Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2009/09/20
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
Orphan, small, old, 'Bad' PNG image with SVG replacement. Please see also, File:DDaad-individua.png, File:HHaa-individua.png, File:Alif-individua.png, File:Baa-individua.png, File:CHaa-individua.png, File:DHaal-individua.png, File:Caa-individua.png, File:Faa-individua.png, File:Haa-individua.png, File:KHaa-individua.png, File:KaafPersa-individua.png, File:Kaaf-individua.png and File:Ain-individua.png. OsamaK 07:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- I've requested them for speedy deletion. Thanks for pointing them out! --Shibo77 09:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Timichal: Uploader request
Copyvio of website http://www.johntwoods.com/headshots.htm which does not specify free license Multixfer (talk) 07:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted: Clear copyvio, no room for discussion Belgrano (talk) 20:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
poor resolution Scott Meltzer 15:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep
Delete Seems to have been replaced by File:Completed CCTV Tower .JPG. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:55, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete I agree. But I can fully understand that an user is not satisfyed with the result and wants to upload somthing better. User could also upload a better version un top of the other. I say lets collect happy users and not just free images. --MGA73 (talk) 18:42, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- Right now, only admins can reupload to the same filename. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- Ok. Then I suggest a speedy delete. User can't correct the image without help. --MGA73 (talk) 19:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- Right now, only admins can reupload to the same filename. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Huib talk 20:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
General Tojo
[edit]Images uploaded by User:Edgar Allan Poe:
Rights managed by CORBIS. Does CORBIS' claim hold up? And does {{PD-Japan-oldphoto}} make sense? (I cringe when I see any claim like "This applies worldwide". Because it surely doesn't.) Lupo 15:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete: I suspect they are not under Japan's jurisdiction. To validate {{PD-Japan-oldphoto}}, it's necessary to provide information about the photographer and/or the published place. And
Comment about PD-Japan-oldphoto: Currentry it seems to contain some technical nonsenses and lack of international argument. We should better to rewrite...--Kareha 20:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC) - Keep: Now the picture fits the tag, the text in the tag is policy. If you disagree, present the evidence from the law and then you can go change the tag and delete the pictures. Wooyi 18:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep: Agree with Wooyi, and the pic s took in Japan by the Japan goverment and military before 1956. so it is PD. --Edgar Allan Poe 08:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Kept / A.J. 12:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Renomination for deletion, it is not even clearified that this photo is under japanese copyright, presumably it was taken by an photographer from any other country so it would not be PD and not fit the copyrigth tag. This question was not answered in the first deletion request Commons:Deletion requests/General Tojo. Martin H. (talk) 15:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- According to Corbis, this photo was made July 14, 1944 - I cannot image that Tojo was travelling abroad that month. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- It would not make a difference if a foreign photographer visited Japan. The photograph will be under the copyright law of the photographers country of origin, depending on the law by default or by first publication. At the moment we have a non-free source and no other information supporting the PD-Japan-oldphoto license. --Martin H. (talk) 17:05, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, no evidence that this picture was first published in Japan. Otherwise, it would be {{PD-Japan-oldphoto}}. Kameraad Pjotr 09:53, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Empty category, probably for a non-notable band. --Soulkeeper (talk) 13:42, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- Template:Totalic on Norwegian (bokmål/riksmål) Wikipedia speedy deleted (multiple times) as "clearly vanity". - Soulkeeper (talk) 13:45, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
'Deleted by Rocket000: content was: '{{afd|Empty category, probably for a non-notable band.}} Category:Musical groups from Norway
unsharp image
(I am installing now the deletion requests page to permit the deletion-procedure) --El-Bardo (talk) 12:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- I´m not for delete, its a helpful picture--El-Bardo (talk) 12:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep In use on 14 pages. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep - Jmabel ! talk 17:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Kept also as original request was not completed. -- Deadstar (msg) 19:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
This is a photograph by Don Stine (note the signature/watermark in the lower left which contradicts author claimed in the summary), a professional photographer (website). The Flickr user claims to be from Santa Fe, NM, whereas Don Stine is in Cypress, Texas. The Flickr user's photo stream contains numerous images (e.g. this and this) which are obviously not original works. Suspect that this is a case of Flickr washing. The image has also been deleted from Flickr. See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Spanisharabian.jpg for a similar case.Эlcobbola talk 14:12, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Copyright infringement. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Copyright violation. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 22:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
File:OgAAAHV2d36NGdOwcDkC7U520 oX7RdJPrHLqj8mS7LOZKWVT00N63Opu8qDoiy1UXeA4meehg4R2xIh5PIMIIjw5vMAm1T1UPY2KmcET8pCsBaEkTgCd7c0Ithy.jpg
