Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2008/11/28

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Commons logo
Commons logo

This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests.

You can visit the most recent archive here.

Archive
Archive
Archive November 28th, 2008
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Image:Pitseleh.jpg

[edit]

bad 83.25.59.144 01:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy kept, has OTRS, no legitmate reason for deletion offered. -- Infrogmation (talk) 02:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Image:ATYAAAAlN2E6TvRGWQofIObdRnBffzLRw4QBoHoDDb2RvtBZ-RAukErVhACosfA06Fctnemx3wz-BztQ94HyTvm1kdUPAJtU9VA7ThFhZnEHsca1IPRocbHRzgZdGw.jpg

[edit]

Poor quality, strange filename, unidentifiable subject. Tryphon (talk) 01:45, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 03:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Image:292px-Houseofbluesbritney.jpg

[edit]

The source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Houseofbluesbritney.jpg) is liscenced under fair use, hence this picture cannot be CC-by. Tryphon (talk) 02:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deleted, obvious copyviol/false license. -- Infrogmation (talk) 02:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Image:Bigfin_squid.jpg

[edit]

I do not see where the source pages says it is a NOAA work. Wikipedia has the identical image, but is marked a Fair Use as it is property of the Monterey Bay Aquarium. Falcorian (talk) 03:10, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Image:Canada_Line_Lansdowne_stn.jpg

[edit]

Copyrighted Derivative work. Canadian FOP does not apply to publicly installed 2D works. Kelvinc (talk) 08:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's true. Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Image:1955LotusMk9andLotus6.jpg

[edit]

No image.. Upload seems to have failed Malcolma (talk) 11:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

repaired, kept Julo (talk) 16:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Image:DictionaryofNationalBiographyvolume53.djvu

[edit]

Badname + file was trimmed and reuploaded billinghurst (talk) 11:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Already deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Image:Humair.png

[edit]

copyvio. screenshot from a video encyclopedia, see http://imagoart.club.fr/humair.htm Sylenius (talk) 12:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: the uploader seems to be the copyright holder. Maybe we should wait and require OTRS instead. Sylenius (talk) 20:44, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. OTRS permission Bapti ✉ 21:37, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Image:KastnerSaxotrombas.svg

[edit]

Image failed to upload properly - can't fix it Erigena (talk) 12:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The cause of that is that the code is referring to files on your C:\ drive. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Already deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Image:Eukaryota_diversity.jpg

[edit]

My compilation of images with various licencing. Soon to be replaced by another image with proper licence 212.20.74.230 13:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should be deleted. This compilation is breaking licences of images used.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 13:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Worcestershire_sauce.jpg

[edit]

Derivative work. abf /talk to me/ 14:37, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert in copyright, but there are dozens of works like this that exists for years. For example, see Category:Canned_food, Category:Condiments and other. --Moscvitch (talk) 19:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Image description page already has a "trademark" notice. The product dates back to the 19th century. How different is the label shown from the 19th century label, and is that difference enough to establish a seperate copyright? Wondering, -- Infrogmation (talk) 01:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some L&P Worcestershire sauce images of different years. --Moscvitch (talk) 00:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest possible keep - As with the deletion rampage on beer bottle photos last year, this misguided deletion proposal shows a strong lack of understanding of copyright criteria, and hosting of such at the Wikimedia projects. Please direct your efforts and energies toward improving, not depleting, our content, thanks. 24.29.228.33 18:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the point (improving vs. depleting). The question is: is it legal to keep thie picture in Commons? Vonvon (talk) 18:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
@.33 - That you have got the strongest possible opinions is clear, but what is needed here is legal opinion, not simply a vote. Votes without legal basis do not carry any weight in a legal discussion - sorry. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted per abf. A UK product carrying an UK artistic design which is far above the threshold of originality under UK law. To keep this it would have to be shown that this specific design is old enough for copyright to have expired, and the page mentioned above which shows the older designs of this company does not support that. The deletion can be reconsidered if evidence of copyright expiry can be supplied. As usual, the fact that other stuff exists is not relevant to the hosting of this particular design. MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Image:Conf54-03_march-54.jpg

[edit]

