Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2010/01/20
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
http://www.codespromotion.fr/ says © 2006-2009 CodesPromotion.FR - codespromotion Tous Droits Réservés. Please follow Commons:OTRS to provide proof that you can publish it under the given license. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 10:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Bapti ✉ 18:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Out of scope, image of uploader that has not been used for several months. --ZooFari 03:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Delete unused personal image. ■ MMXX talk 23:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio: Uploader request: It is just a picture of me; like many others have pictures of themselves. There's nothing amazing about it.
The metadata on the sourcepage say (translated from Spanish) The design and contents of Memoria Chilena are protected by Law 17.336 on Intellectual Property. The trademark Memoria Chilena, PORTAL DE LA CULTURE DE CHILE, takes refuge under Law No. 19,039 on Industrial Property Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 11:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Julo (talk) 08:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
It is a personal photo and I do not need it anymore. --Melisa 23 My talk 23:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Drini: '
this is a copyrighted screenshot: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Blue_Crush.png --Euku:⇄ 08:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Non-free image. Hekerui (talk) 18:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per nom, copyright violation / false license Infrogmation (talk) 03:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
self promotion and advertising. ■ MMXX talk 00:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, as out of scope. — Dferg (talk) 14:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
unused and uncategorized since 2007, bad quality, unusable (out of scope) Cholo Aleman (talk) 04:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, definitely out of project scope. Blurpeace 19:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Screenshot from movie http://afc.az/eng/az_films/d/07.shtml --Hayk (talk) 13:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Infrogmation (talk) 15:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
As far as I can see we have no way of knowing that images from www.joey-king.net is free. Image can be found on http://www.joey-king.net/gallery/thumbnails.php?album=18 but I can not see a cc-license anywhere. MGA73 (talk) 17:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted Indeed, and a link to a copyright notice on the site's front page. False licence. -- Infrogmation (talk) 16:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
unused self promotion - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 17:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted Orphan out of scope block of self-promotional text in jpg form. -- Infrogmation (talk) 16:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Copyright violation -- See http://www.geometrikrecords.com/esplendor/ picture #15 — Malik Shabazz (talk · contributions) 23:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Kameraad Pjotr: Copyright violation: See ProD for details
Delete bad quality, unusable (out of COM:PS) -- Common Good (talk) 21:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 05:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Photo just doesn't quite pass the smell test for me. I suspect it's a copyvio, but I can't nail down the source... Tabercil (talk) 13:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. Clearly a website resolution version of a professional photo. Uploader has had another photo of an actor which they claimed as their own work deleted as when proven to be a copyright violation yoinked off a web site. Unless the uploader can offer some confirming evidence that they are the photographer/copyright holder, I think we can assume the same for this one. -- Infrogmation (talk) 15:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Finally found the source for it here, where it says "© 2008 Buzzingstock". Tabercil (talk) 00:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Tabercil: Copyright violation
