Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2009/05/04
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
This is a very low resolution image which failed flickr review as 'All Rights Reserved.' I can barely make out the objects in the image Leoboudv (talk) 00:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, unfree license, no indication was ever free licensed, low res, no use in Wikimedia found. -- Infrogmation (talk) 00:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Derivitive; scan, uploader is not copyright holder. No indication that the original scanned is PD offered. --Infrogmation (talk) 00:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Keep I know this is a bad faith nom as a result of this (and other of my images in which the nom has decided to seek out and make changes to) but seriously.. there is no copyright notice anywhere in the media guide. They didn't do that back then.. they just printed them on campus and didn't worry about useless things like this. You can't claim a logo copyright either as text isn't copyrightable. I see images all over Commons featuring actual copyrighted logos and more. So how do they get away with it but this historical antique supposedly isn't allowed? --✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 00:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Comment US publication from 1947 with no notice of copyright? Cool, qualifies as PD-US-no notice. Just change the license tag and this can be kept, no problem. (Also, no bad faith intended. Contact me on my talk page if you have questions.) -- Infrogmation (talk) 01:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- Comment License tag has been changed per our discussion on my talk page. --✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 01:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Kept, closed by nominator after additional info added and license tag corrected. -- Infrogmation (talk) 01:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
It is perverse and unnecessary to adorn the Genocide portal with an emblem, such as this. Izzedine (talk) 07:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Kept. In use. If you think a better image could be used instead, please discuss it on the sister projects. Deletion is not the way to go about this. –Tryphon☂ 19:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
What about hearing some other peoples opinions? Izzedine (talk) 19:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Anyone honestly think it is inappropriate to adorn the Genocide portal with an emblem like this? Izzedine (talk) 19:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Anyone honestly thinks this is the right place to discuss this, rather than the Genocide portal talk page? (BTW, someone is waiting for your answer over there). –Tryphon☂ 20:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Keep - and discuss it at the relevant talk page. Sv1xv (talk) 20:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Kept. — Mike.lifeguard 02:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
There're no meta data, the author should explain how he/she find this image --Aliman5040 (talk) 11:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Delete Copyvio from [1]. Lupo 13:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Aliman5040: Copyright violation
There is no meta data, the uploader must proove the origin of the image --Aliman5040 (talk) 12:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Copyvio from [2]. Lupo 13:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Aliman5040: Copyright violation
there is no meta data. The uploader must proove the origin of the image --Aliman5040 (talk) 12:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, from [3], CC-BY-NC-ND-2.5. Non-commercial and no-derivatives restrictions are incompatible with our policies. Lupo 13:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Aliman5040: Does not allow for commercial use
Most likely game cover. See TinEye results. EugeneZelenko (talk) 13:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyvio. Yann (talk) 17:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Die Schutzfrist ist nicht abgelaufen. Konrad Lackerbeck (talk) 15:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, per request. Konrad indicated the source http://www.dhm.de/lemo/objekte/pict/ba010139/index.html, the former source was provided by uploader was "czech archive" without archive name, archival signature, or any more information. Also the author information from http://www.obersalzberg.de/muenchner-abkommen.html shows, that the image is not public domain because of its age. The image will enter the public domain 70 years p.m.a. - in 2028 Martin H. (talk) 15:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Copyright violation of Minerva Photography. Cannibaloki (talk) 16:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Unfree Flickr license. Yann (talk) 17:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Thiis chart is incorrectly attributed to nordenskjold in 1889. The correct author is Johann Gabriel Doppelmayr, in 1730 ! Correct it or delete it. 97.115.24.234 03:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- Keep: Just correct the summary, if it is wrong. Sv1xv (talk) 04:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Kept. — Mike.lifeguard 02:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
