Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2010/01/30
 |
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}
.jpg){kind=link}
2 188.50.119.117 00:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Kept, no reason for deletion given and the image is within project scope. Blurpeace 02:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
This image Failed flickr review on the Same Day it was uploaded onto Commons. (January 26, 2010) It is a Copy vio...pure and simple with NC and ND restrictions. Leoboudv (talk) 09:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio: Does not allow for commercial use and/or derivative works: http://www.flickr.com/photos/26012708@N06/3906533904/sizes/l/in/set-72157622327280808/
Not really a gallery, out of scope. [Speedy by User:Techman224converted to regular NfD by Inductiveload (talk) 01:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Keep (as creator/uploader) sorry, I forgot to add the images to this page. There is now a gallery of all the apple names and the relevant images (100 of these). Sorry for the delay Inductiveload (talk) 01:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep this is clearly educational material showing apple drawings out of the same source. We should be proud to have them in our project!!--Symposiarch (talk) 09:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep now since there are now pictures to make the gallery. Techman224Talk 02:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Keep, gallery now has pictures. Techman224Talk 02:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Wrong filename. Correct Version is in commons. -Hjanko (talk) 12:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. DR not needed, duplicate/bad name. Captain-tucker (talk) 16:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
This is a file from Category:Flickr images not found-old, it was hidden from Flickr before FlickreviewR could verify its license. Additional facts:
- The Flickr author klairechen has zero (0) images visible on her Flickr stream.
- I sent the Flickr author an email on 2010-01-08 with no response.
- There are no internet archives of any of her Flickr photos: [1]
- The photo is used on one page: [2]
- There are 10 other files [3] from this Flickr user on Commons uploaded by Flickr upload bot, this is the only image from this Flickr author manually uploaded by User:Oxford St..
![[2]](http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/CheckUsage.php?i=Andy_Murray_at_the_2008_Tennis_Masters_Cup4-crop.jpg&w=_100000){kind=link}
It is my opinion that this image should be kept but since there is no direct proof of a free license I think it needs to go through the DR process. Captain-tucker (talk) 01:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I think this should be kept since there is evidence some of the flickrowner's photos were once free...but she has hidden all those passed images today. People change licenses all the time. If the flickr owner does not respond to the captain's messages, it would be a kind of indirect admission too that it was once free. If the image was stolen, a copyright owner would naturally complain here. AGF is appropriate here. --Leoboudv (talk) 03:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Yes. Had tht Flickr user said that the image was never free then we should perhaps delete. But we have no indication it was unfree so I think we could keep. --MGA73 (talk) 08:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Kept. --Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 17:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Copyvio. 百楽兎 (talk) 01:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Delete per nom Andyzweb (talk) 15:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyright violation. --Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 17:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
copyvio. 百楽兎 (talk) 01:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom Andyzweb (talk) 15:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyright violation. --Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 17:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
copyvio. 百楽兎 (talk) 02:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom Andyzweb (talk) 15:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyright violation. --Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 17:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
copyvio. 百楽兎 (talk) 02:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom Andyzweb (talk) 15:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyright violation. Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 17:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Out of project scope. Orphaned, and has no foreseeable educational use. Blurpeace 02:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep is probably used seasonally on user pages, hence there's every reason it would not currently be in use. -Nard the Bard 22:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Can be used on user pages. Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 17:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text file. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:35, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of project scope -- George Chernilevsky talk 17:06, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Promotional image of some sort. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that this is a free file. Fastilysock (talk) 05:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Likely copyrighted. --Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 18:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image - bad quality, out of scope, only edit of this user Cholo Aleman (talk) 05:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Its a personal and quite orphaned photo too.
