Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2008/12/18
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
out of COM:SCOPE; image of an unknown minor (born 1996 march 30 = 12 years), was used on deleted vanity page (Toykio Masi), since then unused, of little use and eventual PR problems Túrelio (talk) 07:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete Out of scope, privacy issues. --Eusebius (talk) 07:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
kuso, vandalism. see [1] --shizhao (talk) 07:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Used for vandalism, also copyvio. Herr Kriss (talk) 13:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Scope = Abigor (talk) 19:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 19:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
This image is an unlawful copy of the image at http://www.flickr.com/photos/88187767@N00/211688845/ . This is not the user's own work and the licensing is completely incorrect. Erebus555 (talk) 19:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Obvious copyvio from Flickr. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 20:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Out of project scope and likely a personality rights violation. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 19:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Portrait taken by the "BCCL Photo" agency, not the uploader's work. Eusebius (talk) 07:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- NB Only upload of the user. --Eusebius (talk) 07:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
igrejadebomjesusdalapa 201.63.40.58 18:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Adambro (talk) 10:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
This picture is only here to flame against de:Benutzer:Weissbier whith whom Niabot has a permanent conflict. No encyclopedia usage possible. --92.78.79.73 13:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- I don´t see any permanent conflict. It is more an image to be proud of, since he keeps Wikipedia clean from useless articles. Maybe he goes sometimes overboard and is in some sort of rage. But this image is not intended to blame him or his work. You should see it as a medal of honor and acknowledgment. Maybe it was misunderstood. --Niabot (talk) 14:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Image was uploaded to further a personal conflict and has no encyclopedic content. --Jergen (talk) 08:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Picture is of no use for the goal to write an encyclopedia and is used for the sole purpose to escalate the conflict between de:Benutzer:Weissbier and de:Benutzer:Niabot --Eschenmoser (talk) 08:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete ein völlig unezyklopädisches Bild, dessen einziges Ziel es ist einen einzelnen Benutzer persönlich anzugreifen und in Misskredit zu bringen. Liesel (talk) 08:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Keep there are other pictures of less use than this one Wladyslaw (talk) 08:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)- Delete per nom. For the uninvolved observer the intention behind this picture is obvious. --Rosentod (talk) 10:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete in agreement with Jergen and Liesel. -- Ra'ike T C 10:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Deleted - Attack image, Multichill (talk) 11:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Appears to be a copy of http://ww.airliners.net/photo/Lithuania---Air/Alenia-C-27J-Spartan/1257776/M/ MilborneOne (talk) 20:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Likely copyright violation. Adambro (talk) 10:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 13:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
hey that's my schlong. delete this immediately!! ЈІМВО ШАГЕЅ (talk) 22:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Vandalism in the deletion requests? That's new for me... No reason to delete for me, apparently the only picture we have of an erect micropenis. --Eusebius (talk) 23:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Adambro (talk) 11:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
The display of the image on Wikimedia Commons violates Commons:Photographs of identifiable people in that the presentation is likely to be in violation of personality rights in the country of origin. While Wikimedia Commons does not normally practice any preemptive deletion of such images, this practice does not apply to this case as we were notified by the subject of the image that he does not comply with any public display (ticket:2012082210003776 ). Note that due to the fact that the image undeniably contains intimate imagery this complaint is valid regardless of his identifiability, c.f. BGH GRUR 1975, 561, 563, as well as a number of commentaries on personality rights, see, inter alia, Dreier in Dreier/Schulze, 3rd ed. 2008, § 22 KUG (6). Also, the copyright status of the image is at least dubious, as the origin is not documented in a sufficient manner. —Pill (talk) 15:33, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Subject of the image requested deletion. DaB. (talk) 15:39, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Invalid license Óðinn (talk) 09:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Stated license clearly not applicable (would require the photograph to be published before 1951, that is 5 years before the subject was born). --Eusebius (talk) 09:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Merry Christmas! abf /talk to me/ 21:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
