Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2010/01/09
 |
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}
seems like a movie screenshot (One Tree Hill) but I can't verify it. ■ MMXX talk 08:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. --Martin H. (talk) 08:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
I doubt the uploader has the right to release the logo into the public domain. There is a duplicate of this file on the English Wikipeda being used under fair use. Rockfang (talk) 03:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Delete: too complex for {{PD-textlogo}} as well. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 06:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)- Delete Copyright violation. {{PD-textlogo}} does not apply here due to the nontrivial logo-composition. --High Contrast (talk) 08:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Infrogmation: Copyright violation: per del req, false source, false license
advertisement purposes, see website http://www.bescreen.be/index.php?cid=1 Havang(nl) (talk) 17:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
-2010-01-09T17:24:00.000Z-File:Bescreen_beamer_wikipedia0.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted Infrogmation (talk) 21:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
advertisement, taken from http://www.bescreen.be/index.php?cid=1 Havang(nl) (talk) 17:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
-2010-01-09T17:27:00.000Z-File:Bescreen_beamer_wikipedia3.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted Infrogmation (talk) 21:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
The stated permission does not correspond to the source, unless the picture can be found on Josipovic's homepage. Eusebius (talk) 17:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Keep Looks like it's the exact same picture and in the same size than the one on the page given as the permission source, which is explicitely under the CC-by 3.0 hr license. The deletion might have been necessary for a different resolution version of the picture, but this one can be kept. This, of course, is assuming that the author of the photograph validly authorized the placement under the free licence like the rest of the website, in the absence of an indication to the contrary. However, the license should be the hr license instead of the unported license and the uploader should not claim to be the copyright owner in the self template. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Just a bogus nomination, I should have been more careful and just update the source link, which is done now. Eusebius (talk) 21:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
not used, private artwork, so not in scope Avron (talk) 09:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator. --Leoboudv (talk) 05:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, seems to be a joke Cholo Aleman (talk) 06:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. – Kwj2772 (msg) 14:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Source says Copyright 2003 Jindo Data. All Rights Reserved. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 19:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Comment it already has a missing license tag, so this deletion request is not really necessary, as far as I understand Cholo Aleman (talk) 21:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Nagy: In category Media without a license as of 1 January 2010; no license
Source says: Photos may not be published without agreement. Any misconduct will be subject to the laws in force on copyright. Thank you Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 19:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Nagy: In category Media without a license as of 1 January 2010; no license
Fictional logo, unused - out of scope - has a double Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete very funy
same as it's duplicate, a note in permission field says "Dont copy". ■ MMXX talk 21:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted -- Infrogmation (talk) 06:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Own work does not seem to be compatible with watermark 2007@ Mercantile Communications Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 20:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete source is likely to be this company http://www.mos.com.np/, delete if uploader didn't provide any permission and/or valid source before seven days after this deletion request. ■ MMXX talk 21:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Nagy: In category Media without a license as of 1 January 2010; no license
In no way a CoA. Needs permission. Eusebius (talk) 21:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Permission received, will be dealt with on OTRS. Eusebius (talk) 07:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Out of scope. Image is not used. Image was uploaded for self-promoting purposes. High Contrast (talk) 00:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. –blurpeace (talk) 01:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Unused advertisement - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 09:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. J.smith (talk) 01:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Not a jpg image Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 16:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Does not display. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. nothing to show. Also the description of the image suggests me that the image was intended to attack other person. — Dferg (talk) 00:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Uploader Indian Ink puts the image in the public domain although copyright is owned by Daire Irwin. Source does not state any copyright status. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 19:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Comment imo you should mark it as "No permission" and wait for seven days instead of DR. ■ MMXX talk 21:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted - Perhaps that would have been the proper procedure, but DR has lasted 7 days and uploader has been notified in much the same way so I'm willing to take it as equivalent. Image can be undeleted if permission is sent to COM:OTRS. J.smith (talk) 02:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
wikipedia is no photo-album - private picture and only contribution of uploader. Havang(nl) (talk) 21:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
