Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2010/01/15
 |
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}
out of scope, bad quality Joxemai4 (talk) 10:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Julo (talk) 15:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
very bad quality Joxemai4 (talk) 08:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Julo (talk) 15:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
out of scope Joxemai4 (talk) 08:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Julo (talk) 15:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
out of scope Joxemai4 (talk) 08:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Julo (talk) 15:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
out of scope Joxemai4 (talk) 08:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Julo (talk) 15:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
out of scope Joxemai4 (talk) 10:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Julo (talk) 15:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
out of scope Joxemai4 (talk) 10:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Julo (talk) 15:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
out of scope Joxemai4 (talk) 10:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Julo (talk) 15:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I upload the image but it won't be used anywhere Clapsus (talk) 15:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 15:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Derivative work of the copyrighted artwork. Not FOP because not permanently installed in the public space, see COM:FOP#The_Netherlands. Sandstein (talk) 22:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Keep Disputable. It is sand, so this sculpture is permanent. It is not going to be moved to another place. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 02:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello Sandstein,
I was just finding out by chance, that you put this picture up for deletion, checking my watchlist (which is a very long list). Please inform the uploader of pictures in the future on his discussion page, if you put a picture up for deletion!.
With regards to the picture. The picture should not be deleted. It was taken at a festival where taking pictures was explicitly allowed. The sculptures were at the same place during their lifetime. At the end of the show, the sculptures were washed out by the rain and the pure sand removed some weeks later.
The aspect if a sculpture is permanently installed is explicitly stated in the following section: (highlights added by me)
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/COM:FOP#Permanent_vs_temporary Permanent vs temporary
The exhibited objects must be exhibited in a permanent way. If a work is presented on a public place temporarily, one may be obliged to get the explicit permission to take its picture.
Whether a work is installed at a public place permanently or not is not a question of absolute time, but a question of what the intention was when the work was placed there. If it was put there with the intention of leaving it in the public place indefinitely or at least for the whole natural lifetime of the work, then it is "permanent".
A sculpture is typically placed with the intent of leaving it for an indefinite time. But if it was clear from the beginning that it would be left there only, say, for three years and then be moved to a museum, then the placement was not "permanent". On the other hand, if a sculpture was placed with the intent of leaving it "open end", but is then removed due to new construction plans some time later, its placement remains "permanent" even if the sculpture is eventually removed.
Even quickly decaying works can thus be "permanent" and therefore be subject to freedom of panorama. Street paintings, ice, sand, or snow sculptures rarely last more than a few days or weeks. If they're left in public space for their natural lifetime, they are considered "permanent" all the same. But if, for instance, an ice sculpture is exhibited only for a few hours and then moved to cold storage, it may not be permanently placed.
I think this is clear enough to * Keep this picture.
Best regards --Neozoon (talk) 23:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the long explanation, which I believe is correct. Nomination withdrawn. Sandstein (talk) 23:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Julo (talk) 10:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Derivative work of the copyrighted artwork. Not FOP because not permanently installed in the public space, see COM:FOP#The_Netherlands. Sandstein (talk) 22:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Disputable. It is sand, so this sculpture is permanent. It is not going to be moved to another place. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 02:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello Sandstein,
thank you for putting a message on this deletion request on my discussion page.
The picture should not be deleted. It was taken at a festival where taking pictures was explicitly allowed. The sculptures were at the same place during their lifetime. At the end of the show, the sculptures were washed out by the rain and the pure sand removed some weeks later.
The aspect if a sculpture is permanently installed is explicitly stated in the following section: (highlights added by me)
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/COM:FOP#Permanent_vs_temporary Permanent vs temporary
The exhibited objects must be exhibited in a permanent way. If a work is presented on a public place temporarily, one may be obliged to get the explicit permission to take its picture.
Whether a work is installed at a public place permanently or not is not a question of absolute time, but a question of what the intention was when the work was placed there. If it was put there with the intention of leaving it in the public place indefinitely or at least for the whole natural lifetime of the work, then it is "permanent".
