Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2008/12/07
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
A nonfree logo should not be uploaded to the commons. Bxsstudent (talk) 03:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Anonymous101: No fair use at Commons
Copyvio http://www.sergiofajardo.com/SergioFajardo.html Chien (talk) 04:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 19:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
This appears to be a professional artwork, and is unlikely to be the own work of the anonymous uploader. Sandstein (talk) 10:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete unfortunately I agree with Sandstein. --Kanonkas(talk) 17:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)- Delete - Copyvio of this. Neurolysis (talk) 16:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- Just as I'm sure it is not the property of the uploader, I am equally sure it is not owned by a Korean blog either. It looks like a painting, and given that it shows a tree lit by candles it might be PD-OLD, but one would need to definitively find the original to be able to say. Dragons flight (talk) 18:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Clearly not own work; almost certainly a copyright violation. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 20:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't trust that own work --Motopark (talk) 12:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
* 21:25, 7 December 2008 Túrelio (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Image:Famous scots.JPG" (Derivative work) (restore)
Copyvio. Fuller version of the image exists elsewhere, f.e. [1]. Nikola (talk) 18:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 20:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Copyvio of http://www.tesla-museum.org/meni_sl/muzej/m0.htm Nikola (talk) 18:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 20:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
not a free software (see logo and name), i made a similar image with free software (Image:VirtualBox2.png). Hidro (talk) 10:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, just minor details SF007 (talk) 16:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete both or replace the logos in the screenshot of the free edition. The Ubuntu, Firefox (seen twice) and Fedora logos are non-free. The VirtualBox icon (seen twice) may be non-free, but it is much smaller than the other icons, and it seems to be the only thing different between the two screenshots (text name itself is not copyrightable). --AVRS (talk) 12:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC), 22:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- i changed Firefox, Ubuntu and Fedora icons to free icons. the VirtualBox OSE (the free version) logo is already different then i guess it's OK. Hidro (talk) 00:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- There is a part of the Fedora logo seen three times in VirtualBox-related places, but overall, it is much better (free) than it was. --AVRS (talk) 15:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- the "part of the Fedora logo" is provided as a part of the VirtualBox free version so it's probable free. Hidro (talk) 20:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- There is a part of the Fedora logo seen three times in VirtualBox-related places, but overall, it is much better (free) than it was. --AVRS (talk) 15:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- Change, these regions can be exchanged simply with some dummy icon by using any graphics software. --Sven (talk) 20:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- the main problem of that image is that it contains a non-free software (see VirtualBox#Proprietary vs. open source). Hidro (talk) 21:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Image:VirtualBox2.png has been created as a replacement. The partial Fedora logo in it may be considered de-minimis or removed later. AVRS (talk) 13:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
It isn't used, has no description and isn't categorized, making finding a use near impossible Jonjames1986 (talk) 10:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Keep Categorized in Category:Central African Republic. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- I also added a short description and categorized in Category:Portrait photographs of men. --Tryphon (talk) 16:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the description, i accidentally forgot to describe this image, some others can be found in Category:Central African Republic (im looking for a good categorization scheme for rebell units, category:military wouldnt be correct). --Martin H. (talk) 17:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- "Insurgents" may be a sufficiently neutral term. It is used in 150 images here. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Satellite image : not own work Peter17 (talk) 21:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't know, it was forbidden, but if the image come from Nasa World Wind, can it be clasiffied as Free software licence?--Treehill (talk) 11:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Comment If it comes from World Wind, this page provides information about the copyright status of the images. Specifically, it says that images outside the US are usually non-free, whith the notable exception of Canada. But of course, it would help to know if the software shows copyright info when zooming on a particular image. --Tryphon (talk) 10:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- Comment English: Wait for sources. Satellite image can be free, it depends from where it come.Français : Attendre des sources. Une image satellite peut être livre, cela dépand de son origine.Cdlt, VIGNERON * discut. 17:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
![[1]](http://vukajlija.com/attached_images/0001/1373/kristjan_golubovic_1_inline.jpg){kind=link}
Satellite image : not own work Peter17 (talk) 21:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Satellite image : not own work Peter17 (talk) 21:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
These are merchandise figures whose copyright most probably belongs to CBS Hk kng (talk) 00:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
These are merchandise figures whose copyright most probably belongs to CBS Hk kng (talk) 00:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
faigy 69.112.61.79 00:37, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- faigy? Could you explain that in plain english? --Túrelio (talk) 10:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Adambro (talk) 15:22, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Personal image, used to test upload. 68.190.127.139 15:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Would be OK if in use on a userpage, but it is not. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Was tagged as {{copyvio}}, but might be {{pd-textlogo}}. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 19:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- See this previous discussion at the help desk. --Kanonkas(talk) 16:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I would say speedy delete. This logo has some creative parts. With that in mind it can't be a pd-textlogo. Abigor (talk) 17:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Polarlys: no permission
