Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2009/11/13
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.jpg){kind=link}
copyvio: no free panorama for a sculpture. Unless the uploader Rebecca Kennison is Josefina de Vasconcellos, which I doubt. --Altenmann (talk) 17:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. It is a statue on display, and so I assume it has free panorama in the UK. Snowmanradio (talk) 19:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Keep. Yes, there is freedom of panorama in the UK for statues permanently displayed in public, as this appears to be: see "Commons:Freedom of Panorama#United Kingdom". — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 16:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)- strong keep This DR is totally wrong. There is full FOP in most of the Commonwealth countries including the UK and Canada (except South Africa). The object is permanently installed at the site too. --Leoboudv (talk) 08:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Huge 80mb animated gif. I don't think people are going to wait to download 80mb for a gif. Also, every time someone goes to category:time-lapse videos, this entire 80mb gif is downloaded. Better duplicates are available here:
- http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Timelapse.GIF - only 16 mb
- http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Time-Lapse.ogg - only 11 mb
mahanga (talk) 01:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Invalid reason for deletion, one day soon 80mb files will be common on Commons :-). Put it in a sub-category with a size warning in its name. --Tony Wills (talk) 02:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- Wrong, see COM:D#Regular_deletion: The file is not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Examples of files that are not realistically useful include: [..] Files that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject, especially if they are of poor or mediocre quality.. And I hope that day never comes when commons will be swamped by 80mb animated GIF files. --Dschwen (talk) 20:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- I think that clause is put there to give us an excuse for deleting excessive uploads of penii etc ;-), I don't think it is really meant for deleting images that have just been transferred to a different format. Ok, I have to admit that I haven't looked at the image (perhaps it is one of the afore mentioned creatures?), and are unlikely to do so, but can see no reason to delete it given that the media-wiki software doesn't actually delete the file and recover the space - ie given that it will still be consuming 80mb of disk space we might as well be able to get at it (for those few who have a preference for GIF (eg environments where an OGG player isn't available or blocked?). If anything its presence should act as a warning to others who wish to upload such monsters (just put a copy of it on their talk page ;-) --Tony Wills (talk) 05:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- Wrong, see COM:D#Regular_deletion: The file is not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Examples of files that are not realistically useful include: [..] Files that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject, especially if they are of poor or mediocre quality.. And I hope that day never comes when commons will be swamped by 80mb animated GIF files. --Dschwen (talk) 20:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete per SCOPE. This is a low quality copy in a completely unsuitable file format, where we have a high quality copy in the correct format. This file is useless to the projects commons is catering to and just sets a bad example. Crush by elephant! --Dschwen (talk) 20:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC)- Keep Freely licensed and awesome. My computer can handle it just fine. -Nard the Bard 23:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- The same "awesome" content is provided by File:Time-Lapse.ogg in much better quality. --Dschwen (talk) 23:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep it's common's error that animated gif resizing is not implemented. Please look here --Justass (talk) 23:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- That discussion is about getting GIF resizing turned back on for non-animated GIFs. GIF resizing was turned off because it doesn't work very well for animated GIFs (have to resize each frame I suppose). I think the resizing code has been changed so that it doesn't try to resize animated GIFs, therefore we can now turn on resizing again (and it will only resize the non-animated ones). I hope that makes sense :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 05:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
No evidence for permission. The linked source page (also its archived version) says "All rights reserved". High on a tree (talk) 02:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --Justass (talk) 23:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Podzemnik (talk) 23:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand its purpose. It was created in 2006... Author of article is no longer active. --mahanga (talk) 02:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, no purpose recognizable. --The Evil IP address (talk) 17:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Freely available, but not free for any purpose, uploader seems to have confused the two. FunkMonk (talk) 04:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio: Copyright violation: http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/episode/sharks-3042/Photos#tab-Photos/0#ixzz0WZ8MvHGs --Kwj2772 (msg) 15:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
