Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2009/02/21
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
I selected the wrong licensing option and can't figure out how to change it Congobongo1041 (talk) 01:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- I made the change, here's how: click Edit at the top of the page, replace {{PD-self}} by {{Cc-by-nc-nd-3.0}}, click Save page.
Unfortunately, this license is not allowed on Commons because it restricts commercial use and derivative works; so this image will be deleted soon. Sorry. --Tryphon (talk) 08:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio: Does not allow for commercial use and/or derivative works: nc-nd
copyrighted software screenshot MBisanz talk 06:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Mousepad is licensed under GNU General Public License. The Lorem ipsum... text qualifies for {{PD-old-100}}. Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 11:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Copyvio http://www.karlshamn.se/hembygd/asarum/naringsliv.htm Jlundqvi (talk) 08:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Delete per copy vio.--Leoboudv (talk) 08:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio: 21. helmikuuta 2009 kello 12:54:17 Túrelio (keskustelu | muokkaukset | estä) poisti sivun File:Asarum.jpg (Copyright violation: http://www.karlshamn.se/hembygd/asarum/naringsliv.htm) (palauta) --Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 11:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Schreibfehler Unterillertaler (talk) 07:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio: Duplicated of or superseded by: File:Denkmal am Schwal.JPG
doppelt hochgeladen Achim Berg (talk) 08:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio: Duplicated of or superseded by: File:Friedenskreuze11.jpg
out of COM:SCOPE; low res, low qual, no use. Túrelio (talk) 10:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted per nom; description = "vbvcb" -- Infrogmation (talk) 07:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
converted from a speedy by User:WikedKentaur for "no indication that the author of the poster has released his rights". Uploader changed the originally uploaded cropped image to the full image showing part of the bus stop. There is no usable FOP in Estonia. Túrelio (talk) 11:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- The picture shows a poster that was posted at a bus stop in Haapsalu, Estonia. It's far from a perfect copy of the poster and I don't think it can be seen as one. The picture is a good illustration of the campaign for Russians in Estonia to apply for Estonian citizenship. Narking (talk) 22:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. per Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Estonia. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Per previous Checkuser case and seen the contributions of the uploader, I'm 99% secure that this image is another copyvio from Colombianorgulloso wich is editing again under this suspected sock. In fact, I've tagged today another copyvio from this user. --Dferg (commons-meta) 16:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete: per the above-explained reasons. Dferg (commons-meta) 17:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Speedy deleted as a copyright violation. Kanonkas(talk) 21:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
derivative work, replaced by legal File:Trafikplats Kropp.png --grillo (talk) 00:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Derivaitev of the http://www.eniro.se maps. /Lokal_Profil 19:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
copyrighted software screenshot MBisanz talk 06:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Keep. It's GPL. ViperSnake151 (talk) 14:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete I uploaded a different image that supersedes this one. Probably should have updated this one instead, but am fumbling to learn. --Jakewan (talk) 17:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
_launch.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Duplicate. Yann (talk) 19:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
copyvio. 百楽兎 (talk) 08:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyvio. Yann (talk) 19:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
out of COM:SCOPE; probably work of a bored pupil and extremely low quality. Túrelio (talk) 10:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nom; description = "ghghg" -- Infrogmation (talk) 07:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --Daniel Baránek (talk) 16:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 19:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
out of COM:SCOPE; description "bvcbc", low res, no use. Túrelio (talk) 10:39, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 21:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --Daniel Baránek (talk) 16:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 19:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
out of COM:SCOPE. Túrelio (talk) 11:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, useless --Daniel Baránek (talk) 16:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 19:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
