Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2009/04/10
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
It was may first upload. Since than copyright law in Russia has changed and an approach to photos with author unknown has changed as well. If a person has died in 1930s, most probably an author of the photo has lived on for long. --Blacklake (talk) 08:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- This is a simple portrait foto, so it is nearly clear that the photographer cannot be known any more. The photo must have been taken before 1937 so it is in the public domain. keep --Kl833x9 (talk) 10:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. BanyanTree 06:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC) Kept. BanyanTree 10:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Villamontes.jpg
Looks like a photograph of a paper poster, with crinkles and the top of a caption visible on the lower part. Teofilo (talk) 12:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- I have worked on this lake project during my servive life and prepared the map in my office initially in authocad format and then converted into jpg by scanning. This plan is also under public domain in various forms in many magazines, articles and photo exhibitions. If it is felt that this does not meet wikicommons rules,then I have no issues.--Nvvchar (talk) 04:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you again for your answer. When you say "the map", do you mean the following file : File:Loktak_Lake_Image.JPG ? Because File:Loktak_Lake_view_1.jpg looks more like a photograph, taken with a camera than a computer aided design made with AutoCAD.
- I understand that as a professional who worked on important projects like this one, the input you can give to Wikipedia articles is very valuable. I think we have to find some form of adjustment between the knowledge you are willing to share and the requirements both of the Indian copyright law (the basics of Indian copyright law are written on Commons:Licensing#India or Template:PD-India) and of Wikimedia's commitment to Free contents.
- Do you know who was holding the camera which took the picture on File:Loktak_Lake_view_1.jpg ? Do you know when this photograph was taken ? Was it ten or twenty years ago, or more ? And was it published, by a publishing company or a government body ? Teofilo (talk) 14:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Hi!Teofilo. There was total confusion in my differentiating between the two files. The file under dispute is in fact a picture (not made from AutoCad). This picture was taken by me from a distance of about 3 m with my own camera of a display board of the Loktak Lake put up below a tree in an exhibition by the Government of Manipur for an ethnic display of the states products and places held in January 2009, as part of India's Republic Day programmes. The display board may still be there below the tree expsoed to the Sun and rains. It was purely a publicity board without any names of the photographers or even the name of the government department. Since public diaplays are free from Indian Copy rights act I presumed that it would be OK if I take this picture and use it for my articles.I hope this clarifies the situation fully. --Nvvchar (talk) 10:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
- In summary, it's a derivative work of a publicly displayed photograph taken by an uncredited photographer. As far as I can tell, the only valid India-related PD rationale we have is {{PD-India}}. I can't find any indication in http://www.education.nic.in/CprAct.pdf that "public diaplays (sic) are free". In fact, it would seem rather pointless to have a copyright law that only protects unpublished works.
Delete. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- Might be fine according to COM:FOP#India. We would, however, need some indication that this is really permanent. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 13:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- In summary, it's a derivative work of a publicly displayed photograph taken by an uncredited photographer. As far as I can tell, the only valid India-related PD rationale we have is {{PD-India}}. I can't find any indication in http://www.education.nic.in/CprAct.pdf that "public diaplays (sic) are free". In fact, it would seem rather pointless to have a copyright law that only protects unpublished works.
