Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2009/09/27
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
Author is REUTERS/Bobby Yip , Not Banamine. may copyvio. shizhao (talk) 02:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete A clear case. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)- Delete copyvio -- Deadstar (msg) 22:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete copyvio, my mistake, I approved it via flickr. I should have read the description more closely, my bad. -- malo (talk) 22:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. PeterSymonds (talk) 02:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
This image is not "PD-USGov-POTUS". Because the U.S. Department of State say "This official White House photograph is being made available only for publication by news organizations and/or for personal use printing by the subject(s) of the photograph." in the source of this image. This image is not public domain....--Scanyaro (talk) 02:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep From MartinH on Commons:Village pump/Archive/2009Sep#White House photos?: "This is a case of Commons:Non-copyright restrictions, you may not use Obama portraits for advertising in respect to personality rights and maybe other legal restrictions. In sense of copyright the photographs are public domain." /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete I think this image is not public domain. --114.48.158.110 08:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete The U.S. Department of State don't say "The all of the official White House photograph isn't public domain". For example, the U.S. Department of State say "State Department photo / Public Domain" in the source of other image.--114.48.0.44 15:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, it says "Public Domain" but it also has a CC-BY-ND license. Do these people know what they are doing? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete 1. Uploader requested deletion. 2. It seems more likely that these photos were taken by a contractor and not an official White House photographer, hence PD-USGov would not apply since contractors works are subject to copyright. 3. Possible personally rights issues, which alone isn't enough to delete, however in this case I would add it as a factor of my support to delete. -- malo (talk) 22:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - The photo was taken by Lawrence Jackson, an official White House photographer. You can even find multiple photos that he has taken as an employee of the federal government/the White House on the White House Flickr, which is regularly updated and uploaded here at the Commons. Please try to be more accurate before throwing out an accusation that is completely untrue. Gage (talk) 05:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
- Point taken, he is an official White House photographer. How do we know which works are part of his official duties, versus the possibility of some form of side work for the State Department? -- malo (talk) 21:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - The photo was taken by Lawrence Jackson, an official White House photographer. You can even find multiple photos that he has taken as an employee of the federal government/the White House on the White House Flickr, which is regularly updated and uploaded here at the Commons. Please try to be more accurate before throwing out an accusation that is completely untrue. Gage (talk) 05:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Question The U.S. Department of State says ...
President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama pose for a photo during a reception at the Metropolitan Museum in New York with H.E. Yukio Hatoyama, Prime Minister of Japan, and his wife, Mrs. Miyuki Hatoyama, Wednesday, Sept. 23, 2009. (Official White House Photo by Lawrence Jackson)
This official White House photograph is being made available only for publication by news organizations and/or for personal use printing by the subject(s) of the photograph. The photograph may not be manipulated in any way and may not be used in commercial or political materials, advertisements, emails, products, or promotions that in any way suggests approval or endorsement of the President, the First Family, or the White House.
- The important phrase are the words that you did not emphasize, and that is covered by {{Personality rights}} /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
... Is this the "PD-USGov-POTUS" license? I think that this is not the "Public Domain". --114.48.34.83 02:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Comment The U.S. Department of State says that this image is "CC BY-ND-2.0". Is it the "Public Domain"? No! The "CC BY-ND-2.0" is not the "Public Domain", is it? --114.48.0.187 05:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Wikimedia Commons say "The following copyright options are not acceptable at Commons. Images with these tags will be deleted. Nonderivative - Copyright status that does not allow changes to the image or file. This image will have to be deleted.". The U.S. Department of State say "Attribution-No Derivative Works 2.0." in the source of this image. --Inputman gahaha (talk) 02:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete The U.S. Department of State said "CC-ND-2.0" in the source of this image. --Welkamo (talk) 00:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. The images are public domain no matter what the State Department claims. See http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/05/white-house-photos Kaldari (talk) 23:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. It's a work of the US government. The United States Congress wrote in the copyright laws that thus it is in the public domain, and it is not within the powers of the executive branch to override that.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. Good heavens. U.S. copyright law is clear and the Department of State cannot override that. Powers (talk) 13:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
- Keep This is pretty silly. This is a work of the U.S. Federal Government, and copyright (especially cc-by-nd) cannot be claimed by anyone (though the authorship should still always be mentioned). It is fine for Commons. As always, there may be personality/publicity rights involved, but those are Commons:Non-copyright restrictions. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Kept. The image is work of an federal government employee and public domain (in the U.S.). All restrictions in the EXIF are non-copyright restrictions as with all White House photographs using this EXIF, these restrictions are covered by {{Personality rights}}. Pieter have said it. As the image is public domain any Creative Commons license requirements are invalid - as Kaldir said. My personal interpretation is that the Creative Commons ND licensing is used here to emphasize the personality rights mentioned in the EXIF.
