Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2009/01/07
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
Non unique name. Wiki en has an image of a different structure with the same name. This image subsequently uploaded as SacredHeartChurchDayton.jpg. Greg5030 (talk) 01:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Tagged as {{Duplicate}}. Pruneautalk 11:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Lycaon (talk) 22:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Source site has no indication image is PD Tabercil (talk) 01:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted no permission abf «Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?» 15:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
person and details viewable, new version of image available Bnow (talk) 01:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- new version of image available - where? --Túrelio (talk) 09:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- On my local harddisc. Should I upload it? If so: Under the same name or a different one? --Bnow (talk) 11:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- If it is already present, then the rfd will go through easier. Upload it under another filename, for example: 20061110 FueGK Muehldorf Stabsraum_2378.jpg or FueGK Muehldorf Stabsraum_2378.jpg . --Túrelio (talk) 11:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Done: File:20061110 FueGK Muehldorf Stabsraum DSCN2378 rel.jpg. Anything left I should do to delete the old one? --Bnow (talk) 14:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Well, in standard view of both images I couldn't see much difference, except the slight blurring of the face. If the appearance of this person is the main problem, why don't you cut him away completely? --Túrelio (talk) 15:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- The other problem here is some written information on the whiteboard (well, it's not _that_ important, but may be misused). I oversaw this, when taking the photograph and uploading it here. I'm uncomfortable with that and appreciate your support. Thank you! --Bnow (talk) 20:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Well, in standard view of both images I couldn't see much difference, except the slight blurring of the face. If the appearance of this person is the main problem, why don't you cut him away completely? --Túrelio (talk) 15:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Done: File:20061110 FueGK Muehldorf Stabsraum DSCN2378 rel.jpg. Anything left I should do to delete the old one? --Bnow (talk) 14:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- If it is already present, then the rfd will go through easier. Upload it under another filename, for example: 20061110 FueGK Muehldorf Stabsraum_2378.jpg or FueGK Muehldorf Stabsraum_2378.jpg . --Túrelio (talk) 11:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- On my local harddisc. Should I upload it? If so: Under the same name or a different one? --Bnow (talk) 11:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
* 07:30, 8 January 2009 Túrelio (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "File:20061110 FueGK Muehldorf Stabsraum DSCN2378.jpg" (User request: unused, possible privacy problems and replaced by File:20061110 FueGK Muehldorf Stabsraum DSCN2378 rel.jpg) (restore)
Probable copyvio - image claimed to be own work, but can be found elsewhere on TinEye. Tabercil (talk) 01:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?» 15:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
too much details viewable, new version available Bnow (talk) 01:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Uploaded the new version named File:20061110_FueGK_Muehldorf_Lagetafel_DSCN2380_rel.jpg. Anything left I should do to delete the old one (see discussion here)? --Bnow (talk) 14:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted 15:06, 7 January 2009 Túrelio (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "File:20061110 FueGK Muehldorf Lagetafel DSCN2380.JPG" (User request: possible privacy issues, unused, replaced by File:20061110 FueGK Muehldorf Lagetafel DSCN2380 rel.jpg) (restore) abf «Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?» 18:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Claimed to be own work, but more likely still from movie based on the image ratio Tabercil (talk) 01:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Speedy delete as copyvio: taken from [1]. Pruneautalk 11:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Speedy deleted, obvious copyright violation. -- Infrogmation (talk) 14:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
again - uploaded wrong file - so much sorry! :( Bnow (talk) 01:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted 09:00, 7 January 2009 Túrelio (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "File:20061110 FueGK Muehldorf Stabsraum DSCN2378 touched.jpg" (Duplicated file: unused dupe of File:20061110 FueGK Muehldorf Stabsraum DSCN2378.jpg) (restore) abf «Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?» 18:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Copyvio - taken from http://www.flickr.com/photos/arthurpenna/2282885030/ Tabercil (talk) 01:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
deleted, (also does not allow commercial use, so the licence could not be corrected)
best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 13:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Kept/ undeleted
- the user, states to be also the author on flickr and changed the licence on Flickr now and allows also commercial use.[2]
- --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 20:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted per Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Baddin. Flickr account added to Commons:Questionable Flickr images per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Badin55.gif. Lupo 20:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
This image is posted on a U.S. federal site. but it is not the work of any federal Bureau Tarawneh (talk) 02:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Not enough information on the website about source/author. Eusebius (talk) 09:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
This image is posted on a U.S. federal site. but it is not the work of any federal Bureau Tarawneh (talk) 02:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Not enough information on the website about source/author. Eusebius (talk) 09:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
This image is posted on a U.S. federal site. but it is not the work of any federal Bureau Tarawneh (talk) 02:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Not enough information on the website about source/author. Eusebius (talk) 09:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
- taken from ordfront.se
- imagelink: http://www.ordfront.se/upload/filer/f%C3%B6rfattarportr%C3%A4tt%20nedladdningsbara/mehmed-uzun_002.jpg
- webpagelink: http://www.ordfront.se/Bocker/Varaforfattare/MehmedUzun.aspx
--Hisef simlikis (talk) 05:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyright notice on the website. Eusebius (talk) 09:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
