Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2008/07/03

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Commons logo
Commons logo

This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests.

You can visit the most recent archive here.

Archive
Archive
Archive July 3rd, 2008
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.

Image:Asterix_Park_France_2.jpg

[edit]

There is no freedom of panorama in France - see Commons:FOP#France. Without explicit permission by the Asterix copyright owner it's therefore not legally possible for the photographer to release such an image under a free licence. Gestumblindi (talk) 21:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Image:Sidereal_and_Synodic_Day.svg

[edit]

double version, version with faults (mentioned by the author) Mathematicus (talk) 07:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Rlevse: Dupe of Image:Sidereal and Synodic Day.png

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.

Image:AlexandraDockQuayside1908.jpg

[edit]

duplicate of Image:AlexandraDockCardiffQuayside1907.jpg please delete --Sandpiper (talk) 20:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged as duplicate. Next time, you can use {{Bad name}} and it will get speedy deleted. Pruneautalk 09:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Rlevse: Dupe of Image:AlexandraDockCardiffQuayside1907.jpg

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.

Image:AlexandradockCardiff1907small.jpg

[edit]

Duplicate file uploaded by me under wrong name, duplicate of Image:AlexandraDockCardiffQuayside1907.jpg --Sandpiper (talk) 20:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged as duplicate. Next time, you can use {{Bad name}} and it will get speedy deleted. Pruneautalk 09:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Rlevse: Dupe of Image:AlexandraDockCardiffQuayside1907.jpg

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.

Image:Janick_Gers_of_Iron_Maiden.jpg

[edit]

This looks like a scanned magazine. Probably a copyright violation, I plan to nominate the 2 other uploads from this user shortly (if someone could confirm my suspicions) Lucasbfr (talk) 08:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Not own work - is a scan from some other source. MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Image:Greater_Serbia_in_Yugoslavia.png

[edit]

"Greater Serbia" is a term used by a party. There is no source that this image reflects the concept the party refers to when talking about "Greater Serbia". In short: Original research, at least content missing source. Code·is·poetry 10:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. We do not delete on the basis of content disputes. This image is in use on 7 wikis. MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. There is also one party which wishes to impose the recognition of the separatist state Kosovo on Serbian people (the extremists around Č. Jovanović), but if you count the maps of Serbia with Kosovo and Metohia torn apart, they are quite numerous. Besides, the Radical party is the second largest, whilst the Lib-dem. of Jovanović have barely passed the threshold... Therefore kept. Bogorm (talk) 16:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Image:Khazarfall.png

[edit]

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 79.119.173.182 11:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kept.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 17:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Image:Edmontosaurus_model.JPG

[edit]

Sculpture in US not covered under freedom of panorama. FunkMonk (talk) 00:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Image:Angel Locsin in T3 Magazine.jpg

[edit]

the image is a magazine cover and thus non-free. --Bluemask (talk) 05:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Speedy delete as copyvio MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Image:Aung_betancourt.jpg

[edit]

Derivative work of two copyrighted photographs. Freedom of Panorama not applicable because not permanently installed. ALE! ¿…? 07:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The people who installed the poster aren't the copyright holders, either. Has any media refused to distribute Bin-Laden videos because of copyright issues? --Nina (talk) 08:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Buildings, cities, trees- nothing is "permanently installed". --Nina (talk) 09:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Rama: Copyright violation

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.

Image:How now? cried a reassuring voice.jpeg

[edit]

PD license tag does not apply internationally --— Dulcem (talk) 05:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. :/ Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 15:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Image:ArthurSmith&McGeeBrothers.jpg

[edit]

Source listed as "Myspace.com", unspecific and certainly not the original source. Contrary to license tag, playing over radio does not make something public domain. (Image might or might not be public domain for some reason, but certainly not for that reason, and valid source information would be needed to make the determination.) --Infrogmation (talk) 23:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Cecil (talk) 14:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Image:BlindAlfredReed.jpg

[edit]

Without better info, public domain status cannot be confirmed; certainly license tagged is dubious (not all photographers active in the 1920s can be assumed to have been dead for 70+ years, especially if they are "unknown"!) --Infrogmation (talk) 23:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep I changed the the template to the right license. Waylon (talk) 14:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not an improvement: The "Anonymous work" template you added seems not to apply to US works. -- Infrogmation (talk) 20:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Unknown does not mean the same as anonymous. There is no proove that it is anonymous. Furthermore this licence is not for US work. Cecil (talk) 12:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Image:AlWinburn&Band.jpg

[edit]

sloppy source info and dubious copyright claim (how can the date of author's death be known if the author is not?), one of many dubious claims by uploader --Infrogmation (talk) 00:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. No proove of public domain. Cecil (talk) 12:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Image:Changingcube.gif

