User talk:Stefan2/Archive 5

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

The US Copyright office says that to be covered: "The work is not in the public domain in the eligible source country through expiration of the term of protection." That is, when its Canadian copyright expires its US protection ends. see http://www.copyright.gov/gatt.html circular 38 b online here Rjensen (talk) 02:45, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are misreading the document. That is about restoration of the copyright (bringing it back from the public domain if it had entered the public domain in the United States for some reason). If "The work [was] not in the public domain in the eligible source country through expiration of the term of protection" on the date of restoration, then copyright was restored, and the work was brought back from the public domain in the United States. The date of restoration was 1 January 1996 for Canada. Unless the work was in the public domain in Canada on 1 January 1996, the copyright was restored in the United States and remains protected for 95 years since publication. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:46, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
the document says "Ownership of a restored copyright vests initially in the author or initial rightholder, as determined by the law of the restored work’s source country." That ownership has expired per Canadian law. Rjensen (talk) 21:31, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On the date of restoration, the copyright holder is the author or initial rightholder, as determined by the law of the restored work's source country. You missed the word "initially" after the word "vests". Once the copyright has been restored, the copyright holder in the United States is only changed if the copyright is transferred to someone else in a normal way (for example by inheritance or by signing a contract). --Stefan4 (talk) 21:16, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question - do we assume that copyright has been restored? All that was at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Barbara Ann Scott was in the public domain in Canada as per a donation by the photographer. Are you saying copyright gets renewed to a new holder automatically. Would this also apply to the same images from Boston Public Library as see here?Moxy (talk) 04:02, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As it was still protected by copyright in Canada on 1 January 1996, it either has a restored copyright or a subsisting copyright. In either case, it is protected by copyright in the United States, so it doesn't matter whether the copyright is "restored" or "subsisting". If the archive is the copyright holder and indicates this as being in the public domain, then this could maybe be treated as {{PD-author}} in the United States. If the archive is the copyright holder to lots of useful images, it may be worth to try to get an OTRS release from the archive. --Stefan4 (talk) 10:25, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Homouroboros, 3D zoetrope, Peter Hudson, Burning Man 2007-cropped.jpg

Dear Stefan,

If this image is affected by US FOP in your opinion, please consider filing a DR, If not please make a reply here. I don't know if the structure is temporary or permanent...or is copyrightable.

  • PS: You might consider asking to be a license reviewer as you know more about copyright than even me sometimes. I'm afraid that I cannot be the only trusted person who marks flickr human review images as I work full time in Canada. If you apply for this position, please leave a message on my Commons talkpage and I will support your nomination. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:02, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I already am a licence reviewer, but I haven't had much time reviewing licences, especially not recently. I assume that this is an artwork, and the guy who made it refers to himself as an artist in his own biography. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:24, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Filer på Wikivoyage

Hej Stefan! Der sker ikke så meget på Wikivoyage i øjeblikket. Desværre er det jo nok ikke fordi der ikke er mere at lave. Har du et overblik over hvad der mangler og hvad der er lettest at gå til? --MGA73 (talk) 19:12, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jag har inte gjort något alls på Wikivoyage på ett tag. Jag antar att det fortfarande finns flera tusen filer som helst ska flyttas över till Commons. Det enklaste är nog att börja med filer som har en licens av något slag och föra över många sådana. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:48, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Thanks for your comments. I had asked Admin E. Zelenko here and he gave some advise. As he notes the flickr source is very secondary and I can't verify the Wisconsin Book is PD. So, I filed a Speedy...but perhaps it would have been proper to file a regular DR.

PS: If possible, please try to mark some flickr image please. I do work a job in real life. I don't know where the other licensed reviewers went. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:37, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If important information is missing, I think that it is better to use a deletion discussion instead of using {{Speedy}}. For what it is worth, Flickr tells that it is from "the 1940 Wisconsin Blue Book". I don't know how exact this information is. I think that a claim by a random Flickr user that something was published without a copyright notice is just as reliable as a claim by a random Commons user saying the same thing. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:45, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: OK. I will reinstate my pass these 2 images. But please consider passing some of the other flickr images since you clearly have more experience on copyright issues. After all, you are trusted. I have to ask other Admins often. Best Wishes, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:08, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Query

Hi ... the question I was wondering about, which I missed your response to if it was there, was whether you believe that commons images also have to pass muster under US law (in this regard; even if they are taken in a country other than the U.S.), as they are hosted on a site subject to US law?--Epeefleche (talk) 21:46, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per COM:L#Interaction of United States copyright law and non-US copyright law, the images have to be in the public domain or freely licensed in the United States. In some cases (in particular in relation to freedom of panorama), it is unclear exactly how US law works with regard to the law of the source country. --Stefan4 (talk) 01:25, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So your position (whatever it is) would be the same as to all similar signs, whatever the country? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It all depends on the country and on the sign. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:56, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever the country is -- you are saying that to be certain it it permissible, since Commons is a US website you would have to satisfy US law ... correct? As we are hosting the image on a US website. And as far as you know, that may lead to US law applying.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:18, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The rule is explained at COM:L#Interaction of United States copyright law and non-US copyright law. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:23, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thus ... yes. As I read it. Agreed?--Epeefleche (talk) 05:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Borttagande av foton

Jag bara undrade lite over mina foton som du anmält som upphovsrättbrott. Det är inte så att jag tror att du inte vet vad du håller på med, utan det är mer så att jag blev nyfiken på hur det där med det upphovsrättsliga funkar egentligen. Det rörde sig om en bild av en järnvägsstation i Marocko samt ett foto av en reklmapelare på Åland.