I would like to add that closing this deletion request is based on the proof that the image is created (as an official White House photo) by an U.S. federal Government employee (see the comment by Gage) and not because it is from a U.S. fed. Government Flickr site. Especially the State Department publications often contain non-free press images. --Martin H. (talk) 17:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
This work is not "a work prepared by an officer or employee of the U.S. government as part of that person's official duties." See en:Copyright status of work by the U.S. government. Instead the work appears to be "produced by contractors under government contracts (or submitted in anticipation of such contracts)", and so "are protected and restricted under U.S. copyright law." Sandia state on their page: "(Media are welcome to download/publish this image with related news stories.)" and further down: "Sandia is a multiprogram laboratory operated by Sandia Corporation, a Lockheed Martin company, for the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration ..." This means to me that Sandia are licensing the image to "news media" organisations for news stories, and not for unlimited news for any purpose. Therefore, unless there is specific permission from the copyright holder (Randy Montoya or maybe Sandia) this image appears to fall outside Commons scope. 84user (talk) 03:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Yes, Sandia is a contractor. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. PeterSymonds (talk) 02:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Not the proper license on flickr. It is NC and ND. --- Zil (d) 06:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete no derivs -- malo (talk) 22:55, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. PeterSymonds (talk) 02:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Image quality is almost unusable here. Leoboudv (talk) 06:48, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep I think that was done for effect. I like it. -Nard the Bard 15:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Not so bad it can't be used. I also think it's an interesting image. -- Deadstar (msg) 22:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete it's not hard to get a better illustration. "interesting", and, "I like it", aren't sturdy reasons to keep a file. –blurpeace (talk) 01:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
- You have a time machine? -Nard the Bard 16:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Kept. No valid reason for deletion. Yann (talk) 10:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Unlicensed personal image falling outside of the project scope --cflm (talk) 06:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted all files of Tonderus (talk · contribs) as uploads made solely for vandalism. Ilmari Karonen (talk) 12:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Unlicensed personal image falling outside of the project scope --cflm (talk) 06:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted all files of Tonderus (talk · contribs) as uploads made solely for vandalism. Ilmari Karonen (talk) 12:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Unlicensed, low quality personal image falling outside of the project scope --cflm (talk) 06:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted all files of Tonderus (talk · contribs) as uploads made solely for vandalism. Ilmari Karonen (talk) 12:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
This work is an object of Copyright and is not exempt. Paragraph 5 and 6 of Article 1259 does not apply to this . This is Intellectual Property and VideoCosmos, USA holds the current copyright. David L. Rickman (talk) 07:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. PeterSymonds (talk) 17:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Currently no evidence that Ukraine is the source country. I'd go for USSR, intuitively... A better source (with context, and not only a link to the picture) might prove me wrong or show that the image is PD for other reasons. Fredy: I'd rather raise a DR than answer on your talk page, just to keep track of the issue. Eusebius (talk) 08:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Im re-cahnge lic. tag, check him please. --Fredy.00 (talk) 09:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- I don't see how this image falls under PD by that template. This is not "news reports on events and facts, which have a purely informational character (daily news reports..." --|EPO| da: 10:22, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Fredy: Stop applying random license templates. If you don't know, don't upload. --Eusebius (talk) 11:08, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- This it no "random" - this photo it news report used in many USSR newspaper and books --Fredy.00 (talk) 13:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I have to you files upload, or sink, and forget oneself on them. A at it, so that it state story much weigh.
- When I say random, I mean that you don't actually know what the copyright status of the file is. You choose a PD tag, and then ask "is this one ok"? And when it is questionned, you switch and ask again "and now"? And you do it with all the historical pictures you upload. This is not how Commons works, sorry, and this is why you keep getting blocked. If you don't improve your methods, it will end up as a ban from the project (not now, probably not from me, but people will eventually get fed up with reviewing every single one of your uploads). Also, please, please make an effort to format your messages properly. You've been around long enough to know how to use the wiki. --Eusebius (talk) 13:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Don't you know, I feel big responsibility hereto, to significant smithereens story keep in not providing an easy survey Internet cafe, not providing an easy survey systems author's law, and alike.
Surely, this photograph will in a couple of decennium PD, because will run off 70 years from her creation/deaths author.
But I am afraid as though behind that time so will sink, and teen - ager so falls interest in story, that the that won't other "Fredy", that would her load on commons.
Therefore often work method attempt/error, with it, that the perhaps I'll be lucky. get, that the you it do not like, but you do not give it to them deny, my having for thing above
But both you licence were to be from my point of view vporadku, no spat here is without consequence, baldheaded. Both allude possibility using set behind surrounding, that the discuss Soviet photograph, used as part of printing information. It will you do not give it to them deny. Also reality, that the on commons them to retrieval quite a number of sets, beneficial either licence "PD Ukraine" or "PD RU- exemption" as well as be all right.
Please, settle it simply: is this set applicable below licence "RU exemption" or no? --Fredy.00 (talk) 15:55, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- I do not question the historical interest of this picture it's just that COMMONS ONLY KEEPS PICTURE WHICH ARE FREE OF RIGHTS, and they don't become free just because you want it, I'm really tired of repeating that to you;
- I don't try to understand you anymore, sorry;
- Wiki formatting: are you doing it on purpose?