No reason given for either of the contraditory licenses claimed by work of "unknown" author --Infrogmation (talk) 01:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. The Frank Driggs collection is referenced here, this image appears to be from that collection. In short: The collection consists of more than 78,000 jazz-related images, most of which were never published. They are "mostly publicity stills and amateur snapshots by friends and acquaintances. Since 1977, he has made most of his living off reproduction fees from the collection, which was recently appraised at $1.5 million". -- Deadstar (msg) 10:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 00:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Generally dubious. Vague source, "unknown" author" but claimed as "PD-Old" AND Creative Commons license. --Infrogmation (talk) 01:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 04:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Insufficent source, conflicting license claims --Infrogmation (talk) 01:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 04:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Conflicting license claims, insufficient info to establish either of them --Infrogmation (talk) 01:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 04:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Inadiquate source; two contradictory license claims, neither of which can be established if the authorship is "unknown" as listed. --Infrogmation (talk) 01:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 04:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
License claim based on death date of author cannot be established if the author is "unknown" as listed. --Infrogmation (talk) 01:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 04:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Two contraditory license claims, neither of which can be established if the author is "unknown" as listed. --Infrogmation (talk) 01:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete The Frank Driggs collection is referenced here, this image appears to be from that collection. In short: The collection consists of more than 78,000 jazz-related images, most of which were never published. They are "mostly publicity stills and amateur snapshots by friends and acquaintances. Since 1977, he has made most of his living off reproduction fees from the collection, which was recently appraised at $1.5 million". -- User:Deadstar (msg) 11:08, 20 January 2010
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 04:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Not a US Government work as tagged. I didn't find no confirmation of the claimed 1923 date in an online search. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:40, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 10:16, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
The Frank Driggs collection is referenced here, this image appears to be from that collection. In short: The collection consists of more than 78,000 jazz-related images, most of which were never published. They are "mostly publicity stills and amateur snapshots by friends and acquaintances. Since 1977, he has made most of his living off reproduction fees from the collection, which was recently appraised at $1.5 million". -- Deadstar (msg) 11:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 04:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Images of the Burj Al Arab
[edit]So, using this precedent: Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Burj Khalifa, we should delete also the images of the copyrigted Burj Dubai
- File:Tallest Hotel in the world in Dubai, UAE 01 977.JPG
- File:Tallest Hotel in the world in Dubai, UAE 02 977.JPG
- File:Jumeirah Beach Hotel and Burj Al Arab on 7 September 2007-v2.jpg
—Preceding unsigned comment was added by 190.25.107.243 (talk) 16:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no freedom of panorama in the UAE. Blurpeace 22:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Images of Dubai
[edit]Delete all the images of Dubai using this precedent: Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Burj Khalifa
i propose:
- File:Yum dubai.jpg: Pizza hut and kfc, copyrighted
- File:UAE-Oman 16.08.2009 05-22-39.jpg: Rolls royce Trent, copyrighted
- File:Zabeel Park.jpg and File:View from Al Jafilia on 2 August 2007.jpg: Buildings copyrighted
- File:TEDxDubai logo.png: It depicts the word Dubai, copyrigted
- File:Sztuczne wyspy w Dubaju.png: Map of Dubai, showing all that buildings, copyrighted
- File:Stop sign UAE.jpg: No FoP in Dubai, architechtonical design, copyrighted
- File:South Ridge on 22 June 2007.jpg, File:South Ridge on 27 November 2007.jpg, File:Sheikh Zayed rd day.jpg, File:Sheikh Zayed rd night.jpg, File:Silicon Oasis Villas.JPG, File:Dubai Silicon Oasis on 18 February 2007 Pict 3.jpg, File:Dubai Silicon Oasis on 18 February 2007 Pict 2.jpg, File:Mina-alsalam.jpg, File:Marina Heights on 15 June 2007 Pict 1.jpg, File:Mag 214 Tower on 7 June 2007.jpg and File:Jebel Ali Free Zone 07.jpg: MOOORE copyrigthed building.
well, i dont know what you think people, but i suport the deletion of all this images, an even more, all the images that depicts something related with the UAE. 