- Delete per above. ZooFari 06:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Personal photograph, see project scope. --Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 18:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Image failed flickr review as 'All Rights Reserved' within only 4 months of upload in 2006. No clear evidence that it was free enough for Commons. Leoboudv (talk) 06:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
*
Deleted. Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 18:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
unused, copyright violation, no proper source Cholo Aleman (talk) 10:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per Nominator --George Chernilevsky talk 10:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete with same opinion--Motopark (talk) 11:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 18:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Too bad quality to be reasonably usable. Quibik (talk) 14:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Delete - winner in the contest "most blurred picture"... Cholo Aleman (talk) 17:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Delete --Pullus In Fabula (talk) 17:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 18:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Not used, dubious licensing information. Quibik (talk) 14:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 18:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Horrendous quality. Quibik (talk) 15:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per Nominator --George Chernilevsky talk 09:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 18:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Outside of Commons' project scope. Used only for a deleted vanity article on Swedish Wikipedia (sv:Dj Sourcem). —LX (talk, contribs) 15:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 18:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Not used anywhere and insufficient information to be usable. Probably incorrect license. Quibik (talk) 15:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 18:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
unused private foto from Kenya, no use for the commons, out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 17:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Personal photograph, out of project scope. --Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 20:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
"strange symbol randomly" created - out of scope, see description Cholo Aleman (talk) 17:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Not educational, out of project scope. --Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 20:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
copyvio (flickrwashing) Tekstman (talk) 19:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Copyright violation (Flickr washing) --Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 20:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
FOP in Finland for buildings only, sculptor sv:Håkan Bonds died in 2008 so not PD yet. --A333 (talk) 20:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 20:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
It's the only contribution by the uploader and I really don't think he's the author of this picture. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 21:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Professional photograph; clearly not uploader's own work. --Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 20:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Although this misses {{PD-Sweden}} by one day, apparently http://www.orebro.se/5025.html says that the image is free to use with attribution. I don't speak Swedish, so I can't verify this. Additionally, we need to be sure that the image is free for use in the USA. Stifle (talk) 22:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- What Örebros stadsarkiv says on their web page is:
Du kan skriva ut eller spara ner bilderna om du så önskar. De får användas fritt för privat bruk och för icke kommersiellt ändamål förutsatt att du vid publicering anger "Bildkälla: Örebro stadsarkiv/fotograf". Om du använder bilder i tryckt material skicka ett exemplar till stadsarkivet. Vid kommersiell publicering, kontakta Stadsarkivet.
- That translates to:
You can print or download the images if you wish. They can be used freely for private use and for non-commercial purposes provided that you attribute "Image source: Örebro stadsarkiv/photographer". If you use images in printed materials send a copy to stadsarkivet. For commercial publication, contact Stadsarkivet.
- That is not free enough for Commons. /Ö 22:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. The City Archives' statement is merely a confirmation that fair use principles apply. —LX (talk, contribs) 23:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Not free enough for Commons. --Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 20:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Out of scope: private photo. Not in use, no categories. Hystrix (talk) 22:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC) --Hystrix (talk) 22:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 10:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Contains a Windows Vista icon. The uploader claims PD-ineligible (yet also says it's a screenshot that contains parts of a copyrighted program). I guess I could have speedied this but I wanted to nominate something with the button to make sure my browser was going to allow it. (Having issues with it.) Rocket000 (talk) 23:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyrighted icon → Copyright violation --Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 10:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Out of scope. A unofficial Windows 8 logo is unlikely to be used. (An official one would be a copyvio.) Rocket000 (talk) 22:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Can't be used → Out of project scope --Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 10:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Uploader claims Christine Mccavoy as the author, however OTRS-permission is missing. Additionally, an IP just added www.mcavoy.ca COPYRIGHT - PERMISSION REQUIRED FOR PUBLISHING. It's the first and only contribution of the uploader. --myself488 (talk) 23:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. No OTRS permission, taken by a profesional photographer (Christine Mccavoy). --Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 11:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Unused, very bad quality. Quibik (talk) 14:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Unused, seems like a personal photo, Podzemnik (talk) 21:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
