CV - Violates the copyright under
the precedent set by a previous IFD. Unnecessary, clear copyright violation, etc.
Delete and replace - A screenshot of a private section would have more encyclopedic value. Also, obtaining a permission from a site admin isn't too much a hassle, so just do it.
xyzman 10:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete per policy.
Jmlk17 06:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Low Quality Terribly Distorted Image. It is nearly impossible to make out a face. It was directly coped off of KDKA's website but uses a screenshot tag. — --TREYWiki 01:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete per nomination.
JṃŁЌ17 21:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader
Nv8200ptalk 02:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Unencyclopedic depends on your definition. It's actually very good artwork. It's just a shame the artist is non notable.
Nardman1 13:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete non-notable.
JṃŁЌ17 21:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Orphaned, Absent uploader
Nv8200ptalk 02:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)reply
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.
deleted by Riana.
YechielMan 21:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Orphaned, Unencyclopedic
Nv8200ptalk 02:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)reply
I have nominated it under {{db-author}} as its original purpose has long since passed.
Mkdwtalk 08:10, 29 April 2007 (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 article's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Possible Copyright violation. PD-self tag is questionable, especially since it's a "publicity photo" and among the user's only contributions. — Rebelguys2talk 02:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Possible Copyright violation. PD-self tag is questionable, especially since it's a "publicity photo" and among the user's only contributions. — Rebelguys2talk 02:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Possible Copyright violation. PD-self tag is questionable, especially since it's a "publicity photo" and among the user's only contributions. — Rebelguys2talk 02:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Possible Copyright violation. PD-self tag is questionable, especially since it's a "publicity photo" and among the user's only contributions. — Rebelguys2talk 02:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Possible Copyright violation. Uploader claims the image is a self-created for "public use," but I'm not so sure, given the user's other contributions, which I've listed above. — Rebelguys2talk 02:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete a useless image.
Jmlk17 06:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Possible Copyright violation. Uploader claims the image is a self-created for "public use," but I'm not so sure, given the user's other contributions, which I've listed above. — Rebelguys2talk 02:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete per nomination.
JṃŁЌ17 21:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)reply
If the image is the national founding fathers of the fraternity and is used on the page saying so, how is that vanity? It's not a copy vio or an orphan, I don't really see why this was tagged. --
ImmortalGoddezz 02:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)reply
It is a group of guys that look like they are having a party. There are no names in the caption to indicate who these people are. -
Nv8200ptalk 12:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)reply
It is a group of guys that are having a party. It’s the founders of the fraternity together at what is most likely a chartering banquet or a reunion party. Just because they are having fun at the time the picture was taken does not make them any less notable. They are notable by being founders of a notable organization and if they want to smile and have a group hug in their pic than so be it. This is one of the more frivolous delete nominations I’ve seen on a Greek article in a while. If a better picture of them can be found than by all means use it and yes someone (the editor who posted it) should add in captions but deleteing it is as usual extreme.
Trey 00:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep, but replace at next convenience with a more 'formal,' captioned picture. —
ScouterSig 17:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)reply
The image was obsolete by another image on Wikimedia Commons. I took the picture, uploaded it to here, realized it would be better suited on Commons, uploaded it to there, and now this pic just needs to be deleted. —
Happyme22 02:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete per nomination.
Jmlk17 06:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Used in now speedy-deleted page "Babrachar" (see
log). It is a derivative work of Pokémon-related artwork and, as such, is a copyright violation.
Iamunknown 03:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Conflicting copyright licenses: the one says that the copyright holder allows the image to be "freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, used, modified, built upon, or otherwise exploited in any way by anyone for any purpose, ..." the other says "the copyright holder has granted permission for this image to be used in Wikipedia. This permission does not extend to third parties." No evidence has been given to suggest which license is right and the web link is dead, so I think that this image should be deleted barring the resolution of the licensing status.
Iamunknown 03:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)reply
At the time the licenses made sense to me. You can change them so that you don't have delete the picture. This is stupid. The guy gave us permission to use the picture. Just to have something to so for the good of wikipedia FREE enclopedia.
Joerite 04:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)reply
To change the licenses I would need to know under what license the photographer released this particular image. --
Iamunknown 04:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)reply
You need to learn how to use the web archive xD.
[1] I don't see copyright info anywhere. Apparently the images were contributed to the website by individuals who mailed them in
[2]. Joerite, when did you get permission to use the photos and how?
Nardman1 13:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)reply
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 was keep. Image is public domain material. --
Aarktica 19:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)reply
It is very kind of Armeniapedia.org to give us permission to use this image, but there is no indication that they are the copyright owner and, to use non-free content, we must know who the copyright owner is.
