Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2010/06/19

Copied from globoesporte.com, a copyrighted website, without direct link so that one can check original license. --Ednei amaral (talk) 01:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, distorted duplicate – outside of project scope. Blurpeace 06:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Website (source) is "all rights reserved" and it's not stated "anyone can use if for any purpose, provided that the copyright holder is properly attributed." Ednei amaral (talk) 01:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept, pending permission email. Blurpeace 06:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from http://www.promata.pe.gov.br/internas/turismo/cha_grande.asp Ednei amaral (talk) 02:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Blurpeace 07:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from http://www.deolhoemchagrande.com.br/caldeiroes.htm Ednei amaral (talk) 02:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Blurpeace 07:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from http://www.panoramio.com/photo/1674878 Ednei amaral (talk) 02:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Blurpeace 07:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Better res exists here: File:Julien Quentin Elmau 2009.jpg --Lix (talk) 00:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Axpde (talk · contribs) for being an "exact or scaled-down duplicate" of the referenced photo above. Blurpeace 06:41, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

duplicate of "Radio1033Lokalradio.png" GIGAtim93 (talk) 20:43, 19 June 2010 (UTC) --GIGAtim93 (talk) 20:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by DieBuche: Exact or scaled-down duplicate: File:Radio1033Lokalradio.png

This is too similar to the CBS logo. Many editors have complained, especially on en.wikipedia. Should error on the side of caution and prevent any possible copyright infringment William S. Saturn (talk) 23:33, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete: Way too similar to the CBS logo. Too many complaints on en.Wiki. Do away with them and find something new. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep, ineligible for copyright. A deletion request on this public domain file is not the appropriate platform to have the Flagged Revisions icon changed. --Martin H. (talk) 00:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep, PD-ineligible. VernoWhitney (talk) 00:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  SPEEDY KEEP This image and the group it is part of were created and at their source are owned by the WikiMedia Foundation. This nomination and the speedy delete noms of all of the related images is a joke. It is included in the mw:Extension:FlaggedRevs so protecting the WMF from harm is kind of a lulzy reason when they still put the image out with every download of the extension. Url for the image in the extension: http://svn.wikimedia.org/viewvc/mediawiki/trunk/extensions/FlaggedRevs/img/2.png?pathrev=63265&view=co&revision=45289 Do we really need to be protecting the WikiMedia Foundation from themselves? :P Keep all related images. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 00:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Speedy Keep The level of copyright paranoia here is ridiculous, or else it's an excuse to delete the image because some people just don't like it. Both this and the CBS logo are probably {{PD-ineligible}}, as they are both stylized images of a human eye made from a circle containing a vesica piscis containing another circle. Besides the CBS logo, it's also very similar to the Eye of Providence, the khamsa. But neither of those would support an attempt to delete this image. Anomie (talk) 00:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Probably" isn't good enough. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you a copyright lawyer, that you can make definite statements? I'm not, and copyright law seems far from logical, hence "probably". Anomie (talk) 01:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you are willing to "speedy" anything, you ought to be more sure than "probably". I am not arguing with you, you are "probably" right, but we must error on the side of caution in legal manners, even if we are "probably" in line.--William S. Saturn (talk) 02:19, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also "probably" won't be hit by lightning tomorrow. My lack of certainty isn't going to cause me a moment's worry. Anomie (talk) 03:19, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes to the law, you must always be certain.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest when it comes to trademark law certainty is purposely not always there (to avoid someone from claiming total rights to use something simple) but this specific case is quite clear (almost as close to certain as you can get in this area of law. The copyright part is certain but I think you have been focusing on the trademark part. Jamesofur (talk) 05:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep In no way a copyvio or a trademark vio. Many of the arguments against show no understanding of the trademark regulations. We do not delete based on wrong understandings of the law. Jamesofur (talk) 01:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Leyo 10:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is too similar to the CBS logo. Many editors have complained, especially on en.wikipedia. Should error on the side of caution and prevent any possible copyright infringment William S. Saturn (talk) 23:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The addition of a self made eyeball to the Wikipedia logo has nothing to do with CBS. I never would have thought CBS unless you said it. The CBS logo has a bigger circle in the center. Personally, I think that saying this infringes on the CBS logo is bending over backwards to then reach way too far to arrive at that conclusion. 68.190.71.51

