Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2009/12/16
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
.png){kind=link}
The uploader cannot be Jose Sousa since he says here he is Andre Simmons. This needs OTRS permission but none exists. He also uploaded other images from jsousa's account here. Leoboudv (talk) 03:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Kved: In category Copyright violations; no permission
Licensing not correct. -Nard the Bard 02:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete False Flickr-Commons license. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)- Delete per nominator. --Leoboudv (talk) 05:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio: Non-free Flickr license: http://www.flickr.com/photos/45466682@N08/4179191988/
This is a private photograph, the single upload and only edit by it's uploader (from 31 July 2006) which is nowhere used (except as a sample of an image with no educational value). Hence, I suggest to delete it because it does not fall into COM:SCOPE. --AFBorchert (talk) 00:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete, clearly out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 19:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –blurpeace (talk) 02:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I highly doubt that this is own work: if it was legit, it would be bigger than 53×67 px. I looks a lot like a thumbnail image found on some pharmacological website. We have al ot of pictures of capsules, and this one is tiny and questionable. Inductiveload (talk) 04:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –blurpeace (talk) 03:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
edsdfd d f ff fdf f df is an obviously unreliable source this media has no evidence that it is not a copyivo. --Palnatoke (talk) 05:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, missing essential source information (you can use {{subst:nsd}} for such cases). –Tryphon☂ 10:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –blurpeace (talk) 02:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
What even is it? "<!>" doesn't help much. I can't see how this can be encyclopadic in any way, its just a useless picture with some photoshopping. Inductiveload (talk) 06:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, personal artwork, out of scope. –Tryphon☂ 10:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, unused, no indication of any usefulness within project scope. Infrogmation (talk) 01:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –blurpeace (talk) 02:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Another useless personal image covered in text. Not useful, used or encyclopaedic. Inductiveload (talk) 06:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nom Infrogmation (talk) 01:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –blurpeace (talk) 02:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Out of SCOPE: unused PDF text written by the uploader, should be made into an article if content is relevant to one of the projects. –Tryphon☂ 10:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –blurpeace (talk) 03:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Looks like a screenshot of this television programme. -- Deadstar (msg) 11:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –blurpeace (talk) 04:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
The uploader is using a license that claims he/she owns the rights to the images in the yearbook, however it appears unlikely that he/she owns the publishing rights to the yearbook and/or any images contained within it Amineshaker (talk) 01:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete copyvio. Secret (talk) 14:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- Note it was an orphan, adding it now. Secret (talk) 14:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete If someone can show it was first published in the US prior to 1989, it almost certainly had no copyright notice and thus fell into the public domain. Still, it doesn't seem to be in use or in scope.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, per Prosfilaes. –blurpeace (talk) 04:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Out of scope, article was deleted in the English Wikipedia Delete --Secret (talk) 15:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –blurpeace (talk) 04:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
La proporcioj ne konformas al tiuj, kiuj estas priskribitaj en iu fonto trovebla (TTTe mi trovis nur citaĵojn el unu fonto), en la vikipedia artikolo, kaj ekzempligitaj per aliaj bildoj ĉe la Komunejo.
Kun tiuj aliaj proporcioj ekzistas streka versio: File:Flag of Esperanto.svg. Komparu: 
, la diskutata.
Пропорции не совпадают с теми, что описаны как рекомендованные Всемирной ассоциацией эсперанто в одном (единственном) источнике, который я нашёл во Всемирной паутине, цитатах из него и википедийных статьях, и которые представлены другими изображениями на Викискладе.
С теми, отличающимися, пропорциями есть векторная версия: File:Flag of Esperanto.svg. Сравните: , обсуждаемая.