out of COM:SCOPE; personal image of little use for others; nothing of the famous hotel, mentioned in the description, can be seen. Túrelio (talk) 10:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Merry Christmas! abf /talk to me/ 21:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
out of COM:SCOPE; personal image in low resolution and little use for others. Túrelio (talk) 11:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Merry Christmas! abf /talk to me/ 21:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
because I don't manage to delete it myself! Freresdeshommes (talk) 13:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Original logo under CC-BY-NC-ND 2.0, thus not acceptable on Commons. --Eusebius (talk) 13:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Merry Christmas! abf /talk to me/ 21:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Commons:Derivative works Polarlys (talk) 14:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Merry Christmas! abf /talk to me/ 21:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Out of project scope. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 19:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. unused and I believe it never will be used ;) Merry Christmas! abf /talk to me/ 21:10, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
A vastly inferior reproduction of the document in file:LetterGuyugToInnocence.jpg, with lower resolution and bad colors. Unused. Latebird (talk) 01:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, could have been speedily deleted. --Blurpeace (talk) 00:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
A vastly inferior reproduction of the document in file:YuanEmpressAlbumChabi.jpg, flipped horizontally, with lower resolution and bad colors. Unused. Latebird (talk) 07:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:04, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
An inferior quality reproduction of the document in file:YuanEmpressAlbumChabi.jpg with lower resolution and bad colors. Unused. Latebird (talk) 07:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:05, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
I am the author of this file. I have uploaded an alternate working png version here Prashanthns (talk) 08:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:05, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
No use - except for advertisment 212.202.113.214 11:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Absence of use wouldn't be a reason for me, absence of license is one. I'd wait for the uploader to react to the copyright status tag, and then delete the picture after december 18th. --Eusebius (talk) 13:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. No licence. MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
derivative work, used in articles about Verne's book Herr Kriss (talk) 13:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- You mean the uploader hasn't taken the picture himself? Otherwise I don't see any problem. --Eusebius (talk) 13:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- No, i mean COM:DW. And it's a big problem, cause it's an official guideline. The point of that image is to show copyrighted advert, with a bus as a "background". That's same as photographing billboard and uploading in on free license. You just can't do that. Herr Kriss (talk) 15:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- I first thought that FOP could apply, but you're right, graphic works are explicitly excluded in British legislation. I think it could have been less clear for another country. --Eusebius (talk) 15:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- No, i mean COM:DW. And it's a big problem, cause it's an official guideline. The point of that image is to show copyrighted advert, with a bus as a "background". That's same as photographing billboard and uploading in on free license. You just can't do that. Herr Kriss (talk) 15:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete Title alone shows this to be at least as much a picture of the poster as of the bus. Derivative work of modern copyrighted poster. UK FOP does not apply. --Simonxag (talk) 11:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:08, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
File uploaded under wrong name, duplicate exists at File:Natternbach_im_Bezirk_GR.png Joschi Täubler (talk) 13:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Exact duplicate. You could have used {{badname|File:Natternbach_im_Bezirk_GR.png}} to request a speedy deletion. --Eusebius (talk) 13:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:08, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
No information about the sculptor and the rights attached to the bust (which are very unlikely to have expired). Eusebius (talk) 14:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:09, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
file uploaded under wrong name, duplicate exists at File:Oberschlierbach_im_Bezirk_KI.png Joschi Täubler (talk) 16:04, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:20, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
file uploaded under wrong name, duplicate exists at File:Schlierbach_im_Bezirk_KI.png Joschi Täubler (talk) 16:04, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:20, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
De foto Borg Rusthoven geplaatst door Anad is zonder toestemming van de maker geplaatst. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Henkdew (talk • contribs) 14:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Translation: "The photo Burg Rusthoven was uploaded by Anad without permission from the author."