• Speedy Delete: Way too similar to the CBS logo. Too many complaints on en.Wiki. Do away with them and find something new. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep, PD-ineligible work on top of a Wikipedia logo. An SVG improvement over File:Redaktor_Wikipedia_600px.png. VernoWhitney (talk) 00:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  SPEEDY KEEP This image and the group it is part of were created and at their source are owned by the WikiMedia Foundation. This nomination and the speedy delete noms of all of the related images is a joke. It is included in the mw:Extension:FlaggedRevs so protecting the WMF from harm is kind of a lulzy reason when they still put the image out with every download of the extension. Url for the image in the extension: http://svn.wikimedia.org/viewvc/mediawiki/trunk/extensions/FlaggedRevs/img/2.png?pathrev=63265&view=co&revision=45289 Do we really need to be protecting the WikiMedia Foundation from themselves? :P Keep all related images. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 00:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Speedy Keep The level of copyright paranoia here is ridiculous, or else it's an excuse to delete the image because some people just don't like it. Both this and the CBS logo are probably {{PD-ineligible}}, as they are both stylized images of a human eye made from a circle containing a vesica piscis containing another circle. Besides the CBS logo, it's also very similar to the Eye of Providence, the khamsa. But neither of those would support an attempt to delete this image. Anomie (talk) 00:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Speedy Keep. As per previous comments of this image being ineligible for copyright. Ginbot86 (talk) 00:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep In no way a copyvio or a trademark vio. Many of the arguments against show no understanding of the trademark regulations. We do not delete based on wrong understandings of the law. Jamesofur (talk) 02:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep The resemblance appears to be superficial at most.12.150.232.195 04:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep As per previous comments on this page. I feel that the image is at best vaguely similar, and both are pd-ineligible. Nomader (talk) 19:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep It didn't remind me of the CBS logo; resemblance is superficial - do they ever use yellow? Rothorpe (talk) 23:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Speedy keep — Tanvir 09:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep For reasons previously mentioned. Reach Out to the Truth (talk) 16:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Leyo 16:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is too similar to the CBS logo. Many editors have complained, especially on en.wikipedia. Should error on the side of caution and prevent any possible copyright infringment William S. Saturn (talk) 23:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete: Way too similar to the CBS logo. Too many complaints on en.Wiki. Do away with them and find something new. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep, PD-ineligible work on top of a Wikipedia logo. VernoWhitney (talk) 00:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Speedy Keep The level of copyright paranoia here is ridiculous, or else it's an excuse to delete the image because some people just don't like it. Both this and the CBS logo are probably {{PD-ineligible}}, as they are both stylized images of a human eye made from a circle containing a vesica piscis containing another circle. Besides the CBS logo, it's also very similar to the Eye of Providence, the khamsa. But neither of those would support an attempt to delete this image. Anomie (talk) 00:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  SPEEDY KEEP This image and the group it is part of were created and at their source are owned by the WikiMedia Foundation. This nomination and the speedy delete noms of all of the related images is a joke. It is included in the mw:Extension:FlaggedRevs so protecting the WMF from harm is kind of a lulzy reason when they still put the image out with every download of the extension. Url for the image in the extension: http://svn.wikimedia.org/viewvc/mediawiki/trunk/extensions/FlaggedRevs/img/2.png?pathrev=63265&view=co&revision=45289 Do we really need to be protecting the WikiMedia Foundation from themselves? :P Keep all related images. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 00:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep In no way a copyvio or a trademark vio. Many of the arguments against show no understanding of the trademark regulations. We do not delete based on wrong understandings of the law. Jamesofur (talk) 01:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep There's not much more to say that hasn't been said already. imo not a copyvio and should be kept. Happysailor (talk) 07:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep As I've said many times, this is not a copyright or trademark vio. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep per Anomie. Kayau (talk) 12:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  The embodiment of copyright paranoia It looks similar to a lot of things, and there really isn't original authorship. Just don't misuse it to violate trademark, and we're ok. NativeForeigner (talk) 17:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep CBS's logo is pd-textlogo, and this is fine. Copyvios are one thing, but this is wayyy too much cvparanoia.  fetchcomms☛ 17:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep Not a copyright violation at all. It's just a simple eye graphic created for FlaggedRevs. If there really is a problem, you should be contacting the developers about it. But I don't see a problem, especially not a copyright problem.Reach Out to the Truth (talk) 16:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Leyo 16:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

brak zgody postaci za M.Kaczyńską -- 20:22, April 24, 2010 User:Tgol

Google says: "no consent form for M. Kaczynska". I say: no consent needed--DieBuche (talk) 22:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete I'm not so sanguine; what about COM:IDENT? This doesn't look like a public place to me, though it's clear they knew about the photo, since it's clearly staged. I wish I knew more about the circumstances of the photography; few of us get a chance to get a staged photo of any president, at least not of something bigger than the glee club. I'm not sure that File:Wojtek z rodzina.JPG and File:Wojtek i rodzina.JPG are the solutions.
So, post-rambling, the photographer desires the deletion of his photo because one of the people in the photo have asked for it, and I'm willing to respect that.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Julo (talk) 06:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

bad name (unnecessary prefix, good named file already uploaded) Mboro (talk) 16:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

where?--DieBuche (talk) 22:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

here: File:DEU_EK_Ritter_oak-sword-diam_gold_BAR.svg – it's withuot "2e" initials... ;)
Cheers. Mboro (talk) 21:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.Unused dupe of File:DEU_EK_Ritter_oak-sword-diam_gold_BAR.svgDieBuche (talk) 13:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is supposed to portray Hideki Yukawa, but it does not really look like him. Only in use on a user page, not educationally useful, not in COM:PS. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. ZooFari 03:50, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 21:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. ZooFari 00:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

unused blurred private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 21:19, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. ZooFari 00:50, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

unused nearly private image - out of scope, bad quality Cholo Aleman (talk) 21:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete per nom. Amada44 (talk) 10:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. ZooFari 00:50, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 21:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. ZooFari 00:50, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