[edit]Possible copyvio, no licence and used in one wilipedia, in commons are free licence pictures available --Motopark (talk) 20:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete "author: dunno". /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:59, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- strong delete --Leoboudv (talk) 05:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyvio. Yann (talk) 23:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Out of scope. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope. --Leoboudv (talk) 04:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - per COM:PS --Dferg (talk) 13:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Private photo, not used. Kulmalukko (talk) 10:53, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:30, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Quoting Dereckson's edit summary: "Author "kk1" means "quelqu'un" in SMS language, "someone" in English. So it's not PD-self and Maclauren isn't the copyright holder)." Pieter Kuiper (talk) 01:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete Unused, not useful pet photo. --Simonxag (talk) 10:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Author died 1966, not in the public domain in source country. Hekerui (talk) 08:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 10:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
copyright infringement original to: http://wroclaw.hydral.com.pl/236033,foto.html urnord 09:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete The watermark has just been cropped off. --Simonxag (talk) 10:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
The source websites says: "As soon as the photographers do not complain, I nominate myself as copyright owner on these pics"... thats LOL but not a free licensing. Martin H. (talk) 15:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete No permission. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:22, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Image of an unknown subject of a size too small to be usable Tabercil (talk) 15:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Not in use, not useful, no permission. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per above. Dferg (talk) 13:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:22, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- File:Brussel_MiniEurope_Corbusier_Ronchamps_h02193.jpg
- File:Notre Dame du Haut 001.jpg
- File:Notre Dame du Haut 002.jpg
- File:Notre Dame du Haut 003.jpg
- File:Notre Dame du Haut 004.jpg
- File:Notre Dame du Haut 005.jpg
- File:Notre Dame du Haut 006.jpg
- File:Notre Dame du Haut 007.jpg
- File:Notre Dame du Haut 008.jpg
- File:Notre Dame du Haut 009.jpg
- File:Ronchamp kaplica.JPG
- File:RonchampsBruxelles.jpg
No COM:FOP in France (nor in Belgium), Le Corbusier died in 1965. Coyau (talk) 23:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete sadly. --Leoboudv (talk) 05:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
It is funny how licenses can by migrated that have been labeled as {{Disputed}} since upload. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:03, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete likely copyvio given the small metadata. --Leoboudv (talk) 04:19, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 08:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Disputed license since forever, not used anyway, probably out of scope. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete I can't see any evidence that this isn't just an unused personal photo. The title is the name of a commercial wedding photographer [1]. --Simonxag (talk) 10:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 08:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Obvious scan, copyvio. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Its a scan and a derivative work. --Leoboudv (talk) 04:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - scan, DW. --Dferg (talk) 13:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 08:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
No COM:FOP#Japan. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 01:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Derivative work. cflm (talk) 09:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 08:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- File:Roscoff 2008 PD 120.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Roscoff 2008 PD 130.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Roscoff 2008 PD 131.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Roscoff 2008 PD 132.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
No COM:FOP#France. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 01:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 10:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 08:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Outside of the project scope ■ MMXXtalk 03:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator. --Leoboudv (talk) 04:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Not in use, not educationally useful. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per above --Dferg (talk) 13:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 08:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Small orphan image which can be replaced with math tags. Please see also, File:ACE10.png, File:ACE13.png, File:ACE2ab.png, File:ACE3.png, File:ACE4.png, File:ACE5.png, File:ACE6.png, File:ACE10.png, File:ACE13.png, File:ACE2ab.png, File:ACE3.png, File:ACE4.png, File:ACE5.png, File:ACE6.png, File:ADC Icon.svg, File:AES10a.png, File:AES10b.png, File:AES14.png and File:AES15.png. OsamaK 04:08, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete not in use, equivalent of . But File:ADC Icon.svg is a different case. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete I support deletion of all the equations, as much better and more flexible results can be got from existing markup/math tags. However, keep File:ADC Icon.svg (as the uploader) - it's not totally useless, and I'm intending to use it in a Wikibook someday. I'm not sure why its in this request, as it's more or less totally unrelated to the other files. Inductiveload (talk) 21:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, it went here by mistake. This one should be kept.--OsamaK 22:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 09:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