Som sagt, jag litar på att du vet vad du gör, och jag är bara nyfiken.--Mikael Parkvall (talk) 00:04, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jag skrev ett svar på fildiskussionssidan, men den sidan raderades väldigt snabbt, så du kanske aldrig hann se svaret. Lagarna ser ut på lite olika sätt i olika länder och är ibland (enligt mig) väldigt dumma:
  • I Sverige får man fotografera alla byggnader och utomhuskonst (till exempel statyer) enligt 24 § svenska upphovsrättslagen. För utomhuskonst gäller att konsten måste finnas där permanent. Reklamaffischer byts ut lite då och då och får därför inte fotograferas. Text får inte heller fotograferas. Observera att kartor räknas som text enligt 2 § upphovsrättslagen.
  • I Finland (inklusive Åland) får man fotografera alla byggnader. Foton på utomhuskonst får inte användas i förvärvssyfte eftersom detta kränker skulptörens upphovsrätt. Detta framgår av 25 § finska upphovsrättslagen. Commons tillåter endast bilder som kan användas i förvärvssyfte. Om du vill ta en bild på en staty i Finland måste du alltså förvissa dig om att upphovsrätten till statyn gått ut i både Finland och USA. Upphovsrätten har gått ut i Finland om skulptören dog före 1943 samt i USA om statyn sattes upp före 1923. Om upphovsrätten inte ännu gått ut, går den ut i Finland 70 år efter skulptörens död samt i USA 95 år efter att statyn sattes upp. Dessvärre innebär det att man måste identifiera skulptören och statyns ålder innan man kan ladda upp några bilder. Man kan anta att en person som gjort en modern reklamaffisch inte dog före 1943, så reklamaffischer går inte att ladda upp. Om konstverket inte är huvudmotivet utan bara skymtas någonstans i bakgrunden, behöver man inte bry sig om konstverkets upphovsrätt.
  • I Marocko är det ännu värre. Om man önskar ladda upp en bild på en byggnad, måste man förvissa sig om att arkitekten dog för minst 50 år sedan eftersom bilden annars kränker arkitektens upphovsrätt enligt marockansk lag. Om man vill ladda upp en bild på en staty eller något annat gäller samma sak. En bild på en hel stadsdel går bra eftersom ingen enskild byggnad utgör bildens huvudmotiv. Om man åker dit som turist, är nog det största problemet att man inte har någon aning om hur man tar reda på vem arkitekten är, när denne dog eller om han fortfarande är i livet.
I andra länder gäller olika regler som varierar från land till land och beskrivs på COM:FOP. Du kanske kan finna intresse i följande länkar:
  • En sydkoreansk reklamfirma dömdes till tio miljoner won i böter för upphovsrättsbrott för att ha avbildat en byggnad i en reklamfilm och i reklam i tidskrifter utan arkitektens tillstånd.[1]
  • En dansk dagstidning fick ett kravbrev på 10 000 danska kronor från skulptörens arvingar för att ha använt ett foto statyn Den lille Havfrue i Köpenhamn utan tillstånd.[2]
  • Amerikanska posten dömdes att betala 5000 dollar i böter för att ha avbildat ett monument på ett frimärke utan tillstånd.(Wikipedia) --Stefan4 (talk) 01:20, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Jösses jävlar. Nå, detta bekräftade väl det jag misstänkte -- alltså att du visste vad du gjorde. Kanske kommer jag inte att minnas allt detta nästa gång jag försöker ladda upp nåt, men måhända hittar du det innan nån stämmer röven av mej... Jag har större respekt för upphovsrätten än många andra, men en del av detta är ju direkt larvigt.

Nå, tack för förklaringen hur som helst, och allt gott.

--Mikael Parkvall (talk) 02:04, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cameroons that Saker laboured.jpg

Hi Stefan, I had forgotten that I had failed this image. I will revoke/revert my flickr faill mark and ask that you to add the right license. On the other image DR, here is the discussion It is a photo of Mrs Saker which the daughter likely could/would have taken herself as a personal photo. This is an old map in the book...and it is more likely that the daughter just used an old map book. Therefore, {{PD-old-70}} or {{PD-UK-unknown}} likely applies. I don't which license applies, but please feel free to choose the license that you feel is most appropriate. You don't need my permission. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:45, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Unipol Tower 1.JPG

Well spotted - I missed that, still I can clean up my own mistakes :-) I've restored the en version with a FoP-USonly.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 13:58, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ritratto di Tama Kiyohara.jpg

Please consider marking this image and passing or failing it as I am unsure about it. The statue is copyright free (artist died in the 1920's) but the flickr account only has 30 images. Best Wishes, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:56, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Flickr images might be Flickrwashing, but it is also very possible that the account is legitimate. I looked at the image yesterday but didn't know what to do, and I've done some more searching now. The Flickr user claims to represent http://www.invasionidigitali.it/ but can you find any link in the other direction? --Stefan4 (talk) 21:34, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment That Italian web site has an NC license. I don't know if its a flickrwash. With only 30 images on the flickraccount, it might be. Feel free to file a Dr if you wish. As for the .ogv files in human review, I cannot access them as I told EugeneZelenko here with my old computer. So, what I cannot see, I don't mark. It may or may not be derivative images...but I can't tell with my computer. Perhaps you know an Admin who can access these video files and decide. Sorry. PS: I asked Lymantria if he could send a message to you about video files. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:12, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing videos

