Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2009/04/21
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
it doesn't seem likely that pettibon licenced this image under cc-by-2.0, does it? --NoCultureIcons (talk) 00:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
P.S.: I only just realized that an admin should better look at the other uploads of Ndd, too, there seems to be more sketchy stuff. --NoCultureIcons (talk) 00:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio: Copyright violation: painter en:Raymond Pettibon still living
Douglas Gordon is a contemporary artist, whose works are continually moving between museums.[1][2] This photo was taken at Regent's Park, London. The United Kingdom permits freedom of panorama only for permenantly installed works of art, which this image likely is not. Jappalang (talk) 06:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio: Copyright violation: work of contemp artist and FOP not applicable as statue not installed permanently
source not found this image shizhao (talk) 08:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete per copy vio. The source is "Copyright © 2007 John Kirkpatrick." --Leoboudv (talk) 09:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep Huh? Source is here and does indicate the image was CC-BY-SA-3.0 (icon below the photo). That doesn't preclude John Kirkpatrick to own the copyright, but if he intended "© All rights reserved", he should have written so and not included the CC-BY-SA-3.0 licensing. BTW, please note that the image is currently on the en-WP mainpage; I already had to delete one vandalism overwrite. Lupo 09:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- That means: if you were not seeing an image of a mushroom, you should reconsider your opinion on this file. ;-) Lupo 09:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Per Lupo. –Tryphon☂ 12:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
nonsense, not part of project scope --Simeon87 (talk) 16:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete out of scope. --Leoboudv (talk) 04:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted per nom; photoshop distorted photo of person with dubious description, no Wikimedia use found, possible prank/vanity insult image. -- Infrogmation (talk) 04:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
out of COM:SCOPE; obviously (as being without description) non-notable person and eventually violating personality rights. Túrelio (talk) 18:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- please delete--Motopark (talk) 19:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, was used in Zarian shahzad. --Martin H. (talk) 13:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
not likely a cover would be GFDL/CC-BY-SA Rat at WikiFur (talk) 20:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
just trying to help the site by creating pages for albums and artists that haven't been made, geez.--Soposh (talk) 21:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- It's Commons policy that only free content is allowed. Your local Wikipedia may accept fair use content. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 23:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Uploading other people's copyrighted material with false claim that it is your own work and with a false license does not "help", it hurts by spreading misinformation and creating potential legal problems with copyright infringement. Geez. -- Infrogmation (talk) 05:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, copyright violation with false information. -- Infrogmation (talk) 05:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Deze afbeelding is NIET gemaakt door DavyvanHattem, maar door Rick Bakker! Deze heeft verder ook GEEN toestemming gegeven om de afbeelding te uploaden. Meer info van Rick Bakker: http://www.wegenforum.nl/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=12771 Frans Bosch (talk) 19:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment Translates as "this image is not made by DavyvanHattem but by Rick Bakker! He has NOT given permission to upload the image. More information at the link above" (but you have to be a member of the site it seems to log on.
- It seems that IP 86.90.160.252 changed the author name from uploader User:CborG82 to User:DavyvanHattem. On the image page nominating user Frans Bosch seems to indicate that the initial information would be correct: (CborG82) is the copyright holder (The picture is NOT from DavyvanHattem, but the real author of this picture is: Rick Bakker (User:CborG82). This picture has Copyright All Rights Serverd!). So is Rick Bakker the same as User:CborG82 is the question. Changing the name back to its original can be done easily. -- Deadstar (msg) 21:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'm Rick Bakker a.k.a CborG82, but how do i proof that?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CborG82 (talk • contribs) 21:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Thank you for responding. I think that solves the issue. You uploaded your own photograph under the license {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0}} I'll change the name of the author back to CborG82. Perhaps IP-user was a bit confused. Anyway, this also means that there is no issue and the file can be kept. -- Deadstar (msg) 21:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'm Rick Bakker a.k.a CborG82, but how do i proof that?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CborG82 (talk • contribs) 21:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Kept per above. -- Deadstar (msg) 13:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Can this image be kept on Commons? The flickr license is unfree. And the flickr owner says on his user page that:
- "Unless described as otherwise, all the images in my Flickr photostream are © Roger Butterfield (all rights reserved)....Please note that I do not normally permit commercial enterprises to use my images free-of-charge."