A sculpture is typically placed with the intent of leaving it for an indefinite time. But if it was clear from the beginning that it would be left there only, say, for three years and then be moved to a museum, then the placement was not "permanent". On the other hand, if a sculpture was placed with the intent of leaving it "open end", but is then removed due to new construction plans some time later, its placement remains "permanent" even if the sculpture is eventually removed.
Even quickly decaying works can thus be "permanent" and therefore be subject to freedom of panorama. Street paintings, ice, sand, or snow sculptures rarely last more than a few days or weeks. If they're left in public space for their natural lifetime, they are considered "permanent" all the same. But if, for instance, an ice sculpture is exhibited only for a few hours and then moved to cold storage, it may not be permanently placed.
I think this is clear enough to * Keep this picture.
Best regards --Neozoon (talk) 02:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the long explanation, which I believe is correct. Nomination withdrawn. Sandstein (talk) 23:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Julo (talk) 10:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
picture of not notable person, unused. ■ MMXX talk 07:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priscilla_Sof%C3%ADa_Bozjak ■ MMXX talk 07:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. She is a writer, although the article in the spanish wikipedia is only stub and look like autopromotion, but it can be improved and the media put on. It is true the file is not good quality.09:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)Joxemai4 (talk)
Delete Article was deleted. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 01:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. –blurpeace (talk) 22:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
The diagram is facutally wrong (see file page). The numbers add up to 110 %. Cwbm (commons) (talk) 12:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete math is wrong. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 01:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete My image. I'll create a new, correct, up to date one.--Bkwillwm (talk) 04:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
unknown band, unused bad image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 18:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Not notable Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 02:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Image failed flickr review. The flickr owner was contacted by Admin captain tucker on October 26 here but refuses to make a response on the license even though he has uploaded pictures onto his flickr account into January 2010. The image is barely used on 1 wikipedia article too. Leoboudv (talk) 03:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Non commercial is not compatible with Commons. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 01:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 00:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
unused image possibly taken from facebook. ■ MMXX talk 07:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Not a notable person. Weird description, wrong date, not used, First-time contributor. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 01:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. — Dferg (talk) 22:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
unused personal joke - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 17:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 02:05, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. — Dferg (talk) 23:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Admin captain tucker contacted the flickr owner on October 21, 2009 here to change the license but he never replied. The flickr owner has uploaded images into January 2010 and I doubt he will change the license here. Leoboudv (talk) 20:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 02:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 00:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
unused person photo - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 18:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Killiondude: Missing essential information: source and/or license
Dangerously close to child porn. And yes, I know the difference, I've uploaded non sexual nude pictures that include children and defended them against deletion. -Nard the Bard 00:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete
Neutral Absolutely not, especially if this is a minor currently alive and not in adulthood state to decide she wants to be exposed and prone to privacy rights. ZooFari 00:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
If the subject considered distasteful and pornographic, I don't object to it being deleted, I do not want to offend anybody. However bear in mind the image is very old, and it portrays only what is natural. The model is not a minor, just slim. GS (talk) 01:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- Well if the subject is not a minor, and is not currently living, then I don't mind. ZooFari 02:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
These images are labelled as being from the early 1960's, but the hairstyles that can be seen do not look very typical of the early 1960's... AnonMoos (talk) 08:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Neutral The girl is definetly not a child. But what is still open for debate is, if the girl (or the woman in the late 60s she is today) consented to publication. --Wuselig (talk) 02:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Delete Definitely not a child? I certainly find it plausible that she's a minor. To me, the set of concerns this picture brings up outweighs any value it brings to Commons; there's no real concrete value here.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Until there is evidence that person in this photo was of age and consenting when it was taken, we should not host it on here. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 08:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- Then please be so consequent and delete the other five too. Even though I would have liked to give User:GSnature the chance to clear up the consent issue. On the other hand, looking at the history, he or she doesn't seem to put such a lot of importance into the fact wether or not the now deleted image is posted or not. Does that apply to the other five too? --Wuselig (talk) 10:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- All we just needed was an age for the model when the photo was taken, that was it. The clothed image (4th one) can stay since it is not pornographic. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- No, it is not a matter of pornography. It is just a matter of personality rights. And that goes with the deleted image as well as with all the others. Looking at the womenly shape of the model - look at the hips, it is absolutly ridicules to coin the deleted image as child pornography. The model might have been younger than 18 at the time, but wether 18 or 25, if there is no model release: all images have to go.--Wuselig (talk) 20:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- Fine, rest of images removed. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 20:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- No, it is not a matter of pornography. It is just a matter of personality rights. And that goes with the deleted image as well as with all the others. Looking at the womenly shape of the model - look at the hips, it is absolutly ridicules to coin the deleted image as child pornography. The model might have been younger than 18 at the time, but wether 18 or 25, if there is no model release: all images have to go.--Wuselig (talk) 20:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- All we just needed was an age for the model when the photo was taken, that was it. The clothed image (4th one) can stay since it is not pornographic. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your concern on this subject. Although I think these photos are relevant and important in an historic context, I realise that there are rules to observe. It is obviously an element of sex and pornography involved whether a girl is clothed or not. Still, I look primarily at the subject from an artistic point of view. The key is natural appearance, this is even more important now than half a century ago.