Nominator wrote on discussion page:
- foto is van Henk de Wilde en zonder toestemming geplaast --Henkdew (talk) 13:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
I conclude Delete. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- And I found the original at http://home.hetnet.nl/~dewilde7/borgrusthoven.html /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:21, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Unusable (and not used currently): Very low resolution, text in image. Several better images available in Category:Lake Biel. --Leyo 21:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:28, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
The posted image is a copyright violation. The ticket number cited in the OTRS ticket does not cover the image posted. --Evrik (talk) 14:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete The OTRS ticket covers the identical image in png format, namely File:Michael Nutter.png. But the OTRS ticket says that the image is "used with permission from the Michael Nutter for Mayor Campaign" which is not clear enough to act as a free licence or a PD release. I have nominated the png image for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Michael Nutter.png. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:16, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- I have a release for the .png version at Ticket:2008123010020376. It doesn't extend to the .jpg version, although one could make an argument that the transformation from .png to .jpg does not attract a new copyright. I'm not getting into that one though. Stifle (talk) 09:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Kept. The images are identical so there can be no new copyright. Not sure whether we need both images, but I will leave that for others. MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
May also should get deleted:
fan art D-Kuru (talk) 12:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep The arts done by the known artist. A kind of transformation which is noting unknown in arts. Electron (talk) 12:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep No this is not fan art. Of course this is inspired by Mickey and Donald characters but this is a real creation, with original aesthetics. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 05:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Neutral - I'd say keep, but I am worried that this counts as a derivative work. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:47, 20 December 2008 (UTC)- Delete The characters Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck are copyrighted. The images are clearly of these characters; they are not of a person or thing with the character present incidentally (such as a child wearing a Mickey Mouse teeshirt): that makes these pictures copyright violations. There might be a fair use defense, but we don't accept fair use on the Commons. It is on this basis alone that we reject (what is poorly named) "fan art": the status of the artist is irrelevant in this case. --Simonxag (talk) 11:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
- OK. If there is no matter the status of the artist what would you say about this example and meny others works of the Andy. Merry X-mas :) Electron (talk) 12:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
.jpeg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpeg){kind=link}
.jpeg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
- Or try File:Campbells.jpg. I don't believe these soup tins qualify for copyright, so Warhol was OK. (The photo of the Warhol painting is probably a copyright violation though, if it was taken in the US where there is no FOP). Klashorst may have obtained a license from Disney, though what that license might allow is unknown. Happy Chanukah / Xmas / Yule. --Simonxag (talk) 16:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - this is a representation of a copyrighted character. Klashorst does not have rights to grant Disney copyright. ++Lar: t/c 20:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
The subject of the photo and of the article itself has requested that this photo be deleted and a new one be used and can be verified here: http://www.patrickrothfuss.com/blog/2008_12_01_archive.html Afloridescape (talk) 10:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- a new one be used, but is there a new/better one? If not, could the nominator contact Rothfuss to provide a new one (under a free license, of course)? --Túrelio (talk) 11:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. New one uploaded File:Rothfuss.jpg. -- Avi (talk) 04:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Images of International Paper
[edit]- File:IP_logo_blue.gif (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:International_paper_hq2.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:International_paper_hq.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
I think that all of the images Punkish1 uploaded are copyvios. One of the three images is a logo for International Paper; while it is simple, I don't think it's simple enough to be non-copyrightable. The "hq2" image says "Courtesy International Paper" in the corner, suggesting it was lifted from a news website. Also, suspiciously, all three images were never categorized, are sized for website use, and are the only images this user has ever uploaded. - Gump Stump (talk) 03:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Out of Scope, possible copyvio Abigor (talk) 17:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Scope, possible copyvio Abigor (talk) 17:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. by Herbytheyme Merry Christmas! abf /talk to me/ 21:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Hoocares's images
[edit]Hoocares j.r. has uploaded a number of images to the Commons; I am nominating all but two of them for deletion. The following images are horribly retouched and unsuitable for an encyclopedia:
- File:IDog sega blue.JPG
- File:IDog sega.JPG
- File:IDog hasbro.JPG
- File:IDog hasbro black.JPG
- File:IDog hasbro black spots.JPG
- File:IDog hasbro LED spots.JPG
- File:IDog mini hasbro Rock.JPG
- File:IDog mini hasbro Rock.JPG
In addition, the user has uploaded three other images as {{PD-self}}, originally uploaded to English Wikipedia by other users. I have fixed the copyright tag for two of them, and am nominating the following one for deletion because it was originally uploaded with a fair use claim:
For the same reason, the copyright status of the other images is also suspect. (The user also uploaded a number of images to Wikipedia, marking them as {{wikipedia-screenshot}}; I have deleted all but one of them, for the same reason (horrible retouching and possible copyright violation).