I ask the community to decide. I don't have any strong views here. Leoboudv (talk) 01:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, licensed non-commercial only on Flickr, no confirmation it was ever free licensed. -- Infrogmation (talk) 04:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, Sorry, NonCommercial licenses as not permitted on Commons as per COM:L#Well-known_licenses. --Captain-tucker (talk) 11:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Eusebius (talk) 13:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
The uploader placed 4 images on Commons on January 7, 2007. All were marked within hours of each other and 3 passed but this one failed. It appears to have been licensed as ARR. Since this was the second of the 4 images to be marked, this would seem to be licensed as All Rights Reserved. Its used on only 1 wiki page. Leoboudv (talk) 01:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete If it failed flickr flickr review as being 'All Rights Reserved' then it should be deleted. --Captain-tucker (talk) 19:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Eusebius (talk) 13:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
This image is unused on wikipedia and did not pass flickr review. There are many other images of this pyramid. I think in this case, the image should just be deleted. There are many cars in the picture too which detracts from its quality. Leoboudv (talk) 02:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - cc-by-nc-sa-2.0 is not an acceptable license for Commons as per COM:L#Well-known_licenses. --Captain-tucker (talk) 19:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 06:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I think the license here was 'Non-Commercial' and 'No-Derivatives' Creative commons when it was uploaded. It failed flickr review within 3 months of upload on this license and is still licensed this way. It is also only used on 1 talkpage page on Wikipedia, not in any articles. Leoboudv (talk) 03:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete cc-by-nc-nd-2.0 is not an acceptable license for Commons as per COM:L#Well-known_licenses. --Captain-tucker (talk) 19:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Eusebius (talk) 13:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Image is unused on wikipedia and there are 19 other images of this bridge in Verona. In this case, its preferable to delete since the copyright status is unverifiable. Leoboudv (talk) 04:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Keep But this is a good photo of the bridge. Let us assume that User:Mac9 did a correct upload back in 2005. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Keep I agree with Pieter Kuiper, lets AGF and assume that User:Mac9 did a good upload, a quick glance at some of his flickr uploads all were perfect. --Captain-tucker (talk) 19:24, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment OK then. Keep reluctantly as the nominator. --Leoboudv (talk) 06:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Why this image is Poland PD? shizhao (talk) 07:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- This image was published in Poland before 1994, according to the Polish Copyright law it can be used freely.--Szczebrzeszynski (talk) 07:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Read {{PD-Poland}} Szczebrzeszynski (talk) 11:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Please remove the deletion request. The image is legal, because it was taken and printed in Poland before May 1994. Szczebrzeszynski (talk) 06:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- Why PD-Poland? Everything is told in licence template. In information template there's necessary information: source and date of publishing. Baseless nomination. Ludmiła Pilecka (talk) 13:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Failed flickr image is completely unused on wikipedia. It should not be kept in this circumstance. Leoboudv (talk) 09:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete image was cc-by-nc-2.0 by flicker review and is currently listed as all rights reserved both of which are not allowed on Commons as per COM:L#Well-known_licenses.--Captain-tucker (talk) 19:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Eusebius (talk) 13:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
If the painting was painted in 1975, there's no time enough to be tagged as pd-old --Aliman5040 (talk) 12:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Eusebius (talk) 13:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
change of file name convention Ger Hanssen (talk) 12:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Keep In use. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Please use either {{Rename}} or {{Bad name}}. Eusebius (talk) 13:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
change of file name convention Ger Hanssen (talk) 12:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Please use either {{Rename}} or {{Bad name}}. Eusebius (talk) 13:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
change of file name convention Ger Hanssen (talk) 13:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Please use either {{Rename}} or {{Bad name}}. Eusebius (talk) 13:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
change of file name convention Ger Hanssen (talk) 13:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Please use either {{Rename}} or {{Bad name}}. Eusebius (talk) 13:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
change of file name convention Ger Hanssen (talk) 13:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Please use either {{Rename}} or {{Bad name}}. Eusebius (talk) 13:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
change of file name convention Ger Hanssen (talk) 13:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Please use either {{Rename}} or {{Bad name}}. Eusebius (talk) 13:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
change of file name convention Ger Hanssen (talk) 13:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Please use either {{Rename}} or {{Bad name}}. Eusebius (talk) 13:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