[edit]

{{Copyrighted free use}} is assumed, but there's no real information on that. I've written a mail some months ago to the guy who's mentioned in the source. There was no answer, so this image is probably a copy-vio. --32X (talk) 20:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep it with the reason is assumed, but there's no real information on that 99% of all images should be deleted, there are no reasons to be in doubt about the licence Bunnyfrosch (talk) 14:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In case of deletion, substitute it with one of these images.

comment: 99% of content here has self-made as source and not taken from some website

Image:8-cell-simple.gif Image:8-cell.gif

--Biezl (talk)

Deleted. No evidence of the given license at the source page. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 23:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Image:Ingrid-Betancourt.jpg

[edit]

Tagged speedy by Kelly, I want second opinions before deletion. Kelly's rationale was "This file is a violation because it comes from: According to the source webpage, this image is not the work of Agencia Brasil, but of the Colombian government, which does not release its work under a free license." Finn Rindahl (talk) 21:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The agencia Brasil IS the Government --Kyle the hacker (talk) 21:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The government of Brazil, not of Colombia. Kelly (talk) 22:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its not a original work of Agência Brasil, ok. But Agencia Brasil have the autorization to use this image as CC-BY-SA 2.5: its a single image, whith credits and marked as Creative Commons 2.5 very explicit. The page who have the image, at http://web.presidencia.gov.co/fotos/2008/julio/02/foto18.html don't have a explicit copyright note, just at bottom of page a text like: Copyright 2007 Presidencia de la Republica. Why this image, in particular, can't be licensed with another type, as CC-BY-SA 2.5 as Agência Brasil affirms? PS: Agencia Brasil its a official news agency of brazilian government and all content in this site is licensed as Creative Commons SA 2.5. Why not trust in this information? Leandromartinez (talk) 21:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a common situation. Just because a government agency hosts an image does not mean they hold the copyright to it. For example, see this photo of Jessica Simpson placed on Flickr by the United States Army. They've labeled it as a courtesy photo, it is not a U.S. Army image. A similar situation applies here. Agencia Brasil may have permission to use it, but they did not create it and do not have permission to re-license it. Kelly (talk) 22:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Give a break... How compare Flickr with Agência Brasil? The situation is not similar... In the Agência Brasil page, have explict informations about the content license (CC-BY-SA 2.5), with a link to publish and download the picture inclusive. See in the page. I can translate to you:
O conteúdo deste site é publicado sob uma Licença Creative Commons Atribuição 2.5. Brasil
The content of this site its published under Creative Commons ShareAlike 2.5. Brazil
If you don't see, i can see. CC-BY-SA 2.5, download the image, use this in your page, etc. etc. Sorry, i'm a brazilian but i can read and understand the terms of the license, we are not sooooo stupid (and don't live in the middle of the jungle :). Leandromartinez (talk) 23:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it says The content of this site its published under Creative Commons Attribution 2.5. Brazil
That is a generic statement that appears at the bottom of all of the images they display on their website, whether they created them or not. Kelly (talk) 23:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. On the page of Agência Brasil and the Colombian page. How do you know if Agência Brasil don't have payed and have re-licensed the image as Creative Commons? Please, don't invert the onus of proof. Leandromartinez (talk) 00:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, I think you're the one inverting the onus of proof. Commons needs proof the image is under a free license, and I don't see any. Kelly (talk) 00:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. But you have a proof of the image stay copyrighted and Agencia Brasil don't have the permissions to utilize and redistribute/re-license in CC 2.5? Thats the question. Leandromartinez (talk) 00:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've made my argument, I'll let the closing administrator decide rather than repeating it any more. Kelly (talk) 00:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
* Keep it. Kelly's argument is nuts. Nothing personnal :-) 189.4.211.61 04:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete - This image is credited by Agencia Brasil to the Columbian Government. The Colombian Government do not release their work under any form of free license. There is no indication that the Colombian Government has released it. This is a copyright violation. Proto (talk) 08:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can't someone proficient in the language write to Agência Brasil and enquire directly to them to clarify the situation? Rama (talk) 08:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is not clear to me why Agência Brasil should not have been allowed to put this image under the Creative Commons License 2.5. Brasil with attribution to the author. On their pages they write O conteúdo deste site é publicado sob uma Licença Creative Commons Atribuição 2.5. Brasil. (The content of this site is published under a License Creative Commons Attribution 2.5. Brazil.) If there were any different rules for the images, this should have been mentioned somewhere on the website. As far as I can see, there is no distinction between the rules for the images and the rules for text of the website (and with each picture, the original author is mentioned). I agree with Rama that it would be good if someone could contact Agência Brasil and ask them about it. In any case, it would be good for both the Commons Wikimedia Project and Agência Brasil to have it clarified. --Angela H. (talk) 11:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • As Agencia Brasil are not the license holder, they are unable to release the image under any license. They credit the Colombian Government with the image; the licence holder