Mike Rosoft (talk) 20:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Both of scope, and likely copyvios. I put a speedy tag on File:Idog blue.jpg since it is a copyvio of an image on this page. Also, File:Idog RED.jpg (which you didn't list) is an out-of-scope version of File:Idog.jpg, which has been on commons for years. File:IDog hasbro black.JPG is a copyvio of an image on this page. Another is from this page, another from this one. The last one is from here. One of the sega ones is from here. So, speedy delete as copyvios. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:28, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, I am adding File:Idog RED.jpg to this nomination. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 23:05, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:29, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
derivative work from astrid hofmeister's text, and the artistic green thingy made by the sprayer ? Just wondering, i ask for other commoners advices :) --Lilyu (talk) 00:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - speedy. Photograph of copyrighted text is not a copyrighted violation especially as it is out of context. Bastique demandez 00:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- just as a note: the text is not artistic, it's just an instruction from the director of the school not to spray walls, since it would be of great importance to have a pretty school to educate pupil. the reality (captured by my photo) is perhaps artwork, or bitter satire. But anyway, if you like to delete it, i do not really need it for an article, it was just the funny situation i found there which let me take a photo. ---jha- (talk) 00:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, text is ineligible for copyright, the image is also inside our scope refering to the ongoing debate on refurbishments of schools in germany. --Martin H. (talk) 06:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, has no encyclopedic or general usage. --Blurpeace (talk) 00:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- keep, ineligible for copyright --Isderion (talk) 13:56, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Out of project scope, even though a few projects use it. I cannot see the educational value in this. Also probably a violation of personality rights. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 20:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep If it's in use for education purposes then it's in scope. This seems to be the case. Adambro (talk) 10:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- It is in use, but I don't think it is in use according to policy. This is not an encyclopedic picture to illustrate an article about duct tape. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 14:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'll leave discussions about whether it is "encyclopedic" to the relevant projects. What I'm interested in is whether it is in use, which it is, and whether that use is for educational purposes rather than vandalism etc, and this is also the case in my opinion. Adambro (talk) 15:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- It is in use, but I don't think it is in use according to policy. This is not an encyclopedic picture to illustrate an article about duct tape. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 14:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
No proof that first US publication occurred pre 1923. This is a Swedish postcard from 1910s, nothing indicates it having been previously published in the US. Lokal_Profil 23:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep {{PD-Sweden}} /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- But of course the photo was not made by "Förlag Nordisk Konst Stockholm", but imported. Here is an American or British publication. Photographer Evans? Frederick Henry Evans, 1853-1943? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- PD-Sweden-photo wouldn't apply since this is a fotografiskt verk rather then a fotografisk bild. Anyway, the new link makes it celar it's not Swedish photo. Problem of pre. 1923 US publishing source remains though. /Lokal_Profil 00:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Cinema Chat seems to be a british publication according to [2]. /Lokal_Profil 00:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- PD-Sweden-photo wouldn't apply since this is a fotografiskt verk rather then a fotografisk bild. Anyway, the new link makes it celar it's not Swedish photo. Problem of pre. 1923 US publishing source remains though. /Lokal_Profil 00:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- But of course the photo was not made by "Förlag Nordisk Konst Stockholm", but imported. Here is an American or British publication. Photographer Evans? Frederick Henry Evans, 1853-1943? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 04:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Questionable Copyright. Near similar image seen on Flickr with a Copyright tag: http://www.flickr.com/photos/stef_install/234294223/ --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 21:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Without further evidence, I'd keep. The picture has apparently been uploaded from Commons to Flickr, not the contrary (at least if I rely on dates). I see no reason to question the uploader's good will. --Eusebius (talk) 22:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- On Commons, it's a PD. On flickr, it's a (c). So which one is correct? Or for that matter, was it PD first, or copyrighted first? --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 10:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- According to the dates, it was a PD first. The restriction of the rights occuring on Flickr afterwards, be it legitimate or not, has no impact on the Commons image. --Eusebius (talk) 10:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- On Commons, it's a PD. On flickr, it's a (c). So which one is correct? Or for that matter, was it PD first, or copyrighted first? --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 10:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Kept. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
No info about its license on the website. OsamaK 09:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Unclear licensing. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 16:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
