Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2009/02/14

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

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

You can visit the most recent archive here.

Archive
Archive
Archive February 14th, 2009
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

no use --Okki (talk) 01:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And may violate personality rights (child).--Túrelio (talk) 09:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done, cdlt, VIGNERON * discut. 13:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Possibly non-free image. The image is missing meta data for an image claimed as self-made. --Bluemask (talk) 02:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Already deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Possibly non-free image. The image is missing meta data for an image claimed as self-made. --Bluemask (talk) 03:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted. Avi (talk) 01:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

"for private study and research only." is not free enough for Commons, as it does not allow commercial use by anyone or derivative works -- Kam Solusar (talk) 04:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted. Avi (talk) 01:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

nuccio messina 151.48.74.240 08:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Kept. MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

out of COM:SCOPE; seems to be shot at a funeral and to be out of use. Túrelio (talk) 09:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]



deleted,
see also Commons:Deletion requests/File:O'dham-men.JPG and File:Daisy-funeral.JPG, the user seems to use commons as a personal file repository,

best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 18:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

out of COM:SCOPE; seems to be taken in a private room, not on a stage. Túrelio (talk) 09:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted. Avi (talk) 01:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

While the image is validly licensed on flickr as CC-BY-SA, the original image includes the Operation board in an incidental way. In this image, it's pretty much all that's in it. Since the board is copyrighted, it's probably not usable here. Stifle (talk) 10:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted. COM:CB#Board games. MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unclear copyright situation: the stated source www.photo-steindl.com does not prove that this image is public domain. High Contrast (talk) 11:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete http://www.photo-steindl.com/images/ISAF_Afghanistan_2004/index.htm has a copyright notice. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Avi (talk) 01:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

derivative work Chanueting (talk) 12:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

derivative work, can be replaced by digitized work Chanueting (talk) 12:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment This image can be replaced by File:East Rail Line.svg Chanueting (talk) 15:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, ok, but the photo is still a valuable reference. I agree with Tryphon that there is no problem with the copyright.  Keep --Rotkraut (talk) 20:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Kanonkas(talk) 01:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

This image is patently a scan, hardly "own work by uploader". --User:G.dallorto (talk) 13:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted. No correct source. Not own work MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nonsense ?? Erik Baas (talk) 14:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted. Avi (talk) 01:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

hardly own work Avron (talk) 14:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Copyright violation--permission needs to be obtained via OTRS first Eustress (talk) 15:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is OTRS? I can get the proper permission. So please do not just delete this photos. I emailed the University and they sent them to me. So I suspect I can get the correct permission.--Flashdornfeld (talk) 18:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For an image like this, the permission that has been granted by the copyright holder would need to be formally recorded in our OTRS system so that a permanent record of the permission can be kept. Please ask the copyright owner to send the permission to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, mentioning by name the image in question, and also the specific licence/permission that is being granted, for example {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}. The email must be sent from a domain which can be identified with the copyright owner (eg if the copyright is owned by a university, from the university's domain). Lists of permissible licences can be found here (Creative Commons licences) and here (GFDL licences). If you would like to let me know when the email has been sent, I will check whether the permission sent is OK. Without that, I am afraid this image can't be kept. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS confirmation obtained. Cirt (talk) 13:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Kept. Cirt (talk) 13:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Copyright violation--permission needs to be submitted via OTRS first Eustress (talk) 15:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is OTRS? I can get the proper permission. So please do not just delete this photos. I emailed the University and they sent them to me. So I suspect I can get the correct permission.--Flashdornfeld (talk) 18:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

