The center for all Wikitravel images!

Difference between revisions of "Votes for deletion"

From Wikitravel Shared
Jump to: navigation, search
(Seoul subway maps)
Line 357: Line 357:
Uploader helpfully included [[Template:Copyvio]] in the first of these images, clearly marking it for us.  Notably, uploader claims: "All rights reserced by SEOUL METRO, and asked for permission to use on wiki travel".  That's not sufficient for us.  We need ''free media'', not just media we've been given permission to use.  [[User:LtPowers|LtPowers]] 15:30, 24 August 2010 (EDT)
Uploader helpfully included [[Template:Copyvio]] in the first of these images, clearly marking it for us.  Notably, uploader claims: "All rights reserced by SEOUL METRO, and asked for permission to use on wiki travel".  That's not sufficient for us.  We need ''free media'', not just media we've been given permission to use.  [[User:LtPowers|LtPowers]] 15:30, 24 August 2010 (EDT)
: '''Deleted''', patently obvious copyvios. [[User:Jpatokal|Jpatokal]] 01:23, 12 September 2010 (EDT)
===[[:Image:Port of Saranda.jpg]]===
===[[:Image:Port of Saranda.jpg]]===

Revision as of 05:27, 12 September 2010

This page contains lists of articles and images which are recommended for deletion. Any Wikitraveller can recommend an article or image for deletion, and any Wikitraveller can comment on the deletion nomination. Articles and images are presumed guilty until proven innocent. After fourteen (14) days of discussion, if a consensus is reached to retain an article, it won't be deleted. Otherwise it will be deleted by an administrator. Please read the Nominating and Commenting sections prior to nominating articles/images or commenting on nominations.



There are archives available for this page. Please do not edit the archives - instead, start a new thread.


The basic format for a deletion nomination is the following:

* Delete.  Not a valid travel article topic. ~~~~

Please follow these steps when nominating an article or image for deletion:

  1. First read the deletion policy and verify that the article or image really is a candidate for deletion.
  2. For the article or image being proposed for deletion, add a {{vfd}} tag to the top of the article so that people viewing the article will know that it is proposed for deletion.
  3. Add a link to the article or image at the end of the list below, along with the reason why it is being listed for deletion. Sign your vote using four tildes ("~~~~"). List one article or image per entry.


All Wikitravellers are asked to state their opinion about articles and images listed for deletion. The format for comments is:

* '''Delete'''.  Not a valid travel article topic. TravelNut 25:25, 31 Feb 2525 (EDT)
* '''Keep'''.  There is a town in [[Alaska]] called Chicken. ~~~~

When leaving comments:

  1. First read the deletion policy and verify that the article or image really is a candidate for deletion.
  2. You may vote to delete, keep, or redirect the article. If your opinion is that the article should be kept or redirected, please state why you feel that way. Sign your vote using four tildes ("~~~~").

Deleting, or not

After fourteen (14) days of discussion, there will probably be consensus one way or the other. If the consensus is to keep, redirect or merge, then any Wikitraveller can do it. If you are redirecting, please remember to check for broken redirects or double redirects as a result of your move. Remove any VFD notices from that page and copy the deletion discussion to the talk page of the article being kept or redirected.

If the result is delete, then only an administrator can delete. Check if any article links to the image or article in question. After removing those links, delete the image or article.

After you keep/redirect/merge/delete the article, copy the deletion discussion to the appropriate archive.

June 2010

Amazon Bed and Breakfast

Three identical images of a generic bed and breakfast, all with that damnable ampersand that cause innumerable problems in filenames. LtPowers 20:39, 25 June 2010 (EDT)


Obviously an old image, thus unlikely to have been taken by the uploader. No source specified for verification. LtPowers 20:39, 25 June 2010 (EDT)

Keep if it may really be useful in a guide. Delete if it is out of scope. An image's age is in itself never a reason for deletion since copyright effectively ceases sooner or later. Riggwelter 11:47, 11 July 2010 (EDT)
The problem is that we don't know that this is so old as to be in the public domain. What we do know is that we can't assume (as we normally do) that the uploader owns the image and releases it under a CC-by-sa 3.0 license. LtPowers 08:18, 19 July 2010 (EDT)


Recognizable people. LtPowers 11:13, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

