Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2008/07/18
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
Apparent copyvio, nothing to verify claim of permission. Similar images from the same account have been deleted at en.wiki ˉanetode╦╩ 00:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment Tagged as a {{Copyvio}}. --jonny-mt 04:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 07:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Apparent copyvio, nothing to verify claim of permission. Similar images from the same account have been deleted at en.wiki ˉanetode╦╩ 00:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Tagged as a {{Copyvio}}. --jonny-mt 04:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 07:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
maybe on flickr the original picture is denoted to be public domain, http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,grossbild-675826-429497,00.html says Reuters. So the licence is unclear, possible violation of copyright. Martin H. (talk) 02:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm, I'm confused. The photo linked at Flickr is of the image with the supposed author, however in the Reuters linked photo Fidel's brother Raul appears. One of them is photoshopped, but both look fairly genuine. Strange. Redthoreau (talk) 02:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Delete The Flickr one is photoshopped (read the comments). It's also non-free unless a better source than "Reuters" (which isn't above claiming credit for PD photos) can be found. -Nard the Bard 03:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- I have read the comments (where does it denote that it is photoshopped?). I am ok with it being deleted, and I had no intention of uploading a photo shopped image, I simply found it on a Flickr search and saw it was listed as PD. I am still a little puzzled on the image. So is his "story" also fake? Redthoreau (talk) 03:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- "Fictional account from my writings, 'A Man Of Leisure Daydreams'.
- I have read the comments (where does it denote that it is photoshopped?). I am ok with it being deleted, and I had no intention of uploading a photo shopped image, I simply found it on a Flickr search and saw it was listed as PD. I am still a little puzzled on the image. So is his "story" also fake? Redthoreau (talk) 03:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Self portrait based on Public Domain photo, Photoshop CS2." Yes. All fake. and the comment "nice blend on the neck" which clearly denotes a photoshop. -Nard the Bard 03:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- Doh ! I guess I am not familiar with the photoshop "lingo". I wasn't sure what the "neck" comment referred to. As an aside, I must be cursed when it comes to locating a quality Fidel Castro image that is PD - there always seems to be a caveat. Redthoreau (talk) 03:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Crop of a photoshopped image that was lifted. No thanks. ShakataGaNai ^_^ 03:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
This is non-free image taken from blog and website. The original Permission in vi.wiki is Fair use template. Vinhtantran (talk) 04:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Tagged as a {{Copyvio}}. Even if the statue is in the public domain, the image is clearly not. --jonny-mt 04:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 07:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
poorly written 2 page Bio Text File Out of Commons Scope --WayneRay (talk) 11:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Bad name, non useful File Out of Commons Scope --WayneRay (talk) 12:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
No source, permission or licence, deleting as copyvio. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
One page Bio Text File Out of Commons Scope --WayneRay (talk) 12:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
and Image:Jordanridingturtle.jpeg. Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleting as out of scope. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
no evidence it is under GFDL Rat at WikiFur (talk) 18:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Copyvio. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Out of focus and useless File Out of Commons Scope --WayneRay (talk) 23:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Nice ass? ShakataGaNai ^_^ 06:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Train or bus schedule with no information as to what or where File Out of Commons Scope --WayneRay (talk) 23:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai ^_^ 06:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Microsoft Word textbook, possible copyright infringement Text File Out of Commons Scope --WayneRay (talk) 11:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 13:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
web resolution, professional-looking photograph with no explanation Rat at WikiFur (talk) 19:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 13:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Copyvio per Commons:Deletion requests/Library and Archives Canada non-PD images Rob (talk) 21:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 13:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
No Commons:Freedom of panorama for statues in USA. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
and:
- Image:The Hiwassee Loop.JPG
- Image:Rebrandts Coffee House.JPG
- Image:Coolidge Park.gif