- About your last question (is PD-Ru-exempt ok): does any of the condition listed in the template apply to this picture? No. Then no, this license is not applicable. You're still going random there. Attempt/error in legal matters will get you banned. --Eusebius (talk) 16:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Uploader does not know if the photograph is free. |EPO| da: 16:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Additional: It takes me 1 minute to find Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Reichstag flag.jpg - you should do a minimum research if you want to upload someone else work. --Martin H. (talk) 17:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Given the description, I'm guessing this is outside of the project scope. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- This of course also applies to the duplicate File:Dun-cakes SDC10929.JPG, which was uploaded after the uploader was informed of this deletion discussion and Commons' project scope. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Per above. -- Deadstar (msg) 22:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by D-Kuru: out of scope (unused)
Jersey coin designs are not public domain; no evidence of release Man vyi (talk) 09:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete I don't know if this is crown copyright or not. But if it isn't then it's copyright by some entity and that will last 70 years instead of 50. --Simonxag (talk) 12:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 14:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Jersey coin designs are not public domain; no evidence of release Man vyi (talk) 09:22, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete I don't know if this is crown copyright or not. But if it isn't then it's copyright by some entity and that will last 70 years instead of 50. --Simonxag (talk) 12:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 14:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Jersey coin designs are not public domain; no evidence of release Man vyi (talk) 09:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete I don't know if this is crown copyright or not. But if it isn't then it's copyright by some entity and that will last 70 years instead of 50. --Simonxag (talk) 12:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 14:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Jersey coin designs are not public domain; no evidence of release Man vyi (talk) 09:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete I don't know if this is crown copyright or not. But if it isn't then it's copyright by some entity and that will last 70 years instead of 50. --Simonxag (talk) 12:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 14:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Person im Bild nicht einverstanden -Druffeler (talk) 09:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Nachdem das Bild retuschiert und neu hochgeladen wurde, entfällt der Löschgrund. --NEURO ⇌ 11:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Out of project scope. Promotional article in Microsoft Word format => not a media file, non-free format. Ilmari Karonen (talk) 11:18, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete All of these MS-word files with misleading file extensions. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. PeterSymonds (talk) 02:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
What is troll tennis? Anyway, the photo is not used and the uploader's other contribution is also presented for deletion. Taivo (talk) 13:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Potential DW or a copyrighted photo. Need OTRS. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 03:05, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:37, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- also File:Gam riyandana.jpg
Unused personal photos, out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 12:32, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 22:52, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Out of project scope. Medical article in Microsoft Word format => not a media file, non-free format. Also appears to lack permission from copyright holder. Ilmari Karonen (talk) 11:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. PeterSymonds (talk) 02:34, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Out of project scope: plain text in Microsoft Word format => not a media file, non-free format. Ilmari Karonen (talk) 11:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. PeterSymonds (talk) 02:34, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Out of project scope: text article in Microsoft Word format => not a media file, non-free format. (The document does contain a very simple line drawing, but I doubt it's of much use in this format and it would be trivial to redraw.) Ilmari Karonen (talk) 11:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. PeterSymonds (talk) 02:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Out of project scope: text-only advertisement in Microsoft Word format => not a media file, non-free format, no educational use. Ilmari Karonen (talk) 11:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. PeterSymonds (talk) 02:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Out of project scope: biographical article in Microsoft Word format => not a media file, non-free format. Ilmari Karonen (talk) 11:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. PeterSymonds (talk) 02:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Out of project scope: biographical article in Microsoft Word format => not a media file, non-free format. Ilmari Karonen (talk) 11:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. PeterSymonds (talk) 02:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Out of project scope: biographical article in Microsoft Word format => not a media file, non-free format. Ilmari Karonen (talk) 11:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. PeterSymonds (talk) 02:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Out of project scope: personal letter in Microsoft Word format => not a media file, non-free format, no educational use. Ilmari Karonen (talk) 11:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Misleading file extension. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. PeterSymonds (talk) 02:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Out of project scope: encyclopedia article in Microsoft Word format => not a media file, non-free format. Ilmari Karonen (talk) 11:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Misleading file extension too. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. PeterSymonds (talk) 02:32, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
The book cover is marked as PD-art. But the specified author, Lao She (1899-1966), has not been dead for 70 years. Ö 11:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Eusebius (talk) 10:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
CD-cover with source "Har den på cd, så jag skannade in den på datorn." which means "I have the CD, so I scanned it into my computer" Ö 11:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Copyright violation. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
According to http://www.stcloudstate.edu/imagegallery/terms.asp images from the St. Cloud State University image gallery are not freely licensed. Ilmari Karonen (talk) 12:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. No sign of release under a free license, missing explicit permission. Eusebius (talk) 10:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
According to http://www.stcloudstate.edu/imagegallery/terms.asp images from the St. Cloud State University image gallery are not freely licensed. Ilmari Karonen (talk) 12:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by D-Kuru: copyvio - logo
According to http://www.stcloudstate.edu/imagegallery/terms.asp images from the St. Cloud State University image gallery are not freely licensed. (Also, this is an Adobe Photoshop file, and therefore out of scope due to non-free file format.) Ilmari Karonen (talk) 12:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Wrong format, does not render. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by D-Kuru: copyvio - logo
Converting from a speedy delete, I believe the figures here are too simple to attract copyright protection. Discuss. -Nard the Bard 14:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Info Original reason given for speedy deletion (copyvio) by Jappalang (talk · contribs): This file is a copyright violation because as explained in Commons:Derivative_works#I know that I can't upload photos of copyrighted art (like paintings and statues), but what about toys? Toys are not art!, toys are copyrightable pieces of art. The commercial parlor game's chips with the sun symbol and the left symbol on the die are too prominent, disqualifying de minimis. cflm (talk) 17:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete Picture of a load of commercial artwork. --Simonxag (talk) 12:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Depicted designs are eligible for copyright and assumed to be copyrighted. Eusebius (talk) 10:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Converted from a speedy. A very suspect image, with no indication of a source, but this is common for images uploaded before 2007. w:en:User:HarveyHenkelmann claims he has uploaded it, see w:en:User:HarveyHenkelmann/images. I shall leave a note on his talk page there. --Sv1xv (talk) 14:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Comment User:HarveyHenkelmann added a source [1], where it is indicated that the ultimate source is the Amtrak Photo Archive. Is Amtrak a US federal government agency ? And was the Amtrak archive an official site of Amtrak or just another railfan page? Sv1xv (talk) 14:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- Hmm, bad news. The Amtrak archive is no longer available, however I located the last version of this page in the web archive, see [2]. It indicates that "This an unofficial Amtrak site - and is not associated with Amtrak in any way" and further down "IMPORTANT INTERNET COPYRIGHT NOTICE: Images and material contained on this web site and images and material contained within any other web site linked from this site may be and should be considered as Copyrighted. Material does not have to be labeled to be Copyrighted. All images and material on this site are owned by the site creator or used with the owner(s) permission. It is assumed that photos are contributed by the person(s) holding the copyright for the work submitted. It is advisable to check with the owner(s) first prior to downloading (copying) their material for anything other than your personal home viewing or reading. This will avoid Copyright infringement and possible legal action should the authors' or photographers' material be used without their permission. Thanks for your cooperation.". Sv1xv (talk) 15:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- So Delete --Simonxag (talk) 12:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
