Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2011/07/26
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
_-_WGA13027.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_001.jpeg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_NIDA_2.JPG){kind=link}
_-_WGA13026.jpg){kind=link}
_-_WGA13023.jpg){kind=link}
_-_WGA13028.jpg){kind=link}
_-_WGA13021.jpg){kind=link}
_-_WGA13024.jpg){kind=link}
_-_WGA13022.jpg){kind=link}
_-_WGA13020.jpg){kind=link}
This looks like a scan from a newspaper. Angelfire.com is likely not the primary source for this file. -- Deadstar (msg) 08:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, clear false license. In addition to the above, the image is taken from a website with a clear copyright notice, but tagged with a license claiming it to be the uploader's own work. Infrogmation (talk) 12:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
File:Limbourg_brothers_-_Les_très_riches_heures_du_Duc_de_Berry_-_Octobre_(October)_-_WGA13027.jpg
edit
duplicate / lower quality Mel22 (talk) 09:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: File:Les Très Riches Heures du duc de Berry octobre.jpg is much better quality Jarekt (talk) 19:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
not needed anymore 62.179.123.10 14:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: speedied per "the author of the only substantial content has requested deletion in good faith" Túrelio (talk) 12:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
This picture has to be deleted! It was taken by me during an exhibition and I thought it was legal to load it up here because of the "Freedom of Panorama" rule. But now I see, there is no permanent open access to the place it was shot from, since you have to pay gate money, so the rule is not fit.--Miss-Sophie (talk) 09:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
I included a speedy deletion request now.--Miss-Sophie (talk) 09:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nominator Túrelio (talk) 09:03, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
person of no notability Andrei Romanenko (talk) 10:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Delete per nom; orphan personal photo of an unidentified person, only description "it is cool". Infrogmation (talk) 12:42, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 03:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Unused personal photograph. Out of scope. -- Deadstar (msg) 11:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 03:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
wrong file by author EchterMacGutter (talk) 18:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 03:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
wrong file EchterMacGutter (talk) 19:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 03:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
fehlerhafte datei...korrekte folgt nach löschen ebendieser EchterMacGutter (talk) 19:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 03:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
fehlerhafte datei...korrekte folgt nach löschen ebendieser EchterMacGutter (talk) 20:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 03:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Delete - out of scope Traumrune (talk) 21:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. Just a text --Foroa (talk) 09:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 03:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Téléverser par erreur Mnervi (talk) 21:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: deleted by Yann Mbdortmund (talk) 03:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
This picture is not used anymore on wikipedia. Danieldinter (talk) 21:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 03:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Copyrighted image of fanpop. Bill william comptonTalk 08:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom; unsupported license claim, no evidence of permission. Infrogmation (talk) 12:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom no evidence of permission what so ever.--Xsonxfanx (talk) 00:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Author: it:Augusto Murer, died in 1985. No freedom of panorama in Italy. Trixt (talk) 21:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Author: it:Augusto Murer, died in 1985. No freedom of panorama in Italy. Trixt (talk) 21:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
{{PD-self}} is obviously the wrong license template for a work whose author is not known. Saibo (Δ) 01:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - unknown date, not necessarily old; in fact, I think I see satellite dishes! (Saibo only looks at licences, not at the image.) /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:16, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
- Well, the license is wrong - enough to delete it. If it is free in another way which was not visible to me we will get to know it here. --Saibo (Δ) 04:27, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Uploader :
i doubt this image might be usefull for educational purpose ( COM:SCOPE ) --Lilyu (talk) 02:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete out of scope. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:22, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:37, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Logo of [2], used in a now-deleted article w:zh:淘宝天下. No foreseeable use. Even the description is promotional content. Ben.MQ (talk) 08:42, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. High Contrast (talk) 16:55, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
person of no notability Andrei Romanenko (talk) 14:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:45, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
See dispute tag (the ancestral bacterial line diverged before the ancestral eucaryotic line and not the other way round); not used in the mainspace. Leyo 14:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete + what is archaeal "non-chlorophyll photosynthesis"? --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. High Contrast (talk) 18:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to by own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. High Contrast (talk) 16:55, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to by own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. High Contrast (talk) 16:55, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Promotional image of some sort. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 18:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. High Contrast (talk) 18:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Used in a now deleted article on en.wikipedia. no foreseeable use. FASTILY (TALK) 18:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Claimed as "own work", which is dubious as this looks too much like part of a former logo for Columbia, Missouri television station K38II (predecessor to today's ). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- Ineligible for copyright, see COM:TOO. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:31, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Likely not the own work of the uploader but this file is ineligible for copyright High Contrast (talk) 18:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Users uploads on en.wiki, including this one were all marked © 2010 Emmanuel International Canada - sourced to http://www.eicanada.org/ Skier Dude (talk) 03:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:35, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
is actually a screenshot from the film - blog cited is just a series of screenshots Skier Dude (talk) 03:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:35, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Users uploads on en.wiki, were all marked © 2010 Emmanuel International Canada - sourced to http://www.eicanada.org/ Skier Dude (talk) 03:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- It's likely same for all other uploads by Dory22 (talk · contribs). --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:35, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Users uploads on en.wiki, were all marked © 2010 Emmanuel International Canada - sourced to http://www.eicanada.org/ Skier Dude (talk) 03:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Users uploads on en.wiki, were all marked © 2010 Emmanuel International Canada - sourced to http://www.eicanada.org/ Skier Dude (talk) 03:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Users uploads on en.wiki, were all marked © 2010 Emmanuel International Canada - sourced to http://www.eicanada.org/ Skier Dude (talk) 03:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
This image is unlikely to be of the Spanish baritone Carlos Álvarez; he was born in 1966, the date for this image is given as 1969. There is no resemblance between this image and File:Carlos Alvarez 01.jpg. Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- PS: User Cmalh who added this image, added it twice to the English Wikipedia article of Carlos Álvarez with misleading edit summaries: diff1, diff2. This reeks of mischief. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
non free file Izno (talk) 05:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:16, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
screenshot of copyrighted software Liliana-60 (talk) 05:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:16, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
The image is scanned from an encyclopedia published in 1980, so I'm pretty sure that the current license is wrong. And I'm not sure that this picture is generally in the public domain. mickit 06:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:16, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
This image is a more narrowly cropped version of File: Dave Letterman.jpg, and is orphaned. Tree Falling In The Forest (talk) 07:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Seems like a lesser copy of the file mentioned above. Aido2002 (talk) 08:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Useful crop for vertical spots -- why not keep it? Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
This picture seems to be a copyvio of the space map from the National Geographic. --Flappiefh (talk) 07:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- It may be inspired by it, but I don't think it's necessarily copying it. You can't copyright the universe, after all, and there aren't many different ways to represent it. The colours are different, the representation of the Solar System is different, among many other things. Serendipodous. 92.234.48.51 16:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Keep Not a violation of NG copyright. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:01, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:21, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't look like the images used for this composite are selfmade. I also found a larger size of this on this site: http://stokieboy.wordpress.com/m-ill-ion-interview/ (no mention of author either). -- Deadstar (msg) 08:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:21, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Very dubious license claim, poor sourcing. Image taken from a website, tagged as FAL for no reason I can see. The source website provides no information about the actual source/authorship/date etc of the photo (it might or might not be PD or free licensed for some reason or another, but I can find no info on that website that would allow determination). Infrogmation (talk) 12:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Not covered by FOP, because it is not permanently located. See Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2011/07#Statues_of_Yuri_Gagarin. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 13:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for nominating this image. I had thought a speedy deletion request from me (which I was prepared to make) would be the best way to do this, but maybe a wider discussion is even better. I'd like to point out here that though I uploaded this picture, I then became aware that it was not a permanent installation and that the council only granted a one-year license. That is why I raised the issue at the village pump copyright section, and then (after that discussion was archived) I raised it again at the main Village pump, and this led to ChrisiPK's nomination. I am now going to upload the image I have of the statue with a shroud over it (just before the unveiling) as I think that image is OK.
One other thing: to be consistent, shouldn't this image also be considered as part of this nomination? It is the statue of which this one is an exact copy, and was erected in Russia (Soviet Union) in 1984. The original was by the sculptor Anatoly Novikov, and marked the 50th anniversary of Gagarin's birth. The copy in London is described in the press release as "an exhibition copy of the original" (there is an exhibition called 'Gagarin in Britain' running for a few months inside the British Council buildings) and "a gift from the Russian Space Agency (Roscosmos) to the British Council [to] stand in the Mall for a period of 12 months". All marking the 50th anniversary of Gagarin's spaceflight, and the unveiling marked 50 years since Gagarin's visit to Britain. Hope that all helps. Carcharoth (Commons) (talk) 07:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Screenshot contains copyrighted image of weatherman. Even the image of the sun/clouds is probably sufficiently beyond the threshold of simple shapes to also be copyrighted. Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
This file is not suitable for using at the wikipedia page Marieke-oortwijn (talk) 16:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep not the best possible quality, but still usable. MKFI (talk) 16:19, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: The quality issue is moot because the source site is not freely licensed. This is a copyvio Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Not suitable for using at wikipedia page Amorroma Marieke-oortwijn (talk) 16:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Russia 80.187.106.46 17:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
wrong picture/title SEM (talk) 17:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: If this simply needs a new name, please use {{Rename}}. If something else is wrong, please explain. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:43, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Suffers from SVG "bug" whcih makes it look very poor wrt text location at some resolutions - please subtitute with en:File:Bentazepam.svg - which is perfectly correct and no bug. Ronhjones (Talk) 19:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep You can upload a new version yourself. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:03, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
- OK will do so. Ronhjones (Talk) 21:39, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:05, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Main (intended for an educational purpose) subject of image is a screenshot of a copyrighted webpage. De minimis concerns. theMONO 19:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Ben.MQ (talk) 12:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Non free image Globalwheels (talk) 22:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: by User:Common_Good Ben.MQ (talk) 12:43, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
fehlerhafte datei...korrekte folgt nach löschen ebendieser EchterMacGutter (talk) 20:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
fehlerhafte datei...korrekte folgt nach löschen ebendieser EchterMacGutter (talk) 20:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
"own work" but credited to newspaper Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep with {{PD-Bangladesh}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:07, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: 1954 image, needs another three years for PD-Bangladesh Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
uploader labels things that clearly aren't his as being his own work. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
uploader labels things that clearly aren't his as being his own work. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
uploader labels things that clearly aren't his as being his own work. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Own work is highly doubtful due to the small image resolution and the fact that there are usable no metainformation (EXIF) 80.187.106.46 17:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- It's a derivative of this drawing (the side view): http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:BMP1graphic1.gif . As it is in PD, I didn't thought it was necessary to mention the original source. Also, I used MS Paint and I basically added an A407 Resita AT gun profile and removed the side firing ports and some things from the turret. Other questions? --Mircea87 (talk) 23:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: derivative of a PD-USAF image. Mircea, please give more specific source information in the future for derivatives you create out of OD-files. Then such DRs do not occure. Thanks. High Contrast (talk) 11:44, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
The image comments is used to direct to a hate publication / promoting original research wp:nor Hemshaw (talk) 23:42, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- Author unknown, no evidence for permission by the photographer --Hemshaw (talk) 22:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
The image violates Wikimedia guidelines on licensed content; free-use alternatives are also available. Snow (talk) 03:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. Obviously self made portrait, and would be suppression of info to remove it. Unless Jimbo recently moved to china this should be kept — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.13.226 (talk • contribs) 00:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. Those are not grounds for deletion. WWGB (talk) 00:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete.