Iamunknown 04:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep. This photo was taken over 90 years ago. But it would be good to have a more detailed description of the photo.
Badagnani 04:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep. I am certain the appropriate information can be found.
The Myotis 04:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)reply
You do realise that this is not a vote and, if appropriate information is not found, it will be deleted, do you not? --
Iamunknown 05:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. Also please respond to the comment I posted on Wikiproject:Armenia 8 days ago about Armeniapedia.org and Cilicia.com about their reliability (got no response yet). Both of them are 'owned' by
User:RaffiKojian, he has been advertising his sites on other images.
DenizTC 05:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)reply
The photo is from James Nazer's book, "The First Genocide of the 20th Century: The story of the Armenian Massacres in text and pictures" - which was published in 1968, and documents the photo which is 90 years old now. To my understanding that photo is therefore ok to scan and put online. --
RaffiKojian 06:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Do we have permission from Nazer, or his publishing company? Can you please comment on your sites on wikiproject page?
DenizTC 15:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)reply
I will try to acquire a copy of the book at the local University library and have a look. Thank you for the information. --
Iamunknown 06:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep. Regardless of the original copyright owner, it is a photo of extreme historic value and of an event which cannot be replicated. This justifies fair use of the photograph, and because it was taken over 90 years ago it may be in the public domain. --
Augustgrahl 15:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)reply
If it is non-free, we cannot use it without knowing the copyright owner. --
Iamunknown 22:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom.
Must.T C 15:54, 30 April 2007 (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 article's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Incongruous licenses; one says GFDL, the other says permission only for Wikipedia, I recommend deletion unless resolved.
Iamunknown 04:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)reply
No source information, extremely large size (13,824 bytes) could crash older computers —
Blueboy96 12:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)reply
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.
Deleted by AnonEMouse.
YechielMan 21:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Defamatory and low quality, modified image —
Dogmatic 12:27, 29 April 2007 (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 article's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
It is claimed the image is a reproduction of a two-dimensional work of art, but it is infact an image of a coin. —
Andrij.Dunatov 12:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)reply
keep (rolls eyes). A coin has two-dimensional art on it, one per side. And it's a 1500 year old coin, yeesh.
Nardman1 13:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep. I don't see how can it be a copyright issue. --
Rbraunwa 22:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)reply
I would like to point out that a recent Featured Article contained the image "Simeon the Great anonymous seal.jpg", which is photograph of a coin-like object with the same rationale as the image of the Olybrius coin. --
Rbraunwa 23:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete, Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. does not apply, the process of photography creates a copyright, unless we know who the photographer is and know that he or she has freely licensed this photograph, we must delete it. --
Iamunknown 22:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete the picture of a statue is not a two-dimensional work of art, and neither is the picture of a coin--
Andrij.Dunatov 00:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Hairs are being split here. The 3rd dimension of the face of a coin is negligible, one may as well argue that a painting is a three dimensional work of art because the thickness of the paint matters. How often do you examine the face of a coin by looking at its edge? It is essentially a 2-dimensional work of art. A statue can be photographed from many angles presenting different pictures, picking the best angle is a matter of creative choice. To give an accurate depiction of a coin, it can only sensibly be photographed face on. There is some technical skill involved in posing and lighting it so the design is visible, but this is not a creative decision, merely a technical one, just as in photographing a painting for reproduction. --
AnonEMouse(squeak) 13:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)reply
There is no case law that deals with the photography of relief objects, even low relief ones. If there is and I am mistaken, please present it. Until then, we only assume that Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. applies to two-dimensional works of art, i.e. paintings and photographs, in the public domain and nothing else. This image should be deleted, it is a copyright violation, simple as that. --
Iamunknown 19:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)reply
There is case law on reproducing 3 dimensional works with exact copies. These are not usually copyrightable, see
[3], which was in fact the basis of the Bridgeman decision. "But even to claim the more limited protection given to a reproduction of a work of art (that to the distinctive features contributed by the reproducer), the reproduction must contain "an original contribution not present in the underlying work of art" and be "more than a mere copy." 1 M. Nimmer, supra, § 20.2, at 93. According to Professor Nimmer, moreover, "the mere reproduction of a work of art in a different medium should not constitute the required originality for the reason that no one claim to have independently evolved any particular medium." I submit this is a mere copy with no independent originality.