Image:The town center Nykoping Sweden.jpg

The source on Commons uses the Copyrighted Free Use template, which is only supposed to be used when the copyright holder is someone other than the uploader. The uploader did not indicate ownership of the file. I realize that on Shared we assume the uploader owns the image, but Commons is more strict and I've tagged it for deletion there. LtPowers 11:13, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

Image:IMG 1011.jpg

Recognizable people. LtPowers 11:37, 28 June 2010 (EDT)

Image:Main pool 01.jpg

Gorgeous picture, but it looks promotional to me (with the posed model). TinEye shows a couple of matches, although they're smaller than this version. Still, that's evidence that the image is not original to the uploader, which means our standard assumption that sourceless images belong to the uploader is probably not correct. LtPowers 11:37, 28 June 2010 (EDT)

Keep. You don't know that. Unless you find proof of that, I suggest we keep it. --Tiagox2 09:18, 20 July 2010 (EDT)
The proof we have is that the image is not original to Wikitravel. The uploader did not actively claim to be the copyright holder, merely slapped on a copyright tag and provided no indication of source; no "I took this photo", no "I release this image under this license", no nothing. For uploads that are obviously snapshots and for which we can find no evidence of copies elsewhere on the Web, there's a long-standing precedent (with which I do not agree) that we can assume the uploader owns the image. In this case, that's a wholly unwarranted assumption. With the presence of derivatives of this image elsewhere on the web, we now require more evidence from the uploader that he or she actually holds the copyright. LtPowers 16:27, 23 July 2010 (EDT)

Image:Chicago Pride 2010.JPG

Recognizable people in potentially ... compromising ... states of undress. I realize it's a gay pride parade, but that doesn't mean those people want their likenesses used freely. LtPowers 09:47, 29 June 2010 (EDT)

Aren't public events and festivals exceptions to the "no recognizable faces" rule? It doesn't get much more public than a parade that 450,000 people attend. I don't think it's against the current policy as it is written. I have other photos from the parade, but parades always feature people. Are you proposing changing policy to ban parade photos? Gay-themed photos?
Wikipedia seems to allow pride photos [1] [2] User:ChubbyWimbus 04:55, 30 June 2010 (EDT)
Wikipedia doesn't have a rule against recognizable people in photos. Image policy#People in photos says "At Wikitravel, this is generally interpreted conservatively to mean that identifiable people in a picture should be peripheral to the picture content." I don't think the people in this image are peripheral at all. If it weren't for the skimpy clothing, I'd probably let it go, but I think we need to be more sensitive to privacy rights when it comes to images like this. I freely admit I could be wrong, though, which is why we have these discussions. LtPowers 16:58, 30 June 2010 (EDT)
I sort of see your point, but our lead picture for the Bali feature was a people-only photo, as well, and that was on the main page without any questioning (that I know of). I guess I just feel that if someone volunteers to be in a Pride Parade, particularly of this size, there is simply no way that they can expect no photos to be taken. Photography is actually encouraged, and most of the time, if they notice a camera pointed at them, they pose. I think if it featured spectators, it could be a violation. I do have a photo of the parade with no identifiable people, but since the topic was brought up, it's probably best to talk it out for future reference. Hopefully others will weigh in on this, too. I'm kind of surprised no Pride photos have been uploaded before! ChubbyWimbus 17:40, 30 June 2010 (EDT)

July 2010

Image:Hitchhiking 2.jpg

Identifiable person. LtPowers 10:22, 1 July 2010 (EDT)

Image:Green Square Tripoli.jpg

All rights reserved on Flickr. LtPowers 16:01, 2 July 2010 (EDT)


Identifiable person. 02:33, 3 July 2010 (EDT)

Image:3619646837 be1c418cf3 o.jpg

Identifiable people. Texugo 02:37, 8 July 2010 (EDT)


Looks like a copyvio to me. Most photos taken by uploaders are higher resolution than this. Sure enough, TinEye found it on this page. The filename matches, too; each of the images on that page is named with a number: 1.gif, 2.jpg, 3.jpg, etc. That wouldn't be the case if took the image from here, so it's gotta be the other way around. LtPowers 13:59, 8 July 2010 (EDT)

Image:Small World.JPG

I've nominated the original source file on Commons for deletion, so, procedurally, I thought it best to nominate it here too. The problem is the artistic work that went into creating the sets and animatronics pictured here; the Walt Disney Company holds the copyright on those things, making this image a derivative work. LtPowers 13:59, 8 July 2010 (EDT)