These amateur images were verbally consented to by the model on the condition that she remained anonymous and that they were only used for non-commercial artistic purposes. The bulk of the images were taken after the model was twenty years old. These conditions are met now, provided her name and origin is not disclosed.
Thanks for helping me, regards GS (talk) 11:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- With the age provided, now that the concerns for me are gone. However, there is a statement you made that concerns me. "that they were only used for non-commercial artistic purposes" is something we cannot accept here at the Commons. Images sent to the Commons need to be used for commercial purposes. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for your response. Well there were no money involved, and I were not to make money from them either, that was what was meant back then, and I don't sell them now either for that matter, but make them freely available under the GNU Free Documentation License. She agreed to pose from purely artistic reasons. Now they are deleted from the Commons, which is fine. However, please let me know if and when I may re-enter them if I choose to do so later.
- With regards GS (talk) 19:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Closing post-closure discussion... Rocket000 (talk) 03:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Derivative of a non-free work. Freedom of panorama in Sweden only applies to permanently displayed works. —LX (talk, contribs) 00:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- I disagree. It's like a picture of a flag. --Holger.Ellgaard (talk) 17:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- Do you disagree that the flag is displayed temporarily, or do you disagree that the flag is eligible for copyright protection? —LX (talk, contribs) 22:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- It's the same with this image File:Sveriges Television, 1.jpg or this File:Storstockholms brandförsvar 2009a.jpg or this File:Stockholm Sankt Erik 2009a.jpg or thousends others. Will you delate all of them too? OK, go on. Good luck!! --Holger.Ellgaard (talk) 12:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- That sounds like an "other stuff exists" argument. Do you have any argument founded in copyright law principles? —LX (talk, contribs) 19:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yes! This: Commons:De minimis. Now I dont'n wont to discuss this any more. Do what you wish, you are the boss here. Thank you! --Holger.Ellgaard (talk) 10:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- De minimis deals with incidental inclusions. The inclusion of the copyrighted, non-free design is hardly incidental in this case. The composition, focus, percentage of the image that it occupies and the name of the file all suggest that the purpose of the image is to depict the banner itself. Taking a photograph of a non-free work doesn't magically liberate it or transfer the copyright to you. (And we're all the boss here; it's a wiki.) —LX (talk, contribs) 11:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted as a derivative work of a copyrighted image. Neither freedom of panorama nor de minimis applies here. —Angr 10:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Simple, low quality image (pg-ineligible) available in much higher quality File:Urantia three-concentric-blue-circles-on-white symbol.svg. Unused. ZooFari 00:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- The standard phrasing generally used here to explain your reasoning is "superseded by SVG"... AnonMoos (talk) 05:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- Uh...Okay? ZooFari 05:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. —Angr 10:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Drawing by Axel Nelson, born in 1954. I can't find any information on Nelson's web page that he has released his drawings to the public domain. Thuresson (talk) 06:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete Could not even find that this realy is a drawing of Nelson. Author unclear, license unclear. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 01:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. —Angr 10:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
User:Berillium claims the photograph is copyrighted. In my humble opinion, we can trust the words of the photographer, who proudly stated: «To my delight all 5 shots were eligible. Negatives and prints from them, I transferred to the museum». The photo itself was published in 1926. Maybe the license template must be fixed.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 12:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Comment It seems old enough to consider PD. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 01:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- Author has no personal copyright, as the photo was done by the task of the museum. 1926+70 = 1996. I still cannot see any problem.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 17:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- Author has personal copyright, and in Russian laws is no matter what was the task. [1]. --Panther (talk) 08:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
- The author clearly states that he had no personal copyright, that the photo was done by the request and order of the museum, that the museum organized their voyage. The photos were done under the guidance of the museum's director.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 14:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- Author has personal copyright, and in Russian laws is no matter what was the task. [1]. --Panther (talk) 08:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
- Author has no personal copyright, as the photo was done by the task of the museum. 1926+70 = 1996. I still cannot see any problem.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 17:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- When died author В. И. Маркеллов? Date of death + 70 years = PD.--Pauk (talk) 10:28, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