For an image like this, the permission that has been granted by the copyright holder would need to be formally recorded in our OTRS system so that a permanent record of the permission can be kept. Please ask the copyright owner to send the permission to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, mentioning by name the image in question, and also the specific licence/permission that is being granted, for example {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}. The email must be sent from a domain which can be identified with the copyright owner (eg if the copyright is owned by a university, from the university's domain). Lists of permissible licences can be found here (Creative Commons licences) and here (GFDL licences). If you would like to let me know when the email has been sent, I will check whether the permission sent is OK. Without that, I am afraid this image can't be kept. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS confirmation obtained. Cirt (talk) 13:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Kept. Cirt (talk) 13:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

and File:Darren O'Conner politician.jpg, File:Sex tape doc.jpg

Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

A photo of a copyrighted image does not make it free. SchuminWeb (talk) 16:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

on en.wiki, uploader only contributes copyvios and disruptively removes image deletion tags. now all of his uploads there have been deleted. Mangostar (talk) 17:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted. Avi (talk) 01:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

doubtful this is own work, entire article this was placed in was deleted as copyvio compiled from various internet sources. all of uploader's image contribs at en.wiki have also been copyvios. Mangostar (talk) 17:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Kept. Most probably not "own work" but PD-ineligible. Avi (talk) 01:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Out of project scope - just text.  — Mike.lifeguard 17:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Out of project scope - just text.  — Mike.lifeguard 17:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Out of scope - just text  — Mike.lifeguard 17:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

falscher Name Jo Oh (talk) 18:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Schreib doch bitte {{badname|Stausee Durlaßboden.jpg}} in die Beschreibung von File:Zillertal_017.jpg --Rotkraut (talk) 23:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

bad name, proper is File:Stausee Durlaßboden.jpg. Julo (talk) 21:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

i'm not sure why the uploader is claiming that this photo is without copyright Mangostar (talk) 19:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted. Tryphon (talk) 01:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

out of COM:SCOPE; regarding the original description it's a joke image of a schoolboy. Túrelio (talk) 19:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 21:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

strong doubt that this image was shot by the uploader; probably a copyvio. Túrelio (talk) 19:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted, per nom. Similar images can be found on the web. -Martin H. (talk) 21:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Apparently copyvio, credits "dpa/pa", no permission Elya (talk) 20:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted, blatant violation of copyrights (de: offensichtliche Urheberrechtsverletzung). --Martin H. (talk) 11:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Bad name. The good file with the good name is File:Yacht AnnG 05.jpg

Thank You Axou (talk) 19:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When you use {{Bad name}}, you don't need to place a DR on this page. It will be deleted by an admin soon. --Tryphon (talk) 21:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Finn Rindahl (talk) 22:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

I think this board isn't allouwd by FOP, a promo board will normally be removed and isn't permanent Abigor talk 21:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Suspected copyvio. This image is suposed to come from flickr. The're in total two images in the photo stream of this flickr user. Both have been uploaded by User:Edurne19 at Commons the very same day they have been uploaded to flickr. The first one was deleted as copyvio, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Edurne Grease.jpg. This second one seem to come from here originally. Looks like an obvious case of flickr-washing to me. --Rotkraut (talk) 21:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The uploader is the grand son of P. CLostermann (in the photo with De gaulle), i contacted him on his french userpage ( fr:Discussion Utilisateur:Paclostermann) asking for an OTRS ticket, he said he's not the photographer, and that he will ask his grandmother. SInce, i had no new informations and no OTRS ticket. I request this image to be delete, as we still dont know who is the author or who might have copyrights on it (there are other family members). Lilyu (talk) 23:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted. Can be reconsidered if a valid OTRS permission arrives. MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Remember that 20minutos.es is aside from the permission w:es:Wikipedia:Autorizaciones/20 Minutos listed at Commons:Bad_sources#www.20minutos.es. The Creative Commons license is very doubtful here. This is not a "photo of one of her concerts" but of the MTV Music Video Awards on September 7, 2008. 20minutos uses photos from other sources quite often, in this case they didn’t even had a photographer at the red carpet as we can see here: http://www.20minutos.es/galeria/5172/0/2/premios-mtv-080908/, so why should they have a photographer at the main show? The photo itself shows Rihannas performance of Disturbia (3:03), it is taken from the auditory probably from a podest for the press, other images from gettyimages, where this image is not from, are taken from nearly the same position (see gettyimages #82707253 e.g.). Martin H. (talk) 23:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are other images with the same license, the site Flickr and there are not many pictures with tags, and want to improve articles with images? Not to mention that there are items that are marked have tags, and page of the photo is no tag. Vítor & Rihanna (msg) 00h00min de 15 de Fevereiro de 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. I have near-zero confidence that this is OK to upload to Commons.  — Mike.lifeguard 19:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Recent stamp from France => not free Peter17 (talk) 11:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted by Tryphon: Per Commons:Deletion_requests/Images_of_French_stamps