I am sure this is not PD-self abf /talk to me/ 17:06, 28 November 2008 (UTC) The same with[reply]

abf /talk to me/ 17:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Those are so obviously a copyright violation. No discussion necessary. Cecil (talk) 18:33, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All images restored. Copyright not renewed, so {{PD-US-not renewed}} applies. See Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#Confidential_and_Hush-Hush:_magazine_covers_from_the_1950.E2.80.99s Yann (talk) 11:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Image:3EB 3EyedBear.jpg

[edit]

Only used in en:3eyedbear, a speedily deleted article about a non-notable website - Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:20, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. No realistic educational use. MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Image:Hush-hush_1955_11.jpg

[edit]

is sure not PD-self abf /talk to me/ 18:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same with

abf /talk to me/ 18:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] 

   * 18:32, 28 November 2008 Cecil (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Image:Hush-hush 1955 11.jpg" ‎ (copyright violation, see Commons:Licensing) (restore)
   * 18:32, 28 November 2008 Cecil (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Image:Hush-hush 1955 09.jpg" ‎ (copyright violation, see Commons:Licensing) (restore)
   * 18:32, 28 November 2008 Cecil (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Image:Hush-hush 1955 07.jpg" ‎ (copyright violation, see Commons:Licensing) (restore)
   * 18:32, 28 November 2008 Cecil (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Image:Hush-hush 1955 05.jpg" ‎ (copyright violation, see Commons:Licensing) (restore)
   * 18:32, 28 November 2008 Cecil (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Image:Hush-hush 1956 01.jpg" ‎ (copyright violation, see Commons:Licensing) (restore)

 — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 03:35, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Image:Drop_the_Bomb_-_EP.jpg

[edit]

I don't think it's actually own work ~/w /Talk 19:30, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ep cover, delete--Motopark (talk) 20:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete no fair use on commons Sterkebaktalk 22:20, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
   * 23:19, 28 November 2008 Mardetanha (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Image:Drop the Bomb - EP.jpg" ‎ (Copyright violation) (restore)

 — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 03:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Vlasak.jpg

[edit]

very low quality, no proof for pd-self ~/w /Talk 19:40, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete. User just takes the images from the web. Since Google and Co don't provide better resolution he was not able to deliver better quality. This one for example I found in a slightly better resolution (120x120) as icon in a blog. -- Cecil (talk) 19:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, --Polarlys (talk) 16:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Image:Abhi_wm.jpg

[edit]

out of scope Sterkebaktalk 19:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

speedydelete, out of scope --Motopark (talk) 20:17, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, unused personal image clearly out of project scope. -- Infrogmation (talk) 01:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Image:1%Podatku.jpg

[edit]

The file is not realistically useful for an educational purpose. --Tryphon (talk) 20:04, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Image:IM002712.JPG

[edit]

does not have proper name Vidioman (talk) 20:20, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 13:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Image:Cremas.jpg

[edit]

The source (http://www.imperio-crema.com) does not seem free to me. Plus there is a watermark on the picture. Tryphon (talk) 20:40, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] 

   * 03:22, 29 November 2008 Mike.lifeguard (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Image:Cremas.jpg" ‎ (: Copyright violation, see Commons:Licensing) (restore)

 — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 03:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Image:080407C.JPG

[edit]

No source, no category, no educational purpose. Tryphon (talk) 21:07, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Vlcsnap-362337.png

[edit]

Logo from Swedish television show that probably not is under fair use --Ainali (talk) 21:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted this as well as the Melrose Place promotional photos from the same user. Thuresson (talk) 21:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
   * 21:40, 28 November 2008 Thuresson (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Image:Vlcsnap-362337.png" ‎ (TV screenshot from a TV show) (restore)

 — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 03:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Image:070720_095518.jpg

[edit]

No educational purpose, mediocre quality, no english description (and frankly, it's hard to tell what's on the picture without it). Tryphon (talk) 21:31, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Image:Sergio Press.jpg

[edit]

Only used in en:Sergio bernadin, a speedily deleted page about a non-notable person. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 21:39, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 14:00, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Image:0waldo.JeffQ.jpg

[edit]

This is a re-upload of Image:0waldo.jeffq.jpg, which was deleted already. See User talk:0waldo, and the summary on Image:0waldo.JeffQ.jpg. Tryphon (talk) 21:44, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, Out of scope. --Martin H. (talk) 13:39, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Image:IKUE-Flago_(01).png

[edit]

The identical picture exists in SVG PAD (talk) 17:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kept per Commons:Deletion requests/Superseded. Kanonkas(talk) 14:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Image:080124_122941.JPG