Dear Stefan4, Leoboudv asked me to contact you about your concerns about flickrreviewing of videos. This indeed is a difficult matter, be it alone that it is somewhat more complicated to check that the uploaded video and the video at Flickr are the same. For the rest however, you may keep in mind that your reviewing is just a "rough" check that the video is available at the suggested license at Flickr. You are right that information on videos is somewhat thin. The best information perhaps is Commons:Video#Videos and copyright. In my opinion when a performance, concert or something alike is shown in the video, this almost certainly is a copyrighted DW and could best be dealt with in a DR. De Minimis is always difficult, for images as well as for videos. Whether we should treat De Minimis per frame of the video or per video as a whole is unclear to me. Perhaps a good idea to start a discussion about here. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 08:09, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware that User:FlickreviewR only checks for the licence on Flickr, but as a human, I prefer to do a better work than that. If I have reason to believe that a Flickr user isn't the copyright holder to everything, then I prefer to nominate it for deletion instead of marking the Flickr review as "passed". Films are horrible in that respect.
For example, do you have an opinion about File:Hednesford Hills Raceway - Caravan Roll Over.ogv? There are some people speaking in the background, but you can barely hear what they are saying, so that is de minimis to me. However, after some time, someone starts speaking in a speaker, and that's getting more serious. Also, do the car driver or other people in the film hold performance rights to any portion of the film? --Stefan4 (talk) 21:09, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh Yes, doing your human check certainly improves the reviewing quality and it filters a lot of unjustified uploads. I myself do these checks as well. Considering the Caravan Roll Over: I would consider the voice comments as "de minimis", but that is questionable, and it may also not be beyond the threshold of originality. The roll over itself you might see as performance of a "choreography", and I would consider that as being beyond the threshold of originality. Again questionable. And there is the possibly different points of view according to US and UK laws. A DR might lead to a good discussion. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 05:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I tried a deletion request. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hednesford Hills Raceway - Caravan Roll Over.ogv. Films are generally difficult matters. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:35, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see what it brings. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 14:35, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion requests / file taggings

Hey Stefan4,
I'm writing on behalf of ElNavarroG, as he sought for my help regarding the tagging of some of his uploads (the same happened to me and you put the template warnings in my discussion, my bad!). We'll send all the OTRS declarations of consent asap, and at least one picture (File:Del'aireal'aire.jpg) will have to be restored but no big deal though. Sorry for the inconvenience, best regards, ESM (talk) 22:01, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain why several of those images appeared outside Commons before they were uploaded to Commons? --Stefan4 (talk) 13:25, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Armenian Presidential Palace.jpg

Note: I passed this image because Armenia now has full Freedom of Panorama due to a recent change in this country's laws. A pity the rest of the former Soviet Union's states don't. Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:08, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Consider being extra careful with adding {{FoP-Armenia}}, especially in the beginning before everyone has noticed the change at COM:FOP#Armenia. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sysop

Have you ever considered becoming a sysop for Commons? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would be a good idea IMHO. Lymantria (talk) 16:02, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chico-ca-1856.jpg

Hi,

I uploaded the picture from Wikipedia from here. I provided all the info available. It was marked by a bot for uploading to the commons. I've no other info on the pic. So if it's to be deleted, I guess I should remove the notice on Wikipedia that it's been uploaded here? Farrajak (talk) 16:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the notice on Wikipedia[3], so it won't get deleted there if it's to be deleted here. Thanks, Farrajak (talk) 16:12, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I must have missed the date of the photo. If the photo is from 1856, it is almost certainly in the public domain. It should not be deleted in my opinion. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:09, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's what I was going on. Thanks, Farrajak (talk) 18:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sarajevo 1878

Main gallery: File:Sarajevo 1878..jpg.

Concerning this file, I noticed painter's signature in bottom left corner, something like G. Duzandi... There is a great probability this picture is older than 100 years, but I can't be 100% certain. Can you try to decipher the painter? Thanks, Bojovnik (talk) 19:01, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not sure exactly what it says, and we need to verify that the person has been dead for at least 70 years. A painting of a war is sometimes made some time after the war, so there is a possibility that it isn't old enough. I tried a Google reverse image search to see if I could find any information on pages elsewhere on the Internet which are using the image, but unfortunately most pages are in Croatian, which I can't read. Maybe you can get something out of them: https://www.google.com/searchbyimage?image_url=https%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2Fd%2Fd2%2FSarajevo_1878..jpg%2F300px-Sarajevo_1878..jpg --Stefan4 (talk) 19:32, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I tried that, didn't work. But, I still managed to find the guy: It's (scroll down) G. Durand (1800-1899), an American painter. All of his drawings concerning 1878 war were published at The Graphic, illustrated british newspapers, for instance, these. Cheers, --Bojovnik (talk) 23:37, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This note

Main gallery: User talk:Lymantria#This Complaint Here.

