Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2009/04/08
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
Unlikely to be own work - see TinEye report here Tabercil (talk) 01:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, many more examples seen with google search of "Tara Reid drunk". -- Infrogmation (talk) 02:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Image failed flickr review as 'All Rights Reserved' and is used on only 1 wikipedia article. Image is also easily replacable. Leoboudv (talk) 05:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Speedily deleted as copyvio. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
No source --Crochet.david (talk) 11:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, one of series of images uploader yoinked from websites without authorization. -- Infrogmation (talk) 12:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
No Freedom of Panorama in France, and Centre Pompidou certainly passes originality threshold -mattbuck (Talk) 12:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- Also:
- Image:Pompidoumetro.jpg
- Image:N528708752 288736 8597.jpg
- Image:Centre pompidour 011.JPG
- Image:Centre pompidou terrace on the fifth level.jpg
- Image:Centre pompidou terrace on the fifth level 2.jpg
- Image:Centre pompidou restaurant with a view.jpg
- Image:Centre Pompidou Artlibre jnl 3.jpg
- Image:Centre Pompidou Artlibre jnl 2.jpg
- Image:Centre Georges Pompidou Outside.jpg
- Image:Fontaine Stravinski.JPG
- Image:Jean-niki-parijs.jpg
- Image:Paris, fontaine Stravinski, oiseau de feu et serpent, Niki de Saint-Phalle .jpg
- Image:Strawinski-Brunnen 2007.jpg
Keep Looks like my local Costco to me. -Nard the Bard 12:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Comment - GDI nard, I wasn't finished. Please consider revising your vote after looking at the other 10 or so. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry :P Keep Image:Centre_Pompidou_Artlibre_jnl_1.jpg and others which merely show functional aspects of the structure,
Delete on the rest. Happy? -Nard the Bard 15:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry :P
- Delete Concerning the building : en:Renzo Piano "(born September 14, 1937) is a world renowned Italian architect and recipient of the Pritzker Architecture Prize, AIA Gold Medal and the Sonning Prize.". Concerning the Fountain en: Niki de Saint Phalle, "born Catherine-Marie-Agnès Fal de Saint Phalle (October 29, 1930–May 22, 2002) " died less than 70 years ago. Image:Centre pompidou terrace on the fifth level.jpg displays unattributed contemporary artworks (the pompidou center shelters a contemporary art museum). The very nature of the museum implies that works are usually made by artists who are still alive or died less than 70 years ago. Teofilo (talk) 14:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Image:Centre pompidou restaurant with a view.jpg this is focused on the restaurant's tables, which do not seem having a lot of originality. Teofilo (talk) 14:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep museum allows taking pictures inside, so FOP is for outside shots. --Sailko (talk) 15:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- The freedom to take one picture for your private use (within your family circle) and the freedom to publish the picture are two different things. Teofilo (talk) 22:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Unfortunately that's right... I think I'll vote for the pro-FOP candidate for the next French presidential elections! ;-) --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 16:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Maxim(talk) 16:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
You forgot Image:Centre_Pompidou_Artlibre_jnl_1.jpg. Teofilo (talk) 14:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Low-quality unused photo with no description and no categories. This is apparently out of COM:SCOPE. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete As per nom, not within the scope of commons, personal photo. --Captain-tucker (talk) 08:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 22:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Duplikat mit Fehler in der Überschrift Christine Türpitz (talk) 09:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted as unused duplicate of File:Gera Historisches Kaufhaus (2).JPG. --Túrelio (talk) 20:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
it\s a test Mihxil (talk) 12:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 22:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete usefulness of this file is unclear. Teofilo (talk) 16:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per above unless can be shown to be useful in project scope. No use on Wikimedia found. -- Infrogmation (talk) 18:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 22:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Big watermark. No description. Yann (talk) 23:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, likely vanity insult/private joke image. -- Infrogmation (talk) 23:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Another image which did not pass flickr review, is of poor resolution and is completely unused on Wikipedia. The flickr photographer takes very poor photos unfortunately. I think in this situation, the image can't be kept. Leoboudv (talk) 05:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 04:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Bridge was built between 1960 and 1965 and there is no Freedom of Panorama in Russia. It also failed Flickrreview as 'All Rights Reserved.' This should be deleted on sight. Leoboudv (talk) 05:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete As per nom, published on flick with All Rights Reserved. --Captain-tucker (talk) 09:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 04:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment: Image failed Flickr review within 2.5 hours of upload in 2007 as 'Non-Commercial Creative Commons.' It cannot be used on Commons even though its an excellent photo. Leoboudv (talk) 05:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete As per nom, cc-by-nc licenses can not be used on Commons as per COM:L#Well-known licenses
Deleted. CC-BY-NC not allowed. --Dodo (talk) 10:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Self promo. Watermark. Yann (talk) 23:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Watermark? You mean the artist's signature? It looks like the artist has free licensed and uploaded images of some of his works to Commons; some seem to have been here for some time. As long as within scope, I'm not sure this is a problem. Seems properly categorized. -- Infrogmation (talk) 00:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep - I don't see any problem with this image. Gridge (talk) 00:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC).