-2010-01-09T21:01:00.000Z-File:Antarsuit.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete per nom. ■ MMXX talk 21:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --GeorgHH • talk 18:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Ricardo P. (talk) 22:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. – Kwj2772 (msg) 18:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
swedish football players, unused - nice people, but out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 21:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Only image by uploader too. --Leoboudv (talk) 05:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. J.smith (talk) 02:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
unused, not notable event (??), description not appropriate - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 21:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. J.smith (talk) 02:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
a myspace comedian - selftaken? - screenshot? "Name of the Rose"?! - whatever: out of scope, see DR above Cholo Aleman (talk) 21:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Ricardo P. (talk) 22:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. J.smith (talk) 02:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
unused (different file in he.wp) advertisement from the Dominican Rep. - including telefone number - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 22:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete out of scope. Ricardo P. (talk) 22:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. — Dferg (talk) 01:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
unused and unusable - promotion of a journalist from his child, nice people, but out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 22:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. J.smith (talk) 02:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Source is not Wikimedia but http://www.flickr.com/photos/nousis/3732605069/ and license is not compatible with Commons: Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0 Generic Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 17:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Killiondude: Missing essential information: source and/or license
Tineye shows this image or its derivatives is used on at least 8 sites. A 1980's picture like this is probably copyrighted Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 18:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Killiondude: Missing essential information: source and/or license
Although http://www.hollywoodsgoldenage.com/moguls/john_ford.html does not state any copyright license we must asume this image is still copyrighted. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 18:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Killiondude: Missing essential information: source and/or license
Source says All rights reserved, although this image might be old enough to apply for public domain Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 18:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Killiondude: Missing essential information: source and/or license
orphaned, seems broken, has no thumbnail view 88.69.227.212 13:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Pruneautalk 09:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Website says ©2009-2010 TKDoherty. Please, follow Commons:OTRS to transfer copyright to Commons Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 18:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
TKDoherty says, I transferred the copyright to Commons via email yesterday.
- Permission duly received. Stifle (talk) 10:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Stifle (talk) 10:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Please, could someone check this otrs ticket? I doubt it comes from the copyright owner. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 16:44, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Sorry, I didn't notice it already has gone through the procedure. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 16:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Withdrawn --Denniss (talk) 17:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Unless Mickeymmmm really is Jeremy Shum, I don't see any reason to believe the uploader is the copyright holder. Powers (talk) 22:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Image used in other projects. Ricardo P. (talk) 22:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- Not to be flippant, but so what? Usage does not invalidate copyright concerns. Powers (talk) 18:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Even if Jeremy Shum and Mickeymmmm are one and the same, we can be quite sure that The Walt Disney Company has the Goofy character wrapped up in nonfree copyright protection from here to Kingdom come, and that Mr. Shum would have no right from Disney to publish a derivative work to the Commons. —Werewombat (talk) 17:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per nominator. Rocket000 (talk) 00:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
See Category:Stamps of France. Its a modern stamp of France an a scan of it does not make it GFDL. Jutta234 (talk) 11:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Comment I made the transfer from de-WP (one of several chemistry related images). After having performed it, I realized that the license given in de-WP (GFDL) might not be appropriate. --Leyo 12:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Speedy deletion : stamps of France issued in 1986 : public domain 70 years after artists' death. René Quillivic (source : Dallay catalogue 2007-2008 p.416) still alive.
Was deleted. --Leyo 14:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
The present tag says "Author died more than 70 years ago - public domain" That can't possibly be correct; Wilhelmina died in 1962, which is clearly less than 70 years ago. This is an official document of the Dutch Government, and as such it may be PD, if the Dutch Government released it in the mean time. They probably did, but it is up to the uploader to find out, and provide an appropriate license tag JdH (talk) 13:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Official government document, also a simple utilitarian document, does not pass threshold of copyrightability. -Nard the Bard 19:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- The question really is what license tag should be used. Obviously, {{PD-old}} is inappropriate here, but what tag should be used instead I don't know. Perhaps {{PD-NL-Gov}}, or what else?
