Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2009/02/06
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
I inadvertently ran four different files through Flickr Upload Bot with this file name. Since I had no idea which file would end up here, I re-ran all of these through the bot again with unique names. This file, therefore, is redundant. SchuminWeb (talk) 01:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. by Lycaon Yann (talk) 20:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Copyright violation: "[Do not publish without permission]" Martins, Tito (talk) 02:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Delete Even the image is CC-BY-SA the restriction by the autor makes it unusable for Commons --D-Kuru (talk) 15:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
KeepThe license on Flickr is free enough for Commons, the license also says that everybody can use it and the all the rest... The author of the image can ask you to ask for permission but the license is more important. When the license don't change I would say keep Abigor talk 21:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 21:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Out of project scope and unused anywhere. Uploader's only contribution. This is not Facebook. Doulos Christos (talk) 02:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope with no proper image description. --Leoboudv (talk) 05:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of COM:SCOPE. Yann (talk) 20:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Image source indicates that the image is actually taken from a journal/publication named "Magnet", and even if copyright were held by the Berkeley Lab, this would not constitute a work of the US Government. Mark (talk) 03:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- Keep http://www.lbl.gov belongs to the Department of Energy. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Just because the image is hosted on a government site doesn't make all the content free. See [1] where copyright is claimed unless explicitly stated otherwise. Sourced to Magnet journal likewise implies copyright. Madcoverboy (talk) 18:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- The source seems to indicate that the 10.4 MB digital file was scanned from the negative in the LBL photolab (click "more tags"), and I would assume that "Magnet" was an LBL publication. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete The source of this image, [2], has a policy on its use: [3]. That policy says commercial use is strictly prohibited, so we can't use it. Also it bears noting that simply being published by the federal government (or one of its agencies) doesn't make it a work of the federal government. Much of the stuff the federal government publishes it doesn't actually own the copyright to (and so would be able to release it into the public domain). See Commons:Licensing#Works by the US Government. -Kotra (talk) 00:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 21:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
That image is credited here to Lockheed Martin. As far as I can see, it is not included in the CIA's released documents on the A-12, and is not part of their "Archangel" publication. Hence I'd really assume Lockheed Martin is the owner of the copyright. Thus not {{PD-USGov}}: contractor's works are not governmental works. Lupo 08:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- I agree, the image cannot be verifiably linked to Groom Lake or the US Air Force. Sephiroth storm (talk) 13:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 20:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
this is my photo . --192.85.47.11 09:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. User request. Personality rights. Yann (talk) 20:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Out of Project scope: dictionary definition of CPU Lupo 10:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- Also the other PDFs uploaded by Iván V3 (talk · contribs). BTW, I notice that a large percentage of the PDFs with text we get is in Spanish. Any clues as to why that would be? Why don't these people write wiktionary or wikipedia entries? Is there some Spanish text somewhere at es-WP or elsewhere (maybe Wikibooks?) that might suggest uploading texts as PDF here? Lupo 10:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- And also not the uploads of DeweyV3 (talk · contribs). What's going on? Lupo 16:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- User:Woscoy...