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

Recent stamp from France => not free image Peter17 (talk) 11:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted by Tryphon: Per Commons:Deletion_requests/Images_of_French_stamps

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

Recent stamp from France => not free image Peter17 (talk) 11:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Unfortunately only French stamps by designers deceased more than 70 years ago (plus years of war) are certainly in the public domain according to Commons:Stamps/Public domain.

Deleted by Tryphon: Per Commons:Deletion_requests/Images_of_French_stamps

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

Recent stamp from France => not free image Peter17 (talk) 11:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted by Tryphon: Per Commons:Deletion_requests/Images_of_French_stamps

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

Recent stamp from france => not free image Peter17 (talk) 12:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted by Tryphon: Per Commons:Deletion_requests/Images_of_French_stamps

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

Recent stamp from France => not free image Peter17 (talk) 12:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted by Tryphon: Per Commons:Deletion_requests/Images_of_French_stamps

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

Recent stamp from France => not free image Peter17 (talk) 12:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted by Tryphon: Per Commons:Deletion_requests/Images_of_French_stamps

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

Recent stamp from France => not free image Peter17 (talk) 12:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted by Tryphon: Per Commons:Deletion_requests/Images_of_French_stamps

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

Recent stamp from France => not free image Peter17 (talk) 12:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted by Tryphon: Per Commons:Deletion_requests/Images_of_French_stamps

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

A press image, not free enough for Commons. According to the EXIF data: "Veroeffentlichung fuer Pressezwecke honorarfrei ausschliesslich im Zusammenhang mit oben genannter Sendung des ORF bei Urhebernennung." Publication for press purposes free of charge only when used in relation with the TV show. "Andere Verwendung honorarpflichtig und nur nach schriftlicher Genehmigung der Abteilung " Other uses are subject to fees and only allowed with prior written permission. -- Kam Solusar (talk) 19:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted by Túrelio: Copyright violation: Copyright:ORF-PHOTOGRAPHIE

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

artwork of living painter Mangostar (talk) 19:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted by Túrelio: Copyright violation: http://www.ahuatzi.com/obra/elpocito.html

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

images from kmu.gov.ua

[edit]

Site http://www.kmu.gov.ua has not have free license. Images from kmu.gov.ua not have OTRS permissions

  1. Image:Vitolds Fokins.png
  2. Image:Valentins Simonenko.png
  3. Image:Yukhym Zvyahilsky.png
  4. Image:Vitaliy Masol.png
  5. Image:Yevhen Marchuk.png
  6. Image:Pavlo Lazarenko.png
  7. Image:Vasyl Durdynets.png
  8. Image:Valeriy Pustovoytenko.png
  9. Image:Valdas Adamkus meets Yushchenko in Vilnius 2007.jpg
  10. Image:Valdas Adamkus-2007.jpg
  11. Image:Juri Jechanurow.JPG
  12. Image:Yevhen Petrushevych.jpg
  13. Image:Valdas Adamkus meets Yushchenko in Vilnius 2007.jpg
  14. Image:Valdas Adamkus-2007.jpg
  15. Image:Vitolds Fokins.png
  16. Image:Valentins Simonenko.png
  17. Image:Yukhym Zvyahilsky.png
  18. Image:Vitaliy Masol.png
  19. Image:Yevhen Marchuk.png
  20. Image:Pavlo Lazarenko.png
  21. Image:Vasyl Durdynets.png
  22. Image:Valeriy Pustovoytenko.png
  23. Image:Andriy Livytskyi (UNR President).JPG
  24. Image:Корнієць Леонід Романович.jpg
  25. Image:Valdas Adamkus meets Yushchenko in Vilnius 2007.jpg
  26. Image:Valdas Adamkus-2007.jpg
 Delete Link to source is also required for fair use like provision of copyrights law of Ukraine. Possibility to create unrestricted derivative works is unclear. And similar vague terms of use were used on kremlin.ru (images are already deleted) and other government sites. --EugeneZelenko 17:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete © KMU (Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine).Ahonc (talk) 11:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting. They can be reuploaded should OTRS permission come through. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are still several images from this website with open deletion requests that link to this page but weren't listed above:

Should be deleted as well per above deletion decision. --Kam Solusar (talk) 03:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


deleted the update. Abigor talk 09:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Images of Eflores8575 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

I think these images are pictures of photographs, and should therefore be deleted as derivative work. --Tryphon (talk) 08:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Images of French stamps

[edit]

I am grouping together a bunch of DRs by User:Peter17 regarding recent French stamps. The reason for all these requests is the same (see below) and I think it will be easier to discuss all of them at the same place. If more images of French stamps have to be discussed, please add them below.

The original reason for these DRs was: Recent stamp from France => not free.
--Tryphon (talk) 12:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted. Tryphon (talk) 17:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

out of COM:SCOPE Chanueting (talk) 11:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted - out of project scope. WJBscribe (talk) 19:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Source http://news.gruzoviki.com gives no evidence about its copyright status. High Contrast (talk) 16:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

doubtful this is own work, entire article this was placed in was deleted as copyvio compiled from various internet sources. all of uploader's image contribs at en.wiki have also been copyvios. Mangostar (talk) 17:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted. Cirt (talk) 07:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

There are already heraldic depictions of St. Edwards crown in superior quality. David Liuzzo (talk) 16:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Nothing wrong with this one. /Pieter Kuiper (talk</

span>) 19:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are two(!) other frontal depictions of superior quality in the category, and commons should have an approach for quality and not for masses of bad images. --David Liuzzo (talk) 22:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Cirt (talk) 07:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Certain images uploaded by user Arnaud de Gramont

[edit]

I'm trying to fix a malformed request. Appears this user wants to revoke the license and unpublish these images because s/he changed his/her mind. Below is copied from User_talk:Arnaud_de_Gramont#Arnaud_de_Gramont.-Andrew c (talk) 22:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(etc)

The reason these should all be deleted is the author does no longer whish them published. Arnaud de Gramont (talk) 13:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep : too late : they have been published under a free licence, so anyone (including Commons) can copy and republish them with the consent you have already given. If we delete them, we can upload them again with the same licence. Peter17 (talk) 10:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Commons licenses are not revocable. User has been on Commons for some time and must surely understand copyright. (Unlike most sites we make a big deal of it). However we should be reasonable and if the user can give a good enough reason we should remove the images anyway (or anonymize them as happened in one case). --Simonxag (talk) 13:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep unless the uploader has a good reason other than a change of mind. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
these are not the final versions these images have been modified by the artist. they no longer represent its work --Arnaud de Gramont (talk) 10:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. cf. Commons:Deletion requests/Many images of Arnaud de Gramont :bdk: 20:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

out of COM:SCOPE and probably violating personality rights. Túrelio (talk) 09:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why would this be out of scope? What is this "personality rights" about? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As this (and the related images) are unused, we don't know who is put into the earth there. But it's probably a family funeral of a non-notable person. At such an event, some privacy can be expected. I assume, the uploader belongs to the funeral "party", but I doubt he/she has asked the others for permission to publish these images. But besides all that, of what use is this (are these) images? --Túrelio (talk) 14:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Funerals are normally not private occasions. Often there is a death notice, announcing place and time, inviting people that wish to attend, and I do not see the expectation of privacy. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete, the user seems to use commons as his personal file repository only, the file itself seems out of scope, there are just some persons standing around looking down and it is not clear it is a funeral, so it could not be used even to ilustrate a funeral at all, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 18:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Wknight94 talk 01:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