- Image:Bears.gif
Images are photos of modern author. I think Commons:OTRS permission is necessary. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment the uploader says they are the author of the paintings. Unless there is reason to doubt this, I don't see reason for requiring OTRS. If a person makes a photograph of a building or a train and then is kind enough to upload their own photo here, we don't require OTRS. If they make a watercolor rather than a painting, and they free license their own work, I think the situation is the same. If the uploader is not the original artist as claimed, it is a false license and copyright violation and should be deleted. If uploader is the artist, I don't see a problem. -- Infrogmation (talk) 17:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- It's not clear from image description that photographer is also artist. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio: Duplicated file: Unused dupe of Image:The Hiwassee Loop.JPG
Non-free under freedom of panorama laws in the US Dinoguy2 (talk) 02:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete A picture of a model of an animal taken indoors at a private museum. Unless the museum has released the copyright (which would require documentation), the work in this image is still under copyright. Incidentally, the same arguments apply to Image:AMNH Diorama.jpg, Image:Amnh fg02.jpg, Image:Amnh fg03.jpg, Image:Amnh fg04.jpg, Image:Amnh fg05.jpg, Image:Amnh fg06.jpg, and Image:Day117anaturalhistoryi.JPG. --jonny-mt 08:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, and let's not forget a fair chunk of the stuff in Category:American Museum of Natural History. --jonny-mt 08:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - the image is a derivative of a copyrighted work that is not covered by FOP in the US. Anonymous101 talk 15:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ChristianBier (talk) 19:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Phot included some modern art. I think Commons:OTRS permission is necessary. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
the modern art is by the artist, written consent to the photographer is given and verified. i, as a photographer have released this photograph for the illustration purposes, it is also authorized by the depicted person. --Detarusa (talk) 11:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Kept. OTRS'd ShakataGaNai ^_^ 23:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No Commons:Freedom of panorama in Belarus. Monument installed was in 1983. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Restrictions on freedom of panorama in Belarus mean this image is unuseable on Commons. --jonny-mt 02:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No Commons:Freedom of panorama in Belarus. If this monument in PD, information about sculptor must be added. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. See Commons:Freedom of panorama#Commonwealth of Independent States. --jonny-mt 03:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Inapropiate dimensions --Valdavia (talk) 20:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- How so? It looks like it could still be useful to me. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Image appears to still be useful. jonny-mt 03:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Bad name. The country name "Congo" is not unique. -Vantey (talk) 11:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Keep with {{Category redirect}} as editors are likely to use this category. Anonymous101 talk 15:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted, Redirect is not needed here i think, there are not so many contributors in this section. --Martin H. (talk) 18:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
This is obviously a scan of another image, and there's insufficient information on the source page to determine the original image's copyright status. Esrever (klaT) 23:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. No proper source provided. MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
The uploader, User:Bullpit claims authorship for this image. According to her user page, she is 40 years old, i.e. she was 2 when the image was taken. I know Wikipedia authors are early adopters, but I thought we ought to have a look at this. --Wikipeder (talk) 10:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Wikipeder originally listed this as "no license"; I have taken the liberty to changing this to a deletion request listing, where more eyes can see it. Uploader seems not to have been active on Commons since 2006; perhaps a German speaking editor can see if they are still active on de:Wikipedia and alert them there to this discussion? -- Infrogmation (talk) 12:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep
- Hi, this is User:Bullpit. I would beg you not to delete the image. I was born in 1964 and sent to school 1970. It is a private photo of mine. My user page "Bullpit" is closed. I'm using the image on my new user page [1]. There is no further license necessary, I hope. My mother has taken the photo. Do we need a permission from her??--Bullpit (talk) 15:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, excellent, thanks for the explanation. I suppose you do have your mother's permission? I don't think we need that in writing. But could you just write a little something like "taken by my mother, I own the copyright" or give your mother's name as the author in the image's description if she agrees? --Wikipeder (talk) 22:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