Image:Fastpass peter pan 2007.jpg

I've nominated the original source file on Commons for deletion, so, procedurally, I thought it best to nominate it here too. The problem is the Peter Pan artwork in the upper left corner, to which the Walt Disney Company holds the copyright, making this image a derivative work. LtPowers 13:59, 8 July 2010 (EDT)

Image:216 1317-lisboa.jpg

This image appears to be used all over the web. The original source may or may not be but either way it's clear that the uploader is not the copyright holder. LtPowers 15:21, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

Images of Bunute

User:Bunute uploaded these images:

They are each 400 x 400 pixels, and Image:Depan.jpg has the Bunute logo (it's a restaurant/bar in Ubud). That indicates to me that these are likely promo images, although I couldn't find them on the Bunute web site. I'd prefer to delete them to be safe, especially the one with the logo. LtPowers 13:47, 13 July 2010 (EDT)


I found a match (complete with three-sided gray border) on TinEye, although the image is no longer on the linked page. Nonetheless, it seems unlikely the uploader actually owns the image as claimed. It also throws into doubt the uploader's other images, of which I was already suspicious even before seeing Murree.jpg: Rabout.jpg and especially Aquapark.jpg (note the crudely obscured area in the bottom right; I'm guessing that was a logo). LtPowers 14:14, 13 July 2010 (EDT)

Image:Rafting at progo river.jpg

Too small to be useful; it looks like it was uploaded to be an ad. LtPowers 14:14, 13 July 2010 (EDT)

Image:Cali Plaza Hotel.jpg

Generic hotel. I already deleted user's other uploads as their filenames contained ampersands which are very bad. LtPowers 15:41, 14 July 2010 (EDT)

Image:Cali Plaza Hotel Bar.jpg

Generic bar, recognizable people. LtPowers 08:46, 15 July 2010 (EDT)

Image:Shurakuen Garden.jpg

I originally uploaded this from wikipedia, but since then I've uploaded my own photo, which has replaced this one in all versions. As an unused wikipedia image (that is used on wikipedia, I think), I don't think we have any need for it anymore now that we have our own image. ChubbyWimbus 22:01, 17 July 2010 (EDT)

I'm not sure I'm looking at the right image. The one you linked has no VfD notice, nor does it indicate that the photo came from some source other than your own camera. Are you sure you linked the right one? LtPowers 17:19, 18 July 2010 (EDT)
Yes. There is another Shurakuen photo that is my own. This was one of my first uploads, so I probably didn't attribute it correctly. The licensing was in public domain on wikipedia, so that's what I put there. Here it is on wikimedia [3]. ChubbyWimbus 00:17, 19 July 2010 (EDT)
Well, if it's in the public domain, there's no harm in keeping it, is there? LtPowers 08:11, 19 July 2010 (EDT)
Nope, not at all, if that's what is decided. It's just an unused photo, so I thought it could be flushed. ChubbyWimbus 00:48, 21 July 2010 (EDT)


This image is a copy of a section of a painting with unknown copyright status. We should be not be using it unless we know it's in the public domain. LtPowers 20:30, 18 July 2010 (EDT)


Blatant advertising. I found this image on the company's web site,, which is marked as "all rights reserved". On the other hand, the uploader is, so it's likely the user account is affiliated. Still, even if the release into the public domain is valid, I don't like letting a company upload what amounts to an ad to our servers. LtPowers 08:17, 19 July 2010 (EDT)

Image:Grand Hotel Central.JPG

Sideways image of a hotel.

  • Delete - Texugo 10:55, 22 July 2010 (EDT)


My mistake, it was a double upload. --Globe-trotter 11:21, 22 July 2010 (EDT)

Image:Tower in Kaunas City Wall .jpg

GFDL is not a valid license on Wikitravel (unless multi-licensed). LtPowers 19:41, 23 July 2010 (EDT)


TinEye found a very similar image at [4], and the "photograph"-type border matches the style found on the official web site. Seems highly likely that's where the image came from. LtPowers 20:22, 23 July 2010 (EDT)

Image:Mud Treatment - Cancun Palace Spa.jpg

TinEye didn't find any matches, nor did I find anything on the web site, but this is obviously a promotional image. Even if it wasn't, the lady in the picture violates our policy against identifiable people. LtPowers 20:22, 23 July 2010 (EDT)