out of COM:SCOPE; unusable private image from a funeral of a probably non-notable person. Túrelio (talk) 09:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted. Wknight94 talk 01:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

derivative work Chanueting (talk) 11:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted. Wknight94 talk 02:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

derivative work Chanueting (talk) 11:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted. Wknight94 talk 02:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

derivative work Chanueting (talk) 11:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted. Wknight94 talk 02:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The left image is copyrighted, it is used widely on the Internet. I have 85 results from TinEye search, and this is an example. Vinhtantran (talk) 11:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted. Wknight94 talk 02:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

derivative work Chanueting (talk) 11:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Utilitarian object. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment What do you mean? This image is poor quality that the object cannot be identified, also, image not used in any projects. Chanueting (talk) 06:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Wknight94 talk 02:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

derivative work Chanueting (talk) 11:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted. Wknight94 talk 02:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Logo doesn't have license to use --Superzerocool (talk) 04:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted. shizhao (talk) 13:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

derivative work Chanueting (talk) 12:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Kept. shizhao (talk) 13:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

maybe self-editet, but hardly self-created because too dizzy Avron (talk) 14:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete cropped from http://www.luft46.com/bookad2.html -- Common Good (talk) 19:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. shizhao (talk) 13:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Seems a bit dubious license. I think we should get permission for this file. Kanonkas(talk) 16:28, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your request makes no sense. Please, have a look on another photo from that set in flickr here. Do you believe now? Patrol110 talk 15:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at their flickr albums, it seems to be a lot of the images are professional cover/adverts. It's really suspicious why they would just release such content like that. As such, I think requesting permission for this file is justified. --Kanonkas(talk) 11:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep The Flickr account belongs to Café, see a long discussion in Swedish with an email reply from Café to sv:user:Wanpe. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per Pieter Kuiper. /Poxnar (talk) 23:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's unclear if Café really is the copyright owner or if they only had the right to publish these images in their magazine. Maybe the photographer is the copyright owner, are and not notified about this? As long as we're not sure who is the copyright owner is, we should't use this images./ Elinnea (talk) 18:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep By uploading to flickr they claimed it to be theirs and in our contact with them they confirmed their account and did not claim the picture was someone elses property. Furthermore they have still not changed the license or deleted the picture from Flickr. I see no reason why we should doubt who owns the copyright. Njaelkies Lea (talk) 08:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per Njaelkies Lea. Why would they release such content? To get publicity for their magazine; that's the point of attribution, the "There's more at Café Magazine!" link at the bottom of their Flickr pages. The link on our image will get users there too. Not everyone believes that releasing free content to get publicity is worth while, but quite a few do. --GRuban (talk) 17:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. shizhao (talk) 13:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

"freely available for publication" is not the same as {{Copyrighted free use}}. No mention of commercial use or derivative works. -- Kam Solusar (talk) 19:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete The permission quoted seems to have disappeared; now there is http://www.museumboerhaave.nl/museum-/algemeen/bibliotheek.html which indicates that the museum wants to be paid for its photos. Please do not just delete, but do a robot replacement with File:Zernike.jpg, which I have just uploaded. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. shizhao (talk) 13:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

I just recently uploaded the new version of the map, see File:The Amazing Race 14 Map.png. ApprenticeFan (talk) 02:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Kept. MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

derivative work Chanueting (talk) 12:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Possibly non-free image. Web resolution. Lacks meta data for an image claimed as self-made. --Bluemask (talk) 17:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Also File:Nhạc sỹ Tô Hải 1.jpg and File:Nhạc sỹ Tô Hải 2.jpg.

