Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2010/04/03
 |
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}
Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:STAMP OF IMPERIAL IRANIAN AIR FORCE 50th ANNIVERSARY 1.jpg. Eusebius (talk) 11:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Eusebius (talk) 16:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Seems to be the cover of a japanese book. Well, ok, we can check if the user who has recently uploading this scan is the publisher, but I think it is statistically likely an error upload. I mean the user has no licence guarantee. A.Ceta (talk) 14:39, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Kameraad Pjotr: Copyright violation: http://blog.sina.com.cn/snowswords
Me equivoque de pagína GAELTH007 (talk) 16:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, uploader request, no permission/license. -- Infrogmation (talk) 18:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image Amada44 (talk) 07:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Delete per nom Cholo Aleman (talk) 08:17, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 20:45, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image Amada44 (talk) 07:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 20:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image Amada44 (talk) 07:59, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 20:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
print screen of an computer game Amada44 (talk) 08:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 20:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
print screen of an computer game Amada44 (talk) 08:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 20:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
print screen of an computer game Amada44 (talk) 08:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 20:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
print screen of an computer game Amada44 (talk) 08:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 20:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
unused school band - only edit - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 08:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 20:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
strange used collage, unused, out of scope (several other strange files from this user, history of deletions) Cholo Aleman (talk) 09:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 20:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
selfpromotion of unknown musicians - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 09:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 20:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Incomplete deletion request. Attack image, used for vandalism in ru-wiki. --Trycatch (talk) 12:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 20:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
unusable diagram - a test ?? - only edit of this user - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 19:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Plenty of good ones in Category:Phase change diagrams. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:48, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 20:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Unused private image; out of scope; Jahobr (talk) 20:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Delete per nom Cholo Aleman (talk) 04:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 20:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Unused private image; out of scope; Jahobr (talk) 20:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 20:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
??? - strange model - nice description (=nonsense), only edit of this user - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 20:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope , cannot be identified Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:34, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 20:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:38, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 20:55, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Unused private image; out of scope; only edit of this user; Jahobr (talk) 20:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Delete per nom Cholo Aleman (talk) 19:03, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 20:55, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
forgot to title image. Uploaded again with correct title at File:Central London Railway 1909.png. DavidCane (talk) 00:03, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 20:56, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
I tagged this file as missing source information, as the source was stated as "العراق", which Google Translate tells me means "Iraq." The problem tag was removed by a Czech IP address, and the source replaced with "transtantable (sic) as "own work of the uploader". The copyright status tag states that the file is in the public domain because its copyright has expired. However, none of the conditions for expiry fit, since the date of creation given is 2004. None of this makes any sense to me, and I'm still not satisfied that the source, authorship and copyright information for this file is truthful and correct. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- By the way, upon further inspection, it turned out that the Czech IP address was used by Fredy.00 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) to circumvent a ban. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:13, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete A google image search on 70081687667 gives many Iraqi results. And same image is here. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. The license is not fullfilled by time (10 years) nor by the requirement 10 years counted from first publication in Iraq - that would require to cite that publication. Its simply grabbed from google, exactly from facebook. --Martin H. (talk) 09:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 08:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Elekhh (talk) 01:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Tiptoety talk 22:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope (french engineer with unclear notability as far as I see) Cholo Aleman (talk) 08:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 23:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
copyrighted logo Luxo 15:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Unless reason to think that User:Ben Leidemann is the actual copyright holder of this logo. -- Infrogmation (talk) 18:40, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 23:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Low quality circle, unused, better similar circles at Category:Plain circles. --ZooFari 02:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Leyo 15:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
unused strange diagram with astrological context - forgotten since 2006 - unusable for others, out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 07:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
horoscope for a Bruno Huber (?!) - unused and forgotten since 2006 - private data - out of scope, three edits of this user Cholo Aleman (talk) 07:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps it isn't "a" Bruno Huber, but en:Bruno Huber. Erik Warmelink (talk) 22:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
unused fictional map - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 08:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Personal image, not used, Out of scope – Kwj2772 (msg) 11:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- Looks like he is notable: pt:Augusto Xavier. Trycatch (talk) 12:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but it's clearly derivative work of a copyrighted sculpture. Jmabel ! talk 05:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- This is an image of a photograph that I took of a three-dimensional memorial sculpture permanently installed on a public street in Seattle, WA, USA, and is therefore clearly allowed under U.S. copyright law. Please explain to me why it isn't allowed. - Jim Heaphy, photographer Cullen328 (talk) 06:09, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- Jim, I think you've got it backwards on the 3D thing:
- If a 2D work is in the public domain, then a faithful reproduction of it does not produce a new copyright.