Deleted, unclear whether this is permanent or not and therefore FOP probably does not apply. Kameraad Pjotr 19:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Looks like the scan of a paper publication, because of the frame on the top and the bottom, and the slight tilt angle Teofilo (talk) 14:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- The layout is similar on File:Indiira Sagar Powerhouse 0004.jpg. Teofilo (talk) 14:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination and this comment by the uploader. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Likely derivative work, would need permission by original copyright holder. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 13:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
No evidence that it is public domain; original uploader on en WP has a lot of warnings for bad images: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:VMORO Fences and windows (talk) 00:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Suspect photograph which is low resolution. Bidgee (talk) 14:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
unused and unidentified logo. Out of project scope Belgrano (talk) 00:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Huib talk 04:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Image stolen from http://www.metoperafamily.org/metopera/news/features/detail.aspx?id=1787 Fences and windows (talk) 01:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyvio. Yann (talk) 12:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
It's a logo, not the work of the uploader Fences and windows (talk) 01:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Not own work, no permission. Yann (talk) 11:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This template is no longer used. I would like to propose to delete it to cut down on template clutter. I nominated it for speedy deletion, but original uploader disagreed. --Jarekt (talk) 02:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. Reduce template clutter. Legacy template that predates the coordination effort on COM:GEO. Not needed anymore and far too narrow in scope anyways. --Dschwen (talk) 04:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Template no longer needed and is now redundant. Bidgee (talk) 14:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope. File is not used. High Contrast (talk) 06:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- I don't know if it makes it within scope, but it's a nice LOL cat. ;oP Yann (talk) 12:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. O.o it just fly right to the deletion button Huib talk 04:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope. Commons is not a private photo album. Furthermore this image is not used. High Contrast (talk) 06:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 12:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
The author asked to delete this file. 85.177.40.167 07:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. User request. Yann (talk) 12:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope. Furthermore this image is not used. High Contrast (talk) 07:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 12:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Out of scope. Commons is not a private photo album. Furthermore this image is not used. High Contrast (talk) 07:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 12:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Derivative work. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 08:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 15:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Appears to be a copyrighted logo of Buckie High School, of which a low resolution version can be found at [1]. No evidence of permission or release under a free licence, it is unlikely to be the work of the uploader. It should probably be re-uploaded to the English Wikipedia under a claim of fair use for its use in an article over there. Camaron | Chris (talk) 10:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, false license -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Images of user:YukataNinja
[edit]Emerald City Supporters Take 'Em All.jpg
The source website has a copyright notice on its mainpage. No link to a specific page with GFDL tagging is provided.OK now with OTRS ticket Teofilo (talk) 20:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)- The author of this work, Jenni Connor, has given me direct permission to reuse this work in any manner. What license should I use? Changing to "attribution". YukataNinja (talk) 19:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Could you please tell him either
- a) to see with the website manager if it is possible to add author name and a clear statement concerning the licence below the picture, or
- b) or to send an E-mail to COM:OTRS, using Commons:Email_templates#Declaration of consent for all enquiries ?
- Teofilo (talk) 10:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, I'm contacting the author. YukataNinja (talk) 22:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- It seems this file has been send in via OTRS, can you verify this and remove the deletion request? Thanks.
- YukataNinja (talk) 20:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, I'm contacting the author. YukataNinja (talk) 22:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Could you please tell him either
- The author of this work, Jenni Connor, has given me direct permission to reuse this work in any manner. What license should I use? Changing to "attribution". YukataNinja (talk) 19:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- File:Emerald City Supporters TOHBL.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- Linked website page has no GFDL tagging.
- The author of this work, Matt Brown, has given me direct permission to reuse this work in any manner. What license should I use? Changing to "attribution". YukataNinja (talk) 19:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Could you please tell him either
- a) to see with the website manager if it is possible to add author name and a clear statement concerning the licence below the picture, or
- b) or to send an E-mail to COM:OTRS, using Commons:Email_templates#Declaration of consent for all enquiries ?