A low-resolution, low-quality image that is not used in any project and has a dubious copyright status. Daggerstab (talk) 11:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Probable copyvio. Yann (talk) 19:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
derivate work of a copyrighted lighting. This image is not de minimis: "if the photograph was taken deliberately to include the poster [the lighting, W.], there is likely to be copyright infringement, and it is no defence to say that the poster [the lighting, W.] was 'just in the background'. If the existence of the poster [the lighting, W.] was the reason the photograph was taken in the first place, copyright infringement cannot be avoided by additionally including within the frame more of the setting or the surrounding area. If the existence of the poster [the lighting, W.] makes the image more attractive, more usable, or liable to cause more than insignificant economic damage to the copyright owner, then a de minimis defence to a copyright-infringement action will probably fail." —Wuzur 12:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Comment see also previous discussion. —Wuzur 12:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- Keep per en:Eiffel tower#Image copyright claims seems to give more reliable information about French law than a quote from an article about "de minimis". /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Nothing new since last DR. Yann (talk) 19:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
This image has a warning that it is protected by copyright because it is a copyrighted image of a building in France, but that the image is allowed if it's an "accessory compared to the main represented or handled subject". In this case, the Eiffel Tower at night (see also our own page on the Eiffel Tower, which describes the copyright situation). The image is named starting with "Eiffel Tower", has the Eiffel Tower in the center, its description starts by mentioning the Eiffel Tower, and it's used in the page on the Eiffel Tower, all of which implies that the Eiffel Tower is not a minor part of the picture. Therefore the image is a copyright violation. (Worse yet, the image has annotations which frame the Eiffel Tower, something which the copyright notice specifically says we are not allowed to do.) You might be able to get away with using this as a picture of the Seine, but it can't be used as a picture of the Eiffel Tower. 208.65.89.204 08:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- To clarify:I now see the old deletion discussion. The old deletion discussion ended by pointing out that the picture is okay if it's a larger area and isn't mainly a picture of the Eiffel Tower. The problem is that the name, description, usage, and one of the annotations of the picture all basically imply that it is mainly a picture of the Eiffel Tower.
- It's also probably legal as fair use (though it seems strange that we'd use EU law to decide that the picture is copyrighted and then bring in American ideas of fair use). 208.65.89.204 08:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, sadly. Let's be honest, this image was shot (and is used even on :en) to show the illuminated Eiffel tower. --Túrelio (talk) 09:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. This image has already survived two deletion discussions. The last one was closed with "Nothing new since last DR." There still is nothing new. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- In the previous discussions, nobody brought up that the way the image is named, described, presented, annotated, and the articles in which the image is used all indicate that the main subject is the Eiffel Tower. Given this, the claim that the image is okay because it's not mainly about the tower is a blatant lie. 208.65.88.133 04:55, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete The Eiffel tower is in the dead center of the image and is named in the title. It's simply the main feature of this image, even composed with the Seine.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:45, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Agreed, it's the main feature of the image. Funny that the image is used to illustrate the copyright ruling on enwiki. Hekerui (talk) 12:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per first time; this is the third time around now. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:54, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- The second time got two mentions and I have to wonder if it was even properly listed. The only person who said either delete or keep last time was you, so it wasn't much of a discussion.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- If you want to discuss specifically French case law, there is the decision about postcards of Category:Place des Terreaux that went against Daniel Buren. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- And I'm having trouble finding anything copyrighted by him in our pictures of Place des Terreaux, much less his work being the main focus.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:11, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- The whole square: the pavement, the fountains, the stone blocks, the stone columns, and in this connection especially: the lighting. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- And I'm having trouble finding anything copyrighted by him in our pictures of Place des Terreaux, much less his work being the main focus.