This is a quite low resolution image which failed flickr review within 3.5 months of upload as "All Rights Reserved." We have several other images of the plant. Leoboudv (talk) 07:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Please use {{copyvio}} next time. — Mike.lifeguard 02:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Image failed flickr review within 3.5 months of upload as 'All Rights Reserved.' There is a replacement here: File:Passiflora ligularis Juss.jpg but it has a watermark. Leoboudv (talk) 07:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Please use {{copyvio}} next time. — Mike.lifeguard 02:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Its a nice picture but it failed flickr review within 2.5 months of upload as "cc-by-nc-2.0" Its still licensed this way. I think the absent uploader didn't know what 'nc' meant. Leoboudv (talk) 07:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Please use {{copyvio}} next time. — Mike.lifeguard 02:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
The Flick user saying that "I pulled this off the net" would seem to suggest this can't be considered to be freely licensed. Adambro (talk) 09:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- Delete This is from the "Kid of Speed" (which was a bit of a hoax). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. — Mike.lifeguard 02:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE: Commons is not a private photo album. Moreover this image is not used. High Contrast (talk) 19:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 16:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE: Commons is not a private photo album. Moreover this image is not used. High Contrast (talk) 19:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 16:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
noted as AFP photo at source - not necessarily first published in argentina 209.6.22.105 00:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Most probably published and copyrighted in France. Eusebius (talk) 12:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Unless I am mistaken, this is a 1985 sculpture by C.B. Clas, and would therefore presumably still be under copyright. --Jmabel ! talk 03:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- Delete On the right jacket lapel, I can make out "© 84 C. B. Clas". (Although the Smithsonian claims "(On jacket lapel:) CB Clas (or Glas) (84 encircled)", I believe this, in light of our photographic evidence, to be an error in their database.) Lupo 11:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Keep This work is permanently displayed in a public space. The copyright also cannot be found through the United States Copyright Office, and contact info for the artist cannot be found. Idoysterbay (talk) 00:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
2.JPG){kind=link}
.desde.la.presa.jpg){kind=link}
2.JPG){kind=link}
2.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
2.JPG){kind=link}
2.JPG){kind=link}
2.JPG){kind=link}
2.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
.desde.la.presa.jpg){kind=link}
.desde.la.presa.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.desde.la.presa.jpg){kind=link}
.desde.la.presa.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete US FOP does not apply to sculptures, only to buildings. It is not like FOP laws in most of the British Commonwealth countries (Canada, Malaysia, India, Singapore, etc), China, or Germany where full FOP for all artistic objects is allowed. --Leoboudv (talk) 02:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Eusebius (talk) 12:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Copyright infringement. This image is from http://www.history.neu.edu/fac/burds/chstu213.htm per decription in the enwiki article where it is used. This is an academic/teaching piece and the image is unsourced (quite possibly used under fair use). The author of this image is NOT the uploader, but a certain child in Bosnia in 1993, while the uploader was (per his user page) born in 1978 and lived elsewhere. This is a rather obvious copyvio and a speedy deletion might not be out of place. Dzordzm (talk) 04:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. No permission from the author. Eusebius (talk) 12:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
No evidence Christina is User Fernando Pasculo and the image failed flickr review as "All Rights Reserved" within a few months of upload only. Leoboudv (talk) 07:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Would necessitate an OTRS authorization. Eusebius (talk) 12:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
This is a copy of an image on www.taylorwoodrow.com --Seth Whales (talk) 08:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- Delete You are likely right here since there is no metadata whatsoever and the resolution is very small which is the hallmark of a copy vio. Some Commons and flickr images can pop up in any web site. I have seen some of my flickr images used on blogs without being told. I have even seen other people's flickr images which are licensed as 'ARR' being used on blog sites...which is incredible. --Leoboudv (talk) 09:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Commons image cannot be the source for the other image, which is larger. Eusebius (talk) 12:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Out of scope - webdesign AlNo (discuter/talk/hablar/falar) 12:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- Delete: used only as a userpage decoration. Sv1xv (talk) 14:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 15:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Out of scope - webdesign AlNo (discuter/talk/hablar/falar) 12:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Unused green-fluorescent text. Next time, please make a mass deletion request. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 15:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Out of scope - webdesign AlNo (discuter/talk/hablar/falar) 13:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Green-fluorescent text. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 15:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Out of scope - webdesign AlNo (discuter/talk/hablar/falar) 13:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 15:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Out of scope - webdesign AlNo (discuter/talk/hablar/falar) 13:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 15:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Out of scope - webdesign AlNo (discuter/talk/hablar/falar) 13:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Green-fluorescent text. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 15:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Uploader adds the same OTRS ticket for almost everything, but this is a copyvio from http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=pis&GRid=8824978&PIgrid=8824978&PIcrid=1984365&PIpi=1865888& Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- To my knowledge Find-A-Grave administrators are very strict about copyright licensing and this photo would not appear there if it were not OK. If I am wrong, please delete it and accept my apology for not knowing. I might add that Mr Kuiper has a personal campaign going on against me for some time now. One of the issues concerns a pornographic caricature and can be read about here. (He insists on using the rather sleazy drawing in biographies where it is not relevant. We are trying to get him to stop.) His claim that I use "the same OTRS ticket for almost everything" - a ticket he himself offered to help me create and design and did so last year! - is untrue and very unfair. Several of his entries on Swedish WP reveal a political agenda. For some reason he appparently thought I too am a radical leftist like he appears to be, though I am non-political and try to remain unbiased about everything (including where porno is appropriate and where it is not). It would be sad to get everyone involved in his personal vendetta. EmilEikS (talk) 11:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- Leaving the antics aside, http://www.findagrave.com/disclaimer.html just states that uploaders must not upload images if they do not have the right to do so. It does not mean that the images are free for anybody to take. It does not give EmilEiks the right to release these images as {{PD-self}} or to state that "Southerly Clubs donated this picture to the Public Domain." /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- That template was left in error and has now been removed. EmilEikS (talk) 23:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- Leaving the antics aside, http://www.findagrave.com/disclaimer.html just states that uploaders must not upload images if they do not have the right to do so. It does not mean that the images are free for anybody to take. It does not give EmilEiks the right to release these images as {{PD-self}} or to state that "Southerly Clubs donated this picture to the Public Domain." /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Rights lie with the photographer, which is unknown. Please ignore existing personal issues when discussing deletions. Eusebius (talk) 09:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
not 70 years old : this horse is Roquépine (born 1961-died 1974) Lilyu (talk) 11:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
uploaded 2009, yet appears in this 2005 news story and other places (see tineye). copyvio. uploader's other contributions should be checked, he appears willing to lie about sourcing (here, "my OWN") 66.31.40.74 14:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I am afraid this user is a sock puppet of user:IslamForEver1 62.177.199.162 15:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
OTRS permission insufficient for use; no follow-up on request for specific. Those with OTRS access may read the letter at Ticket:2009033110076062. Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. OTRS authorization not specific enough. Eusebius (talk) 20:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
OTRS permission insufficient for use; no follow-up on request for specific. Those with OTRS access may read the letter at Ticket:2009033110076062. Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. OTRS authorization not specific enough. Eusebius (talk) 20:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Images from g8.fr
[edit]Images from www.g8.fr are listed for deletion for the following reasons:
- The legal informations of the website say:
- Seuls les discours et les textes officiels peuvent etre reproduits librement. Les autres contenus présents sur le site du Sommet du G8 d'Evian sont couverts par le droit d'auteur.
- And:
- Les photos présentes sur ce site proviennent des sources suivantes
- In my translation it is allowed to reprint text etc. but not photos without permission, they are from third parties.