The image (as with the others taken from social media, at least one of which is being used on Wikipedia, also on Breivik's page) has a questionable licensing status.Since we now have free-equivalent replacements from his arrival at his arraignment hearing, the three original images should all be removed and replaced with these newer alternatives, which not only have the advantage of complying with Wikipedia's content-use policies, but are also less inflammatory, do not allow Breivik to promote himself and his ideology through us, and are pictures which have more contextual relevance to the article, rather than just being the douche posing in the manner he thinks he should be seen. Four solid reasons to delete, though the first one alone is sufficient, imo. Snow (talk) 00:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC) - Keep Part of a new movement to obfuscate a part of our history. I think Wikipedia should have no part in this. Remember, Wikipedia is not censored Gabiteodoru (talk) 02:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- I agree that it would be inappropriate and something akin to censorship to remove the picture if the only criteria we were using to make that decision was the one on the header of the deletion request. However, it is not censorship to replace one photo of the man with another. If anything, in this case it would be less obfuscating since Breivik staged these photos specifically to promote a certain image in the wake of his attacks, whereas the alternatives we now have available are candid. If we allow ourselves to get sucked into his 'marketing' (his word) campaign we can hardly be said to be serving the cause of realism and accuracy in our articles by doing so. If we were creating a page on any other person of note, it would be considered inappropriate to take his or her suggestions on what was the best light to display them in, and that's exactly what is happening here, albeit in a very roundabout way. His page would be better served with more conventional photos. Regardless, Wikipedia's licensing guidelines take precedence here and they are very clear that we cannot keep a proprietory image through a fair-use claim if there is a free-liscence image we can use. so the argument isn't whether we should censor by removing his likeness altogether, the question is which photos will serve best in the roles we require for them, and which are allowed by Wikipedia guidelines to begin with. Approaching the issue from both these angles, it's clear one set of photos is more appropriate than the others,
which are outright disallowed by higher priority rules anyway.Snow (talk) 03:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)- What image to use is up to the Wikipedias, not Commons. Wikipedia's guidelines are irrelevant here; go discuss which picture to use at Wikipedia, not here.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Licensing looks clear to me. We need to link to the source. Concerns about which image to use are for Wikipedia, not Commons.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- Fair enough on the second point, but as to the licensing, can you forward your reasoning? My understanding was that images taken from social media were assumed to be property of their respective subjects, photographers, or the hosting site itself if stipulated in its terms and conditions, until proven otherwise. Snow (talk) 03:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- It's not from social media; it's from his manifesto, as per the image page (that had source information deleted for a while).--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. Wikipedia doesn't censor itself over bad taste. Redthoreau (talk) 03:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - the policies of Wikipedia are irrelevant to this discussion, we are on Commons, not WP. The only issue to be concerned with here is the licensing. (I have no opinion as of yet, have not looked at the matter deeply enough). Manning Bartlett (talk) 05:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Please note: As per http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people the picture is not free-license unless Breivik makes explicit note of its release in the manifesto or elsewhere:
"The consent of the subject should normally be sought before uploading any photograph featuring an identifiable individual that has been taken in a private place, whether or not the subject is named."
I therefore reiterate my stance that the image is not acceptable under Wikimedia content guidelines and must be removed unless proof can be shown that consent has been given for its use. I should further note that all other objections that have been raised on this page (as of the time of this post) are irrelevant as they only address the issue of the suitability for Wikipedia purposes, which, as has been noted here already, is not a commons issue. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not censored is subordinate to content licensing guidelines. If further objections to deletion cannot meet the burden of proving the free status of the image (and I believe they can't short of a proven statement of consent from Breivik) then questions of censorship and all other matters of appropriateness to the use on Wikipedia are irrelevant. Snow (talk) 04:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- Have you even looked at the license on the page?--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
If you're referring to the manifesto, that information should be provided here, if it exists. If someone wishes to prove that consent has been granted, then it is their obligation to provide the relevant evidence to contest the deletion. Snow (talk) 05:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)- Alright, I've actually read it now, Breivik does in fact give full rights to use and reproduce. The image cannot be barred on grounds of licensing. I guess it's in Wikipedia's court now. Snow (talk) 05:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Unfortunately, this is a "goofy" image of Breivik in a diving suite rather than a professional image that he would have paid for. So, sadly, I would have to say that he likely took it himself with a self-timer on his camera and then used some Photoshop. He mentions taking his own images himself in his intolerable manifesto. --Leoboudv (talk) 06:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- With respect, what you think is likely does not matter. He does not say he owns the rights to this photograph. He mentions taking photographs, in a broad sense, in this online document, but that isn't a commons compatible declaration. c/f Commons:PRP. Chzz ► 11:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep If the licensing information I read on the image's wikipage is correct, then there should be no reason to delete it for licensing reasons. Commons' mission is to be a repository of images, so there should be no bias in the selection of which images to host. It is the responsibility of other projects to decide whether an image fits their mission. Cogiati (talk) 07:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep The image documents a relevant fact and has been explicitly released in the public domain by the author. The comments to the image in its Commons page (as they are now) do not deliver any hate propaganda or much less original research, and if they were, they could be changed instead of deleting the image. The odd wording of Breivik's licence must be reported, even if it sounds racist, as it is the original licence. Orzetto (talk) 07:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - same opinion like my pre-posters. --Trollhead (talk) 12:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- This image is included in this PDF file, towards the end. On page five of this file, it says: "The content of the compendium truly belongs to everyone and is free to be distributed in any way or form." 31.16.112.242 12:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep This image is included in the version I saw of his "manifesto" (in the last pages, with other images of him), which is a personal, non-licensed work he apparently sent freely to all of his 7,000 facebook contacts, and in which he urges everyone to distribute the material to their contacts. Hence, if this photo was originally in his manifesto, and not added afterwards by the medias which distributed it, the image is logically free to distribution, because he says it himself.Munin75 (talk) 14:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Wikimedia Commons doesn't pick and choose among photos to promote viewpoints, neither to help nor to hinder the dissemination of a POV. Besides, the claim seems absurd - Breivik either looks ridiculous in this photo, or else he looks like the sort of goon you see shot in vast numbers in PG-rated spy thrillers. Wnt (talk) 15:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- delete
- The picture shall be deleted. Arguments:
- * The picture is not educationally useful. It does not show Anders Behring Breivik as he was. What he wears is not a uniform. He doesn't wear clothes typical for his profession or his everyday life. The picture shows Breivik in a costume.
- * The picture does not have informative content that help the viewer gain knowledge. On the contrary - trying to understand or to describe Breivik is much easier using his 1518 pages manifesto or public statements during the deed or after his detention.
- * The picture is self-promoting. Breivik made and spread this photo in order to market himself. The picture is an advertisment for himself and for his ideology.
- * The picture is not neutral. Breivik chose a threatening, powerful pose in order to provoce feelings. Wikimedia Commons is for educational pictures - this picture is not neutrally educating - it is positive-biased.
- * There are good reasons for Commons to provide a platform for informative images even if they depict bad taste. Only - this aspect (providing educational benefit) needs to be fulfilled. If a picture doesn't do this, we should contemplate about whether to host the picure or not. Deletion requests are the process Commons created for this purpose. There is one important aspect that has not been mentioned up to now: Our collective responsibility.
- Science has well documented that images can provoce copycat crimes. The image at hand shows a murderer of 76 mostly young people in a heroic pose. Depicting him with powerful weapons makes it easy for mentally unstable people to identify with him. This is an existing threat. We do have the responsibility to balance the informational benefit of a picture and (in this case) the possible threat it poses. In this case, to me it seems that both aspects support the deletion of this picture. The picture does not educate about who Breivik is or how he committed his crimes. Sadly, the danger of copycat crimes is real. Out responsibility is not just collective - it is the responsibility of every single individual involved here. Let uns use pictures of Breivik as a private person, in any profession he had or as an arrested suspect. Let us outline the point of view he had and that he wrote down. But do not let us support his propaganda when it might facilitate similar crimes. Please consider this carefully. --131.188.24.42 15:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- Science hasn't "proved" any such thing. There are examples of people producing copy-cat crimes based off a totality of media coverage. The picture does educate about who Breivik is; it shows him as he sees himself and how he wants to be portrayed. It shows him in a costume, and for the vast majority of people out there, if they choose to put on a costume and show it off, it says a lot more about them then their day-to-day wardrobe.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Prosfilaes! How do you come to the conclusion that there wouldn't be anything like copycat crimes? Science has well documented the effect of copycat suicides. Also, there has been a number of studies on rampages, e. g. Bennenberg (2011), Schmidtke (2002): Imitation of amok and amok-suicides (after an amok event, the propability of similar amok events rises drastically; "Therefore, it may be dangerous to report about amok events in a sensational way"). There is even indication, that every second amok event is done by a copycat criminal (the article is in German language, you might try Google translator). Also, this article from a German Institute for crime prevention might be interesting to read, as well as the book "When crime waves" from Vincent Sacco, a Canadian professor of sociology.
- Yes, the picture does show Breivik. But all other, non-sensational pictures of him do so, as well. And yes, you can also try to draw conclusions. The problem is that would be interpretation - not learning. Every viewer will interpret the picture differently. That's why an analysis of his written material seems more helpful. Still, emotional pictures make it easy to identify with the depicted person. With the side effects mentioned above. Please consider this. --131.188.24.42 20:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- I didn't say there wouldn't be copy-cat crimes, but that they're based off a totality of media coverage. I think your line between interpretation and learning is absurd; for humans, the most natural form of learning is not didactic lecturing, but learning through interpreting a wide variety of material. Pictures of people in clean normal clothing makes me identify with them; this getup makes me point and laugh. Again, if you want to edit Wikipedia, go do so, but by deleting it here you're obliging every project not to use this picture in any way.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- "Non-neutral material" is useful when it illustrates non-neutral viewpoints. We carry a fair assortment of political documents, cartoons, and photos representing the range of human philosophies (most of which are abhorrent). Concern about copy-cat crimes is not unjustified, but let's be serious: this is Geert Wilders and the Tea Party come home to roost. Every country has its bigots, and for some strange reason all of them - from the American Nazis to al Qaida, even Inkatha - seem to prefer to kill their own people more than the minorities they detest. The material we see here is disseminated very widely in the popular press, but those researching here are not acting as casual vectors of transmission - we are antigen presenting cells whose role is to take up this material, digest it into analyzable bits, and present it to others in a way that they can recognize and respond to, i.e. reject. Wnt (talk) 03:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- I didn't say there wouldn't be copy-cat crimes, but that they're based off a totality of media coverage. I think your line between interpretation and learning is absurd; for humans, the most natural form of learning is not didactic lecturing, but learning through interpreting a wide variety of material. Pictures of people in clean normal clothing makes me identify with them; this getup makes me point and laugh. Again, if you want to edit Wikipedia, go do so, but by deleting it here you're obliging every project not to use this picture in any way.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- Science hasn't "proved" any such thing. There are examples of people producing copy-cat crimes based off a totality of media coverage. The picture does educate about who Breivik is; it shows him as he sees himself and how he wants to be portrayed. It shows him in a costume, and for the vast majority of people out there, if they choose to put on a costume and show it off, it says a lot more about them then their day-to-day wardrobe.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Delete Like it or not Breivik still owns the copyright of this picture and I don't see any evidence that he released it under a free license. SpeakFree (talk) 16:34, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Well I read he released it now. But then one can ask if he was in a sound state of mind when he wrote the document. If he is declared to have been mentally unstable at the time his release of the image is null and void. Better err on the side of safety. SpeakFree (talk) 16:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Clear copyvio; the purported release in the 'manifesto' is not compatible with Commons. Chzz ► 22:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- "The content of the compendium truly belongs to everyone and is free to be distributed in any way or form" is not any more ambiguous than "I grant anyone the right to use this work for any purpose." It is obvious that the author wanted to make the photo as free as possible. Releasing something into public domain is not incompatible with Commons. Mathias-S (talk) 00:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- In the same section of the same document, he also states, it is required that the author(s) are credited, and that the intellectual property of this compendium belongs to all Europeans across the European world. That isn't PD. Furthermore, all non-PD licences require us to know the author. At no time has Breivik said, "I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the work"; instead, he declares that "the compendium is a compilation of works from multiple courageous individuals throughout the world", and "I have written approximately half of the compendium myself" - clearly, we do not know which half. Therefore, we have no 'author' information. In addition, we already know that the same document contains other copyrighted content, without appropriate licencing. Chzz ► 10:59, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep The image was liberated into public domain for the autor.--Falerístico (talk) 07:14, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- The above user has since been indefinitely blocked [3] Chzz ► 11:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep clearly licensed, though we have to face the absurd situation, that the author obviously planned to have spread his selfpics via content platforms like these. I guess that's what we call 21st century media terrorism.Schmelzle (talk) 10:13, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep and close per SNOWBALL.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep I agree with Leoboudv. Trafalguar (talk) 13:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep This is an unbelievable effort to suppress information. Not only should the photo be kept, the other photos from the manifesto should be added as well. The more information, the better.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.22.71.53 (talk • contribs)
- Delete - the purported release in the 'manifesto' is not compatible with Commons. No evidence of copyright ownership or of permission from whoever the copyright owner is. Off2riorob (talk) 22:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Important image for the given article. 146.232.51.77 12:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Per: Scmelzle Polozooza (talk) 14:04, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- The above user has since been indefinitely blocked [4]. Chzz ► 11:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Per User Cobolsaurus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cobolsaurus (talk • contribs) 18:06, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep I am convinced that this is a self-portrait, and the license is just as good as {{WTFPL}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:39, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: could Polozooza explain the two caricatures he posted under the "Spelling" commentaries? Sebjarod (talk) 10:13, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - The legal status of this image is unclear: there is no undisputed evidence that Breivik is indeed its copyright owner and that the "license" in his manifesto is valid in the sense of COM:L. Unless these issues are resolved, this is not a free image. Unfree images should be deleted per policy (see COM:D and COM:PRP). Wutsje (talk) 23:53, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep I agree with everyone who said "keep" too Crusier (talk) 08:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete The legal status of this image is unclear. Zabia2 (talk) 00:23, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete It is released to "all Europeans across the European world" hence not universally accessible for all people in the world. The license would thus only be suitable for a right-wing wiki such as Metapedia. SpeakFree (talk) 18:22, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep We can reasonably consider the image to be licensed under a CC-BY license. Here's the reasoning:
- The licensing terms are garbled, as Chzz notes: on the one hand, they say that the content "belongs to all Europeans across the European world" and on the other hand, "it is required that the author(s) are credited when the material is used," and that besides that, about half of it comes from other sources. Obviously Breivik cannot license material that he doesn't own, so those terms don't apply to material that he didn't write.