Image:Apple Valley skyline.JPG

Unless User:Banana1 is Minnesota Public Radio's Steve Mullis, this is a copyvio from [5] (second picture). LtPowers 20:22, 23 July 2010 (EDT)

Image:Monkeys at the Minnesota Zoo.jpg

Another one from User:Banana1. This image is all over the net (usually with a caption about "hot monkey sex"). Highly unlikely to be in the public domain. LtPowers 20:22, 23 July 2010 (EDT)

Image:MSP Terminal Map.jpg

Another one from User:Banana1. Found at -- it's obvious this user has a tenuous grasp of copyright and I think all of his/her images need to be reviewed by a second set of eyes. I've nominated the obvious ones for deletion here but there are a couple that I have to wonder about. LtPowers 20:22, 23 July 2010 (EDT)

Image:Pratunam market day.jpg

Non-commercial, no-derivatives license on Flickr. LtPowers 15:04, 26 July 2010 (EDT)

Image:Img 0369.jpg

Duplicate of Image:Molino sabandia.jpg, which has a better filename and a filled-out information template. LtPowers 15:04, 26 July 2010 (EDT)

Image:Galapagos Tortoise in San Cristobal Island.jpg

The linked web site's copyright page is here, and I can't find any mention of GFDL or CC licensing. And I'm not about to go trolling through his entire archive looking for the specific picture to see if it's got a special licensing notice on it or not. LtPowers 15:04, 26 July 2010 (EDT)


Recognizable people. LtPowers 15:17, 26 July 2010 (EDT)


  • also Image:Em2.jpg, reduced-resolution version of the same file (looks like someone didn't know how to use thumbnails).

Copyvios from . LtPowers 15:41, 28 July 2010 (EDT)


Same user (and location) as EastMatunuck1.JPG above. Copyvio from .

(An identical image was also uploaded as Image:Images-1.jpg, but there was already a different file at that filename (which is so small as to be theoretically useless, but it is used on en:Yellow Springs). I've speedily reverted to the old file since only Image:Em.jpg is used on East Matunuck.)

-- LtPowers 15:41, 28 July 2010 (EDT)


The trifecta from User:Charleve carey. User probably had good motives of improving the en:East Matunuck article, but good motives are no excuse for copyvios. . -- LtPowers 15:41, 28 July 2010 (EDT)


Duplicate of Image:Green Route Trek Map.JPG, which has a better filename. They both look like copyvios to me, but I can't prove it; anyone know what these places are a map of? LtPowers 15:47, 28 July 2010 (EDT)

Image:Palolem green island sunset.jpg

Non-commercial license on Flickr. Why the uploader picked "dual-gfdl-CC-by-sa-any" is beyond me. LtPowers 15:51, 28 July 2010 (EDT)

Keep - I am the creator of this image and have re-licensed it. Please remove VFD template. --Dazzla 04:56, 10 August 2010 (EDT)

Image:LongJi Map.jpg

It does make it easier to detect copyvios when they link right to the site on the description page -- but then you have the question of why they do it. LtPowers 08:50, 29 July 2010 (EDT)

Image:Tango 3.JPG

All right, I'll admit I can't find proof that this is a copyvio, but come on -- a painting? How likely is it that Maria Eugenia González gave permission for User:Gauchogeert to license this image as CC-by-sa 3.0? LtPowers 15:13, 30 July 2010 (EDT)

Image:Perito Moreno (2005-01-01).jpg

Non-commercial license on Flickr. Yes, User:Tiagox2 got the image from :en:wikitravel, but it had no explicit copyright information on the image description page. Tiagox2 assumed it was licensed appropriately at the time it was uploaded, which is our standard practice, but this case illustrates the dangers of doing so. I would appreciate a bit more diligence from our long-time contributors. LtPowers 15:13, 30 July 2010 (EDT)

Image:Disneyworld castle.JPG

The original image was deleted on Wikipedia because the uploader specified that his images could only be used on Wikipedia. That's against Wikipedia's rules, but even if we aren't bound by the same rules, we are (arguably) bound by his request that only Wikipedia use them. Since we are not Wikipedia, we should delete this image. commons:File:Cinderella Castle.jpg is a better image of the castle that I will be uploading shortly; it should replace this one nicely in the articles where it is used. LtPowers 16:57, 30 July 2010 (EDT)

  • Delete It's nice to honor others' requests, and if we have a better photo, there is no reason why we need to keep this. 20:52, 18 August 2010 (EDT)

August 2010

Tips for new contributors

Travel content, misplaced. LtPowers 15:03, 1 August 2010 (EDT)

Image:Machida twins area night.jpg

Found the same image on Flickr, with all rights reserved:

The uploader's other upload is Image:Machida JR ekimae.jpg and I don't have a high level of confidence in its originality, either, though I can't prove it's a copyvio.