- So
- Hmm, bad news. The Amtrak archive is no longer available, however I located the last version of this page in the web archive, see [2]. It indicates that "This an unofficial Amtrak site - and is not associated with Amtrak in any way" and further down "IMPORTANT INTERNET COPYRIGHT NOTICE: Images and material contained on this web site and images and material contained within any other web site linked from this site may be and should be considered as Copyrighted. Material does not have to be labeled to be Copyrighted. All images and material on this site are owned by the site creator or used with the owner(s) permission. It is assumed that photos are contributed by the person(s) holding the copyright for the work submitted. It is advisable to check with the owner(s) first prior to downloading (copying) their material for anything other than your personal home viewing or reading. This will avoid Copyright infringement and possible legal action should the authors' or photographers' material be used without their permission. Thanks for your cooperation.". Sv1xv (talk) 15:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. PeterSymonds (talk) 02:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm the uploader of the file. The User Blurpeace nominated this file as candidate for speedy deletion that should only be used for obvious cases. The given reason is: Promotional content. Mercedes Ambrus is a Hungarian stripper and pornstar very famous in Italy. Wikipedia in Italian has a page about she: Mercedes Ambrus, lacking in images, so I just think that this File is really not promotional but useful and functional to the project. Jacopo Werther (talk) 08:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep For above. Jacopo Werther (talk) 08:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep speedy keep. There's no way this should be deleted on those grounds. -Nard the Bard 14:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Kept per above; speedy per Nard the Bard. Free licensed and of use within project scope. Infrogmation (talk) 01:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
This is not {{Pd-ineligible}}. Maybe the seperate parts are not creative enough but their arrangement is
-- D-Kuru (talk) 15:34, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Agree. I think it's not a simple (and a not copyrightable) text and geometry logo.--Unai Fdz. de Betoño (talk) 18:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. PeterSymonds (talk) 02:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
5,000 yen Japanese bill from 1993, not in the public domain malo (talk) 16:18, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- I found a link to various currency http://aes.iupui.edu/rwise/countries/japan.html According to Template:PD-Japan such works are not public domain until 50 years after the death of the creator. -- malo (talk) 16:22, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Eusebius (talk) 10:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
unused, old license, and generally a poor quality picture of someone's arm malo (talk) 16:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Poor quality, easily replaced if needed. -- Deadstar (msg) 22:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. PeterSymonds (talk) 02:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
not PD-USGov, copyrighted by armyrecognision.com Avron (talk) 17:14, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Eusebius (talk) 10:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I doubt "own work" Avron (talk) 17:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. I must assume the company listed on the document holds copyright. Eusebius (talk) 10:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
It's just text, why is the image of it required? malo (talk) 17:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete Scope. Can be produced, if required, by formatting text into a table. --Simonxag (talk) 12:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. PeterSymonds (talk) 02:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Self promotion (band). --Jorge Barrios (talk) 17:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep The band exists, it may need illustrating at some point. --Simonxag (talk) 12:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of project scope. PeterSymonds (talk) 02:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Out of scope, self promotion. --Jorge Barrios (talk) 17:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep Nice picture of musicians playing. --Simonxag (talk) 13:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of project scope; no source since February 2008. PeterSymonds (talk) 02:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Own band promotion. --Jorge Barrios (talk) 17:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep The band exists, it may need illustrating at some point. --Simonxag (talk) 13:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of project scope. PeterSymonds (talk) 02:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Out of scope, self promotion. --Jorge Barrios (talk) 17:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete poor quality, doesn't really illustrate anything much. --Simonxag (talk) 13:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of project scope; no source/permission since January 2009. PeterSymonds (talk) 02:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Derivative work of painting in background. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 18:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
There is a possible replacement with same pic but removed background, see File:Aris Kalaizis and Carol Strickland gray.jpg. NobbiP 11:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- Ah well, actually I think cropping would also do the trick, if there is no permission to use the painting. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 13:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Derivative work, nicely replaced. Eusebius (talk) 10:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
According to the categories, this is by "Aris Kalaizis", who is still alive. We would need OTRS confirmation for this. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 18:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Missing permission from the copyright holder. Eusebius (talk) 10:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I do not know what country this is, but the license says: " The copyright holder of this file allows anyone to use it 'for any purpose, provided that to copy the Artwork you must have the autorisation of the right owner.." Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete Not a free license. --Simonxag (talk) 13:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. PeterSymonds (talk) 02:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Out of project scope --Unai Fdz. de Betoño (talk) 18:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by D-Kuru: out of scope (unused)
No source. Who is "Artist: Immodinova C."? ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 18:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- BTW: If you delete this, also delete File:Persian people - Persians 280507.JPG. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 18:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 13:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. PeterSymonds (talk) 02:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Non indication for {{PD-self}} on the provided source page
-- D-Kuru (talk) 19:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nom -- malo (talk) 00:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. PeterSymonds (talk) 02:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
COM:DW - no FOP in Cleveland, Ohio. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- If you look at the contributor's other uploads, it seems likely that the artist uploaded images of his own work. FOP would not be applicable in that case, right? - EurekaLott (talk) 03:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, en:Billie Lawless, that would change things of course. But that connection is not explicitly confirmed, see en:User talk:Billiel12. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 05:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Missing permission. Deleted as well: File:The Politician A Toy.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log). Eusebius (talk) 10:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
And File:Mannen som talar tvärtomspråket.JPG
These images are screenshots from an episode of the Swedish TV show "Anders och Måns". (Clip from the show at Youtube) Ö 19:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete delete both, copyvio -- malo (talk) 00:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. PeterSymonds (talk) 02:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
No reason why the supplied licenses should apply. This might be ineligible as it seems to be a computer-generated. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 20:22, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. PeterSymonds (talk) 02:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
A head of a philosopher on a vase by the sea. Not used, seems out of COM:PS. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. PeterSymonds (talk) 02:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
This seems to be in Germany; no COM:FOP#Germany indoors; sculptor died 1970. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. PeterSymonds (talk) 02:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Derivative work of copyrighted sculpture. There is no FOP in Lithuania, see COM:FOP#Lithuania. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 21:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I think This picture is not copyrighted. Moreover, the monument is in public place and the same picture was used in other Wikipedia article. Nykstukas
- Delete Artist born 1958. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. PeterSymonds (talk) 02:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Recently uploaded image, licensed as CC-NC on the source website. Highly unlikely that the uploader should have changed the license the very same day as this image was uploaded here (see edit history). --80.163.68.22 21:48, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep, uploaded by a bot, so I guess the license has been checked automatically. –Tryphon☂ 22:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- The image was this license when I uploaded it to Commons. I was about to upload all the other images, but unfortunately the uploader changed the license. Multichill (talk) 23:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep, as above, CC licence is irrevocable and was checked by a bot. Lankiveil (talk) 12:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC).