not sure if its copyrighted or not --Shpiglet (talk) 05:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Speedy delete as copyvio: taken from [3]. Pruneautalk 11:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, obvious copyviol -- Infrogmation (talk) 03:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Probably copyrighted. Miraceti (talk) 08:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Derivative of copyrighted logo. Compare to de:Datei:Houston Rockets.svg (the actual logo). ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 16:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Public domain This file is a Ukrainian or Soviet work and it is presently in the public domain in Ukraine. It was published before January 1, 1951, and the creator (if known) died before that date. This photo was taken ca. 2004. sугсго 08:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Image taken in 2004. PD-Ukraine does not apply. --Korman (talk) 04:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?» 15:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Too young for PD-Ukriane: en:Yakovlev Yak-24 was first build in 1952. sугсго 08:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Eusebius (talk) 09:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Derivative work? Eusebius (talk) 10:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Flickr all rights reserved. Lycaon (talk) 11:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Lycaon (talk) 11:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Derivative work? Eusebius (talk) 10:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Flickr all rights reserved. Lycaon (talk) 11:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Lycaon (talk) 11:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
License not applicable: picture from 1952, license tag says author must be dead since at least 1944. Eusebius (talk) 10:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Please read the license again: "For photographic pictures (fotografiska bilder), such as images of the press, the image is public domain if created before January 1, 1969 (transitional regulations 1994)".--Ankara 11:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC) U can read more here: Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-Sweden-photo
Keep per Ankara. Even though the source site says that one should obtain permission for anything else than school work. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Sorry, I didn't read the license properly. Eusebius (talk) 11:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Another penis (quality not so bad, though). Eusebius (talk) 11:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 11:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
i am the owner and i no longer wish it to be displayed. thank you. Chester1632 (talk) 20:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- Keep The image is used on the projects and free licenses are non-revocable. --Eusebius (talk) 21:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Owners decision. --Ricardo P. (talk) 03:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- Keep as eusebius; sorry, but no take-backs; you did upload it, & it's fair to use it Lx 121 (talk) 19:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep It is a good picture. it should stay.
Kept, free licences are irrevocable. Kameraad Pjotr 18:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Since Kyrgyzstan's FOP is not compatible with Commons licenses, copyright info on the statue must be fully detailed (artist, date?) in order to make the picture acceptable. Eusebius (talk) 11:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- I uploaded it, sorry I didn't check with the Kyrgyz FOP. I'm trying to find the info now – not very easy, but I'll give it a try! Please, give me a day or two before deletion ... --Gisle (talk) 13:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Sure, you'll be given a few days, don't worry (and even if you come back later with the right info, we can restore a deleted file). --Eusebius (talk) 13:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- I've only managed to find the year the statue was erected (1984), but not one word about the artist. Guess the picture should be deleted, don't think I'll spend more time searching now ... (Anyway, for those interested, pictures of the statue is very easily found on numerous travel blogs, news sites etc. etc.) --Gisle (talk) 00:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, then. By default, it is protected by copyright. Sorry! --Eusebius (talk) 07:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- I've only managed to find the year the statue was erected (1984), but not one word about the artist. Guess the picture should be deleted, don't think I'll spend more time searching now ... (Anyway, for those interested, pictures of the statue is very easily found on numerous travel blogs, news sites etc. etc.) --Gisle (talk) 00:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- Sure, you'll be given a few days, don't worry (and even if you come back later with the right info, we can restore a deleted file). --Eusebius (talk) 13:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?» 18:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Image seems to have been uploaded for advertisement purpose only. Eusebius (talk) 11:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Please delete. It's not longer needed for my article and obviously nobody else needs it. --Horst Rüdiger (talk) 12:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Eusebius (talk) 09:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
As the subject is Gustavo Siqueira, it is most probable that it was not him taking this image. So the author information is missing. ALE! ¿…? 12:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- As well? This image is mine, I´m using in my wikipedia´s userpage? Others users use their images too.sorry because my english is very bad . Gustavo siqueira2230 06:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- You might be the owner of the image but you are not the author of the image. So, you need the permission of the author to publish it under a free license. --ALE! ¿…? 23:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- I´m not undestand anything anymore. The author of the photo is my brother, whose taken the photo, I can not take my own photo. How I will get the authorization? It makes no sense. He lives whit me. He have just 13 years old. What I can do now? Gustavo Siqueira (talk) 04:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- I understand that I need present the author of the photos, but in this case the author is my brother, this image you find in my orkut, messenger, Cell phone, etc. Gustavo Siqueira (talk) 05:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- Well, legal stuff is not always easy. You need a written permission of the author and send it to OTRS. But, as the author, your brother, is under legal age you actually need the permission of your parents. This all might sound complicated and yes it is.