-- LtPowers 13:30, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

Image:Aggstein Gredler-Oxenbauer.jpg

TinEye found a match at LtPowers 19:11, 7 August 2010 (EDT)

Image:KULLU Manali.jpg

The provided link does not link to this image on Flickr. And Flickr images are never licensed dual-GFDL-cc-by-sa-all. I can't verify the copyright status of this image, so we should delete it unless someone can find the original source. LtPowers 19:11, 7 August 2010 (EDT)

Found it. Licensed as CC-by-nc-sa-2.0, so deleting from here. It's not used on any pages on :en. -- D. Guillaime 22:27, 9 August 2010 (EDT)

Image:Manali Mountains.jpg

Same uploader as above. This one has a functional link, but the image on Flickr is licensed for non-commercial use only. The uploader also put her own username as the photographer. Something is seriously wrong here. I left a message for her a couple of weeks ago but received no response. LtPowers 19:15, 7 August 2010 (EDT)

Zapped as copyvio as well. Likewise, not in use on :en. -- D. Guillaime 22:31, 9 August 2010 (EDT)
Re-uploaded with correct meta data and appropriate license, same with Plolem photo above. --Dazzla 05:41, 10 August 2010 (EDT)

More images from User:Banana1

I nominated some of User:Banana1's older uploads above, but he/she is back and uploading some images that are clearly not his/hers.

  • Image:HalloweenBlizzard91.jpg is clearly not from 1991; the Minnesota Post says it's a picture of the Armistice Day blizzard in 1940, and credits it to the Star Journal.
  • Image:Walmart AV.jpg is used all over the place, highly unlikely User:Banana1 is the author without more evidence. It certainly wasn't taken just today, since it shows a pre-dawn Wal-Mart line, likely on the day after Thanksgiving.
  • Image:Applevalleybus.jpg is again used all over the place on the 'net; it's used for humorous effect on en:Apple Valley (Minnesota), but that's no excuse for a copyvio.
  • Image:Lebanonhills.jpg was clearly not taken on August 13; even in Minnesota the leaves haven't started changing yet. TinEye couldn't find any matches, but this user's track record is very poor.
  • Image:Ice fishing AV.jpg is another image that clearly could not have been taken today. Comes from this blog.

That's all but one of his/her uploads for today. The last one is Image:Sloppy joe.jpg, which I couldn't find anywhere, but what are the chances this one's legal if all the other ones weren't?

I repeat again that we should probably just delete all of this user's uploads.

-- LtPowers 10:34, 13 August 2010 (EDT)

