Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2009/09/18

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Commons logo
Commons logo

This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests.

You can visit the most recent archive here.

Archive
Archive
Archive September 18th, 2009
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

It appears that the uploader might actually be the author, and that it isn't a copyvio, but requesting comment here anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted by Abigor: In category Copyright violations; not edited for 1 days

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Nonsense/attack image, outside of project scope.   ■ MMXXtalk  05:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted. Kwj2772 (msg) 15:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Uploaded with wrong filename. The correct images are Nakadaka ken.png and Ippon-Ken.png --Oliver Kurmis (talk) 16:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted by Túrelio: Uploader request: Uploaded with wrong filename. The correct images are 100px|Nakadaka ken.png and 100px|Ippon-Ken.png Oliver Kurmis ([[User talk:Kurmis|talk</spa

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

image is marked as copyrighted Avron (talk) 17:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 17:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Image is marked as copyrighted Avron (talk) 17:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 17:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Out of project scope, advertising/promotional material Justass (talk) 08:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted by Abigor: No fair use on Commons


This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Per Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Germany must be "permanently located on public ways" that the FOP rule applies. Even the Bundesarchiv claims to have the rights for both pictures I really doubt this, because a) it's not likely that they made both poster b) the face of Michael Jackson is the same as on en:File:Michael jackson bad cd cover 1987 cdda.jpg and I really doubt that the Bundesarchiv holds the right for the image which is/was used for the albumcover of bad. Commons:De minimis does also not apply as well because the content (the poster, advertising or whatever) is neither small enough nor is it somewhere in the backround so that you could claim that it was taken unintended or coincidentally. May the right image was taken by the Bundesarchiv but I guess that a photo of an advertising would be out of focus even it's may possible due to copyright, FOP etc.
--D-Kuru (talk) 16:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plus cropped version File:WP Michael Jackson.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log) --Justass (talk) 21:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The photographed poster was intellectual property of the then state-owned German Railways. The German state, represented by the Federal Archive, can't violate its own copyright claims. --188.192.205.158 23:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Question: At the top of this page I read that this has been closed. By that reason I removed the delete-request of of the image Page. But ist was included again. Is it closed or not?? --Jutta234 (talk) 23:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not closed. The original request from September 2009 has been closed, but a new request has been opened in November 2009. This discussion is still in progress. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 08:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Commons:Derivative works. --High Contrast (talk) 10:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Received reply from Bundesarchiv--Euroman3 (talk) 17:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep Discussion about a small pice of a photo, witch is a small croped pice of an other Foto. HBR (talk) 20:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That´s not an argument... Chaddy (talk) 21:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete per High Contrast. This is not free but a crop of the BAD cover. The derivative versions: File:Bundesbahn Michael Jackson.jpg File:WP Michael Jackson.jpg need to be deleted as well. Hekerui (talk) 13:55, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted, no FOP, derivative work. Kameraad Pjotr 18:43, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Copyright violation: screenshot Rondador (talk) 14:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


deleted screenshot. -- Deadstar (msg) 19:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This image is on copyright (1974). The author is not dead. Sniff (talk) 02:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete en:Marcel Trudel is still alive so his work is very much in copyright. --Simonxag (talk) 15:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted.Tryphon 02:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Derivative work MER-C 02:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Simple copyvio. Artist en:Houben R.T. is very much alive and there is no evidence of permission at the source site www.ArtReview.com . --Simonxag (talk) 15:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted.Tryphon 02:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Copyright violation. Image is a recent upload and is licensed as ARR. It is also a near duplicate of this photo: File:Sureshapexbhandari.jpg Leoboudv (talk) 04:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surely, this can be speedied. Use {{Copyvio}}. Ah well, looks like from uploader's own photostream, but out of COM:PS -  Delete. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete unused personal image --Simonxag (talk) 15:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Private picture, out of scope. –Tryphon 02:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

copy from here [[1]] 202.40.137.202 04:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