change of file name convention Ger Hanssen (talk) 13:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Please use either {{Rename}} or {{Bad name}}. Eusebius (talk) 13:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
change of file name convention Ger Hanssen (talk) 13:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Please use either {{Rename}} or {{Bad name}}. Eusebius (talk) 13:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
change of file name convention Ger Hanssen (talk) 13:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Please use either {{Rename}} or {{Bad name}}. Eusebius (talk) 13:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
change of file name convention Ger Hanssen (talk) 13:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Please use either {{Rename}} or {{Bad name}}. Eusebius (talk) 13:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
change of file name convention Ger Hanssen (talk) 13:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Please use either {{Rename}} or {{Bad name}}. Eusebius (talk) 13:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
change of file name convention Ger Hanssen (talk) 13:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Please use either {{Rename}} or {{Bad name}}. Eusebius (talk) 13:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
change of file name convention Ger Hanssen (talk) 13:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Please use either {{Rename}} or {{Bad name}}. Eusebius (talk) 13:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
change of file name convention Ger Hanssen (talk) 13:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Please use either {{Rename}} or {{Bad name}}. Eusebius (talk) 13:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
change of file name convention Ger Hanssen (talk) 13:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Please use either {{Rename}} or {{Bad name}}. Eusebius (talk) 13:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
change of file name convention Ger Hanssen (talk) 13:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Please use either {{Rename}} or {{Bad name}}. Eusebius (talk) 13:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
change of file name convention Ger Hanssen (talk) 13:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Please use either {{Rename}} or {{Bad name}}. Eusebius (talk) 13:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
change of file name convention Ger Hanssen (talk) 13:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Please use either {{Rename}} or {{Bad name}}. Eusebius (talk) 13:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
change of file name convention Ger Hanssen (talk) 13:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Please use either {{Rename}} or {{Bad name}}. Eusebius (talk) 13:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
change of file name convention Ger Hanssen (talk) 13:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Please use either {{Rename}} or {{Bad name}}. Eusebius (talk) 13:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
change of file name convention Ger Hanssen (talk) 13:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Keep In use. Same for the rest of them. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- If you want to rename files, please use {{Rename}}, or upload the file under a new name and mark the old one as {{Bad name}}. The way you did it now, we don't even know how the new file should be named or if it already exists. Also, if for another reason you need to nominate many files at once, you should consider doing a mass deletion request instead. –Tryphon☂ 16:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Please use either {{Rename}} or {{Bad name}}. Eusebius (talk) 13:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope. Commons is not a private photo album. Furthermore this image is not used. High Contrast (talk) 14:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Eusebius (talk) 13:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
"All rights reserved." The uploader posted a comment on the source page but I see no consent of the author. Botev (talk) 17:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Nominator is correct sadly. No evidence uploader is the author. This needed an OTRS permission but there is none. --Leoboudv (talk) 04:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Oppose The right holder of the picture expressed his consent for uploading the picture on wikimedia commons. See the source page : http://www.panoramio.com/photo/4449570 Thank you.--DrFO.Jr.Tn (talk) 22:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, but we still need an explicite consent for commercial reusing and creating derivative works by everybody (not just Wikipedia!). As far as I understand French, it doesn't seem clear that the copyright holder has agreed to that. See also: Commons:Licensing#Acceptable licenses. --Botev (talk) 12:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- Hi,
- The author now clearly declares his authorization of using his picture under a Creative Commons license. Is it possible to register an OTRS ticket? Moumou82 (talk) 15:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, but we still need an explicite consent for commercial reusing and creating derivative works by everybody (not just Wikipedia!). As far as I understand French, it doesn't seem clear that the copyright holder has agreed to that. See also: Commons:Licensing#Acceptable licenses. --Botev (talk) 12:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- Great! Now we can of course Keep this image. As far as I am concerned the statement on the source page is enough. If you wish to have it registered under OTRS, the author should send an email to: permissions-commons@wikimedia.org (or to you and then you can forward it to that address). See also: Commons:OTRS. --Botev (talk) 20:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- Great! Now we can of course
