Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2008/10/22
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
Not free use, source and permission listed as google --Paloma Walker (talk) 00:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 11:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation. BorgQueen (talk) 10:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep ... unless you show us where it's a vio from.
Delete www.citedudragon.be/citedudragon-brussels-menus-fr.htm --Mach (talk) 12:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Copyvio Sterkebaktalk 18:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Sensative file uploaded Raybrian (talk) 19:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
out of scope Yarl ✉ 19:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete possible attack page. --Bachrach44 (talk) 15:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, out of scope, apparent vanity insult image. -- Infrogmation (talk) 16:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
It's a trademark: copyright violation 200.171.249.39 14:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. No Fair use on commons Sterkebaktalk 18:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Copyright Eingangskontrolle (talk) 19:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Infrogmation: Copyright violation
According to the watermark, the image is “Copyright (C) Hamid Bahrami” This contradicts the PD-self tag by User:Miladps. --—teb728 t c 23:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, copyvio. Stifle (talk) 10:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted -- Infrogmation (talk) 22:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Outside project scope. -Nard the Bard 02:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Also, book cover from "own archive"; not clear uploader has any rights to upload as public domain own work. -- Infrogmation (talk) 16:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The posters on the right and on the left are copyrighted and largely visible, so that COM:DM does not apply. Teofilo (talk) 15:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep We have many similar images of performers on copyrighted stages. If things were as you suggest it'd be impossible to freely license photos of persons appearing at events just because there were decorations. -Nard the Bard 17:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- You can blurr or erase the copyrighted decorations. Teofilo (talk) 18:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- According to COM:DM we don't need to. The language saying whether the copyrighted work is largely visible is just a "for example". It also allows for works incidentally in the background, and even for works where cropping would create a copyvio. There is no need to photoshop this picture and destroy it's truthfulness just because the subject was giving a presentation in front of some decorations. -Nard the Bard 19:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- COM:DM says it will be difficult to argue de minimis if the photograph is described as illustrating "an advertising poster". The original title of this photograph is "Xuxa & Band FM". So I think that de minimis does not apply here because the title of the poster is used in the title chosen by the photographer, showing that his purpose is both to show a person and a poster, without one these two main topics being less important than the other. Teofilo (talk) 06:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
- According to COM:DM we don't need to. The language saying whether the copyrighted work is largely visible is just a "for example". It also allows for works incidentally in the background, and even for works where cropping would create a copyvio. There is no need to photoshop this picture and destroy it's truthfulness just because the subject was giving a presentation in front of some decorations. -Nard the Bard 19:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- You can blurr or erase the copyrighted decorations. Teofilo (talk) 18:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment If the posters visible to side of the subject are the problem, I suggest cropping the image rather than deleting. -- Infrogmation (talk) 16:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
- If the picture is used nowhere on a Wikimedia project, I don't think it is worth the effort. But the "check usage" tool is broken down. Teofilo (talk) 22:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Oh, it turns out we already have a cropped version, Image:Xuxa cropped.jpg. If the visible posters are a potential problem, I have no objection to deleting this uncropped version now. -- Infrogmation (talk) 22:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
- If the picture is used nowhere on a Wikimedia project, I don't think it is worth the effort. But the "check usage" tool is broken down. Teofilo (talk) 22:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Out of scope and over lighted Sterkebaktalk 17:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- Weak Keep. Not a great photo, but appears free licensed and properly categorized in scope. -- Infrogmation (talk) 16:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Unreliable flickr source. His Palin/McCain set (and entire photostream) contains several blatant copyvios and many other dubious photos. dave pape (talk) 18:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- I found it through the CC search. It looks like any other photo from the crowd which can be found on flickr, but this one being available for use on commons. Perhaps we should contact the uploader to see the history of this image. If it turns out that the image is a copyright violation that flickr member should be blacklisted, however if it is not we should keep the image.--Avala (talk) 18:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete In response to question "When and where is this photo from?", Flickr uploader replied "Not really sure where it was taken, just one of her many appearances." Not original work by Flickr uploader. -- Infrogmation (talk) 20:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
No source, controversial.