The uploader is neither the person who took the photos nor the person in the photos. Permission or proof of ownership was requested on Jan 5 [1] but has never been provided. Same photos have been deleted at Vietnamese Wikipedia due to that reason. Tmct (talk) 17:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

doubtful this is own work, entire article this was placed in was deleted as copyvio compiled from various internet sources. all of uploader's image contribs at en.wiki have also been copyvios. Mangostar (talk) 17:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much falls under Template:PD-shape (though to be useful it should not be in JPEG format). Of course, if it's a diagram of some nonsensical and non-notable fringe theory, then it should be deleted... AnonMoos (talk) 19:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept as Template:PD-shape. MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not a work by NASA. According to the NASA site, it's a work by Spacehab Inc., a commercial space company. -- Kam Solusar (talk) 19:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The same applies to File:SPACEHAB LDM.jpg and File:ICC diagram.jpg. --Kam Solusar (talk) 19:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, delete all three. TheDJ (talk) 19:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Images from Soviet Marsnik missions

[edit]

These images show space probes from Soviet Marsnik missions. They are tagged {{PD-USGov-NASA}}. I simply do not believe that any Nasa employee was able to take any picture of Soviet space probes while the Soviet Union and the US were competing for being the first to reach Mars during the cold war. I checked the Nasa pages indicated as source in the image description. For most of them i didn't find any information about the original author, for some i found an attribution to Russian sources as indicated above. It's a pitty, since we don't have any replacement for these valuable images, but they are blattant copyvios, i'm afraid. --Rotkraut (talk) 16:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Press photo. "FOTOZP is a service designed especially for media professionals." "The photos contained in this section can be published freely." No mention of free commercial use by anyone for any purpose, or derivative works. Therefore not free enough for Commons. -- Kam Solusar (talk) 18:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Same applies to File:Zapatero votando.jpg and File:PsoeZapatero.jpg --Kam Solusar (talk) 18:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

derivative work Chanueting (talk) 12:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

+1, delete --84.44.153.197 22:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep It's used only in user pages, and it's different enough of the original logo. Kindly, Linfocito B | Greetings from Colombia! 00:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete obviously derivative. And so what if it's used only on userpages? All the more reason not to retain it. We don't need it for the furtherance of the project. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted. Coyau (talk) 17:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Photo by 20 minutos.es? Maybe, but probably a derivative work of a movie or something. Martin H. (talk) 15:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's just a photo with cc license. — LordT, Disc. LordT 15:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Coyau (talk) 17:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

Probably out of project scope. Also, has no source.  — Mike.lifeguard 17:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted. Coyau (talk) 17:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please keep only this version : http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/4/4b/20090214182354!Sarafsa_03.jpg

Because we don't need a hundred versions of the same file...

Thank You Axou (talk) 19:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:20, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

I want to keep only this version : http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/c/c1/20090214200604!Sarafsa_19.jpg

The others are too noisy !!!!!!

Thank You Axou (talk) 19:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:20, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

doubtful this is own work, entire article this was placed in was deleted as copyvio compiled from various internet sources. all of uploader's image contribs at en.wiki have also been copyvios. Mangostar (talk) 17:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Others I might agree with you on, but this is somewhat creatively colorized. It's borderline, and since the article it was in was deleted I don't see a need to keep this potential liability. Mangostar (talk) 19:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Still simple enough to be {{PD-ineligible}}. Wknight94 talk 01:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

doubtful this is own work, entire article this was placed in was deleted as copyvio compiled from various internet sources. all of uploader's image contribs at en.wiki have also been copyvios. Mangostar (talk) 17:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Kept. {{PD-ineligible}}. Wknight94 talk 01:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

doubtful this is own work, entire article this was placed in was deleted as copyvio compiled from various internet sources. all of uploader's image contribs at en.wiki have also been copyvios. Mangostar (talk) 17:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Kept. {{PD-ineligible}}. Wknight94 talk 01:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

doubtful this is own work, entire article this was placed in was deleted as copyvio compiled from various internet sources. all of uploader's image contribs at en.wiki have also been copyvios. Mangostar (talk) 17:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Kept. {{PD-ineligible}}. Wknight94 talk 01:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

doubtful this is own work, entire article this was placed in was deleted as copyvio compiled from various internet sources. all of uploader's image contribs at en.wiki have also been copyvios. Mangostar (talk) 17:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Kept. {{PD-ineligible}}. Wknight94 talk 01:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

doubtful this is own work, entire article this was placed in was deleted as copyvio compiled from various internet sources. all of uploader's image contribs at en.wiki have also been copyvios. Mangostar (talk) 17:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Kept. {{PD-ineligible}}. Wknight94 talk 01:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Images of Transformers by Simon Davison