- As for his own contributions, a conservative interpretation of the license terms (most restrictive) is that he continues to own the content but grants permission to reproduce it provided that the authors are credited: i.e. CC-BY.
- By all accounts, he has had no assistance writing his manifesto or planning his attacks, so we may conclude that the photograph of him wearing a wetsuit and holding a rifle is a self-portrait, and therefore licensed under the CC-BY terms described above. Tim Pierce (talk) 20:56, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: What a mess. Here is my view on the subject at hand:
- The image is with a dual licensed at best. It has that restrictive copyright for "European" use with a dubious scope and also perhaps a free license. This needs to be clarified.
- The correct procedure here is OTRS not COM:DEL. The result of the vote is irrelevant as even if it is a keep if the image isn't freely licensed it would still be deleted. A vote is counter productive when establishing copyright. That said the copyright is held by the person snapping the photo and not the model/subject of the photo itself unless proven otherwise. Of course asking the model of the photo would be more than difficult at this point.
- I am astonished at some of the comments here based on POV. POV has no place in COM:DEL discussions. I suspect the nominators motives have nothing to do with commons policies. It is clear that we are deleting with a POV oriented canvassing effort.
- As for other rationale, this image is educational as it can be used to demonstrate rifle shooting stance, the rifle itself, the uniform of the Norwegian military/divers assication (or whatever the logo represents) as well as demonstrate the target person himself. Einsteins most famous photo is when he is being silly w:File:Einstein tongue.jpg, this can be what this person be remembered by I suppose. So it is well within the project scope. Of course the mentioned uses would be tasteless but as long as it is a possibility it satisfies project scope criteria.
- Tough luck getting OTRS permission unless he gets internet access in his jail cell. SpeakFree (talk) 12:07, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete:Manipulated Image: Anders Behring Breivik, the suspected perpetrator of the 2011 terrorist attacks in Norway, Source Andrew Berwick, Author Andrew Berwick. Permission:"intellectual property of this compendium belongs to all Europeans across the European world and can be distributed and translated without limitations." Not worldwide, CNN has not been able to independently verify the souce as BreivikPurported manifesto, video from Norway terror suspect detail war plan, CNN 24 July 2011
--88.110.248.99 03:45, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
- :: You are lying for us! The correct quote is:
"As already mentioned; the compendium is a compilation of works from multiple courageous individuals throughout the world. I have spent more than three years writing and/or compiling most of the content. None of the other authors have been asked to participate in this project due to practical and security reasons but most of them have made their material available for distribution. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. This is the reason why I have decided to allow the content of this compendium to be freely redistributed and translated. Consider it my personal gift and contribution to all Europeans. The sources are not embedded into the document for this reason (easier to use and distribute the various articles). However, it is required that the author(s) are credited when the material is used. As such, the intellectual property of this compendium belongs to all Europeans across the European world and can be distributed and translated without limitations."
Some parts of the compendium were written by other authors than Breivik. The pictures of Breivik, however, are not meant at all !!!!! Fjordman did not publish a picture of Anders Behring Breivik saying: This is my picture. Did he? Nobody here wants to put texts of Fjordman on Norway Attacks. Why would you do that, when there are many hundred pages left, that couldn't possibly be anyone elses but Breiviks's. And we are talking about one of the pictures here. Some people argue, that you mustn't publish anything of 2083, as there might possibly be someone in the future saying: Hey, that sencence is from me. Such a thing might happen, who knows, but that's the same with most peaces of writing. But people usually are not inclined to not citing at all for this reason. The only "reason" here is hate against Breivik. --Sannmann (talk) 12:59, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- Note that this IP's only edits are identical to reverted ones of User:Hemshaw, who opened the DR.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:26, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Comment He transfers the intellectual property to all Europeans, hoewever he grants the rights of distribution and translation without limitations, that is everywhere, by anyone, for all time. Zanaq (talk) 07:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: As I said above, this isn't a professional picture. Its a goofy image that Breivik likely took with a camera self timer and then photoshopped with. You can't get OTRS permission from him in a top security prison. To me, this is one of the few photos that one can regard as 'own work.' Its so bad, its almost a joke....as are most of his ideas. --Leoboudv (talk) 09:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
- Comment it does not seem clear beyond doubt to me that he is indeed the author of these pictures...
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:Anders Behring Breivik in black suit (self portrait) cropped.jpg
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:Anders Behring Breivik in black suit (self portrait).jpg
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:Anders Behring Breivik in chemical suit (self portrait).jpg
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:Anders Behring Breivik in chemical suit (self portrait).png
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:Anders Behring Breivik in military uniform (self portrait).jpg
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:Anders Behring Breivik portret blackwhite.jpg
- ...but it seems clear that he claims that he owns the rights. It also seems clear he grants permission to distribute and use, but it seems unclear to what extent modification is permitted. So the real question is: Does he own the rights, and what does his license say exactly? Zanaq (talk) 07:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
- I'll try to answer those questions, Zanaq; bear in mind that this 'manifesto' is a rambling, enormous text; I will try to answer you showing direct quotations, so apologies that I have to write several lines, to present it fairly;
- Does he own the rights? We don't know; there's no proof either way. Nowhere has he said anything clear, such as our declaration when you upload or send OTRS permission - there's no specific mention of the specific images in the manifesto. In discussing "marketing", he advises that Resistance leaders of larger networks should also arrange photo sessions with female patriotic models to use in online marketing/recruitment campaigns. It is essential that enough resources are invested into marketing material in order to create a professional and appealing image of our struggle. It is essential that cell commanders and/or cell operatives budget at least a portion of their operational budget to photo sessions and remember to delete all other unfortunate photos from the past. This is to prevent the media/police from getting access to them and exploit them for their own propaganda. The police usually “leak” “retarded looking” photos to the press after raiding the cells apartment after an operation. By removing and deleting all “negative” photos, and by making available the professional, photo shopped photos prior to the operation; we make their job significantly harder. Additionally, in alleged list of things he purchased (which also includes bomb-making equipment, guns, ammunition, etc) he mentions Casio EXZ 330 SR digital camera, for marketing purposes, from Expert, cost: 80 Euro. This would allow me to complete a photo session, without the need to use a professional photographer. I have used a professional in the past but it is obvious that the regalia I intend to use in the photo session will generate suspicion and threaten the security of the operation. Lack of professional digital equipment, green sheet background and other related and expensive photo gear can be compensated by my Photoshop skills..
- Some users, in this deletion debate, have claimed this is evidence indicating that he owns the copyright of this specific image.
- what does his license say exactly? There is no 'licence' as such. There's various mentions of his wish for people to distribute it. In one part, "Distribution of the book", he says, The content of the compendium truly belongs to everyone and is free to be distributed in any way or form. In fact, I ask only one favour of you; I ask that you distribute this book to everyone you know. Please do not think that others will take care of it. Sorry to be blunt, but it does not work out that way. If we, the Western European Resistance, fail or become apathetic, then Western Europe will fall, and your freedom and our children’s freedom with it… It is essential and very important that everyone is at least presented with the truth before our systems come crashing down within 2 to 7 decades. So again, I humbly ask you to re-distribute the book to as many patriotic minded individuals as you can. I am 100% certain that the distribution of this compendium to a large portion of European patriots will contribute to ensure our victory in the end. Because within these three books lies the tools required to win the ongoing Western European cultural war. As already mentioned; the compendium is a compilation of works from multiple courageous individuals throughout the world. I have spent more than three years writing and/or compiling most of the content. None of the other authors have been asked to participate in this project due to practical and security reasons but most of them have made their material available for distribution. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. This is the reason why I have decided to allow the content of this compendium to be freely redistributed and translated. Consider it my personal gift and contribution to all Europeans. The sources are not embedded into the document for this reason (easier to use and distribute the various articles). However, it is required that the author(s) are credited when the material is used. As such, the intellectual property of this compendium belongs to all Europeans across the European world and can be distributed and translated without limitations.
- Some, here, think that the first part of that is clear intent to allow free use. However, others think that the later conditions that state it "belongs to all Europeans across the European world" negates that.
- In addition, we have evidence presented in reliable sources which confirms portions of the manuscript are copyright violations. The article on English Wikipedia states this;[5]
- I'll try to answer those questions, Zanaq; bear in mind that this 'manifesto' is a rambling, enormous text; I will try to answer you showing direct quotations, so apologies that I have to write several lines, to present it fairly;
The introductory chapter of the manifesto defining "Cultural Marxism" is a copy of Political Correctness: A Short History of an Ideology by the Free Congress Foundation.[1][2][3] Major parts of the compendium are attributed to the pseudonymous Norwegian blogger Fjordman.[4] The text also copies sections of the Unabomber manifesto, without giving credit, while exchanging the words "leftists" for "cultural Marxists" and "black people" for "muslims".[5]
- ↑ William S. Lind , ed. (2004-November) "Political Correctness:" A Short History of an Ideology, Free Congress Foundation
- ↑ Scholars Respond to Breivik Manifesto[1], National Association of Scholars, 28 July 2011
- ↑ Anne-Catherine Simon, Christoph Saiger und Helmar Dumbs (29 July 2011). "Die Welt, wie Anders B. Breivik sie sieht". Die Presse.
- ↑ Dette er terroristens store politiske forbilde – nyheter. Dagbladet.no (18 August 2009). Retrieved on 25 July 2011.
- ↑ Massedrapsmannen kopierte "Unabomberen" ord for ord. Nrk.no. Retrieved on 24 July 2011.
- I hope that helps answer your questions. Chzz ► 14:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- Those are the questions that should be asked according to the policy. Your answers sound (unsurprisingly) like a delete to me. Zanaq (talk) 11:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- I hope that helps answer your questions. Chzz ► 14:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Keep This image and related images all were released to the public domain, and no credible objection to this has arisen from any potential copyright owner other than Breivik himself.--Cerejota (talk) 08:48, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep There is no proof of a copyright infringement so the allegation made above that the image violates Wikipedia guidelines on licensed content is unfounded until proven otherwise. --MaxM (talk) 09:25, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
- No proof is needed to delete an image as non-free. Proof is needed to show it's free. Zanaq (talk) 09:56, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
- Comment c/f Commons:Deletion requests/File:Anders Behring Breivik (Facebook portrait in suit).jpg and enwiki admin noticeboard. Chzz ► 14:07, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - he does appears to have granted a licence Brookie (talk) 08:53, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Two more files from the same origin have now been deleted, File:Anders Behring Breivik in black suit (self portrait) cropped.jpg and File:Anders Behring Breivik portret blackwhite.jpg, following discussions A B. File:Anders Behring Breivik (Facebook portrait in suit).jpg was deleted previously, but there is now a undeletion discussion. Chzz ► 14:52, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete It is released to "all Europeans across the European world" hence not universally accessible for all people in the world. - asserting a commons comparable release of copyright for this is a leap of faith for which we have no evidence of permission at all. Off2riorob (talk) 22:53, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- If the bit about europeans was meant seriously, then it's utterly moronic and thus invalid; if meant symbolically (my opinion), it is no different than some left wing tract stating that it "belongs to the working class", and can be considered not a restriction. Victor falk (talk) 15:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- Off2riorob is lying for us! The correct quote is:
"As already mentioned; the compendium is a compilation of works from multiple courageous individuals throughout the world. I have spent more than three years writing and/or compiling most of the content. None of the other authors have been asked to participate in this project due to practical and security reasons but most of them have made their material available for distribution. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. This is the reason why I have decided to allow the content of this compendium to be freely redistributed and translated. Consider it my personal gift and contribution to all Europeans. The sources are not embedded into the document for this reason (easier to use and distribute the various articles). However, it is required that the author(s) are credited when the material is used. As such, the intellectual property of this compendium belongs to all Europeans across the European world and can be distributed and translated without limitations."
