Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2008/10/25
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
non-commercial use only Jamzewsizazamcze (talk) 03:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Fan art therefore a derivative work - like the rest of the uploaders contributions. Megapixie (talk) 11:29, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
usage is restricted wikipedia. Tarawneh (talk) 13:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Wront picture --FieldMarine (talk) 14:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. on user request Sterkebaktalk 15:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
wrong picture --FieldMarine (talk) 14:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. on user request Sterkebaktalk 15:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
User falsely asserts copyright ownership of the image of the first edition of the Clue board game (unless uploader can provide verification/permission). Cirt (talk) 23:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- err, I'm sorry, I just copy-pasted what was in the English Wikipedia description and I thought it would be fine. Check it there: en:Image:Cluedo first edition.jpg. I don't think it should be deleted, just the license fixed. הגמל התימני (talk) 23:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- And if it is false here, I think it is false back in English Wikipedia too. הגמל התימני (talk) 23:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, IMO it is likely it is false at en.wiki as well. Cirt (talk) 23:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- So please start the deletion nomination there, too. I don't know how to do it myself because I'm not familiar with the procedures there. Thank you and good night. הגמל התימני (talk) 23:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- Done. Deletion discussion started at en.wiki as well. Cirt (talk) 23:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- So please start the deletion nomination there, too. I don't know how to do it myself because I'm not familiar with the procedures there. Thank you and good night. הגמל התימני (talk) 23:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, IMO it is likely it is false at en.wiki as well. Cirt (talk) 23:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- And if it is false here, I think it is false back in English Wikipedia too. הגמל התימני (talk) 23:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Apparently at en.wiki the user has a history of issues with image copyrights, see [1]. Cirt (talk) 00:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy delete, copyvio. Stifle (talk) 14:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
out of scope Yarl ✉ 18:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. (possibly also a copyvio) — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 18:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Out of project scope - advert J.smith (talk) 21:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Out of scope Sterkebaktalk 22:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Out of scope Sterkebaktalk 22:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Either it's a CD cover of some sort, in which case it's a copyvio; or it is out of scope. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
RE: I am the creator of the image you have flagged. Therefor, it is not any violation of anykind and it may be used for the posted article. Thanks. Brad D.
Kept. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Dubious - looks like a screencap to me. Megapixie (talk) 14:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Drini: copyvio
out of scope Sterkebaktalk 15:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Mike.lifeguard: per Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Osofarlopero2008.jpg
Out of Scope Sterkebaktalk 16:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Mike.lifeguard: per Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Speed_Killz.JPG
The image is of poor quality (out of focus and underexposed), and there are other images conveying the same information. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 16:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep no need to delete it. Multichill (talk) 18:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC)- Keep I corrected colour and rotated a bit. Siebrand 18:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep No reason for deletion. --Dezidor (talk) 07:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
out of scope Yarl ✉ 18:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Mike.lifeguard: per Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Happy-Birthday-Maker-08.jpg
Dupe of slightly lager size of Image:Eagle nebula pillars.jpg. I am not sure whether the size is from better quality, in order to be uploaded on top of the other image, or just jpg noise from the "save" opotins Hey no, it's just that this image has the top-right corner that's been missing from the other Featured image. If there's no other problem, we can upload on top? Badseed talk 14:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- These 2 images should not be merged, I made this covering the top right corner with photoshop, so that part is in fact not real, I made it by a request in the Graphic Lab of spanish wikipedia. Anónimo 1 (talk) 15:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep both. J.smith (talk) 21:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete Delete the photoshopped. We have the real educational image, this photoshopped thing is worthless. -- Drini 01:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)- Keep This last work is even more useful than the first one. And isn't nice to treat someone's work like that, Drini. This kind of behaviour may discourage the users. Many people, like myself wouldn't be able to do it. Nice work, Anónimo 1. And besides we have too much free space for every work Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 02:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[1]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cartoonbook#Possibly_unfree_Image:Cluedo_first_edition.jpg){kind=link}
Oh, I forgot to say. Just keep both of them. Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 02:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- This is not about "being nice" is that the image although prettier, will be misleading and outright fake when used to illustrate a scientific text. -- Drini 00:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Obviously the first one (black boxes) is a keep. It's a landmark and very scientific important image, photshopping it ruins its scientific value -- Drini 00:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
If both can be kept apart I can't see any problem. And this image can be used for other purposes besides scientific. We must have in mind Commons is a repository of media file for all Wikimedia foundation projects. It can be useful for somebody somewhere. Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 01:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Noone has proposed deletin of first. This requests is ONLY about the second one. -- Drini 17:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I know that. You don't need to "scream". I'm just saying both images can be used at Wikimedia Foundation project for something. If somebody requested it at Graphic Lab, this person must be needing it. Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 17:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't think anyone disqualifies Anónimo 1's good work (I wouldn't be able to tell if he didn't say it was photoshopped), and Image:Eagle nebula pillars.jpg isn't up for deletion (only the 'shopped one). If the friends at es.wiki have decided they really need the modified image, maybe we should keep, but I have to agree with Drini that projects should be using the unmodified one in any encyclopedic/educational context - Badseed talk 03:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
I already notice the photoshopped one is up for deletion. I just don't like commentaries like those...