Support - No need too store a hand-made thumbnal.. MediaWiki handles SVG-files and resizes them to PNG automaticly. That's kinda the core reason we're going to SVG ! Krinkle (talk) 17:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)- Delete Not to mention, the PNG file is made wrong according to construction sheets released by the Esperanto folks. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 21:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –blurpeace (talk) 05:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Derivative work of a WWE broadcast. Oakster 17:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –blurpeace (talk) 05:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Unused personal photograph that is beyond the scope of the project. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 19:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –blurpeace (talk) 05:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Unused image that is out of the scope of the project as it does not appear to serve any useful purpose. Uploader did not indicate whether the images of the woman and the cat were themselves freely licensed. Under "Permission", uploader wrote "no". — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 19:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, the image has copyright status concerns and is not within project scope. –blurpeace (talk) 05:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
just an useless text Frédéric (talk) 19:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete both this and File:Nawnf.jpg. Apparently a test and/or a joke. Not used, no visible activity in other projects from the SUL, the only contributions here. --AVRS (talk) 21:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –blurpeace (talk) 05:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
It's the same image as File:MariskaHargitay.jpg and thus is unnecessary, also nominating File:Mariska Hargitay.jpg Jonjames1986 (talk) 21:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete PNGs are nice as lossless versions, but the original Flickr was JPEG. I've uploaded it as File:Mariska Hargitay uncropped.jpg, as a lossless master, so this version can go away.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete PNG format loses all the metadata and its always preferable to use jpeg if the original flickr photo was jpeg. --Leoboudv (talk) 05:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –blurpeace (talk) 05:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
It's the same image as File:MariskaHargitay.jpg and thus is unnecessary, also nominated File:Mariska Hargitay.png Jonjames1986 (talk) 21:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep it is not the same image; it may or may not be better to have the background removed, but our users should have that option.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- And furthermore, it's in use. We don't delete pictures that Wikimedia projects, in this case co.wp and de.wp (and until you changed it, en.wp), are using.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- Keep - It's not the same image. "it may or may not be better to have the background removed, but our users should have that option" - agree. So I choose to have the option of the face without the chain wire fence and what looks a bit like a row of portable toilets behind her. I removed the background for use in the infobox on the en:wiki article. In that context, the only relevant aspect of the photo is her face. Just a comment/question : there are numerous "same" images on Commons which are variations of cropping only, but they are not routinely listed for deletion. Rossrs (talk) 08:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Photo most likely not taken by flickr uploader. -Nard the Bard 02:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per supertiny resolution. Cannot be flickr owner's own photo. --Leoboudv (talk) 03:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –blurpeace (talk) 20:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Visible flash reflexion, looks like a derivative work. –Tryphon☂ 10:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, you're probably right. Most of this Flickr user's pictures were taken with a Canon Digital IXUS 80 IS, but this one comes from a phone camera, and I just saw [1] which is definitely a derivative work. Pruneautalk 10:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –blurpeace (talk) 20:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
While this photo is CC-BY, it's a derivative work of a painting by Louis Briel, and there's no evidence that painting is licensed CC-BY. —Angr 12:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –blurpeace (talk) 20:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
A photo of an art gallery or exhibition. This isn't permanent, so doesn't qualify for FOP even if it applies in a country, so copyvio. There are more (actually the whole history of the uploader is these pics):
- File:02 serie de-arquitectura2 alicia-moneva.jpg
- File:02 serie de-arquitectura3 alicia-moneva.jpg
- File:02 serie de-arquitectura3 alicia-moneva.jpg
- File:03 serie de-construccion1 alicia-moneva.jpg
- File:03 serie de-construccion2 alicia-moneva.jpg
- File:03 serie de-construccion3 alicia-moneva.jpg
Inductiveload (talk) 06:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Copyright violations. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Coyau (talk) 14:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
For an own work image, the resolution is extremely small which is why I doubt this is own work. There is no metadata either. Leoboudv (talk) 06:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete as likely copyvio; a larger version of the same photograph is here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Comment There is a replacement photo here: [2] Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Emperor_Traianus_Decius_(Mary_Harrsch).jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. MBisanz talk 03:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
No indication from the source that the photo has been released with that licensing by Chris Jericho. Oakster 23:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete It says at the bottom of the original url source: "2009 Twitpic Inc, All Rights Reserved." --Leoboudv (talk) 05:03, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Copyvio Gwynhaden (talk) 00:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. --:bdk: 18:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Image failed review. This was uploaded by former Admin jkelly on a GFDL license but such a license is not used on flickr. It was also found to be 'ARR' on October 2, 2006 according to Admin MGA73 here Since this is an orphaned flickr account, I agree with MGA73 that a DR is appropriate here since there is no possibility of OTRS permission and no GFDL license on flickr. Leoboudv (talk) 20:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- After somthing was archived on my talkpage the link was not correct so I fix'ed it. The reason i said we should not just pass it per jkelly is that he was not the original uploader (en:User:Sydne is). --MGA73 (talk) 21:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- I reiterate my delete here. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 07:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Images of Skylu