This image is used on wikipedia (w:Ethic of reciprocity) and other places to represent the Confucianism Symbol w:Confucianism, when in fact it appears to represent the word marriage please see comments User talk:Jeepday and Image talk:ConfucianismSymbol.PNG and in the edit history of s:Confucianism where it was deleted --Jeepday (talk) 12:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, but then what is the proper chinese character for Confucianism? - Mtmelendez (Talk) 20:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- Prior to moving forward here, I checked Google Images and Google Books and I think the first question needs to be, "Is there are symbol for confucianism?" I am not an expert on the subject, all I know is that nearly every usage of this image is related to Wikipedia or a Mirror, and that several other images and characters are identified with the word. The en.wikipedia article links to the Chinese article and also includes links Wiktionary translations of the words. The image used on the Chinese site is Image:Liji.jpg. Jeepday (talk) 22:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- Rename to File:Shuangxi_Button.png — character is "shuang1 xi3" (double joy/happiness), typically seen at weddings to wish joy for those involved. Jappalang (talk) 09:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Lacks real source information to support license. http://www.charliechaplin.com/ claims "All photographs Copyright (c) Roy Export Company Establishment" , which may or may not be true, but from w:Edna Purviance's wikipedia article, it seems quite possible the photo is post-1922. dave pape (talk) 14:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Fashion in photo looks to me 1910s or 1920s. Note silouette of Charlie Chaplin's "Little Tramp" character behind her as wallpaper; no doubt this was a publicity shot from when she was working with Chaplin, which seems to have been years 1915 - 1923. Current "PD-Old" tag is dubious, but image quite likely may be PD-US. However given the possibility that this might date from 1923 and copyright holder's heirs may have filed for extensions, PD-US status cannot be assumed for sure without additional information. -- 16:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. No date/author information Badseed talk 14:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Due to pubblication date, I don't believe that this image could be under a CC license. If it's not in public domain, it may be copyrighted. Trixt (talk) 22:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep {{PD-US-no notice}}. -Nard the Bard 00:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- Ho caricato l'immagine, ma non sono nemmeno io convinto che sia corretta la CC-by con cui è stata pubblicata su Flickr. Si tratta verosimilmente di una immagine ricavata da una vecchia pubblicazione (un giornale di Cleveland del '55). Avevo chiesto lumi su it.wiki, ma forse questo è il posto giusto. Se si ritiene di cancellarla, io non protesto. Semmai chiedo scusa per non aver chiesto prima un parere. --Amarvudol (talk) 20:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Kept, per Nard the Bard. Kameraad Pjotr 18:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Suspect copyright status. Description says 19th century, but the image itself says 1915. I don't know enough about Italian copyright law, but I think this at least bears discussing. Esrever (klaT) 23:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep According to COM:L#Italy, non-artistic images enter the public domain twenty years after the year following the year of their first publication. Since this image appears to have been published in 1915, this means it would have entered the public domain in 1936. --jonny-mt 02:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- D'oh! Should've looked there--thanks! Esrever (klaT) 06:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Per Jonny. And even if we consider it as artistic, it would have entered the public domain in 1986. Cheers, KveD (talk) 22:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as Copyvio. "non-artistic images enter the public domain twenty years after the year following the year of their first publication", but due to a big weird mess involving EU laws and stuff, this PD is only valid in Italy, which violates the "must be free in the US and source country rule", and it must be deleted. ViperSnake151 (talk) 00:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep If it is PD in Italy (per above,as I have no idea), and it was published before 1923, then {{PD-1923}} would apply and it would be PD here as well. Jeepday (talk) 23:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep PD. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Kept, per Jonny. Kameraad Pjotr 18:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
- Delete Parts of image "Copyright by Wikimedia", no permission attested, includes derogatory comment. AtonX (talk) 10:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
- Keep 1. It is not derogatory, it is parody trying to help to keep freedom in wikipedia. Text on image is (not precisely sorry my poor english) :
"We are sumarizing human knowledge - also yours" "(if you adapt to our conventions)"
- Text in parenthesis is not derogation. It is parody which has to warn us that we could kill freedom on our encyclopedia if we won't be tolerant to newbies.
- 2. If I am not wrong then permission to use wikimedia logo is needed for using it outside wikipedia and is not necessary for using it inside wikipedia.