It looks like a DR you launched was against a major copyvio uploader. Unfortunately since he uploades images from Chinese sites, I don't know where Bru216 is "taking" the images from as Glabb complains but it must be a lot. Perhaps you do. It past 2 AM now in Canada and I'm going to bed but if you know of any other uploads by this user, feel free to file a DR and notify Lymantria. Perhaps Lymantria can place sanctions and blacklist this person's flickr, panoramio and picasa accounts then. Bru216 has uploaded many images and I think I would have marked a few in the past not knowing that they were stolen. Goodnight, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:36, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent deletion notices with regard to "signs as artwork" have caused me to reconsider other images I have uploaded to Commons. Acting in good faith, I was under the impression that public displays of art (other than signs) were in the public domain, but I now see that is not the case, based on the write-up here: Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US. Consequently, it seems that all images of 2-D or 3-D museum exhibits, shown here and here would have to be deleted, even though the exhibits are on public display. Would it be permissible for me to begin inserting Speedy Deletion Templates on each of those image files, example shown here? -Woodlot (talk) 19:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A tank is a utilitarian object: you use it for shooting at people, not for looking at it. According to the copyright law of the United States, there is no copyright protection for utilitarian objects (see COM:UA, and note that this sometimes is different in other countries). There are several photos of tanks and other utilitarian objects in Category:Mississippi Armed Forces Museum, and those photos should be fine and it should be possible to keep those.
Buildings are strictly speaking "artworks" (at least if built on 1 December 1989 or later when the law was changed), but there is a law which says that you can take photos of essentially all buildings (see {{FoP-US}}), so all of the photos of buildings are fine and can be kept. This is again something which is different in other countries. For example, photos of buildings in France are typically deleted unless the architect has been dead for at least 70 years (which causes a lot of extra trouble finding out who the architect is).
File:MAFM MedalofHonor.jpg shows lots of medals, but I would assume that the medals were made by the US government. As there is no copyright to works by the US government, those medals should be in the public domain. I also see a few plaques in this image, but those are unimportant to the image as a whole, so they should satisfy COM:DM and not be a problem.
Some other images look like problems. For example, File:MAFM World War II Casualties.jpg seems to contain a doll (or a statue or whatever you would call it) and doesn't look OK.
If you are uncertain about which images to delete, I would recommend you to use a deletion request instead or ask for help at COM:VPC. There can be a lot of issues involved. For example, something might be unimportant to an image (COM:DM) and if any of the items were displayed somewhere before 1978, then they had to carry a copyright notice or else they would automatically fall into the public domain. I don't know how old all of these things are. --Stefan4 (talk) 00:19, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response. We seem to be in agreement as to which image files pose a potential copyright problem—i.e., images of museum exhibits where mannequins are outfitted in period costumes. As such, Speedy Deletion tags seem to be the least complicated, for me, as the method of choice to removing the files; I would be tagging my own files for deletion, not those of another Commons User.-Woodlot (talk) 17:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Inadvertent error

Sorry. It was an unintentional mistake. Sincerely. Fixertool (talk) 02:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Admin

Hey, you are like one of the few long-term editors on this project that are in my sight every other day and are still not yet an admin. Any reason you have not RfA'ed yourself? Would you allow me to do it? It's about time ya know. russavia (talk) 22:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, one concern is that I don't know if I would have time to use the extra things related to the admin status. I try to avoid requesting extra permissions if I don't know if I will have time to use those extra permissions. Also, I haven't needed any extra permissions to participate in discussions or uploading files. --Stefan4 (talk) 16:16, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Special:DeletedContributions/Stefan4 would tell me otherwise; that you and the community would indeed benefit from you having the tools. You mark dozens upon dozens of files for being copyvios, meaning another admin then has to come along and delete, taking time away from other admin stuff they could do. If you had the tools you could delete these copyvios and the like on the spot, freeing up time for other admins. Having the tools doesn't mean you have to go out of your way to especially use them, but in your every day editing here on Commons having the tools would clearly be a benefit for you and "us". Would you care to RfA? Or allow me to nom you? russavia (talk) 17:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I fully agree with this question (as mentioned above). I think your judgement is well enough that others do not have to judge it again. It would be nice if you had an emailaddress registered, though. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 17:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/packaing violation

I've raised a question at User talk:Fastily regarding his closure of Commons:Deletion requests/packaing violation. Since you were the only participant other than the nominator, and since he deleted everything except for the ones that you asked to be kept, I'm uncertain about which of the other images you thought should be deleted. If you remember anything of it now (you voted 2½ months ago), your comments might be helpful. Nyttend (talk) 03:34, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seemed that the nominator selected random images of packaging and products without knowing what to look for. Some of the images were clearly ineligible for copyright (either utilitarian, like File:Sanyo VPC-S760 digatal camera.jpg, or below the threshold of originality, like File:Cup Noodles.jpg). Some of the images, like File:HK CWB Windsor Plaza Ground Floor Yamazaki Bakery.JPG, were clearly covered by FOP. Unfortunately, I don't remember what the other images looked like, so I can't determine if any other images should have been kept or not. It was one of those messy cases where it would have been better to split it up on multiple nominations. See also Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Ramyeon#Packaging violation where the nominator listed some other examples of packaging. There might also have been some more images amongst those which should have been kept. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the help! I've cited your comments in a request to Fastily to undelete ones that he doesn't find to be clear copyvios; I'll renominate all of them individually, so that we can have clearer discussions on them. Nyttend (talk) 00:10, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Statue of Sobekhotep IV.jpg

Hello, the file File:Statue of Sobekhotep IV.jpg has a license problem because I forgot to give the link to the source. Here is the source with the license clearly stated: http://secure.flickr.com/photos/71637794@N04/6817417841/ How can I make sure the file does not get deleted ? Thank you,Iry-Hor (talk) 15:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It looks fine now, so the file won't be deleted. --Stefan4 (talk) 16:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