unused advertisement for a spanish-speaking DJ - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 21:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. ZooFari 00:51, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

unused selfadvertisement for a small company - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 21:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. ZooFari 03:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see resemblance; not in use, not educationally useful. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:33, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. ZooFari 03:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

out of scope,unused personal logo of an unknown music band Santosga (talk) 21:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. ZooFari 00:52, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The statue was apparently erected in 2005 in Galveston, Texas. Per Freedom of Panorama in the United States, "...publication of an image of a copyrighted artwork thus is subject to the approval of the copyright holder of the artwork." I see no approval. Because of this, I suggest the file be deleted. --Rockfang (talk) 05:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - It appears that the uploader consents to deletion.--Rockfang (talk) 05:35, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• This was inappropriate. As the copyright owner I have every right to request the deletion of a photograph that I own (regardless of reason), and furthermore my request outweighs those of all others. Please keep the rights of authors in mind when making further noms for deletion. --nsaum75^¡שיחת! 17:19, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I disagree with the above comment. Just because an uploader wants an image deleted, it does not mean the file is automatically deleted. For example, if that statue was Canada, the file had a proper license, and was within project scope, in most cases any deletion suggestions would pretty much be irrelevant. Especially if the file was in use on another Wikimedia project. Even if it was the uploader wanted it deleted. More information regarding that can be found here. The uploader's desire carries just the same weight as anybody else's. Regardless, the file will be deleted, and should have never been uploaded in the first place.--Rockfang (talk) 05:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Thank you for your eloquent reply. Wikimedia states: "Generally, if you're releasing your own content under a free license, you cannot revoke the permissions granted" but there are cavets under US law which legally gives me more weight regarding display or removal than a non-associated user. In any case, this conversation is moot. We both are in agreement that the file should be removed. --nsaum75^¡שיחת! 06:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:03, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative work: photograph not permanently placed High Contrast (talk) 08:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it. --Kolossos (talk) 11:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Had been tagged as a copyvio, but the case is not obvious. Jappalang wrote:

• copyvio -France does not permit photographs which has copyrighted structures in prominence. See:
• Commons:Deletion requests/Pictures of the Louvre Pyramid
• Commons:Deletion requests/Louvre Pyramide
• Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2005/08#Image:Paris_Louvre_Pyramid_Sunset.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2006/06#Image:Louvre Pyramid.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Louvre DSC00662.JPG
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:I. M. Pei Louvre Pyramid.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Louvre pyramid + group entrance building.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Louvre inside pyramides.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pyramides du louvre.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Louvre Pyramid.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Louvre Pyramid 2.jpg
• Commons:Freedom of panorama#France
• Commons:De minimis#An example under Civil Law

But this is our only photo of that summit. And the pyramid is just a backdrop to the group photo of the government leaders. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete: The pyramid and its presence occupies 2/3 of the photo and wholly over-towers the people in front of it. As such, I am certain it is prominent and does not qualify as de minimis; nobody is going to miss the pyramid or ignore it. In each of the case presented above, prominence of the structure is the key reason to the images' deletion. Jappalang (talk) 11:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the desire is to retain a photo of the summit's delegates together, I believe cropping out the top two-thirds of the photo would and deleting the previous version of the photo would do; i.e. reduce the prominence of the pyramid (by cropping till only its base remains). Jappalang (talk) 11:59, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On further inspection, the source does not state who took the photo (it might be one of the other governments who later shared it with Bush), which might raise further issues of copyright. There are copyrighted materials in the Library and the information given on the site is not sufficient to explicitly determine the status of the material (http://bushlibrary.tamu.edu/research/faq.php). Jappalang (talk) 11:59, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Ok, I agree, this could very well be a French photographer. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:13, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the fact that this appears on a "wanted" poster doesn't mean it was taken by a US State Department employee--in fact that's very unlikely if you think about it. Prezbo (talk) 08:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reopened DR per request of User:Geo Swann. The site's FAQ says:

"Unless a copyright is indicated, information on this Web site is in the public domain and may be reproduced, published or otherwise used without RFJ's permission. We request that RFJ be cited as the source of the information and that any photo credits or bylines be similarly credited to the photographer or author or RFJ, as appropriate."

There is no indication of a copyright on this image's page, so, perhaps, this deletion was premature.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:00, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a more obvious example. Obviously these images weren't taken by a State Department employee and it isn't up to the State Department to declare that they're in the public domain. However there's no photo credit on that page, so the same argument would apply to those images. Actually I don't think any of the pages on that website have a photo credit.Prezbo (talk) 07:39, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, no evidence that this was taken by a US State Department employee. Kameraad Pjotr 19:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

television screenshot - copyright violation Cholo Aleman (talk) 09:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:28, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

unused advertisement for a college - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 09:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

COM:DW sугсго 09:33, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete per nom: COM:DW (Shreck movie characters). --High Contrast (talk) 20:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:30, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

unknown child, no permission by parents, no hint why we should keep this axp_de^Hello! 09:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. ZooFari 03:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

original picture on flickr is copyrighted Athenchen (talk) 10:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:43, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative from a photo, for example here. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:43, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

and File:Keturi Komunari at Grutas Park.jpg, File:Lenin Statue at Grutas Park.jpg.