Keep. You cannot nominate an item for deletion based solely on one's "track record," be it fabulous, amazing or both. That said, I’ve noticed that you spend a great deal of time sifting through the Wikitravel universe and recording your (mostly negative and sarcasm-tinged) findings on this page. For someone who doesn’t have a digital camera or electronic scanner, is there any other way for me to improve the pages visually?
I’ve tried to claw my way through the image policy, but it is a bear. I called my brother-in-law, Phil, who is a copyright lawyer, and asked him to help me out, but he said he was too busy with work to worry about a travel website. Seeing that you have eons of free time, perhaps you can expound the process for the dozens of us you have crucified on this page? Also, please do not refer to me as a he/she.
--Tim User:Banana 15 August 2010
Images you upload have to be yours, in the public domain (usually made by the US federal government) or explicitly licensed by someone else for use under Creative Commons. Flickr [6] and Wikimedia are good places to find the latter. --Peter Talk 20:54, 15 August 2010 (EDT)
Out of curiosity, would User:Banana1 prefer that I use "it", or that I avoid all pronouns altogether? LtPowers 14:31, 16 August 2010 (EDT)
Ugh, men. User:Banana1 16 August 2010 (EDT)
Making sure that all of the images used on Wikitravel are legal and non-copywritten is part of maintaining the site. LtPowers' nominations are usually violations; It's not as if he is purposefully nominating legal photos, and assessing photos is certainly not one of the most enjoyable tasks to take up on Wikitravel. If you upload legal, correctly licensed photos, your uploads will no longer be nominated and can then be used to add aesthetic value to the travel guides. ChubbyWimbus 23:32, 16 August 2010 (EDT)
So your brother-in-law is a copyright lawyer but doesn't take you seriously or even give you just a little advice? Anyways, "Copyright are exclusive rights granted to the author or creator of an original work, including the right to copy, distribute and adapt the work." Read about this concept at Wikipedia. The person who created the photographs has ownership of the photo, unless he/she has released it under certain licenses (or the public domain), the creator of the photo has been dead over 70 years, or it is the work of a FEDERAL government agency, it is copyrighted. If we knowingly allow users to upload copyrighted photos to Wikitravel, WT will be liable for copyright infringement.
It's quite simple really...we can't use someone's work (to which they have legally-protected ownership via copyright laws) without their permission. It's on par with stealing! Because of the goal of WT to be freely shared, we can only allow images with certain licenses or which have been released into the public domain. Sometimes, the types of images users uploaded appear to have just been pulled off the internet and are suspicious, so we see if that's the case. And voila, it's clear you have uploaded images which belong to others and which you have no legal right to. It's our obligation to delete these "stolen", if you will, images. We're not the Gestapo here, just acting within the law. AHeneen 11:26, 17 August 2010 (EDT)
Delete. Banana1, it's really not that hard -- upload only photos that you're sure about, preferably ones you've taken yourself, and ask if unsure. Since you apparently didn't consider this before uploading, and still aren't coming clean (or do you have rights to any of those pictures?), we now have to clean up after you. Jpatokal 08:28, 18 August 2010 (EDT)

Image:Teacher and students in the garden95.jpg

Out of scope; recognizable individuals. LtPowers 14:47, 17 August 2010 (EDT)

Image:Sommerfest girl (Caca Lima).jpg

All rights reserved at Flickr. LtPowers 14:47, 17 August 2010 (EDT)

Image:Lutheran church and square 2 (vinicius maciel).jpg

All rights reserved at Flickr. LtPowers 14:47, 17 August 2010 (EDT)

Image:Parque pedra azul (lgasparini).jpg

All rights reserved at Flickr. LtPowers 14:47, 17 August 2010 (EDT)

Image:Pedra azul (vinicius maciel).jpg

All rights reserved at Flickr. LtPowers 14:47, 17 August 2010 (EDT)

Image:Chinese New Year New York.jpg

Non-commercial license on Flickr. LtPowers 16:12, 18 August 2010 (EDT)

Actually, I copied the informations from Wikimedia Commons. I changed the source, so now you don't need to delete it. --Tiagox2 16:07, 21 August 2010 (EDT)
Ah, apologies; of course, I had no way of knowing. Thanks for changing the source link; that makes it much clearer. LtPowers 21:28, 22 August 2010 (EDT)


photo is not according to German law "Freedom of Panorama" - may not be published HJWBoShared 17:17, 18 August 2010 (EDT)

Please explain. Germany has a very broad freedom of panorama law — heck, they're the ones who coined the term panoramafreiheit — that allows pictures of both artworks and architecture taken from public places. See commons:COM:FOP#Germany. This message applies as well to the several nominations below this one. LtPowers 08:47, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
That's a long story. For short, the problem is the definition of public space. The legislators did not define it exactly. The ground of "Zollverein" is private poperty, but there is no fence arount it, there is unlimited entrance, there is no signboard telling you about any limits. Is that public space? Till now nost people would have said yes and so I did when I made this phostos last year. All 6 photos are made on the ground of Zollverein foundation. Now the supreme courd has judged that the owner of a ground may limit the right of making photos and thats exactly what the zollverein foundation did. You should know also that there is just an ongoing process in Germany that some influecial politicans like to limit the act of "Panoramafreiheit" in case of commercial use und the assossiation of jounalists fights for freedom of use. So I thing there will some judgments follow and who will win at last is still open. But fact is I have not the money to employ an army of advocates to fight for my right if the wrong side should win. So I prefer to delete the 6 photos and replace them with some which are absolutely legal in ervery case. Some I alrady uploaded. HJWBoShared 12:11, 21 August 2010 (EDT)
Ah, what a pain. I will support your deletion request, as we do not wish to force you to be a test case for this change in legal interpretation. Thanks for taking the time to explain. LtPowers 21:28, 22 August 2010 (EDT)