Support —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 190.25.107.243 (talk) 16:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted some, kept others. The images deleted either had too much copyrighted content to be claimed under de minimis or the subject was itself copyrighted content. The others used the converse of the stated delete rationale. Blurpeace 22:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Image is copyright-protected per http://www.bluemango.fr/31.html — Malik Shabazz (talk · contributions) 23:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Keep Boilerplate. We have no reason to believe the Free Art License on the work is not legitimate. It certainly didn't come from the site you linked to.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Kept - per Prosfilaes (non-admin closure). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
COM:DW. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- Agree - not permenantly situated. Deror avi (talk) 13:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Adambro (talk) 10:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Image is copyright-protected per http://www.bluemango.fr/31.html — Malik Shabazz (talk · contributions) 23:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep bluemango is clearly not the source of our file and is offering boilerplate. While the URL we have as the source of the file, however obscured it is on the page, is currently inactive, I don't see any reason to doubt the claim of the Free Art License.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Kept - per Prosfilaes (non-admin closure). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
I believe that maximally two of eight pictures depicted in this diagram are under free licenses, which still leaves 6 (not counting schematic diagrams and text) most possibly unfree or without properly annoted sources and authors. Masur (talk) 14:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete A, D, E, and F are sourced to wikipedia; the worst problem are the two images that are sourced to Corbis, because it is very unlikely that one could get a free license for those. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Montage including non-free images. --Martin H. (talk) 03:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I uploaded this image but I'm concerned that this is a derivative work of a copyrighted work and not suitable for Commons. Hekerui (talk) 18:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. COM:DW of election poster. --Martin H. (talk) 03:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
File duplicates, File:Tur-aralık.ogg --Reality006 (talk) 19:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- delete, ----Erkan Yilmaz 16:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Dupe of File:Tur-aralık.ogg. --Martin H. (talk) 03:08, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
It's unlikely that an album cover is not subject to copyright. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contributions) 22:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. More unlikely that it was published under FAL... see original log, fair use. --Martin H. (talk) 03:11, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Image is copyright-protected per http://www.bluemango.fr/31.html — Malik Shabazz (talk · contributions) 23:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep bluemango is clearly not the source of our file and is offering boilerplate. While the URL we have as the source of the file, however obscured it is on the page, is currently inactive, I don't see any reason to doubt the claim of the Free Art License.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Kept - per Prosfilaes (non-admin closure). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't have the right to put this logo here --- Khayman (contact) 23:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 03:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
no notability (the article in ru.wiki is deleted) Andrei Romanenko (talk) 23:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 03:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Tiff files don't preview (on my screen anyway) and article on nl: wiki for Vera de Bree was deleted (http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Te_verwijderen_pagina%27s/Toegevoegd_20090620) as self promotion. Image out of scope as non-notable person. First file is a pixelated version of a photograph, second file (File:Vera de Bree.tiff) is a straight photograph -- Deadstar (msg) 08:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Scope. --Martin H. (talk) 03:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Images of Javier Mariño
[edit]Javier Mariño (talk · contributions (views) · deleted user contributions · recent activity (talk · project · deletion requests) · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth) has uploaded a few dozens of images. All are of mathematical formulae with no useful explanation. They could easily be reproduced with wiki markup and are unusable as is anyway. Pruneautalk 08:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Delete - Pruneau is a mathematician; obviously remains from a project that did not realize, many of them with personal definitions Cholo Aleman (talk) 17:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, orphaned images of formulas, which should be written with wiki code, that have no foreseeable use. Blurpeace 19:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Images from Walter McClintock papers
[edit]Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library, Yale University has uploaded some of their images on Flickr (http://www.flickr.com/people/23948320@N05) with a free license.
However they say at http://www.library.yale.edu/beinecke/brblresearch/copyright.html under the headline "Commercial Use" that:
"In most cases, the Beinecke Library does not hold the copyright to materials in its collections and so cannot grant or deny permission to publish them for purposes other than Fair Use, nor can the Library assume responsibility for determining their copyright status. It is your responsibility to determine whether materials are under copyright, to discover who owns the copyright, and to obtain permission to publish."
Since Walter McClintock lived from 1870-1949 images are still copyrighted.