No Freedom of panorama in Lithuania. Likely to be less then 70 years old. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:55, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

and File:Marija Melninkaitė Grūtas.JPG, File:Sniečkus Grūtas.JPG.

No Freedom of panorama in Lithuania. Likely to be less then 70 years old. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. Nobody cares this right. The monument constructed in Soviet times, then all of thing was public domain. Hugo.arg (talk) 15:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For better or worse--IMO some combination of two--copyrights that may not have existed or may not have mattered in Soviet days have been resurrected post-1989. These are in Grūtas Park; w:Grūtas Park says "Since January 2007 the park conflicts with the agency of Lithuanian copyright protection association. The agency requires the royalties to be paid to the seven Lithuanian artists who authored some of the statues." So apparently some care about the copyrights.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrights laws in post-USSR countries is generally retroactive and I don't think that special exceptions for Soviet times works exists in Lithuanian law.

If park owners have documents about copyrights transfer, will be good idea o ask them to file such documents into Commons:OTRS. Otherwise they just own physical statues and make payments to copyrights owners.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, it's a nonsence what a PICTURE of the sculpture (which is/was at the public place) is wrong. Then, let's ask permision of grand duke Gediminas at the pictures of Gediminas tower. These soviet sculptures was demolished and prepared to destroy only the manger of Grūtas park restored them [1]. Also, some of the sculpture authors tried to get money because of demonstration of these sculptures but according laws they got nothing. Hugo.arg (talk) 08:59, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No Freedom of panorama in Lithuania. Likely to be less then 70 years old. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In wikipedia, there are articles about the communist in seven languages, and all of them use the photo - deleting the photo in commons would result in copying it to all seven branches, and so to multiply its storage. According to an information sign at the bust, it was made in 1935, the year in which Kapsukas died, 75 years ago, so it is OK to picture it according to European Union laws, but also the lithuanian law on Copyright and Related Rights (5 March 2003 No. IX-1355: summed up as Limited freedom of panorama in Lithuania is granted by article 28 ("Limitations to Copyright in Works of Architecture and Sculptures") of the Law Amending the Law on Copyright and Related Rights. This allows a photographer to make and publish pictures of sculptures and works of architecture that are permanently located in public places.) in my opinion does not mean a reason to delete it.

ThomasPusch (talk) 16:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:50, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete: COM:FOP says Lithuanian FOP doesn't extent to commercial uses, so it can't be on Commons or any WP that doesn't do Fair Use or something similar. According to the English WP article, Grūto park is fighting with the heirs of many of the statues in their park about royalties, so this is a live dispute.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, so it's 75 years old. The law is still life+70, not 70, and we can't assume the sculptor died by 1940.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep: Even if Grūto park is fighting with the heirs of some of the statues in their park about royalties, the copyright status of this bust beeing more than 70 years old is clear. Kapsukas may be liked or not, but he is an important figure in the 20th century history of Lithuania, and the photo is needed to illustrate the wikipedia articles about him in different languages. Aidas (talk) 09:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, no freedom of panorama in Lithuania for sculptures; no evidence that the sculptor died 70+ years ago. Kameraad Pjotr 18:57, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative of a work protected by copyright, for example here. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:51, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The copyright holder of this work restricts redistribution, commercial use, and modifications permossion needs to be sought from the copyright holder." That's not free enough for Commons, per Commons:Licensing. -- Kam Solusar (talk) 16:16, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:52, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative of this photo, it seems. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Norsk bokmål: Til sletteforslaget av fila. Når eg teiknar portrett av avdøde personar finn eg ei fotografi av personen, gjerne på internett, og så teiknar eg portrettet med frihand. Det har eg og gjort med portrettet av Olav H Hauge. Eg har gått ut frå at det var OK lisensmessig.

English: In response to the file deletion request. When I draw portraits of deceased persons, I find a photo of that person, often on the internet, and i draw the portrait by freehand. That is what I did with the portrait of Olav H Hauge. I have assumed that this was OK according to the license.

--Andrva (talk) 19:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC), translated by Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This would actually be ok, if the law in Norway still was like the law in Sweden was before the EU harmonization of 1994, see sv:Användare:Wanpe/Foton med verkshöjd#HD-fallet med avritade foton på Evert Taube. But also in Norway, photography is now integrated in copyright law. As it says in no:Fotografirett#Vern for fotografier som ikke er åndsverk: "ikke bare ren kopiering er omfattet av eneretten, men også etterligning ved tegning eller lignende". /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:57, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:53, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bad name, description, etc: my error André Koehne ^{TALK TO ME} 16:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Duplicate of File:O Hissope (ilustr) 1878.jpg. ZooFari 03:52, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

logo (advertisement) of a small film / video company - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 17:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:53, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