- Died in 1976 [2].--Berillium (talk) 11:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Polarlys: В. И. Маркеллов (July 07, 1885 - October 11, 1976)
Very poor quality, other photos done much better, and uncertain permission Maedin\talk 20:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Agree that the quality is not perfect, but from an iphone I think it is acceptable. Also a clear photo of such a close up might be too clinical and sharp, whereas this one has a soft focus and is a warmer photo of a sensitive area
Leave this photo it's a great photo. Leeave it alone.
I also agree the picture has a warmth and charm about it, rather then some of the harsh pictures of the same subject matter.
- Warmer photo of a sensitive area? This isn't here so you can get cuddly with it! It's rubbish quality, superseded by dozens and dozens of superior photographs. Must we hang onto every scrap of junk that whomever chooses to upload? Maedin\talk 17:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
I say keep it. It's a beautiful photo, and it was released into the public domain by it's creator. Why should it matter if there are similar photos, to my knowledge, there is no criteria that a photo be unique. Misty Willows (talk) 00:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Keep commons is not censored; commons does not have a rule (or anything remotely resembling community concensus!) about quantity limits; if the nominator wishes to argue quality, i invite them to do so. so far the reasons for nomination & follow-ups by the nominator resemble ranting, more than reasoned, technical arguements.
also; why is nothing signed here? looks like 3x IP keep votes (before me & misty willow), but no signatures/identification of the commentors? isn't there an auto-tool that's supposed to fill those in?
Lx 121 (talk) 01:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
KeepIn Commons there are many photo with a poorer image quality. Commons must not be censored--Etrusko25 (talk) 17:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete We have more than enough of those Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 01:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
uh, duh. My kids use this site. 65.83.173.163 00:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
--- Is it possible to change the name of the file, 'cause I would like tu use WikiCommon for a research with my young students (10_15) for a reserch on "jeans pants", and I would prefer my student not to arrive on this image (wich is the third in the request when you type "jean" ?) Otherwise, I 'll be obliged not tou mention Wikimediacommon, wich is a really sad...
With this name, this image can't "be realistically useful for an educational purpose" one of the conditions for the files posted on Wikimediacommons. That's why it must be change. Moreover, the file of the name of the contributor is deleted.
- Delete We have more than enough of those. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 01:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Pictures of this nature fall within the scope of commons. To judge "offensive" pictures on different scale then others constitutes censorship. The image has been renamed File:Female genitalia, unshaven.jpg. It's also worth noting that this image is in use in article space. J.smith (talk) 02:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Category name in french, redundant with Category:Seaplanes. --Duch.seb (talk) 12:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- There is no rule on Wikicommons prohibiting French categories.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 12:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Category was converted to redirect. -- User:Docu at 06:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
This is a copyrighted logo and I did not upload it with correct licensing --EastCoastEducator (talk) 16:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Requested by uploader. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 02:04, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Rocket000 (talk) 15:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
unused statement about "Silver mob" whatever this is - out of scope - note the categories Cholo Aleman (talk) 17:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:31, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Rocket000 (talk) 15:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I doubt own work by the uploader: TinEye gives one search result but it is not working anymore. Besides the low image resolution and the lack of EXIF data maybe an indication fot copyright violation. High Contrast (talk) 19:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Tineye says exact copy of http://elortiba.galeon.com/roabastos.html Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 02:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Esta es una pequeña foto que no tiene un autor definido. Obviamente que no es una foto tomada por mis cámaras. Lo levante a Commons porque ilustra una ocasión especial e importante. Si alguien desea eliminarla, por favor hágalo. Saludos. --FF MM (talk) 13:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Don't claim "own work" if it's not. Rocket000 (talk) 15:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
The uploader of this image claims that this is their own work. I have not been able to trace a clear source that proves that this is a copyright violation. However, I find that very difficult to believe that this the uploaders own work, given the professionalism of this photo and that it is of a well known person, Yalin. Camaron · Christopher · talk 20:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete All uploader's previous thumbnail contributions were doubtfully sourced, so why would this thumbnail suddenly be own work? Picture shows up on several blogs. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 02:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Rocket000 (talk) 15:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Copyright violation of art.