4 Images

Dear Stefan,

Please check these 4 images and feel free to pass them or file a speedy on them as they were uploaded by a bot and not a person--if they fail US FOP. Here are the photos:

Kind Regards and Goodnight from Vancouver where its Sunday 10:38 PM, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:37, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that File:Brevard Zoo - Flickr - Rusty Clark (54).jpg and File:Forest Park - Springfield MA - Flickr - Rusty Clark (100).jpg are below the threshold of originality.
File:Brevard Zoo at Viera FL - Flickr - Rusty Clark (26).jpg is a bit unclear. The sign at the top is clearly copyrightable, but the question is whether you think that the image focuses on that sign or not.
File:Forest Park, Springfield MA - Flickr - Rusty Clark (57).jpg is definitely not acceptable, unless the statue is old enough. I haven't been able to find any information about its age.
Could you comment on File:The Indian Chief - Flickr - Rusty Clark.jpg which you marked as reviewed? I suspect that this is the one described at http://siris-artinventories.si.edu/ipac20/ipac.jsp?uri=full=3100001~!328230~!0 meaning that it is slightly too recent. --Stefan4 (talk) 11:42, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Stained glass windows of Evangelische Kirche (Gründelhardt)

Hello Stefan4,

why do you think this is a "German FoP case"? It isn't. Freedom of panorama in Germany doesn't apply to the inside of buildings. Regards --Rosenzweig τ 19:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Stained glass windows of St. Achatius (Grünsfeldhausen). --Rosenzweig τ 19:45, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The FOP categories are typically added to images related to FOP. For example, Category:French FOP cases is added to photos of French buildings, although FOP doesn't apply to French buildings. In the same way, I'd assume that it is appropriate to use a German FOP category for indoor glass. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:48, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that a bit farfetched? I don't quite see the point and usefulness of it. --Rosenzweig τ 20:26, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that the FOP categories usually are used if the image shows something which is covered by FOP in at least one country. For example, Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Finland have freedom of panorama for buildings without any restrictions. That is, without requiring that the building is permanently installed or that it is outdoors or in a public place. Also, you mentioned FOP in the discussion. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bio Lab Road - Flickr - Rusty Clark (123).jpg, File:Black Point Wildlife Drive, Merritt Island FL - Flickr - Rusty Clark (178).jpg & File:Bio Lab Road - Flickr - Rusty Clark (2).jpg

If these signs are generic enough to you, please pass them in the human flickr review category. Please also consider going through the human flickr review category and passing those signs which seems generic enough to you.

PS: Your talkpage has 248 messages, I notice. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:13, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated File:Bio Lab Road - Flickr - Rusty Clark (2).jpg for deletion.
File:Bio Lab Road - Flickr - Rusty Clark (123).jpg has a very short message with a very simple choice of words. Not eligible for copyright in my opinion.
File:Black Point Wildlife Drive, Merritt Island FL - Flickr - Rusty Clark (178).jpg contains two very common and very simple drawings (♿ and a woman). I find it unlikely that they would be original enough to be protected by copyright. --Stefan4 (talk) 09:48, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re File:Seven Degrees of Connectness.jpg PEERAGOGY HANDBOOK PROJECT

About the procedure of cancellation of the infographic File:Seven Degrees of Connectness.jpg, I am attaching the site where it is licensed under (CC-BY-SA) HERE..!!. therefore I ask you to restore it as (OER)- Open Educational Resource into Peeragogy Handbook project V1.0. Thank you..!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siarmember (talk • contribs) 2013-06-02T19:44:17‎ (UTC)

It says that the file is licensed under {{Cc-by-nc-sa}}, not {{Cc-by-sa}}. If you click on the link {{Cc-by-nc-sa}}, you might understand why the file was deleted. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:49, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: Should I withdraw this DR? Maybe the drawing is too simple to be copyrighted in the picture. Just curious, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:18, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, I entirely missed this question, and I've been quite busy lately, so I've got a bit behind with things. I think that the sign is copyrightable but that it satisfies COM:DM as the main object of the photo seems to be the bird sitting on the sign. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:47, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Georgia.gif

Hello Stefan, will you write your opinion here? This russian guy wants to delete animated flag of Georgia.--Giorgi Balakhadze 09:31, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Andrew Nicastro and Miep Gies.jpg

Hi Stefan, please have a look at User talk:Fastily#File:Andrew Nicastro and Miep Gies.jpg. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 07:54, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The question in the deletion request remains, though: is this a scan from a private family album, or is it a scan of a magazine? --Stefan4 (talk) 10:11, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Søndergade (Hadsten) 01.JPG

Hi Stefan, Due to your involvement in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hammel Sygehus 1960.jpg, I was wondering if you would be so kind, as to comment on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Søndergade (Hadsten) 01.JPG regarding a similar yet somewhat different (but how much?) situation? In kind regards, heb [T C E] 15:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This CU request

Dear Stefan,

Feel free to look at this CU request. You can vote for/against or decide to abstain. Its your decision if you know this Admin. I know this Admin so I decided to support the request since Herby retired. It seems straight forward to me but the discussion is getting heated. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 03:36, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have been travelling and busy with other things, and I see that the CU request has closed by now. Generally speaking, I wouldn't worry about requests for advanced rights: there are usually lots of knowledgeable users who comment those requests, so it is unlikely that the outcome of any such request is bad for the project. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:20, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Several of your transferred files with no visible description