Kept per COM:NPOV. Kanonkas(talk) 10:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I removed the license because it was listed as "SELF MADE" in 2008, and released under the public domain. For obvious reasons, that cannot be true. No proper license = delete. --Smooth0707 (talk) 14:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Claim of self made and GFDL clearly false (clearly an official portrait photo of subject who died in 1971). Delete unless true source given and information confirming some free license. -- Infrogmation (talk) 16:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. abf /talk to me/ 18:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
derivative work Sterkebaktalk 18:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
There are many pictures of this style because there is no elimination. Lolin (talk) 18:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, dubous own work claim; tiny image of questionable use for project scope. -- Infrogmation (talk) 16:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. abf /talk to me/ 18:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Logo Vlaam (talk) 22:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. abf /talk to me/ 18:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
copyright Eingangskontrolle (talk) 20:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Maxim: Deleted because "Missing license/permission/source information". using TW
Originally uploaded from enwp, where it was marked as GFDL but also sourced to a webpage that credited it and gave no license release. Shimgray (talk) 09:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per nom. Durova (talk) 00:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
It is disturbing and irrelevant. 81.214.75.26 04:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- While "disturbing" is not a valid argument for deletion, (see COM:SCOPE#Censorship), weather or not this video is "realistically useful for an educational purpose" is very much the question we should be considering. I think this should be Keep on the grounds that it would valuable for illustrating sex-ed type articles. J.smith (talk) 16:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Nope. We do not need more penis-images! Delete! abf /talk to me/ 06:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep abf, this is a penis video. That being said, it is unused. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- okay, what about that " Delete(!) we do not need penis videos! abf /talk to me/ 18:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)"? 18:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- okay, what about that "
- Keep No reason for deletion, images at Commons are for all people who want to use them. --Dezidor (talk) 22:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep This is not just another penis image. The natural setting makes it particularly educational. --Simonxag (talk) 11:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per Abf Sterkebaktalk 18:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 13:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC) Why disturbing? Did you never had sex? This video is perfect to illustrate articles about male orgasm.
- Keep No reasonable taionale for deleting has been presented. __meco (talk) 01:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete even commons is not cencored there are enogh good videos in cat:Penis (at least there were) --D-Kuru (talk) 17:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
{{delete|pornographic. children can see this.(mandatory)}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.64.241.183 (talk • contribs) 03:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC) (UTC)
- Keep I notice that Wikibooks has wikibooks:Human Physiology/The male reproductive system#Ejaculation in particular, and though none of these videos seem to be used there at the moment, I think this indicates that at least this class of videos is in scope. I checked the other videos in Category:Ejaculation (animated), and this video is taken from a different angle than any of them. It would be ideal, I suppose, to have the same 'event' recorded from several angles, but in the absence of such a set of videos, I think that this video makes a worthwhile addition to commons. --Sopoforic (talk) 05:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Kept. While I hate penis pictures as much as the next admin, we really don't have that many videos (even of penises... sigh) ShakataGaNai ^_^ 06:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
It is labeled "Teacher" and very distasteful. It isnt art! This woman doesnt even look pleased about her photo being taken. 69.134.99.24 02:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep Peter Klashorst is an artistic genius, and "Teacher" is the name of the artwork. We couldn't very well call it something else. -Nard the Bard 02:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete No problem with the nudity but "teacher" is a misleading title and the photograper's name is irrelevant. The lady looks like she is not in the least happy with having her image taken, enough so it gives me a bad feeling. I clicked on the Flickr link and was unable to view it because it requires login and I don't have a Flickr account.--Paloma Walker (talk) 03:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- There's no question of "misleading title" since it's the original title of that work
- The photographer's name is not irrelevant since he's a well-known artist. The fact that his work can be unappreciated by someone is a subjective matter and it must not be taken in account as far as Commons is concerned because of the rules of neutrality. Same thing for the controversy linked to this artist: it's not our work to deal with that.
- The woman's facial expression is not a criteria of deletion. Have you ever heard the words "acting" and "posing"? Haven't you ever seen fashion advertising where models had a sad unpleased face? The bad feeling you have towards this photo is YOUR problem, not Commons'.