No-source, bad GIF, orphan, small image. P.S. the uploader has bad uploading log. OsamaK 05:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Super tiny metadata too. --Leoboudv (talk) 05:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Probably {{PD-ineligible}}, but hardly in scope. –Tryphon☂ 09:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
1700 didnt have Simplified Chinese yet 221.127.142.212 06:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Perhaps, but if this map was made to be read by a reader of simplified chinese, it follows the modern script would be used. You don't expect every modern map of ancient Rome to be in Latin, do you? However, this looks like a scan of a modern printed and almost certainly copyrighted map (and it for sure is not from 1700), so it's probably a copyvio instead. At least we need an exact source, so we can be sure it's out of copyright. Inductiveload (talk) 17:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Modern map. –Tryphon☂ 09:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Spelled incorrectly; have already uploaded again Barrylb (talk) 06:14, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Typo cflm (talk) 09:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Duplicate of File:Cascade Brewery 1.jpg. –Tryphon☂ 09:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Orphan, small, personal image. OsamaK 08:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator. --Leoboudv (talk) 05:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 09:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
strong doubts that uploader has right in this professional image, that is also found here, though in lower resolution. --Túrelio (talk) 09:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. No metadata, published elsewhere on the internet. –Tryphon☂ 09:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
No evidence for PD-self, see File talk:Enfant-ecole-unrwa.jpg. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete No evidence of permission from source site. No camera data. We should need OTRS permission to keep this. --Simonxag (talk) 10:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 09:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Not in use, not in scope, disputed copyright status. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- delete--Motopark (talk) 10:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 09:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Looks like a screenshot (derivative) of a presumably non-free television show. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Most probably not free per nomination. I let the uploader know about fair use on en.wp.--Commander Keane (talk) 04:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 09:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Screenshot of a (presumably non-free) Youtube video. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Most probably not free per nomination. I let the uploader know about fair use on en.wp though.--Commander Keane (talk) 04:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 09:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Misspelt => File:Henry L. Griffin.png. Jarry1250 (talk) 19:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Delete Unused poorer quality version. --Simonxag (talk) 10:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Replaced by File:Henry L. Griffin.png (whose older revision is a duplicate of this file). –Tryphon☂ 09:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
No FOP in France. --- Zil (d) 15:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Felice Varini is still alive, and no COM:FOP in France. --Coyau (talk) 21:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 09:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
No source, author was a vandal to Wikipedia. Claims that he is author are unlikely, as most images he uploaded were not his creation, with no evidence of 3D design skill. Svgalbertian (talk) 15:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete No metadata. no source. Image by a vandal. This looks like a copy vio. --Leoboudv (talk) 05:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. as per above Yann (talk) 15:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
File indicated here as ©All right reserved,. Is there not copyvio? --Duch.seb (talk) 16:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. No permission. Yann (talk) 15:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Low quality pic, with no interest. Easily replaceable and personnal picture. Abujoy (talk) 18:19, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete--Justass (talk) 21:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. as per above. Yann (talk) 15:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Out of scope: not a media file (consists entirely of plain text), non-free format (despite the ".PDF" suffix, this is actually a Microsoft Word document). Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. as per above. Yann (talk) 15:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Logo --Superzerocool (talk) 20:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyvio. Yann (talk) 15:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
pornographic humor --Inductiveload (talk) 21:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- Also, this user has been removing the delete template on his own images (both from his account and from IP 208.13.134.125). This is a revert of the removal.Inductiveload (talk) 21:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, don't we already have enough penises on Commons? ViperSnake151 (talk) 21:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. {{Nopenis}} Yann (talk) 15:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