- But, in your case I would say that it is good enough to have your affirmation that your brother and your parents agree with the publication of this photo under a free license. (Please note: Your image can be used then by everybody for almost every purpose, this included commercials, etc. Although in the case of your photo this seems unlikely, it is still possible.) --ALE! ¿…? 20:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks, but now I changed my idea because I just use this image in my Userpage, I´m leave the Wikipedia. I´m not use this picture anymore. Sorry if I insist much.Now I want to erase this picture. Mucho obligado Ale, Usted me ayudo mucho, no sé como agradecer-lo. (now i Speak in two languages because this last sentence I can´t writ in english). Have a nice day. Gustavo Siqueira (talk) 05:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Per request of the uploader and subject of the picture. Eusebius (talk) 09:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
According to French laws, there is no FOP and pictures of buildings designed by alive or recently dead architects are not free. In this picture the pyramid designed by Ieoh Ming Pei (b. 1917) is clearly the main subject. So I think that it should be deleted. Pymouss Tchatcher - 13:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted 12:51, 11 January 2009 Esby (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "File:613551005 19b90e3b7d o.jpg" (Copyright violation) (restore) abf «Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?» 18:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Book cover that will almost certainly be the copyright of the publisher. There are also other book covers uploaded by the same user. Snowmanradio (talk) 14:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
No information on the author and very bad quality. --ALE! ¿…? 14:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep A young Roca (born 1843). The only problem is that no source was given for the claim that this belongs in Category:Julio Argentino Roca. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Source info on this image uploaded to Commons years ago is less than optimal, but that seems a moot point as AFAICT this mid 19th century image would be PD in any case. Person shown has articles in multiple Wikipedias, so inherently in scope. -- Infrogmation (talk) 03:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Kept. per discussion Abigor talk 19:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
useless as of extreme low resolution (130 × 97 Pixel) and as allegedly depicted subject cannot be recognized at all. Túrelio (talk) 14:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope, unused. Eusebius (talk) 09:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
no free licence http://caltechbook.library.caltech.edu/178/ Cwbm (commons) (talk) 15:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
-2009-01-07T15:23:00.000Z-File:Chemical_Principles,_Molecules_3.png){kind=link}
- "explicit written permission of the author" is likely true, but would probably need OTRS. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- I am the admin asst to a Professor at the University of Utah. The professor has personal permission from the editors of the book to post the book in its entirety on the web. Also, if you click on the link, it states "You are granted permission for individual, educational, research and non-commercial reproduction, distribution, display and performance of this work in any format." Let me know if you have more questions. Elo 1219 (talk) 22:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)Elo 1219
- As far as I understand the subject, there are two possibilities. Either these pictures are not copyright eligibile, than there is no problem. If they are eligibile than you have to grant permission to use them commercially. This is not the case. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 11:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- I am the admin asst to a Professor at the University of Utah. The professor has personal permission from the editors of the book to post the book in its entirety on the web. Also, if you click on the link, it states "You are granted permission for individual, educational, research and non-commercial reproduction, distribution, display and performance of this work in any format." Let me know if you have more questions. Elo 1219 (talk) 22:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)Elo 1219
Comment In the absence of fully & free licensing being confirmed by OTRS we would be unable to host this media - Delete I guess. --Herby talk thyme 12:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?» 15:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
no commercial use http://caltechbook.library.caltech.edu/178/ Cwbm (commons) (talk) 15:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
-2009-01-07T15:26:00.000Z-File:Chemical_Principles,_Fig_1.3.png){kind=link}
- "explicit written permission of the author" is likely true, but would probably need OTRS. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- I am the admin asst to a Professor at the University of Utah. The professor has personal permission from the editors of the book to post the book in its entirety on the web. Also, if you click on the link, it states "You are granted permission for individual, educational, research and non-commercial reproduction, distribution, display and performance of this work in any format." Let me know if you have more questions. Elo 1219 (talk) 22:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)elo 1219
- Comment In the absence of fully & free licensing being confirmed by OTRS we would be unable to host this media - Delete I guess. --Herby talk thyme 12:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment NPD template requesting permission info added to image. Please confirm permission from copyright holder via Commons:OTRS or image will be deleted. -- Infrogmation (talk) 03:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?» 15:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I have to look deeper into the licence issue Christobalhenner (talk) 15:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Fair use. Eusebius (talk) 09:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Drawing published around 1907, apparently, author unknown. Probably PD-old. Image has no source. Uploader has contested deletion based on absence of source. Eusebius (talk) 16:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete — without a proper source, we can't be sure. Stifle (talk) 09:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Is from aa reprint from 1912. But is from 1890s.User:haabet 19:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- Haabet's scanning source was a compendium of republished material which appeared in 1912 (not 1907), but based on the woman's sleeves and some other details, I would also suspect that the four-drawing sequence comes from the 1890's. By the way, why was this one separated out from the other three? I don't see any real reason to delete. Churchh (talk) 01:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- On the other hand, if the signature on the third drawing (which I just noticed) is that of en:Albert_Guillaume, then that would be a reason to delete (though Commons does have a work by Guillaume at File:Albert_Guillaume.jpg). --Churchh (talk) 01:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete all four. I expect you already know that it is his signature or you wouldn't have brought it up, in case of any doubt he has signed this[4] image from here[5] --Tony Wills (talk) 11:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- On the other hand, if the signature on the third drawing (which I just noticed) is that of en:Albert_Guillaume, then that would be a reason to delete (though Commons does have a work by Guillaume at File:Albert_Guillaume.jpg). --Churchh (talk) 01:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
![[4]](http://topfferiana.free.fr/wp-content/Guillaume-perfidies-telepho.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Albert Guillaume died in 1942, so {{PD-old}} does not apply. --Tryphon (talk) 20:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I believe this is outside our scope abf «Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?» 16:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 00:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
No description, quite possibly a copyvio -mattbuck (Talk) 17:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 00:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Is this really own work? Looks like some sort of cartoon character to me. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, in use on the Thai equivalent of en:TalesRunner. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
--- Deleted, copyright violation -- Infrogmation (talk) 04:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Copyrightet logo, not free --Laaknor (talk) 18:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Too simple to pass the threshold of originality, only text. Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 11:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Does this really not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection, I have my doubt Abigor talk 22:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- Originality depends on the country. In Germany, this was not protected by copyright. The Atea-logo is from Norway. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- I tend to Keep this one as it's indeed a very simple logo. →Na·gy 12:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- Atea has in no way endorsed usage of this logo on Commons. The legal status is not changed if it's kept. The fact that its on Commons does not widen the allowed use. ZorroIII (talk) 18:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- I tend to
I'm worried this could be a copyright violation of something Disney. It's clearly meant to be the Disney D and the mickey mouse logo, I'm just not sure whether those are actually copyrighted or PD-ineligible. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I have made this files to replace a copyrighted Disney logo, too much used in the French Wikipedia. Too made it, I've used free component:
- A three-circles shape is trivial
- The "D" letter is written with the free font Alako Bold. The Disney logo is made with a copyrighted font, and look likes clearly different.
- The castle silhouette is from a real castle, Neuschwanstein Castle, built in the 19th century. I guess it's free.
- So, I think it's not a copyright violation or a derivative work of Disney's thing. You can compare with the real logo: fr:Fichier:Logo disney-portail.svg, and see that they are not the same. Sémhur (talk) 19:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- I confirm that the work of semhur is only from free elements. For information, the Disney font is copyrighted, not Alako Bold, the three circle couldn't be copyrighted beacause it's composed from basic geometric shape and the castle is like written on the image page, a silhouette taken from a picture in public domain of the real castle of Neuschwanstein, already in public domain. So is for you copyrighted here... nothing. --GdGourou - °o° - Talk to me 22:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- I would add that the "real logo" (fr:Fichier:Logo disney-portail.svg) was a unofficial logo made by me but with copyrighted element. But in order to reduce the use of copyrighted things on wikipedia fr, we request the creation of a free "visual identity sign" for the Disney Portal, resulting in this image made by semhur. --GdGourou - °o° - Talk to me 10:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Appear OK from a purely copyright point of view, which is what we consider here. MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Scaled-down version of File:Stary oies.JPG —Bkell (talk) 18:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Lycaon (talk) 22:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
No FOP in Greece for sculptures. This is the same subject as the deleted image in Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Chania Monument of the Hand.jpg MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - No FOP - Abigor talk 18:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?» 15:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Out of Scope Abigor talk 18:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Agree WayneRay (talk) 20:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)WayneRay
Deleted. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Maybe the uploader can speak for the copyright holders, but I think it's (self-)promotion. Eusebius (talk) 19:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - Logo is fairuse - Permission should go to OTRS. Abigor talk 19:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Same for File:Raskal Arts Logo2.jpg Abigor talk 19:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?» 15:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Probably out of scope, missing source for the fox drawing (visibly not the same style as the rest...) Eusebius (talk) 19:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 00:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Promotional watermarking (proposed for deletion on this basis. Eusebius (talk) 19:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Clear copyvio. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
SVG version is on Wikimedia Commons, at commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:M0_autopalya.svg Miko101 (talk) 19:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Kept. No valid reason for deletion presented. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 00:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