metadata says "Copyright 2002" abf /talk to me/ 21:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- Bitte mal richtig lesen: Erfassungszeitpunkt 16:00, 16. Aug. 2008, Speicherzeitpunk 16:00, 16. Aug. 2008. Dein Copyright dingsbums keine Ahnung, Software der Kamera vielleicht? Taucht bei allen Photos mit der Kamera auf s. mit eingeblendeten Datum Image:Wed6.JPG --Machahn (talk) 21:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Cameras cannot claim rights. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep "Copyright 2002" =/= "All rights reserved". All images under a free licensee could have similar notes on the page. --J.smith (talk) 02:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Thats true, I apoligize, but could you please change your camera-settings to something whats more clear? abf /talk to me/ 16:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
According description this is photo of the information table. So it's not "author's work". --Podzemnik (talk) 23:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Kept see COM:FOP#Czech_Republic ~/w /Talk 13:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
same image in better resolution: Image:Rocca di San Leo.jpg Ceterum censeo capitalismum esse delendam (talk) 01:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. ~/w /Talk 13:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Doubtful, that the Flickr user is the photographer of this image. Martin H. (talk) 03:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. ~/w /Talk 13:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
unused, poor quality, superceded by Image:Flag_ouro_preto.svg --ludger1961 (talk) 04:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. ~/w /Talk 13:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
unused, no description given, very poor quality (only 30 × 20 pixels), the users only edit was this upload ten months ago, see Special:Contributions/Aurim. So this file is in no way useful. --ludger1961 (talk) 07:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per COM:SCOPE ~/w /Talk 13:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Migrated speedy request to dr in case the bridge design could be percieved as ineleigable - No COM:FOP in Italy Anonymous101 talk 10:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Designs of "works of art of the architecture" are expressely included in the Italian copyright law. This bridge was desiegned by a living architect, and was inaugurated in 2008. No freedom of panorama in Italy. Sorry. You may have a look here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Panorama#Italy --User:G.dallorto (talk) 13:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. ~/w /Talk 13:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Does not resemble original image, it's defected because the background is too long. --Derbeth talk 10:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
The re-upload should look more like the original image, and using Inkscape fixed the background issue. The issue with the log()x where it should be log(x) appears to be introduced by internal conversion to PNG since Firefox and Safari both render the SVG properly. IllestFlip (talk) 15:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Fixed the log()x issue. IllestFlip (talk) 15:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, now it's fine, I suggest closing this vote. --Derbeth talk 21:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Kept per discussion. ~/w /Talk 13:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Fails Freedom of Panorama as the poster/sign only lasted one day (As they all do) therefore it's only temporary and not permanent and can't be uploaded on Commons as the image would be still copyrighted for the next 69 years (70 Years but it's been 12 months since the Rudd win). -- Bidgee (talk) 13:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. ~/w /Talk 13:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Copyvio. The bridge was inaugurated in 2008, by living architect Santiago Calatrava. There is no Freedom of Panorama in Italy. --User:G.dallorto (talk) 13:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per G.dallorto, Commons:FOP#Italy states that there is no FOP. Bidgee (talk) 13:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- I disagree: in this specific case, the author Calatrava donated publicly, officially and spontaneously by his will the project of this bridge to the city of Venice and to its citizens (like me) so that his work could become a public gift. This is, at all extent, an act of "public release" and I'm not sure your argument applies in that case. Now this bridge is finished, it has become fully part of the city landscape, it's used by million people coming to visit it every year. According to your statement, any picture of Grattacielo Pirelli or of any other recent public architecture built in Italy after the end of the World War II has to be removed from Wikipedia due to copyright infringement, even if publicly exposed or photographed by some million people: will you ask for that? Are you sure you're not using a too strict interpretation of the copyright infringement? If not, then please start the activity to ask for deletion from Wikipedia of all the pictures relevant to all architectural works built in Italy since 1938. --Grigio60 (talk) 18:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- Couldn't "De Minimis" be applied here, as the bridge is hardly recognizable? (not meant as offense for the photographer) --Túrelio (talk) 20:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- If the project was donated to the city of Venice, this only means that the legal owner of the copyright is now the Municipality of Venice, now, not the "public domain" of "Venetian citizens".
- However, if the project were really put into the Public Domain by its author, then a ticket ought be prepared about this monument to warn about this situation, which would in fact enjoy a unique status in Italy. For an example of the way how a similar situation was dealt with in Commons, please refer to the Chicago monument here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Chicago_Picasso
- In Venice you are not allowed to photograph neither in churches (where you actually have to pay merely to enter) nor in museums owned by the Municipality. I am therefore very doubtful that the Municipality had all of a sudden become that generous not to care about unauthorized pictures going around.
- In short, there is no theoretical reason why such a monument could have not been placed into the Public domain; however, it is its Public Domain status that has to be proved by the uploader, not the reverse by anyone else. The rule says images that are not free from any rights may not be put in Commons, if this work of art be free of copyright, the fact of having been built in 2008 by a living architect notwithstanding, please make it clear by giving appropriate documentation. I think this is very simple.