infringement of copyright, original http://wroclaw.hydral.com.pl/74386,foto.html Urgwiz (talk) 19:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per copy vio. --Leoboudv (talk) 05:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- Deleted - Tiptoety talk 02:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Requesting deletion of own upload on 2nd though. The file name is imprecise for one thing. For another, a closer look at the Flickr accountholder indicates a fan page where it's questionable that all photos belong to the accountholder; similar pictures exist on Google image search, although an exact match did not seem to show up. If in doubt, let's kick it out - it's not like we've run out of other free images of Avril Lavigne and/or the Juno Awards. --Dl2000 (talk) 20:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Your right, see COM:QFI for mazucomon. --Martin H. (talk) 06:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Note the website says: "freely available ... to the media...". Note also the all rights reserved notice, at the bottom of same webpage. Not specific enough permission for our purposes, would require OTRS confirmation. Cirt (talk) 17:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Commons is not 'the media', but a repository for everybody (not only media). For our project the declaration on the website is an impossible constriction. Cecil (talk) 22:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
No evidence for PD, see File talk:ChristianBowmanHeadshot.jpg. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:08, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- I've contacted the agency mentioned in the caption about it. --Túrelio (talk) 13:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
There are more photo's from his current agent here: http://colliertalent.com/CHRISTIAN.BOWMAN/bowman.htm or his IMDB profile here: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1712435/
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 18:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Dubious licence. Might be OK, when the uploader finds a source, that ths photo was published in the US first (and that its copyright was not renewed). About the photographer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriel_Figueroa 92.230.24.127 18:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- Introduced at the Festival in Cannes, France, 1943 (then in Mexico?), 11 September 1944 in the US: en:Maria Candelaria 92.230.24.127 18:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Until proper source and license can be found. Wknight94 talk 02:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Small, orphan, bad GIF arrow icon which has replacements. See also, File:Arrow down.gif, File:Arrow left.gif and File:Arrow up.gif. OsamaK 10:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 21:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Images uploaded by User:Jesusandashley
[edit]- File:Jesusandashley1.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:JesusJimenezJesusandashley.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:JesusJim.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:JesusJimenez.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:JesusJimenez(1).jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Jesusandashley.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:VanessaandJesus.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
.jpg&diff=0){kind=link}
.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
.jpg&action=watch){kind=link}
.jpg&action=unwatch){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=purge){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&preload=Commons:Deletion_requests/preload){kind=link}
.jpg&action=delete){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Personal images, outside of the project scope. ■ MMXXtalk 05:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Outside project scope. cflm (talk) 09:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete all - commons is not a personal webhost + COM:PS --Dferg (talk) 13:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Contributions of User:Ljh120181
[edit]- File:Dewey'sOpening.jpg: claimed as "own work", but it's from 1930 (see [2])
- File:Deweys Logo.jpg, File:DeweysLogo.tif, File:DeweysLogo 300dpi.tif: Source acknowledged as "Dewey's Bakery", but released as {{Copyrighted free use}}. Possibly this 1950 logo may be simple enough to be uncopyrightable, but then this is the wrong license.
- File:New Wildfire Flame and Logo.JPG: Source acknowledged as "Wildfire". Same licence issue as File:Deweys Logo.jpg.
- File:SBC logo.jpg: Source acknowledged as "Shapiro Walker Design". Again, same license issue.
Possibly any of these images might be used under fair use justifications on those individual wikis that allow that.
These are the user's sole contributions. - Jmabel ! talk 15:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. as per above. Yann (talk) 15:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Not in use, low quality, superseded by File:Skien_komm.svg. Bitjungle (talk) 18:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Uploader's request, not in use, svg alternative provided. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
per nom Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 08:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Varios errores. De partida asigna a África norma DVB, No hay artículos en Wikipedia que respalden dicha información ver Solo Egipto, Sudafrica, Namibia y Kenya. Venezuela todavía esta evaluado norma (no hay fuentes que indiquen que haya adoptado norma china. Además, de un sesgo a indicar solo países que estan probando DVB. JorgeGG (talk) 02:55, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Not in use. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Looks like an unused duplicate of the original. --Simonxag (talk) 10:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 10:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I uploaded it thinking that it was in the public domain because it was taken before 1923, but have since learned that there must be evidence that it was published before 1923, which it lacks. --DroEsperanto (talk) 07:03, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 10:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- Restored per UDR - Jcb (talk) 17:23, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Not own work (well, maybe COM:DW), self-licenses disputed, see http://www.crownproperty.or.th/foundation/executive.html Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:45, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 10:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