A copyrighted poster dominates the entire image. De Minimis should not apply here. It also failed flickr review. Leoboudv (talk) 06:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nom., --Podzemnik (talk) 23:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- Delete image was uploaded more than a year ago to it.wiki so we cant say what license was at that time, but poster is main subject of image --Justass (talk) 23:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, derivative work. Podzemnik (talk) 08:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
The flickrowner licenses some images freely (cc by sa) and some with a Non-Commercial license. Since this is non-Commercial, I think it was never free. Leoboudv (talk) 07:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- The flick page [1] states "some rights reserved" this links to a page declaring it to be CC2. See http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/deed.en_GB This would indicate Keep Lumos3 (talk) 13:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment This image has a Non-Commercial restriction which is not permitted on Commons. --Leoboudv (talk) 03:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
On hold I just send a mail to the Flickr user asking if the license could be changed. --MGA73 (talk) 10:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)- Keep The flickr owner has changed the license to 'cc by sa.' So, the image can be kept. I withdraw my nomination now. --Leoboudv (talk) 00:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
According to this wttw's flickr images were ARR in 2006 to 2007. No evidence it was free Leoboudv (talk) 07:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 21:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. --The Evil IP address (talk) 17:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Out of project scope. ALE! ¿…? 09:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom., --Podzemnik (talk) 23:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Kwj2772 (msg) 15:39, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Out of scope. No description, no categories, seems to be the logo of a non-notable company. Pruneautalk 11:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete unused logo of whatever --81.217.83.246 14:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete Uploader has not even stated any connection with the organisation, so there is no permission that we can be sure of. --Simonxag (talk) 21:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Too small to be useful. Likely copyvio. Pruneautalk 11:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- Same thing for these two other files by the same uploader: File:Mika Omni.jpg, File:Gurvan Omni.jpg. This user's only other contribution is File:Mederic.jpg, which also looks out of scope and a likely copyvio. Pruneautalk 11:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- strong delete Best to just delete them all. The supertiny resolution indicates a copy vio here for all the images Pruneau mentions. --Leoboudv (talk) 08:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete unused and useless --Simonxag (talk) 21:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Promotional image. Out of scope. Pruneautalk 11:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Kwj2772 (msg) 15:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Bank of the Republic of Colombia logos
[edit]- File:Banrep.svg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Banco de la republica logo.svg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Museo del oro logo.svg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Luis angel arango logo.svg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
I believe that Bank of the Republic of Colombia logos listed above (which were uploaded by User:Camilo Sanchez) derivative works of a copyrighted. While Bank of the Republic of Colombia states[2] that they can be used freely for nonprofit/private use they are restrictive to use commercially therefore the logos have an invalid license and are too restrictive for Commons to have hosted on Commons and can be uploaded on Wikipedia (Not just en) under fair use. Bidgee (talk) 11:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Huib talk 21:46, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Out of project scope. ALE! ¿…? 12:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete unused image of a party --81.217.83.246 14:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete unused personal image --Simonxag (talk) 22:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
He is probably not the copyright holder. Too old photo. OsamaK 13:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep 1974 was the year that steam locomotives were on the brink of extinction in Japan. Almost any Japanese boy was aware of that and quite a few of them took photographs of them. Probablities are high that Mr. Toshimasa TANABE is indeed the genuine copyright holder. His thumbnail suggests he is near/over 50 years old, which is consistent with his claim.--トトト (talk) 14:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Mr. Toshimasa TANABE's blog is here. And he is explaing his photos of these locomotives in here. He is specifying the camera, the time and the location. This is the proof that Mr. Tanabe is the true copyright holder. BTW, OsamaK, please don't say you can't read Japanese. I think anybody claiming the copyright violation should be able to read the background behind the photograph and the photographer beforehand. You should have stayed quiet if you are illiterate in the Japanese language. Cheers.--トトト (talk) 14:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep for reasons already stated above. Calling a 1974 photo "too old" is an odd reason for doubting copyright ownership. --DAJF (talk) 15:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep 1974 is not too old. There is a clear source (Mr. Tanabe) who says he took the photos in 1974 and that is not a long time ago. If it was 1940's or 1950's then I can see the case for delete because the copyright owner would presumably be deceased. But then his family could still donate the photos to Commons. This is not the case here. --Leoboudv (talk) 20:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