- Teofilo (talk) 10:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, I'm contacting the author. YukataNinja (talk) 22:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- The author has uploaded the non cropped, high res version with free license here: File:Seattle Sounders FC First Game ECS Overhead.jpg. Please delete the one I uploaded: File:Emerald City Supporters TOHBL.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log). YukataNinja (talk) 22:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- This is very nice of him. I am wondering if we still require a confirmation E-mail in such a case. So I asked the E-mail volunteers for advice. Teofilo (talk) 10:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- The author has uploaded the non cropped, high res version with free license here: File:Seattle Sounders FC First Game ECS Overhead.jpg. Please delete the one I uploaded: File:Emerald City Supporters TOHBL.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log). YukataNinja (talk) 22:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, I'm contacting the author. YukataNinja (talk) 22:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Could you please tell him either
- The author of this work, Matt Brown, has given me direct permission to reuse this work in any manner. What license should I use? Changing to "attribution". YukataNinja (talk) 19:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
{{il|Three Floyds Dark Lord.jpg}}
Perhaps this is a legitimate own work without anything wrong, but I would like to ask the uploader why the image is relatively small and cropped. Because the other 2 pictures are from websites, I suspect this one has also been taken from the web. Teofilo (talk) 10:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)request withdrawn Teofilo (talk) 00:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)- This is my own work and I released it into the public domain. The image is cropped because it contained many of the same bottles while I wanted to display just one of the bottles as is common on other beer pages (see Great Lakes Brewing Company). YukataNinja (talk) 19:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for your answer. There is nothing wrong indeed. Teofilo (talk) 10:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. Can I remove the deletion request or does an admin need to do that? YukataNinja (talk) 22:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- I removed it. Teofilo (talk) 00:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. Can I remove the deletion request or does an admin need to do that? YukataNinja (talk) 22:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for your answer. There is nothing wrong indeed. Teofilo (talk) 10:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- This is my own work and I released it into the public domain. The image is cropped because it contained many of the same bottles while I wanted to display just one of the bottles as is common on other beer pages (see Great Lakes Brewing Company). YukataNinja (talk) 19:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Request withdrawn. –Tryphon☂ 15:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
The usefulness of the picture is unclear (COM:SCOPE) ; If the source is Ivan himself taking his own picture in a mirror, we need would need his permission, provided the picture is useful for Wikimedia projects. Teofilo (talk) 11:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 12:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Very poor quality. In that condition the image is out of Scope. High Contrast (talk) 11:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 07:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Not simple enough for {{PD-textlogo}}. Yann (talk) 11:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep The main name is a simple gothic typefaced font and the cross in the middle of it is a {{PD-shape}} the other letters are simple too. Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 20:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Also, all the required templates and info were stated correctly on the file's page. Mr.Yah! msg 21:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Not simple enough Huib talk 04:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Painting of French Painter Jacques Commarmond (as said in fr:Agathe de Rambaud), who is still alive => copyvio, no right to put it here. Remi Mathis (talk) 12:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Remi Mathis' original request was written there. I moved it here. Teofilo (talk) 13:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete no permission from painter. Although he worked after old engravings, he added his own creativity to the older depiction by using his brush and colors. Teofilo (talk) 13:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 16:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
looks like a scan Denniss (talk) 13:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- DeleteI think so too.--KENPEI (talk) 21:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyvio. Yann (talk) 21:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
