Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2009/10/22
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
This web is not under a creative commons license Cameta (talk) 10:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Kwj2772 (msg) 10:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
(reason for deletion)
Author and Initiator of deletion: 17:16, 20. Okt. 2009 Piccadilly Circus --Fixing request: --El-Bardo (talk) 12:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete Respect the request of author--El-Bardo (talk) 12:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Keep in use, in scope. Multichill (talk) 12:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)- Delete Out of respect for the author, and because the image is way too low of quality to be of any educational use. From COM:SCOPE, "[Images] must be realistically useful for an educational purpose". This image doesn't fit the scope. Killiondude (talk) 22:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Per KD. Respect the author and recognize the quality is not high enough for use. Jennavecia (Talk) 22:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. Rather bad quality, but it's in use (en:Markku Aro and pt:Markku Aro). –Tryphon☂ 11:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - No longer in use, as it has been replaced by a better version on the pages mentioned above. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of COM:SCOPE Captain-tucker (talk) 20:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Converted from a speedy by KOMM (talk · contribs) for "The persons on the foto claimed their personal image rights violated and insist, that the photo should not be distributed any more" to rfd by me, as I see no basis for a personality rights claim with this photo. --Túrelio (talk) 08:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- It would certainly be a border case. The image is actually mainly used in the context of cycling and not for illustration of the landscape. Therefore the persons are additionally in focus and they are recognisable. As a public body the city of Linz prefers to oblige its citizens and not to enter legal disputes, if it is avoidable.KOMM (talk) 10:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)KOMM
- @KOMM, is this pre-emptive or were there actually complaints? If there were complaints, did all or only 1 person file a complaint? If only 1 complained, it would be interesting to know whether it was the person at the right side, because then she could be cut away. In addition, are the personality rights-laws in Austria more strict than those in Germany? --Túrelio (talk) 10:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- There are actual complaints! The whole group requested that. we used the photo ourselves for marketing purpose and we agreed with them to end this use - the photo is "banned" off our archives. but they also complained, that the photo is used on wikipedia and on various websites. Therefore we request the delition. Otherwise a legal dispute can be assumed, it is also not in our interest to scare away tourists (even if they are no citizens). KOMM (talk) 09:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)KOMM
- Ok, I understand. Could you offer us a comparable photo as substitute? (not a requirement, but this might ease a courtesy deletion, as I see no real legal basis for their complaint. Detailed german-language Wikipedia-article about Recht am eigenen Bild). --Túrelio (talk) 09:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- I could offer the following picture of the Donauradweg as substitute. The persons on this photo have verifiable agreed to the use.KOMM (talk) 12:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, I understand. Could you offer us a comparable photo as substitute? (not a requirement, but this might ease a courtesy deletion, as I see no real legal basis for their complaint. Detailed german-language Wikipedia-article about Recht am eigenen Bild). --Túrelio (talk) 09:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- There are actual complaints! The whole group requested that. we used the photo ourselves for marketing purpose and we agreed with them to end this use - the photo is "banned" off our archives. but they also complained, that the photo is used on wikipedia and on various websites. Therefore we request the delition. Otherwise a legal dispute can be assumed, it is also not in our interest to scare away tourists (even if they are no citizens). KOMM (talk) 09:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)KOMM
- @KOMM, is this pre-emptive or were there actually complaints? If there were complaints, did all or only 1 person file a complaint? If only 1 complained, it would be interesting to know whether it was the person at the right side, because then she could be cut away. In addition, are the personality rights-laws in Austria more strict than those in Germany? --Túrelio (talk) 10:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Keep deletion request seems nonsense: the cyclists are so hard to identify that if there have indeed been objections, they are as likely to have come from other cyclists who have falsely identified themselves as from those actually pictured. --Simonxag (talk) 19:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- No, the rfd is not nonsense. I have no reason to doubt the above statement of the original author of this image, User:KOMM, that "the whole group (of cyclists) requested" to stop the use of that image not only for their own (official tourist office of Linz, Austria) marketing purposes, but also on Wikipedia etc. They even have offered a substitute image.