[edit]

No description, no category, mediocre quality and unused. Tryphon (talk) 21:55, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Image:1089370.jpg

[edit]

No description, no category and unused since 2007-05-03. --Tryphon (talk) 22:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. No realistic educational use. MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Image:Aibo.jpg

[edit]

Self-promotion. Tryphon (talk) 23:05, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Out of scope one way or the other.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 03:37, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:День_Милиции.JPG

[edit]

Private picture. Tryphon (talk) 23:55, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Vladikyno.jpg

[edit]

The uploader also uploaded some Fair Uses from the ru.wikipedia, this image is nearly unsourced, the original uploadlog (http://ru.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Image:Vladikyno.jpg) does not provide any informations, so i nominate this image for deletion because of suspeceted copyight violation, maybe a ru.wp admin can transfer the imagedescription. Martin H. (talk) 12:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. --S[1] 22:36, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Wiki-1009-Kurt-Salzmann-Chagall.jpg

[edit]

Artist (Marc Chagall) is not dead since more than 70 years. Drahreg01 (talk) 22:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Idem: File:Kirchenfenster Blau.jpg (duplicate) - Erik Baas (talk) 01:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

E - what must be must be

D - Ok - wenn es sein muss, muss es sein! Ob dieser sehr kleine Ausschnitt aus dem Gesamtwerk von Mark Chagall aus dem Fraumünster, ein Urheberrecht tangiert bezweifle ich. Das veröffentliche Bild ist in geringer Grösse und Qualität bereitgestellt und sollte den Zweck eines Zitates erfüllen. Eine Art Veröffentlichung die ab und zu bestritten wird. Ohne Erfolg es würde nämlich den Wert Internets gewaltig mindern.

E - Is just a quote >60 kb and max. >400px size

E - Don't Miss

D - Vergiss aber die andern Fotos nicht, die die diese Fernster weit umfassender zeigen und auch unter Commons veröffentlicht sind.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Marc_Chagall

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Plafond_de_l%27op%C3%A9ra_Garnier.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Marc_Chagall

http://be.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D1%8B%D1%8F%D0%B2%D0%B0:Yury_Pen_-_Portrait_of_Marc_Chagall.jpg

Fraumünster

E - be consequent till the end.

BG Kurt Salzmann (talk) 16:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

vg Kurt Salzmann (talk) 16:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The (small) size doesn't really help here as this directs to "fair use" that is not allowed at all on Commons (contrary to :en). But you're right about all the other Chagall derivatives found in Category:Marc Chagall. Therefore, a more general discussion about Chagall images/derivatives on Commons might be more appropriate than this single one. --Túrelio (talk) 09:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Though this image obviously has been taken from within, it may still be covered by the FOP provision of law of Switzerland, since Art. 27 of the Bundesgesetz über das Urheberrecht und verwandte Schutzrechte says: "Ein Werk, das sich bleibend an oder auf allgemein zugänglichem Grund befindet, darf abgebildet werden; die Abbildung darf angeboten, veräussert, gesendet oder sonst wie verbreitet werden."[1]. As the church de:Fraumünster where the window is located permanently, is in the possession of the city Zürich and as Christian churches are usually open to the public, we can see the requirement "auf allgemein zugänglichem Grund" of the law fulfilled. Therefore I'm for  Keep. Other opinions on that? --Túrelio (talk) 07:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As of the expert input on Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Marc Chagall it seems that Swiss FOP law cannot be applied for indoors images. So, deletion seems to be unavoidable. --Túrelio (talk) 20:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Lycaon: Universally replaced by Image:Kirchenfenster_Blau.jpg. Reason was "exact, or scaled-down duplicate"

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Image:01-house.jpg

[edit]

It has no categories, a nondescriptive name, and isn't used according to checkusage Jonjames1986 (talk) 16:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Lycaon: duplicate or a scaled down version of Image:01-haus.jpg

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Image:01-haus.jpg

[edit]

It has no categories, a nondescriptive name, and isn't used according to checkusage Jonjames1986 (talk) 16:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted image is either promotional content or copyrighted abf «Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?» 15:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

China images

[edit]

