Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2009/08/08
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.jpg){kind=link}
Pictures of banners are generally derivative works, and not OK on Commons. I wonder if the community has any views here? I have no strong feelings either way. Leoboudv (talk) 00:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- The point of the photograph was not to copy the banner but to show the accomplishment being honoured by a banner hanging in the Rogers Centre. It is acceptable, of course, to take photographs that include banners, posters, logos, and other creative works such as, for example, taking a photograph of the Rogers Centre with the Rogers Centre logo prominent. If it was simply a copy of the banner, then yes, I agree it's unacceptable but it's not; it's the banner hanging in the stadium. DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- It doesn't really matter that the banner is shown "in context", as opposed to a simple reproduction of it. However, I'm not sure that there is anything eligible for copyright on this banner; the text is clearly okay, and the background image of the blue frame would probably pass as de minimis. –Tryphon☂ 13:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Keep OK that's clear then. I, the nominator have decided to withdraw my nomination. This DR can be closed as a keep. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
withdrawn Kept. Mbdortmund (talk) 23:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Photograph of a poster; poster is likely under copyright (person depicted was born 1907, died 1984), hence likely to be a copyright violation. Mike Peel (talk) 05:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 22:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
DR as nominated Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 23:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
file not uploaded Yiwenyiwen (talk) 10:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Broken image Huib talk 08:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Kept. I fixed it. –Tryphon☂ 09:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Not used. Out of scope. Gothika (talk) 11:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - Clearly out of the scope of the project. — df| 21:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
out of scope Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 23:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
duplicate of File:Margaretha Geertruida MacLeod-Zelle in the Dutch East Indies 1900.jpg Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 13:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Already Deleted by Túrelio. Kwj2772 (msg) 13:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
No credible evidence uploader is the author and there is no evidence that the publisher would knowingly wish to release this book cover into public domain. The uploader included a non-free rationale incoherent language regarding how such "images are customarily deemed to be in the public domain." That's just wrong.--HoboJones (talk) 14:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete Uploader has confused fair use and public domain. Copyvio. --Simonxag (talk) 10:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
A logotype for the Coast Guard. No license at all. The Coast Guard has objected this Wikipedia image, because it is their logotype, but slightly different. Similar situation as for File:Kustbev vapen.svg. --BIL (talk) 14:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Permission is {{cc-by-sa-2.5|Lokal_Profil}}, no problem at all. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Different situations. One is a copyrighted logo, the other is an independent interpretation of the, free, blazon. /Lokal_Profil 18:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Per Pieter and Lokal --Ankara (talk) 08:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
see disk above Kept. Mbdortmund (talk) 23:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Bad quality: out of focus. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Neutral for the moment. It's currently the only picture avaible to illustrate fr:Robot suiveur de ligne.--Bapti ✉ 21:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)- Keep Horribly blurry, but in use on the French Wikipedia. --Simonxag (talk) 11:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Really poor quality. --Daniel Baránek (talk) 06:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Yes its really bad quality but its the best we have right now and in use on two article, I would suggest to deleted when a better images available. Huib talk 17:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
changing speedy in normal DR original reason: The image for Dag Hammarsjöld doesn't have an license that is concatenamble with GFDL/CC etc... Huib talk 17:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Difficult to understand Azatoth's reasoning; all licenses are being converted anyway. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- Keep I can't see any reasons for this nomination either. Narking (talk) 17:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- I've though that an license must explicit say that sublicencing is ok, but if you can prove me wrong, than I lay down my case. →AzaToth 17:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- Keep The word "all" does mean all. But the the file needs to be licensed as CC-By-SA, not PD as at present, as per the last 2 source pictures. --Simonxag (talk) 12:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I contacted the flickr owner and this was his reply: "My photography has been all rights reserved for quite some time. As for that image in particular, it is one of my better sellers and I don't think that is one I should release for common usage since it might affect images sales. I hate to be a stick in the mud, but it is hard enough making a buck right now, I can't afford to dilute my income stream much at all. Sorry. Thanks, Todd." Since it is not a FlickrLickr image and the owner wants it deleted, WikiCommons cannot legally keep it." Leoboudv (talk) 19:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- Delete We have no proof that image was ever free. Uploader is no longer active and does not have a history that makes me feel good about keeping the image. --MGA73 (talk) 20:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- Delete seems like this one could be a speedy? --Captain-tucker (talk) 22:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - per nom and above. — df| 21:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- Delete I am Todd Klassy, owner of this image. The above comment/post from Leoboudv is accurate. Please delete this image. Thanks. --Johnnyblood 10 August 2009