COM:DW Justass (talk) 11:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete and no Commons:Freedom of panorama in Belarus. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 10:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Source not indicated. Copyright likely belongs to the City of Charleston, South Carolina. Svgalbertian (talk) 17:05, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Please transfer this flag to German Wikipedia if the image would be deleted. Chaddy (talk) 23:56, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- Keep - Charleston was founded in 1670, so chances are pretty good that any copyright in the flag has fallen into PD. Therefore, highly likely a PD-1923 situation. --Blargh29 (talk) 04:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Stifle (talk) 10:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
sample of original music recording - not uploaders work to release into public domain! Secretlondon (talk) 19:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Nothing indicates that this would be free. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 10:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- Restored: as per ticket:2015102010027281. Yann (talk) 20:34, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
sample from Psyche song "Misery" from the album "The Influence" Secretlondon (talk) 19:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Nothing indicates that this would be free. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nom Cholo Aleman (talk) 21:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 10:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- Restored: as per ticket:2015102010027281. Yann (talk) 20:32, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
sample of commercial music Secretlondon (talk) 19:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Copyright violation. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 10:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Think uploaded by a fan rather than photographer. Other uploads are copyvios. Secretlondon (talk) 19:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Copyvio from http://www.psyche-hq.de/ - no evidence for permission by Matthis Knoll. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 10:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- Restored: as per ticket:2015102010027281. Yann (talk) 20:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Source site says: "© 2003-2006, Official website of the Holy Mountain, All rights reserved." This would require OTRS, can be restored when and if it arrives. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:05, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 10:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
If this really was your photo of this notable group you wouldn't say it was PD Secretlondon (talk) 20:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 10:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
No COM:FOP#Italy. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 10:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
It's a derivative. No FOP in France. The photographer is most probably not the copyright holder of the text. --- Zil (d) 23:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, I'm an débutant on Commons. Yes for the delete, car i'm not the copyright holder. Vi..Cult... (talk) 16:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete No COM:FOP#France. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Even if it was a country with FOP, there would still be no possibility to use it, as it's an image of a 2D artwork. Stifle (talk) 10:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Images of Bergstein
[edit]- File:Tin Alley.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log) (source: "Christopher Smith")
- File:Tin Alley Live.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log) (source: "Sky High Photography")
- File:DeeJayDrums.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log) (source: "Own work by uploader")
- File:TinAlley.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log) (source: "Own work by uploader")
- File:TinAlleybandlogo.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log) (source: "Own work by uploader")
- File:TIN ALLEY.ogg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log) ("Owned by Tin Alley pty"; originally described as "a sample uploaded from the State Library for the public")
- File:JimSiourthas.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log) (author: "David Bergstein Fly High Photography")
- File:PeterHofbauer 1.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log) (source: "Own work by uploader")
- File:PeterHofbauerDrums.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log) ("Photograph by Calvin Cropley and published on Dee Jay Drums Catalog"; source: "PhotographybyCalvinCropley")
These images (and one audio file) related to the band Tin Alley, uploaded by Bergstein (talk · contribs), appear to be from multiple authors. Many of them, including those marked as "own work", can also be found in the band's MySpace gallery. While the possibility that the uploader does in fact have the authority to release them under a free license cannot be absolutely ruled out, it does seem unlikely to me. In any case, if that were true, we would still need OTRS confirmation of permission, which none of these files has. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- We have received OTRS permission for [File:Tin Alley.jpg][DeeJayDrums.jpg ][TinAlleybandlogo.JPG][ TinAlley.jpg ][JimSiourthas.jpg][PeterHofbauer 1.jpg][PeterHofbauerDrums.jpg]. I have added the ticket to those files. I think those files should be OK, although we don't have the source/author information. We do have a declaration of copyright holder and permission for the CC-BY license on file for those files I listed. -Andrew c (talk) 16:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Pictures with OTRS kept, others deleted + 1 duplicate Kept. Mbdortmund (talk) 08:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
