scan from book. When was this published? If it was a scan from a book, there's almost certainly an indentifiable author. Maxwell's Demon first appeared in 1874, so place of publication, time of publication and author are critical. Prosfilaes (talk) 04:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
COM:DW 92.227.158.98 06:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Invalid license. This file is obviously not in Public Domain. -- Sreejith K (talk) 07:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
okay change it to public domain. or tell me how to ? Irvin calicut (talk) 08:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- If you are the photographer or the owner of the this image, replace the current copyright tag (PD-India) by {{PD-self}} to move it to public domain. You can also choose other valid free licenses such as {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}} if you want the image to be attributed to you for every use. See Commons:Licensing for more information. --Sreejith K (talk) 11:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
it has been changed to {{PD-self}} . now i think there will be no problem Irvin calicut (talk) 20:36, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - License in place now. --Sreejith K (talk) 12:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
This file is now inaccurate. The reason: The Essen Hauptbahnhof has been retrofitted with passenger lifts. 84.61.155.241 09:31, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- No replacement on hand, so speedy keep. The scale of the omission does not justify deletion. Even had it been critical to some readers, a simple statement "as of 2006" in wikipedia article would take care of it. NVO (talk) 13:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
The missing passenger lifts in Essen are not the only inaccuracy in this map. Several lines have been changed, stations have been renamed since the last update. Some changes are listed at http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei_Diskussion:VRR-Netz.gif -- 92.205.51.138 21:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept: We regularly keep historical versions of maps and other data such as this. There is no reason to delete it, although it might be renamed with the new name including "as of yyyy". Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
(1) Too bad quality (2) Despite being indicated as the uploader's own work, it seems not having been produced by him/herself (3) True source of the file is concealed/not mentioned. Aristitleism (talk) 10:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Despite being indicated as the uploader's own work, it seems not having been produced by him/herself, but rather scanned from a book (which may be copyrighted). Aristitleism (talk) 10:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
(1) It is not a file produced or owned by the uploader as he/she has declared; (2) It is from a magazine -- a copyright work. Aristitleism (talk) 11:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:33, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
1. Advertisement for an irrelevant product (Image as well as legend). 2. Not clear who made the image and whether this person agrees with licensing. -Dietzel65 (talk) 11:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:33, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
As this is just a model I don't think it is subject of freedom of panorama. We need a permission of the creator of the model (e.g. likely the architect). Yellowcard (talk) 13:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:34, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
This is a photo of a sculpture and a sculpture is obviously not 2D. Therefore we need permission (and licensing for the photo) by photographer. I do not demand any permission for the sculpture itself, but just for the picture. These are two different things which are independent of each onther and here we can't find any information about the photo. Yellowcard (talk) 13:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
No recorded date of death of photographer "Michel Huberty". We cannot simply assume this is in the public domain due to its age as we don't know the author's date of death and it's quite likely to have been less than 70 years ago. Yellowcard (talk) 14:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
(1) Failure to provide copyright status, licence, source; and (2) Apparently, not a fairly-usable media file, but from a website of the tv programme (the file is about contestants in a tv show) Aristitleism (talk) 16:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 16:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep WW2 instruction pamphlets, perfectly in scope. MKFI (talk) 11:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Agreed. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:39, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 16:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Far out of scope: old icon with unknown modern face compilation George Chernilevsky talk 12:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 16:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. George Chernilevsky talk 12:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
unknown persons Reinhardhauke (talk) 16:58, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Not unknown. See description: Monica Rial -- Common Good (talk) 19:18, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
From https://sonichu.com/cwcki/File:CWCMonica.jpg (SITE IS 18+), does not appear to be released under a free license PrincessPandaWiki (talk) 20:50, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:14, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
nicht auf dem neuesten Stand Reinhardhauke (talk) 17:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Taken from http://www.zonadvd.com/modules.php?name=Sections&op=viewarticle&artid=608 Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 17:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. George Chernilevsky talk 12:08, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 17:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: adwertisement only George Chernilevsky talk 12:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
copyvio Reinhardhauke (talk) 17:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
copyvio Reinhardhauke (talk) 17:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Not simple enough for the {{PD-ineligible}} tag. Jujutacular talk 20:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 17:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 17:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: adwertisement only George Chernilevsky talk 12:11, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
unused personal foto Reinhardhauke (talk) 17:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete private photo album, not used -- smial (talk) 23:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. George Chernilevsky talk 12:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 17:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Educational value for en:Gaslamp Quarter, San Diego. Jujutacular talk 19:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Useful illustrative image of in scope topic; I see no reason for deletion. -- Infrogmation (talk) 02:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept: in scope, per discussion George Chernilevsky talk 12:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 17:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 17:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Could potentially be used to illustrate this event - educational value. Jujutacular talk 19:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep documentation of a cultural event, can be useful -- smial (talk) 23:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Comment Is the picture on the screen de minimis enough? If not, better make a cropped version. -- 178.190.194.133 15:40, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 17:18, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 17:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:47, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
unused personal foto Reinhardhauke (talk) 17:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Jujutacular talk 19:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. George Chernilevsky talk 12:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
unused personal foto Reinhardhauke (talk) 17:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete commons is not a private photo album -- smial (talk) 23:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. George Chernilevsky talk 12:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
No good source - no good license (it is "PD" on ms but on Commons that was changed to "FAL"). Not enough info to verify that it is PD. MGA73 (talk) 19:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Unused personal image, out of project scope. Was originally used on the now deleted page w:Querulous Koronios for vandalism Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom. Jujutacular talk 03:11, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. George Chernilevsky talk 12:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
According to the by-law of the room, pictures are forbidden during events. Floflo (talk) 21:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep This reason is not sufficient. Picture does not break an common (or private) law.