- And those of 6IV8 (talk · contribs). It's all some school project. Looks like they didn't understand at all what "writing a Wikipedia article" means, or they're abusing us as their file server. Lupo 18:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- Dante 99 (talk · contribs) is possibly related, but might also be from another school or another course. Lupo 18:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- Ameyalli Meneses (talk · contribs) They're posting their answers to some homework/exercises. Lupo 18:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- Deleted all above. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
- Eckō (talk · contribs), too. Lupo 22:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
* 16:40, 7 February 2009 EugeneZelenko (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "File:El CPU.pdf" (Out of project scope: Text document) (restore)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability and unclear copyrights status. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:06, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 16:13, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
The book was published not in the US but in UK. Author died after 1939, hence the book is not PD in UK. Eusebius (talk) 11:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 20:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't agree with the PD-textlogo here. Logo looks creative enough to be entitled to copyright. Eusebius (talk) 11:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- (Since your nomination, the uploader changed the license to {{Attribution}}). I agree with you, {{PD-textlogo}} can only apply to logos where the text is rendered in a standard fonts, which is not the case for this FM characters on this logo. Unless the uploader (Fm group) can prove that he has the authority to release this logo under a free license (through OTRS), we should delete it as copyvio. --Tryphon (talk) 16:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- Agree, reason for DR is now "no authorization". --Eusebius (talk) 17:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. - Anonymous DissidentTalk 13:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Originalquellenhinweis enthält keine Daten zum Autor, Bild scheint nicht selber erstellt. Conny (talk) 13:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete no sufficient source stated --High Contrast (talk) 23:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Missing essential source information. --Tryphon (talk) 10:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Duplikat Unterillertaler (talk) 13:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, appears to be a very low resolution duplicate of File:Carponiere 4 im März 2006.JPG. You can use {{Duplicate}} next time. --Tryphon (talk) 16:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Duplikat Unterillertaler (talk) 13:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, duplicate of File:Carponiere 4 im Juli 2008.JPG. --Tryphon (talk) 16:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Duplikat Unterillertaler (talk) 13:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, very low resolution duplicate of File:Carponiere 4 im Juni 2007.JPG. --Tryphon (talk) 16:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by D-Kuru: duplicate - now File:Carponiere 4 im Juni 2007.JPG
No OTRS-Ticket available, author denies release --Buteo (talk) 13:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. OTRS pending for 3 months now; can be undeleted if permission ever arrives. --Tryphon (talk) 10:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
No OTRS-Ticket available, author does not response --Buteo (talk) 13:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. No permission for more than 3 months. --Tryphon (talk) 10:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that 20minutos.es has the right to relicense this Reuters/Corbis image of Beyoncé performing "Irreplaceable" at the American Music Awards taken on November 21, 2006 by Mario Anzuoni as CC-BY. This image is not free. Lupo 14:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, not released under free license by copyright holder. -- Infrogmation (talk) 17:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that 20minutos.es has the right to relicense this Reuters/Corbis image of Mariah Carey performing "Don't Forget About Us" at the American Music Awards taken on November 22, 2005 by Lucy Nicholson as CC-BY. This image is not free. Lupo 14:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- Quite correct. The site's original content is cc-by, but the rights to reused news service photos that appear there are retained by the copyright holders. -- Infrogmation (talk) 17:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, not free licensed by copyright holder. -- Infrogmation (talk) 17:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
out of COM:SCOPE; personal photo without reasonable use for others. Túrelio (talk) 15:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Delete Promotional content. The uploader made a self-promotional article on es.wikipedia with this picture. Greetings. Rastrojo (D•ES) 16:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of COM:SCOPE. Yann (talk) 20:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Copyright: http://www.camvereadoresibiruba.rs.gov.br/leg2.htm# Yanguas (talk) 15:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per copyvio. --Leoboudv (talk) 01:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by D-Kuru: no information about anything
COM:PS, not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Unused on any project other than Commons. Kotra (talk) 15:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Comment The background for this deletion request is Commons talk:Photographs of identifiable people/Proposal#Level 0: Public place - Consent is not normally required. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)- Delete Paparazzi? Did this lady grant this? This does not disturb her dignity? --Starscream (talk) 16:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC) Comment The most important reproach: The title is not in English. The title is not completely correct. I translate: "The beach in city centre of Gdynia". --Starscream (talk) 16:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- Keep It is of a series of photos (see other deletion requests); lens focal length 25 mm, so no paparazzi; obviously posed. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- Even if true, this does not address my concern, which is that there is no realistic educational purpose for this image. -Kotra (talk) 17:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- The word "paparazzi" was irony. Look at Commons:Photographs of identifiable people --Starscream (talk) 22:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete The image is not in use and appears to have been taken for personal entertainment rather than educational purposes. Per COM:PS, it is not realistically useful for an educational purpose. The number of warnings on the uploader's page and the number of uploads that have been deleted already do not give me confidence that the user cares much about our aims or policies. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- This is clearly one of the better images on Plaża w Śródmieściu. It was not nominated because of scope, and this image is more likely to be used than the distant ducks, the distant ships or the distant bikini bums. Maybe this one could illustrate an article about the male gaze. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- Simply because other stuff exists doesn't mean this should. And speculating on my ulterior motives isn't productive, because the only reason I'm offering is that there's no educational purpose for this image. As for illustrating "the male gaze", the gaze itself isn't being illustrated, so I highly doubt its use there. -Kotra (talk) 21:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- This is clearly one of the better images on Plaża w Śródmieściu. It was not nominated because of scope, and this image is more likely to be used than the distant ducks, the distant ships or the distant bikini bums. Maybe this one could illustrate an article about the male gaze. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- even if she might have been aware of beeing photographed, i do not believe the subject had reason to expect the intrusion into her privacy was going as deep as this, nor that she had reason to expect this photo being published. Therefore, unless we get a permission to OTRS, i think we have to Delete per COM:PEOPLE. Same applies to the other two picures from this serie. --Rotkraut (talk) 20:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- Comment other images in category:Plaża w Śródmieściu (dzielnica Gdyni) also it is proper to verify. Similarly doubt to valuable. --Starscream (talk) 21:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
_von_Ralf_Sonnenberger.jpg){kind=link}
_-_023.JPG){kind=link}
_-_024.JPG){kind=link}
_-_022.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_von_Ralf_Sonnenberger.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_von_Ralf_Sonnenberger.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_von_Ralf_Sonnenberger.jpg){kind=link}
_von_Ralf_Sonnenberger.jpg){kind=link}
_-_023.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_023.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_-_023.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted. Out of COM:SCOPE. Yann (talk) 20:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
_-_023.JPG){kind=link}
_-_024.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_024.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
COM:PS, not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Unused on any project other than Commons. Kotra (talk) 15:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
_-_024.JPG){kind=link}
- Delete Paparazzi? Did this lady grant this? This does not disturb her dignity? --Starscream (talk) 16:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC) Comment The most important reproach: The title is not in English. The title is not completely correct. I translate: "The beach in city centre of Gdynia". --Starscream (talk) 16:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- Comment May some more files by the same author should be deleted. They're made of the same quality. --D-Kuru (talk) 15:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of COM:SCOPE. Yann (talk) 20:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
_-_024.JPG){kind=link}
_-_022.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_022.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
COM:PS, not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Unused on any project other than Commons. Kotra (talk) 15:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
_-_022.JPG){kind=link}
- Delete Paparazzi? Did this lady grant this? This does not disturb her dignity? --Starscream (talk) 16:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC) Comment The most important reproach: The title is not in English. The title is not completely correct. I translate: "The beach in city centre of Gdynia". --Starscream (talk) 16:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of COM:SCOPE. Yann (talk) 20:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
_-_022.JPG){kind=link}
ण is ɳ, न is n JackPotte (talk) 17:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Used. No valid reason for deletion. Yann (talk) 20:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
kiran 122.169.208.62 17:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- This one was uploaded 2004. The web archive of the Polish site has nothing before 2006. And what does "kiran" mean? What language? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- Cool, I didn't know how to do that! Looks like it's not a copyvio after all... I'm also curious about the word kiran; all I was able to find was an entry on http://www.thinkbabynames.com: The boy's name Kiran \k(i)-ran\ is pronounced keer-an. It is of Hindi and Sanskrit origin, and its meaning is "beam of light". But beam of light is not a valid reason for deletion :-) --Tryphon (talk) 19:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- This one was uploaded 2004. The web archive of the Polish site has nothing before 2006. And what does "kiran" mean? What language? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Yann (talk) 20:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Trade mark: http://band.com.br/home.asp Yanguas (talk) 17:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- Keep {{PD-shape}} /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Yes, this is why it has the {{Trademarked}} template on it. Stannered (talk) 20:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Yann (talk) 20:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused illustration, briefly illustrated (vanity?) en:Wikipedia article that was deleted [4]. --Infrogmation (talk) 17:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of COM:SCOPE. Yann (talk) 20:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
out of COM:SCOPE; blurry image of unknown person (image has no description), eventually also violating personality rights; of no use. Túrelio (talk) 19:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope. Also a fuzzy image. --Leoboudv (talk) 01:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
- Comment possibly userimage. The image is used on User:Thibaulcorrard. When I read the english translation of this page I thought that this Image and the Account was created out of hatred and should thereby be deleted/blocked. --D-Kuru (talk) 01:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of COM:SCOPE. Yann (talk) 20:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
the special ל is copyrighted by the Likud party. Hidro (talk) 21:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- could someone please add the file File:Likud Logo.svg to this requests. Hidro (talk) 21:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
If these image only shows hebrew letter it's either {{PD-ineligible}} or {{PD-textlogo}} --D-Kuru (talk) 13:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
- Keep – The logo complies with {{PD-textlogo}}. It shows standard Hebrew letters, and the modified part of the L (ל) is a “simple geometric shape”. — H92 (t · c · no) 14:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Kept. PD-textlogo. Yann (talk) 20:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Out of project scope: CV. Lupo 21:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. — Mike.lifeguard 19:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
No description, no source, not used, not even potentially useful IMO. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. No source. Yann (talk) 20:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
No description, and I don't see how this could realistically be used educationally. I'm also slightly suspicious that it might be an album cover. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. No source. Yann (talk) 20:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I upload that file instead of the right one that is now into wikimedia commons (File:RugbyBallItaly.png).