- Artist:日本語: 北村西望(Kitamura Seibō ,1884-1987)
- Place:Japan
- Note:Freedom_of_panorama#Japan--KENPEI (talk) 21:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Rocket000 (talk) 15:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Copyright violation of art.
- Artist:日本語: 北村西望(Kitamura Seibō ,1884-1987)
- Place:Japan
- Note:Freedom_of_panorama#Japan--KENPEI (talk) 21:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Rocket000 (talk) 15:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Copyright violation of art.
- Artist:日本語: 北村西望(Kitamura Seibō ,1884-1987)
- Place:Japan
- Note:Freedom_of_panorama#Japan--KENPEI (talk) 21:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Rocket000 (talk) 15:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I doubt the 1954 Picasso picture is own work, but I may proved wrong. Picasso's signature might or might not be copyrighted, depending on the source country to be considered, but I'm totally unable to assess that. Eusebius (talk) 22:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - it seems unlikely that the picture is Picasso's "own work", unless he's operating the camera with his foot. If by "own work" we mean the work of the editor contributing the picture, it seems equally unlikely that he was personally within camera range of Picasso 56 years ago. I'd like to hear more about this picture's path to Wikipedia, and about whether it was assembled from separate parts. --CliffC (talk) 01:46, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete It's probably neither Picasso's nor uploader's own work. And it's not old enough to be in the public domain. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 10:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Rocket000 (talk) 15:20, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Fake (see file talk page) also very probably a copyright violation Cwbm (commons) (talk) 13:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: Obviously fake, of no use. Hohum (talk) 00:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 02:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Question Can we replace the uses with something else? 'Cause so far, I'm leaning towards keep since projects are using it, fake or not. Rocket000 (talk) 15:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
- I replaced the uses. I think that it is really great. Not only did my deletion request stipulate more uses of the picture in order to prevent deletion. These uses are now also used as an argument against deletion. Thus encouraging people to remove pictures from articles before they actually are deleted and provoking editwars about that. Great politics! --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 16:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
- I don't care if people want to edit-war over the addition/removal/replacement of an image (assuming it takes place elsewhere ;). I just don't want to delete a file that's in use. OTOH, if people are intentionally using this image in order to save it from deletion, maybe there are reasons for keeping it. Probably not, but it's something. Rocket000 (talk) 16:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
- I replaced the uses. I think that it is really great. Not only did my deletion request stipulate more uses of the picture in order to prevent deletion. These uses are now also used as an argument against deletion. Thus encouraging people to remove pictures from articles before they actually are deleted and provoking editwars about that. Great politics! --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 16:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 20:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
copyrighted screenshots, not de minimis --Kungfuman (talk) 10:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Image was taken by me, and no copyrighted thing is shown. --User:socram8888 (talk) 20:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Derivative of copyrighed game on screen. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 16:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, the sourcing and licencing is very vague. The user that uploaded this image gave a quite weird source, that actually isn't one: "Issue 50 of Hasaad al-Mujahideen magazine" gives absolutely no clearification if this file falls under that dubious Ansar al-Islam-public domain licence. The applied licence itself is insufficient: The argument of the uploader is, that somebody uploaded this file to the homepage Archive.org and thus this image is in the public domain. Very weird and hard to believe because this "fact" can most likely not be proofen. In short: I suggest to delete this image because of poor sourcing and licencing. 132.199.211.4 00:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- Comment -- Could our nominator please clarify why they describe the liscense as "dubious". Geo Swan (talk) 18:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Provide a link to the source at archive.org so that we can check the license. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 01:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Source is now sufficiently specified, but license status is still unclear. Although uploader at archive.org says it is in the public domain, it is not clear what the document says. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 14:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, online magazine uploaded as "Public Domain: No Rights Reserved" as evidenced. Sherurcij (talk) 05:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep -- I am satisfied by the link Sherurcij has provided. I am disappointed that the nominator hasn't returned to answer questions. Geo Swan (talk) 19:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Comment I am not satisfied by the link Sherurcij has provided. Where is the "connection" between the stated link and the image? Where on this archive lies the image in discussion? A better source must be delivered. --High Contrast (talk) 21:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- The image is about 65 percent through the issue. Geo Swan (talk) 01:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- ?? --High Contrast (talk) 08:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- I am going to guess that your pair of question marks means you didn't understand the link Sherurcij provided.