I think this commentary made by Drini was unfortunate. Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 14:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)We have the real educational image, this photoshopped thing is worthless.
The image is of poor quality (out of focus and underexposed), and replaceable by other images. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 17:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep it bad, but not that bad. --Kjetil_r 18:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Out of scope --Mach (talk) 18:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- File:Jessekramer.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Jessekramersized.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- Delete Agreed. -- Deadstar (msg) 16:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
John Davidson himself has requested another photo be uploaded instead. Thanks. Lgcurrie (talk) 18:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep That's nice. If you know him personally please have him provide a freely licensed photo that we can use. Until then, this is the photo we've got (and besides, even if we get a replacement, there is no need to delete this perfectly good freely licensed photo). -Nard the Bard 19:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - Put simply, we don't care. It's free and in scope. Oh, and I just nominated your "replacement" for deletion as a probable copyvio - Commons:Deletion requests/Image:John Davidson.jpg. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep even if we do get a viable replacement. J.smith (talk) 23:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I'm sure he doesn't care if this image is in the Commons or not, he just doesn't want it to be the picture in the English Wikipedia. No reason to delete this in any event. He doesn't have veto power over photos taken of him. Chowbok (talk) 19:30, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
No OTRS ticket found and image is out of scope. J.smith (talk) 21:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Out of project scope & too low in size to be usefull J.smith (talk) 21:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Advertising for the "Think Great" contest J.smith (talk) 21:22, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Maxim: Deleted because "Missing license/permission/source information". using TW
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Commons is not to be used for self-promotion of a probably unknown band Denniss (talk) 23:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- ??? en:KAT-TUN has an article on a dozen wikipedias. I suspect copyright violation. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Source and licence do not match, I suspect a copyvio. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by EugeneZelenko: Copyright violation: Logo. Not text only
private artwork, not in scope, not used Avron (talk) 13:05, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination abf « Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?» 13:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
The fact that an image is archived by the National Archives of Singapore does not automatically make it copyright-free. Copyright in Singapore lasts for 70 years from the date of the author's death. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 15:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination; no source abf « Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?» 13:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
and other uploads in Special:Contributions/Cdjhook.
Most likely anime/manga copyvio. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:05, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination abf « Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?» 12:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Outside project scope. -Nard the Bard 19:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination abf « Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?» 12:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Appears to be a scan from a magazine or something. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination abf « Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?» 12:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
User's only upload, own work looks doubtful, and low res makes usefulness doubtful. Probable copyvio IMO. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination abf « Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?» 12:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Promotional photo, own work very unlikely. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep This must be the promised replacement for Image:John_Davidson_(1990).jpg. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- So what if it is? It's still most likely a copyvio. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:06, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete unless the uploader can demonstrate that he is an official representative of Davidson's people, and, if so, that he understands the ramifications of releasing this publicity photo to the public domain. Chowbok (talk) 19:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- I would also add that it's not "very unlikely", as the nominator said. Lgcurrie's only edits both here and on English Wikipedia have related to Davidson, so I think it's very possible this is his publicist or something.Chowbok (talk) 19:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- Or just a fan. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf « Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?» 12:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Outside project scope. -Nard the Bard 19:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- KeepWhy? In my Adobe Acrobat Reader 8 the file is perfectly working. There are the texts in blue and the maps of the different phases of the building development in red. And mostly the file it's fundamental in order to better understand the following page from the italian Wikipedia: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinema_Guido_Guerra --Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 22:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- Works in Acrobat, but the red plans are not visible in Apple's Preview. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- OTRS has been pending for almost three months now, there was contact (#2008102310044037), but no follow-up anymore from the uploaders side. Ciell (talk) 11:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Abigor talk 12:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I wonder whether the text of this monument might be copyrighted. --User:G.dallorto 13:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- this is my own picture , sorry i wrote in hebrew. now i changed it to english. please do not delete it.
- The text in itself is protected, however, this is a picture of the whole monument, and therefore under Israeli Freedom of Panorama, is alowed. Deror avi 14:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep OK, so I am going to add a {{FOP}} template and the question is settled. Thank you. --User:G.dallorto 12:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep And the same rule apply here: Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Gat garden01.jpg. Gridge 15:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC).