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:11, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- If you want to discuss specifically French case law, there is the decision about postcards of Category:Place des Terreaux that went against Daniel Buren. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- The second time got two mentions and I have to wonder if it was even properly listed. The only person who said either delete or keep last time was you, so it wasn't much of a discussion.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted - clearly a major part of the image. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:53, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Restored. No copyright on ordinary light. Yann (talk) 16:03, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
In the description-box there is written that No Derivative Works is allowed. This is incompatible with Wikimedia Commons. High Contrast (talk) 14:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. ND allowed. Yann (talk) 19:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Derivative work, the lit tower is not an accessory to the rest of the image. ViperSnake151 (talk) 20:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi, about File:Blue_Eiffel_Tower_with_blue_sky.jpg... Please explain better which is the problem with this image, my first language is not english... you say: "the lit tower is not an accessory to the rest of the image.", what does that mean? would you please explain me with more words? thank you very much.--Gussisaurio (talk) 03:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Yann (talk) 19:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Looks like an obvious screenshot from the TV show --88.108.239.47 01:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
COM:DW - this must have a source for the drawing. - 77.249.4.79 16:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Keep It says it's own work by the user. Mr. Grylls isn't copyrightable. Tineye doesn't show this as being copied from anywhere. Is there some picture you suspect it may be based on? --Simonxag (talk) 00:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Confusing twice-nomination using the same page. Oh well. James F. (talk) 00:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
_launch.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_launch.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Uploaded by me, but: courtesy of Electric Boat, therefore not taken by US Gov' Schlendrian (talk) 11:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
_launch.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete Electric Boat-image thus not public domain.-High Contrast (talk) 15:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
_launch.jpg){kind=link}
derivative work, copyrighted game board and cards h-stt !? 17:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
1. source unclear, 2. "DW Drums" is not a person and therefore can't be the "author", 3. "DW gives permission to use this" is not a permission for release under GFDL. JD {æ} 17:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Permission would need to be sent to OTRS for us to keep this MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
It is a derived work from World of Warcraft. It is decidedly non-free. Protonk (talk) 22:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- Where is it on world of warcraft? 69.138.163.138 23:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, didn't notice that I had the wrong prefix. It is the model and skin from the male orc, doing a portion of the /dance emote (which for male orcs, is the dance accompanying hammertime). Protonk (talk) 03:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I know what the image is doing, but were is it found on World of Warcraft? How do we know it is a derived work? How do you know? Please show us where it is posted on a World of Warcraft site. 69.138.163.138 08:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- It is the model from world of warcraft itself, not the site. here is a video in game of an orc dancing. I know it is a derived work because I play one. Protonk (talk) 04:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I know what the image is doing, but were is it found on World of Warcraft? How do we know it is a derived work? How do you know? Please show us where it is posted on a World of Warcraft site. 69.138.163.138 08:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, didn't notice that I had the wrong prefix. It is the model and skin from the male orc, doing a portion of the /dance emote (which for male orcs, is the dance accompanying hammertime). Protonk (talk) 03:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. per Protonk MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Something's not kosher... this image can be found on the WireImage website here, fourth image in. Tabercil (talk) 20:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete The sender of the OTRS email claims to be the creator of the pic, but WireImages credits "Kevin Winter". I'm more inclined to believe WireImages. howcheng {chat} 06:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, had the same intention and searched the images, File:Vmasxtina.jpg can be found in some photostreams like http://www.mtv.de/music/fotos/19591642 (9/45). I reviewd a lot of images from VMA 2008, i never saw this photographer name. --Martin H. (talk) 10:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Delete the first one. The pic which says Martin: Could be free, cuz have a high resolution impossible to get on the web. Think that. --190.29.158.79 15:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: Dissagree. Commons is build on trust, if the trust is broken once i see no basic to keep probably unfree images. And if you noone want to expand this deletion request on the other images with this OTRS ticket i will do it myself once this discussion is decided. --Martin H. (talk) 16:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Update: And the whole ticket is a fake, blatant violations of copyrights. I just found http://www.aguileraworld.com/photogallery/thumbnails.php?album=616 where some images may be come from. File:Grammy 2007 Man's World.jpg is a mirrored version of this, The author is someone called LUCY NICHOLSON. Also the image i refered to above can be visited here in a high resolution, regretably without author information: http://www.aguileraworld.com/photogallery/thumbnails.php?album=669&page=2. Nuke all. --Martin H. (talk) 17:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Added
- File:Grammy 2007 Man's World2.jpg
- File:Grammy 2007 Man's World.jpg
- File:Vmas08 perform algocool - edit.jpg
- File:Vmas08 perform algocool.jpg
- File:Vmasxtina.jpg
--Martin H. (talk) 23:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment So can this be closed out then? Tabercil (talk) 23:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Kanonkas(talk) 14:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
incorrect colors. For correct coat of arms look at this one Nickpo (talk) 21:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Do not worry about shades of tinctures. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Why? It was my country and I had never seen that strange crazy 'tinctures'. Or you mean smth with a jeer? Shame of you. Nickpo (talk) 06:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Even if the tinctures are a little bit strange, this is one coat of arms from an entire set of SSRs emblems. It's not my fault that the German book has it printed that way. --Alex:D (talk) 18:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Wrong source. Nickpo (talk) 08:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- I don't care if it's wrong or right, I haven't published that book. If you don't like this image, then come with a better one, with the same dimensions! --Alex:D (talk) 19:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- The correct image is here. If you need more dimensions, just find them and upload, with strict according to specimen. Nickpo (talk) 04:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Why wrong? And what about this?--Anatoliy (talk) 23:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- The correct image is here. If you need more dimensions, just find them and upload, with strict according to specimen. Nickpo (talk) 04:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- I don't care if it's wrong or right, I haven't published that book. If you don't like this image, then come with a better one, with the same dimensions! --Alex:D (talk) 19:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Wrong source. Nickpo (talk) 08:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete This image not is the heraldic. Сдобников Андрей (talk) 18:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry? --Alex:D (talk) 19:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- It`s a fantasy fake de facto. Nickpo (talk) 04:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry? --Alex:D (talk) 19:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete This file is fantasy/not heraldic! (по-русски - что за чушь подсунули вообще? Где такой герб видел хоть кто.) --193.138.245.59 15:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Ну почему же чушь? Вот, например, точно такой же герб, только меньше.--Anatoliy (talk) 23:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Самоделка. Даже звезда вверху кривая. Nickpo (talk) 12:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Ну почему же чушь? Вот, например, точно такой же герб, только меньше.--Anatoliy (talk) 23:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per Nickpo, Сдобников Андрей and 193.138.245.59. --Michael Romanov (talk) 21:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Keep I think we have this sort of argument about flags and COAs often. I think the general answer is it is not a problem to have different versions of these things. Just add to the description a note about the 'faults' with the image. It would seem trivial to edit the colours and upload the revision if that is all that is wrong. The other version shown was much smaller too. But where is the official description/definition of the COA, just pointing to someone elses rendition is not really definitive. --Tony Wills (talk) 21:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Not official, sorry. But you can try to convert it to correct colors to undeceive people. Create and upload new image, please. Nickpo (talk) 22:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I think that licence is wrong. {{PD-UA-exempt}} should not be applied to the Soviet period images.