- Derivative works are not mentioned
- Commons:Deletion requests/Image:G8-paris-1989-04.jpg
--Martin H. (talk) 22:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
| List of files |
|---|
|
Deleted. There are other, more specific copyright notices on the same page, but none specifically allows derivative works. Eusebius (talk) 19:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
In the absence of clear info on when the author died, I think 1911 (publication date) is a bit too recent to automatically derive PD-old. Eusebius (talk) 10:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Waechter died 1977 (source). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- OK, then Delete if we assume he's the author. Thanks for finding the date... --Eusebius (talk) 11:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- OK, then
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: used to illustrate racial classification of Bertil J. Lundman (1899–1993), probably form his book 1977. Abanima (talk) 15:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator - the portraits are very likely from Lundman's 1977 book; drawings, so {{PD-Sweden-photo}} does not apply. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Not own work as claimed. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Possible copyvio: used to illustrate racial classification of Bertil J. Lundman (1899–1993), probably form his book 1977. Abanima (talk) 15:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator - the portraits are very likely from Lundman's 1977 book; drawings, so {{PD-Sweden-photo}} does not apply. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- Keep the book (The Physical Races and Ethnic Groups of the World) (1943) --هــشـام (talk) 19:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Not own work as claimed. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Although the license is OK, the source is dubious. Saharauiak channel in flickr mixes possibly own pictures with other obviously extracted from other sites. As a general rule of thumb only pictures with metadata (obviously from a camara) should be taken from there. For instance, this picture is likely authored by Saharauiak. This one isn't. Other example: another picture of the Moroccan wall that has not been authored by him but from Minurso (even though, CC-BY is asigned). Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 21:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
bad record user. Poor image quality. --Alakasam (talk) 23:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Not own work as claimed. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Appears to have been taken from the website of Yonhap, the South Korean news agency (size is identical). — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 14:30, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. Too similar for doubt imo, and as such the license information is incorrect. Ajraddatz (talk) 04:03, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:09, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Image moved from en.WP. Looks like an own work, but the source field was not filled, and "David L Selby" was stated in the description field (not the source field). The license tag was a "self" but didn't mention the name of the uploader as it is usually the case. I've asked the uploader for info but got no reply so far. Eusebius (talk) 09:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- Keep According to this wiki image, David L. Selby is User Evillarry. Perhaps you should just substitute the name David L. Selby for the author and copy the description from the image title. That would resolve the problem I think. --Leoboudv (talk) 09:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- Personally, I'd like a confirmation from the user. Because if I follow your reasoning, I'm a sock-puppeteer. --Eusebius (talk) 09:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Wanting a confirmation from the uploader is fine. Its just that in this case, perhaps the user forgot to add a description because he already did so in the image title. It may be an innocent mistake. --Leoboudv (talk) 19:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- I would totally believe that. I haven't proposed this DR because I thought the file should be deleted, but in order for the situation to be clarified. If other people think that it is clear that the uploader is David Selby and that a confirmation from him is superfluous, I will not contest a keep decision. I just didn't want to take it on my own because it looked unclear to me. --Eusebius (talk) 20:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I agree. If anyone else can confirm or deny that David Selby is User Evillary, it would help in closing this DR as a keep or delete. Cheers, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Comment The image is easily replaceable (minus the red X on the Xerox Tower) and not really all that valuable, so it's not a huge loss if we delete it as a precaution. It'd be nice if Evillarry responded, though; has anyone tried e-mailing him through his profile? Powers (talk) 12:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- Only on his talk page, for me. --Eusebius (talk) 15:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I am David Selby, my username is Evilarry I'd like to keep the photo on wiki as its been there for a few years. --Evilarry (talk) 26, May 2009
Kept. Own work confirmed by user. Eusebius (talk) 06:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Club Colombia
[edit]there is no meta data, the uploader must proove the origin of the image --Aliman5040 (talk) 13:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- This seems to be about the following four images:
- all uploaded by Alitalia (talk · contribs). I wonder why File:VillegasCalle.jpg was not included in this nomination? Lupo 15:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- oups... sorry! File:VillegasCalle.jpg included Aliman5040 (talk)