copyright-violation - taken from a museum Cholo Aleman (talk) 18:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. No OTRS permission, Podzemnik (talk) 21:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
This file failed Flickrreview on 2007-01-05 and 2009-07-24 being licensed both times as CC-BY-NC-ND. It it currently licensed on Flickr as All Rights Reserved. The Flickr owner uploaded this image to en-wiki on 2006-01-12. I contacted the Flickr owner about this image and he said that when he uploaded it to Flickr and en-wiki it was licensed using CC-BY-NC-ND. It was transferred to Commons by Snowdog on 2006-12-30. All of the images on the Flickr authors photostream are either ARR or CC-BY-NC-ND. There is an archive [4] of this image from 2006-10-14 which lists the image as being licensed as the Flickr owner said CC-BY-NC-ND. The image is used on 15 pages. Captain-tucker (talk) 01:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete I agree with the nominator that this should be deleted. There is no evidence it was ever free enough for Commons. --Leoboudv (talk) 03:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete I am the owner of the image in question and I confirm the licensing info above and agree that this image should be deleted from the Commons (29 Jan 2010)
- Question Did the Flickr user upload it to enwiki? If yes was CC-BY-NC-ND the only license? Not GFDL perhaps? --MGA73 (talk) 08:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Have now been informed that the original license on enwiki was {{Cc-by-2.5}} but that is only relevant in uploader on commons is also the user on Flickr. --MGA73 (talk) 08:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- It seems that Flickr user uploaded image in size 240×240 to enwiki - see Original upload log on image "Author: David Kirkby (me)" + the note Captain-tucker gave "he said that when he uploaded it to Flickr and en-wiki". So that should be safe to keep. The higher resolusion does however not seem to be free. --MGA73 (talk) 21:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Have now been informed that the original license on enwiki was {{Cc-by-2.5}} but that is only relevant in uploader on commons is also the user on Flickr. --MGA73 (talk) 08:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep the original user gave the image to us under a CC-BY-2.5, according to Captain-tucker ("I contacted the Flickr owner about this image and he said that when he uploaded it to Flickr and en-wiki") and MGA73. It's too late for a courtesy deletion.--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Uploader released image under acceptable Creative Commons license. Even if other versions are available under more restrictive terms it doesn't revoke current license. Furthermore image was uploaded more then 3 years ago and it cant be interpreted as one minute mistake --Justass (talk) 02:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
(uploaded edit to wrong page) --Nutellaicecream (talk) 08:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Uploaders request --Justass (talk) 03:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
unused since April 2007 - I can see no value in it, unusable and out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 09:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Comment - several other files of this user, perhaps the numbers can be used, but not the numbers with letters Cholo Aleman (talk) 09:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Unused personal file -Justass (talk) 03:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Bad quality: heavy overexposure, blown white, face ugly distorted. And no any education value George Chernilevsky talk 09:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Although overexposed image give nice expression of dance. In use --Justass (talk) 03:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Author of the painting still alive, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:TyonSankari-palkinto.jpg for another version that was deleted --A333 (talk) 16:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Author of painting is Котляров Лев Серафимович, still alive --Justass (talk) 02:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Violation of US copyright law, any work preformed while on assignment is owned by the author's employer, the photographer cannot legally release these images as they do not own teh rights to them, Gizmodo does as his employer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_copyright_law#Authorship Terrillja (talk) 21:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Your argument is specious and assumes facts not in evidence. You have no idea what kind of financial arrangement the photographer has with Gizmodo. -Nard the Bard 22:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- So someone is uploading images to their flickr account that are watermarked with gizmodo's logo and yet you feel that they without a doubt own the rights to the images? So they are just adding the gizmodo watermark to their images for kicks? Uh, well that is creative thinking to say the least.--Terrillja (talk) 02:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - Per arguments presented at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Apple iPad Event02.jpg: ill-founded witch hunt on Category:iPad. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 05:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep we have to Assume Good Faith that the photographer is allowed to upload and share as free media Andyzweb (talk) 15:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Agree. --NerdyScienceDude :) (✉ click here to talk to me) 01:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Kept. There is no clear evidences that Matt Buchanan is employed by Gizmodo (Gawker Media) or what financial arrangement the photographer has with Gizmodo Justass (talk) 03:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Violation of US copyright law, any work preformed while on assignment is owned by the author's employer, the photographer cannot legally release these images as they do not own teh rights to them, Gizmodo does as his employer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_copyright_law#Authorship Terrillja (talk) 21:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Your argument is specious and assumes facts not in evidence. You have no idea what kind of financial arrangement the photographer has with Gizmodo. -Nard the Bard 22:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - This is starting to look like an ill-founded witch hunt on Category:iPad. Petri Krohn (talk) 05:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep this one stays, some of the other ones do not belong on commons but this one stays and we have to Assume good Faith Andyzweb (talk) 05:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Agree. --NerdyScienceDude :) (✉ click here to talk to me) 23:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Kept. There is no clear evidences that Matt Buchanan is employed by Gizmodo (Gawker Media) or what financial arrangement the photographer has with Gizmodo --Justass (talk) 03:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Violation of US copyright law, any work preformed while on assignment is owned by the author's employer, the photographer cannot legally release these images as they do not own teh rights to them, Gizmodo does as his employer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_copyright_law#Authorship --Terrillja (talk) 21:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Your argument is specious and assumes facts not in evidence. You have no idea what kind of financial arrangement the photographer has with Gizmodo. -Nard the Bard 22:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - This argument sucks even more than anything else made for deletion in Category:iPad. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 05:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep yeah this one is another keeper. we have to assume good faith and there are no other problems with this image Andyzweb (talk) 06:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - must add that this user (Terrillja) seems to have a campaign against ipad images. This one is clearly an OK to use image, no doubt. Nesnad (talk) 15:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- Only a campaign against images which were uploaded by someone working for gizmodo, watermarked with gizmodo's logo. If they owned the rights to these images, would they be uploading them with their employer's watermark? Probably not. --Terrillja (talk) 17:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- Terrillja, if you spent the time to even look at the flikr user's webpage [5] you would clearly see they claim to have taken the pictures. Do you contest a conspiracy? I think you need to refresh your memory about the "good faith principle" and about watermarks... endless people upload with watermarks every day, yes they should't, but it's a common niubi mistake. Don't bite the newbies. Cheers, Nesnad (talk) 10:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- Keep You have no idea what Gizmodo does to their photographers financially to take the photo. We have to assume good faith. -NerdyScienceDude :) (✉ click to talk • my edits) 16:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Kept. There is no clear evidences that Matt Buchanan is employed by Gizmodo (Gawker Media) or what financial arrangement the photographer has with Gizmodo Justass (talk) 03:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Fot this image to qualify as copyright free "national heritage" of Turkey, the government must specifically release it as such. There is no release given for this image, however. -Nard the Bard 22:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Is it any different from Category:Banknotes of Turkey and Category:Coins of Turkey? Nope, because it is a panel composed of banknotes and coins to be found in these categories. However if yes, pls request deleting these two categories as well. Masur (talk) 08:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- You're right. Has the government of Turkey released ANY of these as Ataturk? -Nard the Bard 15:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep As Masur. --Starscream (talk) 01:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Masur is right. Electron <Talk?> 15:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I fail to see any proof these images qualify as Ataturk. Masur is right about what?? -Nard the Bard 03:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- I can be wrong though. Here [6] is a webpage of Turkish State Mint, and all notes and coins are there, so the discussed panel is a derivative of them. I really don't know in a v. detailed fashion all the relevant issues about "PD-turkey", however if you still claim that the panel composed from these pictures is not PD, you should consequently nominate mentioned categories, cos their content comes mostly from Turkish State Mint. Masur (talk) 16:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC) btw. Commons:Currency#Turkey. So I believe its all right, maybe only a template is wrong? Masur (talk) 16:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry about that :) I withdraw the request. -Nard the Bard 13:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- I can be wrong though. Here [6] is a webpage of Turkish State Mint, and all notes and coins are there, so the discussed panel is a derivative of them. I really don't know in a v. detailed fashion all the relevant issues about "PD-turkey", however if you still claim that the panel composed from these pictures is not PD, you should consequently nominate mentioned categories, cos their content comes mostly from Turkish State Mint. Masur (talk) 16:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC) btw. Commons:Currency#Turkey. So I believe its all right, maybe only a template is wrong? Masur (talk) 16:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Kept. per Commons:Currency#Turkey --Justass (talk) 03:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
No proof this image is Ataturk (Turkish heritage). Note this declaration must be specifically made for this image or class of images for Ataturk to apply. -Nard the Bard 22:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Kept. per Commons:Currency#Turkey --Justass (talk) 03:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
derivative works violation, image contains copyrighted elements such as the software with no evidence of permission from apple Terrillja (talk) 02:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - Per de minimis. (See Commons:de minimis)
- The user interface software is not the "subject" of this image, but the iPad and the act of manipulating its touchscreen. The hand with the finger is the main subject of the image and the focus of the viewers attention — made evident by the fact that the camera is focused on the finger. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 05:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- The image does not contain any copyrighted elements (see Elements of graphical user interfaces) of the user interface, what we see is thumbnails of possibly copyrighted photos, all of them shown in de minimis — as emphasized by the fact that most of them are out of focus.
- question:ok so I'm not sure about this one some of the others are pretty obvious but this one is a tough call. Could you explain a little more or perhaps walk us through the derivative works flow chart for the reasoning on this? Andyzweb (talk) 05:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Response: The minimalistic user interface shown does not contain any copyrightable graphical elements, like icons, buttons, drop-down lists (like the ones you can see if you zoom in to File:IPad-02.jpg). The only UI element I can see is the time 11:37 AM on the top of the screen. You cannot copyright the idea of thumbnails on a black background.