List of images:
- File:Bear grass (Xerophyllum tenax). 12c.jpg
- File:Bear grass (Xerophyllum tenax). 12d.jpg
- File:Blackfeet War Tipi. 869.jpg
- File:Blue Tipi, or home of the Thunder. 849.jpg
- File:Buffalo Rock Tipi. 850.jpg
- File:Buffalo tipi on left, Snake tipi on right, Star tipi in back center. 812.jpg
- File:Buffalo-Head-Tipi at right. 823.jpg
- File:Bunchberry (Cornus canadensis). 12b.jpg
- File:-Ceremony of the fasting woman-. 755a.jpg
- File:Crow Tipi. 833.jpg
- File:Deer Tipi of Short Robe. 864.jpg
- File:Headwaters of the Columbia River. 14.jpg
- File:Horse tipi on left, Snake tipi, Antelope, and winter tipis. 811.jpg
- File:Horses in a field. 13.jpg
- File:Horses in a grassy park. 5.jpg
- File:Lake with surrounding mountains. 15.jpg
- File:Little Blackfeet. 10.jpg
- File:Marshy point with two moose in the distance. 15a.jpg
- File:McClintock's horse (Kutenai). 13a.jpg
- File:Montana landscape. 2.jpg
- File:Mountain Sheep Tipi. 863.jpg
- File:Otter Tipi from the back. 826.jpg
- File:Otter Tipi with otter skin fastened to a pole at the top. 827.jpg
- File:Otter tipi. 824.jpg
- File:Pack trail through forest. 11.jpg
- File:Pink twin-flowers (Linnea borealis). 12a.jpg
- File:Rainbow Tipi of Head Carrier. 845.jpg
- File:Raven Tipi of Lone Chief. 835.jpg
- File:Red Stripe Tipi and the Thunder Tipi. 821.jpg
- File:Stand of Western white pine, hemlock, and giant cedar. 6.jpg
- File:Star tipi with woman in the doorway. 819.jpg
- File:Thunder Tipi of Brings-Down-The-Sun with granddaughter of the old medicine man in the doorway. 868.jpg
- File:Thunder Tipi of Cream Antelope. 847.jpg
- File:Thunder Tipi. 848.jpg
- File:Tipi camped on Swan Lake. 4.jpg
- File:Tipi glowing with light from its inside fire. 7.jpg
- File:Tipi glowing with light from its inside fire. 8.jpg
- File:Two men, one wrapped in an American flag. 777a.jpg
- File:Two women inside tipi. Y-1515.jpg
- File:-View of tribal camp-. 804.jpg
- File:Water Monster Tipi on left, Red Painted Tipi at right. 861.jpg
- File:Waterfall. 9.jpg
- File:Wife of Running Fisher setting up Eagle Tipi. 842.jpg
- File:William Jackson (Little Blackfeet) on white horse. 3.jpg
- File:William Jackson (Little Blackfeet) standing by tipi. 11, 277.jpg
- File:Woman and girl seated on the grass. 180.jpg
- File:-Woman chopping firewood, Eagle tipi in foreground, Star tipi on left-. 815.jpg
- File:Yellow glacier lillies (Erythronium grandiflorum). 12.jpg
So I see no other alternative that to delete. --MGA73 (talk) 18:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, I could not imagine, that they would upload photographs at Flickr under a correct (to "our" purpose) CC-license not having the permission to do so. Can't we ask them for an OTRS-ticket before deleting? In case that they own the copyrights of the Walter McClintock Papers. (Here they write that they do own the copyright of these photographs.) (I would appreciate if somebody with a better knowledge of English than me would do so.) --Catfisheye (talk) 18:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry too. I did not notice that page you mention. I only found a lot of "Some images might be unfree - check for yourself"-text. I also noticed "However, their archival collections may also include the work of many other writers, artists, photographers, and individuals for whom the Beinecke does not own copyright.". But if they mention McClintock as author then I think we could asume that it really was McClintock that took the images.