- You can't see this picture on Flickr anymore because it now has a "private" status there. But it wasn't when it was downloaded on Commons and the bot review is a guarantee that it had been avalaible with a free licence before (and therefore still can be use under such a licence). --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 07:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep We've had this discussion before and I'm sure I'll be on the losing side again but... Klashorst is a well known artist. He is well respected, but not by the religious right who prosecuted and convicted him in one of these "Islamic" societies where he happened to be working. (This is the one fact that is ever dragged up to smear him). He photographs models in often bizarre ironic poses, not ordinary people in intimate situations. I don't like his stuff and he often ignores the concerns of illustrative photography (such as decent lighting) but his work has been of use on the Wikipedia. --Simonxag (talk) 11:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep No valid reason for deletion offered. Female teachers are allowed to have breasts as much as any other women. -- Infrogmation (talk) 16:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep No valid request (+ non neutral). --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 13:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete oh my goodnes! what the hell do we need this foto for? we have dozen and again dozen of similar stuff! +personallity rights. abf /talk to me/ 18:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- There's something I really don't understand on Commons: why do we sometimes worry about personality rights for a nude or half-nude picture and why no-one cares for others?! I just don't get it... --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 07:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - and be my teacher Mutter Erde (talk) 19:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Rather than closing, registering this comment: despite the repute of the artist, this still lacks OTRS filing of model consent and hence is noncompliant with policy. Most reputable artists would keep files of model consent forms and could file OTRS if they chose to do so. However, if no one actually takes the trouble to get this right then our policy is to delete. Durova (talk) 00:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- We have NO (or almost none) OTRS filing of model consent on Commons so I'll vote vd when someone will decide to do a massive DR for that reason as a proof of logic and coherence of Commons. Until that hypothetic moment I'll continue to say model consent is not a sufficent reason of deletion. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 03:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep What is art or "distasteful" is subjective, and not a relevant standard for deletion, nor is the title of the work (Is there something wrong with "Teacher"). Similarly irrelevant is the expression of the model, as that may be the expression that she or the photographer chose for the picture. Nightscream (talk) 23:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
*maybe an illustration for "people with teacher fetish"? --Herrick (talk) 09:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Delete by ABF --Herrick (talk) 08:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep No valid reason. --Millosh (talk) 12:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per Durova. Lycaon (talk) 20:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep No valid reason for deletion given. Thryduulf (talk) 01:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. per Durova. Clearly not in a public place, and hence consent is required under COM:PEOPLE. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
copyright Eingangskontrolle (talk) 20:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination abf « Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?» 12:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
COM:FOP#Japan applies to architectural works only. This is not an architectural work. Teofilo (talk) 21:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
COM:DW a photo of a photo. Syrcro (talk) 17:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment The photo is certainly derivative of the baseball card. However if the 1952 baseball card was published without a copyright notice, it would be PD-US-no notice. As only one side of the card is visible in the photo, I cannot determine if this has any notice. Anyone know what's on the flip side? -- Infrogmation (talk) 16:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
- It has a copyright status in the back, and I know Topps still owns the copyright Delete Secret (talk) 14:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, along with derivative File:52 Topps Mantle new.jpg -- Infrogmation (talk) 17:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The NHM can restrict photography, but as soon as I successfully exit the building with my camera, they may be able to bring a breach of contract suit, but they can't use copyright to stop publication, and they can't bind third parties who have never been to their museum to any restrictions their museum may have. So this template is wrong, there is no violation of Commons policy and this tag should either be deleted or just note in a neutral manner that the NHM dislikes commercial re-use of their holdings ---Nard the Bard 00:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Their statement is: Photography is permitted providing it is strictly for private and personal use only. A handheld camera may be used but tripods, lighting, or other equipment is not allowed during opening times. They then mention a facility fee for professional photography. I read that as more just not wanting people using professional equipment like lighting and tripods, which is quite sensible since that can damage things (especially with patrons around) and can interfere with people trying to view the exhibits. Since supervision is probably required, and would often occur outside of normal business hours anyways, a fee is typically charged for stuff like that. Maybe I'm misinterpreting it, but I don't even see that as them wanting to prevent (handheld camera) photos uploaded here in the first place, let alone being an overreaching copyright claim. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete Woah, I didn't know we still had old tags like this. Our policy is clear, namely that non-copyright restrictions do not affect the acceptability of images posted here, even where those restrictions might be enforceable aginst the photographer (that is by no means clear here). See for example COM:CB#Museum and interior photography and Commons:Non-copyright restrictions. This tag should definitely be deleted. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
There is Commons talk:Licensing/Archive 7#photos from British Natural History Museum previous discussion. I made this template but I do not know details about this problem. --Snek01 (talk) 20:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted: the present form of this template is not useful anymore. Rama (talk) 12:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Skyline photo uploaded in 2006, borders removed in 2007. Other image needs border removing (The characters google-translate as "Temple is doing the eros") Both no descriptions given of where/what they are. Out of scope as can't be used. -- Deadstar (msg) 08:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. A missing description isn't reason to delete them, they'll be identified eventually. I just geocoded the other by looking for hints in the user's upload log of the time to find the general area, and then located the same buildings in an aerial image. Easy peasy. --Para (talk) 14:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks! I have now removed the template from the first image. I guess you are right, the other one will also be identified eventually... I just was getting a bit fed up with all the "IMG001" files I was looking at... should find something else to do on here :) Will keep both I guess. Request withdrawn. -- Deadstar (msg) 15:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Kept per above.