- Delete I am going to say that this is a derivative works violation. We have no idea what the license is on the thumbnailed images is and they do not meet the threshold of originality. Andyzweb (talk) 15:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Agree, COM:DM. -NerdyScienceDude :) (✉ click to talk • my edits) 16:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- Comment, I've messaged the Flickr uploader to confirm whether the thumbnails shown are his photographs, or are ones bundled with the product by Apple. Blurpeace 23:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, after corresponding with Buchanan over FlickrMail, I have confirmed that the thumbnails are indeed not his work. Buchanan's original statement was, "Yeah, they were the sample photos provided on the iPad. Not taken by me." De minimis is not applicable. Blurpeace 05:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
The file is claimed to be a self-made political propaganda to promote the Japanese perspective that disputed island, Liancourt Rocks are of Japan, not of Korean territory even though the latter is the "de capo" administrative government. This uncredential file is not used in any page to any Wikipedia project. The non-profit project Wikipedia Project should not be a place to tolerate such purpose. --Caspian Blue, 19:33, 16. Jan. 2010
- just a mark.and I only explaining the FACT! --Sisonori999, 16:56, 28. Jan. 2010
Question What's the translation of the text on the pink ring? --Valentim (talk) 17:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
This picture is offensive, one-sided drivel from Japan's right wing lunatic fringe. Delete it!!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.183.122.5 (talk • contribs)
- Delete Self-created artwork without obvious educational use. Nationalism per se isn't the issue billinghurst sDrewth 16:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delete no educational value. – Kwj2772 (msg) 05:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Rocket000 (talk) 06:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
No evidence of claimed copyleft at source document MPF (talk) 10:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
There was another source for the picture which I added instead. My friend at www.palmpedia.net (member name HK22) was given a set of photos by the photographer, one of which he scanned and uploaded to http://www.palmpedia.net/wiki/index.php/Beccariophoenix_alfredii
On that link you will find his contribution. He was given permission by the photographer to use them, and he gave me the permission. I don't know then what the exact wording for the license would be though, so rather than deletion, is someone would like to tell me what the name for the license is if the original photographer gave permission to someone to distribute the pictures, and that person then distributed a photo to me and gave me permission to use it. Zeeth (talk) 17:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Sv1xv: Copyright violation: internet harvesting
Changed speedy to DR: "Taipei City owns the copyrights" User:Πrate. Claimed permission (law) File:P02D1001-19811019-F000-02.pdf - lets get this cleared once and for all. (Sadly I cant read the law - but an edit war does not help). MGA73 (talk) 15:58, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
- All that law says is to just how draw the city flag. The main copyright law is at this page in English. If the date matters, 70 Minguo translates to 1981. When the user first put the image up for speedy, it was tagged as PD-self. After he tagged it the first time, I saw the template about the ROC law, so I changed it to that. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 16:05, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
- So the design is from 1981? If so it is can't be PD-old by "death of author + 70 years" and "{{PD-ineligible}}" is not valid I suppose? Any other reason why the "logo" is not protected by copyright? --MGA73 (talk) 16:12, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
- Logo described and detailed in ROC law. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 16:16, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
- None of laws or articles say it is in public domain. --百楽兎 (talk) 14:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- There is no mention in the law that states only national laws, it just says "The constitution, acts, regulations, or official documents." It also states "The term "official documents" in the first subparagraph of the preceding paragraph includes proclamations, text of speeches, news releases, and other documents prepared by civil servants in the course of carrying out their duties." User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 16:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- "Official documents" doesn't include the logo. --百楽兎 (talk) 01:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- But it includes a construction guide on how to draw the flag and seal. The laws make no exemptions to symbols or anything. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 03:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- "Official documents" doesn't include the logo. --百楽兎 (talk) 01:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- There is no mention in the law that states only national laws, it just says "The constitution, acts, regulations, or official documents." It also states "The term "official documents" in the first subparagraph of the preceding paragraph includes proclamations, text of speeches, news releases, and other documents prepared by civil servants in the course of carrying out their duties." User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 16:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- None of laws or articles say it is in public domain. --百楽兎 (talk) 14:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- Logo described and detailed in ROC law. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 16:16, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
- So the design is from 1981? If so it is can't be PD-old by "death of author + 70 years" and "{{PD-ineligible}}" is not valid I suppose? Any other reason why the "logo" is not protected by copyright? --MGA73 (talk) 16:12, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Kept per Zscout370. If File:P02D1001-19811019-F000-02.pdf is PD according to ROC law, then I don't see why a user-created derivative of it would not also be free. Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