- Since I nominated the images for deletion I will let an other admin decide if we need a permission in OTRS or we hare happy with the link you provided. --MGA73 (talk) 19:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you. I appreciate your diligence. Better to clarify than to steal. Hope it does not need an extra permission. --Catfisheye (talk) 19:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep It is clear to me that "Some images might be unfree" does not refer to the McClintock collection and that Yale Library holds the copyright and has the authority to license as they see fit. Bastique demandez 19:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you. Uff, I'm glad that I have not wasted time by creating a chaos. Ciao --Catfisheye (talk) 19:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- If you have some time left you could fix the links to the Flickr images :-) --MGA73 (talk) 19:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'll surely do as well as categorize. I just got the instruction how to fix it. But first I will upload the rest of the photographs. To keep an overview. :) --Catfisheye (talk) 19:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- If you have some time left you could fix the links to the Flickr images :-) --MGA73 (talk) 19:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you. Uff, I'm glad that I have not wasted time by creating a chaos. Ciao --Catfisheye (talk) 19:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I thought US law only protects copyright for 50 years after the author's death? If so, they would be public domain in the US, but please correct me if I'm wrong... --Cú Faoil (talk) 21:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Catfisheye is correct. The link he gives explicitly states that Yale owns the copyright to the McClintock pictures. So, Yale can license them however they wish. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 10:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Kept, according to this page, the Beinecke Library holds the copyright to Walter McClintock's papers. The library retains the right to license their digital reproductions freely. Blurpeace 20:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
The image is available in better quality File:Sitzeverteilung im Stadtrat von Gerbstedt.PNG. Picture is unused. These picture are not needed in german wikipedia an longer. This information is shown using de:Vorlage:Wahldiagramm.--Karsten11 (talk) 19:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC) --Karsten11 (talk) 19:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- ok, delete it--Pomfuttge_Talk 20:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Zirland: Corrupt or empty file: replaced by File:Sitzeverteilung im Stadtrat von Gerbstedt.PNG
This is a screen shot taken off the Great Outdoors program which is copyrighted to Seven Network, the Flickr uploader clearly took a screen shot of it along with others and uploaded to Flickr, however the Flickr uploader may also have photographs taken by them which maybe ok to uploaded on Commons. Bidgee (talk) 11:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- Strike that! Seems the uploader may have taken the images from other people as the EXIF data is missing on some and others show different cameras. Bidgee (talk) 11:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
There is no evidence whatsoever that this is a screen shot of a TV show. And I find it exceedingly hard to accept that we can't accept Ernie's word for it when it comes to a photograph of himself. Hesperian 14:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- Are you sure that it is Ernie Dingo? I can just sign-up an account on Flickr and make it look like Ernie's, but even if it is Ernie has he realised that screen shots are copyrighted to the producers of the program which of cause is the Channel Seven/Network. Having some experience in doing screen shots this is taken from a broadcast, the way you can tell is that the detail is lacking (screen shot is a still) and black lines to the side and the bottom right and corner (which is rather unique to the Seven Network). An example from WIN Television (Note screen shot is copyrighted to WIN Television). Bidgee (talk) 23:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep FLICKR is a YAHOO7! product Channel 7 is associated with Yahoo, Great Out Doors promotes that images of its travels are available on Flickr, in fact the show links directly to them including this image. Gnangarra 01:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Copyrighted official coat of arms of city. Apart from the fact that this is a new illustration PD-old is a completely impossible license for this since the design (blason) was made in 1945. Making a DR rather then speedy since this has been kept once before. Lokal_Profil 00:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, not PD-old: copyright violation. Kameraad Pjotr 18:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Does not appear to be PD-old; takedown request at OTRS ticket#2010011610017315. Stifle (talk) 09:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- And what is said in that ticket? It's a traditional subject in Chinese religious painting and the picture seem to be a real pd-old Spectorman (talk) 11:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete [1] has the exact same file, and [2] says they apparently have a "master painter" churning out copies. Is it possible that it amounts to a slavish reproduction? Possibly, but I would hope in the course of proving it we could come up with something larger and with a better documented source than this tiny file.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Please remove this image file from wikipedia. It is a copyright violation. It came from: http://www.edepot.com/taoism_3-vinegar-tasters.html Look at serial number 1 and serial number 3 of the Vinegar Tasters. Each with minor variation. #2, #4, #5 are also similar but placed on a scroll. In fact the image at wikipedia was stolen from serial #1 on that site. The owner of the site also took the pictures, using this camera: http://www.edepot.com/reviews_sony_cybershot_p10.html Just look at the meta info of all the images on that webpage, including the one stolen and put on wikipedia.