Another question is, if the picture has any educational value. The only is documental value. Julo (talk) 09:36, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Permission says: "No external permission unless otherwise granted." Evidently the uploader did not understand the license he was giving at the time he uploaded it, because he uploaded it under contradictory licenses. Therefore the GFDL license under which he uploaded it is not valid. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:50, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
The uploader has indicated in the description that a "Cathy Hammer" is the true owner of the photo, so I had previously added a "missing permission" template in this edit; however, a user disagreed and removed it on the grounds that it was the dogs that belonged to Cathy. But there is a clear watermark at the bottom of the picture that also indicates the photograph itself belongs to Cathy. (If this file is to be kept; might I suggest a more appropriate name such as File:StandardAmericanEskimoDogs.jpg or something?) :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 01:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete unless permission is validated by OTRS. I didn't see the copyright on the picture, sorry. This user, in the past, unwillingly introduced confusion between the owners of the dogs and the photographer (which she always claimed to be). I thought it was the same here. Or maybe it is the same after all: all her other uploads are small-sized (cropped?) pictures with no EXIF... --Eusebius (talk) 07:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm getting a lot of heat on here over nearly all of my photos. It's become seriously out of control. All the photos are mine except one. This latest photo is Cathy Hammer's, a friend of mine, who VERY happily agreed to let me use the photo of her beloved dogs as "the face" of American Eskimos on Wikipedia. Her dogs are the perfect standard of what the American Eskimo should look like and we both thought it'd be awesome for her dog's to be the representatives of the breed. I do not understand why there is any reason to think these photos are illegitimate/infringement. These are personal photos of our dogs; not photos of an NHL player, not a brand, etc. These are my dogs & my friend Cathy's dog. That is all. Perhaps I do not know exactly what is supposed to be done to prove photo ownership. It's getting to be extremely tedious. How is such a simple thing proving to be so complicated?
- Hi. We need to register properly Mrs Hammer's permission in order to host this picture. Please ask her to send a permission in this form to [email protected], and notify here when it is done. And please don't say you are the author when you are not if you don't want other people to look suspiciously at your uploads... Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 12:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
{{OTRS received|2011021110003415}}
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:06, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
- Why, is the ticket invalid? --Eusebius (talk) 13:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
- The OTRS email came from the uploader and not from Cathy Hammer. I told her that we need the photographers permission to which she did not reply. --Sreejith K (talk) 13:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you, Sreejith K, I thought I had read the template correctly -- if I don't see the
, I know that the OTRS permission is not OK. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you, Sreejith K, I thought I had read the template correctly -- if I don't see the
- The OTRS email came from the uploader and not from Cathy Hammer. I told her that we need the photographers permission to which she did not reply. --Sreejith K (talk) 13:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
If author is unknown and there is no information about age how can we know author died more than 70 years ago? Was deleted on enwiki because of invalid fair use rationale. MGA73 (talk) 18:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Reopened discussion. The following is from my talk page
- "Hey Jim, we meet again :) This time on a different matter.
As I screened the recent changes in WP:HE, I incidentally noticed this file was deleted. Realizing there were quite a few pages using the photo (about 30...), I went and conducted a little research, and here are the results: the photo was apparently taken in 1912 in Jerusalem (which back then was under the rule of the Ottoman Empire) by Shlomo Narinsky (Israeli; d. 1960) and published in 1918. It is therefore in all probability in the public domain.
Could you please restore the file? And while at it, change its name into a proper English one, including, say, "Jerusalem, 1910s"? Once you do that, I would upload the better version.
Last, is there a possiblity to automatically reinstate the file wherever CommonsDelinker has removed it, or does it have to be done manually in every page..?
P.S. Haimlevy stated here that the picture was taken by an Israeli (or back then, Mandatory Palestinian) photographer in Israel (back then, Mandatory Palestine) in the early 1940s. Thus, in accordance with Israeli law (which regarding photos taken up to May 24, 2008 agrees with the former British one), the picture should be in the public domain. Aviados (talk) 22:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)"
- "Hey Jim, we meet again :) This time on a different matter.
per that research, it may be PD, therefore I have restored it for further discussion.
I don't follow the reasoning that Aviados gives us above, but, if it was taken in 1912 (under the Ottoman Empire) and first published in 1918 (also under the Empire -- ?? is that correct?? ) then {{PD-Ottoman}} applies and as I read that, the file is PD everywhere. Therefore this is closed as a keep.
. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Procedural nomination: was marked for deletion on English Wikipedia: w:Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2011 February 16#File:Munster Panzermuseum Mercedes Benz G-Modell UN.jpg. The reason provided:
- "I am the original uploader of this file. I did not get the permission of the museum this item is displayed at, prior to publishing. This is required. 88.71.93.80 (talk) 00:18, 16 February 2011 (UTC)"
I am neutral as to this reasoning, other than to note that many museums do require you to get permission when inside, and have a stipulation on the ticket stub which says "any photograph you take inside is considered property of the museum" (sports venues do much of the same thing, but sports outlets don't really worry about low-level photographers, whereas museums do) Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Neutral It is user request, and it doesn't seem to be in use. But at the same time, in the US, and I know some other places, no such ticket stub could take copyright; copyright can only be transferred by an explicit agreement in writing. We've generally argued that such contracts are irrelevant to us.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- I'm fairly sure it is in writing. I know when I purchased my ticket to a game the other week, it said on the back, "by using this ticket to enter our premises you agree to... yada yada yada". Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- A transfer of copyright ownership, other than by operation of law, is not valid unless an instrument of conveyance, or a note or memorandum of the transfer, is in writing and signed by the owner of the rights conveyed or such owner's duly authorized agent. US law, Title 17, § 204. With a signature, that means nothing copyright-wise, at least in the US.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- Well we're not talking about the US here. But with that said, I'd like to point you to the fifth paragraph here: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-02-14/Accreditation. Perhaps they would lose in a legal court, but in terms of civil damages, the photographer has broken an agreement and can be held financially liable (which, in terms of copyright, is not our problem, although it would be nice if we deleted the image). Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- This ist exactly the reason why I put this image up for deletion. It would indeed be nice.--Bushman (talk) 01:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- I'm fairly sure it is in writing. I know when I purchased my ticket to a game the other week, it said on the back, "by using this ticket to enter our premises you agree to... yada yada yada". Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Our explicit policy is to ignore such restrictions. This is a very nice photograph. I suggest that we keep it, and reconsider the issue when and if the museum complains -- which I think will be very unlikely. I don't feel strongly about it, though. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jcb (talk) 19:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
author 114.32.101.186 16.19, 3 February 2011
- Background: The file was uploaded in 2009 by Victoria39 as File:Mehring, from where it was moved a couple of weeks after being uploaded. Nearly two years later, 114.32.101.186 made an incomplete deletion nomination by adding four {{Delete}} templates with the only reason provided being "G10," "author," "ad," and "G10" while blanking out most of the file description. Foroa reverted it, and 114.32.101.186 did it again (with just a single {{Delete}} template with no other reason than "author." I fixed the broken deletion nomination and will add it to the log.