- Of course, we could say, that's your problem, not ours. What would be the consequence of that? We, or at least some users here, could proudly say, we stick to our principles. But we will never again get any image from this institution, they will likely communicate that to their peers, and they will likely appeal to Jimbo or the WMF. Even if you don't care for the people who have contributed images to Commons, think again which decision would be more in the interest of Commons. --Túrelio (talk) 20:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Deleting here would merely be working with the needs of one of our contributors, who offered in the image in good faith and are asking for its deletion due to reasons beyond its control.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, but the request by the bicyclists seems very silly. The photographer of a naked dancer that is requesting deletion has much better reasons, and is just getting a disgraceful response. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
_crop.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Per COM:PEOPLE#Removal at the request of the subject, photographer or uploader, the request is a good reason. --Martin H. (talk) 16:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
This photo was uploaded to illustrate an article on English Wikipedia that was speedy deleted as a hoax (diff). Since the associated article is a hoax, the photo is also of questionable provenance and encyclopedic/educational merit. --203.96.219.224 09:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Orphaned photo of non-notable person without any other possible use. Out of scope. --Martin H. (talk) 15:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
my old car - pls delete ! cluke at gmx net Cluke (talk) 10:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Seems a decent and properly categorized photo of this type of car, and no licence plate number nor any personal info is visible. I don't see any problem with this photo. Infrogmation (talk) 13:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Keep This has been on Wikimedia servers for four years, originally uploaded by Cluke. It's unreasonable, at this point in time, to expect a courtesy deletion.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Looks perfectly fine and there is certainly potential for use. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 14:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
not realistically useful for an educational purpose. probably a failed attempt to make the same logo available on commons as the fair use image with the same name on en.wikipedia. --ErickAgain (talk) 11:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- I agree. It doesn't have any value, and it certainly does look like something went wrong with the upload. It should be deleted. TFCforever (talk) 22:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 19:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Does not display. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 13:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Copy from http://www.flickr.com/photos/12700455@N07/1328326504/
--Fixing request: --El-Bardo (talk) 12:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, no evidence that this is permitted by the photographer. If the uploader really is Flickr user Northern Light, s/he can change the licensing at Flickr to permit usage here. Nyttend (talk) 12:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, copright violation. --Martin H. (talk) 15:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
(reason for deletion)
Reason for deletion: (false licence, please delete) Author and Initiator of deletion: 22:35, 11. Okt. 2009 Poznaniak1975 --Fixing request:--El-Bardo (talk) 12:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Respect the request of author--El-Bardo (talk) 12:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete The uploader says the license is false. --Simonxag (talk) 20:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 13:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
kaspera
Initiator of deletion: 16:41, 14. Okt. 2009 89.232.7.211 --Fixing request:--El-Bardo (talk) 13:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Clown verses. Initiator of deletion: Unknown. --El-Bardo (talk) 13:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Keep no valid reason for deletion proposed. Infrogmation (talk) 13:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Had not served a Revert? --Paulis (talk) 16:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
(reason for deletion)
Author and Initiator of deletion: 17:16, 14. Okt. 2009 Dlawndud2002 --Fixing request: --El-Bardo (talk) 13:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Respect the request of author--El-Bardo (talk) 13:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete quick request for deletion, poor quality image, and most importantly, given the name on the copyright image, I don't believe the uploader is the copyright owner.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 13:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
identical file: GabrielBach.Jpg uploaded by same user --20:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)Etan Tal (talk)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 15:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
(reason for deletion)
Author and Initiator of deletion: 20:21, 21. Okt. 2009 Žiedas --Fixing request: --El-Bardo (talk) 12:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Respect the request of author--El-Bardo (talk) 12:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Comment A Reason for deletion is missing. The author is User:Žiedas; why does he want his file getting deleted? --High Contrast (talk) 12:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete the license was deleted and the image was marked for deletion two minutes after uploading. Reason or no, I think we should just delete it as a mistaken upload.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Nilfanion: In category Media without a license as of 21 October 2009; no license
(reason for deletion)
Author and Initiator of deletion: 19:50, 20. Okt. 2009 Piccadilly Circus --Fixing request: --El-Bardo (talk) 12:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Respect the request of author--El-Bardo (talk) 12:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Why? Nice picture, it's in scope. Multichill (talk) 12:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Keep I don't see any problem with the photo; in scope and properly categorized. Infrogmation (talk) 13:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Keep It's a nice useful picture, and hence shouldn't be deleted without reason.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Kept. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
please delete it, that was a bad qualite, later I will give you a better file. Binarytemp (Diskussion) 21:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
--Fixing request:--El-Bardo (talk) 12:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Respect the request of author--El-Bardo (talk) 12:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Killiondude (talk) 04:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
privacy