very special unused biochemical diagram - usable for a scientific publication but out of scope for the commons Cholo Aleman (talk) 17:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete Out of scope. –BruTe ^Talk 17:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a mess. Source is a user with Photoshop (which I really doubt) author is FAA and Licence is NASA ??? Avron (talk) 17:33, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete For poor quality. Image appears to have been used previously (at lower resolution) here. No opinion on copyright status. -Nard the Bard 20:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep I have improved the image somewhat and changed the license to a generic US Government one (FAA wasn't an option and since it uses the NASA astronaut star in the center I chose the NASA license). I will improve the image further when time permits. As there are no better images available, I think we should keep it. (Hopefully, it is less of a 'mess') SGT141 (talk) 03:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:00, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative of this photo. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:35, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:00, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not very old looking terracotta figurine on masonry work in Greece. COM:FOP#Greece is "not OK" Teofilo (talk) 20:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep: By all means this can hardly be considered as art. They are used by the hundreds all across Greece as part of roof tiling, they produce them by the thousands and they sell them in places along with roof tiles, cement and masonry material. There is no known creator, they are fabricated in ceramic or terracotta factories. Its as much art as a brick --Alaniaris (talk) 13:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mickey mouse or the Barbie doll are produced by thousand, yet they are copyrighted. Teofilo (talk) 22:51, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced by File:Flag of Wakayama Prefecture.svg User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 20:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Renominated. See the example provided by Trycatch: This isnt even created by hand and scanned or drawn by hand on a computer - this is simply the original photo photoshopped. Martin H. (talk) 12:27, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete - the comparison that Trycatch made is clear evidence for a copyright violation; no reason was given by the admin that kept this. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:30, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  KeepYou could well make the same comparison to this and be equally right or wrong. A drawing of a person is supposed to look like the person, including characteristic expressions and head carriage. It should not surprise us that this one does. Our artist has said that he or she has used four different images in drawing this -- why can't we believe that? After all, if I take a paragraph of history from a text and re-write it, it is free of copyright. I don't have to have been there when the event happened, or use more than one source. Why should we demand more of an artist, particularly since, as the cases cited above make clear, the law does not require it.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

this photograph doesn't fits at all. The right ear is not visible, the neck is not visible, the eyes are looking to the right, the face is slightly rotated to the left (&down) so the nose and the chin are completely different, and so on. There is no even need in a detailed comparison. At the same time the drawing is identical to the first photograph in every single feature. Trycatch (talk) 08:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment As for my not giving a reason for closing this above, it is my view that an admin closing a DR should act as a neutral party, a judge or umpire, and not have an opinion of his or her own. He or she should read the opinions presented and pick the best of them. An admin who has an opinion or prejudice should vote and then not close the DR.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:10, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That means that you are counting votes;a bot can do that. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:41, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not at all what I said. Read it again, please.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:53, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete Now that there's clear proof it's a derivative. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 16:39, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete, obviously a derivative of a copyrighted work. --Kjetil_r 10:39, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep. For the reasons explained at length above, I am of the view that the similarities do not relate to the protected features of the copyrighted work. Given the technical nature of the question involved, I suggest this deletion request be closed by an admin with expertise in copyright law. -- Arvind (talk) 18:31, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep No, this is not deriwative work. Your logic would mean that every photographer creates a picture as the person you've been photographed, is a copyright infringer first photographer.

The human face is not subject of copyright! ---hax0r (talk) 18:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Of course, a human face could not be copyrighted, but a photograph of a human face could be. This image is a derivative from the photograph, not from the human face, that's why it's copyvio. Trycatch (talk) 12:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Comment User:-hax0r has been blocked indefinitely as a suspected sock puppet.--E8 (talk) 22:00, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete delete per the comparison image in the nomination. This image is clearly derivative, and looks to be a digital modification of the photo in question.--E8 (talk) 22:31, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete Same reason as before. FunkMonk (talk) 00:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, clear derivative work of copyrighted work, per Trycatch's comparison. Kameraad Pjotr 20:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most likely a derivative of the image also used on this album cover. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This template is just advertising a commercial produkt and thus out of scope! axp_de^Hello! 09:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep So are we going to go some purity crusade, deleting any mention of commercial software? Does this include the Gimp and all the other Free Software programs that are sold with every copy of Red Hat? Creators have decided to label their images with the programs they used to make them. Either leave them alone, or have a discussion on the Village Pump about them; don't start ranting about "out of scope" and trying to get them summarily deleted.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Do I sense some aggressive undertone in you response?

  • I do not "rant", I just stated that it's not project scope to advertise a commercial product!
  • And there's no "purity crusade", at this very point I didn't talk about other software, that's not the place to do so!

  I just said this template is not ok and it should be deleted! What if someone decides to use a bigger banner? Maybe using the PaintDotNet Logo? So where's the line between "still ok" and "no longer acceptable"?? axp_de^Hello! 09:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  You certainly use a lot of exclamation points for not ranting.