See Tineye, original uploader has uploaded a lot of problematic images, furthermore this doesn't look self-made to me. --The Evil IP address (talk) 13:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support deletion. Snowmanradio (talk) 13:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Huib talk 21:48, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
add File:Dana Barron - 12-2008.jpg & File:Dana Barron - 12-08.jpg
- We find this photo on numerous websites (with Google Images), and the Flickr account was since deleted --Okki (talk) 14:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- Delete all 3 images. They all have the same situation. All 3 are recently uploaded images which were quickly deleted from the flickr account...and they all touch on the same subject. It is most likely a copy vio here...as in the uploader does not hold the rights to the 3 images. --Leoboudv (talk) 05:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per Leoboudv. --Simonxag (talk) 22:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
The image seens to be copyvio. Besides the uploader said that is own work, the image is too small to that. When you take a picture, the image size is normaly +- 2000 x 2400 px, and that have only 600 x 799 px --Béria Lima Msg 14:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep define "seems to be copyvio". The size of an image when you take a picture depends on the camera settings, among other things; my camera will take 640 x 480 images if you tell it to. More importantly, this looks like a standard group shot cropped down to just the one person, and hence not having full resolution. I see no reason to doubt this image.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep When you crop a photo with the Gimp (and maybe other things) the camera data is untouched. This looks like an amateur photograph. --Simonxag (talk) 22:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
The EXIF of this image says Photo by: Sthanlee B. Mirador, Shooting Star International, All rights reserved. Unlikely the flickr user is the company or the photographer, other images (of the 4 uploads) appear elsewhere on the web. Martin H. (talk) 14:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
From Commons:Deletion requests/File:Céline Bonnier.jpg and the uploaders talkpage I just noted, that some flickrwashing is going on here. An image from the SAME flickr account was uploaded befor, http://www.flickr.com/photos/katth07/4089188575/, that image was found copyright violation from http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/80214497/Getty-Images-Entertainment. A blatant case, needs some second look on the uploader I think. --Martin H. (talk) 14:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I can confirm that yesterday there were uploaded 3 images hosted on this flckr account and later found to be copyright violations File:Faith Susan Alberta Watson.jpeg, File:Eugene Robert Glazer.jpg, File:Peta Wilson.jpg (different image). Today "bad" images are gone from flickr, what are coincidence isn't it? :) -Justass (talk) 15:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete Flickr washing. --High Contrast (talk) 17:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Huib talk 21:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
No evidence anywhere that these images actually ARE released under GFDL. Rosenzweig δ 15:51, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Even if the image is anonymous it will be in copyright until 2011. Then it might be PD, but I can't see where the free licenses are supposed to have come from. --Simonxag (talk) 22:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Huib talk 21:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Unlikely own work. Web resolution, watermark, no EXIF, and the uploader's other contribution was a blatant copyright violation. –Tryphon☂ 16:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- Delete look at other user contributions [3], few random images from web, and album covers --Justass (talk) 18:51, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
deleted, no need to discuss this. --Polarlys (talk) 21:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Photograph is not self-created but taken from another website such as http://adage.com/images/bin/image/mktg50p-umbrella111708.jpg Martin H. (talk) 17:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep "Photograph is not self-created but taken from another website such as http://adage.com/images/bin/image/mktg50p-umbrella111708.jpg" {{Citation needed}} Always the same persecution ... [4] [5]. Where are you when you need it? Vitorvicentevalente (talk) 20:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
![[4]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Abbeydawnretail191.jpg){kind=link}
![[5]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fragance.jpg){kind=link}
20:47, 13 November 2009 Dschwen deleted "File:Rihanna Umbrella.jpg" (Copyright violation)