is therefore the Colombia Government. The Colombian Government do not release their images under any license. Proto (talk) 12:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's so simple and clear. If this image, in particular, not be under Creative Commons, Agência Brasil utilizes the the famous (c) (yes, some images at agenciabrasil.gov.br have copyrigh mark when the license is different) ... like: (c) Foto: Divulgação/Governo da Colômbia e and not like what we see Foto: Divulgação/Governo da Colômbia (atribution of the autor - like any Creative Commons - Attribution Required license - credits not copyright tag). Its so clear to me... Why Agência Brasil have only one image of Ingrid Betancourt? This only image can't be a licensed image due a possible accord with Colombian Governent and disponibilized under Creative Commmons license like Agência Brasil affirms? If its to be a copyright violation, why not ag. Brasil uses another images of the Colombian site? Just one? (2 days and stay published) Leandromartinez (talk) 12:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not simple and clear, I'm afraid. The image is clearly stating that it's a "divulgação" photo from the Colombian Government, meaning it's a "information purpose" photo. It is, however possible, in theory that this one photo had its copyright transferred to Agência Brasil (Colombian copyright law allows this), who in turn could have licensed it as CC-by-SA. If this didn't happen, then it's a copyright violation, and even Agência Brasil should probably have some sort of disclaimer about certain contents that they host (many sites do this). To further complicate the matter, I cannot find any such disclaimer, and many of the links on the site are simply not working for me :S.
I could e-mail them, but I won't be able to see any e-mails until the 14/15th July... I'll ask another pt-speaking admin to do this for me. Please hang on until you hear further news.
In the meanwhile, I'd like to ask people to keep a cool head, nobody here suggested that the uploader was stupid or living in the jungle, so keeping a civil tone is appreciated. It was not, imho, a speedy delete case, but the matter is being discussed now, and that's what's important. Patrícia msg 17:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"colombian government does not release its images freely," POV, no source 189.4.211.61 23:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Delete This is actually a problem with a large number of Agencia Brasil photos – just because a piece of news is theirs and they can release it with a CC license does not mean that the photos are released with CC, too. Samulili (talk) 19:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep FxJ
  •  Keep It's not our job to invent new and more restrictive terms of use. Say they have the right to re-license the image : then all is right. Suppose now they don't have the right : it's primary their problem. If they stop publishing the image with this license due to protest from the Colombian government, then it will be time to rethink our keeping this image. Meanwhile, why should we go out of our way to delete an image uploaded from a source stating it's license is free ? Blinking Spirit (talk) 08:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but that is opening the door for accepting blatant copyright violations as long as they are endorsed by someone else. With the number of people who'll upload just anything, those who think that copyright is a sort of joke and that we will acquiesce to anything if they upload it, or people who have no clue what they are entitled to do or not (think "I have this photograph in my personal collection"), this is an impossible stance.
Also, it is not evident that Agencia Brasil has specitically release this very image under their usuall Cc licence. They have displayed it on a Cc-licenced article. Now, US government websites sometimes feature copyrighted, all-right-reserved images; that doesn't make these images public domain.
What we have to do now is write to Agencia Brasil and request a clarification. I am afraid that most of what we will say before we have an answer from them is null and void. Rama (talk) 08:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  On hold until we hear back from Agência Brasil, though I'm leaning towards  Delete until we do... At a minimum if we do not hear back in a reasonable amount of time we should remove the image based on what we know so far. I'm boggled by the folks above who are saying that we should keep it if the text on Agência Brasil could be construed as a released even if they couldn't validly make such a release. To them: WELCOME TO COMMONS, We don't do things like that around here. --Gmaxwell (talk) 09:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While Patrícia is out, I thought I'd assure everyone that the emails have indeed been sent to Agência Brasil (both by me and Leandromartinez) and that as soon as one of us receives a reply, we'll post it here. As for a reasonable amount of time -- just out of curiosity, how much would that be? :) --Waldir talk 10:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very to you, Waldir, and to Leandromartinez for your trouble. Rama (talk) 10:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE: Even though they didn't reply yet to the emails me and Leandromartinez sent (to 3 different addresses, one of which returned the message), Leandro now told me he called them (apparently he had done so before) and they told him that the CC BY-SA 2.5 license is valid for all content produced and distributed by Agência Brasil and that this information is clearly displayed on the website. The exceptions would be content embedded from other sites, such as embedded videos and google maps applets. Written authorizations are not supplied (except in very rare cases) since they are unnecessary (given the cc-by license). They pointed him to the link http://www.agenciabrasil.gov.br/canal_do_leitor, which reads, in the item 6 (Criando obras derivadas com os conteúdos da Agência Brasil):
"Todo o conteúdo distribuído pela Agência Brasil é livre para a criação de obras derivadas. Por obras derivadas podemos entender a utilização de trechos dos conteúdos publicados na Agência Brasil, comentários a respeito das informações ou edições dos conteúdos de texto, imagem, áudio e vídeo que gerem novas obras de comunicação ou de arte."