The same problem holds for File:Diploma 001.jpg, there {{GFDL|migration=relicense}} is used, which is also inappropriate JdH (talk) 13:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- The question really is what license tag should be used. Obviously, {{PD-old}} is inappropriate here, but what tag should be used instead I don't know. Perhaps {{PD-NL-Gov}}, or what else?
per Pieter Kept. Mbdortmund (talk) 12:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
unused - proclamaition of the Hello kitty day ?? - out of scope, user with one edit, unused since october 2008 Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, it's a unknown website screenshot too, so it have no source since 4 October 2008. ■ MMXX talk
- Delete per nom and above. Ricardo P. (talk) 22:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete no purpose → delete. Ireas talk•de•en 20:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete "Unused" is not in itself a reason for deletion on the Commons, unlike on the English Wikipedia. However, the image is definitely out of scope due to its lack of any realistic educational purpose. (True, if it were in use in any non-Commons Wikimedia project, that fact would create a presumption that it does have educational purpose, but the image's lack of use is not a primary consideration.) I also echo MMXX's observation that this is also a screenshot of a probably non-free software interface. —Werewombat (talk) 17:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
per nom Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 12:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
- Not a free image:contains Internet Explorer, Windows and Gmail UIs. Zvn (talk) 22:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- Keep according to de minimis rule. If you want you can blurr IE and MW logos (Gmail logo is not used there, AFAIK); or crop both the top and bottom margins. Julo (talk) 11:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- Keep This image supports the confirmation of G.Makarov to use his images in wikipedia. --Russianname (talk) 09:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- speedy delete IMO nothing to do with "de minimis", Microsoft's Windows and IE also Google's Gmail screenshot, all are protected by copyright law, also I don't think we need this kind of confirmations since permissions can be kept in OTRS system, only used on "Internet Explorer" page on en-wiki. ■ MMXX talk 22:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- You don't need "confirmation" from the film/paper producer if you used Agfa, Kodak or Fuji photo materials, even if the producer's name is visible on the photo. You don't need "confirmation" from Cannon or Panasonic if you used their equipment and software even if you have details in EXIF info included to digital photo.
Internet Explorer and Gmail are here just tools, and author of this screenshot could use many others tools to get similar picture. Julo (talk) 18:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)- Dear Julo, When I said "confirmations" and "permissions" I wasn't talking about Microsoft and Google, I was referring to Russianname comment which said this picture is "confirmation of G.Makarov to use his images in wikipedia", we don't really need such permission in the form of screenshot, you should know better than me that we can't accept copyrighted screenshots here and I believe we should speedy delete the image, even if we crop out all the parts which shows Microsoft's windows and IE, the Gmail screenshot is still a problem. for more information please see these page http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/permissions/default.mspx#ERG ■ MMXX talk 20:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- You don't need "confirmation" from the film/paper producer if you used Agfa, Kodak or Fuji photo materials, even if the producer's name is visible on the photo. You don't need "confirmation" from Cannon or Panasonic if you used their equipment and software even if you have details in EXIF info included to digital photo.
- Keep but crop the Windows task bar. The rest is incidental inclusion. -Nard the Bard 19:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- Comment MMXX:You have talked only about Microsoft & Google problems before, not about Makarov. The same argumentation was used in the request: "Not a free image:contains Internet Explorer, Windows and Gmail UIs". I see you don't believe Yuri, that Makarov sent him these photos with his permission. This would be IMHO rather irrational supposition, but if you want you can always ask the uploader for additional confirmation. But we use different tag in such situations: not {{Delete}} (and never {{Speedy}}), but {{OTRS pending}}.
Crop and keep
Julo (talk) 12:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)- Comment Julo, It seems there is a big misunderstanding here, there are two different issues here:
1- I do believe that Russianname has received this permission from Makarov, but what I am telling is why you think that we need Makarov's permission in the type of screenshot, while it can easily forwarded to OTRS and OTRS volunteers can verify it.
2- Microsoft and Google have restrictions about using their screenshots, if you want crop this images to make them acceptable on Commons, they should not show any identifiable part of IE, Windows and Gmail.