looks like a scan Denniss (talk) 13:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- DeleteI think so too.--KENPEI (talk) 21:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyvio. Yann (talk) 21:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Image of some student showing his belly, taken from MySpace, no educational use. Commons is not Photobucket.--59.95.112.89 13:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Hekerui (talk) 15:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 21:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
This photograph is copyright violation of writing. --KENPEI (talk) 14:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
(Note:In photograph,'昭和六十一年三月'(Japanese calendar)=March 1986.--KENPEI (talk) 14:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC))
- Delete per article 21 of copyright law of Japan : "The author shall have the exclusive right to reproduce his work." Teofilo (talk) 15:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. See COM:FOP#Japan. –Tryphon☂ 16:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Images of Corpse Reviver
[edit]These photographs are copyright violation of writing. --KENPEI (talk) 14:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- File:Hanaduka 05.jpg
- File:Tottori feudal lord Ikedas cemetery 147.jpg
- File:Tottori feudal lord Ikedas cemetery 006.jpg
- File:Chizu-shuku 27.jpg(Note:In photograph,'平成十七年'（Japanese calendar）=2005)
- File:Tottori feudal lord Ikedas cemetery 002.jpg(Note:In photograph,'昭和五十六年'（Japanese calendar）=1981)
- File:Chizu-shuku 16.jpg
- File:Chizu-shuku 15.jpg
- File:Tomb of Masakuni Sakakibara and his wife 04.jpg(Note:In photograph,'昭和61年'（Japanese calendar）=1986)
Deleted. COM:FOP#Japan is for buildings only. –Tryphon☂ 16:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
out of COM:SCOPE; self-made "album cover" from unknown source images, unusable and unused. Túrelio (talk) 15:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 21:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Pedro Pablo Monterrey
[edit]- File:Pedro Pablo 1.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Pedro Pablo 2.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Pedro Pablo 3.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Pedro Pablo 6.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Pedro Pablo 7.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Those images of es:Pedro Pablo Espinoza Monterrey, because of their "yellow" color, seem to be antique photos and unlikely as own works of a modern day user. In fact, they despict someone from the 1960 decade. However, I have noticed that the user who uploaded them is called User:Juan Espinoza Cuadra, and may in fact be a relative of this person, and the photos may actually truly be his own works. I'm not sure about this. Should those images be kept or deleted? Belgrano (talk) 16:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Permission should go to OTRS to verify Huib talk 04:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Yet another penis picture... I don't see how this one shows anything we don't already have Tabercil (talk) 17:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
"we don't already have" scheint mir hier durchaus kein ausdrückliches oder gültiges Kriterium zu sein. Wenn es ein anderer Körperteil wäre, kein Problem. Wer kommandiert hier eigentlich? Wir Menschen müssen unseren Körper in seiner Gnanzheit annehmen, sonst ist unser Untergang sicher, weil wir den Planeten vernichten. Hier ist Naturrecht im Spiel, das jede Art von positivem Recht au♥er Kraft setzt. Für Kinder ist es wichtig, da♥ sie die Wirklichkeit sehen. Wir haben nicht das Recht, ihnen den Körper (Nacktheit, Sexualität) zu konfiszieren Wir setzen sie dadurch Traumatisierungen, ungewollten Schwangerschaften und Sexräubern aus. Au♥erdem ist das Bild wirklich schön! Wer es nicht ansehen kann, oder mag hat selbst mit seiner Körperlichkeit ein Problem und soll an sich arbeiten. Ich habe, mit meinen 82!! Bei Spencer Tunick's Installationen mitgemacht (in Wien 2008) und hier davon einige Bilder hochgeladen. Edmundw --Edmundw (talk) 09:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Geschwätz! Ich emphehle dir dies einmal durchzulesen: Commons:Project scope. Das erleichtert die Argumentation! --High Contrast (talk) 13:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --High Contrast (talk) 13:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
deleted, and counting --Polarlys (talk) 14:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
(1) Probably a copyright violation, (2) very low resolution, (3) tasteless, vulgar, (4) pratically useless, except as stupid joke 78.54.70.91 17:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete The nominator is quite correct. The resolution is so low, the image is practically useless...without the added copyright problems. --Leoboudv (talk) 09:12, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
1,2,3,and 4. Spam, and image was taken off of a different site...