  • Translation: All content distributed by Agência Brasil is free for creating derivative works from. By derivative works we mean the usage of excerpts of the contents published by Agência Brasil, comments regarding the information or editing of the text, image, audio and video contents that generate new works of communication or art.
and item 2 (Utilizando conteúdos da Agência Brasil)
"Todo o conteúdo da Agência Brasil pode ser copiado, distribuído, exibido e reproduzido livremente, desde que seja citada a fonte."
  • Translation: All the content from Agência Brasil may be copied, distributed, displayed and reproduced freely, as long as the source is cited.
This clearly covers images embedded within articles, and not merely the articles themselves. Especially, the "distributed" above applies directly to this image. --Waldir talk 21:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - nobody is disputing that images produced and distributed by Agencia Brasil are CC-licensed. But this image was not produced by them. And, as others have commented above, they do occasionally post images that are copyrighted by someone else. Kelly (talk) 05:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, here (presidencia.gov.co) has only the source, not copyright marks... Really, i don't know what to do anymore... We try, but no response to ours e-mails by Agência Brasil he have, an explicit autorization, like OTRS, looks like a Mission Impossible. Sad, but if we have to delete the image, i will agree and understand. Leandromartinez (talk) 10:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It appears to me that someone in the web department in Agência Brazil thinks that they have secured a free license for any content on their site, but I, like others, remain skeptical that that's actually the case. It seems more likely that the vast majority of the content is produced by them and they release it under a free license, but that the occasional fairly-used item makes it way in and is caught under their blanket copyright statement. Unfortunately, we have no way of verifying it either way unless someone involved with the web site addresses this specific image. Powers (talk) 14:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Kelly: "But this image was not produced by them." -- that's precisely why I bolded the "All content distributed by Agência Brasil" part of their notice, above: it seems to refer to images that they merely distribute without being their producers (otherwise it would suffice to say "All content produced by Agência Brasil").
  2. This of course doesn't rule out the possibility raised by Powers above, but somehow that seems to me as a little bad faith as they do have texts specifically addressing such points. Of course it would make sense to assume traditional copyright if no information was given; I also agree that when the license notice is merely in the footer of every page in a site, we should also be wary of the eventuality of some content not being truly free. But in this case, That seems (IMHO) like pushing the line a bit too much.
  3. By the way, as for the "as others have commented above, they do occasionally post images that are copyrighted by someone else", well it was Leandro who said that, and I contacted him in his talk page to ask for examples, but the ones he provided were either embedded content (like videos or google maps, from which the copyright notice simply can't by any means be removed), which are clearly marked as exceptions in their notice; or otherwise they used the (C) sign but the text that followed it wasn't the typical "(C) 2008 Agência Brasil" or "(C) All rights reserved", but rather a description of a cc-by license (allowing all uses, requiring only attribution). As such, and given the absence of even the (C) sign alone in this image, I would assume that this is not the case here.
  4. Actually, who guarantees us that this image wasn't took by an Agência Brasil photographer, and then the Colombian website used it (either by requesting the photo or by using the rights of the free license Agência Brasil uses)?
For all this, I am tempted to vote as "keep" for this image. The odds are simply not in the (C) side, IMO. --Waldir talk 12:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conversely, according to your interpretation, it would suffice to say "all content distributed by AB." An interpretation based on more than mere hopefulness would place the emphasis on the and: "all content produced and distributed" by AB is under a free license. The former is because AB would not want to license unpublished works that make it to the public by mistake, and the latter is because AB cannot license the works of others without their approval. There's no evidence that AB have been authorised by the Colombian government to sublicense their works.
As for your assumption that the absense of a © symbol means the image is not copyrighted, it is just that. Given the other aspects of the image credit, it's at least as likely if not more likely that they simply forgot or did not know about the convention which you have observed. Commons only accepts images that are demonstrably free, not images that we might assume to be free in spite of reasonable doubt. As for the hypothesis that it was taken by AB and used by the Colombian government, why would AB credit the Colombian government? —LX (talk, contribs) 14:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, you're right. I forgot the fact that they did give credit to the Colombian government. Well, they haven't responded so far, and everything points to the unverifiability of the free license of this image in particular (not necessarily to its falseness though), and after a more objective and pondered look at this whole issue, I guess the logical decision would have to be  Delete. It can't afterall be a decision based in probabilities, but in certainties. Waldir talk 23:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know they weren't just following the license, which requires attribution? -Nard 01:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We don't. That's the problem: we don't know either way. On which side do we err? Powers (talk) 14:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete We need to know under what terms Agência Brasil was allowed to use the image. As of now we have no indication they were allowed to re-license it. —Dgies (talk) 13:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted per gmaxwell, Rama, Kelly, and so on. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 23:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Image:15- Rainha D. Catarina.jpg