- Keep The license has been changed the same day. I contacted the flickr user to relicense but he doesn't agree to cc-by-sa or cc-by...--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. Although not policy, I believe there is a tendency to allow users to request deletion of their own recently uploaded images where there is a good reason. (This is certainly true on enwiki as CSD G7, and I've successfully had successful speedy nominations of my own images in the past). Whilst the uploader is not the copyright holder, the holder has made a wish that he does not want non-com on this image. If we assume good faith, we should assume the copyright holder wrongly tagged the image as fully free, when non-com was meant. Whilst there may be a legal case for retaining the image, deleting it in accordance with their implied wish would maintain better relations with potential sources later. – Tivedshambo (talk) 08:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep If the copyright holder asks for it to be deleted, then it should be, specifically if he claims as you suggest error on his part of the correct license that was fixed the same day. Since the nominator for the deletion isn't likely the original copyright holder by his wording we can't assume that the license was picked accidentally at first and not just changed after realizing the implications of the first license. MANY of this user's images are freely licensed on Flickr so one would assume he would have a firm grasp of the various license options. Until the hypothetical scenario that the original copyright holder does request the deletion of it here claiming the original license was in error it should be kept, and likely snowball kept. Raeky (talk) 08:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
- All I'm saying is, whether the copyright holder has requested deletion directly or not (and bear in mind they may not know how to request deletion), they have, for whatever reason, requested non-com and we should respect this. – Tivedshambo (talk) 09:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
- We generally don't honor those deletion requests without a solid reason for them wanting the license change/deletion. And of course this requires them to ask for it's deletion. Someone just changing the flickr's copyright status of a photo isn't solid enough evidence they didn't intend the initial license or that they wish it's use here to stop. CC license are irrevocable for a reason. Raeky (talk) 09:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
- All I'm saying is, whether the copyright holder has requested deletion directly or not (and bear in mind they may not know how to request deletion), they have, for whatever reason, requested non-com and we should respect this. – Tivedshambo (talk) 09:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep This was uploaded by Admin Multichill's bot and was free at upload. Its non-revocable. The flickrowner licensed it freely for 1 day and someone saw it and uploaded it here. I definitely trust Multichill here. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I am the author of this photo, and published it in Panoramio KEEPING MY COPYRIGHT (you can check it there). Someone else took it from Panoramio and published it here, gracefully !PUTTING IT IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN! That is not acceptable by no means.
Ricardo Bravo (user: andarin2) Andarin2 (talk) 06:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 12:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Derivative work of copyrighted advent calendar. If we really have permission, this needs OTRS confirmation. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 23:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Dated 1947. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. PeterSymonds (talk) 02:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
and File:Cr Stefanus Paus en Martelaar aan lint.jpg
Derivative work of ribbon. Who created this and is it PD? ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 20:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, didn't noticed the DR. I thought it is PD-old, because the order was founded in 1561. -- Common Good (talk) 19:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Kept - old design, compare File:Orde van Sint Stefanus Toscane.jpg. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:39, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Appears to be a low resolution clip of a television production, and likely copyvio. If not, would require confirmation of free-use status. Cirt (talk) 13:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 04:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Original upload log is unclear, admitted that copyright status is not given. Confirmation of free-use would be required to retain. Cirt (talk) 12:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Although it seems difficult to get the information about the original photographer, I am ready to assume that the organization has the copyright here and that it is correctly licensed here. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Killiondude: No OTRS permission
Sculptures in the garden of Schloss Steinhausen
[edit]- File:Witten - Schloss Steinhausen 07 ies.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Witten - Schloss Steinhausen 08 ies.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Witten - Schloss Steinhausen 09 ies.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Witten - Schloss Steinhausen 11 ies.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Witten - Schloss Steinhausen 12 ies.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Witten - Schloss Steinhausen 13 ies.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Witten - Schloss Steinhausen 14 ies.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Witten - Schloss Steinhausen 15 ies.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Witten - Schloss Steinhausen 16 ies.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Witten - Schloss Steinhausen 18 ies.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Witten - Schloss Steinhausen 19 ies.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
File:Witten - Schloss Steinhausen 20 ies.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)- File:Witten - Schloss Steinhausen 22 ies.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Witten - Schloss Steinhausen 23 ies.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Witten - Schloss Steinhausen 24 ies.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Witten - Schloss Steinhausen 25 ies.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Witten - Schloss Steinhausen 26 ies.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Witten - Schloss Steinhausen 27 ies.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Witten - Schloss Steinhausen 28 ies.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Witten - Schloss Steinhausen 29 ies.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Witten - Schloss Steinhausen 30 ies.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Witten - Schloss Steinhausen 31 ies.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
COM:FOP#Germany for sculptures is limited to works permanently situated at the roadside. These sculptures are for sale, and they are in a walled garden. None of the seem PD-Old. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- This isn't a sculpture: File:Witten - Schloss Steinhausen 20 ies.jpg but a sign at a public street. So why the delition request?