- Keep this and delete anoher one as no sourced.--Anatoliy (talk) 23:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Я загрузил новую версию File:COA Ukrainian SSR.png и указал для него источник, но File:Coat_of_arms_of_Ukrainian_SSR.png больше по размеру. Может быть, попробовать сделать для него цветокоррекцию и привести цвет к желтому. --Butko (talk) 07:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Сделал цветокоррекцию для File:Coat_of_arms_of_Ukrainian_SSR.png --Butko (talk) 07:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Так всё равно он остался неестественно красный. Nickpo (talk) 08:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep no reason to delete. —dima/s-ko/ 03:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Anatoliy (talk) 00:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Claimed as PD due to age but according to Getty images (picture#50917931) - the image is dated 13 Sep 1966 and so is not PD until 2017 Peripitus (talk) 23:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 06:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Vandalised version of Davidcameroncampaign.jpg. Sam Blacketer (talk) 16:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- Speedy delete: per nomination, derivative work, also see this casebook. Dferg (commons-meta) 17:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Derivative work (Fireman Sam) -- Common Good (talk) 19:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. shizhao (talk) 13:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Does public access mean it can be used for any purpose? FunkMonk (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
supposedly copyvio, no way Yukipon has the copyright for Harry Potter. --Don-kun (talk) 16:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for highlighting the possible copyright problems of this image. I have to admit that I was not thinking in those terms when I uploaded it. I have communicated with the Commons moderators who received my forwarded permission statement of license concerning the posting fan arts on Wikimedia. I was informed by them that since the Harry Potter series is a written literature, fan art would be considered as an “interpretation of the description, and [the moderators] would regard it as being releasable under a free license.” Of course, proper attribution is required, and I’m open to suggestions on how to improve the image description.
This image was uploaded specifically for the article on “Slash fiction” under the Fan fiction category. I understand that fan arts are not suitable for most articles on Wikipedia, and I do not believe that fan arts should be allowed indiscriminately. However, the “Fan fiction” category, including the 26 related articles, are probably one of the few places where a ban on derivative works would practically prohibit any image to be uploaded, since the “Fan fiction” category is by nature a group of articles about derivative works.
I do not deny that fan art in general have their legal ambiguities, regardless of whether they are uploaded onto Wikimedia or simply posted on a fan’s blog. Neither am I trying to have the final say about the legal status of fan art, but I think for an article about derivative works, it is appropriate to have the associated images made available.
Consider the articles about human genitals. I believe that the users who uploaded the relevant images for those article are not out to challenge the legality of publically distributing pornographic materials, which unlike fan art, is indisputably illegal no matter where they are posted, but to contribute to the articles in a material way. To ban images of genitals on an encyclopedic article about genitals would be self-limiting, and I believe the same goes for fan arts on articles about Fan fiction. Imagine how uninformative an article about an obscene word (pick any) would be if they are composed of nothing but asterisks.
Another problem concerning the upload of fan arts is the issue of quality. For that reason, I have asked the artist to provide me with the original file to insure best resolution. As a matter of fact, the initial reason why I decided to uploaded this image was because a fellow user had uploaded an unattributed, altered fan art (see Dec. 17, 08 revision history in the Slash fiction article) that I recognized to be Yukipon’s. I contact her and offered to either take off or replaced her altered work. Yukipon agreed, but recommended this piece to be uploaded instead. So for those who are concerned with random uploads of fan art by amateurs (not to disparage anyone’s artistry,) Yukipon is a well-known Harry Potter fan artist whose works are not only frequently emulated, but also has fifteen fanzines made available in Japan since 2002. I think her works are as good as it gets for an article on Slash fiction.
This is not to say that articles in the “Fan fiction” category should be flooded with fan arts. As any encyclopedic article goes, images should be allowed as far as they are useful to the article, and I encourage careful selection of any images that are uploaded. But I believe that a fan art of the slash fiction genre is surely no stretch to being relevant on a page about slash fiction.