So, what is Off2riorob hiding from us? He is hiding that the pictures of Breivik are not meant at all by what he is citing for us, to make us delete the pictures!!!! Liar!!!! --Sannmann (talk) 12:59, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Identical license to File:Anders Behring Breivik (Facebook portrait in suit).jpg which was was found not to be released "in any legal sense of the word" and undeletion was unanimously opposed. This image must be deleted for exactly the same reasons. Breivik's "license" is not free in the sense of COM:L and there is no evidence he actually owns the exclusive copyright to this image. Unfree images should be and remain deleted per COM:D and COM:PRP. ShipFan (talk) 02:29, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep A well-formulated CC or GPL (which have no inherent legal status whatsoever) is not necessary, only a statement of the type "I hereby release this in the public domain". The intention is clearly stated that the manifesto is to be freely distributed.
- On the the copyright ownership: there is absolutely nothing here that allows us to have any suspicion whatsoever that ABB has it. (If a professional took that picture, then he also acquired the distribution rights, unless a special deal was made. That the authors' rights (droit d'auteur) always remains with the original artist is something else, some editors seem to have confused the two).
- Also, I'm a bit worried that if so flimsy a degree of doubt is sufficient to delete a picture, then a large portion of all the pictures on wikicommon could be easily deleted. We should let the fact that it is related to a major and very controversial current event could our judgement). Victor falk (talk) 15:38, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- Nowhere in the manifesto does it say "public domain". Chzz ► 16:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- "The content of the compendium truly belongs to everyone and is free to be distributed in any way or form" sounds pretty much like "I hereby release this in the public domain" in my ears. Doesn't it in yours? Victor falk (talk) 20:39, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Breivik wrote " the intellectual property of this compendium belongs to all Europeans across the European world " which is not a valid licence on Commons. And we should have the same decision for all those pictures: Keeping some of them and not the others just doesn't make sense. --Christophe Dioux (talk) 12:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Christophe Dioux is lying for us! The correct quote is:
"As already mentioned; the compendium is a compilation of works from multiple courageous individuals throughout the world. I have spent more than three years writing and/or compiling most of the content. None of the other authors have been asked to participate in this project due to practical and security reasons but most of them have made their material available for distribution. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. This is the reason why I have decided to allow the content of this compendium to be freely redistributed and translated. Consider it my personal gift and contribution to all Europeans. The sources are not embedded into the document for this reason (easier to use and distribute the various articles). However, it is required that the author(s) are credited when the material is used. As such, the intellectual property of this compendium belongs to all Europeans across the European world and can be distributed and translated without limitations."
So, what is Christophe Dioux hiding from us? He is hiding that the pictures of Breivik are not meant at all by what he is citing for us, to make us delete the pictures!!!! Liar!!!! --Sannmann (talk) 12:59, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- Sannmann, insulting the other contributors will not help your point of view. Breivik can release his pictures
and his book(Oops, the pictures only, not the book, as part of his content seems to be a copyright violation) under a CC or a PD or a GFDL licence at anytime if he decides do do so. Until then, these pictures are not yet released under such a licence. Period. --Christophe Dioux (talk) 20:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- One is not required to relinquish one's intellectual property rights on Commons. One is only required to give everyone the right to modify and distribute under the same license. So the releasing of those rights to all Europeans is a bonus, but not required. Zanaq (talk) 18:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- To give to others the right to distribute a file, one must own the intellectual property of it. Once Breivik has given this intellectual property to "all Europeans", only "all Europeans" (all together?!?) could decide to release it under a valid PD licence. I'm not a lawyer but I think that this in not a clear PD or any other clear licence according to WP regulations. Breivik did not write clearly "PD" or "CC-BY-SA" or "GFDL". Even from his jail, he can do it anytime, via his defence counsel. Until then, we don't have a clear PD or CC or GFDL licence and we can not create a new kind of licence especially for M. Breivik. --Christophe Dioux (talk) 20:27, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- One is not required to relinquish one's intellectual property rights on Commons. One is only required to give everyone the right to modify and distribute under the same license. So the releasing of those rights to all Europeans is a bonus, but not required. Zanaq (talk) 18:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - Per chzz and others. This is all too fishy - the wording of his "license" makes it sound not free for people outside of Europe. Killiondude (talk) 18:03, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- I repeat: it can be distributed and translated without limitations. The problem is that he does not explicitly allow modification, and it is not clear he possesses the necessary rights himself. One can not release what one does not own. Zanaq (talk) 18:21, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- I repeat: That is not a Commons-compatible license. ShipFan (talk) 07:19, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep I cite from Breiviks 2083:
Distribution of the book
The content of the compendium truly belongs to everyone and is free to be distributed in any way or form. In fact, I ask only one favour of you; I ask that you distribute this book to everyone you know
All the pictures are "content of the compendium". So they all "belong to everyone" and are "free to be distributed in any way or form". What some people here on Wikipedia are trying is to burn a book. And their only "argument" is, that they locked away the author without a chance to reconfirm what he already has made clear as can be before they locked him away in total isolation. This argumentation is a dictators argumentation. I find it hard to understand that people who argue like this are allowed to write on Wikipedia.
And yes, why don't these people come up with a guy who claims one single little bit of 2083 is his????? Why???? Because they have nothing but their wish to burn a book. They have nothing but their foolish little catch-22 argumentation! --Sannmann (talk) 10:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- User Sannmann has since been indefinitely blocked [6] Chzz ► 11:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- As has been stated many times, that is not a Commons-compatible license. Every other image from the compendium has been deleted for that very reason. ShipFan (talk) 12:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- Could you please be so kind as to inform us in exactly what way you feel that this is not a "Commons-compatible license", and why? Victor falk (talk) 20:46, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- Please look at Commons:Licensing and Wikipedia:Public domain. The paragraph written by Breivik is not anything like that. When I read it, i first thought "well, that sounds like Public Domain". Then I thought "but it is only the right to translate and distribute", nothing about the right to modify it, or about the right to sell modifications of it. So it is not PD either. It could be rather some kind of a CC-BY licence, but it is not sure. I'm not a lawyer, but what seems clear to me is that the licence of this pictures is unclear. Which is a case of deletion under Commons policy. Now, if some day M. Breivik, directly or by way of his lawyer, declares "I release my pictures under PD (or CC-BY or other)", then it will be different. Until then, the licence of these pictures remains unclear. --Christophe Dioux (talk) 21:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- Those are not the only possible free licences. Breivik's "truly belongs to everyone" is the equivalent of German "Gemeinfrei"=PD, and "in an way or form" should be just as good as {{WTFPL}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:36, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- Hummm... And what about " the intellectual property of this compendium belongs to all Europeans across the European world "? is it part of "Gemeinfrei"=PD too ? And do we have the right of derivative work ? of commercial use ? Sorry, but it is still not clear to me. --Christophe Dioux (talk) 21:53, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- It is not formulated as a restriction. And, strictly speaking, {{PD-USGov}} is only free in the US; the US Government is entitled to charge royalties for distribution in Europe. As to your additional questions, "Permission is granted to Do What The Fuck You Want To with this document" is an acceptable license; not very lawyerly but very clear. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:03, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- For the first point, you're probably a lawyer or a specialist, i'm not. As to my additional questions, was "Do What The Fuck You Want To with this document" really M. Breivik's will ? Do you know it or are you deciding it for him ? --Christophe Dioux (talk) 22:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, self-promotional image with obvious retouching and unclear license. Runs counter to the ethos of Wikipedia projects. Guy 21:33, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: Fact 'CNN could not independently verify that Breivik wrote the document or posted the 12-minute video, and Norwegian authorities would not confirm that the man in their custody wrote the manifesto, saying it was part of their investigation. Police told the Norwegian newspaper VG that the document is "linked" to Friday's attacks.'
The author was 'Andrew Berwick, London', release was not worldwide. Yes the image is manipulaed and is promotional.
CNN 24 July 2011 --Hemshaw (talk) 22:26, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- Correction to my comment above - the front of the compendium says its by Andrew Berwick, London, someone else, other than Breivik claimed to have created the pdf by combining files, I no idea who took the photo. Whoever produced the compendium added a lot of information from wikipedia, odd they did not release licence for the photographs under creative commons/GFDL. --Hemshaw (talk) 23:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- No; it's called Anglicization. Anders Breivik obviously uses Andrew Berwick as his English name.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
- Correction to my comment above - the front of the compendium says its by Andrew Berwick, London, someone else, other than Breivik claimed to have created the pdf by combining files, I no idea who took the photo. Whoever produced the compendium added a lot of information from wikipedia, odd they did not release licence for the photographs under creative commons/GFDL. --Hemshaw (talk) 23:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - I believe it does comply with our licensing requirements. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:43, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
- Which licence do you consider it compatible with? Chzz ► 03:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
- On what basis do you believe that? The "license" is identical to the one on every other Breivik image which was found did NOT comply with Commons:Licensing requirements. 3 weeks is more than long enough to come to a conclusion on this discussion. The license and arguments are identical to other images from the Breivik compendium which have since been deleted. Can an admin plase make a decision and close this? ShipFan (talk) 04:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Non-neutral... !votes of indef banned users should be struck. Albacore (talk) 14:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - I'm among the first to be cautious about copyright. However, I think it's pretty obvious that Breivik clearly released this image, and the fact that we're bickering because he didn't specifically cite cc-by-sa 3.0 or something is utterly ridiculous. The last thing I'm seeing is a "clear copyvio", though. Wikipedia has "not a bureaucracy" and "ignore all rules" policies, so if this really is such an flagrant violation of commons policy (because he doesn't cite a "commons compatible license" it should really just be copied over to Wikipedia. Swarm (talk) 04:43, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
- I understand your point of view, because it was mine some weeks ago. Now, under which licence exactly do you think Commons should keep this picture ? Because it is not enough to say "keep": We need to decide under which licence exactly we decide to keep it. Are you suggesting CC-BY-SA ? Or GFDL? or PD ? or WTFPL ? Which one? --Christophe Dioux (talk) 12:41, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
- {{Copyrighted free use}}.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:26, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
- What is wrong with {{Attribution}}? That seems perfectly appropriate to me. Swarm (talk) 02:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
- {{Attribution}} includes the right of commercial use. I'm not sure Breivik allowed that in his manifesto. But if _you_ and so many others are so sure of it, after all, i won't waste time to defend such a criminal's royalties... IMHO, the situation is still unclear, that is all. --Christophe Dioux (talk) 20:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
- The basis for this is, "free to be distributed in any way or form". Swarm (talk) 17:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
- This is a very important point. It's a categorical statement of free release. "In any way" shows that he was putting no restrictions on the method of distribution. "In any form" shows that he was not prohibiting any changes to the original image. Prioryman (talk) 20:36, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
- I'm affraid not: "no restrictions" and "no prohibiting" are not enough: Breivik should have positively allowed changes and commercial use. Swarm said he thinks it is so. I think that it is still unclear. If you are right (not prohibited but not positively allowed), then it is a case of deletion per policy under Commons policy. --Christophe Dioux (talk) 07:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
- This is a very important point. It's a categorical statement of free release. "In any way" shows that he was putting no restrictions on the method of distribution. "In any form" shows that he was not prohibiting any changes to the original image. Prioryman (talk) 20:36, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
- The basis for this is, "free to be distributed in any way or form". Swarm (talk) 17:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
- {{Attribution}} includes the right of commercial use. I'm not sure Breivik allowed that in his manifesto. But if _you_ and so many others are so sure of it, after all, i won't waste time to defend such a criminal's royalties... IMHO, the situation is still unclear, that is all. --Christophe Dioux (talk) 20:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep It's clear that Breivik intended for these images to be in the public domain. --Rainbow boy (talk) 17:06, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep It's clear that the creator of the image intended it to be distributed as widely as possible. If he intended to restrict its usage he would have said so. His statement indicates no such restrictions. Prioryman (talk) 06:58, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - There is no positive proof that mr. Breivik is the sole author and copyright holder of this work, and the so-called 'license' is vague and unclear. Permission to re-use for modification and derived works is implicit and subject to interpretation at best. The way copyright works is not 'If [the copyright holder] intended to restrict its usage [he or she] would have said so', but rather 'If the copyright holder does not unambiguously state that certain restrictions (that come automatically with copyright) do not apply, one has to assume that they apply'. Pbech (talk) 09:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete With the same arguments as mentioned above - 1) All the other images of ABB from the compendium has already been deleted with the same arguments of unclear licence. - 2) It is probably correct, but not proven/admitted ABB is the owner of the compendium. - 3) Even assuming ABB is the owner the licence in the compendium is in my opinion dubious at best: It gives everybody the right to translate and redistribute in any form or medium, but in doing so you must credit the author(s). It is mentioned you are allowed to "[...] delete or change the wording in certain chapters before distribution" if you're worried about "violating any European laws", but that doesn't mention images and only certain chapters. The additional sentences of "[...] this compendium belongs to Europeans across the European world [...]" and "[...] distribute the book or some/all of its contents to [...] patriotic European political activists [...]" makes the licence even more dubious. - 4) Big chunks of text and plenty of images in the compendium are copy&paste from other people, which not necessarily ABB himself had the permission to use and redistribute, and if so can't give away. -Laniala (talk) 02:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - Can an admin please action this request. The "license" is identical to that applied to File:Anders Behring Breivik (Facebook portrait in suit).jpg which was was found not to be released "in any legal sense of the word" and was deleted as incompatible with COM:L. Nothing more can be said to change this. ShipFan (talk) 02:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - The license states The content of the compendium truly belongs to everyone and is free to be distributed in any way or form. which clearly places Breivik's contributions into the public domain by transferring ownership to everyone. He can't re-license the work of others, but the pictures are obviously Breivik's, and as such are compatible with COM:L. --Rainbow boy (talk) 20:47, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- I am European. I can distribute it without limitations. So I distribute it as PD. --Dezidor (talk) 15:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: it's not clear who is the copyright holder and if that copyright holder agrees with the "license" Jcb (talk) 17:14, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
template's requirements not obeyed: "To use this template, the image must meet both of the following two conditions: published over 70 years ago, and the original author's actual identity was not publicly disclosed in connection with this image within 70 years following its publication. " Saibo (Δ) 01:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Have you gone into robot mode? If you had looked up the reference, you would have known that this photo was published in 1930 in Ilustrirani Slovenec. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:41, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
- It is not up to me to look things up. They have to be given on the file's page. The second requirement is still not fulfilled: "the original author's actual identity was not publicly disclosed in connection with this image within 70 years following its publication. " Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 04:12, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - Ilustrirani Slovenec did not publish names of the photographers.[7] --Sporti (talk) 14:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- What is the relation of "Ilustrirani Slovenec" with this photo? Wasn't it published somewhere else? Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 01:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep per Sporti Ipos (talk) 13:52, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 16:45, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