So this is a file that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject.
Monnezzaro (talk) 21:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Uploader's request, and a replacement is available. --Tryphon (talk) 10:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
out of COM:SCOPE; probably a school-mate joke, questionable consent of depicted. Túrelio (talk) 21:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - out of scope. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by D-Kuru: out of scope (unused)
Wookieepedia sources this identical image (Image:Lightsabers negwt.jpg) to the copyrighted work The New Essential Guide to Weapons and Technology. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 22:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by D-Kuru: copyvio from http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Image:Lightsabers_negwt.jpg
Out of project scope: dictionary definition of "Estuco", in Spanish. (Stucco in English) Lupo 22:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. — Mike.lifeguard 19:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Looks like a scan to me (one can see the printer's pattern). Tryphon (talk) 23:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- It's not a scan. I took this photo on December 3rd, 1999, after I obtained permission to take photos at the Pilar. Yes, it appears like a scan, but is my own photo. Cheeers. Adriano Lombardo (talk) 23:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC) Please, believe in my words
- Keep I notice Adriano has posted lots of pictures of cathedrals on Commons in his new account here. This must be an area of interest to him. Unless there is evidence of a clear-cut copy vio, I think it is preferable to give him the benefit of the doubt. We musn't bite promising new contributors. Secondly, a suggestion for Adriano: perhaps you should say that the photo was taken in December 1999, not 2006. It can be a bit misleading. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
- Comment You have made the correction to the date. good. PS: Adriano has said here he had a conventional non-digital camera between 1999 and 2007. This explains why there is no camera metadata. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 03:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Thanks for your big help, Leo. I want to upload photos of cathedrals from over the world. Today I've uploaded my photos from the Pilar, taken between 1999 and 2008. Other day I will upload photos from Notre Dame, Sagrada Familia, St Peter, etc. Cheeers. Adriano Lombardo (talk) 03:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Yann (talk) 20:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Definitely not own work. No reliable source, so copyright status is unclear. Tryphon (talk) 23:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- See also File:Once caldas1998.jpg and File:Ellobo.jpg. --Tryphon (talk) 23:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. — Mike.lifeguard 23:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Derivative work; this is a scan from an uncited source. Tryphon (talk) 23:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- See also File:Alexander Dobrunov2.jpg. --Tryphon (talk) 23:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. EugeneZelenko (talk) 20:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Unclear wherever it comes from 81.38.86.121 23:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- ya existe la página de consulta de borrado aquí. Esto es uno mas de los intentos del troll por fastidiarme, que no lo va a conseguir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MiguelAngel fotografo (talk • contribs) 00:34, 2009 February 7 (UTC)
Deleted by MichaelMaggs: Per Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:MartinAlonsoPinzon.jpg
not globally in the public domain. may be uploaded to en.wikipedia, but not in commons. --FordPrefect42 (talk) 09:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- could you please clarify on what basis you've determined that it's not "globally in the public domain". On the image upload page I've linked it to licensing information, which may not be perfect, so if you have something that is more conclusive it would be helpful to know what it is, especially as it may help determine the suitability of other images. Rossrs (talk) 14:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- Read the permissions statement on the page: “It is not in the public domain in the following countries that do not apply the rule of the shorter term for US works: Canada, China (excludes Hong Kong and Macao), Germany, Mexico, Switzerland, and other countries with individual treaties. See this page for further explanation.” To prevent copyviolating usage on projects like German, Chinese etc. wikipedias, it is best practice not to upload such a file to a global project like wikimedia, but rather directly to local wikipedias only, where it is public domain beyond doubt. --FordPrefect42 (talk) 17:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- While true that Valley of the Dolls is probably still copyrighted in countries that don't observe the rule of the shorter term, Commons policy is that a U.S.