The photographer is not a government employee - http://naturalsciences.org/microsites/education/deepsea/meet.html#art Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, no permission. --The Evil IP address (talk) 10:36, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Orphan small modified version of File:Config-date.png. OsamaK 08:47, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- This file is used on Portal Astronomy on it.wiki. Please keep it. --Roberto Segnali all'Indiano 15:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- Really? CheckUsage says the file is unused. I see no harm keeping it, but I would like to clarify this. –Tryphon☂ 09:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Mbdortmund (talk) 13:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
If this is really is the band's logo then you can't remake it and claim it's yours Secretlondon (talk) 20:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- Looks rather {{PD-ineligible}} to me. Should probably be tagged with {{Trademarked}}. Multichill (talk) 20:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Simple geometric shape. Tagged {{Trademarked}}. Decltype (talk) 22:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
The UPI website indicates the location or the work area of the photographer, but not that this is a white house photo. Ron Edmond was an Associated Press photographer who covered the white house for the AP, but not an US governement employee. Martin H. (talk) 15:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- Exactly the same reason for File:Reagans aboard Air Force jet after election.jpg, nominated too. --Martin H. (talk) 15:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep As the original source image indicates in a parenthetical statement at the bottom, the photo is a product of the White House. Ron Edmonds may have been an AP photographer, but this image was definitely provided by the White House (or else it would not say that in parenthesis) and it thus in the public domain. Perhaps all the photos taken that night were given to the White House, or something of that nature, and the White House released a few. I'm not sure if what you said above regarding the parenthetical image source at the bottom of the source image's caption is accurate; if a photographer were told to cover the Kentucky Derby, their license at the bottom of the photo description would not say (Phil Smith KENTUCKY DERBY). It lists who the image was provided by, and in this case it seems to have been the White House. Happyme22 (talk) 03:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- Comment the caption says UPI PHOTO/Ron Edmonds/THE WHITE HOUSE. Can you substantiate your claim in any way, that Ron Edmonds was an employee of the White House / the U.S. federal government? The difference he says in his own biography http://www.kayakman999.com/2.html:
Some of my major assignments for UPI included the Winter Olympics, NBA playoffs, NCAA basketball finals, Presidential campaigns including Ronald Reagan's presidential campaign and inauguration.
— Ron Edmonds, photographer, http://www.kayakman999.com/2.html
- Happyme, this photo is from the inauguration, it is clearly created by an employee or freelance photographer for UPI, not by an U.S. federal government employee as required per {{PD-USGov}}. I see many more problems with your other uploads. If the caption says "The White House" it is not self evidently a photo created by an U.S. government employee but that is required! --Martin H. (talk) 12:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, not PD-USGov (not an employee). Kameraad Pjotr 11:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
The photographer indicated at the UPI site, Bill Fitz-Patrick, was maybe a White house photographer but at this UPI websites it is indicates that this is an UPI photo. the /THE WHITE HOUSE does not make the image a white house photo, no proof that this is not a photo of a photographer covering the white house for UPI. Martin H. (talk) 15:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep As the original source image indicates in a parenthetical statement at the bottom, the photo is a product of the White House provided by UPI (or else it would not say that in parenthesis) and it thus in the public domain. It doesn't matter who the image was posted on the Internet by; what matters is who released it and it seems to have been the White House. Happyme22 (talk) 03:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep Bill Fitz-Patrick was a White House photographer /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I turned your non-admin closure to an opinion. Yes, he was at some time. But what evidence do we have that this photograph was created by him in his official duties as a white house photographer? The NARA knows 5400 records for the person Fitz-Patrick, Bill, Photographer - ALL photographs are from "Photographs and other Graphic Materials from the President (1977-1981 : Carter). White House Staff Photographers. (01/20/1977 - 01/20/1981)". This photographs is from 1985. --Martin H. (talk) 14:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- The NARA holdings may just reflect archiving practices. Fitz-Patrick made many photos of Reagan too, and this photo is presented on a government site with no other affiliation than Whitehouse. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Kept, per Pieter Kuiper. Kameraad Pjotr 11:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
The linked source only mentions that the image has been "released by the family", with no explicit mention to any kind of licence. Under this context, "release" seems to mean just "published" or "known to the public"
The uploader also stated on my talk page that the image may be "de facto" in the public domain, because the author was hardly known and it was widely used without any complain ever taking place. However, a freely licenced image must be so in an explicit manner: "The owner will not mind" or "nobody knows who is the copyright owner" are not acceptable arguments. Belgrano (talk) 15:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- Clarification -- User:Belgrano's description here is inaccurate and it seems to me unfairly portrays my position in a bad light. Here is the timeline.
- 2009-08-07 I uploaded this image.
- 2009-08-07 I requested input on liscensing on the village pump. No one responds.
- 2009-09-19 Fast forward six weeks, Belgrano deletes the image. I learned about it from the wikipedia's commons delinker bot.
- 2009-09-19 I ask Belgrano to help me find where the deletion of this article was discussed.
- Belgrano replies.
- I pose some further questions to Belgrano.
- Belgrano restores the image, and initiates this discussion.
