Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2010/02/04
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
PD-art does not apply to 3 dimensional objects like statues. -Nard the Bard 00:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delete The licence is claimed to be both Creative Commons and public domain (PD-old). PD-old is valid for the copyright of the bust, but not for the book cover it was scanned from, and there is no evidence that it has a Creative Commons licence. Snigbrook (talk) 21:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 12:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
The same file was deleted at en.wikipedia (see here) as being likely non-free content. FASTILY (TALK) 01:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
Deleted. Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 12:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Out of scope (not realistically useful), poor quality ("child's drawing"), improper title. Unused, except by original uploader. --ErikvanB (talk) 02:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- Gets a bunch of TinEye hits. I suspect it may be a crude photo/scan of this presumably copyrighted sign. If so,
Delete. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 09:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 12:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Image failed flickr review and is barely used on wikipedia. I am not even sure what it supposedly illustrates. Leoboudv (talk) 02:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- It's used on it:Campo Marzo, which is presumably what it shows. Anyway, we can't really keep this without some evidence that it used to be licensed differently, so Delete. BTW, I presume that this nomination should also include File:Vicenza Campo Marzo 2.jpg. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 09:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Comment: I agree. Both images should be deleted. --Leoboudv (talk) 10:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 12:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Derivative of a non-free, copyrighted advertising billboard. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Delete per nom Andyzweb (talk) 16:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 12:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Small size, no EXIF, I tend to doubt own work. Eusebius (talk) 11:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Original provided. I was obviously oversuspicious. Eusebius (talk) 18:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Images from FDF
[edit]- File:FDF 8.6 TKIV 2000 or Sako TRG-42 sniper rifle.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:FDF AMOS cropped.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Juutilainen.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Template for files from the Finnish Defence Forces was deleted earlier. "No apparent reply from the Finnish government; no apparent derivative works and commercial usage allowances, so deleted." --A333 (talk) 13:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
FDF copyright
[edit]This can be read on FDF websites:
- Material featured on this site is subject to the Finnish Defence Forces copyright protection unless otherwise indicated.
- The Finnish Defence Forces copyright protected material may be reproduced free of charge but the source of the material must be identified and the copyright status acknowledged.
The FDF took the trouble to write this in English. How well they translated the original Finnish text into English I can not judge. I leave it up to linguists, lawyers and other legal experts what that means exactly, but I feel the FDF should be attributed for those images. It would be nice if someone can make a FDF Commons template that expresses what the FDF notice exactly means.--Francis Flinch (talk) 21:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delete what it means is that FDF files aren't free; there is no permission to modify, in particular.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 12:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
This is not a JPEG file. Liangent (talk) 15:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Julo (talk) 19:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
substitution and privacity Pedu0303 (talk) 16:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- if it concerns privacity of the habitants of the villa on the forground, yes, delete. --Havang(nl) (talk) 22:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. per Uploader request, only used on uploader's userpage. ■ MMXX talk 23:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
copyright book cover, no evidence of permission GlassCobra (talk) 20:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
copyright book cover, no evidence of permission GlassCobra (talk) 20:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Pruneautalk 10:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
strange religious diagram - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per Nom. ■ MMXX talk 23:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
per nom Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 17:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
unused, unusable, small - only edit of this user - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Unused and usless. ■ MMXX talk 23:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
private picture, bad quality Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 17:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
unused, unusable, advertisment, text - out of scope several counts Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Advertisment, out of project scope. ■ MMXX talk 23:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Derived work. Maps have been already deleted in 2009. Bokken (talk) 16:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delete most of the middle earth maps were deleted ages ago Roke (talk) 10:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- I have delete it. (already delete and clearly copyvio) Otourly (talk) 12:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Otourly (talk · contribs); see deletion log. — Dferg (talk) 11:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Wrong license, must be protected by copyright. Since Ukrainian Insurgent Army emerged in 1943, the drawing is protected by copyright at least until 2013, even if we presume that it was published anonymously. Besides, there are no grounds to apply {{PD-Ukraine}}, since we don't know, if the drawing was pubished on the territory of Ukraine (even given that it is about Ukrainian Insurgent Army). --Blacklake (talk) 07:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 20:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
A photo of an identifiable person with a derogatory title, no evidence of subject consenting to be labelled thusly. Appears to have no educational use other than to illustrate a stereotype (and might not even be a very good illustration of it, although, not being familiar with that particular stereotype myself, I can't really tell). Ilmari Karonen (talk) 09:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. ■ MMXX talk 23:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 16:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Derivative work of the sculpture depicted. Powers (talk) 15:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- speedy delete--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 18:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 20:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Images of Halentech
[edit]- File:Yamaha MS-1 controller 01.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Yamaha MS-1 controller 02.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Yamaha MS-1 controller 03.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Yamaha MS-1 controller 04.gif (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