and thisFile:Type052C_Luyang-II_class_Chinese_destroyer.jpg may also copyvio--202.40.137.202 05:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete After a comparison with uploader's own photo's. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted both. File:Type052C_Luyang-II_class_Chinese_destroyer.jpg gets 10 hits on tineye. –Tryphon 02:34, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Out of Project scope, image is clearly photoshoped with new face. some other examples i found on net [2] [3] Justass (talk) 05:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete COM:DW /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete per Pieter. -- Deadstar (msg) 19:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.Tryphon 02:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Fails FOP - derivative of 2d artwork not in the PD (cast photo is (c) Paramount Pictures / CBS Television) Admrboltz (talk) 05:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Star Trek cast photo. -- Deadstar (msg) 19:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete copyvio --Simonxag (talk) 15:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.Tryphon 02:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

I seriously doubt this can have any educational value, but I might miss the context. A clear source would be nice, too. Eusebius (talk) 07:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK for the scope. Keep if everybody is ok with the own work statement... --Eusebius (talk) 08:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept.Tryphon 02:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
I'm changing a speedy deletion request into a regular one. The nominator requested deletion with the following message:

A bit embarassing, really. I uploaded this as a snarky/trolly picture for use on a pseudoscience article when I first joined Wikipedia. I regret the action now, and have improved my editing behaviour. This file serves no purpose. In addition, I doubt the source was free use. It would be best for the project to delete it. Throwaway85 (talk)

I say  Delete, if the uploader is unsure that the file is free of rights. Eusebius (talk) 08:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Info BTW it is unused now. --Eusebius (talk) 08:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
an observation; the "hollow moon" article @ en/wp isn't using this image anymore, true. but now there is no image illustrating a "hollow moon"; only a cross-section schematic of the presumed actual interior of the moon which, by itself on this article, could be somewhat confusing, especially for readers unskilled in english. do we have any other "hollow moon" images? can we find/get/create one for this article? if not, i'm voting a conditional keep & try to get the rights sorted out. it's not a terribly creative image, simple wireframed 3-d geometry, with a small amount of text; not sure there's enough there to claim copyright on anyway (obviousness, lack of originality). to be clear; if we have a better image to illustrate the article with, i favour that option. otherwise, i suggest keeping this one, & returning it to "in-use" status @ hm. Lx 121 (talk) 09:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Scope inclusion cannot be used to bypass copyright issues. The image is clearly copyrightable, the uploader admitted he was not the author and it is currently unsourced. --Eusebius (talk) 14:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
well i disagree about the copyrightability of the image, but it's not really a very good pic for the article anyway. so, can we make with a new "hollow moon' picture? there's gotta be something in our collection...? (kind of busy with other work, don't have time to go on a hunt for this; sorry) Lx 121 (talk) 17:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I seriously created this picture as an immature trolling of the conspiracy theorists at hollow moon. I googled "hollow sphere" and took the first suitable result, then GIMPed it (poorly, might I add. The perspective is all wrong). IIRC, it came from some math page. I'm almost certain I had no rights to use it. In addition, it's pointless. It serves no encyclopedic value whatsoever. BTW, here's where it came from. Under the licensing tab, it says "Licensing information will follow shortly. In the interim, please contact." We may be able to request rights to some of the images, and, given the nature of the site, I don't think they'd have a problem with it, but this was ripped straight from the site with no permission whatsoever. Throwaway85 (talk) 00:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. J.smith (talk) 01:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Out of scope. Educational purpose of this image is unlikely. This file is not used. High Contrast (talk) 07:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Propaganda, no educational value. --Beroesz (talk) 11:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete Agree with Beroesz unless someone can demonstrate that this has notability (in which case it would be notable propaganda, and therefore within scope to illustrate the propaganda). - Jmabel ! talk 16:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete unused personal artwork --Simonxag (talk) 15:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.Tryphon 02:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

PD-Old does not apply to sculptures (however flat may they look like) Teofilo (talk) 09:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted. We have no idea when or if the author died, so {{PD-old}} is just a guess. –Tryphon 02:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted.Tryphon 02:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

unused, no useful description, useless as no encyclopedic value Frédéric (talk) 15:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted. Unused private picture. –Tryphon 03:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

logo of a singer's fan club. no notability Andrei Romanenko (talk) 19:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete probable copyvio. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete Contains possibly copyrighted album cover and CD art. cflm (talk) 06:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.Tryphon 02:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