--Liso (talk) 14:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
- This is off topic but if you are right do I need permission for this my personal Commons web page links WayneRay (talk) 23:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)WayneRay
- I am not lawyer. My humbly opinion is that your usage of logo is under fair use. Probably it will be better to ... use on a white or very light gray background (max. 15% black), never on a colored background. see visual identity guidelines although these guidelines are about other logo. --Liso (talk) 08:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- This is off topic but if you are right do I need permission for this my personal Commons web page links WayneRay (talk) 23:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)WayneRay
- Keep {{CopyrightByWikimedia}} images are permitted. Anonymous101 talk 15:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete A parody? But it is confusing. Reader can think that added text is an official slogan of Wikipedia project. And it is not true. Don't use project logo in disparaging and confusing way. See m:Logo and trademark policy. --Beren (talk) 16:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC) Note also, that claim "it is parody" (so no permission of copyright holder is needed) is de facto an argument for deletion, because such parody is legal only under terms of fair use. But Commons cannot hold fair use images. --Beren (talk) 18:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep This image is parody (by my opinion). --Peko (talk) 16:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete It is a stupid joke which should not be expected to be created by a person with bureaucrat or sysop rights. Such a banner dishonests work of other users. --Mercy (talk) 17:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- Could I ask you what do you think about this joke: Oslovování - Před psaním příspěvku je vhodné se vysmrkat, uklonit, pokleknout a třikrát udeřit hlavou o zem směrem k mé pracovně, nebo směrem k serverům wikipedie. Nutno je dbát na oslovení, zde doporučuji především "Slovutný správče", "Vaše správcovská Jasnosti", slova jako jasnosti lze s klidným svědomím nahradit i slovy jako Moudrosti, Osvícenosti, či tady jsem si dovolil ze zabíječky, z vlastního vinného sklípku (sklípek nutně nemusí být vlastní). Velmi důležitá je i stať po oslovení, ta by měla souhlasná a nevtíravě podlézavá. Během této části by měl oslovovaný několikrát říci větu ať žijí naši milovaní a obdivovaní správci. Rozloučení by mělo obsahovat slova jako odpusťte nehodnému Stoupovi, že Vás obtěžoval. Vlastní kreativita není příliš žádoucí, bude-li však správný směrem, může se stát, že se někomu dostane nejvyšší cti a jeho kreativita se dostane až do doporučených slov. Toto však není příliš pravděpodobné, neboť není dost dobře možné vymyslet něco lepšího než vymyslel správce? (small translation from text: Before you start talking ... kneel and three times hit floor with your head...) Good joke isnt it? :) --Liso (talk) 10:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete trolling, against m:Logo and trademark policy, stupid joke which should not be expected to be created by a bureaucrat --Cinik (talk) 19:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete The banner parody must certainly intimidate newcomers. They have no way to tell this is not an official logo and slogan. --Bubamara (talk) 20:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Obávám se, že brzy má ze řetězu utržená loutka Hlava-22 bude hlasovat pro smazání. Ale teď vážně. To, že se nám nějakej banner "nelíbí" neznamená, že hned vytáhneme fintu s autorskými právy a na základě té budeme mazat. To je dost lišácký způsob jak se zbavovat věcí a příjde mi dost nefér. Že si Liso udělal banner mi nepříjde jako nějaké hrozné nebezpečí, ať si ho dá klidně na svojí userpage, ve stránkách projektu stejně nebude (věřím že i správci zpoza řeky Moravy jsou bdělí a něco takového nedopustí. --Aktron (talk) 20:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete This kind of joke or what is it in the image really, is unlucky. Such images should not be presented in this way. Picture was requested for deletion on Slovak wikipedia and Liso moved it here to disable deletion. It is not normal manner.--Pelex (talk) 21:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete the banner is misusing the Wikipedia logo in personal war. Furthermore, it could be misinterpreted as official slogan which could be potentially harmful for Wikipedia. --Maros (talk) 21:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- You are right. I changed description of image-> It is only parody - in slovak wikipedia nobody is forced to use our conventions... sk.wiki is really free! :)
- You might thing that this is somehow funny, but I do not see it in this way. What I wrote above is still valid, I have nothing to add. --Maros (talk) 11:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
- You are right. I changed description of image-> It is only parody - in slovak wikipedia nobody is forced to use our conventions... sk.wiki is really free! :)
Comments
[edit].png&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
This issue is wiki-political. Liso says: "... we could kill freedom on our encyclopedia if we won't be tolerant to newbies." I point out: "When newbies are discouraged the way this banner (and Liso) does it, the whole project goes to hell and so does its suppositious freedom." On the other hand, I'm not sure that this is a valid reason for deleting an image from Commons. It is a good reason to stop using it on sk Wikipedia. --Egg (talk) 19:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- One more comment. If Liso wants, he can place his text aside the image. There is no reason to include it in the banner. Therefore the deletion would do no harm to him or anybody. --Egg (talk) 19:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- Every project has crisis in its development. In sk.wiki are also dangerous movements. In my oppinion we have admins which are too hard to newbies. Parody is not against wikipedia but against people which are wanting to speaking in wikipedia's name and want to put heavy load to newbies. It is very difficult to explain humour. Especially to somebody who is thinking that she is very important and who is seriously thinking that she is something more like nonadmin users... --Liso (talk) 19:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- Per the above decision of the community, I have deleted that image. odder 12:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
same as Image:Esztergom - Hoefnagel 1595.JPG. Villy (talk) 18:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Difficult to see which one is better. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