- I am not satisfied with how Belgrano has characterized my questions. What does "released" mean in this context? In response to Belgrano's boiler-plate I asked him or her to review this passage from Public domain#Copyright -- It is commonly believed by non-lawyers that it is impossible to put a work into the public domain. Although copyright law generally does not provide any statutory means to "abandon" copyright so that a work can enter the public domain, this does not mean that it is impossible or even difficult, only that the law is somewhat unclear.
- Is there any real doubt that the choice of al Darbi's family was to distribute this image as widely as possible? Is there any real doubt that they decided to abandon any notion that they could make a profit from liscensing or selling his image. Is there any real doubt that by the way they decided to distribute the image they are not in a position to try to control how it is used?
- I am not a lawyer. Most of us aren't. And the limited number of us who are lawywers aren't intellectual property lawyers. The problem this poses is that our notions of how intellectual rights work can bear only a passing resemblance to the real laws. Being an experienced administrator doesn't guarantee one's intuition on these matters is right.
- I could be wrong in my interpretation of how copyright works. Belgrano could be wrong. I think it was a mistake on their part to delete the image without discussion. I think it was a mistake on their part to delete the image without telling anyone. I shouldn't have to learn about the deletion from the wikipedia's commons delinker robot. Over in Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#Afghanistan images I left an explanation as to how damaging it is when overly-confident administrators delete material on their sole judgment -- and then don't tell anyone. Briefly, if is a very damaging phenomenon. Geo Swan (talk) 22:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- Well, the image was marked by Nikbot as not having enough licence information, as it uses a deprecated licence tag. This was the 7/8/09. Seven days after that, if there are no changes, the image may be speedily deleted (however, it remained there until 19/9/09). This is standard procedure in Commons: the system works in the asumption that, if the user didn't fix it in that time, he may not defend the image in a discussion that takes place afterwards. Most of the time, things work that way. The few times like this one when the deletion is discussed, we can go back and try another procedure. That being said, let's talk about the topic itself.
- You're right, I'm not a lawyer, and most of the users here aren't. However, that doesn't mean that Commons should be run just by such lawyers (in fact, it would be difficult to find, in the real world, a lawyer familiar with the copyright laws of all countries that have one, as Commons would ideally need). This is why we run ourselves with site policies, guidelines and licence tags, wich try their best to fit into all aplicable laws. Of course, they are subject to mistakes, but those mistakes are managed by pointing wich issues are misunderstanding a law and how they should be fixed. A vague and generic "we are not lawyers, we don't know anything, thus we shouldn't do anything" is not enough. Think that if we follow this requirement of being a lawyer to be able to take actions related with copyright in Commons, only lawyers may delete files, but also only lawyers may upload files. And that's simply not practical. Commons could hardly have more than 100 images this way. There's a main principle that, even if not being lawyers, all of us can learn and understand: all creative works are copyrighted by default, unless proved otherwise. If there's no clear proof of the owner releasing the work into a free licence, or details that confirm that copyright has expired according to X Law at Y article and meeting Z conditions, then we must asume it's copyrighted. Belgrano (talk) 01:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply. I wouldn't want to to see the commons run by lawyers either. Over on the wikipedia there are some lawyers who seem to me to carry over disputatious habits from their day jobs that are extremely inappropriate for a community where we should be aiming for collegial, civil, consensus-based decisions. Having said that legal matters can be surprisingly counter-intuitive. I agree that the arguments you cited from Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle as weak arguments are weak arguments. However, I don't think any of the weak arguments there apply here. I think the manner of the family's release of this image was clearly intended to get it distributed as widely as possible -- with no thought of controling how it was used. I suggest the manner of its release demonstrates they intended to place it in the public domain. Geo Swan (talk) 14:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- I asked you to consider the widely republished images of the young Omar Khadr. Those images were either uncredited, or credited to a previous publication that had published it without credit. As I mentioned on your talk page we eventually contacted Omar Khadr's family. They told us they had distributed those photos to journalists outside of an early hearing. When we contacted them they were surprised that there was any controversy over their intent. They confirmed that the images should be considered in the public domain. But suppose that when the details of public domain were explained to them they had responded, "um, no, on second thought, we want to control how that image is used, after all..." -- I think it is clear that there would be no practical way they could claw back the intellectual rights to the images. Bearing in mind