- Keep Agree, no problem with this image, artist has freely licensed and uploaded images of his work to commons. --Captain-tucker (talk) 13:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Kept. The license permits the removing of the "watermark". --Dodo (talk) 10:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
According to Google's translation tool, "עברית: אין מידע" in "author" field means "no information". If we have no information on the author, how can we know this is under a Creative Commons license ? Teofilo (talk) 09:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Why not tag it {{PD-Israel}} and remove the Creative Commons tag ? Teofilo (talk) 09:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Yep, Keep as PD-Israel. CC-BY is always impossible if the copyright owner is not known... Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- The copyright owner is written in the CC templte, as Kibbutz Gan-Shmeul archive (in Hebrew). Netanel h (talk) 19:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- When a content falls into the public domain, there is no longer any copyright owner. Teofilo (talk) 08:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- According to the Israeli law, this image is in the public domain. The Gan Shmuel archive asks to mention its name whenever this image is used, but considering the legal state of affair, complying with this request is voluntary and not obligatory. The fact that the author is unknown is irrelevant for two reasons: (1) The image is in the public domain, because it was taken before 2008 and 50 years have passed since it was taken (2) The Gan Shmuel archive stated that it is (or actually was) the owner of the image's copyrights. We assume this statement is true as long as there is no good reason to think otherwise. Drork (talk) 16:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Using Creative Commons tagging to advertise oneself on Public Domain pictures is a policy I personnaly oppose. I think we should ask the Wikimedia Foundation to issue a strong statement on this matter. If the Wikimedia Foundation says it is OK I will not oppose it. But if the Wikimedia Foundation shares my view that this is evil, Wikimedia volunteers should fight this sort of abuse of Free Licensing with all their forces. Teofilo (talk) 11:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- In this case I can tell you for sure that the archive doesn't fully understand the difference between cc-attribution and PD, and we have to be diplomatic and not to push too hard on people who were willing to give these images away. I know other people who negotiate with archive who have similar problems. Anyway, the CC license says that it does not override the copyright expiry principle, so if the images were taken in Israel before 31 December 1958 they are free regardless of the CC license terms. You can raise the issue on a higher level of course, but please bear in mind that we are trying to be very gentle and diplomatic here. Our goal is to release images for the benefit of the public, and for that end we must not be punctilious. Drork (talk) 14:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Using Creative Commons tagging to advertise oneself on Public Domain pictures is a policy I personnaly oppose. I think we should ask the Wikimedia Foundation to issue a strong statement on this matter. If the Wikimedia Foundation says it is OK I will not oppose it. But if the Wikimedia Foundation shares my view that this is evil, Wikimedia volunteers should fight this sort of abuse of Free Licensing with all their forces. Teofilo (talk) 11:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- According to the Israeli law, this image is in the public domain. The Gan Shmuel archive asks to mention its name whenever this image is used, but considering the legal state of affair, complying with this request is voluntary and not obligatory. The fact that the author is unknown is irrelevant for two reasons: (1) The image is in the public domain, because it was taken before 2008 and 50 years have passed since it was taken (2) The Gan Shmuel archive stated that it is (or actually was) the owner of the image's copyrights. We assume this statement is true as long as there is no good reason to think otherwise. Drork (talk) 16:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- When a content falls into the public domain, there is no longer any copyright owner. Teofilo (talk) 08:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- The copyright owner is written in the CC templte, as Kibbutz Gan-Shmeul archive (in Hebrew). Netanel h (talk) 19:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Kept. {{PD-Israel}} -- Avi (talk) 05:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
This is another pretty bad image that never passed flickr review. Almost everything is in the shadows and the image is unused on Wikipedia. Its deletion is no loss to Commons. Leoboudv (talk) 05:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 01:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
copyvio of the source, no license indicate at the source --Crochet.david (talk) 07:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete no free license seen on source website. Teofilo (talk) 14:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyvio. Yann (talk) 22:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
No licence indicate in the source site --Crochet.david (talk) 12:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete The nominator is right. No permission for release here. --Leoboudv (talk) 04:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyvio. Yann (talk) 22:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Seems to be creative enough to enjoy copyright protection. Teofilo (talk) 13:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- By the way, should we not delete the whole category ? Is it not a trademark infringement to use their name for something not approved by them ? Teofilo (talk) 13:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete since its not the official logo anyway AFAIK. ViperSnake151 (talk) 14:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete and it bears a "TM" symbol. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- "TM" means an (unregistered) trademark; that is generally irrelevant for hosting on Commons (see Commons:Non-copyright restrictions). However... it is copyrightable, and a claim of PD seems rather unlikely. The logo shows up all over the web. Delete. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- "TM" means an (unregistered) trademark; that is generally irrelevant for hosting on Commons (see Commons:Non-copyright restrictions). However... it is copyrightable, and a claim of PD seems rather unlikely. The logo shows up all over the web.