User "Nyo" has posted my (and other photog's) images without permission. Image:Taoist monk 5.PNGImage:Taoist monk clothes.PNG He is skirting the law by first uploading my (and other's) images onto PhotoBucket (under the user name Lavelk) [2], then linking to WikiMedia, claiming that it is "fair use" because the images first appeared on PhotoBucket. I know he took one of my images from my Flickr account, but I have no idea how he obtained the other (full-resolution) file. Not entirely sure WHY this person is going through so much trouble to distribute other photographer's art instead of just creating some of his own, but either way he does NOT have my permission to do so. I would like to request that WikiMedia immediately remove the following copyrighted images (they appear in my published book CHINA: Portrait of a People, so I can assure you they are mine, they are copyrighted, and I will take legal action if they are not deleted) and please also suspend this user and his IP address from further uploads. Thank you. Tom Carter [3] --Tomcarter (talk) 03:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. With all due respect, I see none of the images from [4] or from your Flickr account appear at Lavelk's photobucket pages. If the images here at the Commons that come from Lavelk's photobucket page are really your photos, please contact OTRS at the e-mail address permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, or send a DMCA takedown notice to our designated agent. In both cases, you will, I think, need to provide evidence that these are indeed your photos, not Lavelk's. Lupo 08:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to compare the Special:Search "Lavelk" pictures on Commons, and the 64 megabyte zip file released for press coverage on the book publisher's website : http://www.blacksmithbooks.com/China_portrait_preview.htm , but I found no striking similarity between the two sets. Teofilo (talk) 10:30, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete I believe with Tom Carter that Lavelk is Nyo (this is a clue) and this is a case of "photobucketwashing" (instead of flickrwashing). --Jaqen (talk) 09:03, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, this dragon is indeed strange. Seems to exist in other versions, too, for instance this. Of the gray version, I've found only smaller on-line versions, but at least one[5] used in November 2007, whereas the upload here was in February 2008. Looks fishy. And Image:Sikh temple in the USA.PNG is taken from here. That girl also exists here, again smaller, but according to the URL from 2006, whereas Nyo's upload here was in September 2007. Starts to look indeed as if Nyo's uploads are not kosher. (Somehow, that user name rings a bell... but I can't remember why...) Lupo 10:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From what I see on Commons:Deletion requests/Series by Nyo, user:Nyo seems to be someone who is serious about third party rights. Teofilo (talk) 10:47, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And there's also number II. He has also been blocked indefinitely on de.wp and (finally) on it.wp. --Jaqen (talk) 11:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can't say for sure that a 3-letter nickname represents always the same person all over the world. Teofilo (talk) 11:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously I don't believe that Commons's Nyo is the same as WP only because of the nickname, but also because oh his edits. Moreover, in an old (deleted) version of his it user page he had a link to his user page on Commons. I suppose he had a link to it.wp here on Commons but I cannot check. --Jaqen (talk) 13:17, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
His user page here was written in Italian and had links to da, en, en:wikt, es, fr, nl, pl, pt, sv, tr, and zh for "Nyo" and to de, id, and ja for the nick "Nyo it". Lupo 22:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The two images were deleted as per [6]. Lupo 09:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Image:Kostel_Nejsvětější_Trojice_(Fulnek)_–_frs-000.png

[edit]

There is the same file in SVG format in Image:Kostel Nejsvětější Trojice (Fulnek) – frs-000.svg PAD (talk) 11:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 02:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But it still exists. --PAD (talk) 14:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Image:Kostel_Nejsvětější_Trojice_(Fulnek)_–_frs-000.png

[edit]

There is the same picture in SVG under the name "Kostel Nejsvětější Trojice (Fulnek) – frs-000.png" PAD (talk) 09:17, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

deleted Julo (talk) 16:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Vidmantas Povilionis collection

[edit]

Author unknown ; Copyright holder unknow. No evidence is given that the copyright holder allows redistribution under a free license. Mentioning "Vidmanto Povilionio asmeninis archyvas" as source is not enough Teofilo (talk) 19:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Image:Mr-and-mrs-brown.jpg

[edit]

This picture was first posted on http://www.npg.org.uk/live/bp/?p=198 and is © Vincent Brown. Is the uploader really the author of this work? In any case, he should give explicit permission. Tryphon (talk) 23:45, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Vincentmichaelbrown contacted me asking for the procedure for granting permission. I directed him to Commons:Email_templates, so this deletion should be suspended while waiting for OTRS confirmation. Tryphon (talk) 16:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mr-and-mrs-brown.jpg