Deleted. Huib talk 10:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
I think NBC would have the copyright to their publicity photos. --Ricky81682 (talk) 19:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- Delete NBC is the copyright owner. --Leoboudv (talk) 07:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Huib talk 17:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Picture from Love Song CD single. Own work doubted, permission required Michiel1972 (talk) 20:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Looking at the small resolution suggests this is a copy vio. But the nominator's note that this is a CD picture makes it a non-free image. --Leoboudv (talk) 21:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Huib talk 17:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
source website, where is permission? Michiel1972 (talk) 20:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. npd Huib talk 17:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Copyright violation. Someone gave permission but didn't have the right. contacted otrs members.
Comment According to Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#File:Sander-jan-klerk.jpg, there is no copyright problem. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)- Comment this isn't something Commons administrators could handle in, the complaint is send to OTRS and the permission is also in OTRS. I'm sure this will be discussed and handled within otrs and OTRS will take the needed actions. Huib talk 23:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- OTRS remarks
A few observations made while viewing the OTRS ticket:
- The OTRS ticket containing the permission (Ticket:2009040810050103) was undoubtedly send by the same user as the user who requested this deletion;
- The user claims deletion because the permission was send by someone who does not have the rights for the picture, as this is the same user, this is very implausible;
- The user claims to have contacted OTRS for this, no OTRS e-mail has been received for 122 days;
Ergo, it's my believe that this user regrets releasing his image (via Wikiportrait, the Dutch photosubmissions) and wants it removed by claiming copyright problems.
Solution: If there is indeed a copyright problem, the user can contact OTRS via (nl) permissions-nl
wikimedia.org or (en) permissions-commonswikimedia.org and explain the situation to them. Without proper explaination (especially why he first released the image himself and then wants to revoke the permission) there can be no reason whatsoever to remove this image, as everything seems in order.
In short: 86.91.202.127, please contact OTRS to explain everything via (nl) permissions-nlwikimedia.org or (en) permissions-commonswikimedia.org
Best regards, m:Mark W (Mwpnl) ¦ talk 01:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: I also asked the user on his talk page to send further details to OTRS. Regards, m:Mark W (Mwpnl) ¦ talk 01:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I was contacted in regards to this image, but I have no rights to see the ticket, and thus cannot take any action. howcheng {chat} 05:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- Response send via Ticket:2009080910012431. Discussion ongoing there. m:Mark W (Mwpnl) ¦ talk 12:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Per Ticket:2009080910012431 - Issues with Personality rights. m:Mark W (Mwpnl) ¦ talk 13:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
change of mind on this picture TheJudge (talk) 22:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per uploader request. --Leoboudv (talk) 22:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Accept uploader's mistake as image has only just been added. --Simonxag (talk) 12:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
unused and per uploaders request Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 23:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I could have labeled this as a copyvio of http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-8477572-ruins-of-herod-s-palace-at-masada-israel.php but since this is pikiwikisrael... Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Not the same photo (different time of day) - nomination withdrawn. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- Keep as Pieter says. The person on the other www.istockphoto.com 'took' the same image from Commons but the image on Commons was here first. --Leoboudv (talk) 07:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
er
no notability. the article in ru.wiki is just deleted Andrei Romanenko (talk) 01:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 16:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
very unlikely that uploader took this image --Túrelio (talk) 07:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --PaterMcFly (talk) 21:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - agree with the nominator. — df| 21:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. No source, no permission. Yann (talk) 16:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Nonfree logo of a company. No credible evidence that the uploader was the author of the logo, or otherwise authorized to release it into copyleft. [1] --HoboJones (talk) 14:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Kept. PD-ineligible Yann (talk) 16:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
http://www.bebo.com/Profile.jsp?MemberId=6551460204 79.201.65.72 15:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyvio. Yann (talk) 16:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
this person is not notable. the article at ru.wiki is just deleted Andrei Romanenko (talk) 15:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Tiny resolution hints at a copy vio. --Leoboudv (talk) 21:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope, no permission. Yann (talk) 16:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Only 1 univ. existed in this category, and only 6 universities exists in this city,(see ja:三鷹市). And no other categories like this (universities in Japan by city) exists in wikimedia commons. -Hohoho (talk) 15:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. by Abigor Yann (talk) 16:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
COM:DW Huib talk 16:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I created and uploaded this file today to use as an illustration in the Wikibook 'International Postage Meter Stamp Catalog' which is under construction. Why would anyone want to delete it?