- If a 3D work is in the public domain, then a faithful reproduction can be copyrighted in its own right.
- If a 2D work is copyrighted, then a faithful reproduction of it does not produce a new copyright (the original copyright holds).
- If a 3D work is copyrighted, then a faithful reproduction of it is a derivative work of the copyrighted work. While it creates an additional copyright, it doesn't abrogate the underlying copyright. The permission of both the creator of the original work and the photographer would be needed to reproduce the photograph.
- - Jmabel ! talk 07:56, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- Jim, I think you've got it backwards on the 3D thing:
- I believe that a photo of a memorial sculpture permanently installed on a public street is not a copyright violation when used non-commercially to illustrate the section of an educational article about the legacy of the person portrayed. I have added the date and the sculptor's name, Daryl Smith. I have emailed Mr. Smith and asked whether he considers it a violation of his rights and objects to my photo on Wikimedia. If he objects, I will remove it immediately. I ask that the photo remain unless Mr. Smith asks that it be removed. 75.20.205.1 20:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC) I made this comment before I logged in. Here's my signature. - Jim Heaphy Cullen328 (talk) 20:08, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- "Non-commercially" is the operative term there. Commons does not accept work that is only usable non-commercially. (Actually, I believe even non-commercial use is technically a copyright violation, but because damages would presumably be nil, it's almost certainly not a legally actionable violation, but that's neither here nor there.) Please see Commons:Project scope#Must be freely licensed or public domain. Also see Commons:OTRS for the release we'd need from the sculptor in order to keep the image.
- Please understand, I'd love to keep it, and would be very happy if we can get "clean" permissions, but as it stands, without that explicit grant of rights by the original artist, hosting this goes against Commons policy. - Jmabel ! talk 21:12, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- I believe that a photo of a memorial sculpture permanently installed on a public street is not a copyright violation when used non-commercially to illustrate the section of an educational article about the legacy of the person portrayed. I have added the date and the sculptor's name, Daryl Smith. I have emailed Mr. Smith and asked whether he considers it a violation of his rights and objects to my photo on Wikimedia. If he objects, I will remove it immediately. I ask that the photo remain unless Mr. Smith asks that it be removed. 75.20.205.1 20:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC) I made this comment before I logged in. Here's my signature. - Jim Heaphy Cullen328 (talk) 20:08, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete The United States has no freedom of panorama for works of art, so the original copyright still stands. If Mr. Smith agreed to release it under a free license it could of course be kept, but I find that highly unlikely to happen. Jafeluv (talk) 21:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- FWIW, he wouldn't have to free-license the sculpture, just authorize the free-licensed photo. - Jmabel ! talk 17:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
There is another page Mountains with similar content. None of them make sense, but one is enough. Icons should be moved to Mountains, the rest could be removed without loosing much. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 11:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- You could do so and then put speedy on the empty category --Mbdortmund (talk) 20:51, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Comment it's a page, not a category. But I could do so. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 23:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Keep I see no reason to delete this page. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:16, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Question Do you see a reason to keep this page? --Herzi Pinki (talk) 23:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
- Some people worked on choosing photos and making descriptions. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
- Half of the images for France and all for Poland are without description at all. Image descriptions IMHO should be part of the images, not the galleries (only). The point is redundancy with page Mountains and that this page will get unloadable, if we try to even add only a representative part of all mountain pictures we have. BTW: At the moment both pages are POV, selections driven by personal preferences. So I will move the images with description to the other page and redirect this one. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 23:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
- Some people worked on choosing photos and making descriptions. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Keep We should merge it, not delete it. Choose one of them for main name page: mountain or mountains? --Bestiasonica (talk) 18:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Merge completed, page Mountain converted to redirect. Feel free to contribute to a representative gallery of mountains. :-) --Herzi Pinki (talk) 21:47, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