- in the second case I am dubious. In the second case, this is not the picture of the whole monument including the text, it is the picture of the text alone, therefore there is no "panorama" at all. However, while waiting for a solution, I put a {{FOP}} template in the second picture as well. --User:G.dallorto 20:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- The text in itself is protected, however, this is a picture of the whole monument, and therefore under Israeli Freedom of Panorama, is alowed. Deror avi 14:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Kept. Lupo 09:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- COM:FOP#Israel is for architectural work, a work of sculpture or work of applied art : you can't use it for the texts. Teofilo (talk) 10:39, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't know this had already been nominated last year, but afer reading what was said, I still think that the picture should be cropped so that the texts are removed. Therefore this uncropped version must be deleted. Teofilo (talk) 10:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- I have uploaded a cropped version with the same title. The original picture still needs deletion. Teofilo (talk) 11:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- There is every reason to suspect it, because the text of the Israeli FOP law is "architectural work, a work of sculpture or work of applied art", which clearly excludes texts. Teofilo (talk) 11:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
It would be surprising if these signs were not either "applied art" or ineligible. Please provide a court decision for your opinion./Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- There is every reason to suspect it, because the text of the Israeli FOP law is "architectural work, a work of sculpture or work of applied art", which clearly excludes texts. Teofilo (talk) 11:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- I have uploaded a cropped version with the same title. The original picture still needs deletion. Teofilo (talk) 11:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep PD-ineligible and covered by FOP. You have presented no new arguments not raised in the last deletion request. -Nard the Bard 20:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Request Please undo Teofilo's mutilation of this photo. It is an infringement on User:Avi1111 moral right as an author. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)I did this now (after Teofilo had given me directions to the right button.) /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)- There is no need to present new arguments. The arguments by the initial nominator G. dallorto are powerful enough. Teofilo (talk) 22:23, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep "work of applied art" - The text is part of the momument as a whole. If this was just an image of the text, then I'd agree, but this is a picture of the whole work. J.smith (talk) 23:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- Applied art refers to the application of design and aesthetics to objects of function and everyday use. : en:applied arts. Teofilo (talk) 04:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- I suppose you are right. Text is litterary works, not artistic work. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- Applied art refers to the application of design and aesthetics to objects of function and everyday use. : en:applied arts. Teofilo (talk) 04:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyvio of the text on the signs. Copyright law calls text a "literary work", and so far as I can see there is no FOP in Israel for literary works. There is freedom for "works of applied art", but text is not a work of applied art, and the prominence of the text, and its quantity, means that we cannot ignore this as de minimis. MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Restored by me. The bureaucracy faults had been fixed. Yuval Y § Chat § 15:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Does not appear to be a user-created photo. It's cropped and low-res, looks more like screengrab than a snapshot. Could the uploader post the original? Ytoyoda (talk) 02:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Seems fine. Assume good faith. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:24, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - Assuming good faith doesn't require assuming infallibility, and the user has uploaded two photographs on English wiki, neither of which appears to be free, so the user doesn't seem well versed on copyright. With images, the burden is on the uploader to provide reasonable evidence of copyright ownership. --Ytoyoda (talk) 17:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep It could well be low-resolution because it was taken from far away. I've not seen anything where a user needs to post an original, uncropped picture in order to prove they aren't violating copyright. 70.179.69.70 20:16, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Folks, sorry for being so late to the party, but this is in fact my own image. The original can be found here: http://flickr.com/photos/30861243@N02/2917013009/ which is obviously part of my Flickr account. --Voran (talk) 15:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Could you change the permissions on http://flickr.com/photos/30861243@N02/2917888924/ ? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm going to go ahead and withdraw the nomination and thanks for providing the source. But yes, please change the license on the Flickr page for both the original and the crop. --Ytoyoda (talk) 16:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Could you change the permissions on http://flickr.com/photos/30861243@N02/2917888924/ ? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Is copyrighted, even if it claims not to be. Oreo Priest (talk) 03:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Clearly not cc-by. J.smith (talk) 23:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Cikker died in 1989 and image at English is a questionable license from en:User:HotelRoom for whom there are questions. --Ricky81682 (talk) 07:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- Well, let's wait until his answer en:User talk:HotelRoom and in a case of none reaction, we will have to delete it. --Rudoleska (talk) 08:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- The account has not been used since 2006, so it is unlikely there will be any response. Looking at the upload log, the editor appears to have had little understanding of Wikipedia/Commons licensing, as shown here, here, here ... Under the circumstances, I don't see any reason to take HotelRoom's say-so at face value. Delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Note: in case anyone is interested, I have also listed the original image for deletion at en. I would think Commons would be strictly in its requirement but either way. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Foi atualizado para um mais recente T103riachuelo (talk) 12:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per uploader's request. Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)