Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2009/11/26
 |
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}
An anonymous drawing posted in 1989, copyrighted, not CC and GFDL shizhao (talk) 03:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Keep artwork placed in pubic place is covered by {{FoP-China}}, due to events of that time it's simple impossible to determine author and give him attribute, actually it would likely harm author --Justass (talk) 21:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- But I found in the law that it is not mentioned distributing such works is allowed? --MtBell (talk) 01:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep According to {{FoP-China}}, I don't think this transfer (from En.wikipedia to wikimedia) is a "distributing action". --Walter Grassroot (talk) 02:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Publishing the poster in a website is a distributing behavior, and the name of the author is not attributed as required by {{FoP-China}}. Anyway, Article 22 provide fair use terms and I think it is proper to upload the poster to wikipedia and use it in articles with fair use terms declared. But commons should only host artworks that are completely free. --MtBell (talk) 22:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)- Delete: Article 22 only means fair-use but not be in public domain. The copyright of such works are still belong to their copyright owners. See 合理使用与法定许可的区别. --PhiLiP (talk) 04:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, as per PhiLiP--Wing (talk) 17:52, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. We cannot attribute the author, so we cannot use this under FOP. Also note that this might have been posted there without the author knowing about it. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 19:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Unlikely to be PD - see http://www.tineye.com/search/a28fd3da050e1663fc882ca14500e2630bbf10df Tabercil (talk) 04:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Missing sufficient information on copyright and creator. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 15:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Admin Captain tucker sent a flickrmail to the flickr owner on October 23 here requesting a license change or OTRS permission but none was forthcoming. Instead the flickrowner ignored the message and kept on downloading images on his account. Their latest upload was November 27! In this case, I think this image should be deleted since the flickrowner refuses to change the license....and it is All Rights Reserved. Leoboudv (talk) 05:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete failed Filckr review --Simonxag (talk) 01:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Not released under a free license. Please send permission to OTRS or have the Flickr user change the license on Flickr. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 15:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Licensed as self-PD, but credited to "katyperryfans". Appears to be screenshot or wire service photo - high quality, low rez. Extremely unlikely this is a free image. --Ytoyoda (talk) 07:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted Speedy present for this image points to http://music.ninemsn.com.au/section.aspx?sectionid=2465§ionname=artistfeature&subsectionid=147980&subsectionname=mtvemas2008 - and a search through this site's images for the MTV awards all credit to Getty. And a quick check there turns up this, where the image can be seen. Tabercil (talk) 13:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Image Failed flickrreview on October 17 with an ND restriction. Today just 1 month later, its licensed as 'All Rights Reserved.' There is no evidence it was ever free and I suggest it be deleted. Leoboudv (talk) 08:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Link in original description is pointing to a different image; the actual image on Flickr is not released under a free license and has never passed Flickrreview. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 16:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Admin captain tucker contacted this flickrowner here on November 18 and got no response. But the flickrowner surely received the message since he uploaded a few images on November 21 on his flickr account. Since he refused to change the license, I suggest this image file be deleted. By the way, this is the uploader's only photo here which means he likely didn't know Common's license rules. Leoboudv (talk) 08:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. No reason to assume that this has ever been released under a free license. Flickrreview failed. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 16:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
No category, no description, no use. Who is Benjamin Adams? --78.55.107.61 10:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, you have an entire Encyclopedia at your disposal! en:Benjamin Adams House. Description updated Keep -Nard the Bard 17:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- Thank u very much :-) 78.55.107.61 17:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- Of course, adding it to the wiki page would have been great ;-) Speedy keep --PaterMcFly (talk) 21:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Kept. In scope. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 16:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
No category, no description, not used. The only edit of this user --78.55.107.61 10:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete scope --Simonxag (talk) 01:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 03:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
No cat, no description, no usage. --78.55.107.61 11:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete useless --Simonxag (talk) 01:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 03:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Unknown person, no file description, unused. GeorgHH • talk 11:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- It was apparently used at one time, but nobody thought to add a description or categories to help the rest of us figure it out. Sad. -Nard the Bard 17:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- I've found out who it is and added it to the appropriate article. I Googled a variation of the uploader's name and found his Amazon profile[1]. I also contacted an OTRS volunteer and updated to the correct license (cc-by-sa-2.5 and not just generic cc-by-sa). Should be kept now. It does need a rename though. -Nard the Bard 02:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Kept Relevant information have been added and file was renamed to File:Hernâni Lopes da Silva Maia.jpg. --GeorgHH • talk 22:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
What's this? Unused, first and last upload of this user. 78.55.107.61 11:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC) --78.55.107.61 11:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete unused personal artwork --Simonxag (talk) 01:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –blurpeace (talk) 05:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Copyright violation. Tineye shows this image is all over the web. -Nard the Bard 16:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- I have no objections to deletion. Jesus1969 uploaded the image so it could be used in the English Wikipedia to promote his company. I doubt he actually meant to allow its use for any other purpose. Dancter (talk) 22:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. If the permission was valid, please send confirmation to OTRS. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 16:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