Deleted. Copyvio. Yann (talk) 22:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Keep : I don't think we have that many punks from Russia. This morning Tischlampe uploaded a series of American punks : Special:Contributions/Tischlampe. I don't see under which criteria we should accept these and not the novosibirsk one. Teofilo (talk) 16:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 22:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Copyrighted logo --Erik1980 (talk) 16:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. © Logos. Yann (talk) 22:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Copyrighted logo --Erik1980 (talk) 16:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Which one are you referring to: the Adidas, Ajax or Aegon one? All of them are made of just a few pixels, vaguely resembling the logo, but imho not enough to make them a copyvio. Luctor 18:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- The Ajax logo is too snall to be recognised; both the Adidas and Aegon logo are recognisable, copyrighted logos. BTW: Both files were nominated on Dec. 1st, 2008 but never placed on this list. Erik1980 (talk) 21:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- The Adidas logo is nothing but a piramid of white pixels with a line underneath; even the Aegon logo itself could perhaps be uploaded as Template:PD-textlogo, let alone a simplified version which isn't even that accurate. Luctor 22:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- The Ajax logo is too snall to be recognised; both the Adidas and Aegon logo are recognisable, copyrighted logos. BTW: Both files were nominated on Dec. 1st, 2008 but never placed on this list. Erik1980 (talk) 21:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. © Logos. Yann (talk) 22:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Safari browser is a propietary browser. Screenshots of propietary browsers are never permissible on Commons if they show the browser's user interface. --FedericoMP (talk) 20:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. DW. Yann (talk) 22:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Personal image. Watermark. Yann (talk) 23:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Agree, image is out of scope of Commons, personal photo. --Captain-tucker (talk) 13:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 22:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Poor quality. Big watermark. Yann (talk) 23:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete It is not a watermark, but an announcement of a village festival; seems out of scope; not used, not useful. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 22:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Poor quality. Big watermark. Yann (talk) 23:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete This is pretty bad. --Leoboudv (talk) 04:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete I think this image is out of scope, translation of description is This photo was taken on November 13, 2005, 2 days after my birthday after the presentation of the musical DRACULA in Flanders, in this picture you see me with my idol en: Chris Van Tongelen which would indicate that its a personal photo and therefore out of scope. --Captain-tucker (talk) 13:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 22:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Poor quality. Big watermark. Yann (talk) 23:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete The resolution is poor and there is no metadata. The watermark is very prominent. --Leoboudv (talk) 04:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete That is not a watermark. This looks like the cover a turist brochure; a probable copyright violation. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 22:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
According to Google's translation tool, "עברית: אין מידע" in "author" field means "no information". If we have no information on the author, how can we know this is under a Creative Commons license ? Teofilo (talk) 09:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- The same as Commons:Deletion requests/File:PikiWiki Israel 2176 Kibutz Gan-Shmuel sk12- 201 גן-שמואל-נטיעת פרדס 1949-50.jpg Netanel h (talk) 19:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- My understanding is that Kibbutz Gan-Shmeul archive has collected this picture. But collecting pictures does not automatically give copyright ownership on the collected pictures. Not being able to write down the name of the photographer and remember it only 2 years later (the picture is from 2007 and we are in 2009) is a display of poor management skills, and does not convey a feeling of reliability. Teofilo (talk) 08:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well, Kibbutz is a collective community, so it looks like the person who took the picture was sent by the Kibbutz itself, or gave the picture with its copywrites to the Kibbutz. Netanel h (talk) 09:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- If the picture was taken by an employee, they must have a record of this employee's name. If this picture is the result of a gift, a copy of the written act of gift, including the transfer of copyright ownership, should be sent to COM:OTRS, with the gift maker's name. I don't think we should accept contents without written documents providing evidence of the copyright status of the work. Teofilo (talk) 10:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well, Kibbutz is a collective community, so it looks like the person who took the picture was sent by the Kibbutz itself, or gave the picture with its copywrites to the Kibbutz. Netanel h (talk) 09:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- My understanding is that Kibbutz Gan-Shmeul archive has collected this picture. But collecting pictures does not automatically give copyright ownership on the collected pictures. Not being able to write down the name of the photographer and remember it only 2 years later (the picture is from 2007 and we are in 2009) is a display of poor management skills, and does not convey a feeling of reliability. Teofilo (talk) 08:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Dated 2007, unknown author. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I am not sure I want to keep this image, but there is no copyright violation here. The Gan Shmuel archive stated that it holds the copyrights for this image. The statement is binding in Israel, and since this image was taken in Israel - the statement is valid. We assume the person who is entitled to make legal statements on behalf of the Gan Shmuel archive does so lawfully, as long as we don't have a good reason to doubt that. As for the image itself - I am not sure it's within our scope, but that's another story, that should be discussed separately. Drork (talk) 16:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Evidence for that? The source is not even given. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- If it was an old photograph from the 1900, I would understand that the archive may not have the knowledge of the photographer's name. But this photograph was taken 2 years ago. Why not ask them and see if they have a legitimate reason for not knowing who took the picture, or alternatively if they cannot do their homework and find out the photographer's name and give us information on the photographer's relationship with them, whether he is a paid employee or a gift maker. Teofilo (talk) 11:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- I am not interested in the relations between them and the photographer, and it is none of my business as long as they state that they were the copyright holders at the moment of giving away the image. I am not going to interrogate any image contributor about the history of the image. All I want to know from the contributor is that it has the right to give it away. If he is willing to say so in a legally binding way - it is enough. Drork (talk) 14:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- There is no shred of evidence that the uploader had the right to release this image. The license requires attribution, but it is completely unclear to whom it should be attributed! /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- The attribution is very clear, the image should be attributed to the archive of Kibbutz Gan Shmuel. That's all there is to it. I trust this archive that it gives its statements lawfully, and if for any reason I'll find out I cannot trust it, the users of the Commons will be the first to know. Refusing a contribution given under "kosher" statement is a dangerous precedence. Do you really suggest that we will go after every contributor to make sure he is not lying? Drork (talk) 19:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- I have noticed the writing in Hebrew on the right side of the infoboxes that at first sight may look empty, but as far as I can see it does not say anything about whom this image should be attributed to. Where does it say "archive"? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