[edit]

1. The image has been reversed. 2. Correct version available (Image:Lopes Catherine of Habsburg.jpg) --128.100.62.31 19:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I am the nominator (I must have lost my log-in)Ron B. Thomson (talk) 19:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. rootology (T) 13:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Image:Cowspider.jpg

[edit]

from http://www.thedogmuseum.com/spider-web.html - also image manipulation Rat at WikiFur (talk) 09:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Cirt (talk) 06:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Image:22nd Regiment of Foot Grenadier.jpg

[edit]

not a free image. see website copyright information from where this image was taken from: http://www.cmhg.gc.ca/cmh/en/importantnotices.asp?page_id=250 --Celtus (talk) 09:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Delete as copy vio per the "The material on this site is covered by the provisions of the Copyright Act" and commercial section on that site, where commercial reproduction is prohibited. WilliamH (talk) 14:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Cirt (talk) 06:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Image:58510724-M-2.jpg

[edit]

Copyvio: http://myconstructionphotos.smugmug.com/gallery/1248010_4Z4b5/1/58510724_J2BsV/Medium FunkMonk (talk) 19:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Cirt (talk) 06:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Image:Le_Corbusier,_portrait_en_buste,_posé_au_bureau,_faisant_face_bien,_travaillant_au_dessin.jpg

[edit]

Image comes from the New York World-Telegram and the Sun Newspaper Photograph Collection of the Library of Congress. According to the LoC's page about this collection "Some images were taken by the newspaper's staff photographers while others came from wire press services, studios, or amateur photographers.". And the image page says "No information on creator or on reproduction rights found with the image, 1996." So author, original source and copyright status are unclear. -- Kam Solusar (talk) 05:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Lupo 21:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Image:Johnny Unitas Stadium.jpg

[edit]

lacks OTRS ticket from copyright holder (identified as David Vatz by uploader) --JGHowes talk - 19:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I informed the uploader. Forrester [[ hate+love letters ]] 11:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
?? I notified the uploader at the time the image was tagged for lack of OTRS verification on 3 July 2008, here. There has been no response in the five weeks since then. JGHowes talk - 20:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, of course...and since he has done no edits since May he will answer here immediately....I sent him an email 'cause I suppose he could give us a valid permission. Forrester [[ hate+love letters ]] 20:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Claim of CC release by someone other than the uploader with no supporting evidence. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Image:Frozen_Bering_Strait.jpg

[edit]

wrong file uploaded Crissi (talk) 07:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asked uplaoder again why to delete. Forrester [[ hate+love letters ]] 11:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Looks OK. MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Image:Bercé.jpg

[edit]

Very low quality, no categorization --Vol de nuit (✍) 18:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. In use on Fr.W MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Image:Ernestmauch.png

[edit]

Fake, see [1] --Umschattiger 11:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC) fixed incomplete deletion request --Kam Solusar (talk) 21:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted per request. --Martin H. (talk) 14:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Image:JorgeGalvanRosillo2007.jpg

[edit]

An updated image "jorgegalvan2007.jpg" was set on Jorge Galvan article, so no need to have duplicated images Cornamusa (talk) 23:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kept, no duplicate found on commons. --Martin H. (talk) 22:09, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Image:Rabbi at purim.JPG

[edit]

image obviously taken in private environment, inappropriate presentation, violating privacy and personality rights. --Túrelio (talk) 08:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, this picture was taken in a synagogue at a public function open to the public at large. It is not in any way an inappropriate presentation; it well illustrrates the subject matter of the article. It therefore violates no rights -- Mutual 3 July 2008

How about asking the depicted rabbi whether he agrees to the publication? --Túrelio (talk) 08:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete Taken inside in a setting that is semi-public at best. I feel that indoor religious services need to have the permission of the people involved unless there is obvious proof of it being a public event (such as it being televised). Since this has been open since July, I suggest deletion now. Can be re-add later if permission is sent to OTRS. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Obviously private photo. Please ask the depicted person to send permission to OTRS. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 20:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Image:Rabbi at purim.jpg

[edit]

image obviously taken in private environment, inappropriate presentation, violating privacy and personality rights --Túrelio (talk) 08:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image not taken at a private location. Taken at an open function in a public place of worship. It is not inappropriate presentation, the picture adds to the text it accompanies and does not voilate any privacy rights as it was taken in a public forum. -- Mutual 08:09EST July 3, 2008