SVG version exist, at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:M15_autopalya.svg Miko101 (talk) 19:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep SVG is no reason for deletion. ChristianBier (talk) 05:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Kept. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 00:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
no free licence, don't know about originality Cwbm (commons) (talk) 20:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
-2009-01-07T20:15:00.000Z-File:Chemical_Principles,_Fig_1-4.png){kind=link}
- I am the admin asst to a Professor at the University of Utah. The professor has personal permission from the editors of the book to post the book in its entirety on the web. Also, if you click on the link, it states "You are granted permission for individual, educational, research and non-commercial reproduction, distribution, display and performance of this work in any format." Let me know if you have more questions. Elo 1219 (talk) 22:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)elo_1219
- Comment In the absence of fully & free licensing being confirmed by OTRS we would be unable to host this media - Delete I guess. --Herby talk thyme 12:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep - If you click through to the site, there's a license which says what Elo 1219 said it does. At the book main page "Usage Policy: You are granted permission for individual, educational, research and non-commercial reproduction, distribution, display and performance of this work in any format." If that's not good enough, point Elo at the info-en mailing address and OTRS can clear this up. Please don't delete by default when there's good evidence that things like this are in fact openly licensed / freely released, that's process wonkery. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. License granted by the professor is unfortunately too restrictive. Licenses on Commons must allow derivative works, commercial and non-edu use. See here for details. Eusebius (talk) 10:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
definately no permission from the subject:( 83.20.83.120 20:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think we need the subject's permission, do we? — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 00:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment It's kind of hard to get permission from the subject. Abigor talk 19:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Photograph taken in 1968, so it is old, taken in a public place, impossible to get permission from the subject. Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 11:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
copyvio http://www.tranasydre.se/asby.htm Taxelson (talk) 20:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 00:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
copyvio http://www.tranasydre.se/adelov.htm Taxelson (talk) 21:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
copyvio http://www.tranasydre.se/torpa.htm Taxelson (talk) 21:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
copyvio http://www.tranasydre.se/saby.html Taxelson (talk) 21:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
copyvio http://www.tranasydre.se/linderas.htm Taxelson (talk) 21:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Derivate work. Obviously from a printed source probably not old enough and in any case not specified Taxelson (talk) 21:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Eusebius (talk) 10:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Bad resolution, blurry. SvonHalenbach (talk) 22:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Reasons stated by SvonHalenbach are not enought to delete. Evrik (talk) 21:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Per Evrik. --Tryphon (talk) 21:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- The quality of the available SVG-version is high enough
- The name of the first uploader is not needed for the the licence of the SVG, because this PNG is public domain.
- No use of this PNG anywhere.
Cäsium137 (talk) 22:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Superseded, but kept. Original PNG still has value and a proper license. Eusebius (talk) 10:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
The image is unsourced, at least the image with the USB-port and the woman ear is a famous inage from the web and probably used here without the authors permission. The long text is spam according to our project scope, it should be reduced to a good description of the image, Martin H. (talk) 23:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete As far as I understand Bulgarian, description is long composition on political subject irrelevant to Commons. It doesn't list sources of images. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted Per discussion. By the way: The image looks a bit like a promotional image for me... abf «Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?» 15:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Commons:Project_scope#Censorship says:
- The counterpoint to that is that the statement “Commons is not censored” is not a valid argument for keeping a file that falls outside the permitted Commons scope, as set out above. Photographs of nudity and male and female genitalia are sometimes uploaded for non-educational motives, and such images are not exempt from the requirement to comply with the rules on scope. Often (but not always) such images add nothing educationally distinct to the stock of such images we hold already, and hence fail the test of being realistically useful for an educational purpose.
This seems to be the case here. The picture is described as "Girls with Christina piercing", but the small shiny dots apparently don't work as an illustration (compare with others from Category:Female_genital_piercings). (The dispayed persons might also be underage. Maybe a pediatrician could make an educated guess.) --Kurt Jansson (talk) 22:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Strong Keep: I don't agree with any of your points. About redundancy/scope-argument: this is the only picture on Commons which displays women wearing a Christina piercing in more than just detail. An good quality image of three women, standing upright, that gives you a nice impression of how the piercing looks like. That's why it is in use multiple times. And about that underage thing: in pretty much every western nation it's very very hard to find someone who does genital piercings on underage persons which makes it very very unlikely for these girls to be underage. I don't see what an pediatrician could ad to that. --Lamilli (talk) 19:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- "gives you a nice impression of how the piercing looks like" — I'd say that's exactly what the picture doesn't achieve.