I wish that I could make it clear this time, I'm not suspect to anyone, I believe that Russianname had good faith which was providing permission to us but instead of forwarding permission to OTRS, Russianname has uploaded its screenshot, please tell me if I am wrong and this permission should be in the form of screenshot. ■ MMXX talk 20:33, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, it's a screenshot of a copyrighted program and thus copyvio. The permission itself has been forwarded to OTRS. Kameraad Pjotr 10:33, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
There is "© 1999-2005, WW.Ru" at whitewater.ru. We have not CC-BY-SA-3.0 permission from the author of photo Dinamik (talk) 02:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Lack of verifiable information of release under given license. David Fuchs (talk) 02:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 23:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
There is "© 2005-2009 www.armenica.org" at armenica.org. Have we CC-BY-SA-3.0 permission? Dinamik (talk) 02:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Lack of verifiable information of release under given license. David Fuchs (talk) 02:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 23:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
There is "© 2005-2009 www.armenica.org" at armenica.org. Have we CC-BY-SA-3.0 permission? Dinamik (talk) 02:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Lack of verifiable information of release under given license. David Fuchs (talk) 02:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 23:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Ostin Osman Spaer died in 1956. Have we CC-BY-SA-3.0 permission? Dinamik (talk) 02:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Lack of verifiable information of release under given license. David Fuchs (talk) 02:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 23:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Have we CC-BY-SA-3.0 permission from strusto? Dinamik (talk) 02:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Lack of verifiable information of release under given license. David Fuchs (talk) 02:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 23:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Have we CC-BY-SA-3.0 permission from strusto? Dinamik (talk) 02:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Lack of verifiable information of release under given license. David Fuchs (talk) 02:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 23:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Have we CC-BY-SA-3.0 permission from strusto? Dinamik (talk) 02:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Lack of verifiable information of release under given license. David Fuchs (talk) 02:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 23:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Not used, personal artwork so not in scope Avron (talk) 09:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 23:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
not used, personal artwork, so not in scope Avron (talk) 09:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 23:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
not used, personal artwork, so not in scope Avron (talk) 09:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 23:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
not used and no usable quality Avron (talk) 09:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 23:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
seems to be a newer artwork, but there ist no freedom of panaroma in Italy Avron (talk) 09:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 23:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
strange right wing propaganda from Germany, proclaiming an own state, copyvio Cholo Aleman (talk) 10:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 23:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
copyright violation, strange extremist right wing propaganda from Germany Cholo Aleman (talk) 10:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 23:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
extremist right wing propagande from Germany, unused, copyrightviolation, see above Cholo Aleman (talk) 10:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 23:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Licence challenged: not stated anywhere on the site given as source in the Author field Duchesse (talk) 15:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 23:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Image contains a copyrigh notice. Uploader is not the same as the name mentioned. Please follow Commons:OTRS/es to provide permission Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 16:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 23:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
unused file with a strange theory, original "research", out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 16:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 23:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Please, no images with watermarks Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 16:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Too much to remove. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 23:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Please give a link to the source website where it indicates that this image is GFDL or Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 17:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- The real author is Jaromír Svoboda (1917–1992). Delete the file ASAP. --Gumruch (talk) 19:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 23:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
advertisement, taken from website http://www.bescreen.be/index.php?cid=1 Havang(nl) (talk) 17:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
-2010-01-09T17:25:00.000Z-File:BeScreen_logo.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 23:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