derivative work - missing copyrights (I dont understand the content) Cholo Aleman (talk) 12:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
unused matrix - obviously from a planned article - definitve solution to something - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 12:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
same problem here File:Matriz3.jpg for instance Cholo Aleman (talk) 12:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
"musical group" - article was deleted, not notable - out of scope (advertisement of a company) Cholo Aleman (talk) 14:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- Well, not notable is a relative thing. I think three laughing children are an enrichment for Wikipedia (in nowadays laughing seems to be a rare event). I think a new category would help, like children laugh together or something... To delete this image because of an individual thinking that it is not notable would be wrong, I'd say. Greets, Anton --A.Ceta (talk) 14:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE. Unused promotional photo of a non-notable kid band. Possible copyvio as well. Wknight94 talk 17:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- What is the reason to think it is copyviol? Infrogmation (talk) 18:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- It is obviously a promotional picture. Looks very similar to a picture on their Facebook page. And they are dressed identically to their official homepage: http://www.laskalvachas.com/. Plus, the uploader has uploaded all promotional pictures with multiple expensive cameras. Either a professional that needs to include OTRS, or a typical newbie grabbing photos off the web. Wknight94 talk 19:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted Thanks for the additional information. I now understand the DR. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- File:Willie-the-Pimp-Zappa-for-Wiklipedia-2.mid
- File:Willie-the-Pimp-Zappa-for-Wiklipedia-3.mid
- File:Zappa AF.mid
- File:Zappa YDTTCM.mid
These are midi files of compositions that are still under copyright. Although only the uploaders are listed as the author, the author of the music is actually Frank Zappa. The samples might be usable in Wikipedia under fair use, but the compositions are non-free and so these don't belong on Commons. Jafeluv (talk) 01:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Blacklake (talk) 15:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
noncens, no proof, no individual source. ■ MMXX talk 22:39, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Licensing of individual images is unknown. Blacklake (talk) 15:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
poor quality, now not used, redundant according to File:Znak obce Ochoz u Brna.svg --Gumruch (talk) 14:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ALE! ¿…? 11:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Copyvio of the statue of Jessica Rabit: the modern copyrighted statue is far from incidental to this picture: in fact the image is used on the French Wikipedia simply entitled "Jessica Rabbit". Simonxag (talk) 00:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- It's just a statue inside a room. Come on! --FML hello 00:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- Precisely, the photo is of the statue in its surroundings, the statue is the subject of the picture. Unfortunately the statue is copyrighted, nothing about the situation even suggests Freedom of Panorama and the photographer does not have the copyright owner's permission. --Simonxag (talk) 19:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 09:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Marked as non-free on English Wikipedia. Appears to be ineligible for copyright to me. -Nard the Bard 03:39, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- +1 for ineligibility --DieBuche (talk) 20:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Ineligible. Stifle (talk) 09:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
This file may appear to be in the public domain, but the complexity of the bomb icon and the complexity of the dialog itself suggest that it is fair use. 179.210.86.1 05:17, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Ineligible. INeverCry 20:25, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
142 pages self-attributed book written in Urdu. Undated. A book with the same English Title is mentioned in en:Khan Muhammad Khan : Yagana e Kashmir by Brig M. Sadiq Khan and Dr Ghulam Hussain Azhar. My best guess is that this is the same book and we have no evidence that this book is in the public domain. I wish an urdu-speaking admin would have a look at this. Teofilo (talk) 08:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 09:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