photo is not according to German law "Freedom of Panorama" - may not be published HJWBoShared 17:17, 18 August 2010 (EDT)


photo is not according to German law "Freedom of Panorama" - may not be published HJWBoShared 17:17, 18 August 2010 (EDT)


photo is not according to German law "Freedom of Panorama" - may not be published HJWBoShared 17:17, 18 August 2010 (EDT)


photo is not according to German law "Freedom of Panorama" - may not be published HJWBoShared 17:17, 18 August 2010 (EDT)


photo is not according to German law "Freedom of Panorama" - may not be published HJWBoShared 17:17, 18 August 2010 (EDT)

Image:Rutschenfoto aktuell1.jpg

TinEye found a match, although of lower resolution. Still, that means this image isn't original to Wikitravel, and it shows identifiable people. It doesn't appear to be used anywhere; I checked :en, :de, and :nl. LtPowers 09:16, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

Image:Riacho doce (carol cecatto).jpg

Non-commercial license on Flickr. LtPowers 14:12, 20 August 2010 (EDT)

Seoul subway maps

Uploader helpfully included Template:Copyvio in the first of these images, clearly marking it for us. Notably, uploader claims: "All rights reserced by SEOUL METRO, and asked for permission to use on wiki travel". That's not sufficient for us. We need free media, not just media we've been given permission to use. LtPowers 15:30, 24 August 2010 (EDT)

Deleted, patently obvious copyvios. Jpatokal 01:23, 12 September 2010 (EDT)

Image:Port of Saranda.jpg

Top images on , with the URL cropped out. -- D. Guillaime 17:07, 25 August 2010 (EDT)

Image:Beach Bar Dhermi.jpg

Recognizable person. -- D. Guillaime 17:07, 25 August 2010 (EDT)

Image:Albanian wedding.jpg

Recognizable people. -- D. Guillaime 17:07, 25 August 2010 (EDT)

Image:Kredhje Dhermi.jpg

Found on Flickr [7], all rights reserved. -- D. Guillaime 17:07, 25 August 2010 (EDT)


TinEye shows a couple almost-matches, but they're on blogs and other unreliable sources. Still, it's clear this has been processed and the uploader has been shown (above) to have a tenuous grasp of copyright. LtPowers 08:23, 26 August 2010 (EDT)

Image:Rruga durres kukes.jpg

TinEye found it elsewhere on the web; although they can't be seen anymore, it's clear it's not original to the uploader, who has shown not to be well-versed on copyright issues. I think we need to question all of User:AM-TR's uploads. LtPowers 08:35, 26 August 2010 (EDT)

Image:Dahlia inn.jpg

Web page screenshots are not in scope and usually copyrighted. LtPowers 14:44, 30 August 2010 (EDT)

Image:4307677981 d2a21da236.jpg

Non-commercial license on Flickr. LtPowers 14:44, 30 August 2010 (EDT)

Image:London Tube Map.JPG

Derivative work of the graphic displayed. You can't just take a picture of something and claim it as your own. LtPowers 10:42, 31 August 2010 (EDT)

Image:3221041382 66785ff646 b.jpg

Non-commercial license on Flickr. LtPowers 11:16, 31 August 2010 (EDT)

September 2010


scrabble -> spidy deleted --Rein N. 15:15, 1 September 2010 (EDT)

Image:Hassanal Bolkiah 2002.jpg

Recognizable person; out of scope. --Tiagox2 10:37, 2 September 2010 (EDT)

Image:41792 125565308750 44 n.jpg

Looks like a website ad. LtPowers 20:45, 2 September 2010 (EDT)

Image:4944826818 f3b50fb2b6 b.jpg

Non-commercial, no-derivatives license on Flickr. LtPowers 20:45, 2 September 2010 (EDT)

Image:In Class Room.JPG

Out of scope; uploader is using description page as an ad. LtPowers 20:45, 2 September 2010 (EDT)