template's requirements not obeyed: "To use this template, the image must meet both of the following two conditions: published over 70 years ago, and the original author's actual identity was not publicly disclosed in connection with this image within 70 years following its publication. " Saibo (Δ) 01:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Robots should be ignored. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:43, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
- uploaders who ignore our our rules also. And vk robots, too. ;) --Saibo (Δ) 04:13, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - Ilustrirani Slovenec did not publish names of the photographers.[8] --Sporti (talk) 14:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- What is the relation of "Ilustrirani Slovenec" with this photo? Wasn't it published somewhere else? Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 01:44, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep per Sporti Ipos (talk) 13:53, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 16:46, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
template's requirements not obeyed: "To use this template, the image must meet both of the following two conditions: published over 70 years ago, and the original author's actual identity was not publicly disclosed in connection with this image within 70 years following its publication. " Saibo (Δ) 01:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep WWI photo, robots should be ignored. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:49, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
- Hi, vk robot, How does this fulfill the second requirement? --Saibo (Δ) 04:15, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep per Pieter Ipos (talk) 16:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 16:46, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
template's requirements not obeyed: "To use this template, the image must meet both of the following two conditions: published over 70 years ago, and the original author's actual identity was not publicly disclosed in connection with this image within 70 years following its publication. " Saibo (Δ) 01:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - from the age when armies used horses; just ignore the robot. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:51, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
- Hi, vk robot, so which publication date is this then? And
whohow is the second requirement fulfilled? --Saibo (Δ) 04:16, 31 July 2011 (UTC) mistake --Saibo (Δ) 01:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)- Photos are published when prints are made and change hands. This means that practically all photos that are in circulation have been published in the time that they were made. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
- The second requirement is "the original author's actual identity was not publicly disclosed in connection with this image within 70 years following its publication.". --Saibo (Δ) 01:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
- Photos are published when prints are made and change hands. This means that practically all photos that are in circulation have been published in the time that they were made. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
- Hi, vk robot, so which publication date is this then? And
- Keep per Pieter Ipos (talk) 16:12, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 16:47, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
{{PD-self}} is obviously the wrong license template for a work whose author is not known. Saibo (Δ) 01:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- Dann ändere doch die Lizenzvorlage. Das Bild ist definitiv gemeinfrei. --Ichneumon (talk) 13:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- Wie kommst du zu der Annahme, dass es definitv gemeinfrei ist? Wenn ich wüsste, mit welcher Lizenzvorlage wir es behalten könnte, hätte ich es natürlich schon geändert. --Saibo (Δ) 04:25, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep with {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:14, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
- Might be not really necessary for you.. but, well, here it is (quote from your template): "To use this template, the image must meet both of the following two conditions: published over 70 years ago, and the original author's actual identity was not publicly disclosed in connection with this image within 70 years following its publication. " Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 04:25, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: The cross-hatching indicates this is a picture of a publication. We don't know the publication it was in or a definitive date for this work, beyond what the uploader asserts. Publications commonly use black-and-white to cut costs. Just because an image is b&w doesn't meant it's PD and just because we don't know the author that doesn't mean no author disclosure applies. – Adrignola talk 23:24, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Highly unlikely that this is Milesc56's own work. Far more likely that this is {{Pd-usgov}}, but can someone find a source to confirm that? NW (Talk) 22:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- I'm certain that this is Boxer's official Senate portrait (if not her current one, then a recent one) but I can't find a source at the moment. Muboshgu (talk) 22:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- The photo was the official picture for her US Senate website leading up to the 2010 elections(starting in May 2010), and is still her picture on her PAC website and official Facebook page. DD2K (talk) 02:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- So can we just change the copyright to pd-usgov and close this deletion request? 128.218.224.40 16:21, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Unclear provenance. No clear source. Easily a paid-for photograph used for campaigns and PR. – Adrignola talk 23:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
This file is a derived work from UK-Navy-OF2.gif which was deleted with reason no source or license (log) and speedydel request of this file was declined Henrik (heb: Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 06:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - not everything is protected by copyright. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:56, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
- In that case shouldn't the file from which this was derived on be restored? --Henrik (heb: Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 11:50, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: This isn't PD-ineligible and as a derivative work of content that had no license, it cannot be restored as it would not be known whether any license applied to it would be correct. – Adrignola talk 03:53, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
{{PD-textlogo}}? Really? I don´t think so. At least the rocket sugest other thing (unless I´ve been terribly wrong) --Andrea (talk) 01:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC) Andrea (talk) 01:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Compare Threshold of originality#United States. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:27, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
- Comment I did and I see no reason to keep. Really, the rocket is not a simple geometrical shape. --Andrea (talk) 02:34, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep IMHO this kind of rocket is very common: http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=stylized+rocket&oe=utf-8&channel=suggest&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wi --Trixt (talk) 19:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- Comment I don´t understand your opinion. Are those images free? Is this rocket in the picture a "simple geometrical shape"? The fact that rocket be common make it PD? --Andrea (talk) 22:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- "Too common to be copyrighted": to me this means that it's so lacking of originality that it's impossible to establish who is the very copyright holder, the person who drew it for the first time. It's the same case of File:New Orleans Saints.svg: oh, beautiful logo, not simple shape, but who is the copyright holder? It's "lost in time" :) Are those images free? Maybe, if they lack of originality like this one. Perhaps {{PD-ineligible}} is better than {{PD-textlogo}} in this case, but it's a trivial detail, the most important thing is that it is stated as "PD".--Trixt (talk) 22:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep If I'm not wrong, this rocket have no copyright per its simpleness. Nixón (wop!) 21:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: PD-textlogo Jcb (talk) 23:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Image under copyright: this is an image of the italian comic character "Tex Willer", by Aurelio Galleppini, and all rights belong to Sergio Bonelli Editore Sogeking (talk) 10:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: (not by me) Jcb (talk) 20:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Sculptor Gaston Broquet died in 1947. Not in public domain until January 2018. Teofilo (talk) 15:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: (not by me) Jcb (talk) 20:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Restored by Léna Platonides (talk) 16:58, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Promotional image of some sort, used in a now deleted advert on en.wikipedia. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder.. FASTILY (TALK) 19:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 23:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
invalid reason to be public domain -- see {{PD-Bangladesh}} Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Not public domain for any reason. The claimed Template:PD-art obviously not applies, also no other reason applicable. Martin H. (talk) 12:35, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
template's requirements not obeyed: "To use this template, the image must meet both of the following two conditions: published over 70 years ago, and the original author's actual identity was not publicly disclosed in connection with this image within 70 years following its publication. " Saibo (Δ) 01:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:26, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
- Do you surrender in the anonymous works war? ;) Honestly, you know that DRs are not a vote? --Saibo (Δ) 04:09, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Delete The claim source is recent, not more than 70 y. Is not clear for me what is the original publication, the author is unknown and the "around 1930" is not clear enough to think the template is properly use, even picture looks old. To many "unknow" to be freelicence. --Andrea (talk) 17:35, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
- What is unclear? Sitter died 1930! /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
- Excuse me, the picture says "Author unknown" Or not? --Andrea (talk) 18:07, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
- Exactly the reason why it is tagged with {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
- So, actually there´s no way to know the author's dead, and clearly the given source is not the first publication of the picture. Right? Is it possible to know when was the first publication of the picture? --Andrea (talk) 19:05, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
- The source site mentions that the photo is from the collection of Angelika Hribar, who has written on Slovenian genealogy. So this photo circulated, anonymously it seems. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:27, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
- So, actually there´s no way to know the author's dead, and clearly the given source is not the first publication of the picture. Right? Is it possible to know when was the first publication of the picture? --Andrea (talk) 19:05, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
- Exactly the reason why it is tagged with {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
- Excuse me, the picture says "Author unknown" Or not? --Andrea (talk) 18:07, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept: per Pieter Kuiper Jcb (talk) 13:51, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
"make sure the author never claimed authorship." (citation of copyright indication tag) - I cannot see that fact being documented. Saibo (Δ) 22:35, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep per last time; what is keeping Saibo from nomination File:BTM 1916 WW1.jpg for deletion? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:59, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Too many uncertain things. If it was created in 1926 or later, it was copyrighted in both Germany and Slovenia on the URAA date. "Before 1930" could mean either "before 1926" or "after 1925". It is also dubious if it really is an anonymous work, or if it has been published somewhere, both things affecting the copyright status in Europe and the United States. Unpublished anonymous works are copyrighted for 120 years since creation in the United States and it is unclear if this is older than 120 years or not. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:21, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Anonymous author, greater than 70 years in EU. Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 06:02, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
template's requirements not obeyed: "To use this template, the image must meet both of the following two conditions: published over 70 years ago, and the original author's actual identity was not publicly disclosed in connection with this image within 70 years following its publication. " Saibo (Δ) 01:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - ordinary group portrait of more than 90 years ago. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:30, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
- and how does this fulfill the template's requirements? --Saibo (Δ) 04:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep looking at the source website (Google translation), I do not see any information about the author of the photograph. It looks to fill the requirements of {{PD-EU-anonymous}} tag. MKFI (talk) 19:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- I fail to understand how this no information on one webpage should satisfy "the original author's actual identity was not publicly disclosed in connection with this image within 70 years following its publication". --Saibo (Δ) 00:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - anonymous as even the history museum doesn't know the name of the photographer. --Sporti (talk) 09:44, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- Where do they say that they do not know the name? --Saibo (Δ) 00:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- It is written where it's known like with Maksim Gaspari at the bottom. --Sporti (talk) 05:14, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- Ah - sorry, that is not satisfying "the original author's actual identity was not publicly disclosed in connection with this image within 70 years following its publication. ". Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 12:54, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- Well you can only proove that his identity was publicly disclosed (if it were), not Vice Versa. You can't proove that something doesn't exsist. I mean look at other similar cases. --Sporti (talk) 14:11, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- Absolutely right, taken strictly this sentence is nearly impossible to proof for most cases. In my opinion it is sufficient if we can be sure to some extent. Your proof is below that threshold in my opinion. There is currently nothing known except the fact that for some unknown reason the museum has not put the name of the photographer below the photo on its website. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 01:10, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- If they knew, they would give a name. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:35, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- Absolutely right, taken strictly this sentence is nearly impossible to proof for most cases. In my opinion it is sufficient if we can be sure to some extent. Your proof is below that threshold in my opinion. There is currently nothing known except the fact that for some unknown reason the museum has not put the name of the photographer below the photo on its website. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 01:10, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- Well you can only proove that his identity was publicly disclosed (if it were), not Vice Versa. You can't proove that something doesn't exsist. I mean look at other similar cases. --Sporti (talk) 14:11, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- Ah - sorry, that is not satisfying "the original author's actual identity was not publicly disclosed in connection with this image within 70 years following its publication. ". Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 12:54, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- It is written where it's known like with Maksim Gaspari at the bottom. --Sporti (talk) 05:14, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- Where do they say that they do not know the name? --Saibo (Δ) 00:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Keep Photo meets Template:Anonymous-EU criteria. — MZaplotnik (my contribs) 08:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Delete Image was not first published on that website, thefore the 'no information on the website' is meaningless. From what publication was it scanned, what information was written in that publication. Thats essential source information to say if its Anonymous-EU or not, and this source information is missing. --Martin H. (talk) 09:12, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep museum showpiece --Miha (talk) 14:25, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep per Smihael Ipos (talk) 13:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 16:44, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
still no template conditions fulfilling info on the file page - see last DR. "Reasonable evidence must be presented ..." Saibo (Δ) 01:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - renominations like these are not helpful. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - per Pieter Kuiper - Jcb (talk) 13:49, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep per above nomination. There is consensus that reasonable evidence is present. Ajraddatz (talk) 00:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept. No consensus to delete. Reasonable efforts have been made to discover the author, to no avail. Please do not re-open without positive evidence that the author is not anonymous. Powers (talk) 17:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
"Please do not re-open without positive evidence that the author is not anonymous." - Well, no, it is the other way round. Also note this requirement:"make sure the author never claimed authorship." (citation of copyright indication tag) Saibo (Δ) 22:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- If we're required to show conclusive proof that nobody has ever claimed authorship of the image, I doubt there are many PD-whatever-anonymous images that we could keep. Not sure whether such proof would be a reasonable requirement legally. Anonymous works are certainly problematic, but consensus seems to be that we should accept some such works instead of playing it safe and only hosting media when the author is known. Jafeluv (talk) 11:51, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- If we do not need any proof and can dump any older-than-70-year photos to Commons we need to change the templates. And that should indicate to reusers that there is totally no proof that this image is free (yes, that is conflicting to Commons' aim and policy).