Deleted. --Dodo (talk) 10:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Licensing legitimacy questionable as Flicker user timurblog contemporaneously uploaded CC-licensed images of Stanley Kubrick's Full Metal Jacket and The Rolling Stones' Paint It, Black. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 17:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyright violation; see [2] and [3]. –Tryphon☂ 16:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
![[2]](http://www.hungary1956.com/images/1956_hungarians_stalin_head2.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
original file is file:Lisa Mitchell.jpg--repat 17:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC) --repat 17:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted by User:MGA73 as duplicate or a scaled down version of File:Lisa Mitchell.jpg. --Túrelio (talk) 21:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
At request of signatory, who is concerned about unauthorized use of signature 216.47.147.42 16:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete
Signature is freely available at the iit.edu website, and on newsletters the president sends out both via email and via post. Also, we have no proof the John L. Anderson actually wants it removed; we only know that an anonymous user wants it removed who claims to be acting on his behalf. Further, the signature is used solely in an educational manner on his article, and it is used fully within copyright restrictions regarding signatures. Even if the signatory desired its removal I see no reason to submit to such a request, especially considering its widespread use throughout IIT documents.Per request of the university. --Odie5533 (talk) 16:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- If my identity (which I would be happy to give) and proof of Anderson's request (which I can acquire, but am curious what form that should be in) are inconsequential, then why bother mentioning them? In any case you are incorrect about the usage of the signature. The only place it appeared was on the Many Voices website, and it no longer appears there (I informed you on your talk page that it was being removed). The president's newsletter does not display his full signature, only "John," or, in some instances, no scanned signature at all. This is not "widespread use," it is use on a single webpage which was in error and has since been corrected. Iithhs (talk) 19:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment I notice the signature is in use on en:Wikipedia article about the person, but there is no photo of the article's subject. Personally, I'd be willing to vote for deletion of the signature image for a usable free licensed photo of the person for the article; seems like the later would be much more useful for project scope. Also, verified requests are best made through Commons:OTRS. -- Infrogmation (talk) 01:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- I can get an image under free license up sometime next week. Most likely the image on this page. Iithhs (talk) 03:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- I have previously contacted the institute in an attempt to obtain such a free image of the president, but I have not received a reply (request sent on April 2). However, I disagree with Infrogmation's proposition and consider the two to be separate issues: one being that of displaying his signature and the other that of obtaining a free image of the president. I don't believe a compromise should be made in this manner. If it is agreed the image should be removed I would accept that, but I don't find it acceptable to remove it in return for something. It almost turns into black mail. --Odie5533 (talk) 18:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, I agree, really; my comment was a random thought, not intended to impose any blackmail. I do think a photo would be much more useful in the person's article than is the yoinked signature, but I guess that's a tangent to this specific discussion. I also am not sure about our apparent policy of allowing a living person's signature to be yoinked off a copyrighted page and free licensed per Commons:When to use the PD-signature tag and would tend to favor deletion of any signature of a living person who has not free licensed it and requests deletion. -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- There are lots of signatures of living people on the Commons. You can not license your signature (just plain signature) under a free license. It's public domain since it doesn't pass the threshold of originality. To say that we should only have signatures of living people if they publish them under free licenses is flawed. The only free license they can publish it as is Public Domain, which happens automatically regardless of whether they say so or not. You can't license something ineligible for copyright. --Odie5533 (talk) 14:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, I agree, really; my comment was a random thought, not intended to impose any blackmail. I do think a photo would be much more useful in the person's article than is the yoinked signature, but I guess that's a tangent to this specific discussion. I also am not sure about our apparent policy of allowing a living person's signature to be yoinked off a copyrighted page and free licensed per Commons:When to use the PD-signature tag and would tend to favor deletion of any signature of a living person who has not free licensed it and requests deletion. -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- I have previously contacted the institute in an attempt to obtain such a free image of the president, but I have not received a reply (request sent on April 2). However, I disagree with Infrogmation's proposition and consider the two to be separate issues: one being that of displaying his signature and the other that of obtaining a free image of the president. I don't believe a compromise should be made in this manner. If it is agreed the image should be removed I would accept that, but I don't find it acceptable to remove it in return for something. It almost turns into black mail. --Odie5533 (talk) 18:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete On consideration per above, I vote delete. I don't think Commons should have any signatures of living people who don't wish them here and have not free licensed them. Whether or not it violates any copyright, the question seems a matter of simple respect. -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- I tend to agree that perhaps out of respect it should be removed, but we have not been made aware of any formal request as of yet. I believe you are jumping the gun in assuming this random person is acting on behalf of the president of a university. --Odie5533 (talk) 14:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I can make sure a formal request is made this week, but I'm still not sure what form the request should take (email, I assume, but to what address?). In any case, I am aware of the request that was made for a freely licensed photo and am waiting for approval from the president's office on the choice of photo. Whatever is decided regarding the signature, I will move forward with getting the photo licensed and uploaded. And to dispense with questions of my identity, I am going to put my name and contact information on my user page right now. Iithhs (talk) 17:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. by Bastique Yann (talk) 22:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
This photographs is copyright violation of writing. --KENPEI (talk) 19:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. This seems to be in Japan; COM:FOP#Japan is for buildings only. –Tryphon☂ 16:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
"OTRS pending" since dec 14th, could not find a ticket. Eusebius (talk) 20:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 10:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
out of COM:SCOPE and possibly an attack image; unused and IMHO unusable. Túrelio (talk) 20:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment If the user intends to use it at his own user page, it may be acceptable. Of course, it should have to actually be used. It may not be in use right now, but I may give some room for that, considering that the file has just been uploaded. Belgrano (talk) 21:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Speedy-Deleted by Tabercil as being out of scope. --Túrelio (talk) 21:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
This page should be deleted for the same reason it was deleted from Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:User:JarlaxleArtemis and the deletion discussion at Wikipedia. -- IRP ☎ 21:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Kept. The user is not blocked here on Commons. –Tryphon☂ 16:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Seems unlikely to be own work, given the absense of a description and a statement of "?" for the date. Tabercil (talk) 21:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- The ? was entered by me, as the entry was empty.--Túrelio (talk) 21:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Speedy Deleted. Attack image and likely copyright violation. Rjd0060 (talk) 15:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Source is invalid. If you look on dodmedia.osd.mil you cannot find this image anywhere there 93.196.47.124 23:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Keep USAF image. The Metadata confirms the info. It is not unusual for some government images of events considered of transitory interest rather than historical importance to only be on the web temporarily. That an image of a USO show from 2001 is no longer displayed at the original source is not surprising nor does it invalidate the license. -- Infrogmation (talk) 11:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Keep USAF image change the links after some years. The source are from US-gouvernment member. --wikifreund (talk) 14:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Clear case: A US-Air Force pic. But Wikifreund at least the image-ID could have been stated. --High Contrast (talk) 19:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Keep, just look at the metadata. --Kjetil_r 09:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Sugest closing as keep "Clear case". -- Infrogmation (talk) 15:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Kept as clear-cut USAF (US-Air Force) image as confirmed by metadata. --Túrelio (talk) 20:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
derivative work of the movie "transformers 2 : the revenge of the fallen". See http://www.toywizard.net/takara-tomys-transformers-movie-2-revenge-of-the-fallen-toy-list/ Teofilo (talk) 11:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