- pornographic 68.177.132.1 06:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Not a reason to delete, this is a free content image repository. Free content porn included. Check the rule book. Though I do agree that the amount of naked women on Commons is a bit ridiculous, I don't have a problem with it, but... 72.45.107.156 02:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Per comment above. MGA73 (talk) 21:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
obscene 58.121.170.104 20:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep These are not deletion reasons. Please stop vandalizing Commons with them.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- Keep, no reason for deletion, commons are not censored, see COM:CENSORSHIP - despite a balance have to be found in pictures of nudity (according to the written rules) Cholo Aleman (talk) 05:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep This seems to be a censorship campaign by the anon IP. Commons is not censored and, more importantly, the person is not identifiable either. So there are no personality rights issues. --Leoboudv (talk) 07:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep no valid reason to delete. --MGA73 (talk) 08:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Per comments above, no reason for deletion. --Podzemnik (talk) 21:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
No educational use, poor description, no use on projects since upload. Missvain (talk) 13:17, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep No valid reason. Nudity and anatomy ARE subjects that deserve illustrations. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 13:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep per TwoWings and the two previous "Kept" rulings. Infrogmation (talk) 14:12, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete This is a terrible quality image, the blow dryer blocks the view of her "vulva" anyway. Reasons why this qualifies for deletion:
- "The expression “educational” is to be understood according to its broad meaning of “providing knowledge; instructional or informative”."[1]
- "Not all images for example are realistically useful for an educational purpose, and an image does not magically become useful by arguing that “it could be used to illustrate a Wikipedia article on X”, where X happens to be the subject of the file."[2]
- "Self-created artwork without obvious educational use."[3]
- "Files that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject, especially if they are of poor or mediocre quality."[4]
- "Private image collections, e.g. private party photos, photos of yourself and your friends, your collection of holiday snaps and so on. There are plenty of other projects on the Internet you can use for such a purpose, such as Flickr. Such private image collections do not become educational even if displayed as a gallery on a user page on Commons or elsewhere."[5]
- "Photographs of nudity including male and female genitalia are sometimes uploaded for non-educational motives, and such images are not exempt from the requirement to comply with the rules of Commons' scope. If the images are of demonstrably inferior quality, or add nothing educationally distinct to the stock of such images we hold already, they may fail the test of being realistically useful for an educational purpose."[6]
- "A balance has to be struck between accepting useful media files with legitimate educational content that some may find offensive, and not allowing Commons to be used as a general-purpose media-hosting service (like Flickr, Photobucket, YouTube, etc.), without regard for the project's stated goals. The purpose of Commons is to serve as a media repository, a reliable resource of useful, open source media content; organized and comprehensive in coverage (with accurate file descriptions/information), educational, and intended both for use by Wikimedia projects, and as a public service freely accessible to everyone."[7]
- I can find some higher quality nude or anatomy based images that do not have things "in the way". I also think that the description is totally uneducational and is obviously non-neutral. On a side note, I'd kick the ass of the guy who ever uploaded a photo of my body, head cut off or not, onto the internet for the world to use. I wonder if she even knows! Missvain (talk) 14:00, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
- I can also find pictures of the Statue of Liberty that are better than other ones. Strangely no-one would ask for the dletion of the not-so-good pictures of such subjects... but would when it concerns nudity ! Why that ? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 14:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
- Bring it on, I'll take a look at all the crappy Statue of Liberty photos and delete a few. Thanks for the tip. Missvain (talk) 15:00, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
- You want to play ? Bad quality, same here, yerk, you've already found this one apparently, bad quality but... oh Nixon is on it (but don't we have better pics of Nixon ? oh yes we do, so let's delete ! yeah, that's so fun !), Strange angle and light for this one, isn't that one blurry ?, bad and overexposed, overexposed?..... Eiffel Tower tomorrow ? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 16:29, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
- Bring it on, I'll take a look at all the crappy Statue of Liberty photos and delete a few. Thanks for the tip. Missvain (talk) 15:00, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