There is a watermark-free version here: File:Oasi di preghiera - Venetico-nowatermark.jpg -- Vonvikken (talk) 13:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Keep the original as well. --Simonxag (talk) 22:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Kept (non-admin closure). We do not delete watermarked versions. We either upload a new version over the other, or tag it with {{supereded}} (supersession is warranted in this case). –blurpeace (talk) 17:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Likely copyvio. Name of uploader does not indicate ownershio vis-a-vis the corporate watermark on the image. Multixfer (talk) 23:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep with {{PD-USGov-USGS}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep per Pieter Kuiper, but dubious claim of "own work" might be a reason to look through all of the uploader's other images. - Jmabel ! talk 17:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is his/her only upload. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*facepalm* I didn't make the connection with USGS and the Geological Survey. Multixfer (talk) 07:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Actually, the "own work" claim may be correct, if, as seems likely, User:Volkansevilgen is Volkan Sevilgen from the USGS. Anyway,  Keep either way. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 00:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept - I will add a government license (non-admin closure). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

The logo's are DW Huib talk 16:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep, the only logo that could be eligible for copyright is so tiny that I cannot even say what it is (so de minimis surely applies). The Pirelli and Nike logos are ineligible, as well as the Italian flag. –Tryphon 17:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete DW. --Simo82 (talk) 11:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep That is not a logo- it's a small yellow splodge. J Milburn (talk) 21:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep I'm with the others in that I think it's too small to qualify as copyright-able. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Pruneautalk 13:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

The file was nominated for speedy deletion with the reason derivative work which uses the copyrighted, non-free, logo of Pirelli , I changed the speedy in a normal DR to get more input. Huib talk 08:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Kept. We already discussed this. Not only is it de minimis, but the Pirelli logo is {{PD-textlogo}} anyway. –Tryphon 09:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This file was initially tagged by Cloudz679 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: unnecessary display of sponsor logos Yann (talk) 16:39, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the nominator, but as the previous DR was closed as kept, I reopen the discussion.
To me, this is either out of scope, or a copyvio. If it is acceptable just because it is very small, then it is a kind of fair use rationale, and this is not accepted on Commons. Yann (talk) 16:37, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For me it is quite clearly the "Pirelli" logo, which is a copyrighted image and would therefore be "fair-use" which is not allowed on Commons. Looking at the file history I think it would be perfectly acceptable to keep the title as is, revert to a previous logo-free version and delete the version history where the logo exists. Cloudz679 (talk) 23:26, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The rationale at this deletion request seems to be adequate in this case. Cloudz679 (talk) 20:15, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep as the display of "The Pirelli" and "Nike" logos are de minimis (if they are even eligible for copyright protection in the first place). LightGreenApple talk to me 21:37, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the logos are acceptable, I don't see why this should be so small. Yann (talk) 19:10, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -FASTILY (TALK) 22:25, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Flickr Images of jasone2007

[edit]

These are files from Category:Flickr images not found-old, they were hidden by the Flickr owner jasone2007 before FlickreviewR could verify its license. Several attempts have been made to contact the flick author via Flickrmail with no success. The last photo uploaded to his Flickrstream was on 2008-10-12. The 46 files currently on his flickrstream are all ARR. There are no other files on Commons from Flickr author jasone2007. There are no archives of the Flickr authors page. Both files were uploaded by Pablo 6213 who has uploaded 163 images, 16 of which were Flickr files that passed Flickreview. Looking at Pablo 6213's deleted contributions there are 2 images that were deleted as unfree Flickr images. File:RealSociedad2007.jpg is used 18 times (nothing comparable in Category:Real Sociedad), and File:Seleccion de euskadi.jpg is used 5 times (not sure of any other comparable images).--Captain-tucker (talk) 15:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted. No indication that these files were ever free. –Tryphon 11:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Images of Matinee

[edit]

