Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2010/02/18
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
Source web page says the photo comes from the Cunningham Dance Foundation, which is based in New York. Photo taken in Iran, but no indication that it was first published there. dave pape (talk) 02:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- Got permission of Cunningham Dance Foundation archive from David Vaughan - if needed e-mail correspondece can be forwarded. --Wvk (talk) 10:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- Great. See COM:OTRS for the process to confirm their permission. --dave pape (talk) 15:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- OTRS pending. --Wvk (talk) 14:07, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 19:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Unique patterning of cracks and scratches amongst the lettering does seem to meet threshhold of originality and becomes a unique creation. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Xbox-360-cover.jpg relies on fair use Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 23:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Author of this file is not an employee of the MORS as claimed by the template but the Slovenian news agency. http://www.sta.si/en/foto.php?t=0&id=167060&s=a&nid=1481745 Martin H. (talk) 12:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 19:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
This image appears at the start page of http://mors.si/ at the moment with a clear credit saying "Foto: STA", the Slovenian news agency. Similar to File:Petra Majdič at 2010 Winter Olympics.jpg this is not a photo created by MORS as claimed by the template but an agency image used by them with a credit to the copyright holder. Martin H. (talk) 12:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
p.s.: The source link is relatively useless, it is a link to the image and not to the page with copyright information. At the moment this image is from http://www.mors.si/index.php?id=novica&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=1885&tx_ttnews[backPid]=1&cHash=269b6eab4a, dont know if this link is stable. Also there the copyright notice "Foto: STA" is repeated. --Martin H. (talk) 12:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- Sory, missed that. Usually they have their own photographer. And you can't really link to their pages, as wiki doesn't recognise them as links.--Sporti (talk) 13:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 19:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I seriously doubt this Flickr user is the author of all the content he posts. Eusebius (talk) 12:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Delete I made a half assed attempt to find any evidence that this was free/non-free and didn't turn up anything convincing. also as a comment these deletion requests could have been grouped. Andyzweb (talk) 16:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. High Contrast (talk) 19:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I seriously doubt this Flickr user is the author of all the content he posts. Eusebius (talk) 12:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delete I made a half assed attempt to find any evidence that this was free/non-free and didn't turn up anything convincing. also as a comment these deletion requests could have been grouped. Andyzweb (talk) 16:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. High Contrast (talk) 19:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I seriously doubt this Flickr user is the author of all the content he posts. Eusebius (talk) 12:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delete I made a half assed attempt to find any evidence that this was free/non-free and didn't turn up anything convincing. also as a comment these deletion requests could have been grouped. Andyzweb (talk) 16:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. High Contrast (talk) 19:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I seriously doubt this Flickr user is the author of the content he posts. Eusebius (talk) 12:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delete I made a half assed attempt to find any evidence that this was free/non-free and didn't turn up anything convincing. also as a comment these deletion requests could have been grouped. Andyzweb (talk) 16:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. High Contrast (talk) 19:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
(This image is a terrible 'photo-chop', which is painfully obvious, for one, but also because there are no such fuel dispensers in America. Dispensers only have 3 grades of gasoline and up to 2 alternative fueling options, like diesel or e85.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.192.40.100 (talk • contribs) 16:21, 2010 February 18 (UTC)
Keep - no valid reasons for deletion given. No obvious "chopping", and no evidence that all US fuel dispensers must have the same number of options. This nomination is the only activity of that IP so far. --Latebird (talk) 16:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 19:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Erroneous name & new version made --Stanislau (talk) 15:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delete I agree. Author nominate this self-made wrong image --George Chernilevsky talk 16:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
as George Chernilevsky Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 05:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Images of Brunier974
[edit]- File:Estem.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Estem2.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Passions etheve.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Thierryetheve1.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
I believe that User:Brunier974's images are all copyvios because on this french wikipedia page, he says he is not the painter. So the photographs are a derivative work of a painting which is still under copyright.