-
- Whatever he might say cannot be legally binding, because of what we write in our Commons:General disclaimer. Or because of what is written in the Creative Commons license : LICENSOR OFFERS THE WORK AS-IS AND MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND CONCERNING THE WORK. Instead of seeking legally binding commitments, let's try to build trusting relationships. That means testing if people are helpful, and provide answers when reasonable doubts are raised. Teofilo (talk) 22:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Hebrew is written in Hebrew characters. This image is sent to the Commons through the first localized interface using non-Latin characters, hence the problem reading all the information, however we have trustworthy Hebrew-speaking users who can tell you that אין מידע means "no information". These users also bother to translate the information into English and other languages, but it takes time. The license tag states clearly who is/was the copyright holder, according to its legally binding statement, and whether he asks for attribution (in some cases, if the image was taken more than 50 years ago, this request can be ignored, although it would be a bit rude). So, to sum it up, please look at the license tag. The name you see there, be it in Hebrew, in English, in both languages or whatever, is the name of he person or the body that contributed the image and stated that he is/was the copyright holder. The Pikiwiki project management has an archive of these statements. Each and every one of them is legally binding according to the Israeli law, and the Israeli law is recognized by most other countries as binding for pictures taken in Israel, or in the territory of the former British Mandate of Palestine, by Israelis or former British Mandate subjects. Please do not use these images in the Islamic Republic of Iran, as the authorities there might not recognize the Israeli law. Publishing these images in Sudan and in several other countries in Asia may present a similar problem, but generally speaking, the statements we have are quite enough and they are "kosher" worldwide. In case we find out such a statement is false or inadequate, we will immediately inform the Commons' administrators and stop receiving images from the person/body that gave the false statement. In such far-fetched cases we could even take legal measures against this person/body for deceiving us, but we don't intend to go that far. Drork (talk) 04:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Whatever he might say cannot be legally binding, because of what we write in our Commons:General disclaimer. Or because of what is written in the Creative Commons license : LICENSOR OFFERS THE WORK AS-IS AND MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND CONCERNING THE WORK. Instead of seeking legally binding commitments, let's try to build trusting relationships. That means testing if people are helpful, and provide answers when reasonable doubts are raised. Teofilo (talk) 22:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- The attribution is very clear, the image should be attributed to the archive of Kibbutz Gan Shmuel. That's all there is to it. I trust this archive that it gives its statements lawfully, and if for any reason I'll find out I cannot trust it, the users of the Commons will be the first to know. Refusing a contribution given under "kosher" statement is a dangerous precedence. Do you really suggest that we will go after every contributor to make sure he is not lying? Drork (talk) 19:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- There is no shred of evidence that the uploader had the right to release this image. The license requires attribution, but it is completely unclear to whom it should be attributed! /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Huib talk 04:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
OTRS pending since december 14th, could not find a matching ticket. Eusebius (talk) 13:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 10:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
OTRS pending since december 14th, could not find a matching ticket. Eusebius (talk) 13:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 10:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
OTRS pending since december 14th, could not find a ticket. Eusebius (talk) 13:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC) Other images in the same batch:
- File:Role observation elections du Congrès1.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Role du Congrès1.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Histoire du Congrès2.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Histoire du Congrès.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Composition du congres du Conseil de l'Europe.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
--Eusebius (talk) 13:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Huib talk 04:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
this image is linking to a pro-pedophile website 201.73.53.226 13:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Image seems to be in use on a page in ja:Wikipedia. I don't see evidence that image/logo has been free licensed in any case. -- Infrogmation (talk) 18:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Abigor: In category Unknown as of 8 April 2009; no permission
Passes the threshold of originality. No permission from the subway company. Teofilo (talk) 15:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Its surely copyrighted. --Leoboudv (talk) 04:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, Derivitive work; Flickr photographer does not have authority to license. -- Infrogmation (talk) 03:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
The image is not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Given that Category:Human feces is not empty, and poo is poo, no matter how is or where it is photographed, this file adds nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject" --Backslash Forwardslash (talk) 04:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Keep, in use. –Tryphon☂ 04:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- The only two uses are here and here, where the image is one of a very very long list of images. Backslash Forwardslash (talk) 05:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete I agree with the nominator's reasons. --Leoboudv (talk) 05:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete I don't really see a purpose for this image. According to the page, "There are no pages that link to this file." Also, I think the name is misleading or confusing. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- @Ottava Rima, the statement about use on the image description page only relates to use on Commons, not on other Wikimedia projects.--Túrelio (talk) 07:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Keep this shit, because the image is in use - it is as simple as that. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- As pointed out above, how is this image educationally distinct from the other images on the two pages it appears on? Backslash Forwardslash (talk) 08:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well, how are all the images of the Colosseum "educationally distinct" - whatever criterium that is? Commons is not censored. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- There are many aspects to the Colosseum - the exteriors, the archways, different sides; it's a massive building and there are plenty of different angles, all of which are educationally distinct (which, by the way, is explicitly given as en example of not meeting COM:PS.) This is shit - there aren't any different angles to it, different ways of looking at it. It provides the same educational 'benefits' of all the other pictures on those pages, and does not "add anything educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject". Censorship is irrelevant. Backslash Forwardslash (talk) 08:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well, how are all the images of the Colosseum "educationally distinct" - whatever criterium that is? Commons is not censored. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- As pointed out above, how is this image educationally distinct from the other images on the two pages it appears on? Backslash Forwardslash (talk) 08:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - Agree with nom. Do we really need more images of human feces in any case? --FastLizard4 (talk) 08:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Keep - I see no reason to delete this image, it is being used twice and is within scope. There are only thirteen images in Category:Human feces, I don't see that as being an excessive amount of images on a single subject. --Captain-tucker (talk) 15:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- It's excessive when all thirteen are being used on a singular page, as is the case in its two uses. Again, what educational benefits does this image offer as opposed to the other pictures of human feces? You (collective) seem to be ignoring this! Backslash Forwardslash (talk) 22:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- I am not a doctor but how about a comparison between normal baby feces and meconium, it doesn't really look like normal feces so I am sure that someone who knows something about this subject could probably tell something about the babies diet. I would imagine that you can tell a lot about the health and or conditions of someone by their feces. All of that is educational and would be in scope. Think of this from a medical point of view. --Captain-tucker (talk) 00:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- It's excessive when all thirteen are being used on a singular page, as is the case in its two uses. Again, what educational benefits does this image offer as opposed to the other pictures of human feces? You (collective) seem to be ignoring this! Backslash Forwardslash (talk) 22:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Just comparing this to the other images in the category shows it is noticeably, and usefully, different. Educationally distinct, even. For heavens' sakes, it's bright green, for the most prominent feature! Speaking as someone who remembers, the exact color and consistency of their baby's ... output ... is an important topic of conversation and concern among first time parents. Therefore, encyclopedically useful. Let's not throw the baby out with the ... err ... never mind ... :-) --GRuban (talk) 20:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Kept. In use. –Tryphon☂ 21:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Image:OAKMidSummer2008Take2Ersta.jpg (second nomination)
[edit]
Krewe members contacted me with request for deletion. As image is not important in illustrative value and image not used in Wikimedia, I uploader also request. Delete --Infrogmation (talk) 00:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per good faith uploader's request. I wouldn't like the image to represent my group too. --Leoboudv (talk) 04:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, no opposition. -- Infrogmation (talk) 03:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
All files in Category:Jérôme Mesnager
[edit]- File:Jerome_Mesnager_Ecce_Homo.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Mesnager_Belleville_Pelleport.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Mesnager_Cascade.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Mesnager_Ménilmontant.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Mesnager_Télégraphe.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Mesnager_zlotykamien_hambleton_jnl.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log) (marked "encyclopedic use (commercial or not), academic work")
Contemporary artist. No permission. No freedom of Panorama : COM:FOP#France. Teofilo (talk) 14:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete (mais pourquoi tu te réfères à FOP ?). VIGNERON * discut. 14:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Parce que si on était en Allemagne ou en Espagne, ces photographies seraient permises puisque prises dans un espace public, dans la rue. Teofilo (talk) 15:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Je vais tenter de rentrer en contact avec Mesnager (il y a déjà un OTRS pour une photo). Ensuite, le débat sur les graph de rue est loin d'être éclairci, il serait dommage de s'emballer dans l'effacite aigüe alors qu'il n'y a aucune urgence et (je crois bien) aucun risque de conflit avec les grapheurs qui sont au contraire très content de voir leurs oeuvres reconnues. Siren-Com (talk) 13:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Je ne viens qu'une fois de temps en temps sur commons, chaque fois pour apprendre qu'on a effacé mes photos. Très déprimant : j'arrête commons. Jean-no (talk) 15:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Je vais tenter de rentrer en contact avec Mesnager (il y a déjà un OTRS pour une photo). Ensuite, le débat sur les graph de rue est loin d'être éclairci, il serait dommage de s'emballer dans l'effacite aigüe alors qu'il n'y a aucune urgence et (je crois bien) aucun risque de conflit avec les grapheurs qui sont au contraire très content de voir leurs oeuvres reconnues. Siren-Com (talk) 13:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. No FOPHuib talk 04:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Incorrect molecular compound drawings
[edit]- File:Aluminiumantimonide.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Bariumdibromide.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Bariumoxide.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Bariumsulfide.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Bismut(III)sulfide.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Bismuttelluride.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Potassium cyanide formula.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Yttriumantimonide.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Yttriumantimonide2.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Sodium peroxide.svg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:KCLO4.gif (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
sulfide.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
sulfide.png&action=edit){kind=link}
sulfide.png&diff=0){kind=link}
sulfide.png&action=history){kind=link}
sulfide.png&action=watch){kind=link}
sulfide.png&action=unwatch){kind=link}
sulfide.png){kind=link}
sulfide.png&action=purge){kind=link}
sulfide.png){kind=link}
sulfide.png){kind=link}
sulfide.png){kind=link}
sulfide.png&action=edit&preload=Commons:Deletion_requests/preload){kind=link}
sulfide.png&action=delete){kind=link}
sulfide.png){kind=link}
sulfide.png){kind=link}
Those chemicals that are not molecular compounds were drawn as such by User:Quatrostein, User:Neolexx und User:Aushulz. See the individual pages for more details. --Leyo 14:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete: All these substances are crystalline compounds without a direct covalent bond between kation and anion (e.g. Ba and O in File:Bariumoxide.png), which means a line between two atoms in a chemical structure. For this reason these pictures are wrong and they should be deleted. --Orci Disk. 18:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment: Some of these compounds can form molecules, although I imagine only in the gas phase at low pressure and/or high temperature. For example, the BaO monomer has a Ba-O bond length of 1.9397 Å as determined by microwave spectroscopy, according to the CRC Handbook. I would tend to agree that these images should be deleted because they are misleading. But I wouldn't like to set a precedent where images of e.g. the BaO molecule could not be uploaded - they do exist, after all. --Ben (talk) 11:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete I agree, these are misleading. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Per above Huib talk 04:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Small image made for portal on cs wiki, unused now --Jvs (talk) 15:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Badseed talk 03:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Big watermark. No permission from author. Yann (talk) 23:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete Image is not useful with the watermark like that, and it is too prominent to remove. Also not clear that user:Boomer38 can release James Allen's artwork on GNU license.--Jarekt (talk) 13:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. No permission, watermark. Yann (talk) 12:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
The shown line is not backed up by sources and can there for not be used in any project. Blunts (talk) 04:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Kept. In use. Rocket000 (talk) 04:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
same image with © at [2].