1927 is not prior to 1923 Teofilo (talk) 15:35, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- Not old enough for US work to be automatically PD. Unless evidence is shown that it is PD for some other reason (eg published without copyright notice or copyright not renewed) Delete -- Infrogmation (talk) 18:34, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Copyright expires after 70 years, the difference between 1927 and 2010 is 83 years. Marcia Wright (talk) 14:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyright does not, in fact, expire after 70 years; it generally expires 70 years after the end of the year in which the author died. In the USA, it is somewhat more complicated (might be 95 years after publication, 120 years after creation, or 70 years after the end of the year in which the author died), but none of those criteria are met here. Stifle (talk) 09:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Book cover of book written in 1925 by a Peruvian writer. No evidence is provided that the designer died more than 70 years ago. Teofilo (talk) 16:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 09:45, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
not notable actor - his WP-article was deleted, see http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Zambrano Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 09:45, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
selfmade logo - unused, out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 09:45, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Source is http://www.imroselect.nl/. Please follow Commons:OTRS to confirm permission Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 23:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 09:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Outside of project scope; unclear copyright status. Blurpeace 00:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- "Own work" is ridiculous here. The issue is to determine the copyright status of the picture. The rest of it is PD-ineligible. Does anyone know who painted this, and when? - Jmabel ! talk 05:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Derivative work of a copyrighted poster by the Animal Legal Defense Fund. Hekerui (talk) 22:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Yes delete unless we get a permission in OTRS. --MGA73 (talk) 09:21, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- But it's just street poster's photo like
- File:GreensboroCo$Protest.jpg
- File:Ponyo_poster.jpg
- File:Lisbon_Treaty_posters.jpg
- File:20060917_posters_01.jpg
- File:Protest_against_bullfighting.JPG
(etc) isn't it? --Garden Radish (talk) 16:29, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- First of those is ineligible for copyright (contains only plain text). Have nominated 2-4 for deletion. 5th is incidental inclusion only (see COM:DM). Stifle (talk) 09:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - the file name is a joke - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 11:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- Clashing noses with the empire. Keep A good example of how to properly adjust a field of focus to get close up and far away in focus. -Nard the Bard 23:38, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Kept as technically interesting photograph, possibly useful for demonstrating the technique. - Jmabel ! talk 21:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Inexistent aviation roundel allegedly used by the Bulgarian Air Force between 1946 and 1949. Such sign is not mentioned in the monograph Иван Бориславов, Румен Кирилов, "Самолетите на България", част втора, София, 1996, стр. 246-253 (in Bulgarian; in English: Ivan Borislavov and Rumen Kirilov, "The Airplanes of Bulgaria", part two, Sofia, 1996, pages 246-253). (fixing malformed nomination, no vote from me) User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 08:13, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- If I can make a note, the information seemed to have come from http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/Flags/bg%5Eround.html. I am not sure what their sources are, so we got some people saying it is true or not true. If kept, it needs to be renamed to reflect its' status. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 08:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- Hi! In the the information from www.crwflags.com there are many mistakes, including wrong version of the "Modern Roundel": "red ring is narrower than the green one". In fact the red and green rings have the same width, see photographs here and here. Moreover, the outer thin white edge is omitted by the authors of www.crwflags.com. There are many other mistakes on this site: along with different types of German Crosses during the World War I a distinct St. Andrew's Cross on white field saw rare use; the assertion that in 1918-1920 "naval planes carried a triangle in the national colours and a black lion rampant" is not supported by the Bulgarian publication mentioned above; another non-existent roundel from 1937-1938: "in 1937, a new national insignia was introduced, in the form of a roundel in the national colours"; wrong information about the roundel from 1938-1941, which in fact was based on the Bulgarian Order for Bravery and more precisely its Fourth Degree: "based on the royal coat of arms and consisted of a rampant red lion on a red and yellow Maltese cross with two yellow crossed swords". The informaton about the post-war period is wrong too. According to "The Airplanes of Bulgaria", part two, Sofia, 1996 the black St. Andrew's Cross was used until the end of the war, when it was replaced with roundel which consisted of white and red rings with horizontal green bar (p. 251). According to the book that was the only roundel in the period 1945-1949. It was replaced in 1949 with red star with thin white edge and inserted red-green-white roundel in the center. There isn't any information about the existence of plain white-green-red roundel in any period in this book. Best wishes, Bulgarian Herald (talk) 14:17, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, too much time has passed, I can't remember the details, but I've vectorized an old PNG and than superseded it. Also http://cocardes.monde.online.fr/v2html/en/pays/bulgarie.html don't mention it. --F l a n k e r (talk) 21:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Kept, file is in use and thus within project scope. Changed the licence to {{PD-shape}}. Kameraad Pjotr 09:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- Derivative work: File:Flag of Putrajaya.svg