COM:DW sугсго 18:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Delete The same goes for File:Cheburashka doll.jpg. --Grandy02 (talk) 14:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 23:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
image doesn't show Havang(nl) (talk) 18:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC) comment: probably correct upload same subject at File:Doubleconcentrédetomates.jpg --Havang(nl) (talk) 18:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
-2010-01-09T18:24:00.000Z-File:Cestdupng24lol.png){kind=link}
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 23:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Probably not own work. Not likely that this picture is really old, so it probably is not public domain Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 18:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Supertiny resolution hints at a copy vio. --Leoboudv (talk) 05:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Ricardo P. (talk) 22:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 23:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
It's not own work. It's a tilted mirro view crop from http://yepyep.gibbs12.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/machoman.jpg. Probable copyright violation Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 18:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 23:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Probably not own work. Interlacing shows it is a screenshot from a video Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 18:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Comment If this work originates from http://www.draconis-percussion.com/ please follow Commons:OTRS to send the owners permission to Commons to use this image freely. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 09:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator. --Leoboudv (talk) 05:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Ricardo P. (talk) 22:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 23:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Probably not own work. Interlacing shows it is a screenshot from a video Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 19:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Comment If this work originates from http://www.draconis-percussion.com/ please follow Commons:OTRS to send the owners permission to Commons to use this image freely. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 09:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 23:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Could be own work, but it used to be a flickr image: http://www.tineye.com/search/ab89e4fe7f279e3926c61736a6a1337edddd5c1b Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 19:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- And that's a problem because...? What's so strange about someone posting his/her picture first on Flickr and later on Wikipedia Commons? Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 22:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
- Comment A higher resolution is available at http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Ukraine-Iraq-in-25-Bn-Weapons-Deal-06016/ so this is not likely own work. Website says it uses images under fair use, or under CC/GNU licenses. It is not clear under which of these, this image was published on the website. But it is not PD own work. Fair use is not permitted here, and if it is CC it is unknown whether it is a Commons compatible variant. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 23:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Unsufficient source info. Not clear whether Author Jimmy Dunning is the same as uploader Brosha Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 19:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Comment I received the following e-mail: I really don't understand how to post all these things, so on the line of author I put the photographer who gave me permission to use the picture he took of the mural "I painted". He asked if I would give him the credit for it. I see now I should of put my name for the author. I am hoping you will take this into consideration before you delete it. respectfully FranCisco Vargas -- This e-mail was sent by Brosha to Jan Arkesteijn by the "E-mail user" function at Wikimedia Commons.
- Brosha, or FranCisco Vargas, please follow this procedure to show that you are the copyright owner and that you release the image under certain conditions. Kind regards. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 23:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- Comment I received the following e-mail: I went to your link and read the release. On the second line "choose at least one" do I have him type in http:commons.wikipedia.org, or wiki, or commons? Also is this for to go on Wikipedia Encyclopedia or is it going to be on Wiki Commons? I am looking to place it on the encyclopedia section, let me know if I am going in the right direction? I will email the photographer with the info in the attachment. Once this goes thru will I be able to start writing in the area about how it all came about? FranCisco Vargas -- This e-mail was sent by Brosha to Jan Arkesteijn by the "E-mail user" function at Wikimedia Commons.
- Hi. First of all, please communicate via this page, not by e-mail. There are many people who can answer your questions. Secondly, in the second line you will have to fill in an appropriate copyright license. This could either be GFDL, CC-BY, CC-BY-SA or FAL, whichever suits you best. Just read the conditions and choose one. When you place the image on Commons it is available to all the different wikipedia's, as if that image was uploaded there, so you can write your article in any language and use the picture. Thirdly, I assume you are the painter? If so, you own the copyright on the painting, unless you transferred it in some sort of binding agreement to someone else. So, the photographer only owns rights on the photograph. Keep that in mind. It is up to you to decide what copyright the painting has. It is up to him to decide what copyright the photo has. The license to use is the one that is the most restrictive, yours or