The LOC has no copyright information about this image. The current license seems based on the assumption that LOC created the image, which is obviously wrong. It might be {{PD-US-not renewed}}, but it needs to be verified. –Tryphon☂ 17:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Copyright violation, multiple false claims in image description. "This image is in The Library of Congress collections and is therefore in the public domain" completely false claim; LOC attributes it to "Basey Migon (International News)"; this upload has obviously false authorship and license claim. -- Infrogmation (talk) 11:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted I've gone ahead and speedy deleted it, as the case seems obvious and the image was not in use in Wikimedia. -- Infrogmation (talk) 11:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Category: Andar Province
[edit]There is no Andar Province in Afghanistan. Andar is a district of Ghazni Province, I have moved the images to Ghazni Province. Look at en:Ghazni Province. There is a district map. Zaccarias (talk) 19:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- Delete empty category. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
speedy tag added. -- User:Docu at 17:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Low image resolution and the lack of EXIF data makes own work by the uploader highly unlikely. High Contrast (talk) 21:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
deleted, no the first copyvio by this uploader. --Polarlys (talk) 22:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Sculptor (Veijo Rönkkönen) living; sculptures not in Public Domain yet. FOP in Finland for buildings only. Apalsola t • c 23:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC) -- (wl fix) Apalsola t • c 23:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --Justass (talk) 01:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. --The Evil IP address (talk) 17:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Copyright violation. Originally posted [6] here with a copyright notice. May also be derivative of Harry Potter books (depending on whether or not you feel a drawing of written scene in a book is a copyvio). -Nard the Bard 23:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. It's unused (it was unused on Wikibooks where it was sourced from) and looks like a copyvio Unusual? Quite TalkQu 23:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom.--Blargh29 (talk) 01:39, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- Delete At best derivative fan art not used in Wikimedia; but per nom seems likely copyviol as well. Infrogmation (talk) 11:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Kwj2772 (msg) 15:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
The original image (July 2008) has a copyright notice by V. Chobitok, however there is no permission to upload it under a free license. Sv1xv (talk) 16:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- It was uploaded by Chobitok V. with cc-by-sa to ru.wiki and then transferred to Commons. See log. I suppose any ru.wiki admin can help you and prove my words. Rubin16 (talk) 16:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- As any ru-wiki-sysop I checked it. This image was uploded to Ru-Wiki at 21 August 2007 by ru:User:Чобиток Василий under {{self|cc-by-sa-2.5}} conditions. The deleted description you can see below. Alex Spade (talk) 17:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- And the author doesn't seem to challenge the license [7], he just fails to understand that removing the copyright notice from within the image is not illegal (it's even explicitly allowed by the license). Maybe someone can better explain it to him in Russian? –Tryphon☂ 16:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- I and some other ru-wiki-users have already tried to explain (in Russian), that removing the copyright notice from within the image uploaded under free license is not illegal - because it's possible due to thesis "freedom should include all derived uses", and he can only demand that his hame/nickname and other attributes must be given in specified sequence of words, but he is refusing to understand (or listen to). Alex Spade (talk) 17:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep user can put any watermark on image, but by uploading image he issued new licence (cc-by-sa) --Justass (talk) 16:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
The deleted desription for this disputed image on Ru-Wiki
== Краткое описание ==
{{Изображение
| Описание = Т-64А ранних выпусков после капитального ремонта
| Автор = Чобиток В.В. [http://armor.kiev.ua/]
| Время создания = 2000 год
| Источник = собственная работа
}}
== Лицензия ==
{{self|cc-by-sa-2.5}}
1) Как автор фотографии я не возражаю против любого свободного использования данного изображения. На изображении при загрузке присутствовала надпись копирайта, свидетельствующая о личных неимущественных правах автора. Изображение можно использовать как угодно, однако, удаление и ретуширование надписи копирайта - прямое нарушение законов об авторских правах. 2) Наличие надписи копирайта не является лицензией и никак ей не противоречит. P.S. Меня зело удивляет юридический нигилизм и странные представления относительно авторского права господ, принимающих участие в дебатах. --Чобиток Василий (talk) 17:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
2) The presence of the copyright notice is not a license and does not contradict it. P.S. I was exceedingly surprised by legal nihilism and strange thoughts concerning copyright issues, presented by people, participating in the debate.