[edit]Skylu (talk · contributions (views) · deleted user contributions · recent activity (talk · project · deletion requests) · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth) uploaded a bunch of copyvios in October and November 2008. Many of them were deleted on the spot and the user was eventually blocked twice. However, a number of their uploads are still on Commons. Some are obviously copyvios, others are highly doubtful. Given the record of this user, I suggest we delete the whole lot. Pruneautalk 08:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Some of these images are old. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete From what I can see, they're all incorrectly licensed and unsourced. -- Deadstar (msg) 09:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Cholo Aleman (talk) 14:19, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, no evidence that Skylu (talk · contribs) holds the copyright to any of these files. –blurpeace (talk) 03:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
File:Components_of_DAC_donors'_net_ODA.jpg, File:CPA and net ODA.jpg and File:Net Official Development Assistance in 2008.jpg
[edit]
Source website (http://www.oecd.org) does not allow commercial use without prior consent. -- Deadstar (msg) 10:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –blurpeace (talk) 04:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
The copyright status of the image is not known because we do not know the term of Mali copyright, especially on stamps. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 06:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Mali gained its independence in 1960, so it's no more than 50 years old. I can't tell whether it says 1960 or 1980 on the stamp, and if the earlier, if that's the year of publication. A quick search says that Mali retains many laws from the French colonial period, so I'm going to bet that copyright law is life+70.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Killiondude (talk) 03:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
EXIF Image states year =1936. ANPPHOTO E.A. HOF - Do we know when E.A. Hof died and/or whether ANP holds any copyrights to this image? -- Deadstar (msg) 10:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- ANP claim copyright. -- Deadstar (msg) 10:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Infrogmation (talk) 01:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Killiondude (talk) 03:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Copyvio: http://www.boomerang.nl/kaarten/vorm-activist/vorm-activist/ - Lymantria (talk) 13:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. The Evil IP address (talk) 19:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
At least one source file was deleted as copyvio, see [3] Denniss (talk) 19:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
![[3]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:Rabbiamar.jpg){kind=link}
- Problem solved - "Rabbiamar.jpg" was relaced with File:Silviosantos.jpg. Is this ok? The Ogre (talk) 19:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- Should be OK now. But the closing admin should delete the two old versions still containing the copyvio image. --Denniss (talk) 21:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Kept, but removed the first two versions. --The Evil IP address (talk) 19:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Dzlinker as Speedy (4 pictures of the mosaic are presented as beeing in PD, though 2 links doesn't exist (the first two) and 2 pictures are sourceless) Multichill (talk) 21:47, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- I restored this file so it can be cleaned up: Some sources need to be added (or restored) and some images might need to be removed/replaced. Multichill (talk) 21:49, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- Yeh but nothing changed since your restoration. It should be deleted -Dzlinker (talk) 15:02, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- Deleted pr discussion. --JuTa 19:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
copyrighted corporate mascot --Kungfuman (talk) 19:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, derivative work. --The Evil IP address (talk) 19:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Failed verification. Photographer requires no derivative works. Shell babelfish 12:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)>
- Verification now complete at OTRS. Shell babelfish 00:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Verified via OTRS. -- Common Good (talk) 20:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I am not quite sure what this flag really is. Sure, it uses the ROC emblem, but no law or source I can find even has a pattern like this or have any clue of what it is. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 01:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete as it's neither the flag or the ROC nor the flag of the PRC. I would also support renaming the file to a non-misleading title but for that we would need to know what this flag is. WikiLaurent (talk) 19:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted / Own invented flag by uploader. --Fanghong (talk) 09:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
File:1953_François-Joseph_Herman.tif and duplicate File:Fjh1953.jpg
[edit]
Image seems to be a passport photograph from 1953. This is not "own work", and not old enough to be PD. On the other hand, it's unlikely we find out who took the photogrpah. -- Deadstar (msg) 09:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted as indeed the uploader cannot be the photographer as claimed as he or she was born in 1965. --AFBorchert (talk) 16:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Provenance not as claimed. See http://www.flickr.com/photos/71239428@N00/169306320/ The Flicker image is patently derivative of a photo by Michael Cooke and no justification for reuse is given. This image seems to be a derivative of the same Michael Cooke photo. For a list of images uploaded by the same user to Wikipedia see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=upload&user=Fordpinto77 Droll (talk) 19:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I believe this to be a copyright violation. Michael Cooke is a professional photographer with a studio in Bishop, California. Droll (talk) 03:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 22:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I checked the article at http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/a-13-2005-08-01-voa28.html and there was no images used at all. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 08:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't make this image up. In August 2005, when this article was first published, it did include the image being reviewed for deletion. We are aware that VoA content is in public domain. Just because their archive of the article does not include the image of the man in question, it does not mean that Bill Threlkeld had appeared publicly and made public statements on the substance that was reported in the sourced article. Therefore, I believe he made an appearance in public where his image was captured and should be retained by the public domain.