I believe that all of User:Halentech's images are copyvios because they are all for a single product, and the images can be found on websites such as Amazon. MrKIA11 (talk) 16:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- For thing like that, IMHO it is faster to tag it with {{subst:npd}}. ~ bayo or talk 18:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 16:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
press photo, no evidence of permission for release GlassCobra (talk) 17:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- with thoise information, needs OTRS, delete--Motopark (talk) 04:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 16:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
press photo, incorrect license, no evidence of permission GlassCobra (talk) 16:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 16:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
There is no permission that "CKD Mobilni Jeraby a.s., Slany, Czech Republik" has given the permission. It is not compaliant to Commons if somebody uploads some image from the internet and gives the source, but has no permission for using it on Commons 93.211.87.121 18:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC) Permission: see: http://www.ckd-cranes.com/news/agreement-for-wikimedia-commons.html (english) or http://www.ckd-jeraby.cz/aktuality/souhlas-pro-wikimedia-commons.html (česky)
- Yeah, official website has permission statement now (plus OTRS 2010020510021598). -Andrew c (talk) 17:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Keep. Permission statement and OTRS. -Andrew c (talk) 17:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Tag no source since 6 month Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 16:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Unused duplicate of File:Blur Hyde Park.jpg JD554 (talk) 10:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Thanks for your notice on my talk page. I did not notice that the other image alredy existed when uploading the series File:Blur_Concert_Hyde_Park_3_July_2009_(01).jpg to File:Blur_Concert_Hyde_Park_3_July_2009_(08).jpg. However, since the present image is part of a series and the other one only a single image, I would suggest to let a bot exchange the images in the articles, keep this file and delete the other one. --Bjs (talk) 11:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- I would think the one without any links to it would be the logical one to delete. --JD554 (talk) 13:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, but on the other hand the name of the "unused" one expresses better that it is one of a series of pictures of the same event taken by the same person, and holds the series together in the alphanumerical sorting of the categories. Further, letting a bot replace the pics is not a high workload, either. --Bjs (talk) 13:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- I would think the one without any links to it would be the logical one to delete. --JD554 (talk) 13:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Kept. Dupes are normally deleted. I moved the old file on top of the new one to keep file history and to keep image as a part of the serie. MGA73 (talk) 19:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
A redirect is ok. Liangent (talk) 15:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Duplicate of File:Seaderm logo.JPG. MGA73 (talk) 19:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
There are several problems with this picture. "VIEW_A~1", "ESTDIO~1", "EXTERI~1", and "PRAA_M~1" are not verifiable sources for the pictures included in the collage. (I have edited the other sources listed to make them verifiable and to credit the authors. This was not done originally, in violation of some of the files' licensing terms.) The uploader also claims that the result is in the public domain, which is not possible given the copyleft licensing of some of the constituent images. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- why? all the images are on commons by several time, the images are being used in many articles, I just caugth some of them and put all together, I think that this image shouldn't be eliminated João P. M. Lima (talk) 21:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- Why what? Why do you have to provide verifiable sources? Because it's required by Commons:Licensing#License information. Why do you have to credit the authors? Because it's required by copyright law and the licenses of most of the images that you used, and nothing other than complying with those license gives you the right to use them. Why can't you place the result in the public domain? Because most of the images you used have licenses that require you to preserve the license of the original when creating derivative works (and again, nothing other than complying with the licenses gives you the rights to use them).
- If you provide the source for "VIEW_A~1", "ESTDIO~1", "EXTERI~1", and "PRAA_M~1", if those source images have licenses that are compatible with {{Cc-by-sa}}, and if you comply with the CC-by-sa license, the file does not have to be deleted.
- If you do not provide the source for "VIEW_A~1", "ESTDIO~1", "EXTERI~1", and "PRAA_M~1", or if those source images do not have licenses that are compatible with {{Cc-by-sa}}, or if you do not comply with the CC-by-sa license, the file has to be deleted. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
All the images are free, all they appear on PT wiki and we don't have fair use, so if they appear there are free, but I can do what you say, but I don't no how, I don't know how to work well with commons. When you say soources you mean what? Will try to do João P. M. Lima (talk) 15:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- 've completed the images "VIEW_A~1", "ESTDIO~1", "EXTERI~1", and "PRAA_M~1", I think that it was this that you want, rigth? João P. M. Lima (talk) 16:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- That's good. I also added the authors of those images to the list of authors. Now, for example, the only way you can legally base a work on File:Castelo Sao Jorge Lisboa 2.JPG is if you place the derivative work under the CC-by-sa license. Instead, you've claimed that the resulting work is in the public domain. I believe that all the files you have used are compatible with CC-by-sa, so please change {{PD-self}} to {{CC-by-sa}}. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- I see that you've done that too now. Thank you for your cooperation. I think this can be closed as
Keep now. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- I see that you've done that too now. Thank you for your cooperation. I think this can be closed as
Kept, no licensing conflicts, all requirements are met. Kameraad Pjotr 18:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
COM:FOP#United_Kingdom does not cover posters or similar. Adambro (talk) 14:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. Tyne and Wear Metro is quite unique in exposing fare dodgers this way, making this image worth keeping to illustrate this feature in the corresponding article. Furthermore, the information on the poster is just a reproduction of court records which are by definition in the public domain. LHOON (talk) 19:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- My guess would be that Court records are probably protected by Crown Copyright. The uniqueness of the Metro's exposing of fare dodgers has no relevance in deciding whether FOP UK applies or not. Those kind of points seem more like arguments for fair use which isn't permitted on Commons. Adambro (talk) 22:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no FOP in the UK for posters. Kameraad Pjotr 18:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Unclear licence situation: wrong licence for this kind of image High Contrast (talk) 21:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
But which lincence should I use for this image? - Porsche 911GT2 (talk) 08:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- Who is the author of this file? Who is the copyright holder of it? --High Contrast (talk) 08:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no source, no author, no permission. Kameraad Pjotr 18:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