- My position on the underage issue: in case of doubt - delete. --Kurt Jansson (talk) 15:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- Doesn't that mean that you had to delete every picture at Commons that displays nudity or genitalia? How could you ever be sure? And in this case it is even highly unlikely (for the given reasons).--Lamilli (talk) 21:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- If you are so sure that the displayed persons are not underage, why did you use the phrase "Mädchen mit Christina-Piercing" when you inserted the picture into the German Wikipedia article about piercings? In an encyclopedic context you don't call a person of full age "Mädchen". --Kurt Jansson (talk) 18:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- DeleteIf in doubt of under age, you can easily be shure if there is a written permission. Otherwise: Delete all this stuff. -- smial (talk) 00:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete See the reasons stated above --KS aus F (talk) 00:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete with Kurt Jansson --Martina Nolte (talk) 02:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep per Lamilli; in use! /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep There is no doubt, people on the picture are over 18.--Rockzilla (talk) 13:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- Of course there is doubt, just read the comments. You as uploader could dispel them, but you don't. Anyway, that's not my main point. The image is a perfect example for a "file that falls outside the permitted Commons scope" as cited above. --Kurt Jansson (talk) 18:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
BTW, this deletion request was started more than 20 days ago. Why did it remain unsolved and enter a "new round"? --Kurt Jansson (talk) 19:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete see reasons above. --Eva K. is evil 21:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Good quality image. Person is not identify. No reason for deletion.--Avril1975 (talk) 22:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment C'mon Kurt, your main point isn't Commons scope, it's about nudity, isn't it? Would you worry in the same way if the picture would display a pierced ear, nose, belly button etc.? Would you come up with all that "underage" stuff? Would you mind the scope? What's the matter with the scope? The picture is the only one on commons that show what it shows - and it's in use therefore. What else do you need. This is a nudophobia campaign like we had it before (Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Barbara Clit.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Lauren Nipple by Tommy T.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Lizas Labiaplastie.jpg) Again: if you don't like naked people, don't look at them. Stop posting weird deletion requests. This pic is not porn, the people are not underage and the picture is used!!!!!!!!--Lamilli (talk) 10:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Lamilli. Vielleicht hast du die Löschbegründung auf englisch nicht verstanden: minors = minderjährige (hier Mädchen). Du selbst hast sie beim Einbinden (samt automatischer Selbstsichtung) auch hier als solche erkannt und benannt und führst jetzt einen edit war, um das Bild drin zu behalten und "wird benutzt" zu schreien. Das Bild ist weder richtlinien- noch gesetzeskonform. Jetzt besser? --Martina Nolte (talk) 23:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Gut, meinetwegen auch in deutsch. Was soll ich hier nicht verstanden haben? Das es um vorgeschobene Minderjährigkeit geht oder was? Ich hab in Folge dargelegt, warum es für mich abwegig ist, dass die Personen minderjährig sind (einfach weil niemand bei Minderjährigen Intimpiercings durchführt). Und überhaupt: wie kommt der Antragsteller drauf, dass sie dies sein könnten? Er hat bisher noch keinen Grund geliefert, anscheinend geht es ihm auch nicht wirklich darum (“Anyway, that's not my main point”). Und dann: ich führe einen Editwar? Vielleicht. Angefangen hab ich ihn sicher nicht. Es ist nicht Richtlinien und Gesetzeskonform? Welche Richtlinie, welches Gesetz??? Selbst wenn die Personen minderjährig wären (und das Wort „Mädchen“ implizert, für mich zumindest, keine Minderjährigkeit) - was ich jedoch aus besagten Gründen ausschließe - welches Gesetz wäre verletzt? Handelt es sich um Pornografie? Wohl kaum. In jeder Bravo hast du Nacktbilder von unter 18-Jährigen, über welches Gesetz redest also du?--Lamilli (talk) 01:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- Lies doch bitte deine eigenen Einträge. Fotos von Minderjährigen haben ohne elterliche Freigabe in Wikimediaprojekten nichts zu suchen. --Martina Nolte (talk) 08:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- en:Please read your own contributes. Pictures of minors without parental release have no place on Wikimedia projects.--Martina Nolte (talk) 12:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- Es mag vielleicht erlaubt sein, Piercings in dem Bereich auch bei Jüngeren zu stechen, üblich ist es definitiv nicht. Es ändert nichts am Gesagten: 1) es ist wesentlich wahrscheinlicher, das sie über statt unter 18 Jahren als sind. Sogar laut Urheber-aussage sind sie dies. 2) Selbst wenn sie das nicht wären: gegen welches Gesetz würde verstoßen. Es handelt sich hier nicht um Pornografie, so das die Frage der Minderjährigkeit eigentlich gegenstandslos ist.