Image:Axis Viana.jpg

Image comes from a blog. The blog's footer indeed declares a CC-by-sa 3.0 license, but I don't think the images in the blog entry came from the blogger; note the elevation drawing, which would be copyrighted by the architect. Given the quality and variety of shots, I have to think these were official photos taken by the architect or the building owner. LtPowers 20:45, 2 September 2010 (EDT)

Image:Aerial4 for web.jpg

"Photo for public download from SeaDream's website" does not mean the author released it into the public domain. LtPowers 20:45, 2 September 2010 (EDT)


Recognizable people in photo. Texugo 12:11, 4 September 2010 (EDT)

I believe established precedent allows us to keep this one. See Votes for deletion/Archive Jan-June 2010#Image:Kilkenny Castle Fountain.jpg. LtPowers 21:07, 4 September 2010 (EDT)

Image:Food seller.jpg

Recognizable people in photo. Texugo 13:01, 4 September 2010 (EDT)


Recognizable people in photo. Texugo 13:01, 4 September 2010 (EDT)


Identifiable persons. LtPowers 21:18, 4 September 2010 (EDT)

Image:Plaza-Midwood Charlotte.jpg

Identifiable people. Texugo 01:45, 6 September 2010 (EDT)

Image:Zhuhai Vegetable Market.jpg

Unidentifiable vegetables identifiable people in photo. Texugo 09:39, 7 September 2010 (EDT)

Again, this looks incidental to me. The lady whose face we see is secondary to the focus of the image. LtPowers 10:10, 7 September 2010 (EDT)
I'm gonna stick with my guns on this one. The primary focus is her and her stall. Texugo 23:54, 10 September 2010 (EDT)

Image:The Henry.jpg

Looks like it was taken from a web site. In any case, it's a generic hotel exterior, which we don't need. LtPowers 10:10, 7 September 2010 (EDT)

Delete.It is on the English Dearborn [8] page and is only interesting because named after Henry Ford. Roundtheworld 14:58, 9 September 2010 (EDT)

Image:Logo 2.jpg

A spammer -- not even a travel-related one! -- is loose. This is his logo. What goes through their minds? LtPowers 16:36, 7 September 2010 (EDT)

Image:Welcome to Rottingdean.JPG

Previously deleted; see Votes_for_deletion/Archive_July-Dec_2009#Image:Welcome to Rottingdean.JPG. User:Roundtheworld restored it, calling it a landmark. But my original concern of copyright is still an issue, IMO. LtPowers 16:41, 7 September 2010 (EDT)

Keep. I don't understand how a public sign can possibly be copyright. If it is, it would be copyright to the local council who, one would expect, would be only too keen for it to be used in places where their town is publicized and thus would not object. The photo is from Wikipedia Commons and appears on the Wikipedia page on Hollingdean. It is an interesting sign showing a local landmark and not just a sign with the name of the town. Roundtheworld 06:58, 8 September 2010 (EDT)


You know, I was just thinking that we hadn't had any large-scale copyright problems recently. *sigh*

Note that these images are labeled PD-author, not PD-self, which means the uploader is claiming that someone else is the author and released them into the public domain. Verifying that requires that a source be listed, which none of these have.

-- LtPowers 08:52, 9 September 2010 (EDT)


Looks like a scan of a brochure. Highly unlikely to be PD. LtPowers 19:19, 10 September 2010 (EDT)


Listed source gives no indication of copyright status. LtPowers 19:19, 10 September 2010 (EDT)

Uploads from User:Kiyofujihara

  • Image:Barasu.jpg - the source website says "All rights reserved".
  • Image:Pinai.jpg - originally had the same source as above; since removed, but now there's no indication at all of where the image came from. Credited to "Rtanaka", whoever that is.

-- LtPowers 19:19, 10 September 2010 (EDT)

Image:Schedule Book Weekday Daytime.jpg

Blatantly taken directly from the Champaign-Urbana MTD web site [9]. -- LtPowers 19:19, 10 September 2010 (EDT)

Image:Champaign-urbana mass transit busses weekdays.jpg

Uploaded in January 2009, but I found it while looking for the above image's source. This looks to be a valiant effort to create a transit map that uses the appropriate route colors without violating MTD's copyright -- but the numbers and route shields are in exactly the same place. That might be okay on it's own, but the underlying map had to come from somewhere -- if not from the C-U MTD web site, then from Google Maps or something. LtPowers 19:19, 10 September 2010 (EDT)



In other languages