- I can also find pictures of the Statue of Liberty that are better than other ones. Strangely no-one would ask for the dletion of the not-so-good pictures of such subjects... but would when it concerns nudity ! Why that ? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 14:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Image made in private location and has no model release that verifies consent. The image is poor quality and has no obvious education value. Can easily be replaced in most households if someone actually needs a picture of a nude female holding an electric hair dryer. FloNight♥♥♥ 00:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per FloNight. In the absence of a compelling belief there is some sort of unique and significant educational value to this, the lack of a model release is a cause for concern. It's actually always a cause for concern, and should be taken into consideration; but in a case like this, I don't even see a compelling reason to keep or agonize over the decision in any way. -Pete F (talk) 01:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per no hint of model consent. This was obviously taken in a private place, and without proof the model agreed to this, it needs to go. Courcelles (talk) 08:44, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - Commons is not an amateur porn site, no model consent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hold and wave (talk • contribs)
References
[edit]
- ↑ http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Project_scope#Must_be_realistically_useful_for_an_educational_purpose
- ↑ http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Project_scope#File_not_legitimately_in_use
- ↑ http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Project_scope#Examples
- ↑ http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Project_scope#Examples
- ↑ http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Project_scope#Examples
- ↑ http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Project_scope#Censorship
- ↑ http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Project_scope#Censorship
Kept No valid reason for deletion, per previous decisions. Person is not recognizable. Yann (talk) 17:43, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Re-uploaded copyvio in 2009 File:Cute vulva of korean girl4.jpg. I also disagree with the closing admin regarding identifiability. If the ex(?)-"boyfriend" later uploaded the cropped head elsewhere on the web, it could be easily connected, achieving an embarrassment campaign. Thus I think the vd voter's expectation of consent is reasonable in this case. 99of9 (talk) 10:47, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
- See my talk page request to the administrator closing the last deletion discussion to reconsider. [7]. The image was taken in a private location (bedroom), and she does not appear to be aware that the image is being taken. I truly hope that the women in the image gave consent for it to be uploaded, otherwise we are exploiting her, and inviting other people to do it, too. That this image can be easily be replaced and is not in use means that we have no compelling reason to keep it since she has given no indication of consent. FloNight♥♥♥ 11:11, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. I came here yesterday to add a delete comment just after the last nomination was closed, so I'm glad to see it has been re-opened. This woman is arguably identifiable to people who know her. There's no indication that she gave consent to be photographed, or even knew it was happening. She's engaged in private business (drying her hair) in a private area (what looks like a bedroom), and the image is not being used and has no educational value. There's therefore no reason to keep it, and every reason to delete it. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:22, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted given the comments above. Yann (talk) 11:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
derivative works violation, image contains copyrighted elements such as the software with no evidence of permission from apple Terrillja (talk) 02:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Definitely needs deleting from Commons. Could be added to Wikipedia if a fair use rationale was provided. Little Professor (talk) 05:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete not appropriate for commons. Andyzweb (talk) 05:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Neutral - Per Commons:de minimis and arguments presented at Commons:Deletion requests/File:IPad-02.jpg. The user interface software is not the "subject" of this image, but the iPad. However, from all the images in Category:iPad nominated for deletion this is the only one where a copyright argument can be made. Could as well be moved to :en etc and used under fair use in iPad and iBooks/iBookstore. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 06:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - Have you viewed the image at full resolution? its a copyright violation, and it can't make claim of originality they are just not obscure enough and this image couldn't be reused freely Andyzweb (talk) 07:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Per de minimis, the amount of resolution and the amount of detail in cropped portions of the image is irrelevant. What matters is the total composition of the image. The fact that you can see UI does not make it the subject (read: main subject) of the image. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 13:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- You still have the covers of the books, which are most likely copyrighted or otherwise protected as well and you really can't tell me that those are not the focus of the image. I don't see why this is such a huge fight, we can delete these and upload them under fair use and be done with this.--Terrillja (talk) 05:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- There are many images like this. emijrp (talk) 23:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- You still have the covers of the books, which are most likely copyrighted or otherwise protected as well and you really can't tell me that those are not the focus of the image. I don't see why this is such a huge fight, we can delete these and upload them under fair use and be done with this.--Terrillja (talk) 05:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- Per de minimis, the amount of resolution and the amount of detail in cropped portions of the image is irrelevant. What matters is the total composition of the image. The fact that you can see UI does not make it the subject (read: main subject) of the image. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 13:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - As Per Petri Krohn — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.60.62.100 (talk • contribs) 09:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - As per Andyzweb --staka.talk 22:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - Per Petri Krohn. -NerdyScienceDude :) (✉ click to talk • my edits) 16:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Petri Krohn's vote was neutral? where do you get a keep vote from that? Andyzweb (talk) 17:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- I said Keep because I agreed about what PK said about COM:DM. The subject is the iPad and not the book covers. -NerdyScienceDude :) (✉ click to talk • my edits) 19:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- I said