Kept. Autorisation OK on the source. Yann (talk) 11:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Image is not encyclopedic (most likely cannot be used in any article). It is used once in a old discussion on the talkpage, which ended months ago. This image, I created, can removed now. --Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete good faith uploader request. Image seems out of scope, too. --Leoboudv (talk) 04:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per Leoboudv. -- Deadstar (msg) 07:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. As per above, user request. Yann (talk) 11:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
+ File:Unemployment rate of Japan editted.png --Kam Solusar (talk) 18:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Uploader/author does not allow commercial use. -- Kam Solusar (talk) 18:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Non-commercial restrictions are not accepted; see COM:L. –Tryphon☂ 12:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
"for illustration and educational (non-commercial) purposes." is not free enough for Commons. -- Kam Solusar (talk) 18:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Quite the contrary is true. This image is used on page Freeze_stat for educational purposes. This image illustrates a digital freeze stat, just like the air-coil and mechanical freeze stat images in the Wikipedia article it supports. To delete this image will detract knowledge from the community. Please note that the neutrality of the article this image supports is not in dispute and serves no commercial purpose. This image is free enough for commons, lends knowledge to the community, and should not be deleted. W4kda (talk) 12:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, the Wikipedia website itself is mostly non-commercial. But Wikipedia (and Commons) are freely licensed and can be copied, modified, and redistributed, even for commercial purposes. It therefore only accepts content under free licenses that allow use by anyone, anytime, for any purpose, see Commons:Licensing. The only exception on the English Wikipedia is Fair use, but only under certain conditions, see en:Wikipedia:Non-free content. --Kam Solusar (talk) 16:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Non-commercial restriction; see COM:L for allowed licenses. –Tryphon☂ 12:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't think this file is ineligible for copyright, this file has much orginality in it and is copyrighted. Lolsimon (talk) 18:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Text only, with an ellipse shape (simple geometric shape); exactly the requirement for {{PD-textlogo}}. –Tryphon☂ 12:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
no evidence it's released under GFDL Rat at WikiFur (talk) 21:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 12:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Global Zachman Framework.jpg and three others of the series
[edit]
Images are not encyclopedic (most likely cannot be used in any article). I created them for a discussion on the w:Zachman Framework talkpage, which ended months ago, but never used them. These image, I created, can removed now.
It is part of a series
- File:Software engineering modeling globally.jpg
- File:Global ANSI-SPARC Architecture.jpg
- File:Global Waterfall model.jpg
- File:Global Zachman Framework.jpg
which were experiments that didn't work out. They will most probably not be used in any Wikipedia article, so they should be removed. I will pay more attention next time before I upload an image like this. --Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 21:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. User request. Yann (talk) 21:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
although it is hosted on a NOAA webpage, it is "courtesy of KTVX News 4 Utah"--not taken or made by a government employee. Gump Stump (talk) 15:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Veo varios problemas en esta foto:
- Está tomada en un recinto cerrado ¿tiene permiso del propietario?
Respuesta: Sí. El teatro Nacional, está encantado con dar difusión a los eventos que alberga.
- Aparecen varias personas identificables ¿han dado su permiso?
Respuesta: Claro, de hecho fue foto promocional del espectáculo.
- Una obra de teatro es una obra de arte. Su autor sigue vivo. Por no hablar del otras personas que puedan tener derechos sobre esta versión concreta: directos, escenógrafo, iluminador...Martingala (talk) 12:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Respuesta: El autor (Sanchis Sinistera) estuvo encantado cuando presenció el estreno en Tegucigalpa. --Urteca (talk) 01:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- Translation of my questions and the "answers" of the uploader:
- Q: Photo taken in a private building, has permission from owner?
- A: Yes. The National Theatre is delighted with the spreading of its events
- Q: Several identifiable people appear, have they given permission?
- A: Off course, in fact this was the promotional photo of the show
- Q: A play is a work of art. His playwright is still alive. Not to talk about other people having rights over this particular version: director, scenographer...
- A:The author (Sanchis Sinisterra) was happy when he saw the premiere at Tegucigalpa
- Q: Photo taken in a private building, has permission from owner?
- Martingala (talk) 22:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
- Translation of my questions and the "answers" of the uploader:
IMHO there answers are dismised by the Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle: "arguments that (...) run counter to Commons’ aims: (...) “The copyright owner will not mind/should be pleased that we have disseminated his/her work.”" Martingala (talk) 20:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 21:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
La verdad es que este debate es un poco arbitrario. ¿quièn es juez? ¿juez y parte? igual, no creo, que borrar una fotografìa, que cuenta con el consentimiento de los actores, guinista y director de la obra de teatro, por que a alguien le parece adecuado, se la mejor polìtica de transparencia.