[edit]

I am the creator of the work in question and granted permission for the National Portrait Gallery to publish the image on their website. vincentmichaelbrown How do I prove the work is mine? http://www.vincentbrown.co.uk Many Thanks

You should be giving an e-mail to OTRS giving the details they need. If you have further questions, feel free to reply back on my talk page for a hopefully quick response. --Kanonkas(talk) 14:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Still no news from vincentmichaelbrown about this. I left a message on his talk page on 30 November 2008, but didn't get any answer. Unless OTRS did receive an email from Vincent Brown, this picture should be deleted for lack of permission. --Tryphon (talk) 14:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted because nothing ever happened. No ticket findable in OTRS & nothing on-wiki that would convince me to delay. I've also deleted File:Self2006.jpg as well.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 17:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Image:Julia_Robinson_1975.jpg

[edit]

Only images labelled with "Copyright: MFO" are free : https://opc.mfo.de/ Teofilo (talk) 16:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like that an OTRS ticket has been delivered for a series of similar pictures, as Category:Pictures from Oberwolfach Photo Collection (Bergman) seems to show. But only the people from the OTRS have the authority to add an OTRS ticket on a given file. Teofilo (talk) 16:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep The category page, Category:Pictures from Oberwolfach Photo Collection (Bergman), states that "Images from the Oberwolfach Photo Collection which are marked Copyright: George M. Bergman, Berkeley have been released under:" GFDL, and gives OTRS ticket number 2008042410024381 for this release. The present image is from that collection and has that copyright marking, so it is released under GFDL. --Uncia (talk) 15:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket 2008042410024381 does not exist in the OTRS system so far as I can see. Can this be clarified, please? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I left a message on en:User talk:Dominus, asking for help. Teofilo (talk) 20:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I obtained permission from the author of the photograph, George M. Bergman, and sent it to the address for licenses several months ago. I don't know anything about OTRS numbers. I can re-send Professor Bergman's permissions if that will help. Dominus (talk) 00:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I sent the complete correspondence to permissions-en@wikimedia.org on April 24 2008, if that is any help. Anyway, there is no need to delete these pictures, because we do have permission for them, so the deletion request can be closed. All that remains to be done is to resolve the matter of the misfiled permission letter, and I have a complete copy here. Dominus (talk) 00:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to stop checking this page for updates, so if any further action is needed on my part, please notify me at my talk page. Dominus (talk) 04:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket #2008042410024381 is here & valid. If there are no outstanding issues this can be closed.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 14:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Valid OTRS ticket. –Tryphon☂ 19:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Free only "throughout the Wikimedia projects"

[edit]