- Victoria39's other contributions apart from one instance of vandalism to File:Icon no license.svg, blanking the {{Information}} template from File:MehRing Tsai.jpg and creating File:Mehring.jpg and User:Victoria39 with no content other than {{Delete}} templates pointing to this discussion was File:MehRingTsai.jpg (which was deleted as a duplicate of File:MehRing Tsai.jpg). See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:ChiaLongTsai.jpg. —LX (talk, contribs) 07:24, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- I would say delete, out of scope, but it's actually in use. Why not keep it? Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept: per Jim Jcb (talk) 21:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Private photo, no description so no educatial value. This image is used on a personal gallery from a not-active user among many other images. Even if this phot is used COM:SCOPE says: Such private image collections do not become educational even if displayed as a gallery on a user page on Commons or elsewhere. Avron (talk) 20:31, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- Neutral Changed my mind. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:01, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep In use, and that says it all. Beta M (talk) 06:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
architecturial work of ru:Быкова, Надежда Александровна, who died in 1997. There is no FOP in Russia ([1]), and Russian law is applied retroactively to Soviet works ([2]). Should be in category "Undelete in 2068/72". --~ Fernrohr (talk) 09:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
There is nothing protectable on this image. No sculptures, no reliefs, no special forms etc. The multi vandal Fernrohr who is already infinitely blocked on de.WP seems to hound every of my new uploads. It's time to finish that circus. A.S. 09:58, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- Sure, you blocked me there. After I nominated your picture (Malchik) for deletion, which was already deleted on Commons... But we discuss another topic here. The architect of the VDNKh station has rights to her intellectual property. --Fernrohr (talk) 10:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- A superb confession. "You blocked me there..." (for interested reader: sock puppet player Fernrohr...) I wonder now, how many of my uploads will be deleted as punishment if I'll block you also here (that would have now a good reason as e.g. "Single purpose account" or similar, a productive work is not really to expect, especially after that promise to go). And you do not need to explain me that a subway station always has an architect. That one has also one who is not dead for 70 years, but it seems not to be enough. A.S. 11:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- "The architect of the VDNKh station has rights to her intellectual property" - which one of six persons listed as its creators, alive or dead, deserves this honour? Sir Norman Foster, perhaps? At any rate, how did you arrive at your cryptic "2068 / 2072" math for six creators, four of them absolutely non-public persons ? ... NVO (talk) 11:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jcb (talk) 21:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
No FOP in Russia. Violation of rights of many creators. The station built by the project of four architects: И. Г. Таранов, Н. А. Быкова, Ю. А. Черепанов, И. Г. Гохарай-Хармандарян.-- PereslavlFoto (talk) 20:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, the architects have rights as authors but the photograph doesn't violate their rights at all.--MrPanyGoff 07:06, 20 April 2011 (UTC) I oppose the deletion.--MrPanyGoff 07:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
- No freedom of panorama in Russia. The photographer must prove he has an approval from architects. Now the photo cannot be free in Creative Commons terms.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 07:21, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
- This is an underground station, its interior design is protected by Civil Code of Russian Federation, articles 1259 and 1276. The law says, "works of science, literature and art are recognized as objects of authors' rights regardless of merit and purpose... works of architecture, urban planning, garden landscaping art". That's why even the most simple and the most usual underground station is fully covered by copyright, and that is why this photo cannot be licensed under a free license.-PereslavlFoto (talk) 11:21, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - FOP is not an issue where the Threshold of originality is not met. Jcb (talk) 16:26, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- Russian Civil Code does not state any threshold of originality. The photographer cannot set free license for this photo.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 16:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- Where the threshold of originality is not met, we have the official practice to ignore any further law, civil code or whatever. Jcb (talk) 16:52, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- Could you please give a link of such official denying of Civil Code of Russian Federation for Russian photographers? The idea is that the photographer as a citizen has no right to use free licenses for such a photo.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 16:55, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- I checked the official policy Commons:Licensing and see the situation: "Country-specific laws... Generally, the policy applied on Commons is to only allow images that can be used in all (or at least most) countries. ... use the most restrictive combination of laws to determine whether something is copyrighted or not." The official policy makes us to use Civil Code limits.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 17:13, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete: clearly meets the threshold of originality. If you told the designer that he put no creative thought into that design, he would probably hurt you. Buddy431 (talk) 03:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete: Agree with Buddy431 (except for the violence – tsk, tsk ;-) ). I don't think it can be argued that any architectural work fails to meet the threshold of originality, unless it is nothing more than a cube or some other ordinary geometrical solid. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 07:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete: Seem sufficiently creative enough to meet the threshold in my opinion. Kaldari (talk) 21:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep No threshold of originality. --Paramecium 15:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Agreement that it meets the threshold. No FOP in Russia. – Adrignola talk 17:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Assumption that the file was created before 1900 is not enough proof to keep the file with pd-old. Yellowcard (talk) 13:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep, change license to {{Anonymous-EU}}. MKFI (talk) 20:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jcb (talk) 21:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
unlikely from uploader, as very similar to and from same setting and same size as http://dwsofto.ru/porno/5525-ovoshhnoj-salat-v-zhope.html. --Túrelio (talk) 14:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: (not by me) Jcb (talk) 19:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