- Comment how does Commons:Deletion requests/File:Apple iPad Event04.jpg now apply in the context of this image can the argument of De minimis not be made in this context? Andyzweb (talk) 06:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delete contains too much copyrighted content. -Nard the Bard 00:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Personally, I thought the image was supposed to focus on the interface and the iBooks software. fetchcomms☛ 23:10, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - As per Andyzweb --Chmee2 (talk) 20:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - As per Andyzweb: there is simply too much questionable copyright violation Soggybread (talk) 02:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, contains too much copyrighted content to be considered a trivial violation of the law. Blurpeace 02:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
This is licensed PD-ineligible, but it's a part of a copyrighted composition and as such a derivative work. User:NH is listed as the sole author although the line is composed by members of the RHCP, not the user. Jafeluv (talk) 21:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Verbatim quoting of text fragments does not violate copyright. In particular, quoting one or two lines of the lyrics of song could be allowed in a Wikipedia article. This is a trivial quotation of a musical fragment. A complete score would of course be another thing. /NH (talk) 10:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- Hmm, that falls under fair use, doesn't it? In the English Wikipedia, at least, verbatim text quotes are considered non-free content. That's not allowed in Commons. I don't know how they define the threshold of originality for music compositions, but in my opinion the bass line in question is plenty original enough to be eligible for copyright. I'm not a copyright expert, though. Jafeluv (talk) 12:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. Sheet music is clearly subject to copyright -- sale of sheet music was a big business before audio recordings became available. The exemption for short quotes is "Fair Use" and, as noted, we don't allow that here. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Unused; too bad quality. Quibik (talk) 16:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- This site has free pictures to choose from; they don't need to be in use to be kept. They are here to be available. This one could be in better focus and without the light reflection. It is not bad quality, although it is possible to imagine a picture of the figurine that was in better focus and without the reflection. It is possible to imagine a photo that shows the entire figurine. It is of a rickshaw. That is why the file has "of an oriental" even though the face looks English. I myself decided not to use it, because I found a better unused picture here to use and because this picture is a little out of focus & has an unpleasant reflection of light on the figurine. It might not do any harm to delete it. ---- Chucky 09:16Z1Feb2010 09:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Derivative work, poor quality. -Nard the Bard 19:29, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete--DieBuche (talk) 23:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Commons doesn't need this bad image because its easily replacable. --Leoboudv (talk) 07:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- Deleted per discussion Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Vector version is available, image is of very bad quality and is in the public domain, so no need to keep for attribution. Quibik (talk) 16:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not agree. The old image should stay just to remember that the new image is a derivative work. --Shardan (talk) 15:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- Quality is horrible, name is unusual as well; delete--DieBuche (talk) 20:30, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- Deleted per discussion Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
i wanna be anonimus Alexdlap (talk) 05:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Question anonymous? (if i got it right) how this tree infringe your privacy? ■ MMXX talk 16:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete let him delete his own contributions Andyzweb (talk) 16:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per Andyzweb. The privacy infringement comes from the file history log containing a person's real name, I suppose. Jafeluv (talk) 22:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
- Removed Alexdlap's real name from file history, including removing intermediate revisions that had his name in the file.
- Replaced blanked information
- Kept file.
- Might have been easier to copy the file, delete it, and upload it again, but this preserves history for admins?
Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
phantastic "ship" (according to the description) - no technical value (I think), out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 17:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep this could find usage in an article somewhere, its an interesting rendering of the DC1 (historically important aircraft) it may not be totally in scope but could find good context. Maybe I will throw it into an article where it makes sense :) Andyzweb (talk) 15:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- Keep no other problem than that it is no ship. Good picture, nothing wrong. For me more interesting the bulk of soapies. --Stunteltje (talk) 19:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Kept, within project scope, per Andyzweb. Kameraad Pjotr 18:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