Deleted, copyright violation, per Prosfilaes. Kameraad Pjotr 18:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Authorship is highly dubious: U.S Military or Federal Government Employee - but the picture was taken during the Afghanistan conflict, so it is highly impossible that it could be taken by an american militaryman. Source doesn't provide any more detailed informations. Masur (talk) 09:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Comment The authorship is fantasy and not covered by the source. Neither the source dodmedia.osd.mil nor defenseimagery.mil give an author information. Its dubious, likely one of the rare unfree images from that source. --Martin H. (talk) 03:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
- Comment But in Afghan it many of USA agents (who training a Munagedins, find in article), plus, if your thing this file it a Aghanistan work, can be licenced under "PD-Afghan"
- Comment PD-Afghanistan requires an afghan publication or evidence of an afghan author. So at the moment with the given information this is not applicable. I would keep it with unknown author on the DoDs risk, although it remains dubious. The given author information "Undetermined (U.S Military or Federal Government Employee)" is of course fantasy by the uploader, it is missing any reference and without reference the uploader shouldnt write such things down. --Martin H. (talk) 12:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no information on author/first publication: copyright violation. Kameraad Pjotr 18:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Coat of arms of municipality of the Netherlands can not be licensed with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-3.0}}M Uploader gives the owner to be the municipality. Incorrect licensing (but I don't know what it should be. Image can likely be kept if licensing is corrected) -- Deadstar (msg) 09:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, PD-NL-gemeentewapen does not apply: lacks suitable permission. Kameraad Pjotr 19:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
How can a screenshot of a third-party website, including its logo, be free? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contributions) 23:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, clear copyright violation: unfree screenshot. Kameraad Pjotr 19:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Image is copyright-protected per http://www.bluemango.fr/31.html — Malik Shabazz (talk · contributions) 23:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Copyright violation. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Boilerplate. We have no reason to believe the Free Art License on the work is not legitimate. It certainly didn't come from the site you linked to.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- Note that there's a lot of text that is missing on the page, as can be seen from the comment on the file history.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- Comment - The author's official website is indeed placed under the
copyleft symbol, although I don't see a mention of the Free Art licence specifically. So, I'm not sure what must be made of it. In any case, the Commons page should show the author's name in the "author" field, not the name of the user who uploaded the file to Wikipedia. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
._12c.jpg){kind=link}
._12d.jpg){kind=link}
._12b.jpg){kind=link}
._13a.jpg){kind=link}
._12a.jpg){kind=link}
_on_white_horse._3.jpg){kind=link}
_standing_by_tipi._11,_277.jpg){kind=link}
._12.jpg){kind=link}
Kept, website states "copyleft" and uses FAL-icon. Kameraad Pjotr 19:20, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Image is copyright-protected per http://www.bluemango.fr/31.html — Malik Shabazz (talk · contributions) 23:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep bluemango is clearly not the source of our file and is offering boilerplate. While the URL we have as the source of the file, however obscured it is on the page, is currently inactive, I don't see any reason to doubt the claim of the Free Art License.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Kept, per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dumaine02.jpg. Kameraad Pjotr 10:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Image is copyright-protected per http://www.bluemango.fr/31.html — Malik Shabazz (talk · contributions) 23:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep bluemango is clearly not the source of our file and is offering boilerplate. While the URL we have as the source of the file, however obscured it is on the page, is currently inactive, I don't see any reason to doubt the claim of the Free Art License.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per Prosfilaes. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Kept, per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dumaine02.jpg. Kameraad Pjotr 10:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