[edit]

I believe that these Transformers images from the Flickr user Simon Davison are all flickrwashed copyvios. Several of them are credited to people other than the Simon Davison and the user's Transformers Movie set seems to just be a collection of images found on the Internet. All tagged under the Creative Common Attribution license regardless of their actual copyright status. Kollision (talk) 02:11, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the pictures are taken from here [2] They seem to be the work of somebody at the us airforce. 87.171.239.78 23:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. Most of them are explicitly marked "(Brandy Baker / The Detroit News)" in the Metadata!

 Keep Keep the ones labeled Holloman Air Force Base, and mark them PD as work of the US Federal Government, as 87... mentions, I remember seeing them on af.mil: here is one of them, for example: http://www.af.mil/weekinphotos/060714-02.html  Delete Delete the others. :-( --GRuban (talk) 17:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted most. Wknight94 talk 02:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Images by Ryhor5

[edit]

File:Gorski-piesni.jpg (edit talk history logs links usage del)
File:AfiszMargiera1.jpg (edit talk history logs links usage del)
File:AfiszMargiera.jpg (edit talk history logs links usage del)
File:Gorski-fantazja.JPG (edit talk history logs links usage del)
File:Gorski-fantazja-org.JPG (edit talk history logs links usage del)
File:Charkowski-okreg.JPG (edit talk history logs links usage del)
File:Ukraina3.JPG (edit talk history logs links usage del)

All claimed as own work which I doubt. -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 16:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted. The majority of these were deleted months ago. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Statoilhydro images

[edit]

These images are from http://fotoweb.statoilhydro.com/fotoweb/ , a website containing photos for use by the press (titled "StatoilHydro - Pictures for the Press"). It says "Images are available in web and print resolution. You are welcome to download our images for your own use providing that you credit the photo usage." And the individual photo pages state "Photo must be given credit". It doesn't mention free commercial use by anyone for any purpose or derivative works. Therefore not free enough. --Kam Solusar (talk) 03:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep If it does not mention any non-Commercial or No-Derivatives use restrictions, then it can be used here on Commons. This is just a generic page saying "credit us if you use it"...not images are for "Non-Commercial, or Educational use only." The images certainly can be used here...unless the copyright notice is changed to be more restrictive. Almost all copyright free use images use the language of crediting the source anyway on Commons which is reasonable. -Regards, -Leoboudv (talk) 21:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If permission for commercial use and derivative works is not explicitly mentioned, we have to assume it's not allowed. "credit us if you use it" is not a free license, it's a typical press license. See Commons:Problematic sources#Promotional photos. --Kam Solusar (talk) 21:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My take on copyright statements is that they often include a statement on what uses are permitted or are not permitted like this: [3] If you scroll through the page and click on the "Information" link, it says, 'All images, unless otherwise stated, are copyright free for non-commercial use.' So, they can't be placed on Commons. Since the statoil's web site doesn't restrict such usage, it could be used on Commons....but if its a promo image then you're right, they would be copyrighted. I'm not 100% sure if they can be used here...so feel free to delete them if you wish. Cheers, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 18:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

copyvio, given that source by uploader with the permission by 何日東小學, but with text "Architecture Services Department" in image Chanueting (talk) 12:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Image is probably not own work of uploader. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 09:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, copyright violation. Kameraad Pjotr 19:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wrong name of file


Kept, no reason for deletion. Kameraad Pjotr 19:34, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]