Teofilo (talk) 17:44, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment Some of these look clearly useful and/or are in use on en:Wikipedia. Given the possiblility that the language describing use in Wikimedia might have been a misunderstanding or that a clearer license might be granted if asked, I suggest OTRS request be made before deleting. -- Infrogmation (talk) 01:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I am the "uploader" of all these images. It is a misunderstanding. Jeff Gibson, the author/photographer, said "do whatever you please with the pictures." I only said "use throughout Wikimedia" projects because this is the only place I will be posting them. I don't run any other motorcycle websites or participate in MC message boards. The licenses on each of the images only asks to attribute the author (Mr. Gibson) should they be used elsewhere and/or modified. In fact, Jeff told me that wasn't necessary, but I asked for the author to be attributed simply out of respect for him because most of the photos are fantastic and quite rare. Wikipedia has very few motorcycle racing images from thirty years ago. Sure, you can find older racing images in books like Motocourse but they are all copyrighted and unusable throughout Wikimedia - at least not at high resolutions and not without an extensive rationale of why they should be allowed. Please ask me any questions regarding the photos above. I would be very disheartened to see them deleted. ♫ ψadems ♫ (talk) 18:04, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thease are really interesting images, and we should do what we can to keep them. Unfortunately, the precise permission that has been granted is not very clear, and in any event for images like this the permission would need to be formally recorded in our OTRS system so that a permanent record can be kept. Could you please ask the copyright owner to send the permission directly to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, mentioning by name the images in question, and also the specific licence/permission that is being granted, for example {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}} or Public domain? The email must be sent from a domain which can be identified with the copyright owner. Lists of permissible licences can be found here (Creative Commons licences) and here (GFDL licences). If you would like to let me know when the email has been sent, I will check whether the permission sent is OK, and if it is will happily tag the images for you and close this request as keep. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • What exactly is "not clear" about these images? I reworded the permission like was asked of me. The license for each photo is what it currently states: {{Cc-by-3.0}}. "Free to distribute and modify so long as the author is attributed." I am almost to the point where you can go ahead and delete the photos because I feel like I am being called a liar about where they were sourced. Who is to say I took the pictures of the Katydid [7] and Crane Flies [8] currently in my gallery just because the license states {{PD-self}}? Do you know if I personally photographed them? I know I did, but how do you know? How do I know you photographed the Field Poppy Image:Field poppy (Papaver rhoeas) in meadow.jpg? My point being is that there is a bit of the "honor system" going on when licensing photos and I'd like to think my 4-year track record at Wikipedia would indicate I am not trying put one over. Sure, I've screwed up on a few edits in the past but I've never done anything malicious. And this whole issue over the "legality" of these photos is getting on my last nerve. Because I don't like being called a liar. I worked with Jeff Gibson while at AMX (he sourced PCB components when they went end-of-life - still does to the best of my knowledge), he used to be a semi-professional photographer eons ago but hasn't for quite a while, he has rolls upon rolls of old motorcycle racing negatives and photos, and decided to scan a bunch for me when he found out we shared a love of 1970s era motorcycle road racing and dirt tracking and the Daytona 200. When I asked Jeff about uploading them to Commons he said "do whatever you please with the pictures." So I did. But I always knew this would come back to bite me, and lo and behold, here we are. ♫ ψadems ♫ (talk) 20:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is calling you a liar, and there is absolutely no implication of such. It is simply standard procedure that in cases where a third party has given consent (other than the uploader) we ask for that to be recorded in the OTRS system. The reason is not because anyone is questioning your bona fides but to ensure that permission can be confirmed in the event that anyone should question it in the future. Perhaps in 5 years time you may no longer be editing, and may no longer be contactable. What happens then if someone comes along pretending to be the original photographer and demands that the images be deleted? It has happened. Without a permanently-recorded permission, recorded at the time, Commons would be hard-pressed to resist a later request to remove the images, even one not made in good faith. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Valuable pictures, but unfortunately, the uploader did not follow the OTRS procedure through, and we have no proof that the author gave permission for the images to be used under a free license. –Tryphon☂ 20:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Image:02114_06-12-03_fisurashormigón_7.JPG

[edit]

No description, no author, no category, poor quality. Tryphon (talk) 20:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to point out (although I'm not sure this is the right place to do so) that User:Vitruvio (the uploader of the above image) uploaded lots of schemas of the same type. It's hard to report them all, but you can easily find these on Vitruvio's contribution page. Tryphon (talk) 21:37, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
True, but most of these drawings are included in a Wikibook: http://es.wikibooks.org/wiki/Muros_con_desplomes (although the one discussed in this page does not seem to be used).
The problem with them was they were in Category:Bridge drawings where they absolutely don't belong: I sent them over to Category:Masonry construction drawings (sorry, still can't get those links right???!!!).
Also, there seems to be a problem about this Wikibook: it seems to be in a root category or page, and not to have a proper url. But this is surely not the place to discuss this!
86.68.38.66 18:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. AlNo (discuter/talk/hablar/falar) 10:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Image:Police_officer_PA_1975.jpg

[edit]

I have not found evidence that this picture has been published earlier than 2008 : see http://www.squareamerica.com/book.htm Teofilo (talk) 16:40, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The photo was created in 1975, but I'm not clear on when an amateur photograph is officially "published". Cornell University's copyright site states that "'Publication' was not explicitly defined in the Copyright Law before 1976, but the 1909 Act indirectly indicated that publication was when copies of the first authorized edition were placed on sale, sold, or publicly distributed by the proprietor of the copyright or under his authority." If photos like this one were not published when they were developed and distributed to friends, then I suppose this photo is under copyright and should be deleted... but then so should any personal photo where the author died less than 70 years ago. (See "Never Published, Never Registered Works" at the Cornell site.) That would be unfortunate. Does anyone know of any U.S. case law regarding when a photograph was officially "published"? Quadell (talk) 20:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 17:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2008/11/28&oldid=21196537"