As per the source August 2004 is the publication date (Exact image is not available), Time has not yet arrived to declare this image in PD ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 14:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Very similar images available here (from 1937 and 1925). I just don't understand how Captain decided this image is of 2004. --Praveen:talk 02:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Its entirely different image on the link provided by User:Praveenp...and this was the original source provided by uploader..--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 07:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 21:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Original up-loader is not having a history, integrity of the image need to be confirmed as his own work... ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 14:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- The uploader had only one contribution [3]. Do you have a reason to doubt his assertion? Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- Many derivated files are listed on the result of this search...Google.. ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 10:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: we need some indication that this is own work Jcb (talk) 22:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Single upload by the user, doubt that is his own drawing (In low quality web resolution..) ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 15:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: taken from here Jcb (talk) 22:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
non-free logo SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- See http://resources.cisv.org/logo.sets/guidelines/brand_guidelines_lr.pdf for source.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- I've copied it over to en with a NFUR, crediting the original uploader. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: though this might be borderline, close to PD-textlogo Jcb (talk) 22:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 17:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 22:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
They don't use this tenue anymore Olivier Bommel (talk) 18:33, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept: invalid deletion reason Jcb (talk) 22:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Incorrect Lotje ʘ‿ʘ (talk) 14:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept. I would have deleted this if I had closed the first DR, but I do not believe we should be reopening DRs on images that are not copyvios and for which there is no practical reason to delete. Admins delete one thousand images a day. Eight of us do half of that. I object to wasting time by arguing at length about minor issues like this one. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:27, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
They don't use this tenue anymore Olivier Bommel (talk) 18:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept: invalid deletion reason Jcb (talk) 22:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Incorrect Lotje ʘ‿ʘ (talk) 14:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- Comment please give more details, admins have enough to do -- πϵρήλιο(℗) 16:37, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept. I would have deleted this if I had closed the first DR, but I do not believe we should be reopening DRs on images that are not copyvios and for which there is no practical reason to delete. Admins delete one thousand images a day. Eight of us do half of that. I object to wasting time by arguing at length about minor issues like this one. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:28, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
CharolaisBrionnais (talk) 14:37, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
ne doit pas être utilisée CharolaisBrionnais (talk) 14:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No permission DieBuche (talk) 14:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Uploader (MTPICHON) makes the same two copyright claims:
1. {{PD-self}}. This doesn’t apply since the he didn't take any of these photo or make any of the drawing.
2. "usa : publié avant le 01/03/1989 sans copyright" (usa : published without copyright notice prior to 01/03/1989). The uploader dose not prove this. "Benefit of the doubt" cannot be applied since uploader doesn’t supply publishing information for any of his images, which is required when making this claim. Where and when was this image Pubished before 1989?
Addationally MTPICHON has a history of dubious copyright claims.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 22:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. I agree with nominator. It seems like we should err on the side of caution and not give the benefit of the doubt to a claim of having been published without copyright, especially when no further publication details are provided. Good Olfactory (talk) 20:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:37, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Old versions of fossil restoration (Belemnotheutis)
edit- File:Belemnotheutis 2.jpg
- File:Belemnotheutis 3d reconstruction.jpg
- File:Belemnotheutis.png
- File:Belemnotheutis scene.jpg
These are all my work and are old versions of the most recent version of the restoration currently used by an en.wiki article w:Belemnotheutis. They are based on 19th century textual descriptions by w:Gideon Mantell and are inaccurate and factually outdated. To avoid confusion as to which restoration is correct, they should be deleted.--Obsidi♠nSoul 17:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept. - invalid deletion reason, please use image description pages for this story - Jcb (talk) 22:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- File:Sviatoslav_statue_at_Belgorod.jpg - by Vyacheslav Klykov
- File:KubKaz.JPG - erected 2005
- File:Rostov_Obl_Adm.JPG - erected 1972
- File:Tatischev_monument,_Tolyatti,_Russia.JPG - erected 1998
- File:Mikh_yar_3.jpg - erected 2008
- File:Geser.JPG - erected 2006
- File:Salavat_memorial.JPG - erected 1967
- File:MemorialToJuriDolgoruky.jpeg - erected 1954
- File:Kutuzov_moscow.jpg - erected 1973
- File:Russia-Moscow-Georgy_Zhukov_Monument.jpg - erected 1995
- File:Bagration.jpg - erected 1999
- File:Poklonka_tsereteli.jpg - erected 1990s
- File:Saint_George_and_the_Dragon,_Moscow.jpg - erected 1995
- File:Saint_George_statue_Ossetia.JPG - erected 1995 (Sculptor Nikolai Khodov (Николай Ходов) (Per [4], [5], thanks to User:Lupin for clarification)
- File:Monument_of_Vasily_Chapaev.JPG - erected 1960
- File:Dmitrov_Boris&Gleb.JPG - erected 2006
- File:Donskoy_Kolomna.JPG - erected 2007 Aleksandr Rukavishnikov (b. 1950) and architect S. Sharov) (Per [6], [7], thanks to User:Lupin for clarification)
Here I am nominating multiple statues, as they are all derivative works of non-public domain material. As there is no FOP in Russia, we must consider these works to be the copyright of the sculptor. I nominated all these separately before, but for convenience sake, and at the request of an editor, I'm combining them. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:26, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
To all of the following deletion requests by user:Magog the Ogre: IMO, this Magog is some sort of wikitroll. If we follow completely that criteria of deletion which Magog offered, we should almost completely delete content of such categories as Category:Monuments_and_memorials_in_Moscow, Category:Statues in Moscow, Category:Monuments and memorials in Russia, Category:Statues in Russia and lots of others. Because most of the photos of monuments and statues in Russia meet that criteria. None of the administrators raised a claim to these photos for years, but suddenly some man intended to clear Wiki from illustrations.