- The link Sherurcij provided is the download page for the issue of the magazine where he found the image;
- The download page link Sherurcij provided has a box on the left hand side entitled "view the book". Inside this box there is a link labelled "pdf". This is a link to the .pdf file that contains the issue in question -- namely http://ia311306.us.archive.org/2/items/ansaralislam_20080712/hassad.pdf
- The box to the right of the "view the book" box is labelled "ansaralislam_20080712". It labels the issue "creative commons" and "public domain".
- Download the issue and you will find the image in question on the bottom left corner of page 31 (of 48).
- I hope you now understand that Sherurcij already provided the links you asked for.
- Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 09:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- I am going to guess that your pair of question marks means you didn't understand the link Sherurcij provided.
- ?? --High Contrast (talk) 08:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Ok, it was this pdf file. Nobody mentioned it. It is irreproducible why Sherurcij didn't put his delightful URL into the "source-line" of the file that we are discussing about. That's no big deal - applies for you, too, Geo Swan.
Well, we have an exact source now. But the question arises if the person that uploaded this pdf-file to www.archive.org has the right to put it in the public domain (or Creative Commons). Is there any proof? --High Contrast (talk) 12:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- On its "create account" page the archive sets outs its rules. In this it is similar to the wikipedia, wikimedia commons, and our sibling projects. I think the following passage from those rules sets outs a commitment to respect intellectual property, and warns uploaders that copyright infringing material can and will be deleted, when it is detected or reported.
- The Internet Archive respects the intellectual property rights and other proprietary rights of others. The Internet Archive may, in appropriate circumstances and at its discretion, remove certain content or disable access to content that appears to infringe the copyright or other intellectual property rights of others.
- Other passages lay out that the archive's infringing uploaders can be permanently blocked. We allows our contributors to upload materials tagged {{PD-Self}}, without making us prove we created it. I've uploaded hundreds of images I created myself. I don't actually think there is a way I could prove I created them. It seems to me that you are suggesting we hold this archive to a higher standard than the one we expect of our own contributors. Similarly, we assume that flickr uploaders really are the owners of the intellectual property rights to the images they put under the liscences we like. How could that possibly be fair or reasonable to expect a higher standard of this archive?
- High Contrast, in my last reply to you, I considered, and rejected, appending a comment about how very few seconds it took me to find the pdf link on the archive's download page. The reason I rejected doing so is that I thought that kind of grumpy comment erodes the collegiality we should all be aiming for on project's like this. Please don't lead me to regret restraining myself from leaving a grumpy comment by indulging in grumpiness yourself. We are all volunteers here, doing our best, in our free time.
- I assure you, when I left my "keep" it honestly never occurred to me that any contributor here would fail to quickly find that link. Further, while the "front matter" in the issue hopefully says that all the material in the issue is under a free liscense, it would be saying it in Arabic. So Sherurcij provided the most important link -- the link to the page that says, in English, that the uploader asserted the issue was under a free liscense.
- Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 22:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- Comment, if the source for something is "Time magazine, January 2006 edition", there is no need to link to an online version of the article. The name and issue of the magazine is sufficient. Now you have both the name and issue of the Public Domain magazine published by Ansar al-Islam, and an online version of it which confirms its Public Domain status. The fact you're still complaining seems to suggest more about you than it does about the image. If you'd like to contact w:Ansar al-Islam to get their commander to tell you it's PD himself, feel free; I couldn't get ahold of him. Sherurcij (talk) 16:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- "Time magazine, January 2006 edition": yes, but the image we discuss about was not from the Time-magazine. On Commons, we have certain regulations for stating a source, read COM:L. If you'd like to contact w:Ansar al-Islam to get their commander to tell you it's PD himself, feel free: On Commons the Uploader - here User:Sherurcij must prove the stated licence. So, it's up to you. --High Contrast (talk) 22:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- I have proved it, you are claiming that the proof is fabricated. I'm inviting you to present any evidence of your claim. You admit that simply giving the name and issue of the magazine which took the image is sufficient, yet use it as a reason for deletion...is it a bias against non-American magazines? I have no idea - but your arguments aren't standing up very well. Sherurcij (talk) 20:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- Even if the source is Time Magazine we would still have to check it; it is very unlikely that Time Magazine puts something in the public domain. Now, for this document, the uploader says it is in the public domain and I am willing to believe that, but I can't read Arab, so could you point me to the page in the document where the copyright notice is? Maybe, I could use Google Translate to check it, or maybe someone who can translate Arab can check it.Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 23:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Kept, source confirms PD-status, per Sherurcij. Kameraad Pjotr 18:52, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
sculpture shown in the pictures is copyright protected-85.158.139.99 09:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep No sculpture visible in this picture. Nyttend (talk) 01:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no FOP: no evidence this image was "visible from a public place". Kameraad Pjotr 18:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
No attested use. Insufficient sourcing. For all we know this could be a case of "something I made up one day". Diupwijk (talk) 15:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, out of project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 18:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Image uploaded by a sockpuppet of en:User:InkHeart, suspected faked OTRS ticket. Martin H. (talk) 23:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. I don't understand this request: OTRS permission is OK, license is OK, and Wikimedia Commons is irrespective of English Wikipedia internal conflicts. In Wikimedia Commons project it is most important if we maintain standards of author's copyright. Here seems be clear: author is Hee-Soo Kim and in the OTRS system we have got permission from Hee-Soo Kim.
Quite another question is: who is on the picture? I do't know Korean language and alphabet...
Julo (talk) 10:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- The uploader, User:Atomsgiven, is a sockpuppet of en:User:InkHeart, who was flooding not only Wikipedia but also Commons with stolen images. As we dont have an account InkHeart on Commons see Special:WhatLinksHere/User:JezzyBear for the sockpuppet collection here. I already adressed the problem at Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard/Archive_5#en:User:InkHeart_OTRS_check, but not much happened, the abuse included abuse of the photo submission, uploads with photo submission claim, faked OTRS tickets, and so on. As I cant simply closed my eyes on this I started this deletion request to have the problem at least mentioned. --Martin H. (talk) 11:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- For this image note, that it was created by Yonhap Newsagency, http://www.yna.co.kr, I wonder if the written permission comes from Yonhap. --Martin H. (talk) 11:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, It clearly states who the author is. I say keep and if that user submits a photo again just disregard it. 클리어 워터 14:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- Sockpuppet "vote". And no, it not clearly states who the author is. If it is correct the permission would come from yonhapnews.co.kr, or yna.co.kr, their mailserver. --Martin H. (talk) 00:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, per Martin H. Kameraad Pjotr 19:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Image uploaded by a sockpuppet of en:User:InkHeart, suspected faked OTRS ticket. Martin H. (talk) 23:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, as File:김옥빈01.jpg above. Julo (talk) 10:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, Same author and correct licensing. 클리어 워터 14:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, I t has all the sufficient information and is correctly licensed. Coconut2Milk (talk) 19:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- This sockpuppet "votes" dont make it more free. --Martin H. (talk) 23:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Delete Per Martin. I'm gonna ask OTRS for clarification--DieBuche (talk) 12:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, per Martin H. Kameraad Pjotr 19:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