what I said about legal matters being counter-intuitive, I suspect that, legally, they would fail if they attempted to use the courts to claw back the rights to the images. As you probably know it took the studios over a decade to claw back the intellectual property rights to the film "It's a wonderful life". And, although IANAL, I think they would have a stronger case than a family who had widely distributed images, to strangers, without trying to impose any conditions. Geo Swan (talk) 14:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- You're right, I'm not a lawyer, and most of the users here aren't. However, that doesn't mean that Commons should be run just by such lawyers (in fact, it would be difficult to find, in the real world, a lawyer familiar with the copyright laws of all countries that have one, as Commons would ideally need). This is why we run ourselves with site policies, guidelines and licence tags, wich try their best to fit into all aplicable laws. Of course, they are subject to mistakes, but those mistakes are managed by pointing wich issues are misunderstanding a law and how they should be fixed. A vague and generic "we are not lawyers, we don't know anything, thus we shouldn't do anything" is not enough. Think that if we follow this requirement of being a lawyer to be able to take actions related with copyright in Commons, only lawyers may delete files, but also only lawyers may upload files. And that's simply not practical. Commons could hardly have more than 100 images this way. There's a main principle that, even if not being lawyers, all of us can learn and understand: all creative works are copyrighted by default, unless proved otherwise. If there's no clear proof of the owner releasing the work into a free licence, or details that confirm that copyright has expired according to X Law at Y article and meeting Z conditions, then we must asume it's copyrighted. Belgrano (talk) 01:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep The intent was plainly to release this image to the public domain. The type of rights they seem to want to retain are more along the lines of moral rights, which under many countries' legislation cannot be released anyway. Since these rights cannot be released anyway any retention of them does not make the work unfree. -Nard the Bard 19:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, lacks suitable permission. Kameraad Pjotr 11:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Copyright Calvin J. Hamilton, see: http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap950805.html --84.61.225.222 19:12, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- Comment How can Hamilton have the copyright on a photo made by Pioneer? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Probably is it a derivative work of an Voyager 2 photo made by Calvin J. Hamilton.--Uwe W. (talk) 18:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I think the usage here is conform with Calvin J. Hamilton Copyright rules. see:http://www.solarviews.com/eng/copyright.htm
- Delete No, it says "Commercial use of Calvin J. Hamilton's materials MUST be made in writing to [e-mail address omitted]." This is not an acceptable licensing restriction for Commons. Anyway, this appears to be a rotated and colorized version of this NASA image. While it could be debated whether the colorization alone is really sufficient to produce a valid copyright claim, there seems to be little reason to keep this image since we can just as well use the original, which I've uploaded as File:Voyager 2 Triton 14bg.jpg. Just for completeness, I also uploaded a (losslessly) rotated version as File:Voyager 2 Triton 14bg r90ccw.jpg and a rotated and colorized version (with colors taken from another NASA image) as File:Voyager 2 Triton 14bg r90ccw colorized.jpg. I think we should just globally replace this image (and File:Tritonfrost.jpg, which is a duplicate of it) with one of these (probably the latter) and delete this version. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, per nominator and replaced. Kameraad Pjotr 19:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Copyright Calvin J. Hamilton, see: http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap950805.html --84.61.225.222 19:12, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- Comment How can Hamilton have the copyright on a photo made by Pioneer? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Probably is it a derivative work of an Voyager 2 photo made by Calvin J. Hamilton.--Uwe W. (talk) 18:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I think the usage here is conform with Calvin J. Hamilton Copyright rules. see:http://www.solarviews.com/eng/copyright.htm
- Delete No, it says "Commercial use of Calvin J. Hamilton's materials MUST be made in writing to [e-mail address omitted]." This is not an acceptable licensing restriction for Commons. Anyway, this appears to be a rotated and colorized version of this NASA image. While it could be debated whether the colorization alone is really sufficient to produce a valid copyright claim, there seems to be little reason to keep this image since we can just as well use the original, which I've uploaded as File:Voyager 2 Triton 14bg.jpg. Just for completeness, I also uploaded a (losslessly) rotated version as File:Voyager 2 Triton 14bg r90ccw.jpg and a rotated and colorized version (with colors taken from another NASA image) as File:Voyager 2 Triton 14bg r90ccw colorized.jpg. I think we should just globally replace this image (and File:Tritonfrost.jpg, which is a duplicate of it) with one of these (probably the latter) and delete this version. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, per nominator and replaced. Kameraad Pjotr 19:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)