-created image only needs to be public domain in the U.S. --dave pape (talk) 18:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- Valley of the Dolls (the film) is still subject to copyright in the US. The Valley of the Dolls film trailer is not, so that's an important distinction. Thanks for clarifying your reasoning, FordPrefect42. I wasn't quite sure what you were basing this on. This tag is used on numerous Commons images, and so I thought you must have been referring to something that was specific to this image. I guess we'll have to leave it for further discussion, but Commons policy has allowed this tag to be used on numerous images. Rossrs (talk) 22:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Kept. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I am very very sorry, but this trailer has a small copyright notice (in the end, exactly at 3' 11". Copyright: 20th Century Fox,
see http://www.imdb.com/video/screenplay/vi1526072089/
Unfortunately the other template Copyright not renewed can't be used after 1964, or? So: Ciao, Sharon Mutter Erde 78.52.218.178 19:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- There comes a notice ”This video is not available in your country.” when I am trying to view the video. Someone other should try to view the video. --Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 21:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- The copyright notice is indeed there at 3'11". It reads:
- COPYRIGHT © MCMLXVII BY
- RED LION PRODUCTIONS INC.
- AND 20TH CENTURY FOX FILM CORPORATION
- To me, it is not clear wether it refers to the trailer or the film itself. There is also a notice on the youtube page itself: "Courtesy of: Screenplay, Inc.". Since the copyright status is so uncertain, my advice is still to delete this picture from commons and upload it directly to en.wikipedia.org. --FordPrefect42 (talk) 17:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- The copyright notice is indeed there at 3'11". It reads:
More evidence has come to light, I shall delete. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
This is the only upload by the contributor, and I don't believe it's own work. It's web-res, got a suspicious border, and looks like a professional photo to me. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Actually, contributor uploaded another image of same person, which should probably be added to this deletion request: File:Jean-Marie_d'Eysmond_de_Saint_Ange_.jpg It's clearly clipped from a larger photo, and not particularly high resolution. Neither is used since The FR Wikipedia article was deleted: "13 mars 2009 à 18:00 Theoliane (discuter | contributions) a supprimé « Jean-Marie d'Eysmond de Saint Ange » (Critères d'admissibilité non atteints)". Between that and the suspicious rights, delete both. --GRuban (talk) 13:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by MBisanz: Per Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Jean-Marie_d'Eysmond_de_Saint_Ange1.jpg
Unnecesary image 81.38.86.121 23:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- Comment No reason for deletion! However definitely the wrong licence!! --D-Kuru (talk) 01:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
- It is the wrong license. GFDL would work if it were properly credited (like, to MediaWiki and/or Wikimedia Commons). About it being unnecessary, COM:SCOPE considers it educational if it's being used in a Wikimedia project, which it is at Spanish Wikipedia. -kotra (talk) 23:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Keep and change license to GFDL. --GRuban (talk) 13:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm unable to see any image 88.12.252.237 11:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- Seems to be OK now. --Mbdortmund (talk) 20:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Kept, see no problem. Kameraad Pjotr 21:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Unnecessary image, most people knows how to specify the licenses 88.12.252.237 11:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- Seems to be used on a userpage to explain commons licenses. --Mbdortmund (talk) 20:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Kept, per Mbdortmund. Kameraad Pjotr 21:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Image appears to be scanned from a printed source (see moire pattern at full resolution), which contradicts claim of being self-made. Mark (talk) 05:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- Comment People scan old photos that they took from the 1960s and 1970's all the time like this File:Gene roddenberry 1976.jpg because there were No digital cameras at that time. In the Cap case above, however, the uploader is likely not the copyright holder and the image falls in a 'non-free fair use' category. It doesn't belong on Commons. --Leoboudv (talk) 07:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Fairly obvious copyright violation by scanning from printed material and subsequent misattribution. Madcoverboy (talk) 15:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, per Mark. Kameraad Pjotr 20:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