The uploader is not reliable enough. If the uploader made a mistake in his claim that the picture was taken in the Netherlands, he is likely to have made another mistake in his claim that he made it himself. Teofilo (talk) 16:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- Tending to delete, User:Teofilo makes a persuasive arguement, if uploader was the photographer he should have known if he was in Australia or not. KTo288 (talk) 08:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
The picture is from Nedlands in Western Australia NOT the Nederlands in Europe!!!
- Delete I agree, it's not reliable. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete I agree as well. quite unreliable if he doesnt even know, on which continent he was while taking the picture ^^ Brisbane (talk) 22:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted - unlikely to be work of uploader due to mistake as to where image taken. WJBscribe (talk) 18:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
No actual license for this photograph. -Nard the Bard 20:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted due to invalid license - image is not an illustration of a patent. WJBscribe (talk) 18:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Copyright violation. This is copyrighted like most posters including pictures and designs. The threshold of orignality is reached through the multiple choices involved : lighting, background, angle, etc... Teofilo (talk) 15:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
COM:FOP#Japan applies to architectural works only. This is a sculpture, not an architectural work. Teofilo (talk) 21:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
No evidence that the railway company's image bank or communications department has given permission, unless the uploader is employed by the railway company. Eastmain (talk) 00:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment If images are missing permission you can also use {{Subst:Npd}} Thnks, Sterkebaktalk 17:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi, my names is Bruno and I'am a employee of FCA, Ferrovia Centro-Atlântica. Í work at the communication departmente as communication analist in Brazil.
The photo belongs to th FCA archive and it was taken by me, in Divinópolis, Brazil.
Deleted. No evidence that copyright holder (the company) has released this under a free licence. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Also:
image taken from a non-US website, Robert Wilkinson is probably this author http://www.ospreypublishing.com/authors/robert_wilkinson-latham/ and not a US airman, no license info for a work of the Egyptian military --Wronkiew (talk) 16:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- Added two additional images to the deletion request. Thanks to High Contrast for pointing them out. Wronkiew (talk) 19:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. I can find no evidence for the suggestion that these are US Government works. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
There will be a copyright violation if the artist died in 1958 or later (for such works, copyright lasts 50 years after the end of the year of an author's death in Namibia) Teofilo (talk) 07:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Unsigned painting. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps it is signed on the back. I am not sure every unsigned work is to be considered an anonymous work. Perhaps the artist was present on the inauguration day, when the work was unveiled, and the witnesses who were present know who he is. Teofilo (talk) 13:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 06:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Abuse of "Panoramafreiheit" - the map is copyright and the little frame does not create a new work Eingangskontrolle (talk) 18:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- Could you explain where in the German law is written that you must create a new work ? I can't find it in de:Panoramafreiheit. I know that such a requirement exists in Switzerland, but in Germany ? Teofilo (talk) 19:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as in FOP in Germany only applies to three-dimensional works. In many cases, 2D doesn't count. ViperSnake151 (talk) 00:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Hmm... §59 of the German copyright law only talks about works in general and does not make any distinctions between two- and threedimensional works. --Kam Solusar (talk) 01:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep. The map may be copyrighted, but this is no print of it. This is a foto of a signboard. --Peng (talk) 12:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 06:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
insufficient quality Gouwenaar (talk) 19:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep No other higher quality image provided/linked by Nom so lets keep this one. --Captain-tucker (talk) 20:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
