September 29
edit
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Rettetast (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 11:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:LaraCroftTombRaiderEvoWUnderw.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Lpss (notify | contribs).
- Goes against fair use guidelines, as a series of nine screenshots grouped together as a single fair use image, far too many for one article. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 00:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The nominator is right. --Artene50 (talk) 07:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Rettetast (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 11:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Hayim Malkhasy.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Hayim Malkhasy (notify | contribs).
- Unused file, no value to project as it was only used in an article about a non-notable person. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 02:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. The statue was erected in 2007 and carries the copyright of its creator, making this image unfree. kmccoy (talk) 13:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:MindszentyPlaza Cleveland.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by K._Lastochka (notify | contribs).
- There is no Freedom of Panorama in the US for statues Rockfang (talk) 04:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It depends on when the statue was put up. If it was put up before 1978, it is considered published and passes US FOP laws. --Artene50 (talk) 07:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - If it was put up before 1978, that just means it was considered published. Not that it is automatically public ___domain.--Rockfang (talk) 11:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ReplyBut if it was erected before 1978 with no copyright notice, I would think {{PD-US-no notice}} would apply. WhiteDragon (talk) 22:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Even with this new concept freedom of panorama would it be still PD in all other countries? Hobartimus (talk) 01:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - I'm not sure if it would be, but it I know it wouldn't have to be.--Rockfang (talk) 02:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Freedom of panorama isn't a "new concept", and whether the image is PD in other countries (it probably isn't) is irrelevant to Wikimedia, an American corporation, which must follow American law. Stifle (talk) 08:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We have the article under Panoramafreiheit, freedom of panorama is a simple redirect. Still I have to ask the same question is it still PD in other countries? (If I read it correctly the statue needs a copyright notice or built after 1978 not to be PD in the USA as well? Or is that false?) Hobartimus (talk) 14:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Freedom of panorama isn't a "new concept", and whether the image is PD in other countries (it probably isn't) is irrelevant to Wikimedia, an American corporation, which must follow American law. Stifle (talk) 08:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - I'm not sure if it would be, but it I know it wouldn't have to be.--Rockfang (talk) 02:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Even with this new concept freedom of panorama would it be still PD in all other countries? Hobartimus (talk) 01:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ReplyBut if it was erected before 1978 with no copyright notice, I would think {{PD-US-no notice}} would apply. WhiteDragon (talk) 22:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - If it was put up before 1978, that just means it was considered published. Not that it is automatically public ___domain.--Rockfang (talk) 11:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - What panorama? There is nothing in the background distinctive or remarkable. This close-cropped image is clearly of a statue, and not of a {light post, parts of trees, a statue, a part of a building's facade, etc.} It is an image of a statue and not of Mindszenty Plaza. I still don't know what the panorama looks like. István (talk) 17:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Rettetast (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 11:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:SLN Sayura N001.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Gira2be (notify | contribs).
- Image is admittedly copyrighted but I find a picture of a ship replaceable. Even so, its usage needs to be severely curtailed. Ricky81682 (talk) 17:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. Until permission is received at OTRS. And it would be nice if the image was reuploaded without a watermark. kmccoy (talk) 13:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Estacion-Saldias.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Moebiusuibeom-en (notify | contribs).
- There is no link to the permission and the original picture in the source shows the (C) symbol, so it is not free. Alpertron (talk) 19:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In regards to image Estacion-Saldias.jpg, I have gotten express permission from the the owner of this image to use it, please give me several days to straighten out any inconsistencies, thanks Moebiusuibeom-en (talk) 22:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Will look into case over weekend, cheers ∞ Moebiusuibeom-en (talk) 13:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Try to do that for all pictures whose author is Alejandro Goldemberg. Best regards, Alpertron (talk) 21:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey Alpertron, thanks for getting back! QUESTION: How do i get an email permission trough, i have express written permission by Alejandro Goldemberg trough an email, he is well is aware of Creative Commons licensing protocol, i have contacted RailPictures.net, where image originated for further assistance, please bare with me, kindly ∞ Moebiusuibeom-en (talk) 13:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for details on how to proceed. Best regards, Alpertron (talk) 20:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey Alpertron, thanks for getting back! QUESTION: How do i get an email permission trough, i have express written permission by Alejandro Goldemberg trough an email, he is well is aware of Creative Commons licensing protocol, i have contacted RailPictures.net, where image originated for further assistance, please bare with me, kindly ∞ Moebiusuibeom-en (talk) 13:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Try to do that for all pictures whose author is Alejandro Goldemberg. Best regards, Alpertron (talk) 21:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Will look into case over weekend, cheers ∞ Moebiusuibeom-en (talk) 13:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In regards to image Estacion-Saldias.jpg, I have gotten express permission from the the owner of this image to use it, please give me several days to straighten out any inconsistencies, thanks Moebiusuibeom-en (talk) 22:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. The argument for keeping this one is reasonable, but does not carry enough weight to overcome the restrictions of our policies regarding unfree content. The same argument could be made for hundreds of other photos of celebrities, but it's been made clear that the community and Foundation don't want to host tons of unfree promotional photos just for the purpose of identifying the person in the photo. As Stifle argues, the photo itself should have some commentary for it to be kept, and in this case it does not. kmccoy (talk) 13:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Living subject, so possibly replaceable with a free image, and was tagged as such. However, the subject's appearance at the height of her career is relevant to the article, so I've declined the speedy and brought it here for discussion. PhilKnight (talk) 19:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep in this rare case since it does shine a light on the subject's notability. --Artene50 (talk) 07:32, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Image is used for identification of the subject and is not the subject of critical commentary in the article. Therefore fails WP:NFCC#1. Stifle (talk) 12:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Der-ReichsfuhrerSS-Ahnenerbe.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Sherurcij (notify | contribs).
- Possibly replaceable, and was tagged as such, however it's a borderline case, so I've brought it here for discussion. PhilKnight (talk) 20:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, it is a historic chart - if it were easily legible we could argue the information could be extracted from it - but it isn't, so we can't. Yet the information is undoubtedly important. I'm not even sure it meets the creative necessities to qualify for copyright in the first place... Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 20:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Looking at the full resolution file at an enlarged size, I think it is probably decipherable, and I am even willing to give it a try, but it does remain an historic chart and the actual image is evocative. DGG ( talk ) 23:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Obvious delete... Why is this image needed? If we need to impart the information on it, we can copy it. If it's indecipherable, it's useless anyway... J Milburn (talk) 10:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as original tagger. What information does this scan contain that can not be replaced by text? Rettetast (talk) 17:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Come What May - McPhatter.ogg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by George Slivinsky (notify | contribs).
- Doesn't add to understanding of article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:NFCC#8 as the file doesn't seem to be used for increasing the understanding of the reader. — ξxplicit 20:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.