- Yes, most images with those license templates fail completely to justify the use of the template - like this one.
- Note the closure (you linked yourself) of Commons:Deletion_requests/Template:PD-anon-70: "... its usage requires proper documentation and where this is missing or unsatisfactory, the individual files can be submitted for deletion. ..." Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 14:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - when will Saibo get it? Commons is so out of touch with the wikipedias and with the Foundation and its lawyers. Not only when it comes to the penis wars, but also with regard to copyright: enwp is considering a blackout to protest against de US SOPA law, but he is relentlessly pushing eternal copyright for old photos with unknown authorship. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:07, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Saibo, this is starting to become disruptive. There is a strong and obvious consensus here that what is needed is not conclusive evidence that the author is unknown, only that reasonable efforts have been made and borne no fruit. Powers (talk) 01:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Thats the point. Zero effort made here. We not even have one single source consulted. --Martin H. (talk) 01:28, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
- Ltpowers, then
change the template (to some kind of fair use template)make a new fair use template if you think this would be an lawful and accepted change - and in line with our project goals. --Saibo (Δ) 02:09, 19 December 2011 (UTC) (changed since there are also some few legitimate uses --Saibo (Δ) 02:11, 19 December 2011 (UTC))- Fair use is not allowed on Commons, and you know it. Please stop. Powers (talk) 02:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- It seemed you want to change something like introducing fair use. Rules are there to be rewritten. ;-) Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 03:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- But this is not a fair use case; this is a case where the overwhelming consensus of editors is that this image is, in fact, in the public domain due to anonymity. Repeatedly re-starting discussion won't change that; without additional evidence of some sort, it is not productive and it is bordering on disruptive. Powers (talk) 03:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
- You're welcome to request my block. My suggestion to you is already above: make a big poll to change Commons aims (COM:L, COM:PRP, COM:PS#Evidence) and create new templates ... --Saibo (Δ) 16:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
- But this is not a fair use case; this is a case where the overwhelming consensus of editors is that this image is, in fact, in the public domain due to anonymity. Repeatedly re-starting discussion won't change that; without additional evidence of some sort, it is not productive and it is bordering on disruptive. Powers (talk) 03:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
- It seemed you want to change something like introducing fair use. Rules are there to be rewritten. ;-) Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 03:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- Fair use is not allowed on Commons, and you know it. Please stop. Powers (talk) 02:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- DRs are no vote - in order to give your vote a bit of usefulness please comment on the issue and reply to the claims of the contrary of your opinion. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 15:27, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - the museum doesn't know the identity of the photographer. It is unlikely to be recorded anywhere, hence we assume PD. --Claritas (talk) 14:30, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- How do you know that the museum doesn't know the name? Which research was done by the museum? When was the first publication? Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 15:05, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep see above --Miha (talk) 21:36, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete There is too little data to prove that the image is in public domain. The burden of proof lies on the uploader or other person arguing for the file to be retained. They have to demonstrate that as far as can reasonably be determined, the file is in the public domain or is properly licensed. The original photo seems to be kept by the Military Museum of Slovenian Armed Forces. It should be retained in Commons only if:
- a) The owner of the image ascertains with an OTRS-confirmed email that they do not know who created the image or a source is found directly stating that the author is unknown, and it is confirmed that the image was first published more than 70 years ago or more than 70 years after it was created.
- b) The owner provides the name of the author or a source is found containing it and it is confirmed that he or she died in 1944 or earlier.
- Possible sources[9] of information are, in addition to the photo library of the museum, J. Švajncer, Slovenska vojska 1918-1919 (COBISS 17207040) and e. g. Sava J. Mikić: Istorija jugoslovenskog vazduhoplovstva [History of the Yugoslav Aviation] (Naša krila, Beograd, 1933, COBISS 16432391), subtitled "sa 615 slika u tekstu" [with 615 images in text].[10] --Eleassar (t/p) 09:28, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Commons images need to be free in both the United States and the source country. The copyright status in the United States is unknown because the source doesn't provide any evidence of publication. If unpublished and anonymous, it is copyrighted in the United States for 120 years since creation. If not anonymous, it might be copyrighted in both the United States and in the source country, and the website doesn't seem to tell whether it is anonymous or not. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:26, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Kept. As per previous Keep closures. If anyone discovers it's not in PD feel free to re-open DR to get it deleted --Denniss (talk) 11:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
template's requirements not obeyed: "To use this template, the image must meet both of the following two conditions: published over 70 years ago, and the original author's actual identity was not publicly disclosed in connection with this image within 70 years following its publication. " Saibo (Δ) 01:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Subject and year indicated on the photo, but photographer not disclsed; and please ignore that robot. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:53, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
- Hi, vk robot, I did not say it isn't. Please fulfill the second requirement. --Saibo (Δ) 04:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep per Pieter Ipos (talk) 13:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
- This is no vote. Please comment on the issues I made clear in my initial statement. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 22:16, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
- Your statement indicates that you did not even look at the photo; you only copied your identical text in several unrelated images, like a bot. Ipos agreement with my response shows that he actually looked at the photo. And his comment is more informativ than all these admin deletions where no reason is given at all. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:36, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I did copy my deletion reason because all images have the same issue. What is your problem with this?
Yes the image contains some info in the lower right corner (I cannot read them) - fine. But why does this mean that "the original author's actual identity was not publicly disclosed in connection with this image within 70 years following its publication"? Yes, the name maybe (if you can read correctly) wasn't mentioned on the front side of the photo. What about the back side? What about a accompanying letter, whatever? Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 01:36, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I did copy my deletion reason because all images have the same issue. What is your problem with this?
- Your statement indicates that you did not even look at the photo; you only copied your identical text in several unrelated images, like a bot. Ipos agreement with my response shows that he actually looked at the photo. And his comment is more informativ than all these admin deletions where no reason is given at all. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:36, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
- This is no vote. Please comment on the issues I made clear in my initial statement. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 22:16, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 13:53, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
No reason for last close given. Saibo (Δ) 22:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- While I recognize that "published anonymously" and "we don't know the photographer's name" are two very different things, it seems to me that Saibo's reading of this template requires the impossible burden of proving a negative -- that the image was in fact published anonymously and that the author never disclosed his authorship.
- Perhaps the template needs re-wording, or should be removed from our arsenal, because as it is, I think the only legitimate use for it is on images that were clearly marked as "anonymous" on first publication. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:13, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, the template is usable only on a tiny fraction of the images which currently use it. Also see my comment here. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 15:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - do not give in to Jim and Saibo who want to deleta basically all old photos of which the photographer is unknown. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:11, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
- Pieter, you misrepresent me in two ways. First, although I believe that this particular template is not applicable here, I offered no opinion on this image. Second, I also have no particular desire to delete any image -- Commons is richer for every image we keep. I do, however, require that we obey the law and Commons policy on every image -- which means that sometimes we must delete an image simply because we do not have enough information. You have a tendency to conflate "anonymous" with "unknown to Commons". As you certainly know they are not the same. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:25, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
- No misrepresentation, as you wrote that you want to delete the template. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:32, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
- Pieter, you misrepresent me in two ways. First, although I believe that this particular template is not applicable here, I offered no opinion on this image. Second, I also have no particular desire to delete any image -- Commons is richer for every image we keep. I do, however, require that we obey the law and Commons policy on every image -- which means that sometimes we must delete an image simply because we do not have enough information. You have a tendency to conflate "anonymous" with "unknown to Commons". As you certainly know they are not the same. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:25, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - not knowing the photographer's name is not the same thing as the image having been published anonymously. If you had a contemporary source, it would be one thing, but some random website is not sufficient to demonstrate an anonymous publication. Parsecboy (talk) 21:15, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- Deleted. It has not been shown that the photographer published this anonymously, that a serious attempt has been made to find the photographer or that such a search would be futile. From previous discussion: "As in case of other templates, its usage requires proper documentation and where this is missing or unsatisfactory, the individual files can be submitted for deletion." Thuresson (talk) 12:45, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, Thuresson (talk) 12:45, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
template's requirements not obeyed: "To use this template, the image must meet both of the following two conditions: published over 70 years ago, and the original author's actual identity was not publicly disclosed in connection with this image within 70 years following its publication. " Saibo (Δ) 01:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep WWI photo, ignore the bot. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
- Hi, vk robot, how should this fulfill the second requirement? --Saibo (Δ) 04:19, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
- See information template, where the author field states: unknown - Jcb (talk) 13:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
- Hi, vk robot, how should this fulfill the second requirement? --Saibo (Δ) 04:19, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 13:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
template's requirements not obeyed: "To use this template, the image must meet both of the following two conditions: published over 70 years ago, and the original author's actual identity was not publicly disclosed in connection with this image within 70 years following its publication. " Saibo (Δ) 01:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep WWI photo; ignore the bot. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:56, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
- Hi, vk robot, how should this fulfill the second requirement? --Saibo (Δ) 04:19, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keepseems to be, that the original author's actual identity is unknown as in most cases concerning photos from WWI. made in the field! --Steinbeisser (talk) 06:28, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
- Hi, vk robot, how should this fulfill the second requirement? --Saibo (Δ) 04:19, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep per Steinbeisser Ipos (talk) 16:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} seems to apply. – Adrignola talk 00:50, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
template's conditions still not fulfilled (see last DR above). The picture was only published on some WW1 fan page (or what is it). What do they know about the photo? Would they surely know the author if somebody (from the "public") know him? Was this photo never published in a book? Why should the doubtful internet fanpage be enough to strip the photographer from his 70 years pma copyright? Saibo (Δ) 05:36, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - repeating DRs like this is just disruptive. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:09, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, unless a reference to the 1917 publication of this photo is given for verification whether it is published with or without author name. This will not be reasonable research to verify that the authorship was never disclosed, but it is a startingpoint at least. At the moment we have no information on nothing. --Martin H. (talk) 18:53, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept - per previous DR - Jcb (talk) 13:57, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
What is going on here? NO replies to my questions - no nothing. --Saibo (Δ) 01:16, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- I agree, the file description explains: "because it was published more than 70 years ago without a public claim of authorship", this explanation must bear up against the question: Where was it published more than 70 years ago without a public claim if authorship? If the file description cant answer this question then the explanation is incorrect and cant be used. The file not has a valid copyright tag. --Martin H. (talk) 09:42, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- I could open a third DR... awesome processes here. --Saibo (Δ) 17:48, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Same as last DR. Saibo (Δ) 22:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - and block Saibo if he does nominate this a fourth time. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:17, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
- Comment I see a 'vote' saying "ignore it", I see an opinion saying that the author is unknown because it is unknown in "most" cases, I see a closure saying "{{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} seems to apply"... Sorry, but thats not arguments. The file description says that the file "was published more than 70 years ago without a public claim of authorship". Can we confirm this with a source? Where was it published? If this cant be answered the file should be removed from the project because of unclear copyright status. Delete. And because of unclear information. It appears to me that the "unknown" author is not added to the file description because various sources confirm or suggest it, but written there for the only purpose to upload something to Wikimedia Commons. That is manipulation of historic facts for a very strange reason. --Martin H. (talk) 23:05, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 09:23, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- DRs are no vote - in order to give your vote a bit of usefulness please comment on the issue and reply to the claims of the contrary of your opinion. --Saibo (Δ) 15:15, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence presented that the photo was published prior to 1942. This looks like a private photo and could be unpublished before it appeared on the web.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:09, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - As I said in a related DR, not knowing the author's name is not the same being published anonymously. Also per Nigel. Parsecboy (talk) 21:17, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- Deleted. It has not been shown that the photographer published this anonymously, that a serious attempt has been made to find the photographer or that such a search would be futile. From previous discussion: "As in case of other templates, its usage requires proper documentation and where this is missing or unsatisfactory, the individual files can be submitted for deletion." Thuresson (talk) 12:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, Thuresson (talk) 12:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
template's requirements not obeyed: "To use this template, the image must meet both of the following two conditions: published over 70 years ago, and the original author's actual identity was not publicly disclosed in connection with this image within 70 years following its publication. " Saibo (Δ) 01:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep "Hornisterschule" the sign says in German, must be pre-1918; ignore the bot. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:58, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
- Hi, vk robot, how should this fulfill the second requirement? --Saibo (Δ) 04:20, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep per Pieter Ipos (talk) 13:46, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 13:59, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
template's requirements not obeyed: "To use this template, the image must meet both of the following two conditions: published over 70 years ago, and the original author's actual identity was not publicly disclosed in connection with this image within 70 years following its publication. " Saibo (Δ) 01:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep 1917 photo; ignore the bot. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:00, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
- Hi, vk robot, how should this fulfill the second requirement? --Saibo (Δ) 04:20, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep per Pieter Ipos (talk) 16:08, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Keep. The nominator for deletion has failed to identify the author of the image, or give a source that identifies the author of the image, hence the second requirment is not proved to be unfullfilled. 84.23.155.84 19:03, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
- Dear not-logged in user, you've misunderstood the template's text as well as Commons:Project_scope#Evidence. --Saibo (Δ) 04:06, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 13:59, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
See last DR. See template: "Images that lack either of these two conditions should not use this template." Second condition not fulfilled. Saibo (Δ) 01:18, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - per consensus in previous DR - Jcb (talk) 09:28, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep would you kindly suggest a way how to prove that there is no known author? --Bencmq (talk) 07:56, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept, Total Lunar Eclipse (talk) 14:10, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Still no evidence at all. DRs are no vote!