Would we dare to start this deletion? Скампецкий (talk) 11:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- No; because any work created by an author who's been dead for 70 years can go into those categories. I'm sorry; I don't see how calling me a troll is in any way, shape, or form addressing the copyright issue. We don't just host images on commons because we like them; we host them because they're veritably free. I don't like the rules either, but I follow them; I suggest you write a letter to Mr. Putin expressing your displeasure as a voter if you'd like to see a change (no, really, I actually suggest you write that letter! Enough of us with a voice can make a difference). Magog the Ogre (talk) 12:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- According to the Overview of the judicial practice of the Supreme Court of Russia for the 1st quarter of 2008[ru],
- "A photographic work created with using architectural and sculptural works stationed in parks, streets and other places accessible to the general public shall constitute a separate object of copyright."
- Original text (ru): Фотографическое изображение, созданное с использованием произведений архитектуры и скульптуры, расположенных в парках, на улицах и других местах, доступных для неопределенного круга лиц, является самостоятельным объектом авторского права.
See COM:FOP#Russia which appears to address that. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Comment Its in use on some Wikipedias that have FOP. Transfer it to them first. -- 178.190.194.133 15:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- The item COM:FOP#Russia is under discussion as currently there is no certain law against FOP in Russia. This question was raised in WikiCommon community some time ago and people decided to postpone it till new russion law on copyright enter in force. User Magog the Ogre is seems to be in a hurry. --Vissarion (talk) 07:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
- FOP is an exception to the copyright law. It's quite strange to assume that an exception exists by default if there is no law against that exception. Jcb (talk) 15:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep due to this decision. Скампецкий (talk) 09:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
- The item COM:FOP#Russia is under discussion as currently there is no certain law against FOP in Russia. This question was raised in WikiCommon community some time ago and people decided to postpone it till new russion law on copyright enter in force. User Magog the Ogre is seems to be in a hurry. --Vissarion (talk) 07:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: - except one, for being DM, subject of File:Rostov_Obl_Adm.JPG seems to be the building - Jcb (talk) 15:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Derivated work of a copyrighted photograph where original copyright may still exist.. ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 14:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- Incomprehensible DR. What is this supposed to be a DW of? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:33, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
- This picture is a scan or photograph of a copyrighted image as the resolution and quality is low and it clearly indicates that, Source is not available.....Captain......Tälk tö me.. 04:24, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- Uploader says that this is his own photo of a painting in a specific temple. I see no reason to doubt that. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- Uploader is not the painter, uploader photographed the painting in one temple...Web link.....Captain......Tälk tö me.. 09:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- The temple is old, the painting is not recent. (First you had written that this was a deriviative of a photo...) /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:28, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oh..!! please read it as painting...it was a mistake......Captain......Tälk tö me.. 04:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- The temple is old, the painting is not recent. (First you had written that this was a deriviative of a photo...) /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:28, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- Uploader is not the painter, uploader photographed the painting in one temple...Web link.....Captain......Tälk tö me.. 09:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- Uploader says that this is his own photo of a painting in a specific temple. I see no reason to doubt that. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- This picture is a scan or photograph of a copyrighted image as the resolution and quality is low and it clearly indicates that, Source is not available.....Captain......Tälk tö me.. 04:24, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
I had clearly stated that this is a Photograph by self of a painting in Vajreswari temple, Kangra, India. Taken with a 35 mm film camera. Print was scanned and converted to jpg image. The painting is more than 100 years old. Sankarrukku (talk) 05:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- Now the story came into picture, No valid source available that this image is free from copyright protection, No substantial evidences available to prove its 100 or 1000 years old...may be its a recent painting and the author didn't release to PD......Captain......Tälk tö me.. 07:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - per Sankarrukku's estimate of the age of the painting. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - Please prove the age with published documents......Captain......Tälk tö me.. 08:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Please see this. I have asked for help.