Some of the User:Matinee's images are clearly scaned from postcards/newspapers. Very unlikely that he is a copyright holder --Justass (talk) 15:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted.Tryphon 11:55, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

The file was nominated for speedy deletion with the reason derivative work which uses the copyrighted, non-free, logo of Pirelli , I changed the speedy in a normal DR to get more input. Huib talk 08:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Unlike File:Kit_body_inter0910h.png, which was kept, there's precious little here apart from the logo. I think, effectively, this is a picture of the logo. --Simonxag (talk) 15:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But the logo is {{PD-text}}, so I see no issue here either.  Keep. –Tryphon 02:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Not only is the logo pure text, it's also barely recognizable in this image: if "effectively, this is a picture of the logo", as Simonxag asserts above, it would seem to be about the worst possible picture of the logo imaginable. This seems definitely de minimis to me. (Also, if the logo were considered significant enough to make this image non-free, it would be more reasonable to replace it with the plain colored bars from one of the earlier versions than to delete the image entirely.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. If someone can copyright a couple pixels we really are in trouble. Rocket000 (talk) 23:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This file was initially tagged by Cloudz679 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: unnecessary display of sponsor logos Yann (talk) 16:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the nominator, but as the previous DR was closed as kept, I reopen the discussion.
To me, this is either out of scope, or a copyvio. If it is acceptable just because it is very small, then it is a kind of fair use rationale, and this is not accepted on Commons. Yann (talk) 16:37, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For me it is quite clearly the "Pirelli" logo, which is a copyrighted image and would therefore be "fair-use" which is not allowed on Commons. Looking at the file history I think it would be perfectly acceptable to keep the title as is, revert to a previous logo-free version and delete the version history where the logo exists. Cloudz679 (talk) 23:26, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The rationale at this deletion request seems to be adequate in this case. Cloudz679 (talk) 20:15, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep as per the last time, the display of "The Pirelli" and "Nike" logos are de minimis (if they are even eligible for copyright protection in the first place). LightGreenApple talk to me 21:45, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the logos are acceptable, I don't see why this should be so small. Yann (talk) 19:10, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept -FASTILY 06:09, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

nothing more than advertisement --Sabbut (talk) 11:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


see Pieter and Sabbut Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 08:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

No freedom of panorama in Greece --79.103.62.83 17:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination is very obviously a nomination from Iconoclast (talk · contribs). The user was recently blocked for a month for failing to cease nominating images, under Greek FOB basis, for deletion while the wider Greek FOB issue is under discussion and legal review. Suggested this one be quickly closed. See here for the block request. --Labattblueboy (talk) 01:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Túrelio: No freedom of panorama in the source country: Copyright violation: there is no freedom of panorama in Greece Commons:FOP#Greece, thus this is a copyvio

No FOP in Greece; uploader claims permission but never verified. Apparently was restored, but was never OTRS tagged.  fetchcomms 22:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had un-deleted the image after the :en-uploader wrote "I took this picture myself with the permission of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki authorities, in whose ground the building is situated. I have the explicit permission of the owner of the building and therefore the general Freedom of Panorama Greek law does not apply in this case" [4]. Thereafter obviously nothing has happened to clear the image status. As of today I've notified[5] the uploader on his :en-talkpage about this request. --Túrelio (talk) 06:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, no freedom of panorama in Greece, permission from the owner of the building is irrelevant. Kameraad Pjotr 19:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

used only for advertisement --Sabbut (talk) 11:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Assuming we don't think there is a rights problem (that is, unless we think the uploader doesn't own the logo), I would think we would welcome having companies of almost any sort grant free license to their logos. - Jmabel ! talk 16:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete Not used, not in COM:PS. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Stifle (talk) 10:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Nothing, AFAIK, on the website about a free license for this photo. It has a license similar to CC-BY-ND, which is not free. OsamaK 21:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All other DefectiveByDesign files have the same problem.--OsamaK 15:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Stifle (talk) 10:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Hi my name is Richard D. Gaviria, i don't know why do you want to delete my logo company?, it's not for spam. Please let me know why.