The modern coat of arms was adopted in 1963. According to http://www.myipo.gov.my/acts/Copyright.pdf this work is not free until 2013 (government works are copyrighted). User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 03:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Neutral - Derivative work here File:Flag of Putrajaya.svg. –Krinkletalk 10:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)- File:Flag of Putrajaya.svg contains COA of Malaysia. And Putrajaya is a city of Malaysia. If COA of Malaysia is protected by copyright, File:Flag of Putrajaya.svg should also be deleted. – Kwj2772 (msg) 10:56, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- Acting boldly, I put the notice on the Putrajaya flag, directing to this Deletion request. Jappalang (talk) 03:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - Unable to access the url given; and it is pd-self. Arteyu ? Blame it on me ! 11:11, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- http://www.swinburne.edu.my/docs/library/copyright_act_1987.pdf and even though it was drawn by a user, it is a derivative work of something that is copyrighted. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 16:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, and it seems like PD-Malaysia to me. To be correct, the modern coat of arms was adopted in 1965 or 1973, not 1963. And if it is true that the image is copyrighted, then commons may need to delete the Malaysian flag too since it was adopted in 1963–also should be applied to hundreds of derivative works of the flag. Well, I think there might be some exclusions somewhere regarding the copyrights of the Malaysian flag and emblem. Need to do some thorough checking. Arteyu ? Blame it on me ! 18:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- I checked. There is no exception that I could find for emblems, let alone legislation. Well, if the flag needs to be deleted, then so be it. I will try and look again, but I do not hold much hope. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 21:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- I notice a problem. The template says "Text of laws, judicial opinions, and other government reports are free from copyright." However, I am not finding that text at all. The closest thing I can find is in Part 3, Section 13, Subsection 2 Point I: "any use of a work for the purposes of any judicial proceedings, the proceedings of a royal commission, a legislative body, a statutory or Governmental inquiry, or of any report of any such proceedings, or for the purpose of the giving of professional advice by a legal practitioner;" is something that cannot be controled by the author. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 21:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- In my opinion, the Malaysian flag might be {{PD-shape}}; the crescent and star might be too simple to qualify as complex geometric shapes. The coat of arms, however, illustrates animals, trees, and other non-simple objects; hence, eligible for copyright (unless all those elements are reproductions of PD imagery). Jappalang (talk) 03:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
- I checked. There is no exception that I could find for emblems, let alone legislation. Well, if the flag needs to be deleted, then so be it. I will try and look again, but I do not hold much hope. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 21:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, and it seems like PD-Malaysia to me. To be correct, the modern coat of arms was adopted in 1965 or 1973, not 1963. And if it is true that the image is copyrighted, then commons may need to delete the Malaysian flag too since it was adopted in 1963–also should be applied to hundreds of derivative works of the flag. Well, I think there might be some exclusions somewhere regarding the copyrights of the Malaysian flag and emblem. Need to do some thorough checking. Arteyu ? Blame it on me ! 18:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- http://www.swinburne.edu.my/docs/library/copyright_act_1987.pdf and even though it was drawn by a user, it is a derivative work of something that is copyrighted. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 16:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Is there any international standars on the usage of flags? By the way, I found this (from here) "Flags, or any other object subject to copyright, are never actively "copyrighted" according to modern intellectual property law. The copyright protection comes naturally, whether you want it or not, when you create a work of art or literature. This has always been the case in European copyright laws, and is the same in the US copyright law since at least a decade and a half back. Then it is up to you as creator or owner of the said work to release it to common use if you want to."