Drawings by Michael Repoulis
[edit]User has uploaded a number of his own drawings. Some were deleted before as out of scope and I think they should be deleted again. User has also uploaded a number of sound files but as I can't check those from here, I don't know if they are in scope or not. The below are hereby nominated:
- File:Girl on a swing.gif
- File:Portraitofayoungwoman.gif
- File:Girlwithafan3.gif
- File:Cellist.gif
- File:Lady2a.gif
- File:Lady3a.gif
- File:Girlplayingharp3.gif
- File:Sybil.gif and it's near duplicate File:Girlwithcrystalball3.gif
- File:Cleopatra2.gif
- File:Guitaristonastool2.gif
- File:Lady with the umbrella.gif
- File:Ballerina.gif
- File:Manwithwalkingstick2.gif
- File:Mime.gif
- File:Tunnel2.gif
- File:Violingirl.gif
- File:Violinist2.gif
- File:Violinistbythetree.gif
- File:Ballarina2ab.gif
- File:Girlwiththeviolin2ab.gif
-- Deadstar (msg) 08:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. User given final warning MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Obsolete -- en:File:Monet,_Lavacourt-Sunshine-and-Snow.jpg could be uploaded to commons--SV Resolution(Talk) 15:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Monet,_Lavacourt-Sunshine-and-Snow.jpg is now available at commons, under pd-old, subject to review. --SV Resolution(Talk) 16:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Keep, the colors are quite different on those two versions, and we should let users choose which one they want to use. Besides, you're saying a 2,024 × 1,486 image should be replaced by a 750 × 542 one? I know size is not everything, but still... –Tryphon☂ 16:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- delete -- File:Monet,_Lavacourt-Sunshine-and-Snow.jpg is, I think, a fairly faithful representation of the painting, while File:Claude Monet 035.jpg distorts the colors significantly, and shows some strange "waves", as if it were taken from a bad scan of a poor reproduction. I don't think File:Claude Monet 035.jpg was meant to be a derivative work, and I don't think it was used that way in the French wikipedia, in Peintures_sur_les_Yvelines --() 19:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete File:Claude Monet 035.jpg is indeed an abhorrent reproduction. A pity the NPG has visibly watermarked their otherwise great digital copy. Lupo 11:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Sure, but the file is in use. A warning about the weird coloring and a link to the other file would be more appropriate (like {{Superseded}} or something). And if someone with Gimp/Photoshop skills gets bored, they can surely do something to improve it. –Tryphon☂ 12:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- I dropped a comment on the talk page of the only article that uses it ( Peintures_sur_les_Yvelines), but there doesn't seem to be much activity there. I hesitate to make the change myself -- I'm a foreigner there. --SV Resolution(Talk) 14:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Would it be appropriate to improve File:Claude Monet 035.jpg by using the image in File:Monet,_Lavacourt-Sunshine-and-Snow.jpg? --SV Resolution(Talk) 14:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Sure, but the file is in use. A warning about the weird coloring and a link to the other file would be more appropriate (like {{Superseded}} or something). And if someone with Gimp/Photoshop skills gets bored, they can surely do something to improve it. –Tryphon☂ 12:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Unusable - color issues. Royalbroil 11:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Low quality with incorrect colours. A better version available and the image has been universally replaced. WJBscribe (talk) 22:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Can neon lights in the shape of simple text qualify as works of art?[3][4] Jappalang (talk) 08:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I don't know but I'm inclined to vote to keep it. Only an art expert can answer this legal question. At least there is some metadata here. --Leoboudv (talk) 09:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Kept. I am so inclined as well. MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Only non-commercial use allowed. -- Kam Solusar (talk) 18:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator. --Leoboudv (talk) 04:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Keep The "Rights page" of the CNES server states "The material included in this server was provided by various organizations, institutes and companies. You may reproduce any content on this site for non-commercial purposes, provided you cite the source of the information (Copyrights 2006 - © CNES or other source). All text and images for which the provider has not been mentionned is assumed to be in the public domain. If you think you have rights to some of the content, please contact us." -- For the file IMG_3044_roscosmos.png "the provider has not been mentionned" on the page, thus it can be assumed to be in the public domain. That's the state of the affair. Best regards, jan (uploader) --JanBarkmann (talk) 08:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- You're right, there's no source mentioned on the site. Although the image is only used on the start page of the COROT minisite and I can't find it anywhere on the gallery pages. But the image name contains the word "roscosmos", which is the Russian Federal Space Agency. This site also shows this image and credits it to Roscosmos. Here's the photo on the Roscosmos website, same image name minus the "roscosmos", but with intact EXIF data (which doesn't include the photographer). --Kam Solusar (talk) 15:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- And just found this site via Google, which includes a thumbnail version of the photo, crediting it to "CNES/AAS/Starsem 2006.". --Kam Solusar (talk) 15:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 02:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