- Yep, Delete. The uploader added some of the text, but can't call it "own work". Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Rocket000 (talk) 04:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
copyvio of http://www.opg.com/power/fossil/Nanticoke%202%20pg%20Final%20.pdf --Crochet.david (talk) 07:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Rocket000 (talk) 04:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
--Crochet.david (talk) 12:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. I'm guessing the reason was copyvio. Rocket000 (talk) 04:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
COM:DW sугсго 14:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Isn't this just a suitcase with some art on it? --Leoboudv (talk) 04:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Art on it = COM:DW. sугсго 07:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, art on it. I will look to an other way. You can delete. --Anton-kurt (talk) 17:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Art on it = COM:DW. sугсго 07:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Rocket000 (talk) 04:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
No FOP in France ViperSnake151 (talk) 14:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Rocket000 (talk) 04:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The gallary is not realistically useful for an educational purpose. This person "Ayako Katayama" is of no social or political or cultural significance in and out of the Japanese society. It is a mere private photo-album of a Japanese woman. --Outinoinu (talk) 16:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Rocket000 (talk) 04:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
uploading a more compatible file format Geeoff (talk) 16:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. New version: File:DOE Org Chart.jpg. Rocket000 (talk) 04:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
OTRS pending since december 14th, could not find a matching ticket. Eusebius (talk) 13:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 08:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
No evidence uploader is copyright holder. Photographer's signature on photo "Bickerwod & Bickerwood" (? not sure about cursive of first letters). Uploader on en also uploaded other dubious claims to be copyright holder (eg scanns of magazine covers). --Infrogmation (talk) 17:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Missing essential source information. –Tryphon☂ 12:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
wrong licence, non free Kyro (talk) 18:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - Photo published on flick with the cc-by-nc-sa-2.0 license which is not acceptable on Commons as per COM:L#Well-known licenses. --Captain-tucker (talk) 22:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Unfree license. Its a copy vio. --Leoboudv (talk) 07:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Failed flickr review. –Tryphon☂ 08:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
By request of the subject of the photograph --The JPS (talk) 21:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Kept. We have an OTRS ticket for this image. If there is a problem, please contact OTRS directly. –Tryphon☂ 08:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Poor quality. Big watermark. Yann (talk) 23:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep Hi there. You should not recommend for deletion artworks with signature (not watermark) or arguing "poor quality". This is not a photo!!!. Its a portrait (mixed media) work of art from a artist. Regards JoanL (talk) 09:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Keep - Image is licensed cc-by-sa-2.0 on flickr which is fine, artist has freely licensed and uploaded images of his work to commons. No problems with this image. --Captain-tucker (talk) 13:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Kept. In use. –Tryphon☂ 08:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Big watermark. No ad please. Yann (talk) 23:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Yikes! clear spam. --Leoboudv (talk) 04:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete As per nom. --Captain-tucker (talk) 13:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Keep This is the best image of Olivia Brown available.[1] Remove the watermark, don't delete the image. Mangostar (talk) 15:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Keep We can crop it so it's just the face. I don't see why it should be deleted. --Ysangkok (talk) 20:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Kept. In use. It would be nice if we could find a replacement, or remove the watermark, but it will have to do for now. –Tryphon☂ 08:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I suspect the uploader made the collage, but the original photograph might be from someone else, as I see the same photograph on http://www.hindujagruti.org/hinduism/knowledge/out/images/1200018757_Baba.jpg Teofilo (talk) 10:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps, even more telling is the presence of the same picture on http://www.bhaktarajmaharaj.org/ with "© Copyright 2006-2007. The official website of H. H. Bhaktaraj Maharaj, Indore (M. P.) India © 2006 http://www.BhaktarajMaharaj.org, all rights reserved. The matter in this site cannot be copied and reproduced in any form without the prior permission from the Shri Sadguru Anantanand Saish Shaikshanik Evam Paramarthik Seva Trust, Indore -12." Teofilo (talk) 12:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Reply to Teofolio deletion comment
[edit]
The original picture and this collage is taken by the uploader. The picture you are refrencing is not the original picture but a sort or painting of the same. As a matter of fact this picture is also available worl wide as a part of free circulation. Please remove your deletion request.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Imursnikhil (talk • contribs) 11:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Hello Imursnikhil,
- Thank you for your reply. Perhaps it would help solving this question if you described yourself a little more.
- Are you a professional photographer or an amateur photographer ?
- Could you describe the circumstances when you took the picture ?
- Is there a specific reason why you want to add peacock feathers on this picture ?
- You write "this picture is also available worldwide as a part of free circulation" : Is this worldwide release written somewhere on an internet website ? Could we have this worldwide release confirmed by E-mail ?
- If this picture is a free picture, is there a possibility to obtain a larger one ?
- Teofilo (talk) 12:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello, This pic was taken in 1995 in vizag. This picture truly belongs to the trust mentioned in the website www.bhaktarajmaharaj.org. Though I belong to the same org., I beleive I need to put this with name of trust. But, please correct me if I need to put The name of trust for liscence and how should I do it, what type of liscence is required for it, please if possible provide me step by step guidance with name of licesnce to be selected for a pic while uploading with licencse to the mentioned name of trust. Also let me know how to correct this info. Thanks for help.