Nardman1 00:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)reply
The image has been cropped, therefore it can't be "a mere copy with no independent originality". Furthermore, Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. deals with "reproductions of two-dimensional works of art", not with "two-dimensional reproductions of works of art", and therefore it can not be applied here. --
Andrij.Dunatov 21:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)reply
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.
Deleted by AnonEMouse.
YechielMan 21:44, 30 April 2007 (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 article's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
orphaned image, absent uploader, GFDL-presumed licensed, claim of an error in the text of the image
User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr) 14:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)reply
This file can’t be in the public domain since single files are stil copyrighted for some decades (Einstein, Wiesenthal, maybe some others, Perelman is requested for deletion on commons —
80.90.148.83 14:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)reply
orphnaned image, absent uploader, unencyclopedic personal graphic
User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr) 14:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)reply
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.
Deleted by Sherool.
YechielMan 21:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)reply
CV - No info at all on the copyright status, and it will have been that way for 10 days as of tommorow. I say delete it. --
98E 15:48, 29 April 2007 (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 article's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Copyright violation. He claimed that the image was his. However, I found it on another site, under a different author.
[4] Here is the link, the image is the last image of the page. —
Vseferović 18:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)reply
New user uploading a promo pic claiming permisison granted. No indication of proof, or under what license. —
The JPStalk to me 19:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC).reply
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.
Deleted by Akhilleus.
YechielMan 21:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Orphaned, an image of the letters NaH. If such an image is needed, it should be SVG, not JPG
BigDT 20:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete, I thought that this was deleted already, otherwise I would have nominated it myself.
Ksbrowntalk 21:37, 29 April 2007 (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 article's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
orphaned, poor quality, unusable; thought I already filed this, but could not find it for Apr 13 through Apr 15 —
Otheus 14:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Small and thus low quality, not user-created as tagged if it was obtained from an outside source, thus I recommend deletion.
Iamunknown 23:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete per nomination.
JṃŁЌ17 21:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Orphan, URL in image, license might not be completely free (uploader says "You are free to use this picture for depicting this breed in a good way", which seems to place restrictions on how the image may be used). —
Bkell (
talk) 23:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Orphaned, I cannot determine encyclopedic usage (though others may), if this is a logo it should be tagged with {{Non-free logo}}; if it is not going to be used, it should be deleted.
Iamunknown 23:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete per nomination.
Jmlk17 06:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)reply
CV - Violates the copyright under
the precedent set by a previous IFD. Unnecessary, clear copyright violation, etc.
Delete and replace - A screenshot of a private section would have more encyclopedic value. Also, obtaining a permission from a site admin isn't too much a hassle, so just do it.
xyzman 10:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete per policy.
Jmlk17 06:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Low Quality Terribly Distorted Image. It is nearly impossible to make out a face. It was directly coped off of KDKA's website but uses a screenshot tag. — --TREYWiki 01:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete per nomination.
JṃŁЌ17 21:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader
Nv8200ptalk 02:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Unencyclopedic depends on your definition. It's actually very good artwork. It's just a shame the artist is non notable.
Nardman1 13:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete non-notable.
JṃŁЌ17 21:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Orphaned, Absent uploader
Nv8200ptalk 02:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)reply
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.
deleted by Riana.
YechielMan 21:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Orphaned, Unencyclopedic
Nv8200ptalk 02:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)reply
I have nominated it under {{db-author}} as its original purpose has long since passed.
Mkdwtalk 08:10, 29 April 2007 (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 article's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Possible Copyright violation. PD-self tag is questionable, especially since it's a "publicity photo" and among the user's only contributions. — Rebelguys2talk 02:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Possible Copyright violation. PD-self tag is questionable, especially since it's a "publicity photo" and among the user's only contributions. — Rebelguys2talk 02:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Possible Copyright violation. PD-self tag is questionable, especially since it's a "publicity photo" and among the user's only contributions. — Rebelguys2talk 02:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Possible Copyright violation. PD-self tag is questionable, especially since it's a "publicity photo" and among the user's only contributions. — Rebelguys2talk 02:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Possible Copyright violation. Uploader claims the image is a self-created for "public use," but I'm not so sure, given the user's other contributions, which I've listed above. — Rebelguys2talk 02:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete a useless image.
Jmlk17 06:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Possible Copyright violation. Uploader claims the image is a self-created for "public use," but I'm not so sure, given the user's other contributions, which I've listed above. — Rebelguys2talk 02:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete per nomination.