- One doesn't need FOP for each and every image. In the current case I asked the employees whether or not I may take photos of the sculptures in the garden of Schloss Steinhausen. They said: yes, I may. So for what do I need FOP?
- Nevertheless I agree in this delition request - for a quite different reason however. As I learned that it's almost impossible to get rid of low quality images once umpoaded I take this chance: Please delete the here listed low quality images - for the wrong reason if you like. -- Ies (talk) 15:41, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- I thought that the sign was in the garden - if it is on the road, it is covered by FOP. Permission to make photos does not necessarily include permission to use those photos for commercial purposes, etcetera. The employees probably do not have the authority to grant such permissions. One would need permission by the artists. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:48, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Sculptures deleted (missing permission from the copyright holder), sign kept. Eusebius (talk) 10:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Sculptures in Louisiana (Denmark)
[edit]- File:Moore Denmark.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Henry-Moore-Reclining-Figure-5.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Jean-Dubuffet-Manoir-d-Essor.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Louisiana (inside).jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Calder denmark.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Louisiana01.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Only non-commercial COM:FOP#Denmark for sculptures, read also Category:Statue of the Little Mermaid (Copenhagen). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Can someone tell me why they are to be deleted? --WiseWoman (talk) 20:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Because the non-commercial restriction is not good enough for commons. This site only wants images that are free enough to make postcards of. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sorry to say, but you're right. We have to say goodbuy to these last images.--Gerardus (talk) 20:22, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Because the non-commercial restriction is not good enough for commons. This site only wants images that are free enough to make postcards of. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. PeterSymonds (talk) 02:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Images of Felipe metallica
[edit]- File:Monjas con atraso.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Monjas Con Atraso log .jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Monjas logo.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Monjas logo2.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Monjas con atraaso.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
User:Felipe_metallica's images are self-promoting (own music group). Jorge Barrios (talk) 17:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep The band exists, it may need illustrating at some point. --Simonxag (talk) 12:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of project scope. PeterSymonds (talk) 01:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Images of Vito40
[edit]- File:Exhumacion festival bandas rock.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Exhumación 0.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
User:Vito40's images are self promoting. Jorge Barrios (talk) 18:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep The band exists, it may need illustrating at some point. --Simonxag (talk) 13:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of project scope. PeterSymonds (talk) 02:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Images of Panchopedia
[edit]- File:TheFireConcepcion.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Escuchar ep.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Guarda Aravena.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
User:Panchopedia's images are self promoting. Jorge Barrios (talk) 18:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Out of project scope. --Unai Fdz. de Betoño (talk) 18:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of project scope. PeterSymonds (talk) 02:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
pornographic 75.149.104.110 17:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- That some people might interpret it as being pornographic is not a reason in itself why an image should be deleted; only if the image has no legitimate informative value. This image in fact is focused on presenting the chastity device. Keep without some more specific and concrete rationale. AnonMoos (talk) 23:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- I can't even see any pornographic content. Keep --Sir James (talk) 19:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- I can't even see any pornographic content.
- This image does in fact have some informative value - it's one of the very few images showing how a chastity device can be secured using a PA piercing and a small padlock Keep Vinctor
Reopend: "Recovered" makes me think it is some sort of revenge. Would like a view on that. MGA73 (talk) 19:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep: I don't find the reasons for deletion compelling at all. If the file name is an issue, move it. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- If the name had been "Revenge on my ex" we would probably have deleted the image on sight. Now it is called "Recovered...". When I see this name I can't help to think that uploader might have recoverd some images that had been deleted. My reason for nominating is the doubt that the man on the image know of this image and have approved that it is on the Internet. Besides user has only three uploads and two has been deleted. If it is revenge then moving the image will of course not help. --MGA73 (talk) 21:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'm having difficulty understanding what type of revenge someone could get from posting unidentifiable pictures of someone. Also, was the image ever named "Revenge on my ex" and is there any reason to believe it is any type of revenge other than the use of the word "recovered"? --MZMcBride (talk) 23:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- If the name had been "Revenge on my ex" we would probably have deleted the image on sight. Now it is called "Recovered...". When I see this name I can't help to think that uploader might have recoverd some images that had been deleted. My reason for nominating is the doubt that the man on the image know of this image and have approved that it is on the Internet. Besides user has only three uploads and two has been deleted. If it is revenge then moving the image will of course not help. --MGA73 (talk) 21:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep Subject not identifiable, so no privacy issues. Renaming would be a good idea. --Simonxag (talk) 13:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
And we go into the next round:
This image is made of poor quality which can hardly be used in any article. I would suggest to delete Mens IPL1.jpg, Mens IPL2.jpg and Mens IPL3.jpg as well. All four images are blurred and wiggly. All images can partly be replaced by Haarentfernung IPL ONLYSKIN.jpg. Even these images can't be replaced in every purpose overall we have enough good images of the male genitalia and that lamp does not make it in scope if the quality is not good enough. Moreover the author of Mens IPL3.jpg and Mens IPL4.jpg is "[private person]" which makes me assume that Marc.zuhause is not the author and is furthermore maybe not allowed to publish these images under a free licence.