- I am trying to find a Wikimedia volunteer knowledgeable in these matters. Please wait a little bit. Teofilo (talk) 16:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Please see Commons:OTRS for an explanotion on how to give permission: please use Commons:Email_templates#Declaration of consent for all enquiries in doing so. Ciell (talk) 17:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Rocket000 (talk) 04:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Uncertain copyright. I scanned this postcard and uploaded the image to en:Wikipedia in 2003. Early 20th century postcard with no statement of copyright; would qualify as PD-US. However photo was taken in Italy. (I don't know who changed the license to "PD-Old" nor why; I have no knowledge about death date of the author nor did whoever changed the license add any information to support that claim.) --Infrogmation (talk) 01:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Anonymous work from the early 20th century would be {{Anonymous-EU}} or {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}. –Tryphon☂ 04:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- I would guess the postcard is more than 70 years old, but as no date was printed on it I can't be sure. -- Infrogmation (talk) 17:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Since we don't know the date and we don't know if the photographer is mentioned on the reverse we have no way to tell if this is PD-old. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I do know; there's no mention of photographer, date, nor publisher on the reverse; as I mentioned above, scanned from original. -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
There is not sign that this file was once released under a free license by Yale. Eusebius (talk) 13:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- In the case we must delete, I've made replacement representations: SVG, PNG. Please make a universal replacement before deletion, if necessary. --Eusebius (talk) 13:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I was asked by the Director of Communications at Yale Engineering to replace to old shield with the new shield. How can I get get proper proof that the file was released? --unfinishedidea 11:28, 8 April 2009 (CST)
- Good news. Well, then an e-mail of the director of communications would be great. He should send a message like that to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Is it possible? --Eusebius (talk) 17:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Can be restored if OTRS permission arrives. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
While this copyright of this photograph may be expired, the linked website (a discussion forum) provides no authorship and no evidence publication history of this photograph to indicate whether copyright has actually expired or not. Bellhalla (talk) 14:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Even if PD in the US, that is not enough. No evidence it is PD in Germany. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in France : see COM:FOP#France Teofilo (talk) 13:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Coyau (talk) 19:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in France : see COM:FOP#France Teofilo (talk) 13:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Coyau (talk) 19:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
A photographer should know the date when he took the picture, therefore I suspect it is not "own work". Teofilo (talk) 12:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Not own work MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
There is no evidence that the artist, Bernard F. Gribble (1873–1962), released this into the public domain, or that owenership of the original painting by the U.S. Navy Art Collection confers the U.S. Navy the ability to so grant public domain status Bellhalla (talk) 14:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
duplicate of clearer image File:Woman_with_a_Pink.JPG, which has the combined descriptions & license, linked now from Commons "Rembrandt". --Wikid77 (talk) 14:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Maybe the other is better but this one is in use as well. MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Poor quality. Big watermark. Yann (talk) 23:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose. There is no high-quality image on Commons for replacement. — Chesnok (talk) 17:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Kept. MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by 188.123.231.185 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: http://www.ka-dar.ru/donation/
Converted to regular DR, as this merits a discussion. -- Túrelio (talk) 11:27, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and per COM:PRP. It is possible that the uploader is involved in the obseratory and made the photo theirselves, however, they never commented on the DR. --Ellywa (talk) 02:36, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
No indication of claimed PD status. 1)Original tune is from 1923; a year too recent to be sure of PD-US status unless known not to have been renewed. 2)This cover is clearly (if you're familiar with period sheet music) NOT from the original 1923 publication, but from a reissue no earlier than the mid 1930s. (Bing Crosby is on the cover, who was still a teenager not yet famous in '23.) --Infrogmation (talk) 23:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in France : see COM:FOP#France Teofilo (talk) 13:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- I was expected, but in this way, all Category:Graffiti in Paris would be deleted ! - Siren-Com (talk) 13:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Moreover I don't find very fair-play to describe yourself as "author". Teofilo (talk) 13:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- I am author of the picture. Bon, ce serait plus facile de discuter en français, car je suis léger en anglais.
- Moreover I don't find very fair-play to describe yourself as "author". Teofilo (talk) 13:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Lorsqu'on intervient en tant que photographe qui photographie une peinture, il me paraitrait astucieux de remplir la case "Author" de la façon suivante : nomdupeintre (painter) ; nomduphotographe (photographer). Même chose pour la date : datedelapeinture (painting) ; datedelaphoto (photograph). Teofilo (talk) 09:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Je suis quand même assez troublé par la politique de délétion "à vue" sur Commons (comme sur Wikipédia.fr d'ailleurs). Si je ne doit pas me déclarer auteur, OK, il s'agit de Némo, mais alors je donne à la photo le statut de photo d'une oeuvre et la conduit automatiquement à être éffacée !
Dans ce cas particulier des graffiti de rue, Commons voudrait être plus royaliste que le roi. En effet, ces graffiti-oeuvres n'ont pas de carractère officiels, si par exemple il me venait à l'idée de les recouvrir de blanc, personne ne pourrait m'attaquer, j'aimerai bien trouver une jurisprudence qui montrerai que le graphiste jouit de la moindre protection pour son oeuvre, au contraire c'est lui qui est dans l'illégalité le plus souvent (je ne parle pas des décors muraux exécuté dans un projet d'urbanisme et autorisé par une mairie ou autre), . Donc on peut disposer de l'oeuvre et pas la photographier ? en conséquence aucune attaque en usurpation de droit d'auteur n'est à craindre, aucun auteur serait assez idiot pour se lancer dans ce combat perdu d'avance.