I hope the above arguments make a good case for keeping this image.Gentle taipan (talk) 05:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- The discussion ist not about quality or the use of fan art in wikimedia projects. (well, maybe er... Snape (?) should look happier) I would be glad if we could use some more fan art. But in my oppinion, and thats how we handle it in the german wikipedia, fan art cannot be used because of the character is protected. And all of Harry Potter is protected, a picture too, espacially if it looks like he is described in the books and you name him Harry Potter (maybe there would be no problem if you've just said that its a random magician or such). For illustration of these articles you could only use original creations of yours or other who give a permission for a free licence. (I hope my English is good enough ^^) --Don-kun (talk) 18:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
As HP is also depicted in canon visual media (book covers and films), i think that i have to agree that this is a copyvio.Yobmod (talk) 12:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Would you really consider book covers canon? (Seeing as all characters, object etc are depicted in very different ways on different publications)... The films can hardly be considered canon, in that they rape the canon from the books. Xhandler (talk) 12:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Whether they are canon or not is not the point, they are copyrighted original works, so this image is a copyright violation. People are paid to create licenced works based on Rowlings descriptions, hence i don't think that they are intepretations of the text is a defence.Yobmod (talk) 09:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Kept per Commons:Fan art MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
According to description, Camera Operator was TGS TECHNOLOGY . Therefore the picture was not taken by US Gov' Schlendrian (talk) 20:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Also fits for File:UGM-27 Polaris launched HMS Revenge.jpg --Schlendrian (talk) 20:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- The US government does a lot of work through contractors—it doesn't necessarily mean the resulting works aren't in the public domain. In this case, the DOD site in question says they would indicate if something were copyrighted ("Generally speaking, nothing on this site is copyright (Defense Department imagery and unclassified information is usually deemed to be in the public domain) but if in doubt you agree to examine the Rights datafield for appropriate information. We will make every effort to ensure that any copyrighted works are so noted in the Rights field, but cannot be held responsible if the copyright is not conveyed to us for entry."). They don't in this instance. From what I can tell TGS Technology was some sort of government logistics contractor (like EG&G, who took many of the nuclear explosion photos, but they are still works of the federal government). I really don't think it's worth worrying about. --98.217.14.211 01:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete It is worth worrying about because it is not work of an US governmental worker but of a contractor. We have had this discussion several times and there was always the same result: Not in the public domain - which is correct. --High Contrast (talk) 10:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Deleted per High Contrast MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
incorrect coloured version --Patrick (talk) 19:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- Correct version is image:Timor-Leste CoA.gif. --Patrick 13:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- That's not neccessarily a reason for deletion. I'm however worried about the license. Has Jens Pattke just coloured the image? In that case it's a derivative of [1] (last page) and is probably copyrighted. /Lokal_Profil 18:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- This would also affect:
- That's not neccessarily a reason for deletion. I'm however worried about the license. Has Jens Pattke just coloured the image? In that case it's a derivative of [1] (last page) and is probably copyrighted. /Lokal_Profil 18:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- No. Jens Pattke MADE the GIF-coloured image. About the BW-image, I can not say anymore, about the exact license. This was written at the source. Anyhow, it was an official copy of the law for public use. --Patrick (talk) 22:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- This doesn't make it free though. /Lokal_Profil 15:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- As I said it: As far as I remember, the license for free use was at the source and I thought, it was checked, when it was uploaded for the first time. It doesn't make sense to check a license, when the source is gone. Anyhow, the B/W-image is not in use anymore, so if you have a problem, you can delete it, but there should be a protocoll to be sure, that licenses are checked immediately after upload and not years after, when it is not possible anymore and nobody is remembering about the circumstances. Maybe you can talk about this problem with the other Admins ;-) The coloured image was made by Jens Pattke and he gave it for free use. Greetings, --Patrick (talk) 18:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- This doesn't make it free though. /Lokal_Profil 15:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted teh bw version and the 'jpg', kept the other one. Kameraad Pjotr 16:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Commons:Derivative works from book text. EugeneZelenko (talk) 20:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- Keep The text of en:Sefer ha-Chinuch is from the Middle Ages... /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Kept, per Pieter Kuiper. Kameraad Pjotr 16:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Falscher Dateinamen - dies ist ein Antennarius striatus 89.217.107.177 21:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Kept, already renamed. Kameraad Pjotr 16:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Simlple design or not? Has been deleted once and restrored once. I am unsure. 91.153.156.22 22:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
NOTE: I did the request above. The feature did not work when I was logged in, so I had to log out. --Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 22:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, {{PD-textlogo}} does not apply. Kameraad Pjotr 16:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Flickr uploads by central_vietnam