Even Mens IPL1.jpg, Mens IPL2.jpg and Mens IPL3.jpg are kept I would would delete Mens IPL4.jpg in every case because it's the most blurred and wiggly image of all and can easily replaced by every one of the three other images
--D-Kuru (talk) 20:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete Poor quality --Simonxag (talk) 20:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Nilfanion (talk) 23:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Nude painting by a Polish artist who died in 1956. Although in a private collection & image taken by owner (presumably), this is likely still copyrighted? -- Deadstar (msg) 22:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep The owner can basically do what she wants with her painting. She can give it to a museum i a country with FOP, and then anybody can take free photos of it. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep The owner is not me but a friend, who invited me to take the picture to publish in Wikipedia. Pvt pauline (talk) 09:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete WTF?? Unless some specific Polish regulation can apply, this painting is copyrighted until Jan 1st 2027, and we need a permission from the heirs of the artists to host it. The owner of the painting has, by default, no copyright over the work. The FOP argument is totally irrelevant (plus, no painting is permanently located in a museum, so for most countries it wouldn't even work). --Eusebius (talk) 11:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
- No need to start swearing. See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Abba Yavniel.JPG. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry for swearing but I truly find this argument astonishing. I still think it is flawed (owners can change, permanent collections get lent, etc.), except for the country-specific part about FOP regulations that explicitly encompass paintings. Also, your implication argument is logically biased: "if A then B" does not imply "B", so "if the owner decided to permanently locate the work of art in a public place in a FOP country, then the owner would have the right to release a picture under a free license" does NOT imply that "the owner has the right to release a picture under a free license". Similar: I have the right to travel to the Netherlands where I can legally buy weed, so I might as well by some anyway and save me the trip. --Eusebius (talk) 12:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. I'm afraid we need permission for the copyright holder of the painting too, not just the copyright holder of the photo. No FOP reason was given. Rocket000 (talk) 18:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Composite image suspect background is copyvio from http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap030310.html. Copyright notice on image reads Credit & Copyright: Jean-Charles Cuillandre (CFHT), Hawaiian Starlight, CFHT. Unlikely that user coulld produce an image of this quality without access to a serious telescope. SpinningSpark 22:55, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps I should explain my case a little more. The suspect image is identical to the copyrighted image in terms of colour, orientation, detail and artefacts. Any number of other images of the same galaxy [3] do not show this same similarity. SpinningSpark 20:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Copyright infringement. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. High Contrast (talk) 17:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
No confirmation image was given such a license release by source website. Cirt (talk) 15:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:True-Parents-portrait.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hak Ja Han.jpg. Cirt (talk) 16:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete I cannot find a licence here. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. High Contrast (talk) 17:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
No confirmation image was given such a license release by source website. Cirt (talk) 15:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:True-Parents-portrait.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mrs. Hak Ja Han Moon.jpg. Cirt (talk) 16:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Kept per Commons:Deletion requests/File:True-Parents-portrait.jpg of whicj this is a derivative (non-admin closure). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
No confirmation image was given such a license release by source website. Cirt (talk) 15:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mrs. Hak Ja Han Moon.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hak Ja Han.jpg. Cirt (talk) 16:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep These formal portraits come from here. The license here is credible. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep I agree with Pieter Kuiper. The license is there. ARTEST4ECHO (talk) 15:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
per Pieter; website gives Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-by-sa) for the pictures Kept. Mbdortmund (talk) 18:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
The fact that uploader cannot identify author does not make an anonymous work. Clarification of this must be provided. --|EPO| da: 16:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep The portraits in color on http://www.ppslaveikov.com/istoriq_doc/patron.htm seem derivatives of this anonymous photo. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- I really don't understand how this helps, sorry. --Eusebius (talk) 20:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
- Well, http://www.ppslaveikov.com/istoriq_doc/pslav.JPG is not the original, but a derivative. The image on commons is a photo of a man who died in 1912 - why worry about it? There is plenty of copyright infringement on this site, of work by living artists. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
- Well, we usually do not take the stance that “photos of people who died 1912 are public domain”, do we? --Mormegil (talk) 21:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
- Oh my God, look: is this file clearly older than 70 years? YES. Is this a work of an unknown author? YES. So, this file has fallen to public domain as anonymous-EU with all reguested conditions... why do you nominate it for deletion?