- As for the sketchy situation, sketches are expressely included in the "opere dell'ingegno" of architecture, protected by copyright laws in Italy. Therefore the argument "de minimis" do not apply. --User:G.dallorto (talk) 22:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- Ops, I forgot, Yes indeed, all pictures of Grattacielo Pirelli and other works of architecture built after WWII in Italy were in fact removed from Commons quite for the reason you state. You may think the law is idiot, which I think too, yet this is the law. Either you succed in changing it, or you have to comply with it. Sorry, I did not make the law myself. --User:G.dallorto (talk) 22:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per COM:FOP ~/w /Talk 13:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This photo is not an official document of the government, so it is not PD-RU-Exempt russavia (talk) 16:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. ~/w /Talk 13:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that Swordfish2008 can give this permission. MichaelFrey (talk) 20:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
see also;
- Image:Quality-Label-Swiss-Tourism Level3.jpg
- Image:Quality-Label-Swiss-Tourism Level2.jpg
- Image:Quality-Label-Swiss-Tourism Level1.jpg
Deleted per discussion. ~/w /Talk 13:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
it contains an error Milenas (talk) 21:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- You can upload a new version to the same image page. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Kept. It can be fixed, there is no need to delete. --Tryphon (talk) 09:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Images of Spainton
[edit]- File:Mckenziejacket.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Luvlymckenzieshoes.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:MckenziewrtoeshoesSCOTLAND.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Soleofmckenziel.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Coloured Crest sm12.gif (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Scotlandarmsold6l.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log) → [2]
![[2]](http://i32.tinypic.com/900dpk.jpg){kind=link}
I suspect that User:Spainton's uploads are all copyvios as all the other uploads by the user have been copyvios and the images listed in no way look to be work by the user and most likely have been copied off websites (which I'm not going to so searching for them). Bidgee (talk) 12:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- if there in description field only E, nobody else can know what this picture are, please delete--Motopark (talk) 13:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- I found Image:Luvlymckenzieshoes.jpg here [3]. The other pictures surely come from some shopping site too. --Tryphon (talk) 16:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Tryphon (talk) 22:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Images of Iurii.Fedyshyn
[edit]- File:Radiophysics6.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Radiophysics5.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Radiophysics1.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Radiophysics2.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Radiophysics3.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Захист.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:RFF.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Панорама РФФ .JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
These pictures should be deleted for the following reasons:
- They are licensed {{PD-art}}, which is obviously wrong;
- They were supposedly transferred from en.wikipedia.org, but the original uploader does not exist and I can't find a trace of the original uploads; hence the source of these pictures cannot be established;
- The author is always Noname, which makes it impossible to know if he/she released these pictures under a free license.
These two are not claimed to come from wikipedia.org but are duplicates of Image:Захист.jpg and Image:Панорама РФФ .JPG respectively, and suffer from the same licensing issues:
- File:National Taras Shevchenko uiversity of Kyiv, Ukraine, faculty of radiophysics; Київський національний університет імені Тараса Шевченка, радіофізичний факультет .jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Панорама РФФ.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Eventually, Category:National Taras Shevchenko University of Kyiv which was created to hold these pictures should be removed too.
-Tryphon (talk) 15:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. ~/w /Talk 13:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, per Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Www.folketinget.dk, images from www.folketinget.dk or www.ft.dk are not under a sufficiently free license. Hemmingsen (talk) 09:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- I think the license is free enough. The restrictions are about things like Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Pauline Marois6.jpg, and that kind of derivative works (giving someone horse teeth and a moustache) gets deleted here. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- They allow neither derivative works nor commercial use of the unmodified originals. You may be right that only some derivate works are unacceptable to them, but the non-commercial clause is also a problem. Hemmingsen (talk) 09:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- They do not mean to restrict non-commercial use. These images are meant to be used by commercial publishers like newspapers to make money of. There is no copyright restriction on use for covers of glossy magazines, for T-shirts and for coffee-mugs. What the members of parliament do not want is their image and name to be used for the advertising of products, but I do not think that that is primarily a copyright restriction. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- Well, that may seem plausible, but it is speculative and more importantly contradicts their statements as quoted in the old deletion request. The phrasing they used ("må ikke gøres til genstand for selvstændig kommerciel udnyttelse", roughly "may not be subjected to separate commercial use") does not allow selling them on t-shirts and coffee-mugs. What can I say, but feel free to contact them and ask them to reconsider yet again, if you think they said something they didn't mean. Hemmingsen (talk) 11:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- They do not mean to restrict non-commercial use. These images are meant to be used by commercial publishers like newspapers to make money of. There is no copyright restriction on use for covers of glossy magazines, for T-shirts and for coffee-mugs. What the members of parliament do not want is their image and name to be used for the advertising of products, but I do not think that that is primarily a copyright restriction. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- They allow neither derivative works nor commercial use of the unmodified originals. You may be right that only some derivate works are unacceptable to them, but the non-commercial clause is also a problem. Hemmingsen (talk) 09:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Yann: Copyright violation