his. But since he did not do a creative act with his photo, but merely recorded what he saw, I doubt whether he will make any objections to the artist. But you will have to agree with him. Hope it helps, Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 08:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Copied from User talk:Brosha: I would like to delete this the photo I submitted on Jan. 9 2010 I uploaded another photo that I took myself. Here is the page where they are at. The top photo is mine. The lower picture is the one taken by another photographer Jim Dunning. It is to much trouble and confusing to make the changes. I am hoping that this is the page that Jan Askesteijn said for me to ask for someone who can walk me thru this situation. If someone could contact me at my email and let me know if I can create my project at heycisco@sbcglobal.net thank you FranCisco Vargas http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/Gallery.php?wikifam=commons.wikimedia.org&img_user_text=Brosha (2010-01-14T19:58:00 Brosha)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 23:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Please provide a link to the source where it says that "The copyright holder of this work allows anyone to use it for any purpose including unrestricted redistribution, commercial use, and modification. " I could not find it. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 19:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Ricardo P. (talk) 22:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 23:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Derivative work, no FOP in France. Eusebius (talk) 19:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep The fort-image in the plaquette is from a copyright-free old building and otherwise the picture has nothing sufficently original to call on no FOP in France. --Havang(nl) (talk) 21:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Reproductions of 3D objects generate new copyright, even when the object is PD, and it is true in all countries. By "no FOP" I meant that although the panel is permanently displayed in a public place, its copyright holders have rights on any derivative work. --Eusebius (talk) 21:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- I beg to differ on your sweeping statement, US law does not grant a copyright on an exact three dimensional copy of a three dimensional object. Has nothing to do with your discussion, but I wanted to clarify. -Nard the Bard 19:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- You mean, if the copy is 3D? I meant to talk about 2D interpretations (like photographs) of 3D objects. My statement was anyway a bit presomptuous, even like that. --Eusebius (talk) 19:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah I meant 3D copies of 3D. I know what you meant. :) -Nard the Bard 19:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- You mean, if the copy is 3D? I meant to talk about 2D interpretations (like photographs) of 3D objects. My statement was anyway a bit presomptuous, even like that. --Eusebius (talk) 19:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- I beg to differ on your sweeping statement, US law does not grant a copyright on an exact three dimensional copy of a three dimensional object. Has nothing to do with your discussion, but I wanted to clarify. -Nard the Bard 19:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- Reproductions of 3D objects generate new copyright, even when the object is PD, and it is true in all countries. By "no FOP" I meant that although the panel is permanently displayed in a public place, its copyright holders have rights on any derivative work. --Eusebius (talk) 21:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete No FOP, and a 2D replica of a 3D object can give rise to new copyright. -Nard the Bard 19:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 23:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Source says © Copyright 2005 – 2009 MAFRA, a.s. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 20:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete copyright violation Ireas talk•de•en 20:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete tagging with {{No permission}} is faster. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 23:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Doublon, please delete it. Thanks. Jaloyan (talk) 12:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 23:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I seriously doubt this can have any educational value, but I might miss the context. A clear source would be nice, too. Eusebius (talk) 07:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep It's used as an illustration for pseudoscience theory Hollow Moon --Justass (talk) 08:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- OK for the scope. Keep if everybody is ok with the own work statement... --Eusebius (talk) 08:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Used & hardly a difficult graphic to produce. --Simonxag (talk) 15:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I sayA bit embarassing, really. I uploaded this as a snarky/trolly picture for use on a pseudoscience article when I first joined Wikipedia. I regret the action now, and have improved my editing behaviour. This file serves no purpose. In addition, I doubt the source was free use. It would be best for the project to delete it. Throwaway85 (talk)