This file lacks a rationale on why the creative design on the sign board is free. Is it because a US federal employee made it ? Is it because it is old ? Without a copyright notice ? There is no freedom of Panorama in the USA except for buildings. See COM:FOP#United States Teofilo (talk) 12:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- This depicts a "Welcome to Nevada" sign of a design used by the Nevada Department of Transportation since at least the 1990s. To my knowledge, it doesn't have an explicit copyright. I apologize if this was uploaded in error--I wasn't aware that images of road signs against a natural backdrop are not okay. I uploaded this image from Wikipedia, just trying to do my part in moving images to Commons... can this image be re-uploaded there if deemed inappropriate for Commons? --Ljthefro (talk) 02:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- When I go to http://www.nevadadot.com/ , I see that the Nevada Department of Transportation, unlike the Federal administrations of the United States, seems to protect its works by copyright because they use "Copyright © 1998 - 2009 Nevada Department of Transportation" on the bottom of the main page of their website. Concerning what may or may not be uploaded on the English Wikipedia, I would rather you asked somebody there. Some people might want to say it is OK there as a case of "fair use", but I have personnally doubts on whether Wikipedia, which is no school or university, fits the "educational use" necessary for a "fair use" rationale. Teofilo (talk) 10:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. per Teofilo MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Looks like a scan. No exif data. Teofilo (talk) 12:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
On his talk page, the uploader says "It is scanned from a govt publication of Geological Survey of India" (diff). But in India, government works are protected during 60 years after publication : see {{PD-India}}. Teofilo (talk) 13:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- The model is on Public display in front of the Geological Survey of India, a Government of India Organization and they have publicly inaugurated the statue in a public function with intention to publicise knowledge of the dinasaur, found for the first time in India, among the public. I have only made a scan copy of the public image posted on the web site and I do not think there are any copy right issues involved.If it is felt that it would be violtaion of copy right rules of wikicommons then I ma sorry I posted and I have no issues if it deleted.The only course left in such a case would be for me to personally go there and take pictures and post it.--Nvvchar (talk) 14:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)copied by Teofilo from this diff
- Hello,
- Thank you for your answer. I understand, from what is written on COM:FOP#India that photographying a sculpture in display in a street in India is allowed. What I have in mind is not the sculptor's copyright but the photographer's copyright. If you could go there personally and take a picture with your own camera it would be fine. Teofilo (talk) 14:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. No permission from the original photographer MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
There is no evidence that "Mosko et associés" agree with this Public Domain release. There is no Freedom of Panorama in France. Teofilo (talk) 09:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Non, mais le graf est obtenu par pochoir ce qui modifie le contexte. Au sujet des graffitis, Rhadam viens de me donner ce lien vers une jurisprudence Les trains tagués : entre droit de propriété et droit d’auteur - CA Paris 27/09/2006. Cdlt, VIGNERON * discut. 19:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- Très intéressant ! mais on reste sur notre faim, le pochoir est-il une oeuvre originale qui porte l’empreinte de la personnalité de son auteur. plus loin : Cette publication, sans autorisation, serait une atteinte à leurs droits patrimoniaux, de même qu’à leurs droits moraux, si la SNCF modifiait, en les reproduisant, les couleurs des graffiti., mais non si elle ne les modifie pas ? Donc la publication des grafitti sur supports non autorisée est libre ? Quant à la conclusion : Cette décision introduit une nouvelle nuance dans la définition de l’œuvre éphémère qui pourra peut-être à terme permettre de mieux protéger au titre du droit d’auteur cette expression artistique que constitue le « graff ». elle vient en contradiction avec le paragrphe précédent. Donc, c'est à peine plus clair.
- Pour en revenir à la girafe, je suis en relation avec les auteurs Rokko et associés qui sont d'accord pour donner une image à Commons, mais sans doute pas la girafe qui ne les représenta pas bien. Attendons la suite. - Siren-Com (talk) 11:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- Après les échanges que j'ai eus avec les auteurs, ils ont dû (comme tant d'autres) être effrayés par la complexité des procédures Commons et le fait que leur oeuvre pourra être réutilisée commercialement, plus de réponses. Chaque fois que je contacte un illustrateur extérieur, il renonce ! Tant pis !! - Siren-Com (talk) 11:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- Pour en revenir à la girafe, je suis en relation avec les auteurs Rokko et associés qui sont d'accord pour donner une image à Commons, mais sans doute pas la girafe qui ne les représenta pas bien. Attendons la suite. - Siren-Com (talk) 11:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Author denied authorization. Coyau (talk) 12:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Reasons for deletion request -repat 12:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC) Don't know what the error was, perhaps sum of my firefox plugins, the bot...whatever. The File is now under File:Lisa Mitchell (1).jpg. Please delete this one and move the correct version to this page--repat 12:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Got it fixed. ViperSnake151 (talk) 12:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Kept because it is fixed as stated above + http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3ALisa_Mitchell.jpg&diff=20142589&oldid=20133689 --MGA73 (talk) 18:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
sourced on en.wiki as www.graphene.org, no indication it was released into PD Skier Dude (talk) 04:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted as per nom.--Trixt (talk) 18:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