As written already over at the other version, how about asking the depicted rabbi whether he agrees to the publication? --Túrelio (talk) 13:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Mutual, please explain how you know it was not a private event. It was obviously indoors. As for being in a place of worship, congregants often rent space in a synagogue for private events. As we are dealing with personality rights, we have to assume that the event was private unless there is proof that it was a public event, and the picture should be deleted unless both people who can be recognized therein allow its publication. -- Avi (talk) 14:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete Taken inside in a setting that is semi-public at best. I feel that indoor religious services need to have the permission of the people involved unless there is obvious proof of it being a public event (such as it being televised). Since this has been open since July, I suggest deletion now. Can be re-add later if permission is sent to OTRS. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Obviously private photo. Please ask the depicted person to send permission to OTRS. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 20:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Image:OldKentuckyBarnDance.ogg

[edit]

No info to support public domain claim --Infrogmation (talk) 23:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See here. Old radio shows like this one are public domain. Waylon (talk) 12:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That looks like the standard BS notice that you get on all sorts of websites. "We don't think anything here's copyrighted" is not the same as providing some reason that it is not. Back to the issue: Why are they public domain? Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 15:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Back then, nobody claimed copyright for this recordings, the same happened to pictures. The copryright law wasn't as popular as today and nearly all authors of such recordings know about their rights and they doesn't publish their works under any licence, they just made it without any copyright. Waylon (talk) 14:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also Template:PD-US record. This apply here  Keep Waylon (talk) 15:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep The recording itself is not copyrighted, per U.S. law of the time. For the underlying script to be copyrighted it would have had to be registered with the copyright office, and this was not done (as far as I can tell). -Nard the Bard 04:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Maxim(talk) 21:09, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Image:Elijah_Abel_drawing.png

[edit]

Artist died in 1989. See [2] and Commons_talk:Licensing#New_territory.3B_bringing_over_.22licensing.22_issue_from_English_language_Wikipedia-Nard 23:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The anon is correct that this image appears in "Gumbo Ya-Ya" (1945), facing page 151, credited to Caroline Durieux. I don't have access to the source the uploader states ("Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought") to see what that says, but the copy in "Gumbo Ya-Ya" is better quality, and includes Durieux's signature; the date is hard to make out for certain, but could be 1939. "Gumbo Ya-Ya" is based on work of the Louisiana Writer's Program of the WPA; the book itself bears a copyright claim by the Louisiana Library. But assuming the sketch was done by Durieux as part of her official duties as "director for the Federal Art Project" [3] (which seems likely), then the sketch should probably be {{PD-USGov-WPA}}. So I don't believe there's a copyright problem meriting deletion, but the image's current name, description, and use on en.wp should be corrected. --dave pape (talk) 20:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An electronic copy of Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Volume 12 Issue 2 can be accessed here, which is a link to the University of Utah Library's online collection. If you go to page 22 you will clearly see that the image in question does indeed appear in that publication. It is possible that Dialogue got the image wrong in their vetting process, but the statement is true that the image appears in that publication, and the publication credits this likeness to be that of Elijah Abel. -- 208.81.184.4 20:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would tend to believe that Dialogue was mislead by someone, or that Abel's descendants got the story wrong over time, as the image in "Gumbo Ya-Ya" is clearly the same sketch. --dave pape (talk) 05:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abel's descendants will be sad to hear this. However, kudos on correcting this. 208.255.90.221 01:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Per Dave pape's arguments, I changed the description and license, and asked for a rename. I'll be checking usage across Wikimedia and correcting anything if needed. Please feel free to improve on what I did, thanks. Patrícia msg 20:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Image:Maria-Kotarba-Auschwitz.jpg

[edit]