only used in es: for spam; I just deleted the page where the image was linked --Sabbut (talk) 10:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Assuming we don't think there is a rights problem (that is, unless we think the uploader doesn't own the logo), I would think we would welcome having companies of almost any sort grant free license to their logos. - Jmabel ! talk 16:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Not used. Seems to be uploaded for spam purposes. Rocket000 (talk) 17:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

http://blog.ozgurokul.org/?page_id=24 at the bottom of the page you can see copyright information · fcn × talk · 17:53 · 18 September 2009 17:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Seems to be the same person. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Same person, I believe. Rocket000 (talk) 16:54, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

only spam --Sabbut (talk) 18:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • As I've said on several others here, assuming we don't think there is a rights problem (that is, unless we think the uploader doesn't own the logo), I would think we would welcome having companies of almost any sort grant free license to their logos. - Jmabel ! talk 16:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Not used = probably not notable enough to have an article. Thus, spam. Rocket000 (talk) 16:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

appereantly wrong licence tag · fcn × talk · 20:32 · 18 September 2009 20:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Kept. No reason given for being the wrong license. Rocket000 (talk) 16:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

not used, not usefull Oliver Kurmis (talk) 17:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

useless 93.33.232.252 12:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Kept. In use. Rocket000 (talk) 16:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Images of Category:Lego

[edit]

Most of these pictures are copyright violations, since lego constructions are copyrighted as works of art and so making a photo of them is COM:DW. --rtc (talk) 20:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep No reason to delete the category. Please be specific; notify uploaders of images that you are proposing to delete. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's ridiculous; these are so many images. It should be easy to see which ones are problematic. --rtc (talk) 20:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not ridiculous. If the person who did the construction is the uploader (or gave permission) there is no rights problem. You are basically saying that all photos of works in a particular medium present a problem. This is almost like saying we should remove everything in Category:CAAD drawings for a similar reason. - Jmabel ! talk 17:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Category is currently a redirect to Category:LEGO. The whole category shouldn't be deleted; please nominate individual files. Rocket000 (talk) 16:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

To quote Raeky, from the English Wikipedia: "The copyright law for India states that it's 60 years after it's PUBLISHED but there is no indication that this image was ever published. The Time LIFE images on Google are from their archive and specifically says many have never been published. If it was never published then it would be 60 years from the death of the photographer. There is a good bet the photographer did not die more than 60 years ago (since he would of had to die just a year or two after taking that image). Likewise Time LIFE hasn't licensed that image freely for commons, it specifically says for non-commercial use." Unless there is any evidence that this was published shortly after being taken, this will need to be deleted. J Milburn (talk) 10:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment If that photo is the source, the retouching is almost like a painting. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment That can't be the source, the background is different, his eyes are visible in one but not the other. Similar pose/angle yes, but not the same image. Raeky (talk) 17:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am pretty sure that it is the source. The background has been removed and the eyes retouched. Yann (talk) 17:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is also this one. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment As the two photos were cross checked, both seems to be same..!!! Hbkrishnan (talk) 05:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment It definitely is the same photo: the two images match exactly, right down to the folds of his clothes and the hairs of his mustache. The pose and angle aren't just similar, they're perfectly identical. The background has clearly been edited, but you can see some traces of the original if you align the two images: the light and dark areas in the top right corner line up with the arch and its shadow in the other image. And you can see his eyes in the other image too, although not very well, if you look carefully — either that image is a degraded copy (which seems quite possible: it has a funny texture that looks like it might be scanned from a printed copy) or whoever retouched the background also tweaked the eyes. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 00:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

per argument by Ilmari Karonen and evidence by Yann Kept. Mbdortmund (talk) 13:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

I guess this is a unfree COM:DW Huib talk 16:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No! It's a work by my father and I am the copyright holder! --Holger.Ellgaard (talk) 16:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, if your father made it your father is also the copyright holder, I guess permission should be sended to OTRS, Huib talk 16:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep What would OTRS accomplish? Holger Ellgaard would just write what he writes here. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Neutral same arguments as on our discussion in my talk page: remove {{Delete}}, mark all movie posters uploaded by User:Holger.Ellgaard as missing permissions Holger Ellgaard convinced me--Justass (talk) 18:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Mbdortmund (talk) 13:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