Hi Stefan. I noticed that several of the files your transferred from en.wikipedia do not have a visible description. See this example and the quick fix. There are probably many more in Category:Template:en with no text displayed. Could you please take a look? --Leyo 16:55, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Argh, a stupid "=" sign mistake! I tried fixing this by asking for a check of the entire Category:Template:en with no text displayed at tools:~magog/cleanup_multi.htm. Let's see what happens. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:28, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did this for the parent category (that includes all files in subcategories) a few days ago and it solved around 1000 cases. The easiest way to check if there are still some of your transfers left is probably VisualFileChange (source text RegExpr search for “Stefan4”). --Leyo 11:31, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hiyoko-chan

Hi, Ste-chan (ステちゃん :)) What do you think of File:Chicken Ramen ひよこちゃん.jpg, File:Chicken Ramen.jpg ? Takabeg (talk) 04:50, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that File:Chicken Ramen ひよこちゃん.jpg probably is OK with regard to Japanese law. Japanese courts generally seem to argue that toys aren't copyrightable as artworks because they are purely utilitarian (see for example http://www.courts.go.jp/hanrei/pdf/20090422091059.pdf). I would assume that this car is about as utilitarian as a toy. There is also the USA situation to worry about. There was this case where a US court found that a Japanese toy wasn't utilitarian (and thus copyrighted in the United States), although the same toy is utilitarian in Japan (and thus not copyrightable in Japan). Also, the US court ruling is from 1985, and US law has changed a bit after that, in particular in 1989 when the country joined the Berne Convention. I'm not sure if that is of any relevance here.
I would say that File:Chicken Ramen.jpg isn't OK because of complex art on the packaging. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Commons' Scope is now OPEN

Hi. Earlier this year you contributed to a discussion of Commons' scope at Commons:Requests for comment/scope. I am hoping we can build on the very interesting discussion that happened there, and I would like to invite you to add your further thoughts to a broader review now underway at Review of Commons' Scope. All the best, --MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:13, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaning up PRP

Hello, I am writing to you because you have participated in this discussion to inform you that there is a discussion on PRP that is taking place here and your input would be valuable. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 03:23, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Waxes

Main gallery: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Istituto di anatomia patologica, museo, cere, 05 pene.JPG.
Main gallery: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Istituto di anatomia patologica, museo, cere, casi di studio didattici 04.JPG.

Hi Stefan. Waxes of the Hospital of Florence Museum were all made in the 1860s. They were just restored, so they may look newer. Sorry I forgot to write that in description. Please close the deleting processes beacuse of no reason, they are all in PD. Thank you. --Sailko (talk) 10:59, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done --Stefan4 (talk) 19:45, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Davidzicoman

i have sent an Evidence of free license, permission license about the picture of Dareysteel radio interview in Amsterdam holland, but why the delate tagged on the picture is not yet taken out from the picture .... please can you verify... here is the picture. .File:Dareysteel picture on his radio interview in Amsterdam holland.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidzicoman (talk • contribs) 2013-07-12T14:17:22 (UTC)

I have replaced the "no permission" notice with one saying that something has been sent by e-mail. If the e-mail contains a sufficient permission statement from the photographer, then this will presumably be settled soon. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:40, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the good job stefan4, i hope it settled as soon as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidzicoman (talk • contribs) 2013-07-15T15:08:37 (UTC)

File:Blue Card.jpg

I have tried to comply with your request for a licence at File:Blue Card.jpg but I am unable to format the page properly. Would you be kind enough to assist? SonofSetanta (talk) 16:32, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The file is unfree and isn't permitted on Commons. See COM:FU. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:45, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Noted. It has been reuploaded with Crown Copyright licencing in the correct place. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:28, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:WM-BO May-13.jpg

Thank for move from meta and complete the information of File:WM-BO May-13.jpg --Jduranboger (talk) 18:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! --Stefan4 (talk) 11:54, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Scheme language specification is in the public domain

  • Preview the Cambridge edition here. It says "This work is in the public domain", and because the PDFs I uploaded is the same text, they are in the public domain too.
Musical Notation scripsit:

Let me ask again: Am I allowed to redistribute and modify the R6RS
specification documents commercially?
From the Summary at the beginning of R6RS:

# We intend this report to belong to the entire Scheme community, and
# so we grant permission to copy it in whole or in part without fee. In
# particular, we encourage implementors of Scheme to use this report
# as a starting point for manuals and other documentation, modifying it
# as necessary.

In other words, yes.

-- 
Clear?  Huh!  Why a four-year-old child         John Cowan
could understand this report.  Run out          cowan@ccil.org
and find me a four-year-old child.  I           http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
can't make head or tail out of it.
       --Rufus T. Firefly on government reports
  • The Dart language specification: see the "Licensing" section. It says that text in the spec is licensed under CC-BY, and code under BSD.