"Public access" doesn't mean "can be used for any purpose", but let's see what others think. FunkMonk (talk) 08:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- Gah. I suspect the text on the bottom of the source file, [5], would resolve this. But they made the text impossibly small, and... gray on a gray background?! Can anyone decipher it? -kotra (talk) 23:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I think it's the same text as the larger hippo pic on http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/whales/evolution_of_whales/ - "Based on National Geographic, Nov 2001, The Evolution of Whales, by ... Chadwick, Gould, and Clark, Common ancestry in mammals, Cetacean evolution ... 2006 Sharon Mooney". Does that resolve it for you? It doesn't for me. The page says "All images reconstructed from National Geographic, are public access, though source and appropriate credits must be left intact." Public access usually means "you can see it", though asking for credits implies permitting copying and even modification ... Ehh. And what does "based on" mean, anyway; does the copyright belong to Babinsky, or National Geographic? No opinion. :-( --GRuban (talk) 17:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for finding that... that text doesn't resolve it for me, either. I thought it would be copyright info. All we're left then with is "All images reconstructed from National Geographic, are public access, though source and appropriate credits must be left intact."[6] I think the issue here then is "public access" doesn't say anything about the ability to create derivative works. Since we require the ability to make derivative works, I'd say Delete just to be safe. -kotra (talk) 05:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- There are many other images uploaded from that site with the same rationale, should they be nominated individually, or listed here? FunkMonk (talk) 13:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- I would say add them here, unless additional, relevant copyright info are given on them (like OTRS tickets, explicit permission from the copyright holders, etc). -kotra (talk) 22:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- By searching here for "edwardtbabinski"[7], I found other images apparently created by this author, and it even appears that he or she, I'm not sure, has a Wikipedia user page: [8]. I'm not sure what to make of it and the talk page content... There seems to be other questionable stuff uploaded which is associated with the name, like this image, which is apparently adapted from an unfree stock photo: File:Manila hemp.jpg FunkMonk (talk) 12:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- I would say add them here, unless additional, relevant copyright info are given on them (like OTRS tickets, explicit permission from the copyright holders, etc). -kotra (talk) 22:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- There are many other images uploaded from that site with the same rationale, should they be nominated individually, or listed here? FunkMonk (talk) 13:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Ah. en:User:Edwardtbabinski claims to be Sharon Mooney, art student, and webmaster for http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/ and editor of the images in question (even has a self portrait here en:File:Sharon_mooney.gif!). Ms. Mooney seems to have left us in 2007, after a dispute about commercial links, and does not seem to be happy with us. I suspect Ms. Mooney did mean for her work to be reusable originally, but I'm not sure if she has the right to do that, if they're based on a National Geographic article. --GRuban (talk) 16:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for finding that... that text doesn't resolve it for me, either. I thought it would be copyright info. All we're left then with is "All images reconstructed from National Geographic, are public access, though source and appropriate credits must be left intact."[6] I think the issue here then is "public access" doesn't say anything about the ability to create derivative works. Since we require the ability to make derivative works, I'd say
![[5]](http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/whales/evolution_of_whales/durodon.gif){kind=link}
Deleted per FunkMonk MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
The image description does not have information about the author or where the picture was published. It might be PD in Turkey, but without this information, there's no way to verify it at the moment. --Kam Solusar (talk) 15:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I personally searched the internet for a clue of its photographer and shot date, but could not find anything. Thinking that the poet died in 1936, this photo was probably taken between 1925 and 1930, but there is no information about the author's death date on my part. --Chapultepec (talk) 20:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- Keep 1936 + 70 < 2009. This seems to be the definitive image for Mehmet Akif Ersoy according to searching for that name on Google Image Search, including a number of .gov.tr sites. Therefore it seems a fair bet that the "first owner" is truly unknown, not just in the sense of "we can't determine it", but in the sense of "can't be determined", in which case, I believe it is PD in Turkey. --GRuban (talk) 03:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, not found on the internet does not mean not found. Kameraad Pjotr 14:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