  What if they decide to use a bigger banner? What if someone decides to use an Information template that's in 100 point fonts and blinking in green and purple? Marking one's own work with the program used to make is not advertising; in fact, our users ranting on our boards about how great the program and how it should be the only one we should use would not be advertising.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep We have 49 templates in Category:Created with ... templates, many of which are for commercial products. It appears that we have no policy against such things or do not enforce it. Either way, this deletion is not the best way to go -- there should be a discussion at the Village Pump.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Blurpeace 19:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Claims to use File:LGA Lagos.png as a base. Base file is licensed under a copyleft, which means this derivative work must be licensed equivalently. Powers (talk) 00:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep, whether LGA Lagos was used as a base is irrelevant because a new copyright has been established through the nominated map's originality. Regardless, we would relicense even if a new copyright hadn't existed (that is, there's no reason to delete – it's still under a free license). Blurpeace 07:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • But the licenses aren't compatible. The claim for Lagos_Map.PNG is that it is in the public domain, but it cannot be so, because it was derived from a file that is licensed under a copyleft, and copylefts require derivative works to be licensed compatibly. Note that someone using Lagos_Map.PNG as if it were public domain would not realize that the creator of LGA_Lagos.png should be credited (as demanded by its copyleft licenses). Powers (talk) 01:06, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep Just change the license. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • To what? We can't simply assume that the creator wishes to license it under a particular combination of the several possible choices. Powers (talk) 19:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The wish of the uploader is clear: PD. If it is your opinion that it must be copyleft, I am sure he would rather have that than that it gets deleted. Sigh. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:04, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, but there are several possible licenses that can be used and satisfy the terms of the copyleft. Which one should we choose? Do we have the right to make that choice without input from the creator? Powers (talk) 13:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep
• We have a creator/uploader who has done nothing on Commons for three years.
• He/she put this map into the public domain.
• Therefore, anybody, including Commons, can publish it under any license we wish. If the creator were available, we would certainly ask for input, but he/she actually has no rights in that discussion -- that's what public domain means.

So, I think we should tag it {{Self|GFDL|Cc-by-sa-3.0-migrated}} and {{Cc-by-sa-2.5}}, which are the tags on the source map.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:01, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • But the uploader's release of the map into the public domain is not valid. How can we an invalid declaration as a basis for a decision? Powers (talk) 14:43, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you give up your rights on something, it doesn't matter whether your opinion on the rights of others on the same thing is correct or not; you have given up your rights.
      • Ah, I see the confusion. Your position is that the invalid tagging of the file as public domain is only invalid for those parts that the uploader didn't contribute, and that the release of the uploader's changes to the public domain is still valid? Personally, I'm not comfortable making that determination. Powers (talk) 13:17, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep if an uploader puts a PD tag on something they upload, it's clear to me this is a declarative act that denies any of their copyright in the work. Even if it is incorrect in claiming that no others have a copyright in the work, we still have the right to relicense it in any way we like consistent with the other copyrights.--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Mbdortmund (talk) 16:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed a "no permission" tag. As an official document of the Polish government, this document is copyright free. -Nard the Bard 21:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This is not official document, it does not come from any govenment or administration. It's designed to look officialy, but it's just a kind of memorabilia. Signatures come from "celebration participants". On the other hand, graphic author is signed (Stanisław Ligoń). Sadly, but  Delete, unless there's evidence that author died more than 70 years ago (the paper is dated 1921). A.J. (talk) 13:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Author: pl:Stanisław Ligoń (1879-1954), definetely  Delete A.J. (talk) 13:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Masur (talk) 13:18, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to delete it because it has came to a decision on which it will be put into an article. Malformed request (this page missing) by uploader, User:Algy3289 15:35, April 2, 2010. Corrected by      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep The uploader's edit history shows that he or she means to say something like "put it into a magazine which requires a copyright." I oppose deletion for that purpose -- I would be very happy if each time a commercial user found an image of mine on Commons, I could delete it from Commons and have the commercial user pay me to use it, but we don't work that way.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep Keep as per Jim unless Algy3289 clarifies the deletion request. MKFI (talk) 18:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept, bogus deletion request. Kameraad Pjotr 15:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

no visibility of South Kuril islands --Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 08:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This map should be deleted, because South Kuril islands are too small to be visible on the map of Russian Federation. There is no encyclopedic value of this image. Its creation should be treated as a kind of disruption. --Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 08:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep. 1. We can see South Kuril islands clearly. 2. Franz Josef Land is also very small relatively to territory of Russian Federation, there are also many another small islands under Russian administration. I think, that the small size of some islands is a rather strange reason for deletion of map of some big territory, that is much bigger than these islands, because we always will see small parts of big thing badly at the common map of this big thing. Map of Russian Federation obviously has encyclopedic value. P.S. Could Yuriy Kolodin say, disruption of what rule he see in creation of image? Dinamik (talk) 10:43, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no sense of this image, because we cannot see the highlighting because of the small size of the islands relatively to the territory of Russian Federation.--Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 11:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In such situation we should delete all maps of big countries, because we couldn't see small parts of them clearly. Dinamik (talk) 12:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have the same file File:Russian Federation (orthographic projection).svg without highlighting, file with highlighting has no sense, because we cannot see the highlighting. Too small territory is highlighted. Please compare two files:

• • • with highlighting:
    • 
    • and without highlighting
    • .
    • Is any visible difference between them? So, what is the sense of highlighting? --Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 11:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • You chose resolution, with using of which you couldn't see difference clearly, another users can choose another resolution and see small parts of Russia, that they want to see. What is the sense of deleting free image with correct information? Dinamik (talk) 12:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This is an obvious  Keep: even if someone deliberately left out the mentioned islands, then deletion would not be the answer. This is a high-quality image with a clear educational value. You can only blame the South Kuril islands for being damn small compared to Russia... —Quibik (talk) 13:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• What is a name of water body in Northern Primorsky Krai (or east Habarovsk Krai)? Is it Amur River so wide river? --Pauk (talk) 13:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept, bogus deletion request. Kameraad Pjotr 20:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Russian Federation (orthographic projection) highlighted.svg

No Kuril Islands Karel (talk) 09:48, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not true. If you see this image with low resolution, of course, you don't see them, because Russia is big and Kuril Islands are small. If you choose bigger resolution, you will see Kuril Islands. Dinamik (talk) 10:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: speedy kept Denniss (talk) 22:04, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the fact that this appears on a "wanted" poster doesn't mean it was taken by a US State Department employee--in fact that's very unlikely if you think about it. Prezbo (talk) 08:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reopened DR per request of User:Geo Swann. The site's FAQ says:

"Unless a copyright is indicated, information on this Web site is in the public domain and may be reproduced, published or otherwise used without RFJ's permission. We request that RFJ be cited as the source of the information and that any photo credits or bylines be similarly credited to the photographer or author or RFJ, as appropriate."

There is no indication of a copyright on this image's page, so, perhaps, this deletion was premature.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:00, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a more obvious example. Obviously these images weren't taken by a State Department employee and it isn't up to the State Department to declare that they're in the public domain. However there's no photo credit on that page, so the same argument would apply to those images. Actually I don't think any of the pages on that website have a photo credit.Prezbo (talk) 07:39, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, no evidence that this was taken by a US State Department employee. Kameraad Pjotr 19:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Converted by me to rfd from a speedy by Motopark for "no source given" as the image is not an obvious copyvio if it is one at all. A Google search using the image description did not yield this image, except a lower-resolution copy on Photobucket. --Túrelio (talk) 08:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep This user uploaded 27 images in 2006, many (maybe all) of which had no source given. Those I looked at appear to be of good amateur quality and of good size, not obviously copyvio. There is no meaningful EXIF on the ones I looked at. I am inclined to believe that these are {{Own}} and that we should add that tag as required to all of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 14:24, 26. Jun. 2010 (UTC)

Kept, likely own work. Kameraad Pjotr 20:29, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No Freedom of panorama in Lithuania. Likely to be less then 70 years old. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In wikipedia, there are articles about the communist in seven languages, and all of them use the photo - deleting the photo in commons would result in copying it to all seven branches, and so to multiply its storage. According to an information sign at the bust, it was made in 1935, the year in which Kapsukas died, 75 years ago, so it is OK to picture it according to European Union laws, but also the lithuanian law on Copyright and Related Rights (5 March 2003 No. IX-1355: summed up as Limited freedom of panorama in Lithuania is granted by article 28 ("Limitations to Copyright in Works of Architecture and Sculptures") of the Law Amending the Law on Copyright and Related Rights. This allows a photographer to make and publish pictures of sculptures and works of architecture that are permanently located in public places.) in my opinion does not mean a reason to delete it.

ThomasPusch (talk) 16:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:50, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete: COM:FOP says Lithuanian FOP doesn't extent to commercial uses, so it can't be on Commons or any WP that doesn't do Fair Use or something similar. According to the English WP article, Grūto park is fighting with the heirs of many of the statues in their park about royalties, so this is a live dispute.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, so it's 75 years old. The law is still life+70, not 70, and we can't assume the sculptor died by 1940.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep: Even if Grūto park is fighting with the heirs of some of the statues in their park about royalties, the copyright status of this bust beeing more than 70 years old is clear. Kapsukas may be liked or not, but he is an important figure in the 20th century history of Lithuania, and the photo is needed to illustrate the wikipedia articles about him in different languages. Aidas (talk) 09:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, no freedom of panorama in Lithuania for sculptures; no evidence that the sculptor died 70+ years ago. Kameraad Pjotr 18:57, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright unclear. This upload need OTRS to be sure that the author give his agreement (not just an e-mail to the uploader who can falsify the email). Moreover the email is not clear the author allows use to the uploader but we don't know if the uploader say to the author he want put the picture on Commons. In this email don't say he put in picture under free license. --90.55.115.27 07:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am the uploader and I have sent forwarded the original email which I recieved from the auther to the OTRS volanteers, when read in context with the email I sent him requesting the use of this image on the commons it becomes clear that he has given his permission for re-use on Wiki commons, I will now mark this with OTRS pending (if I can work out how to) and hope that this can get sorted out before somone deletes this valuable contribution to the commons! Jimmy3d0 (talk) 12:22, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I the uploader have a new email which I recived today from the auther giving permission to use the file, I have emailed it to the OTRS people today so will re-mark the image with OTRS pending here is a copy of my latest correspondance with the auther and a copy of the permossions box he has sent back to me and agreed to Jimmy3d0 (talk) 10:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Scott,

Please understand that with this e mail I agree to the permissions agreement below.