Deleted. Low resolution, apparently professional images with no metadata. Unlikely to be own work. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
There is no proof that this photo was released by Anders Björling (uploader is using the OTRS ticket indiscriminately). Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- See previous complaint by same person who is beginning to look like a stalker to us. He has now edited two Ristesson category pages so that "advertisement" has been removed - for a non-profit society that is not in business and for a book that has been out of print since 2001. This "(uploader is using the OTRS ticket indiscriminately)" is a false statement. Mr. Björling is a personal friend since I visited the campus in 2007. Where can we have him email or fax permission? The photo has been intentionally treated by Southerly Clubs so that it is of no value other than as a reference for Mr. Demitz's WP article English in agreement with an administrator there. That is specifically stated in the summary here. EmilEikS (talk) 14:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- I don't have access to the OTRS ticket, but from what I read here, you have no authorization from the Gustavus Heritage partnership (copyright holders of their logo, and maybe of the original photograph as well). I fail to see how the Southerly Clubs is related to the issue, but I probably miss information. By the way, advertisement is out of the project scope and is deleted on sight. --Eusebius (talk) 09:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- Where may we send a copy of the permission we do have from the Gustavus Heritage Partnership in case the OTRS ticket is in question in this case? EmilEikS (talk) 14:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- PS I am well aware of the ban on advertisement and did not need your pointer on that. Mr Kuiper knows very well that there has been no advertisment (you might want to read what I wrote above?) involved here. EmilEikS (talk) 14:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- In any case don't post it here, it is a public place. I'll come back to this issue later, no time now. --Eusebius (talk) 15:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- The OTRS ticket in question was processed by me and applies only to photographs owned by Lars Jacob Productions, not the Gustavus Heritage Partnership. howcheng {chat} 17:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, then. --Eusebius (talk) 17:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- The OTRS ticket in question was processed by me and applies only to photographs owned by Lars Jacob Productions, not the Gustavus Heritage Partnership. howcheng {chat} 17:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- In any case don't post it here, it is a public place. I'll come back to this issue later, no time now. --Eusebius (talk) 15:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- I don't have access to the OTRS ticket, but from what I read here, you have no authorization from the Gustavus Heritage partnership (copyright holders of their logo, and maybe of the original photograph as well). I fail to see how the Southerly Clubs is related to the issue, but I probably miss information. By the way, advertisement is out of the project scope and is deleted on sight. --Eusebius (talk) 09:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Am waiting to find out where to send proof of permission. Have edited image page to reflect this. Please do not delete till then!. EmilEikS (talk) 08:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
- Permissions e-mails should be directed to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org --Eusebius (talk) 08:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
- I need to contact the owner of the certificate who has the proof on file. How long do we have? EmilEikS (talk) 08:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
- Hum, the owner of the certificate does not have the right to release the picture under a free license. You have to contact the copyright holder (here probably both the Gustavus Heritage partnership, for the logo, and the photographer, for the photograph). My suggestion is: delete the file, and restore it only when there is a tangible sign than both are willing to release the elements under a free license. The picture being currently unused, I see no reason to maintain a picture without any sign of authorization. --Eusebius (talk) 08:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
- Deleting the photo will nullify the reference mentioned above (see last part of my first entry here) which is linked to the photo and will negatively effect the Jacob Truedson Demitz article on en WP. That reference, method suggested by an enWP admin, is the only reason we prepared and uploaded the image. The copyright holder has already given permission but the certificate owner is away and I need to get the permission sent to me so I can send it to the email you posted. EmilEikS (talk) 08:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
- Hum, the owner of the certificate does not have the right to release the picture under a free license. You have to contact the copyright holder (here probably both the Gustavus Heritage partnership, for the logo, and the photographer, for the photograph). My suggestion is: delete the file, and restore it only when there is a tangible sign than both are willing to release the elements under a free license. The picture being currently unused, I see no reason to maintain a picture without any sign of authorization. --Eusebius (talk) 08:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