And from here, I can see that flags are being referred to as "Marks" or "Trade marks".
And something more interesting over here and here, Digital Millenium Copyright Act 1998 "1302. Designs not subject to protection. Protection under this chapter shall not be available for a design that is—(1) not original; (2) staple or commonplace, such as a standard geometric figure, a familiar symbol, an emblem, or a motif, or another shape, pattern, or configuration which has become standard, common, prevalent, or ordinary; (3) different from a design excluded by paragraph (2) only in insignificant details or in elements which are variants commonly used in the relevant trades". Arteyu ? Blame it on me ! 23:28, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- There are a lot of countries in the former USSR that will put their symbols into the public domain, like other nations. However, the second thing that you cite is for anything that is newly copyrighted in the United States. A flag or a coat of arms being a trademark or under special use protections is ignore on the Commons (like you have to be a government agent to use it). We just focus on copyright. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 01:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Delete: Like it or not, flags and symbols (with complex artistic elements) can be copyrighted, especially for this country (ironic note: Malaysia's FoP law is more "free" than most other countries). Jappalang (talk) 03:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, coat of arms still protected by copyright, and no exception for "state symbols" found in the Malasyan copyright law. The flag would be {{PD-ineligible}}. Kameraad Pjotr 19:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
"According to article 11 works by the Government, Governmental Organizations and International organizations are subject to copyright until 50 years after publication (article 23). Text of laws, judicial opinions, and other government reports, however, are always free from copyright. (article 3 - the defination of “literary work”)" The arms was changed in 1965 and cannot be hosted here under the current license. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 08:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Jeff G. as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: No government exception cited at Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Malaysia.
Speedy deletion is unacceptable for a file with such broad use. Fry1989 eh? 19:23, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep It has been used by many articles and if you delete the coats of arms, you might as well delete the flag. This nomination does not make any sense at all. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 16:05, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Keep This Jeff G. orang putih doesn't even know the basics of Malaysian law. The Malaysian Copyright Act 1987 in Clause 23 stipulates that copyright of works by the government last only 50 years. n_niyaz (talk) 09:45, 5 December 2024 (UTC)This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
per en:Authorized King James Version#Copyright status Teofilo (talk) 09:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - we have a whole Category:King James Bible. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Delete: This has nothing original added, marked parallels, etc.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gllyons (talk • contribs) 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- The file was being used on wikibooks the other day when I checked. Teofilo (talk) 17:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Avi (talk) 18:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Painting from unidentified painter (marked as own work, but the not fully readable signature on the painting does not match the uploader's username). Possible copyright violation of painting. Teofilo (talk) 16:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- Seems ok. Signature reads "Dely Christian", and looks like the uploader claims rights on his work: File:Christian Dely, Le buveur.jpg. Trycatch (talk) 05:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for your research. Request withdrawn. But the uploader has still not answered a request on his other talk page User talk:55Daniel55 (with "D" instead of "d") to send an E-mail to OTRS to confirm his relationship with the painter. Teofilo (talk) 11:07, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