Terry Brennan

3275 Fifth Ave #405

San Diego, CA 92103

terrybrennan.org

From: Jim Scott [2] Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2010 5:23 PM To: terry@terrybrennan.org Subject: DH.88 comet Sketch. wikimedia permissions

Dear Terry , sorry to have to trouble you again about getting your permission to use your images on Wikipedia/Wikimedia, it turns out that the email you sent me giving me permission to use your images on Wikipedia/Wikimedia was not enough to satisfy the very strict rules on there, so they are going to delete the images that you gave me permission to use unless I get you to agree to the contidions in the box below and return this email (reply) so that they can see that you agree to the terms in the box below, I have filled in the relevant parts in the box below in the way I thought you would think most suitable to your images, the Lisence I chose is one that means if anyone else uses your images then they have to attribute them to you etc.. but feel free to change it to any of the other lisences found at the link below if you would rather one of them. Sorry this is such a hasle, but on the plus side I spose it does show their commitment to not allow anyone to use great peices of art like these ones of yours without fully attributing you and your ownership of copyright. below is all the correspondance betwwen you and me upto now and the subsequent correspondence between me and Wikimedia when I was trying to prove that you had given me permission to use your images. at the very bottom is the last email from them saying that I needed clearer lisense permission from you. So if this all seems ok would you kindly reply to this email leaving the body of this email in your reply and just say that you put your name to the box below. Then they should be satisfied and your great sketches can stay on wikimedia and on the wikipedia pages I have used them on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C.W.A._Scott#De_Havilland_Mosquito and also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Mosquito

Thankyou so much for you time and sorry again for having to ask you to send another email giving permission to use the images, I'm sure this will be it now and they will stay on wiki for people to admire and enjoy!

Many thanks,

Jim Scott .

To permissions-commons-at-wikimedia.org

I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of WORK [ http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Comet_racer.jpg and http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mosquito_T_Brennan.jpg].

I agree to publish that work under the free license [Creative Commons Attribution from this page: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Choosing_a_license#Common_free_licenses

I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product, and to modify it according to their needs, as long as they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to me.

I am aware that the free license only concerns copyright, and I reserve the option to take action against anyone who uses this work in a libelous way, or in violation of personality rights, trademark restrictions, etc.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the work may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

September 9, 2010 Terry Brennan .

Jimmy3d0 (talk) 10:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Jcb (talk) 17:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. File:Ogoniok 1933 20.djvu
2. File:Ogoniok 1932 28.djvu
3. File:Ogoniok 1932 27.djvu
4. File:Ogoniok 1932 17.djvu
5. File:Ogoniok 1932 14.djvu
6. File:Ogoniok 1929 26.djvu
7. File:Ogoniok 1929 23.djvu
8. File:Ogoniok 1929 20.djvu
9. File:Ogoniok 1929 17.djvu
10. File:Ogoniok 1929 14.djvu
11. File:Ogoniok 1929 06.djvu
12. File:Ogoniok 1928 52.djvu
13. File:Ogoniok 1928 31.djvu
14. File:Ogoniok 1928 30.djvu
15. File:Ogoniok 1928 22.djvu
16. File:Ogoniok 1928 15.djvu
17. File:Ogoniok 1928 10.djvu

These are compound works (with divisible authorship). Some specific works (articles, rhymes, ptohos, etc.) can be PD, some ones are not PD. The dates of life for all non-anonymous authors must be specified for PD declaration.

For examples

• File:Ogoniok 1929 29.djvu (deleted) - article by en:Semyon Budyonny (1883-1973) on page 6, photos by ru:Аркадий Шайхет (1898-1959) on page 7, rhyme by Давид Бродский (1895-1966) on page 13.
• File:Ogoniok 1933 20.djvu - rhyme by en:Nikolay Aseyev (1889-1963), article by ru:Никулин, Лев Вениаминович (1891-1967) on page 2-3.

The list can be continued, but freedom of these magazines as a whole must prooved, rather than some works in them are copyrighted. Alex Spade (talk) 17:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep I do not know the specifics of Russian copyright, but in general collective works like these are free 70 years after publication. The speedily deleted files should be undeleted. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The specifics of Russian copyright is not important.

There are there type of collective/joint works

1. Collective work with mass indivisible collaboration. Many copyright laws doesn't use this term directly. The authors of such work are declared persons indicated on work. Or the director(s), scriptwriter(s) and original music composer(s) (or some other crewmembers in specific copyright law) are declared authors of audio-video work.
2. Joint work with indivisible authorship. Work is copyrighted + 70 years after last author death.
3. Joint work with divisible authorship. Specific sub-work in sush work is copyrighted +70 years after specific author death.

Thus, thesis in general collective works like these are free 70 years after publication is mistake.

Only, if authors of collective work are unknown or mentioned, the collective works like these are free 70 years after publication

Alex Spade (talk) 17:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, in accordance with the Russian Copyright Act Art. 10 & Art. 11 both the publisher of the compilation and the author of every part of it has copyright, which means that the publication only enters the public domain 70 years after the death of the last author. Therefore, they are deleted. Kameraad Pjotr 21:08, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]