D'autant plus que, étant des œuvres éphémères, leur publication en photo ne peut que faire plaisir à l'artiste (quand celui-ci est connu). En dernier ressort, on peut demander l'autorisation de reproduction, mais cela est-il nécessaire quand l'oeuvre est dans ce statut de déshérence ?
Voilà, quelle différence y a t il entre un graffiti, un petit graph, un panneau comme la photo dont on parle ici ? D'autres ne se sont pas génés de repreindre par dessus, un jour, elle disparaîtra, et nous, on n'aurait pas la faculté de les immortaliser en photo sur Commons ?? je pense que le sujet mérite réfléxion et que l'on ne doit pas interprèter la loi au dela de son domaine et de son but, car si on veut prendre les loi au pied de la lettre, un très grand nombre de photo sont à enlever de Commons. Siren-Com (talk) 13:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Apparemment, seul le panneau "Ménilmontant" (File:Mesnager Ménilmontant.jpg) fait partir d'une commande officiel et serait protègé par son statut. Les autres sont soit non-signé ou sauvages. Siren-Com (talk) 13:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Je ne suis pas sur qu'une photo de mur soit qualifiable de "panorama". Il y a peut-être plusieurs œuvre dans la photo (numéro de rue, le mur en lui-même, boite edf/gdf) mais faudrait pas mettre tout dans le même sac car je suis pas sur que cela puisse etre considéré comme des oeuvres d'art sous droits d'auteur. --GdGourou - °o° - Talk to me 13:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Je crois aussi que FOP n’a rien à voir avec ces photos. Pour revenir à la remarque de Teofilo, toutes ces images devrait commencer par avoir une licence œuvre dérivé et pas auteur comme actuellement. A priori, ces graffitis sont des œuvres de l’esprit (selon le L112-2 du CPI) donc soumis au droit d’auteurs. Donc, il faudrait commencer par trouver qui est l’auteur (vivement que la loi sur les auteurs inconnus soit discutées et votées). Sinon certains de ces graffitis (ceux aux pochoirs, les spaces invaders, etc.) font partie d’une série et ne sont donc pas soumis au droit d’auteur. Cdlt, VIGNERON * discut. 14:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Voir cette photo File:Pochoir girafe.JPG qui est sur Commons en Public Domain depuis un an, la girafe serait obtenue par pochoir. Siren-Com (talk) 15:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Voir Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pochoir girafe.JPG. Teofilo (talk) 09:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- A ce petit jeu là, c'est bien ce que je dis, un tiers de Commons passe à la trappe. Laisse nous le temps de voir venir, je vais essayer de contacter les auteurs. Mais sur le fond (un graph anonyme, illégal, est-il protègé ?) tu ne réponds rien, tu fais de la buraucratie ! Siren-Com (talk) 10:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Voir compléments d'information sur la page Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pochoir girafe.JPG - Siren-Com (talk) 12:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- Voir Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pochoir girafe.JPG. Teofilo (talk) 09:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Author denied authorization. Coyau (talk) 12:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Copyrighted logo; picture only involves the logo and is therefore not allowed Erik1980 (talk) 16:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Derivative work. Herr Kriss (talk) 18:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Derivative work; uploader does not have rights to license it. -- Infrogmation (talk) 16:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Questionable copyright status, see en:Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/NIF Crystal. The two relevant pages are [2] and the legal disclaimer. Essentially, permission to create derivatives is not specified. MER-C 09:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- BTW, there are other images on Wikipedia from LLNL with the same issue. Anyone know if this has been discussed before? Kaldari (talk) 16:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Probably not. Here is as good a place as any. MER-C 08:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment The argument from the provided link (as I understand it) is that this license may not be granted for derivative works. Could someone explain (or link to explanation of) how this is a derivative work? Is it not the original image? -Verdatum (talk) 16:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- This is the original image, but Wikipedia requires "free licensed" images, and in order to meet the definition of a free license, it must also apply to derivative works. Kaldari (talk) 15:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Am I correct in believing that the this should not be a delete, but a move to Wikipedia? Please clarify. 206.47.210.130 15:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. OK, I'll stick my head out. Photo was taken by Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC, a private firm operating Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Under an agreement between Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC and their client, the federal government, "the U.S. Government retains a nonexclusive, royalty-free license to publish or reproduce these documents, or allow others to do so, for U.S. Government purposes." First point, the license owned by the private firm is not PD-USGov. Second, it is not clear that the license rights retained by U.S. Government automatically transfer to the general public or if the U.S. government must explicitly "allow" and, if so, if contributing to an online not-for-profit free media repository can reasonably be assumed to fall under "U.S. Government purposes". Third, the license so retained does not specify modification or derivation, suggesting that these are not intended uses and so are incompatible with the GFDL or CC-BY-SA. BanyanTree 05:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
U.S. Naval Institute is not an entity of the US federal government. While it would be public domain if authored by the U.S. Navy, there's no link to investigate claim of that probability. Bellhalla (talk) 15:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - I have added the source of the image after a little Goggle Image hunting; the description from these is as follows: "Admirals Beatty and Rodman, King George V and the Prince of Wales (HW)". What does (HW) mean? —Ed 17 (Talk) 16:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- HW is defined on their sources page. From a 1918 book published in Philadelphia. So, PD-US at least. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- This photo was obviously taken before 1939, right? Would that mean that it is PD-UK too? —Ed 17 (Talk) 05:39, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- HW is defined on their sources page. From a 1918 book published in Philadelphia. So, PD-US at least. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Keep: photo is taken by Underwood and Underwood and sold to International News Service (hence, published before 1923 in US, PD-US); I have updated the information with sources on the image page. Jappalang (talk) 01:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