Keep Algerian copyright lasts 50 years and this thing has a 1955 date (incorporated into the stamp). --Simonxag (talk) 11:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Kept. as per Simonxag. Might not be eligible any way. Yann (talk) 16:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Is this free under a PD-GOV license, or just a copyvio ? Huib talk 17:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Not much to copyright: only the watermark is original, but it is not readable, so de minimis. Tagged as PD-ineligible. Yann (talk) 16:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
An Error Occurred Mridealist (talk) 19:04, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Keep If there's a problem with this upload, just upload a replacement over it. --Simonxag (talk) 22:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Seems OK now. Yann (talk) 16:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I strongly doubt that this is own work, looks like a press picture --Huib talk 21:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. No source, no permission. Yann (talk) 16:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Texte gras
The source gives the information that the Photo courtesy is of John Dibbs. None of the stated licence tags fits. High Contrast (talk) 15:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. John Dibbs has a website. Clearly, he isn't an employee of the US Air Force and I couldn't find any mention of a free licence. Pruneautalk 15:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Copyright status of fascist propaganda is unclear. It is illegal to produce new propaganda, but copyright should be valid on the old one. --User:G.dallorto (talk) 21:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete Italian copyright is 70 years. It might be 50 years for government works but on the Commons we are assuming it's 70. --Simonxag (talk) 12:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Texte gras
Falsches Bild für dieses Zahnstangen-System --Rahimsa (talk) 19:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Wieso? Nach de:System Von Roll stimmt das doch. Die Aussenführung ist optional. Und sowieso wäre das ein Grund für eine Umbenennung, nicht für eine Löschung. --PaterMcFly (talk) 21:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Nach meiner Meinung wäre das von Roll oder ist es Riggenbach-Pauli? Werk kennt den Unterschied?--Pechristener (talk) 21:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Ja es ist definitiv von Roll nach Rücksprache mit den Bahnverantwortlichen. Hier auf der Haltestelle Allmend. Der Autor Rahimsa.