--Lamilli (talk) 20:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- First of all, the sentence “Pictures of minors without parental release have no place on Wikimedia projects” was never said or written by me. I would maybe agree if we were talking about minors as identifiable people, but here we have a picture of body parts. And then again: why are we talking about minors??? There is not even an indication that they are minors and certainly no proof.--Lamilli (talk) 20:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- ?? Your contribution on which I refered was a referenced edit on de-WP that Christina piercing was banned for under 16s, so that your former argument the Christina piercing would in itself be a proof for their majority is highly contractory. The uploader worte: Girls. Being the photographer he should easily be able to initiate a release. One of them is identifiable by her tatoo. --Martina Nolte (talk) 21:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- First of all, the sentence “Pictures of minors without parental release have no place on Wikimedia projects” was never said or written by me. I would maybe agree if we were talking about minors as identifiable people, but here we have a picture of body parts. And then again: why are we talking about minors??? There is not even an indication that they are minors and certainly no proof.--Lamilli (talk) 20:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- Gut, meinetwegen auch in deutsch. Was soll ich hier nicht verstanden haben? Das es um vorgeschobene Minderjährigkeit geht oder was? Ich hab in Folge dargelegt, warum es für mich abwegig ist, dass die Personen minderjährig sind (einfach weil niemand bei Minderjährigen Intimpiercings durchführt). Und überhaupt: wie kommt der Antragsteller drauf, dass sie dies sein könnten? Er hat bisher noch keinen Grund geliefert, anscheinend geht es ihm auch nicht wirklich darum (“Anyway, that's not my main point”). Und dann: ich führe einen Editwar? Vielleicht. Angefangen hab ich ihn sicher nicht. Es ist nicht Richtlinien und Gesetzeskonform? Welche Richtlinie, welches Gesetz??? Selbst wenn die Personen minderjährig wären (und das Wort „Mädchen“ implizert, für mich zumindest, keine Minderjährigkeit) - was ich jedoch aus besagten Gründen ausschließe - welches Gesetz wäre verletzt? Handelt es sich um Pornografie? Wohl kaum. In jeder Bravo hast du Nacktbilder von unter 18-Jährigen, über welches Gesetz redest also du?--Lamilli (talk) 01:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- Lamilli. Vielleicht hast du die Löschbegründung auf englisch nicht verstanden: minors = minderjährige (hier Mädchen). Du selbst hast sie beim Einbinden (samt automatischer Selbstsichtung) auch hier als solche erkannt und benannt und führst jetzt einen edit war, um das Bild drin zu behalten und "wird benutzt" zu schreien. Das Bild ist weder richtlinien- noch gesetzeskonform. Jetzt besser? --Martina Nolte (talk) 23:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Comment Is out there any admin willing to decide this request? --Martina Nolte (talk) 12:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep good fashion picture to illustrate the christina piercing. ---Nicor (talk) 17:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Good picture, no porn, unable to identify subjects. No proof of underage --> no reason for deletion.--Buster Baxter (talk) 18:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Delete Former usage due to Lamilli spamming the picture crosswiki, I'm not convinced that an encyclopaedic use is possible. Where is the model release? And again: bad bad canvassing on dewiki Achates (talk) 20:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Now if this is "bad canvassing", how would you call that. I'd add a couple "bad". Where the model release is? Since when do you need one for body parts??? And you're “not convinced that an encyclopaedic use is possible”? It was possible for quite a while until you deleted it here. and there and even here. But if any encyclopaedic usage is considered “spamming” by you....I don't see how you could be convinced by facts.--Lamilli (talk) 11:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
- Keep We need more pictures that show genital piercings how they actually look. Rather than the typical widespread close-up, you can actually see, in proportion, how it looks in real life. It is illegal to pierce in the US on anyone under the age of 18 (without a guardian being present), & I highly doubt that a father/mother would take their daughter to get a genital piercing. Should we go around deleting every image of genitalia stating that there is no "proof" the people photographed are adults? As many have stated above, there is no reason for deletion. hmwithτ 17:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Good picture, no porn, unable to identify subjects. No proof of underage --> no reason for deletion. --Phyrexian (talk) 22:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- Keep no reason to delete it 71.145.154.10 04:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Kept, per the above discussion. Two points were raised in this DR: out of scope and underage. The first one is easily dismissed by the fact that the image is legitimately in use. The second one is trickier, but on the account that the subjects are unidentifiable and the argument that this kind of piercing would be very hard to get for an underaged girl, unsubstantiated suspicion is not enough to justify deletion. –Tryphon☂ 23:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm the author. It's not needed any longer and no other page uses it.