@Bencmq: there is no sure way to proof. But as the template says "Reasonable evidence must be presented..." - at least... If you cannot proof anything here it is not my problem - it is yours. Yes, this license template is unusable in most cases. Not my problem. Saibo (Δ) 00:03, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- speedy close - per concensus in previous DRs, unnecessary renomination - Jcb (talk) 14:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept. While Saibo is correct that both components of the test need to be explicitly addressed in a DR, it is impossible to prove a negative such as this one. As for "reasonable evidence", one must focus on the word "reasonable" - it is unreasonable to interpret that requirement in a manner that renders this template unusable. The source does not identify an author, and an internet search through Tineye and Google images does not identify an author either. As far as I am concerned, that is a reasonable and prudent confirmation of the anonymous status of this image. Saibo, if you continue to be concerned about whether the second test is met, your issue would appear to be with the template generally, and likely all images that use it, rather than with this one image, and perhaps you should raise that concern in a broader forum. Cheers, Skeezix1000 (talk) 11:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- The template is just used wrong - it may be correct in some rare cases where the evidence is much better than just "internet search through Tineye and Google images does not identify an author" ... this is an pre internet age photo! And you know: Google and TE do by far find not all images even if they are on the web. Pardon - what about books? Experts? What is the provenance of the photo? Btw: the template had a DR which was closed without a reason. --Saibo (Δ) 17:08, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but I find it somewhat over-the-top to expect anyone to be consulting "experts" to find out if an author has been identified. What expert could possibly tell you that someone has or has not published a copyright claim within the last 94 years? I do not think you are interpreting the requirements reasonably. And, if you have an issue with the template or its application, that isn't an issue for here. I'm frankly not sure why this template isn't replaced across the board with {{Anonymous-EU}}. Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- Why do we need to be that unsure (without(!) notifying the reuser of this - this is against our mission of a free content repo). If we are not user we simply cannot use a photo. That simple. Read what the template claims, compare with what we really know and compare with our project goal. Btw: there is nothing different with your other proposed template. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 20:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but I find it somewhat over-the-top to expect anyone to be consulting "experts" to find out if an author has been identified. What expert could possibly tell you that someone has or has not published a copyright claim within the last 94 years? I do not think you are interpreting the requirements reasonably. And, if you have an issue with the template or its application, that isn't an issue for here. I'm frankly not sure why this template isn't replaced across the board with {{Anonymous-EU}}. Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- I am hardly one to take the "looks old" approach to the determination of public domain status but here even I feel you are taking an unreasonably strict approach to this. At this point, we are just talking in circles. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
template's requirements not obeyed: "To use this template, the image must meet both of the following two conditions: published over 70 years ago, and the original author's actual identity was not publicly disclosed in connection with this image within 70 years following its publication. " Saibo (Δ) 01:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Subject born 1912, subject looks about 30; the bot-reason can be ignored. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:11, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 14:00, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Files of User:Potek
edit
All 3 files are tactics diagrams of a court game with no notability, probably invented by the uploader. The whole thing was identified as original research/hoax and deleted in Polish wikipedia here pl:Wikipedia:SDU/Słupki - in commons, it has no foreseeable use and is out of scope. --Santosga (talk) 01:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:15, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately, there is no source for this image here or at the original en.Wikipedia page, and I can't find this using either TinEye or Google, so we can't be sure about the license. Sven Manguard (talk) 03:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep source: http://xplanes.free.fr/f108/f108.html - of course this is a US Air Force image, nobody else would have been allowed to snoop around i the development stage. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:27, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete The article at XF-108_Rapier is clear that the mockup was constructed by North American Aviation. Since it was in NAA's facility, it's more likely that it was their photo, but in any case the matter is not clear enough for us to keep it. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 14:02, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
ZWNJ illustration PNGs
edit- File:Incorrect Hebrew Vav with Holam male without ZWNJ.png
- File:Incorrect display of Persian without ZWNJ.png
- File:Incorrect display of German without ZWNJ.png
- File:Incorrect display of Arabic without ZWNJ.png
- File:Correct Hebrew Vav with Holam haser with ZWNJ.png
- File:Correct display of Persian with ZWNJ.png
- File:Correct display of German with ZWNJ.png
- File:Correct display of Arabic with ZWNJ.png
These images were all uploaded by me. I believe they should be deleted because I have replaced them by SVG files both here and on Wikipedia. -- j. 'mach' wust | ✍ 07:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Far better alternatives have been created High Contrast (talk) 18:23, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
files of Yeungchunming1992
edit- File:剛建成的興華邨(第二期)校舍 (攝於七十年代).jpg
- File:興華邨(第二期)校舍 (攝於1994年9月9日).jpg]]
- File:擴建新翼中的興華邨(第二期)校舍 (攝於1997年).jpg
- File:完成擴建新翼後的興華邨(第二期)校舍 (攝於1999年9月2日).jpg
- File:柴灣邨24座舊校舍 (攝於六十年代).jpg
- File:柴灣海星小學校歌歌譜 (2000年前版本).jpg
- File:校歌歌譜 (2000年後版本).jpg
- File:돌아오지 않는 해병.jpg
- File:돌아오지 않는 해병 The Marines Who Never Returned.jpg
- File:빨간 마후라 Red Muffler.jpg
- File:만추 Late Autumn (1966).jpg
- File:삼포가는 길 Road to Sampo.jpg
- File:남부군 Nambugun- North Korean Partisan in South Korea.jpg
- File:남부군 Nambugun - North Korean Partisan in South Korea.jpg
- File:하얀전쟁 White Badge.jpg
- File:헐리우드키드의 생애 Life and Death of Hollywood Kid.jpg
Reasons for deletion request : I think all are copyvios. Uploader has a long history of deleted uploads with copyright status problems. He also re-upload deleted copyvios by just changing file name.
- The movies posters are obvious copyvios with "own work" claims.
- The rest is scanning without any indications of source of the original work, and the "own work" claims of this user are impossible to trust.
For this reason, it raises huge doubts on the 5 recent photos :
- File:Chai Wan Star of the Sea Primary School.jpg
- File:翻新後的6樓禮堂.jpg
- File:地下大堂現貌.jpg
- File:學校大門.jpg
- File:柴灣天主教海星小學307號課室.jpg
I don't know about those. They seems legit, with exif data, although there's 3 different cameras : NIKON E990, Canon DIGITAL IXUS 120 IS, MOTORAZRV9 , and the claims of own work from this user... well.
I would advice deletion of the obvious movie poster/dvd covers, and also the scanned material if no further informations and proofs are provided through OTRS. For the 5 recent photos, i have no idea. I would advice NOT TO BLOCK this user... at least we can keep an eye on the uploads of his copyvios.--Lilyu (talk) 07:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
this is a poor quality image that has now been superceded by better quality images Sardaka (talk) 21:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- Superseded by what? Wknight94 talk 02:28, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: No superior alterative provided. – Adrignola talk 19:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Poor quality pic now superceded by better quality pic Sardaka (talk) 09:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Not a reason to delete. We generally keep more than one image of a subject. In any case, we certainly will not delete an image for this reason unless the nominator cites the better image in the DR. Please do not nominate this again. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:23, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Poor quality shot superceded by better shots, (1)_NIDA_Kensington1-5 etc 220.237.50.220 10:25, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept What did you not understand about the two closures above? I'm going to block both User:220.237.50.220 and User:Sardaka for a week to give you time to consider whether you want to follow our rules or simply waste time. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:33, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
File:Limbourg_brothers_-_Les_très_riches_heures_du_Duc_de_Berry_-_Septembre_(September)_-_WGA13026.jpg
edit
duplicate / lower quality Mel22 (talk) 09:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: link to other file is missing in DR Jcb (talk) 14:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
duplicate / lower quality Mel22 (talk) 09:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: link to other file is missing in DR Jcb (talk) 14:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
File:Limbourg_brothers_-_Les_très_riches_heures_du_Duc_de_Berry_-_Novembre_(November)_-_WGA13028.jpg
edit
duplicate/ lower quality Mel22 (talk) 09:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: link to other file is missing in DR Jcb (talk) 14:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Title error Lohen11 (talk) 09:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: use {{Rename}} - instead Jcb (talk) 14:03, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
File:Limbourg_brothers_-_Les_très_riches_heures_du_Duc_de_Berry_-_Astrological_Man_-_WGA13033.jpg
edit
duplicate / lower quality / bad colors Mel22 (talk) 09:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: link to other file is missing in DR Jcb (talk) 14:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
duplicate / lower quality / bad colors Mel22 (talk) 09:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: link to other file is missing in DR Jcb (talk) 14:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
File:Limbourg_brothers_-_Les_très_riches_heures_du_Duc_de_Berry_-_Juillet_(July)_-_WGA13024.jpg
edit
duplicate / low quality Mel22 (talk) 09:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: link to other file is missing in DR Jcb (talk) 14:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
duplicate / lower quality Mel22 (talk) 09:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: link to other file is missing in DR Jcb (talk) 14:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
duplicate / lower quality Mel22 (talk) 09:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: link to other file is missing in DR Jcb (talk) 14:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
and
Einstein was not a part of the US gov. sугсго 10:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep with {{PD-US-no notice}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:27, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
- http://arcweb.archives.gov/arc/action/ExternalIdSearch?id=593374&jScript=true states that access and use restrictions are "Unrestricted"
I think this should NOT BE DELETED.
This item must not be deleted as it is testimoniance of really important from historical point of view of the whole world...I also cannot understand Mr Kuiper comment: who cares if Einstein was not part of the US gov? And where this sentence is written in the wiki page we've read? Please clarify and argument.
Thomas
Implication of the US Govt
edit
Of course, A. Einstein was not a member of the US Govt, but the letter was formally addressed to the President of the United States, and its copy its kept within the papers of the government.
Kept: Published in 1939 in the US. No copyright notice as was required at the time, so PD-US-no notice. – Adrignola talk 03:58, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Natuzzi_mandus (talk · contribs)
editThe portrait, Ribinsky.jpg, is marked as own work from 2010, yet the man died in 2004. The image can be found here, in a smaller version, but available on the web before the larger version was uploaded here. The second image, Palindrom.jpg, also does not look like own work at all, rather like a scan.