Kept --GeorgHH • talk 22:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Image shows (part of) a still copyrighted work of Dan Flavin, located in the US where there is no freedom of panorama for works of art --Túrelio (talk) 13:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I took the photo and release all rights. It shows only part of an art-work which occupies all 4 walls. I considered it a photo of the interior of a public building. Much like a photo inside a theatre or a museum. Wmpearl (talk) 21:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Tiptoety talk 01:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Picture taken from a book. Source website does not say if picture is taken by a US military on duty or for personal hobby or by a French civilian Teofilo (talk) 07:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- Keep http://www.5ad.org/pics/norman34.html does not look like a French "Frenchmen with liberators" picture. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- US president F.D. Roosevelt disliked the Free French. Would a US army signal corps photographer have dared to keep a picture with Free French insigna ? Is it not easier to imagine that the same person who wrote the insigna on the wall is the person who took the picture ? Teofilo (talk) 14:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- Deleted. No evidence for a US military image given. High Contrast (talk) 19:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- US president F.D. Roosevelt disliked the Free French. Would a US army signal corps photographer have dared to keep a picture with Free French insigna ? Is it not easier to imagine that the same person who wrote the insigna on the wall is the person who took the picture ? Teofilo (talk) 14:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- This closure was premature, see User talk:High Contrast#Very fast deletion. This request is reopened and will stay open for 7 days. Unless someone finds a source supporting the US military claim, it will be deleted. Multichill (talk) 09:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for reopening this. Shimgray (talk) 21:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- I gave this matter some thought when I first uploaded the image; as Teofilo spotted, it's not quite obvious what the license should be. It's not explicitly labeled with an author; none of the images in that set are, sadly. Some are "personal" photographs, of named people; some are more clearly "stock" photographs (this, for example, I recognise). My strong feeling is that, on the balance of probabilities, it was taken by a US soldier on active duty; the argument that only a Frenchman would be likely to use a Free French poster as a backdrop is a bit hard to take seriously! I do accept it's not possible to be absolutely sure, because there's no clear image captioning in the source; so be it.
- However, I've dug around a bit more, and found something interesting. The image is a digitised copy taken from the book Paths of armor, published 1950. Per this chart, we see that a work published in 1950 with a copyright notice would need renewing; the renewal would be due in 1977 or 1978 per here. I've dug through the renewal records for 1977/1978, and failed to find anything. I'm not clear if this would directly impact the copyright status of the image - does it only count if published in its own right? - but the lack of a renewal notice certainly seems worth thinking about. Shimgray (talk) 21:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Kept, per Shimgray. Kameraad Pjotr 21:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
no source for copyrighted free use grillo (talk) 20:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Not eligible for copyright. Sweden has a similar threshold of originality as Finland, and according to links in COM:LICENSING#Finland, coats of arms are free. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- Then why do we create our own coats of arms instead of using the "official" versions? /grillo (talk) 21:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- Because some municipalities claim copyright, which may be correct for some none-traditional designs. If I had known about the Finnish copyright opinions, I would have brought it up at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Stockholm vapen bra.svg. Deleting that one was copyright paranoia I think. Anyway, COM:FOP#Sweden allows copying of permanently displayed designs, for example on the outside of City Halls or Customs offices. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- Then why do we create our own coats of arms instead of using the "official" versions? /grillo (talk) 21:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Kept. I think what Kuiper is saying makes good sense here. #Finalnd makes it clear that the coats of arms are free, so the cited reason for deletion is not applicable. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
The Finnish decision (which the last DR quoted) is based on a decision by the Finnish Copyright Council. Unless there is a similar Swedish decision I don't see how the Finish case can be applied. As for the current license an OTRS permission would be needed to support it. /Lokal_Profil 10:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- The relevant section of Commons:Licensing is "The textual representations of Finnish coat of arms of municipalities, regions and provinces are considered to be governmental decisions and therefore they are not protected by copyright. According to the opinions of the Finnish Copyright Council 1997:11 and 1998:5 also the graphical representation is thought (at least in these cases) not to meet the requirements for a original work of art and therefore is not protected by copyright. This is also thought to be true for the coat of arms of historical provinces and other historical coats of arms.". Considering that not only the municipalities but also the National Herald (Statsheraldiker) claims that these are copyrighted. /Lokal_Profil 10:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- Keep As previously. The Finnish official opinion of the copyright council carries more weight than the claims of an expert in heraldry. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- But the Finnish copyright councils opinion is completely irrelevant... in Sweden. Yes the situations are similar, but not the same. E.g. in Finland all photos taken by people active in the military are also free, not so in Sweden. Get a decision from the Swedsih Copyright Council and I'll happily go along with you, but until then there isn't ant strong evidence of the image being free./Lokal_Profil 11:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, a Swedish copyright council does not exist. This official opinion of Finnish experts relevant because it is based on the same law paragraphs and general ideas about threshold of originality as in Sweden, as the Nordic countries coordinated their legislation in this area. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- Although the paragraphs might be similar I still believe the interpretation would be different in Sweden. Similar examples is how all government photos are free in Finland due to Template:PD-FinlandGov this is not so in Sweden (and Denmark methinks) since the similar paragraph does not extend to images but just the documents and decisions. There is a similar situation for stamps where the Finnish ones are free but e.g. Swedish ones are not. I'll agree that the legal framework is very similar in the Nordic countries but how the framework is interpreted apparently seems to differ. Finland seems to be the country which interprets towards the most freedom, sadly there is nothing indicating that Sweden would do the same. /Lokal_Profil 14:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- It is not true that Finnish copyright is more liberal - COM:FOP#Finland is more limited than in Sweden, but that does not matter for this case. Regulations for stamps or government works do not have anything to do with the concept of threshold of originality either. Such difference are based on differences in the text of the law. But when the law is the same, the official interpretation and application of Finnish law is highly relevant for other Nordic countries. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- What I'm stressing with these is that they are all formulated in the same way "This file is in the public domain because it is a part of a decision or a statement by an authority or a public body of COUNTRY." The interpretations of the text by specialists/court cases/copyright councils etc. is then what's lead to the decision of whether or not images in such decisions & statements then also become PD. In Finland this is so, in Sweden it isn't, in Norway it depends on whether the image was originally created for said statement. So word wise they are all similar but interpretation wise they are not. Same thing should be assumed to apply for CoAs unless we have some form of evidence to the contrary. It falls back to the precautionary principle, if we don't know that it is free we shouldn't assume that it is. /Lokal_Profil 16:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- It is not true that Finnish copyright is more liberal - COM:FOP#Finland is more limited than in Sweden, but that does not matter for this case. Regulations for stamps or government works do not have anything to do with the concept of threshold of originality either. Such difference are based on differences in the text of the law. But when the law is the same, the official interpretation and application of Finnish law is highly relevant for other Nordic countries. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- Although the paragraphs might be similar I still believe the interpretation would be different in Sweden. Similar examples is how all government photos are free in Finland due to Template:PD-FinlandGov this is not so in Sweden (and Denmark methinks) since the similar paragraph does not extend to images but just the documents and decisions. There is a similar situation for stamps where the Finnish ones are free but e.g. Swedish ones are not. I'll agree that the legal framework is very similar in the Nordic countries but how the framework is interpreted apparently seems to differ. Finland seems to be the country which interprets towards the most freedom, sadly there is nothing indicating that Sweden would do the same. /Lokal_Profil 14:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, a Swedish copyright council does not exist. This official opinion of Finnish experts relevant because it is based on the same law paragraphs and general ideas about threshold of originality as in Sweden, as the Nordic countries coordinated their legislation in this area. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- But the Finnish copyright councils opinion is completely irrelevant... in Sweden. Yes the situations are similar, but not the same. E.g. in Finland all photos taken by people active in the military are also free, not so in Sweden. Get a decision from the Swedsih Copyright Council and I'll happily go along with you, but until then there isn't ant strong evidence of the image being free./Lokal_Profil 11:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- As Pieter Kuiper says above: the laws themselves do differ regarding the examples given above. In Sweden certain types of works are explicitely eligible for copyright regardless of being part of a decision, while in Finland it depends on whether the work is regarded as part of the decision or as an independent work.
- Regarding "government photos" I think the main difference is between the wikipedia communities. The Finnish have elected a liberal interpretation of "yttrande" (translated to "statement" in the template) while the Swedish have not. I have not heard of any court cases or similar that would back up either.