- Well, we usually do not take the stance that “photos of people who died 1912 are public domain”, do we? --Mormegil (talk) 21:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
- Well, http://www.ppslaveikov.com/istoriq_doc/pslav.JPG is not the original, but a derivative. The image on commons is a photo of a man who died in 1912 - why worry about it? There is plenty of copyright infringement on this site, of work by living artists. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
- I really don't understand how this helps, sorry. --Eusebius (talk) 20:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
- Because the fact that uploader has not identified author does not make it an anonymous work. --|EPO| da: 19:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. No evidence that the author died 70 years ago (as claimed), nor that the author is anonymous (as claimed too). --Martin H. (talk) 16:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
There is no Freedom of Panorama in France, see COM:FOP#France Dferg (talk) 13:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep He died 1935, this is his tombstone. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. The man was not a sculptor, his tombstone will have been produced by someone else and they will have died some time later. --Simonxag (talk) 12:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
- But anonymous, see http://sites.radiofrance.fr/chaines/france-culture2/emissions/sur_docks/photos/410120514-photo.jpg /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
- OK, so a grave monument won't have been signed. That doesn't mean that if you asked a local historian you couldn't find out who made the thing. --Simonxag (talk) 11:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
- But anonymous, see http://sites.radiofrance.fr/chaines/france-culture2/emissions/sur_docks/photos/410120514-photo.jpg /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, no FOP. Kameraad Pjotr 19:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Creator is specified as "unknown" and the image is on TinEye. Is this own work? ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 21:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Apparently the tineye images are smaller versions, but we don't have a clear paternity statement from the uploader. I would be ok with assuming that "unknown" refers to the original work of art, and that the uploader is in all probability the photographer. --Eusebius (talk) 10:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete - I have doubts about the uploader because he has committed copyvios a number of times and he refused to reply here. The image size 450×660 indicates that it probably comes from an online site. This is an example of his own work, which is large size.--Officer (talk) 02:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- I'm the owner. My friend took the photo and sent it to me (gave me all permissions). --Wayiran (talk) 16:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
- Would you care to ask your friend to send us both a formal permission and the original file? --Eusebius (talk) 20:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, sure. --Wayiran (talk) 20:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- Would you care to ask your friend to send us both a formal permission and the original file? --Eusebius (talk) 20:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, lacks suitable permission. Kameraad Pjotr 19:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Sculpture park Cologne
[edit]- File:Alexander Esters, LÜG DU SAU!.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Barry Flanagan, Large Mirror Nijinski.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Bernar Venet, Four Arcs of 235,5°.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Bernd Kastner, Menschliche Kälte.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:CRAGG koeln.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Christina Doll, Vivi, Beton.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Dirk Skreber, Reaktor.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Heimo Zobernig, Spartakus Catering.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:ImmendorfHydePark.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Ina Weber, Vogelbad.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Jonathan Meese -Wir, Erzkinder lernen Macht.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Jorge Pardo, Tomatensuppe.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:KLNSP0901.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Kapoor Untitled Cologne.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Klnsp0902.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Klnsp0903.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Klnsp0904.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:RUeCKRIEM koeln.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
COM:FOP#Germany applies to sculptures permanently situated at the roadside, but the exhibitions in de:Skulpturenpark Köln are temporary, and the sculptures do not seem to be situated at public roads, streets or squares. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:48, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Da die Kategorie mit rund 10 Dateien schon seit rund zwei Jahren unbehelligt existiert, habe ich weitere Bilder eingestellt. Es müssen dann ja ebenfalls diverse Künstlerkategorien gelöscht werden, da sie zum Teil nur Dateien aus Köln enthalten.--Duhon (talk) 20:59, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Ähnlicher Grund bei mir: offenbar hatte hier über lange Zeit keiner Probleme gesehen, deshalb habe ich ein Bild hinzugefügt. Ist natürlich kein Beweis, dass das vom Copyright her OK ist, aber doch vielleicht ein Indiz? Schließlich gibt's auch noch weitere Skulpturenpark-Kategorien (z. B. Skulpturenpark Waldfrieden), deren rechtliche Situation vergleichbar ist, an denen sich aber noch niemand gestört hat. - Till (talk) 07:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- Diverse Skulpturen sind nicht kurzzeitig, sondern als Dauerleihgaben plaziert. Viele Skulpturen sind auch von den umgebenden Strassen und der neben dem Park verlaufenden Brücke einsehbar.--Duhon (talk) 06:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- English: But would that qualify for "at public roads or spaces"? And in that case, which ones are permanent?
- Deutsch: Aber darf man sagen das diese Skulpturen "sich an öffentlichen Wegen oder Plätzen befinden "? Wilche sind Dauerleihgaben?/Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- Eine Auswahl der Dauerleihgabe: Tomatensuppe; Dauerleihgabe der Gesellschaft der Freunde des Skulpturenparks Köln E.V === Rückriem, Ohne Titel, Flanagan, Venet, Rehberger, Immendorf : Dauerleihgaben der Michael und Eleonore Stoffel Stiftung--Duhon (talk) 13:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
- English: But the park is open only during the daytime, which means that this is not a public place in the sense of the German copyright law.
- Deutsch: Der Park ist nur am Tage geöffnet, also ist es kein öffentlicher Platz im Sinne des Urhebergesetzes./Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
- English: This seems to be a doubtful criterion to me - there are parks in German cities (in the sense of green spaces) that are closed at night. Does that make those parks non-public spaces?
- Deutsch: Dieses Kriterium erscheint mir zweifelhaft. Es gibt in deutschen Städten einige Parks (im Sinne von Grünflächen), die in der Nacht geschlossen sind. Macht sie das dann zu nicht-öffentlichen Räument?- Till (talk) 14:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
- Eine Auswahl der Dauerleihgabe: Tomatensuppe; Dauerleihgabe der Gesellschaft der Freunde des Skulpturenparks Köln E.V === Rückriem, Ohne Titel, Flanagan, Venet, Rehberger, Immendorf : Dauerleihgaben der Michael und Eleonore Stoffel Stiftung--Duhon (talk) 13:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
-
Rheinpark Köln
.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}
--Duhon (talk) 17:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
- "Wie Sie zum Park Güell gelangen: Metro Haltestelle "Lesseps" (Grüne Linie, L3) Wenn Sie aus der Metro steigen, folgen Sie einfach den Symbolen in Richtung Park. Geöffnet ist von 10:00 (geschlossen wird zu verschiedenen Zeiten, abhängig von der Jahreszeit, gewöhnlich etwa um 19:00). Der Eintritt ist frei." Dies ist ein Ausschnitt aus der Werbung der Stadt Barcelona für das Weltkulturerbe PARK GÜELL. Natürlich findet hier auch eine Nachtschließung statt. --Duhon (talk) 12:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- Selbstverständlich behalten. Die Tatsache, daß eine öffentliche Parkanlage aus Sicherheitsgründen nachts geschlossen wird (wird Planten un Blomen in Hamburg z.B. auch), schadet nicht für die Qualifizierung als öffentlicher Raum. --Mogelzahn (talk) 19:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
- arguments for keeping the pictures
- 1. A park should be accepted as a public space, even when it's closed during the night.
- 2. The sculptures seem to be placed there not only for a short time or a single exhibition.
Kept. Mbdortmund (talk) 18:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)