- I need to contact the owner of the certificate who has the proof on file. How long do we have? EmilEikS (talk) 08:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Permission specifically emailed by Steve Waldhauser of Gustavus Adolphus College May 29 2009 and forrwarded to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. EmilEikS (talk) 18:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- New ticket received at OTRS:3079759, but only gives permission to use (insufficient for Commons). Stifle (talk) 11:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- What do we need to do to make it sufficient? EmilEikS (talk) 12:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- Another email has now been sent from the Southerly Clubs to Mr. Joe Daly of Permissions requesting additional assistance in solving this. Southerly Clubs and Gustavus Adolphus College are both willing to comply but it has not yet been made clear enough how to do that. EmilEikS (talk) 14:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- They should use the email templates. --Eusebius (talk) 07:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- Permission has been received under CC-BY; just requesting final confirmation that it is this image they are referring to (as the email referred to a new image being uploaded). Stifle (talk) 09:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- Permission is fine, this can be Kept. Stifle (talk) 09:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- They should use the email templates. --Eusebius (talk) 07:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
kept, although I am wondering what the use of this photo might be --ALE! ¿…? 07:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
According to German Wikipedia, the machine was destroyed in 1929. No further evidence for PD-old. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 16:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: Possibly {{Anonymous-EU}}. Sv1xv (talk) 16:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: As the original uploader, I got the information from Jay's Journal of Anomalies, an independent publication in the US. That's where I believe II got the information regarding Ajeeb's destruction. I do not own the book, but this ChessBase piece that uses the image notes the display of Ajeeb at Coney Island from 1894-1904, which is more than likely where this color advertisement came from. Sorry I can't help more at this point - I'm not really a contributor to the project anymore, but I got the e-mail alert and figured I'd offer my information. Badlydrawnjeff (talk) 16:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- Keep "In 1885 Ajeeb was sold to Emma, Hadders who operated the dummy until 1915, when the Eden Musee closed its doors." (source) So this must be {{PD-1923}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Wrong license tag, ESA images are not accepted on Commons 84.81.114.142 19:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- Delete ESA pictures are not free. See [4], image source [5] --Uwe W. (talk) 18:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
![[4]](http://www.esa.int/esa-mmg/mmgdownload.pl?url=http://esamultimedia.esa.int/images/EarthObservation/goce/C1_5.jpg&tipo=Image){kind=link}
Deleted as per nom. ESA images are not for commercial purpose. See also the non commercial copyright tag on it.wiki.--Trixt (talk) 22:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Image of writing.
[edit]These photographs are copyright violation of writing.--KENPEI (talk) 10:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- File:Himeji Station 20090128 044.jpg
- File:Sakamizu Jizouson 02.jpg
- File:Mimasaka Doi nishi kanmon 05.jpg
- File:Tomb of Otimusha 03.jpg
- File:Kanakura no Rokujizou 06.jpg
- File:Graveyard of Hondas 04.jpg
- File:Shosha Engyoji108.jpg
- File:Shosha Engyoji097.jpg
- File:Shosha Engyoji088.jpg
- File:Shosha Engyoji067.jpg
- File:Shosha Engyoji025.jpg
Keep These photographs are not infringing on Copyright Act of Japan. All of these pictures are not an intention of person or organization who wrote text which has specified source and is copied by these pictures, and a contrary act.
As for me, is similar to these images; took a picture, and uploaded it. And I contacted the producers of the explanation board which appeared in photograph and confirmed whether there was not legal problem. As a result, when I uploaded it to the Internet top, the necessary thing had attention, but took an answer that most cannot touch legal problems such as the Copyright Act. In addition, argument about same act as this is debating in conversation page of Japanese version now. Another one. Because I hardly understand English, these sentences translate in the machine and contribute Japanese. --Corpse Reviver (talk) 12:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- Uploader(Corpse Reviver) didn't show confirm permission about copyright of writing.(Sorry,my English is very poor.) --KENPEI (talk) 14:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- Delete As per Freedom_of_panorama#Japan, these images are not acceptable in Commons.--Dwy (talk) 04:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Copyrighted creative writings. The concept of "waiver of copyright" is not in the Copyright Law of Japan. So, no matter they are published outdoor or other location easily-visible to the public, they are copyrighted automatically, not public domain. And "waiver of copyright" to a similar process -- declaring "I grant anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law." --are not taken by the copyright holders. --Vantey (talk) 19:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
- The following guidance signboad must be delete because of which including a sentence of the creation.（以下日本語）但し著作保持者よりCommons:ライセンシングにある1.再発行や再配布の許可2.二次的著作物の公開の許可3.作品の商用利用の許可を得る事が出来ましたら Keepに意見変更させていただきます。
- DeleteFile:Himeji Station 20090128 044.jpg
- DeleteFile:Sakamizu Jizouson 02.jpg
- DeleteFile:Shosha Engyoji097.jpg
- It is defficult to judge the following guidance signboard for whether the creative sentense is included or not. So I will reserve to decide.
- The following plaque of historic spot isn't only depending on thought or creative writing but also explanation of the fact. So it hardly say to infringe the copyright of writings not at all.