I withdraw my nomination So, the original image on ru.wiki was properly uploaded and licensed by Чобиток В.В. and a bogus © was added during transfer to Commons. In this case I withdraw this DR, which can be safely closed with a "Keep". Sv1xv (talk) 18:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
The original uploader edit-warred with the removal of his watermark until the file was protected. In the previous DR he admitted he was not permitting the watermark to be removed. The license given is null, the author did not appreciate what it means, there is no "meeting of the minds" as the law puts it. -Nard the Bard 19:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- Предыдущий оратор неправ. Я согласен с условиями лицензии, но лицензия не заменяет закон. Закон запрещает вырезать из работ подпись автора (копирайт). Например, почему-то никто не подорвался ретушировать копирайты на эти запросы: [8], [9], [10]. Почему? Случаи абсолютно аналогичные.
- Удаление копирайта произошло с нарушениями правил проекта ([11]) - к автору с просьбой дать фотографию лучшего качества никто не обращался, а самостоятельное удаление предусмотрено для водяных знаков, на данной фотографии подпись копирайта с водяными знаками и рядом не стояла.
- Тем не менее, я проявил добрую волю и предложил вариант решения проблемы [12]:
- Шаг 1. Возвращение к первоначально загруженному варианту. Таким образом участники проекта идут навстречу, демонстрируют желание понять автора и соблюдать закон.
- Шаг 2. Я сканирую пленку и предоставляю фотографию лучшего качества без надписей.
- Никого компромиссный вариант не заинтересовал, народ предпочитает ипать автору мозги. В чём причина? --Чобиток Василий (talk) 21:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
![[8]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Allers_1894_Selbstportrait.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=31830203){kind=link}
![[9]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Ayvalar.png&diff=prev&oldid=31830178){kind=link}
![[10]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Pierre-Auguste_Renoir_127.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=31830164){kind=link}
- Comment Editor-author does not agree that both cc-by-sa and local laws allow to remove watermark. Author insist that removing watermark from image is equal to removing copyright and prohibited under local laws (ru and ua) whatever license says. vlsergey (talk) 23:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment I think this is difficult. There will be loads of cases where the author doesn't fully think through the implications of a free license and finds a use of their image they don't like. The whole point of a free license is that they can't turn round and object. On the other hand this author, right from the beginning, does really seem to have got the wrong idea about the nature of the licenses. They do however seem to have taken quite some time to raise any objection and the Commons is very clear and open about the nature of its licenses. --Simonxag (talk) 22:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Unlikely that uploader owns this work of a trademarked logo. No permission evident Salavat (talk) 15:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep trademark status is irrelevant here. We care about copyright. And this logo looks pretty ineligible to me. --Dschwen (talk) 20:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- So your saying that the image is built up of generic shapes and fonts and therefore should be re-tagged? Salavat (talk) 04:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, clearly not PD-textlogo. Kameraad Pjotr 20:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Reasons for deletion request: File is copyrighted and cannot be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons-Jovianeye (talk) 18:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- I have received the necessary copyright permission for using the image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.72.81.141 (talk • contribs) 19:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC) (UTC)
- That's insufficient. You need to get someone from the copyright owner to send an e-mail from a company e-mail account to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org confirming that the company is willing to release the image into the public domain or to license it to the Wikimedia Commons under a free licence such as {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}} or {{GFDL}}. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 16:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, lacks suitable permission. Kameraad Pjotr 20:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
There is no source about this image and there is no indication if a presidental flag exists for Afghanistan. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 09:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