- Also, it should be noted that peer review was being excercized when this image was uploaded. There were no red flags then, and I see no reason why there should be red flags now. Edbrown05 (talk) 22:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- I know VOA content is in the public domain. However, with the article not showing the picture anymore, it would be hard to verify it. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 03:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 21:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
redundant file --LK34 (talk) 11:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete No more penis and this is a relatively recent picture. --Leoboudv (talk) 05:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I'm not a fan of penis images, but this one is pretty high resoluted and made of at least usable quality. I would keep that file and delete some others instead (see Commons:Deletion requests/Images of the male genitalia (2009-12-21)) --D-Kuru (talk) 06:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- What's the Reason ? There is no Reason to delete this picture. A world without Penisses is a world without reproduction is a dead world.188.102.250.99 16:19, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
- Manche scheinen sich mit Destruktivität die für Sichterrechte auf Wikipedia benötigten Edits zusammenraffen zu wollen. Es sind meist dieselben Leute, die tagsüber gegen Nacktfotos vorgehen und sich im Dunkeln heimlich in Bordelle schleichen. 188.102.250.99 16:26, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
- ok, well it seems you have made some good points. I thought about deleting since the file was unused and therefore redundant, but the points you have raised here have made me change my mind, so maybe it should stay-- LK34 22:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Kept. good quality. Polarlys (talk) 22:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
This image won't be PD-70 until 2033, according to Wikipedia's date of death for David Low. Damiens.rf 15:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Leave the image, as it is a valuable visual source. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 90.216.217.73 (talk) 2010-02-12 (UTC)
- That is clearly not the standard for Commons. --Closeapple (talk) 06:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Is there a possibility that this was work for hire for the Evening Standard and the copyright falls to the publication? What is the standard for company works published in the UK in 1936? --Closeapple (talk) 06:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. by now Polarlys (talk) 22:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
According to the source the image is from the Library of Congress and uploaded here with {{PD-USGov}}. As most LOC content is not created by the United States Government I tried to find searching the LOC P&P division bring nothing, searching for a country studie of Tanzania (where such images sometime come from - unfree images in most cases) only shows, that there is no country studie. I cant find the image at the LOC and strongly doubt that it is created by the USGovernment. The source information Library of Congress doesnt say anything about the copyright and especially it not justifies a {{PD-USGov}}. Martin H. (talk) 19:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 22:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately, this is clearly a derivative work and the uploader has not obtained the permission of the copyright holder(s) of the photographs shown. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 19:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- Would it be the copyright holder(s) of the four photographs of trains or the copyright holder of the poster (if not the same person) that is needed? Regardless of this, the image is probably a derivative work as I now sort-of understand it (I didn't at the time of upload) and I have not attempted to find the details of the copyright holder to ask permission of. Thryduulf (talk) 17:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- I think it would be the copyright holder(s) of the four photographs. The layout of the poster is very simple, so I think it's arguable that the person producing the poster gained no additional copyright in the layout. Not realizing that you're creating a derivative image is a common problem. Soon after I started volunteering here at the Commons, I uploaded an image of a TV personality that I had cropped from a freely licensed image on Flickr showing people in a bar watching the chap on TV. Another editor then pointed out that the TV programme was subject to copyright, so unless the copyright owner had given permission for a still from the programme to be uploaded to the Commons, my image was in breach of the copyright in the programme, being merely derived from it. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 17:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 22:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
All these affiches, apart from File:Rockzaidin2004.jpg, are suspected to be fair use and should be deleted. -Anna (Cookie) (talk) 21:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 22:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
File indicates this was taken before 1923, however there's no source information which is needed for confirmation. --Thirdship (talk) 11:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, lacks source information. Kameraad Pjotr 20:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