--Czech is Cyrillized (talk) 14:07, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The second page: "This work is in the public domain. This compilation of the work is edited by Michael Sperber, R. Kent Dybvig, Matthew Flatt and Anton van Straaten and first published by Cambridge University Press 2009. © Cambridge University Press 2009" Czech is Cyrillized (talk) 23:46, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very confusing. It can't both be in the public domain and © Cambridge University Press at the same time. Those two statements contradict each other. Moved to a deletion discussion. --Stefan4 (talk) 00:10, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:South Armagh.JPG

Regarding File:South Armagh.JPG. I am the owner of the copyright. I have the original image here and the negative and can prove my ownership of the file. SonofSetanta (talk) 16:08, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See my reply at w:WP:ANI#SonofSetanta Topic Ban. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:21, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Epiphany Eyewear image

Hello Stefan4: The image nominated for deletion is eligible to be closed. Here's the link: Commons:Deletion requests#Latest requests to be closed

The Help Section states, "Non-admins may close a deletion request as keep if they have a good understanding of the process, and provided the closure is not controversial."

The Nomination Page discussion clearly addressed your concerns about the image -- the owner and the author are the same person. Here's the link: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Epiphany Eyewear.jpg

How would you like to proceed? If you are too busy, I can either ask another Admin to address this or try doing it. I've never handled this task so it would be a good learning experience. Please advise. Thank you, 301man (talk) 23:13, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to have been closed now. I have been away on holiday and haven't been online for some time. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:11, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Stefan4. Hope you had a good holiday. 301man (talk) 03:02, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:UDR Service Medals.JPG

New image sent to permissions for file verification. After three days of waiting for you to request same. SonofSetanta (talk) 11:21, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion seems to have taken place on that page. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:21, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with discussion. My desired outcome is to resolve issues surrounding the uploading of British military insignia and medals. SonofSetanta (talk) 09:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I think you are apperantly famillar with legal concerns for Wikimedia projects than me, could you answer my question? Which country you think has the world's worst legal condition(s) for Wikimedia projects? In my opinion, South Korea has a very bad legal condition for Wikimedia projects, because South Korea has no FoP even for architectures (on the contrary, North Korea has a full FoP and shorter copyright duration than South Korea and Most of European countries.), and has strict defamation laws. also I think France, Greece, and Saudi Arabia are bad countries. --Puramyun31 (talk) 05:48, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing one very important aspect: copyright isn't the only thing to consider. Two of the countries you mentioned, North Korea and Saudi Arabia, have huge limitations on the freedom of speech. For example, if you were to host Wikipedia in North Korea, you would probably have to fill up all articles with statements about how the leaders Kim Il-sung, Kim Jong-il and Kim Jong-un were very important to everything good in the entire world. Having to add lies about North Korean leaders to every Wikipedia article would in my opinion be much worse than not being able to illustrate an article about a house with an image of the house. --Stefan4 (talk) 12:09, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for my stupid question. However, If do so, Which country you think has the best legal condition(s) for our projects? your home country (Sweden)? or currently our server-located country as it stands (United States)? or anywhere else? --Puramyun31 (talk) 00:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One thing you should consider is what you mean with something being "free". One definition is that it should be possible for anyone, in any country, to use it. For example, if the work is unlicensed, this would require waiting until the work is in the public domain in every country worldwide. This definition is as far as I can tell not used by any Wikimedia project.
The policy wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy differs from that point of view in that it mainly asks you to make sure that the content complies with the countries where it is most likely to be used, and this is probably also the most useful way of defining "free". However, wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy also contains another problem: you can't use content if the content isn't permitted according to US law, due to the server location. I think that one problem comes from the idea of hosting all projects in the same country and that it would be better to place different projects in different countries so that you can scrap the requirement on following US law and only follow the laws of the countries where the data mainly is used (but it's still good if you can avoid problems such as golden shields so that the content at least can be accessed from elsewhere). However, I realise that it would probably be very expensive to host the different projects in lots of different countries.
Swedish Wikipedia is mainly used in Sweden and Finland, and users of Swedish Wikipedia will mainly be concerned about Swedish and Finnish laws, so it would be better from a legal point of view to move the data to Sweden or Finland and scrap the restrictions on following US law (thereby circumventing problems such as different copyright terms). On the other hand, English Wikipedia is mainly accessed in English-language countries, and not in Sweden. If you were to move English Wikipedia to Sweden, you would have to delete the vast majority of all fair use images from the Internet version of English Wikipedia (but you would be able to keep lots of the images in paper copies of the project), so it is better to keep hosting English Wikipedia in the United States, or move the project to some other English-language country.
For a project like Commons, I think that the ideal country would be a country which observes the rule of the shorter term and freedom of panorama and doesn't have too huge limitations on freedom of speech. I'm not sure where that would be. {{PD-Art}} does not work in Sweden for photos taken after 1968, so moving Commons to Sweden would require deleting lots of photos of ancient paintings, which lots of Commons users probably would oppose. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:05, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Thanks for your advice. Regards. :-) --Puramyun31 (talk) 10:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Copyright and dead states"