A Presidential Standard is mentioned here: http://flagspot.net/flags/af_pres.html, including a visual confirmation of existance. Fry1989 (talk) 02:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- [A possible photo is at http://msnbcmedia4.msn.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Photo/_new/081125-karzai-hmed-8a.hlarge.jpg] but with how often Afghanistan changes it's flag, I really do not take any stock in just seeing it on TV with something like this. I would like a law. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 03:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I have sent an email to Mohammad Humayun Hamidzada, chief spokespoerson to of the President, in regards to a standard of the office, please do not delete this file until I get a reply. Fry1989 (talk) 23:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- We can restore images you know. Also, we can make an SVG file if we do get confirmation (and put the name in English). User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 01:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately I have yet to recieve a return email regarding this flag, however I would ask that you maintain it for the time being. I intend to send an email to Hamed Elmi, Deputy Spokesperson of the President. Fry1989 (talk) 02:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- We can restore files after deletion. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 04:07, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I figured that out the first time, I know how to read Fry1989 (talk) 22:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- I would say to Keep; it appears a flag like this was at least used for *some* purpose, so the graphic has educational value. Obviously more information would be better, but the description can be updated (and the file possibly renamed) if more information is found. Description should be updated to indicate the lack of solid information about the flag though. Seems quite possible someone in the government just made up a flag without having any kind of law... Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- I was thinking if the image is kept, could we rename it so it says (unconfirmed) or something to that effect? User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 04:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, per Zscout: if it isn't official or confirmed by official sources, it's out of project scope. If it becomes official, it can be restored. Kameraad Pjotr 19:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Converting to normal deletion. Nominated for speedy deletion by User:Mahanga: " This file is a copyright violation because the lyrics and composition are copyrighted" Multichill (talk) 10:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. There are no discernible lyrics or composition to speak of. Just a few seconds of distorted electric guitar. I'm a huge Guitar Wolf fan and I have no idea what song this was from. Is there such thing as de minimis for audio? Kaldari (talk) 15:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- I did, didn't find a copyvio so that's why I converted it to a regular deletion request so it can be discussed. Multichill (talk) 18:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- Understood. My question was actually directed at User:Mahanga, but I suppose they are not watching the discussion :( Kaldari (talk) 21:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- Left him a note when I created this request, Multichill (talk) 13:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- Understood. My question was actually directed at User:Mahanga, but I suppose they are not watching the discussion :( Kaldari (talk) 21:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- I did, didn't find a copyvio so that's why I converted it to a regular deletion request so it can be discussed. Multichill (talk) 18:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep This video is a perfect example that audio could be de minimis :p -Nard the Bard 22:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep per Nard the Bard --Justass (talk) 23:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I'm not too familiar with copyrights on video, but it was my understanding that concert videos were generally not allowed on here. Just because the audio quality is poor doesn't make it ok. See Commons:Licensing#Scope_of_licensing. mahanga (talk) 05:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- What part is fair use exactly? Multichill (talk) 13:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- The fact to include a copyrighted work into another, but ignoring it in good faith because the quality is too low to be prejudicial to the copyright holder. Diti the penguin — 17:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- That's not the definition of fair use at all. You're confusing Wikipedia's EDP with the legal concept of fair use (which is one reason Wikipedia moved away from the term fair use.) Wikipedia's EDP requires the use of low-resolution works with various other restrictions. Fair use under the law does not require works to be low def, in fact under many circumstances fair use allows high quality copies (such as for inclusion in a textbook or filming a documentary in a museum). We're not ignoring the copyright in good faith, this video contains a few bars of music in such a way as to be completely divorced from what song is there. To constitute copyright violation first you must determine which work is being violated. I will change my !vote to delete if you can show there's anything recognizable there :) -Nard the Bard 18:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- I can't recognize the lyrics, but it appears that they're singing and