Delete, if the uploader is unsure that the file is free of rights. Eusebius (talk) 08:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Info BTW it is unused now. --Eusebius (talk) 08:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- an observation; the "hollow moon" article @ en/wp isn't using this image anymore, true. but now there is no image illustrating a "hollow moon"; only a cross-section schematic of the presumed actual interior of the moon which, by itself on this article, could be somewhat confusing, especially for readers unskilled in english. do we have any other "hollow moon" images? can we find/get/create one for this article? if not, i'm voting a conditional keep & try to get the rights sorted out. it's not a terribly creative image, simple wireframed 3-d geometry, with a small amount of text; not sure there's enough there to claim copyright on anyway (obviousness, lack of originality). to be clear; if we have a better image to illustrate the article with, i favour that option. otherwise, i suggest keeping this one, & returning it to "in-use" status @ hm. Lx 121 (talk) 09:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- Scope inclusion cannot be used to bypass copyright issues. The image is clearly copyrightable, the uploader admitted he was not the author and it is currently unsourced. --Eusebius (talk) 14:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- well i disagree about the copyrightability of the image, but it's not really a very good pic for the article anyway. so, can we make with a new "hollow moon' picture? there's gotta be something in our collection...? (kind of busy with other work, don't have time to go on a hunt for this; sorry) Lx 121 (talk) 17:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- I seriously created this picture as an immature trolling of the conspiracy theorists at hollow moon. I googled "hollow sphere" and took the first suitable result, then GIMPed it (poorly, might I add. The perspective is all wrong). IIRC, it came from some math page. I'm almost certain I had no rights to use it. In addition, it's pointless. It serves no encyclopedic value whatsoever. BTW, here's where it came from. Under the licensing tab, it says "Licensing information will follow shortly. In the interim, please contact." We may be able to request rights to some of the images, and, given the nature of the site, I don't think they'd have a problem with it, but this was ripped straight from the site with no permission whatsoever. Throwaway85 (talk) 00:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- an observation; the "hollow moon" article @ en/wp isn't using this image anymore, true. but now there is no image illustrating a "hollow moon"; only a cross-section schematic of the presumed actual interior of the moon which, by itself on this article, could be somewhat confusing, especially for readers unskilled in english. do we have any other "hollow moon" images? can we find/get/create one for this article? if not, i'm voting a conditional keep & try to get the rights sorted out. it's not a terribly creative image, simple wireframed 3-d geometry, with a small amount of text; not sure there's enough there to claim copyright on anyway (obviousness, lack of originality). to be clear; if we have a better image to illustrate the article with, i favour that option. otherwise, i suggest keeping this one, & returning it to "in-use" status @ hm. Lx 121 (talk) 09:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. J.smith (talk) 01:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The tail is a bit to short. Also, the palms of the hand should face against each other, not backwards. The body may is a bit to small, and the head a bit to large. The neck sholuld be shorter. Conty (talk) 12:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Keep in use --Simonxag (talk) 01:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Kept. In use on the Spanish Wikipedia. --Eusebius (talk) 08:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
To short tail, and proportianlly wrong forelmibs, neck and eyes. The eyes should not be pronated. Conty (talk) 13:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
This illustration are too inaccurate to be on wikipedia; The tail are too short, and the neck too long. The legs are too straight, and should not have knee caps. Also, the forelimbs are too thin, and the hands dould not be pronated. At last, most scientists would say it should have feathers. Conty (talk) 19:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Still in use on WP:ES. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
The fingers are to short, and it shall not have knee caps. Conty (talk) 17:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- Keep In use. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- : Keep could be replaced by a better illustration if available. Exterior shape of dinos is always under discussion. --Neozoon (talk) 01:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
The fingers are to short, and the legs should nt have kneecaps. Conty (talk) 13:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete -- Uh... Conty, you don't need to notify yourself on your own talk page that you submitted a deletion request about one of your own images. :) Also, if you resubmit the same DRs with no more explanations, you will likely get the same results. If you want the users on Commons to understand the situation regarding those images, it is better to explain it and to follow the advice given on en:Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Image review/Archive January 2009 - December 2009#Inaccurates in images, updating and deletion : ... "go to the left side of the image page under tool box, click on "nominate for deletion", and give your reason why it should be deleted. In the case of an inacurate image, your reason should be that it is out of the scope of Wikimedia, since there is no educational value in an inaccurate, user made image." (emphasis added). It sounds like a good motivation. And the image has been placed into the Category:Anatomically incorrect dinosaur restorations. Finally, you apparently forgot to remove the image from the Swedish version of Wikipedia (here), which you should do if the image is to be unused. -- Asclepias (talk) 22:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Images of Slovenian military-patriot
[edit]- File:Airbase Cerklje landing.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Slovene Gazelle helicopter at Brnik air base.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Divača Airport from air wiev.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