Initiator of deletion: 18:28, 12. Okt. 2009 87.78.21.151 --Fixing request:--El-Bardo (talk) 12:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Initiator of deletion unknown --El-Bardo (talk) 12:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Photo of Conservatory greenhouse in public park. Not a privacy violation; only people visible are subsidiary figures seen walking in public place. I have added a "personality rights" notice, but I think even that may be too cautious. Infrogmation (talk) 13:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Ridiculous to say that it's a violation of privacy. I think the personality rights warning is a little too cautious too, they're incidental to the scene and they're in a public park, as above. Diliff (talk) 17:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Speedy keep and remove the laughable personality rights warning. --Simonxag (talk) 19:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Kept. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Out of scope. Commons is not someone's private photo album. High Contrast (talk) 12:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
It is not a photo of private album. It is the photo of two embraced boys. It doesn't care anything if they is my friends or no. Maxy1992 (talk) 14:44, 22 October 2009
- Delete Per nom. -- IANEZZ (talk) 21:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete no educational content. Xuz (talk) 21:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Empty category with no expectation that it will be filled: National Register images are categorised by city and town, not by geographical formation --Nyttend (talk) 12:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Killiondude (talk) 04:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Please
Author and Initiator of deletion: 00:29, 19. Okt. 2009 AmyMirka --Fixing request: --El-Bardo (talk) 13:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Respect the request of author--El-Bardo (talk) 13:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Keep In use. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Neutral We have here a low-quality picture of a user's garden (and house), by a user that uploaded a couple things in July and came back three months later to ask that this one be deleted. It is in use on a Wikipedia page, but as one item in a gallery that could be easily deleted or replaced with a wide variety of choices from the category on Commons. It's fuzzy for me.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Kept. In use, no reason to delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Corporate Limits are outdated
Initiator of deletion: 23:17, 16. Sep. 2009 Rocketsee --Fixing request:--El-Bardo (talk) 12:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete outdated? --El-Bardo (talk) 12:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Are old maps habitually deleted? The current replacement [1] has a questionable copyright status (uploader claims the copyright holder allows re-use yet the City of Huntsville's website has an "all rights reserved" copyright notice) and as a raster graphic is of inferior quality. Lastly, this map is part of a large series of maps based on US Census Data and will be updated when the 2010 Census data is released in the near future; no real rationale to delete. Shereth (talk) 15:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
![[1]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Madison_County_Alabama_with_Current_Huntsville_Corporate_Limits_Highlighted.png){kind=link}
Keep an old map is not equal to an unrelevant map, if the map was correct for a short time, the map is relevat for all people which work at the historian topic Bunnyfrosch (talk) 16:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Kept - in use (non-admin closure). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Unlikely this is created by the user based on the discussion here. --Ytoyoda (talk) 01:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, agree with you, possible copyright violation. --Martin H. (talk) 16:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Nilfanion (talk) 23:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/william-munoz/ is a random collection of images from various sources, but the flickr user is clearly not the copyright holder. Martin H. (talk) 06:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Before uploading, I took care about copyright, but if the possibility of copyvio is very high, please delete the file. I feel sorry.--Superspade (talk) 09:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete I assume Commons:Flickr washing. --High Contrast (talk) 11:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Nilfanion (talk) 23:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Taking a picture of a book cover does not then automatically make the copyright holder lose copyright over it and allow the photographer to upload it under free use. Cirt (talk) 04:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Also, it's so low in quality to the point of being unusable. -- IANEZZ (talk) 07:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. The Evil IP address (talk) 15:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Unclear how the uploader owns the copyright to the image --Ytoyoda (talk) 02:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 19:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Not a real photo, copyright status unclear. Previously it was deleted from English wikipedia, [2] but it was moved here from the Russian wikipedia. I can repeat the same thing I said there. This file is clearly a made up picture, created by photoshop or painted, and the painter was not a skilled artist. The copyright status of this image is not clear, as the the consent of the person who created the image has not been demonstrated, and the encyclopedic value of the image is also questionable, as it is not a historic photograph, but a recent creation. Grandmaster 10:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
![[2]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_March_10#Armenian.2BAndranik.2BPasha.2Band.2BCihangir.2BAxa.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete per nominator. --Leoboudv (talk) 05:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 19:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
This image was definately not photographed by an US Army employee. The image was taken from a secondary NON-US government source, http://www.inetres.com. The problem that images that occure on that site are tagged as "US Army images" is widely known. In this case this problem applicable arose again. High Contrast (talk) 12:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 19:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Described as "old photo" but licensed as "own work". Looks webpage resolution, not from original. Other uploads by user may have similar problems.--Infrogmation (talk) 13:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I scanned these in "at webpage resolution" back in 1995 for the first Benet web page. I don't know if I still have the originals, but I found my scans and thought I'd contribute them to the greater good. "own work" was the closest category. --Jasonphysics (talk) 22:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete We have no way of telling who took these, but if they were first published in 1995 then they are still copyrighted by the author or their heirs. --Simonxag (talk) 20:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 19:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
"Old photo" "own work" dubious --Infrogmation (talk) 13:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 19:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Low res small web sized photo, described dubiously both as "old photo" and "own work". --Infrogmation (talk) 13:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 19:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
--Common Good (talk) 19:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)Is this really in the public domain? Works by the Ohio state government aren't necessarily public domain.