JṃŁЌ17 21:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)reply
If the image is the national founding fathers of the fraternity and is used on the page saying so, how is that vanity? It's not a copy vio or an orphan, I don't really see why this was tagged. --
ImmortalGoddezz 02:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)reply
It is a group of guys that look like they are having a party. There are no names in the caption to indicate who these people are. -
Nv8200ptalk 12:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)reply
It is a group of guys that are having a party. It’s the founders of the fraternity together at what is most likely a chartering banquet or a reunion party. Just because they are having fun at the time the picture was taken does not make them any less notable. They are notable by being founders of a notable organization and if they want to smile and have a group hug in their pic than so be it. This is one of the more frivolous delete nominations I’ve seen on a Greek article in a while. If a better picture of them can be found than by all means use it and yes someone (the editor who posted it) should add in captions but deleteing it is as usual extreme.
Trey 00:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep, but replace at next convenience with a more 'formal,' captioned picture. —
ScouterSig 17:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)reply
The image was obsolete by another image on Wikimedia Commons. I took the picture, uploaded it to here, realized it would be better suited on Commons, uploaded it to there, and now this pic just needs to be deleted. —
Happyme22 02:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete per nomination.
Jmlk17 06:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Used in now speedy-deleted page "Babrachar" (see
log). It is a derivative work of Pokémon-related artwork and, as such, is a copyright violation.
Iamunknown 03:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Conflicting copyright licenses: the one says that the copyright holder allows the image to be "freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, used, modified, built upon, or otherwise exploited in any way by anyone for any purpose, ..." the other says "the copyright holder has granted permission for this image to be used in Wikipedia. This permission does not extend to third parties." No evidence has been given to suggest which license is right and the web link is dead, so I think that this image should be deleted barring the resolution of the licensing status.
Iamunknown 03:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)reply
At the time the licenses made sense to me. You can change them so that you don't have delete the picture. This is stupid. The guy gave us permission to use the picture. Just to have something to so for the good of wikipedia FREE enclopedia.
Joerite 04:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)reply
To change the licenses I would need to know under what license the photographer released this particular image. --
Iamunknown 04:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)reply
You need to learn how to use the web archive xD.
[1] I don't see copyright info anywhere. Apparently the images were contributed to the website by individuals who mailed them in
[2]. Joerite, when did you get permission to use the photos and how?
Nardman1 13:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)reply
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 was keep. Image is public domain material. --
Aarktica 19:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)reply
It is very kind of Armeniapedia.org to give us permission to use this image, but there is no indication that they are the copyright owner and, to use non-free content, we must know who the copyright owner is.
Iamunknown 04:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep. This photo was taken over 90 years ago. But it would be good to have a more detailed description of the photo.
Badagnani 04:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep. I am certain the appropriate information can be found.
The Myotis 04:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)reply
You do realise that this is not a vote and, if appropriate information is not found, it will be deleted, do you not? --
Iamunknown 05:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. Also please respond to the comment I posted on Wikiproject:Armenia 8 days ago about Armeniapedia.org and Cilicia.com about their reliability (got no response yet). Both of them are 'owned' by
User:RaffiKojian, he has been advertising his sites on other images.
DenizTC 05:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)reply
The photo is from James Nazer's book, "The First Genocide of the 20th Century: The story of the Armenian Massacres in text and pictures" - which was published in 1968, and documents the photo which is 90 years old now. To my understanding that photo is therefore ok to scan and put online. --
RaffiKojian 06:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Do we have permission from Nazer, or his publishing company? Can you please comment on your sites on wikiproject page?
DenizTC 15:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)reply
I will try to acquire a copy of the book at the local University library and have a look. Thank you for the information. --
Iamunknown 06:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep. Regardless of the original copyright owner, it is a photo of extreme historic value and of an event which cannot be replicated. This justifies fair use of the photograph, and because it was taken over 90 years ago it may be in the public domain. --
Augustgrahl 15:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)reply
If it is non-free, we cannot use it without knowing the copyright owner. --
Iamunknown 22:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom.
Must.T C 15:54, 30 April 2007 (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 article's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Incongruous licenses; one says GFDL, the other says permission only for Wikipedia, I recommend deletion unless resolved.
Iamunknown 04:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)reply
No source information, extremely large size (13,824 bytes) could crash older computers —
Blueboy96 12:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)reply
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.
Deleted by AnonEMouse.
YechielMan 21:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Defamatory and low quality, modified image —
Dogmatic 12:27, 29 April 2007 (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 article's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
It is claimed the image is a reproduction of a two-dimensional work of art, but it is infact an image of a coin. —
Andrij.Dunatov 12:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)reply
keep (rolls eyes). A coin has two-dimensional art on it, one per side. And it's a 1500 year old coin, yeesh.