- KeepFile:Mimasaka Doi nishi kanmon 05.jpg
- KeepFile:Tomb of Otimusha 03.jpg
- KeepFile:Kanakura no Rokujizou 06.jpg
- KeepFile:Graveyard of Hondas 04.jpg
- KeepFile:Shosha Engyoji108.jpg
- KeepFile:Shosha Engyoji088.jpg
- KeepFile:Shosha Engyoji067.jpg
Please refer to Commons:Deletion requests/Plaques in Japan a standard of judgement.--ブレイズマン (talk) 15:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Comment It was enough discussion. I hope to administrators judge this ｄeletion request.--KENPEI (talk) 20:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted as freedom of panorama is restricted to architectural works in Japan. Unfortunately, I am unable to read the texts on the depicted plaques and I cannot judge whether some minimal threshold of originality is hit or not. But none of these inscriptions is very brief and consequently we need either permissions from the copyright holders (to be processed through OTRS) or rationales in the image descriptions for each case where we can be sufficiently sure on base of Japanese case law that the inscription is not considered to be an artistic work. --AFBorchert (talk) 10:52, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
File:Pidhoretsky_Hrad-Park.jpg, File:Pidhirtsi Castle.jpg, File:Pidhirtsi Dominic Cathedral.jpg
[edit]
Image failed flickr review on a very restrictive "cc-by-nc-nd-2.0" license within 3.5 months of upload. It shouldn't be kept on Commons Leoboudv (talk) 20:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- But CC licenses are unrevocable. And we don't know what license did this image have on the upload day (September 22, 2006). If it was CC-BY, we should keep it.--Anatoliy (talk) 20:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- Comment You misunderstand the issue. We have zero proof the license was ever "cc by sa 2.0" or "cc by 2.0." (it never passed flickr review) The uploader is not someone who is trusted like User Ranveig or Sandstein who knew what creative commons licensed images were acceptable. Commons cannot use flickr images with a 'Non-Commercial' or 'No-Derivatives' restriction. I think the uploader just saw it was creative commons without looking at the NC and ND restrictions. The flickr uploader licenses all his images this way. --Leoboudv (talk) 02:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
- I know about forbidding NC and ND licences. Uploader is crat and former arbitrator of Ukrainian Wikipedia, so I think he knows about licences.--Anatoliy (talk) 10:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Dear Anatolly. I did not know this. I suppose Yakudza should have known what licenses were acceptable in 2006. So, I'll withdraw my nomination on the images and assume good faith here. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral I am not sure if Yakudza knew the license in 2006. Another Admin must inspect the DRs here. It is troubling to me that the 3 images all fail review within 4 months of upload Did Yakudza know what was the right license for Commons...compared to Wikipedia? I cannot answer this since I am not an Admin and cannot see if Yakudza ever tagged images for copy vios. --Leoboudv (talk) 03:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- Comment On User:Para/Flickr/Licensing differences/Incompatible we can se that license was Cc-by-nc-nd-2.0 on 2006-10-02. That is only 2 weeks after upload. Images could be ok on upload but we do not know. Without proof we have to ask ourselves if we trust that the user knew back then. I looked at deleted user contributions and there were not many. So user has not a history of uploading copyvios but user has also not marked copyvios which could have proven the user knew which licenses were not ok. Anatoliy says "I think" is that a "I'm sure" or a "maybe"? Anyway I do not know the uploader and with no proof or indications pointing in one direction I'm neutral on this one. --MGA73 (talk) 11:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete When an image has a NC & ND restriction only 2 weeks after upload, I think delete is the safer option. Not all Admins on wikipedia may know the licensing rules for wikicommons. As an aside, these 3 photos are the only flickr images uploaded by Yakudza today on Commons. There are no other flickr images uploaded by Yakudza which passed review here. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Per User:Para/Flickr/Licensing differences/Incompatible; seems unlikely that these files were ever freely licensed. –Tryphon☂ 07:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Appears to be a screencap of a copyrighted aerial photo. If you took the aerial photo, please make that clear in the description. -SCEhardT 21:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Uploader not notified! /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Further discussion at en:User talk:Loki11 -SCEhardT 02:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete Source of aerial photo not specified. DrKiernan (talk) 09:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. The Evil IP address (talk) 21:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