- Delete This is the work of the State of Ohio, it is not in the public domain. -- malo (talk) 03:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by User:Túrelio (Copyright violation: Work of the State of Ohio http://www2.dot.state.oh.us/se/braesthatic/jeremiah.htm) -- Common Good (talk) 19:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
not own work, wrong license 2 10 more in Category:Lyalya Bezhetskaya
Initiator of deletion: 20:39, 21. Sep. 2009 Elsa Baye --Fixing request: --El-Bardo (talk) 13:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Permission?--El-Bardo (talk) 13:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Keep another of these deletion requests for this one artist. There's something wrong here. We have loads of publicity type shots from performers and personalities and the standard email we send to tehm to request these asks them to license the image, not to provide permission from the photographer. We (just like every paper and magazine) assume that an artist having publicity shots done, gets (at least) permission to do with them as they wish. Are we to purge all such images in a rush of copyright paranoia. --Simonxag (talk) 20:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Kameraad Pjotr: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ляля Бежецкая в винтажном советском образе из 1960-х.JPG: not own work, wrong license [[http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Lyalya_Bezhetskaya_Diamond
my old car - cluke@gmx.net user:cluke pw:skolo Cluke (talk) 10:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Many other pictures from Mazda MX-3: File:1995 Mazda MX-3 Heck.jpg, File:Mazda MX-3 front 20080820.jpg... --El-Bardo (talk) 12:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Once I reverted the picture uploaded by Cluke over the old picture and restored the old metadata, it becomes clear that this has been on Wikimedia servers for four years, originally uploaded by Cluke. It's unreasonable, at this point in time, for him to expect a courtesy deletion.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Kept, per Prosfilaes. Kameraad Pjotr 19:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Discussion required on copyright status. Before deletion I would like some confirmation on how to interpret copyright for this image.
The original photograph has been taken by an anonymous photographer and is now 71 years old, hence the normal copyright conditions have expired. However Lambeth Archives claim to have made the photograph available to the public in their archives from 2003. The photograph has subsequently been used in a book and published in a newspaper (by other people/organizations). On the basis that they made the anonymous photo available to the public (though not actually published by them) they claim that the 70 year rule no longer applies and the photograph cannot be made public domain without their permission and their new copyright will not expire until 70 years after being made available (i.e. 2073). They have referenced Padfield's book on copyright for archivists (ISBN 9781856046046), which I have checked but I am unclear whether this interpretation is actually supported by enforceable case-law or is a generous interpretation for archives.
In respect of their interpretation I have put the image up for deletion but would like some clarification if this is the normal interpretation for anonymous photographs over 70 years old on Wikimedia Commons. Using common sense, it seems odd that anyone could, for example, randomly find a second-hand anonymous photograph reaching 70 years old, publish it on their blog (hence making it available to the public), and from that point on claim that they own the copyright for the next 70 years. —Speedoguy (talk) 14:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- I do not see how more than 25 years of en:publication rights could be claimed. And such rights should then belong to the copyright holder of the book - not to the archive. The Lambeth Archives should know where they got this from. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- As 30 days has past since I raised this request, I guess the matter is not straightforward. Perhaps someone can recommend an authoritative source to contrast with Padfield's book (above) which may either support Padfield's interpretation of copyright or discount it?—Speedoguy (talk) 09:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Kept, if the archives are not the copyright holder, they have no basis to claim copyright. Kameraad Pjotr 19:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Unencylopaedic content, delete per COM:SCOPE. Inductiveload (talk) 15:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Comment It's also unused, needless to say. Inductiveload (talk) 15:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Keep encyclopedic content, if all unused conted get deleted ... i suggest we find out, this is no serious argument too :-) Bunnyfrosch (talk) 16:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, out of project scope: is this genuine? what is it? Kameraad Pjotr 19:38, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
There is a law that says you can not show identifiable information (private number plates of vehicles) on the Internet, if not the owner of the car.
Initiator of deletion: 15:22, 16. Okt. 2009 91.94.140.159 --Fixing request: --El-Bardo (talk) 16:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Keep There´s no plate --El-Bardo (talk) 16:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Please note the plates on the cars parked outside, on the background. The right one is almost entirely readable. -- IANEZZ (talk) 16:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Comment De minimis --194.48.128.75 09:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Uh? De minimis is about copyright, not privacy (again, the problem, if any, is not with the "Lanos" plate). -- IANEZZ (talk) 15:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Comment The license plate on the far right is missing a number. --Prosfilaes (talk) 17:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- Keep what law? where? Even if such a law exists, we can still easily edit out those details rather than delete the image.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- Keep If anyone can produce evidence of such a law, just blur out the license plate. This would apply to a lot of car pictures. --rimshottalk 18:02, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Kept, allthough I do not doubt the law exists, the licence plate is barely readable. Kameraad Pjotr 19:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