Per this, it's still copyright in the EU and US, regardless of what the Auschwitz Museum say. 81.153.180.141 12:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that once this has been deleted, I will gladly upload it with a fair use rationale on en wikipedia. WilliamH (talk) 13:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright - whose exactly? will it expire, ever? Pardon my ignorance, does the anonymity of a mugshot means it's banned forever? NVO (talk) 13:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the original uploader of this image. Sorry, but this deletion request is ridiculous, if not highly speculative. It is stemming from the lack of understanding and cooperation in the proper development of WP:PD#German World War II images guideline. There's no proof of any of the claims made there. Furthermore, my recent request for clarification has been left unanswered so far. Unless reliable sources are provided for what's being said I will request that the corresponding WP:PD paragraph be removed of rephrased. There's no such thing as a copyright owner to a WWII mugshot. --Poeticbent talk 14:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But that is where you are wrong. Every image has a copyright holder. CWii(Talk|Contribs) 15:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Repeating the question: who is the owner and when will the 'copyright' expire? Hell, I don't even know who owns the copyright of my photo in my passport - some steel box with a keyboard and a serial number... NVO (talk) 19:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per the Urheberechtsgesetz, this image originally had 25 years of copyright - thus from 1943 it entered the public domain in 1968. See Article 11 here, in particular, "copyright should be harmonized at 70 years after the death of the author or 70 years after the work is lawfully made available to the public. The legality to restore copyright on previously public domain content was upheld here, and since it was incorporated into German law here, copyright was reapplied in 1995. In a nutshell, not suitable for Commons. WilliamH (talk) 15:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We're going nowhere fast. You don't seem to understand the spirit of Berne Convention for the protection of literary and artistic works. There's nothing I can do to convince you at this stage, but I can quote from European Community (EC): Copyright (Harmonization Duration of Protection), Council Directive, 29/10/1993, No. 93/98 [4] defining what the copyright protection implies:

Paragraph 17:
photographic work within the meaning of the Berne Convention is to be considered original if it is the author's own intellectual creation reflecting his personality, no other criteria such as merit or purpose being taken into account
--Poeticbent talk 17:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing that neither the Berne Convention nor the EU directive 93/98/EEC define what exactly means "the author's own intellectual creation reflecting his personality". That's commonly called the en:threshold of originality, and it varies between countries. Different EU countries interprete the phrase differently. In Germany, this threshold is low; almost any photo taken by a human passes it. I don't know whether mugshots would qualify as a work in Germany, though. (We've already been through the discussion about this phrase in the context of "simple photographs". Some countries grant photos that fall below the threshold of originality a copyright-like protection (a neighboring right) all the same. But what is a "simple photo" in one country may well be a "photographic work" in another country.) Lupo 20:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know, that in Germany the threshold of originality is so low that "almost any photo taken by a human passes it." I'd like to see some proof of that. In fact this German article shows that the threshold is pretty reasonable. Mugshots, on the other hand, cannot be treated the same way by the Berne Convention. --Poeticbent talk 14:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, according to de:Lichtbildwerk and the sources linked there, mugshots might qualify as Lichtbild ("simple photo")—which would make sense, IMO. But in general, German photos are Lichtbildwerke ("photographic works"). Lupo 21:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete: Obvious potential copyright violations given actual sources used for creating this image. Presentation of current Polish and U.S. laws seem highly misleading. Moreover, there is no need for this image in Wikipedia Commons or in Wikipedia. The uploader needs to identify precisely what sources have been used to create this and other similar images that s/he is uploading to Wikipedia Commons and to Wikipedia. "mugshot" is highly disrespectful. These were (euphemistically) called "identity pictures" by the Auschwitz photographic office (in trans.) by the photographer Wilhelm Brasse and the rationale needs to be written in encyclopedic diction, not slang. Please consult actual Wikipedia copyright policies re: current U.S. (and Polish, if even applicable) copyright laws. Thanks. Moreover, this image was not copied, downloaded, and edited directly from museum exhibit photography; it is from some possibly-copyrighted work presenting the photograph that needs precise source identification. --NYScholar (talk) 20:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is the copyright in the work from which the image was copied to upload it to Wikipedia without permission of the copyright owner(s). --NYScholar (talk) 18:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If something is not copyright and you put it in a book, you can't then claim you own a copyright to it or even your reproduction of it, unless you have added creative input, and even then you only own copyright to the changes from your creative input, not the original image. Tyrenius (talk) 22:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also if the photo falls into Polish jurisdiction and is copyright-free there, then it can be used on that basis in wikipedia. I don't know if this applies to Commons also.Tyrenius (talk) 00:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Contrary to objections of some of the users who support this nomination, not a single copyright breach has occured in this instance, since the image, made by an unknown prisoner (wild guess: Brasse) is in public domain according to Polish copyright law regardless of where it was obtained from. --Poeticbent talk 23:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Point of information: The various claims in the licensing of this particular image are partly and precisely what is disputed and unresolved; see WP:FUR/WP:NFR. The "keep" votes are based on claims of "public domain" in the U.S. and Poland in this image page (and other image pages of inmate photos from the Museum photo archive) that are disputed. (Update.) --NYScholar (talk) 23:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete While I do agree that the copyright holder is not known in this case, but due to the restoration of copyright in 1995, this image sadly falls into the copyright column. I would wait for a few years before uploading this again, since we are close to that 70 year mark of publication. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 23:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep image is public domain in Poland and since it was never copyrighted in Poland does not fall under URAA, making it PD in the US as well. Per our new PD-art policy you cannot re-copyright public domain works simply by reproducing them. -Nard the Bard 00:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is it not the case that an employee whose job is to take photographs does not retain the copyright, but the employer does? And in this case the employer is the SS on behalf of the Nazi government. As these are prohibited organisations in Germany they have no legal basis to exist, let alone claim copyright. Tyrenius (talk) 13:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. Schutzstaffel was the slave-labour employer of Wilhelm Brasse’s (for further information see: Forced labor in Germany during World War II) providing that it was him who made the picture and not somebody else. The photographer was recompensed for his physical labour by being kept alive, forgive the sarcasm. Technically speaking, image is owned by the SS. It was made not by a German photographer, but by a foreign prisoner, and it does not fall under Berne Convention as an intellectual creation, so what exactly are we discussing here if I may ask? --Poeticbent talk 23:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I had assumed it was either a civilian or military employee (soldiers did take some photos in the camps). A forced labourer on pain of death is a very peculiar situation. Presumably a person in that situation would claim they were not responsible for their actions. Are there any precedents? I note in the article on Brasse, he cannot be identified definitely as the photographer anyway, but is only "attributed", which does not make a case for claiming copyright (although this does not seem to be an issue for him). It seems the photographer then is unknown and it is impossible to prove. In this case, is it not legitimate to assert there is no copyright that can be established? Tyrenius (talk) 00:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Object to the repeated distortions of my comments in the above comment placed here and elsewhere. Reasons for my own comments in reviews of these images are not part of any "attack" on the images or on their uploaders. The reasons are a concern for proper image page descriptions, proper image licensing, proper notices; proper identification of sources from which the images derive, according to Wikipedia and/or Wikipedia Commons media policies, so that the users of the images in Wikipedia will not jeopardize the article(s) that they are inserted in. Unclear, competing, and unresolved issues of "public domain", "fair use", and/or "non-free content" pertaining to these Auschwitz concentration camp photograph-derived images are precisely what are under review throughout both Wikipedia and Wikipedia Commons. I have made these points in the various media review discussion pages and in discussions of the related article discussion pages. The aim is to protect Wikipedia from claims of potential copyright violations and to maintain the integrity of the articles into which editors have inserted the images. Please focus on the content/media issues in relation to WP:POL and Wikipedia Commons content/media policies and not on individual contributors. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 07:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment The recent consensus in the above-mentioned and similar image deletion requests was to keep, it should be noted. JGHowes talk - 11:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete Photographer is unknown; even assuming that we can apply modern Polish law (which I think is the case), the template concerns "all photographs by Polish photographers". Since we know nothing about the photographer, we have no reason to assume that he was Polish. Maybe it is the template that needs to be clarified, but voting "keep" now is inconsistent with what we know. Rama (talk) 10:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep a prisoner identification photo by the SS in Nazi-occupied Poland of 1943 is PD as a government work, under Polish law; seems to apply here. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know that the photographer was a SS? It is likely not the case at all, this photo was probably taken by a prisoner. Rama (talk) 14:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But the camera and other materials would have been SS property, and the photo was taken for the purposes of the SS organization. Even if a prisoner did take the photo, I doubt that prisoner would have a leg to stand on to own its copyright. It's an SS photo.Nrswanson (talk) 17:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot argue for modern law on one hand, and deprive the author of his copyright because he was a prisoner. Under modern law, copyright goes to the author, not to the camera nor to the main user. Rama (talk) 10:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What law are you talking about, the Berne Convention, or the 1996 Round Agreement Act? According to both laws, copyright ownership stays with the agency commissioning the photograph always, whether it is today or in the past, applicable equally to French Chanel and the United States Army. The German SS is no exception. --Poeticbent talk 20:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Current Polish law, of course. What would the Uruguay Round Agreement Act have to do with it, the USA are not sovereign on the territory of Poland, are they? Rama (talk) 22:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have a feeling you missed the tag featured below the actual picture. Current Polish copyright law is based on Berne Convention, mentioned above, signed by the President of the Republic of Poland, Ignacy Moscicki, in 1935.[5] There were a few amendments made to it overtime, with the most recent changes ratified on February 4, 1994 when Poland joined the European Union.[6] The relevant paragraphs of the Polish copyright law are all listed at the "no-copyrights" tag displayed at the project page. --Poeticbent talk 04:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I read it all right. What I read is that the disposition regarding photographs before 23 May 1994 concerns "photographs by Polish photographers (or published for the first time in Poland or simultaneously in Poland and abroad)" (emphasis added); however, we cannot acertain either.
The consequence of this is that the template in question contains "Please provide where and when the image was first published", in bold; of course, here, neither such information not the name of the author is provided. Rama (talk) 08:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 3 votes supporting deletion, 9 opposing -- image kept. odder 11:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2008/07/03&oldid=19170127"