Rosenzweig δ 11:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
There is FOP in Germany but this does not look like "permanently located". So does FOP still apply? MGA73 (talk) 13:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: no, 'permanently' is a clear condition Jcb (talk) 14:08, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
From the same Flickr import as two other highly probable copyvios, so we probably shouldn't be using this unless we have confirmation that all the Yeo pics are free to reuse. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- Whoops. I hit Nominate for deletion rather than report copyvio. Could an admin close this up please? —Tom Morris (talk) 14:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- No, please let it run its course. I'm not really comfortable with speedy deletion on this. --Rosenzweig δ 18:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: copyright situation unclear, high risk for flickrwashing Jcb (talk) 14:16, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
- File:Route openbve1.PNG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Route openbve2.PNG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Route openbve3.PNG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Route openbve4.PNG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Route openbve5.PNG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
I do not understand why these files should be deleted. These scenes were made using free software. But there is a guy tagging these files with {{Copyvio}} (which should only be used for clear cases), and it seems impossible to persuade him to make a regular DR. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- According to this, "The content of the screenshot must be free too. Make sure the screenshot does not contain unfree text or images." The program (the simulator) is free, while the routes and trains, which are addons and not part of the program, can be licensed under many different licenses. Many are copyrighted; it is not known what the license of the ones in the screenshot are. Train2104 (talk) 18:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: no evidence for the Train2104 claim about copyright, I couldn't find such a statement at the official website either Jcb (talk) 14:24, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
mistakey by author EchterMacGutter (talk) 18:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
fehlerhafte datei...korrekte folgt nach löschen ebendieser EchterMacGutter (talk) 20:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 03:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
A group photo of not notable people 80.187.106.225 18:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- That's hardly a reason for this picture to be deleted. Also explain what do you mean by "notable". Keep
- Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 19:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep clearly in scope for the truck and scenery alone. MKFI (talk) 20:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep This image is one from a series of about six dozen images documenting a trip across Tajikistan, a poorly documented region. Because it is a poorly documented region I would defend uploading all six dozen images. Geo Swan (talk) 15:20, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: although this might be borderline Jcb (talk) 14:25, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
No official US Government website link for this picture. So, we can't be sure that its a US Army photo. Leoboudv (talk) 18:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- That is probably a valid rationale per our policy. The picture was widely circulated in all media when it was announced he was going to Leavenworth and so implies it was an official photo but the cited carson .mil site says it is not official. The .mil domain is a bit confusing. Leavenworth's .mil site http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/ says that one is official so it's an easy mistake.Americasroof (talk) 11:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep I don't understand the comments above. The source site is an official US Army site -- all .mil sites are official US military sites. The site says that everything is PD unless otherwise noted. There is no such note on this image. On top of that, it looks like an Army portrait, so it passes the duck test. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:54, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- A question has been raised about the status of ".mil" sites -- they are all owned by the US Department of Defense and its subdivisions, see .mil. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 14:27, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
{{PD-US-no notice}}, but I doubt that there was no copyright notice in MGM film. There is copyright notice on this poster of The Naked Spur, but I'm not sure - is it for the film or for the poster only? 94.158.199.11 19:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- And all files in Category:The Naked Spur (1953 film). --94.158.199.11 19:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep The problem here is that while we can assume that the film and its posters had copyright notices, many trailers did not. Even trailers that did have notices were almost never renewed, so I would give long odds that this is PD. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 14:28, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
delete as per Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act (18 U.S.C. § 2251) which states "producers of sexually explicit material need to obtain proof of age for every model they shoot, and retain those records." Plus NOT in use in ANY Wikimedia Project. Does not indicate whether the model is the user themselves/obtain permission. --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 05:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Change reason: COM:SCOPE violiotion. --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 22:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, model is clearly of legal age, nominator is just being a [censored] and nominating every image that involves anything less modest than a full prairie dress on the project. Bikinis, even kilts, it seems everything meets his definition of "extremely erotic and thus must be deleted". Also worth noting tha tthe quoted portion of 2251, which has been found unconstitutional and is awaiting appeal according to w:Porn 2.0, is in reference to producers; neither WMF nor the uploader qualify as a "producer", hence the text is meaningless to us. This is essentially as foolish as suggesting we need to delete all images taken in musuems or sports stadiums that prohibit photography. Max Rebo Band"almost suspiciously excellent" 06:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Hmmm... the model bordelines the late 17s to late 20s. Can be either way. --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 06:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- As of 06:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC) this image is NOT used in ANY of Wikimedia's projects (see http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/CheckUsage.php?w=_100000&i=File:Woman_in_Schoolgirl_Fetish_Uniform_lifts_Shirt.jpg). Plus, the description indicates that this is taken from a pornography gallery " Fabian Photo in White Bikini.png
- you wanna see more of her ?
- ... just gimme some comments, please !" (http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Fabian_Photo_in_White_Bikini.png&oldid=39173001)
- Hmmm... the model bordelines the late 17s to late 20s. Can be either way. --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 06:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
--Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 06:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Photos of females in bikini, being "sexually explicit material"???????????????? Even in the USA, images of females in bikini are not considered pornographic - in copine scale, if this was a underage female this whouldnt be a 1, the less serious - but this female is clearly an adult, on a non-sexual public ambience (near a lagoon, possible in Baden, Germany, according to the tags). Also its description is a mere remainder that the photographer might have showed more images of this female, not that this "indicates that this is taken from a pornography gallery", as this photographer doesnt have any porn image on flickr. Tm (talk) 07:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- As per the comment left at File:Testicle Cuff with Weights.jpg, the author User:LordO wanted the image remove from commons and have already deleted it from his flickr page. --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 08:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- @Tyw7, but that seems to be a different issue. --Túrelio (talk) 08:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- I've just realised that this user uploaded imgs from different flikr contributors. --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 08:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- @Tyw7, but that seems to be a different issue. --Túrelio (talk) 08:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- As per the comment left at File:Testicle Cuff with Weights.jpg, the author User:LordO wanted the image remove from commons and have already deleted it from his flickr page. --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 08:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep This is no more sexually explicit than the department store catalog I got in the mail yesterday. And less explicit than many I see walking around the local mall. Wknight94 talk 11:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment I don't see concerns on age with this one. --Herby talk thyme 12:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Tyw7, not every woman is a child - you don't seem to have noticed this yet. --Saibo (Δ) 13:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment It's definitely not sexually explicit, but the educational value, if there is any, is minute. --JN466 14:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete low-quality derivative of orginal image. - Stillwaterising (talk) 15:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep bad faith inappropriate nomination. A photograph such as this of a young woman (of whatever age) wearing a bathing suit such as commonly seen at public beaches is in no way pornographic. Period. -- Infrogmation (talk) 16:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Even if the quality is poor, I see no valid reason to delete it. Furthermore the reasons evoked are completely wrong ! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 19:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- The author of this image emailed me:
- "Hello,
- thanks for your e-mail.
- I haven´t noticed yet, that this picture is set to "creative commons" ... changed it to "all rights reserved". So it would be nice, if you delete it from Wikimedia commons (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fabian_Photo_in_White_Bikini.png).
- Thanks a lot and greetingz" --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 19:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Well I'm sorry to inform you and the author that Commons licences are not revokable ! So that's not a valide reason either ! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 19:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Normally I don't chime in on these, and I dont want to get involved with the Porngate event... but this is hardly sexually explicit. 1) She's not naked 2) It's not showing off anything you wouldn't see at a beach 3) She's not posing provocatively. Image might be low quality and possibly replaceable with something much better, but lets not go all 18th century. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 19:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep with ShakataGaNai on this one, nothing wrong with this image, I noticed the image because Tyw7 came shopping in #wikimedia-commons. Multichill (talk) 19:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- And he is shopping for license changes at flickr authors obviously. ;) --Saibo (Δ) 21:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not shopping. The image license differ from what is seen in this img so I doubt whether the img was lawfully uploaded in the first place. --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 21:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- It was obivously licensed as CC when you wrote your email (author wrote according to you: "I haven´t noticed yet, that this picture is set to "creative commons" ... changed it to "all rights reserved"."). So you're mixing up the facts. In addition it was reviewed by User:Leoboudv - so it was apparently. --Saibo (Δ) 22:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not shopping. The image license differ from what is seen in this img so I doubt whether the img was lawfully uploaded in the first place. --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 21:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- And he is shopping for license changes at flickr authors obviously. ;) --Saibo (Δ) 21:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Sexually explicit on what planet?--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep @Prosfilaes: this planet, among people who have not yet realized the 20th century has begun (and ended ;-)). Erik Warmelink (talk) 03:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment (no vote). The posted rationale is clearly wrong, as the "sex" exists solely in some easily excited imaginations. The photo may however be out of Commons scope - basically a snapshot of a friend. My feeling however is that in order for such a deletion to be done, the AfD should be refiled so as not to delude anyone into thinking that the "2251" rationale is actually valid. Also, while content outside of the project scope is vulnerable, we should question (along the lines of "WP:POINT") whether deletions even of inappropriate material should be driven by an apparent policy difference with the uploader. Wnt (talk) 10:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- I agree. This image is so un-sexually explicit, that it's actually useless. Ordinarily a poor-quality unposed picture of an unidentified person would be unanimously deleted. But framed as a COM:PORN issue, you have to vote "Keep". Bring it back in a month or two and say "COM:SCOPE violation", and it might disappear. Wknight94 talk 11:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept, deletion not supported. Infrogmation (talk) 23:43, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Having re-read the original nomination, I re-nominate on grounds that the author apparently did not realise the licence was set to CC. While I accept we have the legal right to keep it, the contract was apparently entered into unwittingly. The image is unused and I see no harm in removing it as the author requested. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep No valid reason of deleting. No harm to keep it, no need to delete, no out of scope, and the fact that it's unused is NEVER a valid argument). And, most of all, licences not revokable (mistake or not). --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 19:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per Mattbuck, and see Flickr source. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Question mattbuck, how do you know that "the author apparently did not realise the licence was set to CC"? Just because he has changed the license now? Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 22:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- Unless Tyw7 was lying about the email, but the NC was added after that. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- It's up there in the original DR. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- After searching trough all contribs by Tyw7 above I got it: at "19:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)". Precision is useful! ;) Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 00:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep As it was first tried to delete this file per the §2251 crap I do not trust in a neutral or positive mail to the flickr author. Whatever was told him which bad things a free license mean, I do not know. It was uploaded on 2007-02-16 at flickr. And he changes the license three years after? And after many comments (explicitely noticed by him) on his image? Sorry, that is simply too late and without any reason. Maybe I should write im another email explaining him the goodness of free licenses. ;) But I do not want to waste my time. But one thing we can learn: A thank you comment is useful also to help to protect authors from selecting wrong licenses. --Saibo (Δ) 00:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- I can't find the origional email as I deleted it :/... Also, I think I wrote something on the lines that creative commons enable everybody to reuse your image, even commercially, as long as they credit you. But I believe that if the author wants to take it down, I believe it should be done as coutsey. Anyways you could always contact the author again :P --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 22:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 13:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- Comment COM:PEOPLE states that images on commons must be taken down if the author has not given explict consent for the image to be used/wanting the images to be removed. --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 16:18, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- COM:PEOPLE says nothing like that. It says that the subject's (not the author's) consent is needed, and only if it was taken in a private place.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete If the people involved with the photo want it deleted, then let's delete it--Hold and wave (talk) 13:14, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Pointless low-quality personal photo. --P199 (talk) 22:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Per last deletion request, NOTHING as changed, in a public place so no privacy rights violated (see the reasoning in the deletion request above), in scope (see categories), no way to assess how the license was changed and for what reason (and it was merely the author that stop distributing the image under that license as the license is irrevocable). Also the author himself said 53 months ago in the source page of this same image that is being tried to be deleted "thanx to all ... so, I´ll upload new photos in near future !!!", so if the author really requested that the image be removed it is not about personality rights but truing to revoke a irrevocable license. Tm (talk) 17:03, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept. No offense, but can't take the word of the person who tried to nominate this for deletion the first time that an email was received stating that the licensing was a mistake. The email address for the Flickr user is clearly shown, so if the author emails OTRS to affirm such a statement (directly, not a possibly altered forwarded email) with a darn good reason, then I'll consider deletion. Otherwise, the license is not revocable. Removing images because the Flickr license changed is a precedent that shall not be initiated. – Adrignola talk 03:31, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
mistakey by author EchterMacGutter (talk) 18:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
fehlerhafte datei...korrekte folgt nach löschen ebendieser EchterMacGutter (talk) 20:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 03:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
The value of such a low-quality "38" seems limited; given other uploads by the uploader, it's unlikely to really be "own work" anyhow. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Jcb (talk) 14:29, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