add File:Oasisdance1.jpg, File:Mime.jpg & File:Tarang1.jpg Poor quality Durga (talk) 23:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- Keep In use. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete The poor quality and super low resolution all hint at a possible copy vio. There is absolutely no metadata whether from a camera or a scanner anywhere. I think this image and the others I added are copy vios from a web site. This uploader placed only a few images here on October 6, 2007 and then disappeared forever. --Leoboudv (talk) 08:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Usually, it is professional quality that is taken here as a sign of a possible coyright violation. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete The original statue is in India, which like the UK has FOP, but only for 3d artworks permanently situated in a public place. This appears a temporary exhibition and there is no permission from the original artists. --Simonxag (talk) 17:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Keep I would think that it would be safe to assume that this statue remains at this location for the whole natural lifetime of the work so it can be classified as permanent and meets the requirements of FOP in India. --Captain-tucker (talk) 11:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Argument about indications of copyvio more convincing that that of FOP. BanyanTree 11:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
This work of art is not by Wangechi Mutu, Derrick Tyson was inspired by her to create it. Ignoring the incorrect name, it seems that the image might be okay since Tyson (the creator) released it per the CC license on Flickr. However, I do not know if creating a collage out of possibly copyrighted material can void those copyrights and allow one to release the collage as his or her own work; so I am raising this image here for discussion. Jappalang (talk) 07:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. BanyanTree 11:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Achim Raschka as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Wangechi Mutu is a living artist so her sculptures and installations are not public domain. Yann (talk) 09:24, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 00:38, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
No OTRS permission, and only seems to be "for use on Wikipedia only", doesn't even mention GFDL in the permission grillo (talk) 10:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Keep per {{PD-Sweden-photo}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- I´ll try to find the mail to Mora Kommun, I thought I put both my question and their answer on filepage but obviosly I didn´t. In my question, as I remember it, I asked them if it was alright to put the photo on Wikicommons. I did explain what GFDL is and mailed a link to the licenstext. They can´t have missed it.--Godfellow (talk) 14:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- This seems to be an artistic work, so unless the photographer (Karl Lärka) died before 1944 (he didn't, see sv:Karl Lärka 1981), the image can't be kept if the permission can't be presented. I don't really see how this can be a "fotografisk bild" and thus make the 1969 rule apply. /grillo (talk) 01:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- I see this as just an image made during a hike in the mountains; the model is the woman he would marry in 1925. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- I can now see that this has been discussed at sv:Diskussion:Karl_Lärka#Antagen_till_utm.C3.A4rkt. Probably the copyright holder should be contacted and asked to write a written permission explicitly stating image licensing under GFDL, to info-sv@wikimedia.org (ursäkta engelskan: be alltså upphovsrättsinnehavaren att skicka ett mail till info-sv@wikimedia.org med ett explicit tllstånd att licensiera bilderna under GFDL, där det görs klart att de förstår vad detta innebär, det är det säkraste sättet att låta dem vara kvar för all framtid) /grillo (talk) 01:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Jag trodde det framgick att det är precis det jag kommer göra. Om jag inte hittar det ursprungliga mailet alltså, där det borde framgå tydligt att det jag frågat dem om, och som de i sitt svar ger tillstånd till, är en publicering under GDFL på commons.--Godfellow (talk) 07:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Author Karl Lärka died in 1981. BanyanTree 11:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
It is apparently a picture of a work by Douglas Gordon, and he might still retain copyright on this derivative work. Eusebius (talk) 12:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment This work of Gordan is apparently an installation art (samples of his similar works: [5][6]). However, this photo focuses on simple text {{PD-text}}, so should it be ineligible for copyright? Jappalang (talk) 20:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- I have no clear idea. The text itself is probably PD, but the way it is presented by the artist might still be eligible for copyright protection. --Eusebius (talk) 21:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Unauthorized derivative work. There is not only simple text, but shadows and background color.--Trixt (talk) 18:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Artist apparently creates installations with plain words and lighting. Photography of the words so lit is derivative. BanyanTree 11:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
The unsourced map File:Frankish Foederatus .png claims that the en:Franks originated in modern day Central Netherlands and were surrounded by "Barbarian" (German-ic) lands. According to related File:Frankish Expansion.png, they then expanded form there. Smells of Dutch nationalism. --Matthead (talk) 22:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- KeepSource has been added., and I would be the last to know how Dutch nationalism smells. But thanks for the compliment.HP1740-B (talk) 23:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- updated: http://www.tacitus.nu/historical-atlas/francia.htm was added as source. So its a copyvio from that private website, which is also unsourced.