The rule (though unclear on which legal basis) seems to be that whichever state legally gets the territory of a "dead" state, gets to apply its copyright law. From [4] "German unification provides a modern day example of a copyright recapture provision. Because a 20-year difference in the copyright term under the West and East German law, upon unification in 1990, retroactive protection was extended to East German works." Someone not using his real name (talk) 02:05, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright rules for dead states are strange, and I don't know whether Commons always does the right thing. International law sometimes defines a successor state, and in that case, Commons seems to consider the successor state as the source country. If international law defines no successor state, Commons seems to require that the copyright has expired according to the most recent copyright law of the defunct country. East Germany has a successor state (West Germany), but the Russian Empire doesn't have any successor state (at least not according to the Russian Federation). There are some things here which I find very confusing:
  • The template {{PD-Ottoman Empire}} requires that the copyright has expired in the Ottoman Empire. However, the Ottoman Empire doesn't exist, and as far as I can tell, the copyright law of Turkey (a major part of the Ottoman Empire) pays no attention to the copyright status in the Ottoman Empire. The same problem possibly also applies to other parts of the Ottoman Empire.
  • According to the w:Copyright Duration Directive, the European Union appears to use the rule of the shorter term on works made by Russian citizens but not on works made by Estonian citizens. Same problem with Yugoslavia, the Ottoman Empire and the Russian Empire: the rule of the shorter term applies to citizens of non-EU countries but not to citizens of EU countries. I think that what matters was the citizenship when the work was created, not the citizenship of today. How do you tell if a Soviet citizen counts as an Estonian citizen or as a Russian citizen?
  • Yugoslavia had freedom of panorama, but some parts of Yugoslavia have since abolished this. If a photo was taken and published in Yugoslavia, do we then use the freedom of panorama rules of Yugoslavia or the freedom of panorama rules of the country where the building is located for the moment? Same problem with the Government-General of Chōsen: the ruling state (Japan) has FOP for buildings but not for artworks, South Korea has no FOP at all and North Korea has full FOP. If someone took a photo of a statue in Heijō and a photo of a building in Keijō in 1940, and the sculptor and architect both died in 1970, do we delete the statue and keep the building (citing COM:FOP#Japan), or do we delete the building and keep the statue (citing COM:FOP#Korea (South) and COM:FOP#Korea (North))? This is all too unclear to me. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:23, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Successor state for the place where the work is published is not the whole story. Under US case law, the country's legislation to be used for judging ownership of copyright (c.f. en:Itar-Tass Russian News Agency v. Russian Kurier, Inc.) is determined by the following: "Copyright is a form of property, and the usual rule is that the interests of the parties in property are determined by the law of the state with “the most significant relationship” to the property and the parties." I don't know of any case of applying the law of defunct states in US lawsuits, but that test sounds like it doesn't require formal international recognition of state successorship, which by the way, may be more than one; see the case of China/Taiwan or Austria-Hungary. (Even with the loss of international recognition of Taiwan, I doubt a US court would apply the law of the PRC to a dispute involving copyright ownwership between some Taiwanese.) The last part used in the US test ("and the parties") clearly implies that citizenship of the authors is also taken into account. The proposal to consider everything made in the Ottoman Empire or in the Russian Empire as out of copyright in the country with the "most significant relationship" to the work and its authors, would have a questionable outcome under an actual court of law in the US in view of the latter, though this hasn't been actually tested, as far as I know. Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:36, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, PD-OttomanEmpire says "the copyright term (30 years after the death of the author, sometimes less) expired before the Empire was dissolved" which is a weaker claim than saying everything published in the Empire before it was dissolved is now PD. This weaker claim might still be wrong though if later Turkish laws extended copyright retroactively, but I don't know anything about that. Well, that's the theory, in practice 99% of the photos in Category:PD-Ottoman have unknown authors, so it amounts to the same thing... Someone not using his real name (talk) 00:16, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The country with the most significant relationship is something only defined in USA law (I think). I don't know if this matters here. w:Itar-Tass Russian News Agency v. Russian Kurier, Inc. is more about determining the copyright holder to a work and not whether it is copyrighted in the first place.
If a work by a Russian Empire citizen residing in the Russian Empire was first published within the Russian Empire, then it automatically entered the public domain in USA due to lack of copyright treaties. In order to determine the current copyright status in USA, you would have to determine the source country (see s:United States Code/Title 17/Chapter 1/Section 104A#(h) Definitions) and then use that to determine whether URAA has restored the copyright. All works published in the Russian Empire do of course satisfy {{PD-1923}}, but the USA question is relevant for other countries.
On Commons, I think we use the Berne Convention definition of the source country. I don't know what Commons would do if different countries disagree on how the Berne Convention defines the source country for any particular work. The Republic of China is not a signatory to the Berne Convention (see File:Berne Convention signatories.svg). I think that this means that if a work is first published in the Republic of China, but the author is a citizen or resident of the People's Republic of China, then the source country is the People's Republic of China. As far as I have understood, the People's Republic of China claims all citizens of the Republic of China as their own citizens. --Stefan4 (talk) 00:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove my image

My image is not a copyright violation. The fact that many of my previous images have been deleted is irrelevant. Thank You! --Crazyboy279 (talk) 15:10, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Elcobbola deleted all of your images and blocked you. I assume nothing else need to be done now. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:23, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hjælp

Hej Stefan4. Jeg er kommet ind i et lille problem med et andet logo, nemlig File:Post Danmaks logo.png --Søren1997 (talk // contributions) 06:21, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Se COM:VPC#Post Danmark logo. --Stefan4 (talk) 12:22, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tak :) --Søren1997 (talk // contributions) 13:04, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Syntes ikke at der er nogen som skriver noget til det. --Søren1997 (talk // contributions) 22:44, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete

Copyright violation in Spain:

--Badefa (talk) 13:20, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have converted the list into a gallery so that I can get a better overview of the images. I think that a few of them can stay per COM:DM but that most will have to be deleted. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:27, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done See Commons:Deletion requests/Files on User talk:Stefan4#Files on User talk:Stefan4 3. One file was tagged as lacking evidence of permission instead. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:53, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Stefan2/Archive_5&oldid=176658099"