COM:DW. w:Marcel Duchamp died in the 60s. sугсго 13:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete And no FOP in France. --Simonxag (talk) 15:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know it is presented as art, but it's an utilitarian object nonetheless. So I'd say  keep. –Tryphon 02:48, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 keep 1. It's only a replica of a work of 1917. The original urinal is lost since years. 2. There is none, absolute none threshold of originality. Duchamp itself only took a simply ready produced standard product of mass production and his only "work" was to sign it with a fake signature "F. Mutt". 3. Signature itself in US laws (and in the most European countries) are not copyright protected... So there exisits no copyright protection on that urinal. --Micha (talk) 19:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment just because it is a replica does not mean its a free work, that's irrelevant to the discussion. Andyzweb (talk) 21:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Simonxag: That's not a question of FOP, because it was taken inside a building. The question is if the object itself is copyright protected and that's obviously not the case. --Micha (talk) 19:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete This is a well-known exampel of en:Conceptual art. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is conceptional art, but conceptional art doesn't have automatically copyright! ... And... it is a replication and not the art object itself. It only shows how the original object looked like. --Micha (talk) 20:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: the fact that the photograph is of a replica of the original Duchamp work does not mean that the replica is not itself an artwork that Duchamp (or someone else?) created. If Michelangelo painted the Mona Lisa, then two weeks later Raphael painted a replica of the first work, the replica is nonetheless an artwork created by Raphael even if he acted in breach of Michelangelo's copyright. — Cheers, JackLee talk 08:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete copyright of ready-mades is under dispute; it certainly consists of utilitarian objects, but still has some message that goes beyond these utilitarian aspects. Until some court has decided on the matter, we shouldn't suppose this form of art is ineligible for copyright. --rtc (talk) 20:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Compare Commons:Deletion requests/File:Duchamp wheel.jpg. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete If I'm not missing it, the entire point of Found art is that it is a utilitarian object until it is selected and modified or arranged by the artist. So what actually distinguishes the object from its massed produced kindred is the input of the artist and his forcing of the viewer to see the object in a way we haven't previously. In this case the original object is lost but this doesn't matter because what remains is the artist's intent, and the idea, the concept, behind the piece was always as important as the physical object, and that having forced us to see one object in a new light we cannot now but see all other similar objects in the same context. This object isn't physically Duchamp's Fountain until we think of it within the context of Duchamp's concept, and since we are here having this discussion it is.KTo288 (talk) 10:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete, for reasons articulated by Kto288. — Cheers, JackLee talk 08:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: by the way, there is another copy of Duchamp's Fountain on permanent display in the Tate Modern in London, and there is freedom of panorama in the United Kingdom. An editor there should just go and take a free photograph and upload that in place of this one. — Cheers, JackLee talk 17:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon!!?? Has anybody here an idea what this really is? This art is called ready-made. The idea of the artist was to take a daily common utilitarian object and a work of somebody else and call it ready-made art. Only the sight and the appellation of Duchamp makes this object to art and nothing what he really had done with his own hands. (Thats the idea of ready made.) But in legal sight (and only that cares us) it is still and keeps nothing else than an urinal. - If Duchamp would read that discussion in his grave, he would die again because of laughter... And so I do about Wikipedia and Commons. There are so many pseudowisenheimers. But i'm don't care. Delete it or delete it not. I don't care because it became absolutely ridiculous. --Micha (talk) 23:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC) And if an wellknown artist would call the shit of the neigbhors dog as art, you would also not allow to have a picture on wikipedia, because "the input of the artist and his forcing of the viewer to see the object in a way we haven't previously" makes it copyright protected. Believe it or believe it not. --Micha (talk) 23:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete delete for reasons of Freedom of Panorama and not in public domain or other valid license within project scope. Andyzweb (talk) 21:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep It's utilitarian. Yes, it conceptual art too, but ideas aren't copyrighted. Duchamp wouldn't own the copyright anyway. Rocket000 (talk) 06:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept, utilitarian object. (It is simply a mass-produced urinoir). Kameraad Pjotr 11:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]