Sankarrukku (talk) 15:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: It is difficult to tell from this photograph that it is a painting on the door of a temple. Do you have other photographs showing the temple itself and the door on which the painting appears? If so, can you upload them to Flickr and let us know what the links are so editors can have a look at them? — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 17:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- This is not a painting on the door of a temple. I never said that. This is one of the paintings hanging inside the temple. Sankarrukku (talk) 01:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- For these kind of unsourced works, a valid source need to show that the original painter is not recent and if recent this painting is released to PD...for reference please see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Guruvayurappan-1.jpg ......Captain......Tälk tö me.. 06:18, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- Is there any evidence that the painting is not a recent one that happens to have been hung inside an old temple? If the painting was created by a living artist, it will be copyrighted and the artist's permission will be required before a photograph of the painting can be uploaded to the Commons. Instead of using this photograph, can't an ancient statue or carving be used to illustrate the deity in question? — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 06:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- For these kind of unsourced works, a valid source need to show that the original painter is not recent and if recent this painting is released to PD...for reference please see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Guruvayurappan-1.jpg ......Captain......Tälk tö me.. 06:18, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- This is not a painting on the door of a temple. I never said that. This is one of the paintings hanging inside the temple. Sankarrukku (talk) 01:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep no reason to doubt the creator--Praveen:talk 07:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Many temples in India are centuries old. Most of the sculptures and paintings in them are also similarly old. The temple in question was built in 1739. The painting might have been made any time between that date and the day the photograph was taken. But the thing is that normally, these are made by unknown painters with not even a signature to be found on them. In such cases, it is very difficult to get any sort of dating for these paintings. So rather than proving that certain paintings are old, it makes more sense for the benefit of doubt to go to the uploader: You can assume that the painting is old unless otherwise shown. Hence, unless the temple is a new one or the painting provably new, I would suggest that such photographs be retained. -- Razimantv (talk) 07:58, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- Commons cannot keep such images in question, provide a valid source that this image is released to PD by the author or the painting is centuries old, google books can throw some light if the temples painting is listed on that......Captain......Tälk tö me.. 09:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
I am sorry. I checked up with my family. This is a wall painting. This is one of three paintings of Maha Kali , Maha Lakshmi and Maha Saraswathi. The photograph was taken in 1990. Copies of these paintings adorn many temples in that area. Photographs of these painting are available for sale in shops in Kangra. There are tourist guide books and books on Tantra which have published these images. I may be able to locate one or two in the local bookshop. But like most of the Indian publications they would not have an ISBN number or LOC reference.Sankarrukku (talk) 09:49, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
This painting has no artistic value. It is a common pedestrian painting. The Deity is not one of the common Hindu deities. It assumes importance only for those who are interested in Esoteric Deities. Web sites dealing with Indian Art would not even touch it with a barge pole. Again the deity does not have any uncommon or horrendous feature which some people like. The commercial value of this painting is Zilch. I wonder whether the shops are still selling copies of this painting. Not many people were buying it even 20 years back. Sankarrukku (talk) 11:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
I was talking about this painting not being an artistic work. That is because it is not listed by any Art Historians. In the land of Kangra painting who will even take a look at an obscure work of no artistic merit? Sankarrukku (talk) 12:55, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete: artistic merit is irrelevant when it comes to copyrightability. It is not the law in India or elsewhere that an artistic work has to be of a certain minimum quality or commercial value to attract copyright. So unfortunately that is not a relevant point. At the end of the day, I am troubled by the lack of evidence that the painting, which you have clarified is on the wall of the temple, is indeed as old as the temple, or at least old enough for the copyright in it to have lapsed. If we don't have evidence of when the painting was applied to the wall, then in line with the precautionary principle I think we have to assume the painting is still under copyright and so not suitable for the Commons. I will have to vote for the deletion of the image. Again, surely there must be carvings, statues and paintings that are clearly in the public domain that can be used. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 13:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- True, but if contributors that are familiar with local religious art say that the painting is old and that it has been there since forever, I would accept their judgement. I would have more doubts about these. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:58, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- The way I understand it, the precautionary principle does not need to be applied here. The thing with not-so-famous paintings in most temples in India is that, as I mentioned above, the painter and the time of work are not known. And no one is going to record the existence of an already existing painting unless there is a special reason to do the same. Consider the scenario in which the image is deleted right now and uploaded 100 years later on commons. Even then, perhaps nobody would have any written record that the painting was so old and editors would have to look for old photos of the same painting to prove that it is 100 years old. If the nominee - or anyone else - can suggest one reason why he thinks that this might be a new painting (other than the claim that it need not be an old painting even thought it looks old), I would support deleting the image. Otherwise I suggest that we need not be paranoid about this -- Razimantv (talk) 14:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- Unfortunately there is no carving, statue or painting in the public domain which could be used as a replacement for this photograph. This painting is unique. This is an esoteric Deity not known to many Hindus leave alone the Non-Hindus.Sankarrukku (talk) 17:39, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- You mentioned that there may be some books about this painting. Have you been able to locate one which states that this painting is unique, and indicates when the painting was created? — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 07:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- I said there are tourist guide books and books on Tantra which have published these images. But there would be no source or acknowledgement. Sankarrukku (talk) 09:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- You mentioned that there may be some books about this painting. Have you been able to locate one which states that this painting is unique, and indicates when the painting was created? — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 07:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: unfortunately, freedom of panorama in India, like in the UK, does not extend to two-dimensional works such as paintings on walls. See "Commons:Freedom of panorama#India". — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 07:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment You are right. I missed the sub clause iii part while reading ... The above quote uses the following: (c) "artistic work" means-
(i) a painting, a sculpture, a drawing (including a diagram, map, chart or plan), an engraving or a photograph, whether or not any such work possesses artistic quality;
(ii) work of architecture; and
(iii) any other work of artistic craftsmanship;--Redtigerxyz (talk) 15:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Comment Since this is a painting on a Temple wall, obviously the copyright owner is the temple. So if someone can get an OTRS email from someone responsible of the Temple trust, we can keep the image here. If none of them have an email address, someone can get the OTRS email printed and get their signature on it and then email the scanned form to OTRS.