- was an incomplete request by User:Horst Rüdiger. -- Lychee (talk) 07:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
- Keep No valid reason for deletion stated. --Tony Wills (talk) 10:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- This image is still {{OTRS pending}}. Any news about that? If not, we should delete it, because it's probably just above the threshold of originality. --Tryphon (talk) 20:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, no permission in OTRS. Ciell (talk) 08:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
This COA does not look like own work. In addition it is most likely that the original image is still copyrighted. ALE! ¿…? 12:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 13:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
The original image is probably still copyrighted. So this is a {{Derivative}} of a copyrighted image. ALE! ¿…? 12:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 13:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Info on the source website says that picture is PD, but without the info that would allow that conclusion. Eusebius (talk) 18:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Why a request for deletion? There has already been a „no source tag“. And there is no proper source, since any information on the author is missing. --Polarlys (talk) 19:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Published before 1940. Public domain. The uploader has given reasonable source information on it. --Leoboudv (talk) 09:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- We don't know anything about publication (but if the painting was published in UK before 1939, then I guess {{PD-UK-unknown}} could apply, provided picture is not an engraving, which I doubt). --Eusebius (talk) 09:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. The source website says PD, but that is not to be relied on. The site seems to be a personal endeavour and does not give the impression hat the owner is a copyright expert. Under UK law this is very likely still to be in copyright, and any suggestion that the artist is unknown can only be determined once we can see the back of the card. The fact that the front does not give a name is not enough. MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
COM:DW. sугсго 10:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep (Note: I am the photographer and uploader). Again, photo showing float in Mardi Gras parade; there has been discussion on this issue with differing opinions. "Derivative" claim in such circumstances is hypothetical only, with no evidence yet presented that this is any problem in law or practice. I point to the over 130 years of publications of photographs of New Orleans Carnival floats in books, periodicals, postcards, calendars, etc-- the copyright is always attributed to the photographer &/or publisher, not to float builder &/or parading organization. -- Infrogmation (talk) 13:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, our metric is not what is legal but rather what our policies allow. I could be mistaken, but I believe that the following facts are all true: a creative work is automatically considered copyrighted in the United States from the moment of creation; this float represents a creative work; this float is not known to be released under a free license; a photograph of the float is derivative of the float itself, by definition. Therefore, regardless of whether we could legally use this photo, our policies require us to consider it as derivative and thus not allowed. Powers (talk) 23:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- Our policies, as I understand them, have the intent to prevent copyright violations and respect creator rights and so assure that media tagged with free license may actually be used under those free licenses. I support that. Whether or not one might make a plausible hypothetical arguement that photos of Carnival parade floats should be considred derivative copyright violations, no evidence has been presented that this has ever been considered to be the case in law or practice; more importantly a vast amount of published material clearly demonstrates the contrary. Our policies are not intended to create new hypothetical types of copyright violations. -- Infrogmation (talk) 15:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- Nonetheless, my point remains: that our policies are as stated and preclude derivative works of copyrightable objects without explicit release. If you wish to have the policies modified to allow such use when prosecution is unlikely, I suggest initiating a discussion in a more visible location. Powers (talk) 21:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comments. To be clear, however, I am not arguing for a change of policies. I don't think I need to here. Commons recognizes law and long standing practice. There are other examples I'm sure some lay user on Commons could make a hypothetical arguement should be considered derivitive copyright violations, like photos of automobiles or people's clothing on public streets, but long standing practice demonstrates it is not a legal nor ethical problem. -- Infrogmation (talk) 14:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- There are reasons for both that do not apply in this case. In the case of automobiles, the design of the car is considered fundamentally inseparable from the function of the vehicle, and thus not copyrightable. In the case of t-shirts on the street, it's a de minimis situation, because the focus of the photograph is not on the image on the t-shirt. Here, the photograph's main purpose is to show the design of the float, which is separable from its function as a wheeled conveyance. Powers (talk) 20:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comments. To be clear, however, I am not arguing for a change of policies. I don't think I need to here. Commons recognizes law and long standing practice. There are other examples I'm sure some lay user on Commons could make a hypothetical arguement should be considered derivitive copyright violations, like photos of automobiles or people's clothing on public streets, but long standing practice demonstrates it is not a legal nor ethical problem. -- Infrogmation (talk) 14:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Nonetheless, my point remains: that our policies are as stated and preclude derivative works of copyrightable objects without explicit release. If you wish to have the policies modified to allow such use when prosecution is unlikely, I suggest initiating a discussion in a more visible location. Powers (talk) 21:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- Our policies, as I understand them, have the intent to prevent copyright violations and respect creator rights and so assure that media tagged with free license may actually be used under those free licenses. I support that. Whether or not one might make a plausible hypothetical arguement that photos of Carnival parade floats should be considred derivative copyright violations, no evidence has been presented that this has ever been considered to be the case in law or practice; more importantly a vast amount of published material clearly demonstrates the contrary. Our policies are not intended to create new hypothetical types of copyright violations. -- Infrogmation (talk) 15:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, our metric is not what is legal but rather what our policies allow. I could be mistaken, but I believe that the following facts are all true: a creative work is automatically considered copyrighted in the United States from the moment of creation; this float represents a creative work; this float is not known to be released under a free license; a photograph of the float is derivative of the float itself, by definition. Therefore, regardless of whether we could legally use this photo, our policies require us to consider it as derivative and thus not allowed. Powers (talk) 23:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, just to be clear on my position. Powers (talk) 12:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, derivative work. Kameraad Pjotr 19:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