- Delete as nominator --Matthead (talk) 00:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Re-opened and re-listed because some comments had been removed when I closed it. –Tryphon☂ 14:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Indeed, own work, no source, and somewhat contradicted by File:50nc ex leg copy.jpg and File:800nc ex leg.jpg. And, eh, yes, HP1740-B will probably be the last to know how Dutch nationalism smells, someone working at a stables only knows the smell of manure after they quit their job. Erik Warmelink (talk) 21:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. BanyanTree 11:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
The unsourced map File:Frankish Foederatus .png claims that the en:Franks originated in modern day Central Netherlands and were surrounded by "Barbarian" (German-ic) lands. According to related File:Frankish Expansion.png, they then expanded form there. Smells of Dutch nationalism. --Matthead (talk) 22:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Source has been added., and I would be the last to know how Dutch nationalism smells. But thanks for the compliment.HP1740-B (talk) 23:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- updated: http://www.tacitus.nu/historical-atlas/francia.htm was added as source. So its a copyvio from that private website, which is also unsourced.
- and the sourced File:Franks expansion.gif is already available
- Delete as nominator --Matthead (talk) 01:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Re-opened and re-listed because some comments had been removed when I closed it. –Tryphon☂ 14:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Does commons keep pictures of personal delusions, which (for obvious reasons) don't tell what the colours mean? Erik Warmelink (talk) 21:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- BTW, that dark green area isn't modern day Central Netherlands, perhaps it was during the time of the en:Burgundian Netherlands, when Gelre, het Sticht and Friesland where not yet occupied. Erik Warmelink (talk) 21:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. BanyanTree 11:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
No OTRS permission, and only seems to be "for use on Wikipedia only", doesn't even mention GFDL in the permission grillo (talk) 10:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Keep per {{PD-Sweden-photo}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- I´ll try to find the mail to Mora Kommun, I thought I put both my question and their answer on filepage but obviosly I didn´t. In my question, as I remember it, I asked them if it was alright to put the photo on Wikicommons. I did explain what GFDL is and mailed a link to the licenstext. They can´t have missed it.--Godfellow (talk) 14:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- This seems to be an artistic work, so unless the photographer (Karl Lärka) died before 1944 (he didn't, see sv:Karl Lärka 1981), the image can't be kept if the permission can't be presented. I don't really see how this can be a "fotografisk bild" and thus make the 1969 rule apply. /grillo (talk) 01:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- I see this as just an image made during a hike in the mountains; the model is the woman he would marry in 1925. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- I can now see that this has been discussed at sv:Diskussion:Karl_Lärka#Antagen_till_utm.C3.A4rkt. Probably the copyright holder should be contacted and asked to write a written permission explicitly stating image licensing under GFDL, to info-sv@wikimedia.org (ursäkta engelskan: be alltså upphovsrättsinnehavaren att skicka ett mail till info-sv@wikimedia.org med ett explicit tllstånd att licensiera bilderna under GFDL, där det görs klart att de förstår vad detta innebär, det är det säkraste sättet att låta dem vara kvar för all framtid) /grillo (talk) 01:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Jag trodde det framgick att det är precis det jag kommer göra. Om jag inte hittar det ursprungliga mailet alltså, där det borde framgå tydligt att det jag frågat dem om, och som de i sitt svar ger tillstånd till, är en publicering under GDFL på commons.--Godfellow (talk) 07:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Author Karl Lärka died in 1981. BanyanTree 11:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)