At least one file is fair use or similar, see [4] Denniss (talk) 19:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
![[4]](https://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0:Johnny_Stulic.jpg){kind=link}
- All the files come from Wikipedia. Here are the links for each photo:
Ivan Tavcar: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:JurijSubic-Ivan_Tavcar.jpg
Ivan Hribar: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HribarIvan(Kobilica).JPG
Ivan Mestrovic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ivan_Meštrovic.jpg
Tito, Andric & Princip: Taken from the previous version of the collage
Mesa Selimovic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mesaselimovic.jpg
Milovan Djilas: http://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Слика:Milovan_Djilas.jpg
Asim Ferhatovic: http://bs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datoteka:Asim_Ferhatović.jpg
Goran Bregovic: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:GoranBregovic.jpg
Branimir Johnny Stulic: http://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Слика:Johnny_Stulic.jpg
Emir Kusturica: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Emir_Kusturica_Bruxelles05.jpg
.JPG){kind=link}
As you can see, all the files are sourced. --Paperoverman (talk) 07:09, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
- Sourced: yes. License compatibility with Commons: In several cases a big No. The images of Milovan Djilas,Mesa Selimovic and Johnny Stulic have to be replaced with images available under a free license or the compilation has to be reworked by deleting the images in question or the whole compilation has to be deleted. --Denniss (talk) 11:51, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
- The images in question surely qualify for fair use. They are small (and not of great resolution) and it's hard to use them in any pirated material or whatever might justify taking it off. Paperoverman (talk) 17:45, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
- No fair use at Commons .... see Commons:Licensing --Denniss (talk) 18:50, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed, I just saw that link right now. I've seen countless images on Wikipedia though that rely on fair use. How are some accepted and others not? Paperoverman (talk) 00:17, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- Read Commons:Fair use and meta:Non-free content. On Commons fair use is not allowed, on some projects it is ok. For a vanity gallery of yugoslav people fair use is not ok on any project. --Martin H. (talk) 16:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed, I just saw that link right now. I've seen countless images on Wikipedia though that rely on fair use. How are some accepted and others not? Paperoverman (talk) 00:17, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- I have uploaded a new version which does not contain the images you mentionned which were under fair use. Thanks for all the help! Paperoverman (talk) 04:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- Is it possible to remove the deletion template from the page? Paperoverman (talk) 22:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- I am assuming that the deletion template can be removed as there's no objection. Paperoverman (talk) 07:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
fair use pictures replaced Kept. Mbdortmund (talk) 15:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
also nominating:
- File:Kisela voda flag.jpg
- File:MMCA(Gjorche Petrov).png
- File:Dolnensko zname.png
- File:MMCA(Delchevo).png
- File:MKD muni flag(Delchevo).png
- File:Gostivarsko Zname.png
- File:Demir Kapisko zname.png
- File:Peehchevski grb.png
- File:Pehchevsko zname.png
- File:Aerodromsko zname.png
- File:MMCA(Arachinovo).png
- File:Dolnenski grb.png
- File:Veleshko zname.png
- File:Zelenuikovsko zname.png
- File:Zelenikovski grb.png
- File:Centarsko zname.png
- File:Bogovinski grb.jpg
- File:Bogovinsko zname.jpg
- File:Drugovsko zname.jpg
- File:Demir kapiski grb.png
- File:Mogilsko zname.jpg
- File:Sveti nikolski grb.png
- File:Chashko zname.png
- File:Bosilovsko zname.png
- File:Strumichko zname.jpg
- File:Coat of Arms of Ohrid.png
- File:Gostivarski grb.png
- File:CoA Radovis.jpg
- File:KochaniCoat.png
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Non-free: user-made reproductions (derivative works) of presumably copyrighted municipal coats of arms and flags. No relevant PD-Gov exemption in Macedonian national law (copyright law exempts from copyright only "an official text from the legislative, executive or judicial sphere and their translation when published as an official text" [5] Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Oppose Users made these coats of arms and they are free. The law does not prohibits reproduction of coats of arms, if that was case, even the state COA would not be used.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 23:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