No description, no categories, no usage --78.55.107.61 16:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 01:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 03:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Derivative work: no FOP in France. –Tryphon☂ 16:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- Cette photo que j'ai prise ne présente aucune information sur copyright. Il s'agit d'un panneau d'information public ne mentionnant rien de particulier. --Jean-Louis Lascoux (talk) 16:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- Je ne doute pas de votre bonne foi, mais lorsqu'on photographie une œuvre, le droit d'auteur sur l'image appartient en partie à l'auteur de cette œuvre (voir COM:DW). Certains pays font une exception lorsque l'œuvre se trouve de manière permanente dans un lieu public, mais ce n'est pas le cas de la France (voir COM:FOP#France). –Tryphon☂ 17:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- Je n'avais pas encore vraiment imprimé dans ma tête les principes que vous cherchez à faire respecter ici. Yaille Yaille. Néanmoins, le panneau devant la maison de Médard Aribot ne mériterait pas vraiment d'être classée dans les oeuvres. Mais je comprends le concept légaliste. Dont acte. Jean-Louis Lascoux (talk) 09:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- Je ne doute pas de votre bonne foi, mais lorsqu'on photographie une œuvre, le droit d'auteur sur l'image appartient en partie à l'auteur de cette œuvre (voir COM:DW). Certains pays font une exception lorsque l'œuvre se trouve de manière permanente dans un lieu public, mais ce n'est pas le cas de la France (voir COM:FOP#France). –Tryphon☂ 17:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Derivative work not covered by FOP. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 16:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Outside project scope. -Nard the Bard 17:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --Justass (talk) 22:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --GeorgHH • talk 21:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Podzemnik (talk) 22:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Unused file. -Nard the Bard 17:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- Delete unused personal image --Justass (talk) 22:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Personal image not in use on a user page. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 16:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
My own work, has no additional value. Eng446w4 (talk) 17:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC) Eng446w4 (talk) 17:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep no personal issue, high res photo --Justass (talk) 22:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Better than some, but still just another penis picture. A composition that properly illustrated the effect of waxing would have been useful. --Simonxag (talk) 01:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Not a really high quality image. Uploader requested deletion. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 19:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
File uploaded with incorrect license and uploader (on enWiki) requests deletion (See discussion at w:User talk:Amorymeltzer#Thought I.27d get back to seek your assistance again) ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Not freely licensed. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 16:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
It is unclear what license is intended. The website it is taken from appears to be copyrighted, but the image page mentions that it is "free for non-profit use" (which I think is unsuitable for Commons) and that it is ineligible for copyright (although this is unlikely). --Snigbrook (talk) 19:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Being quite new to Wikipedia, I didn't know exactly what license to use. It's an image free for the public to view, published by the university - A map of one of their campuses. I uploaded it so I could use it on the Wikipedia page on this campus which my group is doing for our project - [2] CS104Group14 (talk) 19:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete Not freely licensed. --Simonxag (talk) 02:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 03:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
No descriptions, no categories, unused. Friends of the uploader? --78.55.107.61 12:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete unused personal photos. --Simonxag (talk) 01:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 03:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
out of scope, not used Yann (talk) 21:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- out of scope, delete--Motopark (talk) 21:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Eusebius (talk) 07:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
that is not Kurdistan, but the Antarctic. --Tlustulimu (talk) 21:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --Justass (talk) 22:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Izzedine (talk) 00:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- Delete absolutelly unusable image and likely a derivative work, too. --PaterMcFly (talk) 21:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Julo (talk) 11:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Images uploaded by user DelaClaire
[edit]- File:HanHyoJooLacoste2009.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:HanHyoJooLacoste2009 2.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Nam Sang Mi 02.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Nam Sang Mi 04.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
All four images uploaded by this user are available elsewhere online, respectively at [3], [4], and for the latter two [5]. I consider it highly unlikely that these images belong to the uploader, who FWIW is indef blocked on the English Wikipedia. PC78 (talk) 00:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, most likely copyvio --Justass (talk) 23:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted & blocked the user as a sockpuppet. Martin H. (talk) 23:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - no source, improper license. Izzedine (talk) 02:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep widely used, nothing improper here, change license to {{PD-shape}} --Justass (talk) 21:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - {{PD-shape}} is not a suitable license for a flag design. Noting that the image is used on a few pages doesn't address the issue. Izzedine (talk) 22:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- nothing unique in 2 circles and 2 rectangles --Justass (talk) 22:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- Copyright law applies to the whole design (including the colours). I would agree with you though if this was say, the flag of Libya (plain green). Izzedine (talk) 00:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep It seems that this was a notable proposal for a new flag. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. Oren neu dag (talk) 15:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep: Please, keep it! I wouldn't have known it if I haven't seen it here. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 04:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep The design of the flag was funded by the CPA, who would have been the copyright owner. The CPA is funded by congress $18 billion on the basis it was a federal agency,[6] so I think it is reasonable for us to assume it is US-govt-PD (or alternatively abandoned property when the CPA was closed down). Rwendland (talk) 01:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
- Keep There is no reason to delete this --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 20:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Rocket000 (talk) 05:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
The person that uploaded this file to flickr, Old Itch, is likely not the photographer of this image. (Commons:Flickr washing) High Contrast (talk) 18:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps you could consider sharing with us how you drew this conclusion? Geo Swan (talk) 19:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Kept. No evidence of Flickr washing. Eusebius (talk) 08:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Flickr washing: Reuters image: http://www.daylife.com/photo/06Pp6jP38n4Se High Contrast (talk) 07:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, this time. --Eusebius (talk) 08:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- Note: Commons:Flickr washing is the wrong term here, flickrwashing means that someone tries to trick commons. This image is only wrong licensed on Flickr and uploaded by accident, a "Flickrvio". See Template:Flickrvionote. --Martin H. (talk) 08:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
converted from dupe-speedy to rfd by me as not 100% identical to "dupe": File:POL 2007 10 07 warsaw goclaw pozar 06.JPG, though very similar --Túrelio (talk) 09:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- Delete photo interval of few seconds, the only difference is police officer's face that isn't subject of photo or make any difference --Justass (talk) 21:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comment if you are going to delete one file, delete File:POL_2007_10_07_warsaw_goclaw_pozar_06.JPG, which is pretty blurred compared to the other one. --rimshottalk 19:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Comment One is enough. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted the blurred one. Kameraad Pjotr 19:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