En:User:Slovenian military-patriot's images have been repeatedly demonstrated to be copyright infringements on English Wikipedia, following which a contributor copyright investigation was opened on him at en:Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Slovenian military-patriot. His talk page demonstrates quite a history of copyright problems. Given that he has always claimed to be the image creator, his word for this is useless. These suspect images were imported from English Wikipedia, undoubtedly in good faith. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- I concur. I have already warned the user several times and also deleted an image uploaded by him that was an obvious copyright infringement. --Eleassar (t/p) 13:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 23:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
The photograph may not be manipulated in any way and may not be used in commercial or political materials, advertisements, emails, products, promotions that in any way suggests approval or endorsement of the President, the First Family, or the White House. 221.127.249.8 14:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep That's a moral rights disclaimer after Barack Obama was used in an ad in Times Square. This text has been added to all the photostream photos from the White House. Does not affect the copyright free status of the image. -Nard the Bard 19:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- It affect, this photo doest not allow commercial use--221.127.141.139 10:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- Personality rights are allowed on Commons, and the White House cannot copyright images that *by law* are copyright free. -Nard the Bard 00:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Kept - Per Nard the Bard and the Flickr-license[1] on the image. –Krinkletalk 00:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
There is "copyright (c) 1997-2008" at armenianhighland.com. Have we CC-BY-SA-3.0 permission from Garik Nazaryan? Dinamik (talk) 02:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Это работа 19 века, авторские права на него не распространяются.--Taron Saharyan (talk) 00:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator that it is a likely copyvio. No verifiable information on free release. David Fuchs (talk) 03:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- Comment : this is clearly not a creation by Garik Nazaryan; it rather seems it comes from an old book, but which ones? Sardur (talk) 22:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- Comment : it is from an old book, I think I will have the answer tomorrow about the provenence of this book. Jaloyan (talk) 18:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep source, author, date and license corrected (thanks to Jaloyan). Sardur (talk) 22:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- Keep this is an image in a book of 1924. Jaloyan (talk) 06:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Kept, per Jaloyan. Kameraad Pjotr 08:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
The stated permission gives no conclusion about commercial use or derivative works High Contrast (talk) 14:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, lacks suitable permission. Kameraad Pjotr 19:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Probably not own work. Interlacing shows it is a screenshot of a video Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 19:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: This image and the others from the same series are on this site, which says "(c) Draconis". If uploader user:anaeldraconis is the person Anael Draconis and if he owns the copyright on the pictures, I suppose he can offer them under a free license. This should, however, require either an OTRS confirmation or a mention on the external site in question. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Please, follow Commons:OTRS to transfer the license. Thank you. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 20:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, lacks suitable permission. Kameraad Pjotr 19:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Rabbids
[edit]- File:Rabbids close-up.jpg
- File:Rabbid toy collection (edit).jpg
- File:Rabbid toy collection.jpg
- File:Rabbid plush.jpg
- File:Rabbid - hidden face.jpg
- File:Rabbid - Japan Expo 2008.jpg
- File:Rabbids Toilet at E3.jpg
- File:Rabbid toy red.jpg
- File:Rabbid cosplay (edit).jpg
- File:Rabbid toy.jpg
- File:Rabbid cosplay.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
I believe all those images are Commons:Derivative works of the depiction of the character from the video game Raving Rabbids. Jean-Fred (talk) 10:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Comment File:Rabbids Toilet at E3.jpg might be ok. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- Comment For the record, I'm having a hard time understanding how a person in a costume constitutes a copyright violation of any kind. If so, you might as well go down the board for pictures of everyone in a costume of a copyrighted character and nom for PfD. --24.211.50.200 06:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete some of the images Honestly, I'm not sure why the toy rabbids were uploaded...since the Rabbids page on Wikipedia, is, and has been for sometime, a redirect to the Rayman article, so we can't add these toy rabbid images to a 'Toys' or something else section to the page, because it's a redirect, as I already pointed out. And I have no idea why the Rabbid - Hidden face image was uploaded, it's not useful. So that's my thoughts on these images, I would say remove all images that have toy rabbids in them as well as the rabbid hidden face. Keep the other rabbid ones, even though they haven't got much purpose. Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 08:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- Keep or Delete... In fact a mass DR was a bad idea. Files like File:Rabbid cosplay.jpg (people in costumes) can be kept (see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Spiderman and child.jpg for instance). Other pictures may be deleted. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 17:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, DW, kept those that are "costumes", per the Spiderman costume case. Kameraad Pjotr 09:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)