- If these were made by users on the basis of pre-existing official designs (as they evidently were), they are "derivative works" and therefore don't become copyright-free simply because they were self-made. They inherit any copyright restrictions on the original designs. If you want to show they are Public Domain, you need to demonstrate that each of them is part of "an official text" in the sense of the law I cited. They might well be, but we don't know – the mere fact of them being used on some municipal website, for instance, doesn't mean anything. They might still be legally copyrighted by the municipality or whoever. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- The situation about the coats of arms and the flags of the municipalities in Macedonia is like this. The authors of the COA and the flags leave the copy right, but no law or municipal statute regulates this issue of copyrighting and they may be considered as free to use. The only thing that is regulated is that whether the COA or the flag is unique and they are registered in the Register of the flags and COA of the municipalities of the Republic Macedonia. We know that this body only collects and approves the COA and flags, but I have never found about the copyrights. As the state flag and COA, these municipal coats of arms are allowed to be reproduced since the original author has left the rights. I have listed all law ands act and no where found about this issue, maybe because they are free to use. The law that you are referring does not include flags and COA. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 11:02, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
- If these were made by users on the basis of pre-existing official designs (as they evidently were), they are "derivative works" and therefore don't become copyright-free simply because they were self-made. They inherit any copyright restrictions on the original designs. If you want to show they are Public Domain, you need to demonstrate that each of them is part of "an official text" in the sense of the law I cited. They might well be, but we don't know – the mere fact of them being used on some municipal website, for instance, doesn't mean anything. They might still be legally copyrighted by the municipality or whoever. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, copyright violations, lacking suitable permission from the author. Kameraad Pjotr 18:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
FOP for buildings only in Finland, author most likely still living A333 (talk) 13:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Freedom of panorama is not exclusively for buildings only. FOP Finland: "Published works of art may according to article 25 also be used e.g. as illustrations to scientific texts or criticism." and Finlex: "Julkistetuista taideteoksista saa ottaa tekstiin liittyviä kuvia arvostelevaan tai tieteelliseen esitykseen;". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siipikarja (talk • contribs)
- That's correct but images on commons should be free to use for any purpose. Of course, we might upload this image to local wikipedias and use it under fair use/sitaattioikeus. A333 (talk) 10:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Fair enough. But let's just wait for the final verdict for the categories that fall in to the same FOP deletion group. For example category Statues in Finland. The copyright law of Finland lags behind of common practice of the Internet era. Sounds a bit weird that one would not be able to freely distribute pictures that he / she has taken from public objects such as statues that have been deliberately erected for the public to view — without a fee. Is there an ongoing debate on the FOP deletion issue somewhere in Commons? --Siipikarja (talk) 10:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- Comment About pictures found in Category:Statues in Finland: If there are any pictures of copyright-protected statues, they naturally should be deleted. But note that copyright is expired if the author has died more than 70 years ago, so pictures of statues older than that can be freely distributed (provided that the photographer has also published the image under a free license). And whether the Finnish copyright act lags behind or not, is an issue for another discussion. But as long as the law is such we have to obey it on Commons. --Apalsola t • c 11:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Oh yes, I didn't take into account that 70 years rule. I would appreciate if the person who deletes the image from Commons could move the image to local Wikipedias together with the attached information template and some sort of disclaimer that the image was originally posted to Commons but moved due to copyright issues. Thanks. --Siipikarja (talk) 10:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, no FOP. Kameraad Pjotr 19:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
No source (just a link back to Wikipedia) and thus no evidence for "PD-US-NOT RENEWED" claim. Damiens.rf 13:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- Source got lost in the bot-move to Commons. I'll restore it, together with evidence for non-renewal. I'm the original uploader. PDTillman (talk) 22:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- Done. Unfortunately, the URL got munged by the bot. Note that the (long-defunct) LA Daily News apparently didn't renew any of their copyrights, per the Univ of Pennsylvania compilation cited. --PDTillman (talk) 22:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Kept, per PDTillman. Kameraad Pjotr 19:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
No FOP in France. Files are in this category : Category:MAMAC - Musée d'Art Moderne de Nice
- File:MAMAC Nice.JPG
- File:Museum Nice.jpg
- File:Jaures004 Toja.jpg
- File:Musée d'Art Moderne et d'Art Contemporain Nice.JPG
- File:NIKAIA-MAMAC-TraverseBarla.jpg
- File:NIKAIA-defly001.jpg
- File:NIKAIA-klein002 Haut.jpg
- File:NIKAIA-sebastien003PromPaillon.jpg
- File:Nice-Carabacel-Paillon-MAMAC1.jpg
I put those that are clearly copyvio for me. The other are more, in my point of view, picture of the street near the museum. - Zil (d) 13:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by User:Rama for "No freedom of panorama in the source country". –Krinkletalk 23:51, 24 April 2010 (UTC)