playing one of their garage punk rock songs. I don't know the band, but are their lyrics in Japanese? Maybe that's why I can't understand it. w:Guitar Wolf says "The band is known for songs with piercing vocals and an extremely loud style of noise-influenced punk which emphasizes heavy distortion and feedback." This is essentially a clip of their concert, including their loud style and heavy distortion which we don't have permission to use. That's my interpretation anyway. mahanga (talk) 23:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I'll say it's a borderline case. It should be worth noting though, that de minimis policy in the US permits copying "Where a technical violation is so trivial that the law will not impose legal consequences". I would imagine that this would cover cases like this where the part that is copied is so short and poor as to have no commercial value. Kaldari (talk) 01:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
- Unless I misunderstood, isn't the entire video a "technical violation?" Again, see Commons:Licensing#Scope_of_licensing. mahanga (talk) 02:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I'll say it's a borderline case. It should be worth noting though, that de minimis policy in the US permits copying "Where a technical violation is so trivial that the law will not impose legal consequences". I would imagine that this would cover cases like this where the part that is copied is so short and poor as to have no commercial value. Kaldari (talk) 01:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
- I can't recognize the lyrics, but it appears that they're singing and playing one of their garage punk rock songs. I don't know the band, but are their lyrics in Japanese? Maybe that's why I can't understand it. w:Guitar Wolf says "The band is known for songs with piercing vocals and an extremely loud style of noise-influenced punk which emphasizes heavy distortion and feedback." This is essentially a clip of their concert, including their loud style and heavy distortion which we don't have permission to use. That's my interpretation anyway. mahanga (talk) 23:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- That's not the definition of fair use at all. You're confusing Wikipedia's EDP with the legal concept of fair use (which is one reason Wikipedia moved away from the term fair use.) Wikipedia's EDP requires the use of low-resolution works with various other restrictions. Fair use under the law does not require works to be low def, in fact under many circumstances fair use allows high quality copies (such as for inclusion in a textbook or filming a documentary in a museum). We're not ignoring the copyright in good faith, this video contains a few bars of music in such a way as to be completely divorced from what song is there. To constitute copyright violation first you must determine which work is being violated. I will change my !vote to delete if you can show there's anything recognizable there :) -Nard the Bard 18:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- The fact to include a copyrighted work into another, but ignoring it in good faith because the quality is too low to be prejudicial to the copyright holder. Diti the penguin — 17:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- What part is fair use exactly? Multichill (talk) 13:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete The video is a recording of a performance by the artists. The performance is copyrighted so this is a derivative work. If the performance element is de minimis, then what is the subject of the video?!!!! We sometimes have discussions about concert photographs and they're OK, but only because the performance has not been recorded just the appearance of the performer. I know this seems silly, because the clip is obviously fair use, but we don't allow fair use on the Commons. --Simonxag (talk) 21:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete This violates en:Performer rights. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, would qualify as fair use imho, but that's not allowed on commons. Kameraad Pjotr 19:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
There is no evidence that this is a US Government photo. Sv1xv (talk) 21:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, this is a NATO photo. But I'm right now in the process of finding out detailed license for photos from NATO website, so please wait a bit before deleting this and other NATO pictures. --Leafnode✉ 11:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- On hold Good, because a very large percentage of the NATO pictures are shot by US military personnel. Sv1xv (talk) 11:06, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, no evidence for PD-USGov. Kameraad Pjotr 18:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
There is no evidence that this is a US Governmet photo. Sv1xv (talk) 21:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, source page clearly says credit should be "NATO photo". -- Infrogmation (talk) 11:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- On hold See also Leafnode's comments on Commons:Deletion requests/File:32-Taxpn-US-Marines-Soldiers.jpg. Sv1xv (talk) 11:54, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, no evidnce that this is PD-USGov. Kameraad Pjotr 09:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