But this painting looks more like a deriviative work than an original painting of a Hindu god. In that case, like all Hindu god pictures, the originals will be undated and author will be unknown. {{PD-ineligible}} should be the right license tag on this picture, but anyone can raise a DR again with the same reasons as this one. So to keep such images in Commons, either Indian government or Commons needs to have a policy addressing all pictures for which original authorship is unknown, or at the least about paintings of God which is widely available. Until then, we can either assume good faith and keep this image or start a new mass DR for all the images in the category Hindu deities --Sreejith K (talk) 08:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: I sympathize with the difficulty of obtaining reliable third-party evidence showing the age of such works, but the general position at the Commons is that the uploader bears the burden of showing that the file is in the public domain or licensed under a free licence. If we are to now reverse this burden for such works, this is a big change that needs to be discussed at a wider forum such as "Commons talk:Licensing" or "Commons:Village pump". The suggestion has significant implications, because there will no doubt be other users who will also claim that the new policy applies to them because of the difficulty of obtaining evidence. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 16:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
I had initiated a discussion here. Commons_talk:Licensing#Deletion_requests.2FFile:Mahasaraswati.jpg_.28section.29 as this issue affects almost all images in the category Hindu deities. There have been similar discussions before.
Unfortunately you can not find a replacement for this image which is used for explaining the iconography of Mahasaraswathi. The Wikipedia articles will be poorer if this image is deleted. Sankarrukku (talk) 17:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
I was talking about this not being an artistic work to explain the reasons why this work has not come to the notice of art historians. I am sure there are frescoes in some obscure churches even in Rome which have not been documented because they are not noteworthy. Sankarrukku (talk) 17:58, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- Use of this image will fall under fair use, and its not allowed in commons, why don't you transfer this image from commons to local wiki under fair use claim..???? ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 07:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Someone please delete this image im sure this is copy righted and the painting has NO historic signification especially the style it has been painted is very amateur and childish. Someone needs to look in to this soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.157.191 (talk • contribs) 02:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
In Indian law The public temple is a Public Trust. The installed idol itself is held to be the temple’s legal owner, and the beneficiaries—those to whom the endowment is dedicated --—are the general public. Does this not make the wall painting public domain? Sankarrukku (talk) 12:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
It just dose not fit in with the article and its just very awfully painted and dose not represent traditional Indian artwork in any form. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pebble101 (talk • contribs) 22:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: I'm afraid that is not a sufficient reason for supporting the deletion of the image. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 14:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: - per various comments above, will be old enough. A temple is not a museum, exhibiting art of random painters - Jcb (talk) 23:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: I have to say that I disagree with this decision, but I will leave it to someone else to renominate the image for deletion if they think fit. We are being asked to assume the age of the painting because from the above comments I see only bare assertions that it is very old and thus in the public domain. This is introducing a new standard that arguably has no community consensus which could have wide implications for other artworks. Also, nobody suggested that the temple was "exhibiting art of random painters". On the other hand, it is entirely possible that the work in question is a recent painting on the wall of the temple rather than an old one, and thus one which is subject to copyright. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 08:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
'KEPT' was not based upon a clear view on the copyright violation observed on this image, Temple paintings are not excluded from copyright... ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 09:00, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep decision is based on the discussion above, You are just trying hard to delete this image :( --Praveen:talk 03:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- Discussion didn't concluded that temple paintings are excluded from copyright!!!.. "You" are just trying to keep the copyrighted image on commons.....Captain......Tälk tö me.. 05:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- Can you show any single evidence, showing that any of these kind of images [most of them are already deleted :( ] are copyrighted. I am sorry, but I feel you are disrupting contibuters--Praveen:talk 11:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: the onus is on an uploader to show that a file that has been uploaded is in the public domain or licensed to the Commons under an acceptable licence, not for other editors to prove that it is copyrighted. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 11:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- This discussion relates to Temple wall paintings in India. In India it is not possible to prove the age of most of the temples because there are no records. Archeologists estimate the age of the temple. But then all the temples are not studied by Archeologists. The temples in India have no records of the past. Even extermely valuable Jewellery are not properly recorded leading to accusations of theft as it happened recently in the well known temple of Thirupathi. No temple has any record of the sculptures and wall paintings (Murals). The sculptures and paintings rarely if ever have a signature. Most of them are anonymous. You are told that the painting is very old. No one remembers the painting being executed. So it is not possible to produce any proof of the age of the temple or painting.Sankarrukku (talk) 12:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- Under Indian Copyright Act 1957: Certain acts not to be infringement of copyright:...(t) "the making or publishing of a painting, drawing, engraving or photograph of a sculpture, or other artistic work failing under sub-clause (iii) of clause (c) of section 2, if such work is permanently situate in a public place or any premises to which the public has access [like a temple];
- This discussion relates to Temple wall paintings in India. In India it is not possible to prove the age of most of the temples because there are no records. Archeologists estimate the age of the temple. But then all the temples are not studied by Archeologists. The temples in India have no records of the past. Even extermely valuable Jewellery are not properly recorded leading to accusations of theft as it happened recently in the well known temple of Thirupathi. No temple has any record of the sculptures and wall paintings (Murals). The sculptures and paintings rarely if ever have a signature. Most of them are anonymous. You are told that the painting is very old. No one remembers the painting being executed. So it is not possible to produce any proof of the age of the temple or painting.Sankarrukku (talk) 12:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Clause c of Indian Copyright Act 1957 (c) "artistic work" means- (i) a painting, a sculpture, a drawing (including a diagram, map, chart or plan), an engraving or a photograph, whether or not any such work possesses artistic quality; (ii) work of architecture; and (iii) any other work of artistic craftsmanship;
The Wall painting would come under clause (iii) viz. any other work of aristic craftsmanship. In Indian law, the installed idol itself is held to be the temple’s legal owner, and the beneficiaries—those to whom the endowment is dedicated --—are the general public. This is a court ruling. The Indian Cpoyright Act 1957 follows this ruling.-Sankarrukku (talk) 12:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete: A summary of my views on the matter, which have not changed:
- I sympathize with the difficulties of proving that paintings, sculptures or other works of art in Indian temples are old enough to be in the public domain. But you are essentially asking the Commons community to depart from the well established guideline that the uploader of a file must produce adequate evidence to show that the artwork is in the public domain or freely licensed. I think such a major change requires consensus. The matter has been raised at "Commons talk:Licensing#Deletion requests/File:Mahasaraswati.jpg (section)", but unfortunately not enough editors have taken part in the discussion to show that there is any new consensus on the matter.