- Ask Tullverket. Due to this article Tullverket has released their coat of arms under a free licence. /grillo (talk) 15:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- No, that article only shows Kustbevakningens belief that Tullverket has released the image under a free license, probably due to the fact that their logo shows up on their Wikipedia page. Pieter arguments is for a PD license. If we're arguing about whether this logo was released under a free license then we need a copy of the permission sent to OTRS, as with all similar cases. /Lokal_Profil 16:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- As in "ask them". /grillo (talk) 14:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- Their opinion isn't really relevant to the discussion above. If the decision is that the Finish decision isn't enough then yes we would need to ask them/demand an OTRS entry of the permission. If the decision goes the other way though we have essentially decided that all Swedish coat of arms are PD in which case Tullverket's permission is not needed. Since the question about the validity of the Finish decisions for Sweden is much more relevant (and far reaching) it's important that we decide on that irrespectively of any permission issue. /Lokal_Profil 00:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- As in "ask them". /grillo (talk) 14:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- No, that article only shows Kustbevakningens belief that Tullverket has released the image under a free license, probably due to the fact that their logo shows up on their Wikipedia page. Pieter arguments is for a PD license. If we're arguing about whether this logo was released under a free license then we need a copy of the permission sent to OTRS, as with all similar cases. /Lokal_Profil 16:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, Finland is not Sweden and there is no permission (OTRS). Kameraad Pjotr 19:38, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Images of Anna375
[edit]File:Roco Conserve Rorschach 1926 -1927.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)Revoked, see bellow- File:Rakete Bild.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
File:Nestle Logo.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)Removed, is PD-Old- File:Frisco Glace Logo.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Frisco Gemuese.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Frisco Findus Logo.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:EXTREME Cornet.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
File:Coro Conserve Rorschach 1924 -1925.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)Revoked, see bellow
These images of User:Anna375 are most likely all copyvios and scanned from some company-history book. "own work" is very improbable for *all* of them, besides that they are from the 1920ies. They're used in the article de:Frisco (Eismarke), which is by the same user. He has been warned multiple times both here and on dewiki and asked for an explication, but didn't answer. Some of the images may go as logo on de, but not here on commons. --PaterMcFly (talk) 20:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- The Rorschach images are also old enough. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- Why? They're older than 70 years, but that doesn't mean the creator is dead for more than 70 years. I thought that it was consensus to usually accept images of unknown authors when the images are older than about 100 years only. Do I miss something? --PaterMcFly (talk) 08:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- The work (an advertisement for jam) is not signed, so {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} would apply. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, I didn't know about this special rule. Unfortunatelly however, Switzerland is not in the EU. Or does this even apply if the advertisement was also used i.e. in germany (for which, besides, there's currently no proof)? --PaterMcFly (talk) 09:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- I did not realize this was Swiss. But anyway, COM:L#Switzerland gives the same rule for anonymous works. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- That looks good then. So they should be relicensed to PD-Old? --PaterMcFly (talk) 15:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- {{PD-anon-70}} would be more correct in this case. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- That looks good then. So they should be relicensed to PD-Old? --PaterMcFly (talk) 15:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- I did not realize this was Swiss. But anyway, COM:L#Switzerland gives the same rule for anonymous works. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, I didn't know about this special rule. Unfortunatelly however, Switzerland is not in the EU. Or does this even apply if the advertisement was also used i.e. in germany (for which, besides, there's currently no proof)? --PaterMcFly (talk) 09:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- The work (an advertisement for jam) is not signed, so {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} would apply. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- Why? They're older than 70 years, but that doesn't mean the creator is dead for more than 70 years. I thought that it was consensus to usually accept images of unknown authors when the images are older than about 100 years only. Do I miss something? --PaterMcFly (talk) 08:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
<move left>Ok, I've re-licensed the two old advertisement pictures and revoke the deletion request for them. --PaterMcFly (talk) 19:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, except File:EXTREME Cornet.jpg, which could be own work due to EXIF-data. Kameraad Pjotr 19:41, 25 December 2009 (UTC)