Nardman1 13:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep. I don't see how can it be a copyright issue. --
Rbraunwa 22:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)reply
I would like to point out that a recent Featured Article contained the image "Simeon the Great anonymous seal.jpg", which is photograph of a coin-like object with the same rationale as the image of the Olybrius coin. --
Rbraunwa 23:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete, Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. does not apply, the process of photography creates a copyright, unless we know who the photographer is and know that he or she has freely licensed this photograph, we must delete it. --
Iamunknown 22:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete the picture of a statue is not a two-dimensional work of art, and neither is the picture of a coin--
Andrij.Dunatov 00:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Hairs are being split here. The 3rd dimension of the face of a coin is negligible, one may as well argue that a painting is a three dimensional work of art because the thickness of the paint matters. How often do you examine the face of a coin by looking at its edge? It is essentially a 2-dimensional work of art. A statue can be photographed from many angles presenting different pictures, picking the best angle is a matter of creative choice. To give an accurate depiction of a coin, it can only sensibly be photographed face on. There is some technical skill involved in posing and lighting it so the design is visible, but this is not a creative decision, merely a technical one, just as in photographing a painting for reproduction. --
AnonEMouse(squeak) 13:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)reply
There is no case law that deals with the photography of relief objects, even low relief ones. If there is and I am mistaken, please present it. Until then, we only assume that Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. applies to two-dimensional works of art, i.e. paintings and photographs, in the public domain and nothing else. This image should be deleted, it is a copyright violation, simple as that. --
Iamunknown 19:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)reply
There is case law on reproducing 3 dimensional works with exact copies. These are not usually copyrightable, see
[3], which was in fact the basis of the Bridgeman decision. "But even to claim the more limited protection given to a reproduction of a work of art (that to the distinctive features contributed by the reproducer), the reproduction must contain "an original contribution not present in the underlying work of art" and be "more than a mere copy." 1 M. Nimmer, supra, § 20.2, at 93. According to Professor Nimmer, moreover, "the mere reproduction of a work of art in a different medium should not constitute the required originality for the reason that no one claim to have independently evolved any particular medium." I submit this is a mere copy with no independent originality.
Nardman1 00:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)reply
The image has been cropped, therefore it can't be "a mere copy with no independent originality". Furthermore, Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. deals with "reproductions of two-dimensional works of art", not with "two-dimensional reproductions of works of art", and therefore it can not be applied here. --
Andrij.Dunatov 21:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)reply
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.
Deleted by AnonEMouse.
YechielMan 21:44, 30 April 2007 (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 article's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
orphaned image, absent uploader, GFDL-presumed licensed, claim of an error in the text of the image
User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr) 14:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)reply
This file can’t be in the public domain since single files are stil copyrighted for some decades (Einstein, Wiesenthal, maybe some others, Perelman is requested for deletion on commons —
80.90.148.83 14:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)reply
orphnaned image, absent uploader, unencyclopedic personal graphic
User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr) 14:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)reply
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.
Deleted by Sherool.
YechielMan 21:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)reply
CV - No info at all on the copyright status, and it will have been that way for 10 days as of tommorow. I say delete it. --
98E 15:48, 29 April 2007 (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 article's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Copyright violation. He claimed that the image was his. However, I found it on another site, under a different author.
[4] Here is the link, the image is the last image of the page. —
Vseferović 18:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)reply
New user uploading a promo pic claiming permisison granted. No indication of proof, or under what license. —
The JPStalk to me 19:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC).reply
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.
Deleted by Akhilleus.
YechielMan 21:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Orphaned, an image of the letters NaH. If such an image is needed, it should be SVG, not JPG
BigDT 20:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete, I thought that this was deleted already, otherwise I would have nominated it myself.
Ksbrowntalk 21:37, 29 April 2007 (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 article's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
orphaned, poor quality, unusable; thought I already filed this, but could not find it for Apr 13 through Apr 15 —
Otheus 14:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Small and thus low quality, not user-created as tagged if it was obtained from an outside source, thus I recommend deletion.
Iamunknown 23:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete per nomination.
JṃŁЌ17 21:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Orphan, URL in image, license might not be completely free (uploader says "You are free to use this picture for depicting this breed in a good way", which seems to place restrictions on how the image may be used). —
Bkell (
talk) 23:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Orphaned, I cannot determine encyclopedic usage (though others may), if this is a logo it should be tagged with {{Non-free logo}}; if it is not going to be used, it should be deleted.
Iamunknown 23:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete per nomination.
Jmlk17 06:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)reply