- Unfortunately, freedom of panorama in India does not apply to two-dimensional artworks such as paintings on walls. Section 52(1)(t) of the Indian Copyright Act 1957 states that "The following acts shall not constitute an infringement of copyright, namely: ... the making or publishing of a painting, drawing, engraving or photograph of a sculpture, or other artistic work failing under sub-clause (iii) of clause (c) of section 2, if such work is permanently situate in a public place or any premises to which the public has access". Section 2(c) states:
- "artistic work" means-
- (i) a painting, a sculpture, a drawing (including a diagram, map, chart or plan), an engraving or a photograph, whether or not any such work possesses artistic quality;
- (ii) work of architecture; and
- (iii) any other work of artistic craftsmanship ...
- In other words, freedom of panorama in India applies to publicly situated sculptures and works of artistic craftsmanship other than paintings, drawings, engravings or photographs.
- It is indeed interesting that there is a court case stating that an idol of a deity installed in a temple is the legal owner of the temple, and that the beneficiaries of the temple are members of the public. But are there any court cases establishing that the copyrights in works of art such as sculptures installed in temples and paintings on walls of temples become owned by the idol? Section 2(d)(iii) of the Copyright Act defines the author of an artistic work other than a photograph as the artist, and section 17 states: "Subject to the provisions of this Act, the author of a work shall be the first owner of the copyright therein." There does not seem to be anything in the Act stating that artistic works in temples are not owned by the artists who created them, or that the general rules of copyright law do not apply to such artistic works.
- — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 12:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- In other words, freedom of panorama in India applies to publicly situated sculptures and works of artistic craftsmanship other than paintings, drawings, engravings or photographs.How did you come that conclusion? Any court ruling? When the temple is owned by the idol, it follows that all that is contained in the temple including sculptures, paintings and other artistic work belongs to the temple. This court ruling as everyone knows applied to Jewelery of the idol. When it is applicable to movable things like jewelery, it definitely applies to immovable things like wall paintings. There are no cases I could locate where anyone has claimed copyright over an artistic work situated inside a temple. No one is crazy enough to do that. This clearly shows how the act is interpreted.--Sankarrukku (talk) 13:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- The Indian Copyright Act is similar to the copyright laws of many Commonwealth countries, including the UK. Section 2(c)(iii) defines artistic work to mean "any other work of artistic craftsmanship", which means that a work of artistic craftsmanship does not include paintings, drawings, engravings and photographs which are mentioned in section 2(c)(i). This is clearly summarized at "Commons:Freedom of panorama#India": "Note that this does not include copies of paintings, drawings, or photographs, as they do not fall under the referenced sub-clause (iii). They fall under sub-clause (i)." I am not aware of any specific Indian case affirming this point, but it is clear from a plain reading of the relevant provisions.
- I do not think it is safe to conclude that since there are currently no cases concerning the ownership of copyrights by idols in temples, it must be that such copyrights are held by the idols for the benefit of the public. This is reasoning from silence. Given the clear wording of the Copyright Act and our precautionary principle, we have to assume in the absence of better evidence that such works may be subject to copyright. And I don't think it is "crazy" that a claim of this nature may be made in the future and may succeed. Obviously, since there is actually a court case about the property rights of idols, it means that such legal issues are brought to court from time to time. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 13:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- In other words, freedom of panorama in India applies to publicly situated sculptures and works of artistic craftsmanship other than paintings, drawings, engravings or photographs.How did you come that conclusion? Any court ruling? When the temple is owned by the idol, it follows that all that is contained in the temple including sculptures, paintings and other artistic work belongs to the temple. This court ruling as everyone knows applied to Jewelery of the idol. When it is applicable to movable things like jewelery, it definitely applies to immovable things like wall paintings. There are no cases I could locate where anyone has claimed copyright over an artistic work situated inside a temple. No one is crazy enough to do that. This clearly shows how the act is interpreted.--Sankarrukku (talk) 13:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- The court ruling was made when the ownership of a public temple was disputed. Not the property rights of the Idol. Now it is an accepted fact. The precautionary principle is that where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file it should be deleted. Significant doubt has not been proved in this case.--Sankarrukku (talk) 13:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- Jacklee, I know it is not the responsibility of other editors. But I am sure Captainofhope knows all these images are in PD or atleast in PD-India, and I believe he is intentionally trying to delete all these images because it is not easy to prove age because no physical or digital records are available--Praveen:talk 14:43, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: I don't think remarks of this sort are helpful. We should stick to the facts and to Commons policies, and not question the alleged motives of editors. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 15:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- Its common that a nominated user get the blame for the cause, @Praveen please be reminded that this page should treat accordingly to stick with the policies of commons rather than giving a doubt eye for the nomination (If its not vandalism) Its 100% up-loader's job to prove the copyright status to commons, Up-loader failed to do so and this picture stands in fair use. If @Praveen want to keep all these images in commons it is recommend to create a consensus at new policy formation or in the village pump...Temples can be old but these pictures age is not so old (Looking at the color and style) and need to believe that this is a recent painting and creator didn't released into PD...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 16:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. No one has produced adequate evidence to demonstrate that this work is in the public domain. At the very least we would either need the year it was first published or the death year of its author, or reasonable upper bounds on these based on available evidence (for example, a written account demonstrating it existed in 1890). Until such evidence is produced it must remain deleted. We do "give the uploader the benefit of the doubt" but only in matters where the uploader would actually have first-hand knowledge (such as the fact that they are the person who created the image). In matters such as this, it is instead the precautionary principle that rules. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)