[edit]- File:Central.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Abhisit Vejjajiva Prime Minister.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:M.R.Sukhumbhand Paribatra.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:CentralRama3.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Ramindra.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:CentralplazaRama 2.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Nonthaburilake.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Siam Discovery Center.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Siam Dis.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Platinum fashion mall.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Platinum fashion mall inside.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Siam Center Bangkok.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:PLaza Lat Phrao.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Some of these photos, e.g. that of Prime Minister Abhisit, are very unlikely the work of the original uploader. Others are mostly low resolution and/or missing EXIF data, suggesting they were lifted off the web. I have contacted central_vietnam on Flickr but have not received a response. Also somewhat disconcerting is that most of these photos were uploaded here by User:Jarcje right after they were uploaded at Flickr. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 16:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Flickr uploads by boonkumnoun
[edit]- File:Bangkok airport.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Ubon.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Hat Yai.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Khon KAen.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Udon thani from air.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
These images are very different in nature from boonkumnoun's other uploads at Flickr, varying in resolution, missing EXIF data or taken with a different camera from the user's other uploads, suggesting that they are not boonkumnoun's own creations. Incidentally (?), they were all uploaded here by User:Jarcje. Note that Image:King bhumibol of thailand.jpg and Image:Bhumibol-Sirkit-1.jpg, which were also uploaded from boonkumnoun's Flickr page, have already been deleted as copyright violations. I have previously contacted boonkumnoun on Flickr inquiring about these photographs, but he was not truthful to me, claiming to have taken the deleted photos himself. Paul_012 (talk) 11:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- Anyway..the picture is nice!
Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 16:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Flickr uploads by pahonyontin
[edit]- File:Arrivals map suvarnabhumi airport.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Meeting and greeting level 3 Suvarnabhumi.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Departure map suvarnabhumi.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Airport bus suwannephoom.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Suvarnabhumi international airport bangkok highway.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Taxi stands at suvarnabhumi.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:People waiting to board.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Central Chidlom.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Bangkok by night.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Don Maung planes.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
These images by pahonyontin, who appears to be the same person as commons uploader User:Jarcje, are varied in resolution and have lacking EXIF data or tags showing them to be taken with different cameras, suggesting that they were copied from elsewhere and are not the uploader's original creations. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 16:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Uploads by Jarcje
[edit]- File:Dipangkorn.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Bangkok pattaya hospital.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:HuaHinBeach.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Udon thani citypillar.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:SCB Plaza Bangkok.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
These images are of variable resolution and have missing EXIF data or that which disagree which User:Jarcje's other contributions, all of which are taken with a Canon Powershot A95. Most suspect here is the photograph of Prince Dipangkorn, which is very unlikely taken by a regular user outside of official capacity. See also Commons:Deletion requests/Flickr uploads by pahonyontin, where the user appears to be using Flickr to claim false ownership of images. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 16:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
uploaded wrong image
Deleted. See File:Panorama-sanluisobispo.png. --MGA73 (talk) 16:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
This is Dubai, not Fujeirah
- Delete Wrong name. Uploader requested deletion. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 09:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, user request (image not used). Kameraad Pjotr 19:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
orphan image and little value to wikipedia. user without recent activity.
--80.25.191.37 03:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, out of Project Scope. Kameraad Pjotr 19:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Image taken from [2], but no assertion of permission for commercial use, redistribution, or derivative work has been established. Dream out loud (talk) 03:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- I was just moving it from en.wiki but yes - without any permission it should be deleted. PMG (talk) 11:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, could be speedy as copyvio. JGHowes talk - 00:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --High Contrast (talk) 11:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, copyvio. Kameraad Pjotr 19:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
most probably copyrighted, source given. --Fransvannes 18:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Source does not state permission for commercial use, redistribution, or derivative work. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 09:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, copyvio. Kameraad Pjotr 19:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