Only in the File:Thierryetheve1.jpg, the user said he has the painter authorization to spread this image publicly, but first this sentence is not enough in my opinion, second it doesn't mean that he can dispose of the rights on the Wikimedia Commons. Basilus (talk) 17:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- En français pour Brunier974 : les photographies de peinture sont des oeuvres dérivées. L'auteur de la photographie ne dispose pas de leur copyright. L'autorisation du peintre, mentionnée uniquement dans File:Thierryetheve1.jpg, ne porte pas sur la cession des droits et je pense qu'il faut un formulaire plus administratif pour le faire. En bref, je ne pense pas que vous puissiez dire qu'en tant qu'auteur de l'oeuvre vous mettez les droits dans le domaine public. -- Basilus (talk) 17:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
per nom Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 22:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Quality too low to be useful Peter Isotalo 17:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- Keep until a version with higher resolution is uploaded, this version is better than nothing. Taxelson (talk) 15:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- Keep In use on four pages. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
see reasons given by Pieter and Taxelson Kept. Mbdortmund (talk) 05:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Not the work of the uploader. See the history of the file: the uploader himself stated that he found it on the official website of Gulnora Karimova and then changed the licence, the author and the source. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 17:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- Doesn't the fact that the file he uploaded contains metadata show it is his own work? Not sure about this, but in any case, the pictures in the website of the lady have no exif. Asavaa (talk) 16:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
- Well yeah it seems youy're right. But it really needed to be clarified, especially to make the author understand how Commons works for his later uploads. Timir has to undestand why his contributions made think there was a problem. He needs to be clear next time. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 16:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Good afternoon, users and administrators. I didnt really expect that uploading a photo would cause so many problems. Anyway, let me try to sort this out. This photo was made by me and is therefore my authorship. I am a new participant in Wikipedia indeed and this is probably why I wasnt able to provide all the correct information, licences, etc. from the very beginning. This work of mine can be found on the official website of this person and therefore I provided a link to this website as a source. As for licences indicated at the outset, I acknowledge that I was not able to sort this out right away and I received a message that the file may deleted within a week. Then I consulted Wikipedia administrator in an IRC chat-room though Opera browser and uploaded the original image in order to prove that it was my work, I indicated my authorship and changed the license so that Wikipedia users could use the image for that article.
I am not trying to criticise anybody here and do not want to have a conflict with anyone. Therefore I have tried to explain how it all started and progressed. I hope the administration will get me right, will verify this file and will finally leave it alone.
Best regards, timir01
- OK that seems to be honest and clear. But I hope you understand a bit more how Commons and Wikipedia work. I'm actually glad that you are really the author. We have to struggle against so many people who upload pictures they didn't make themselves that it was normal to have doubts about your picture because of the way you contributed. I also hope you now understand that it wasn't a lack of neutrality from me as you accused me before (I would actually be happy that you apologize for that). And finally I hope that you will continue to contribute, by following better procedures in order to have no more "debates" like this one. Regards. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 15:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello again, everyone. I thank everyone for their participation and understanding. I have finally managed to prove my authorship,and I am therefore thankful to everyone for believing me. I apologize to the user TwoThings if I have shown any inappropriate conduct as I am new here I hope that now not only I but also other users will be able to freely use this photo in Wikipedia projects. Once again, thanks a lot. Regards, Timir.
Добрый день всем участникам и администраторам. Я не думал, что при загрузке данной фотографии возникнет столько проблем :( Итак, начнем по порядку. Данная фотография сделана мною и является моей авторской работой. На Википедии я действительно являюсь новым участником и наверное именно поэтому не смог с самого начала сразу корректно указать всю информацию, лицензии и т.д. Действительно, данная моя авторская работа размещена на официальном сайте этой личности и поэтому я изначально указал ссылку на этот сайт и указал его в качестве источника. А по поводу лицензий, указанных изначально, я признаю что не смог разобраться сразу, и мне вышло сообщение что файл может быть удален в течении недели. Затем я посоветовался с администраторами Википедии в IRC чате в онлайне посредством своего браузера Opera, и загрузил исходное изображение, чтобы доказать что это моя работа, указал свое авторство и изменил лицензию для того, чтобы пользователи Википедии могли использовать это изображение для данной статьи.
Я никого здесь не критикую, и ни с кем не хочу конфликтовать. Поэтому я сейчас объяснил уже все как было, надеюсь что администрация меня поймет правильно, и проверив этот файл, подтвердит его и оставит уже в покое.
Приглашаю к обсуждению всех участников, кому интересна данная статья и данная фотография.
С наилучшими пожеланиями, timir01
Добрый день. Тоже пару поправлял статью, про фото к которой сейчас идет спор. Думаю что timir01 не врет, предлагаю оставить фотографию. Вопрос TwoWings - что ты так сильно прицепился к этой фотографии? Тебе заказали проталкивать свою фотографию чтоль? ;) Если сказать честно, то твоя фотка такая стремная, что просто жуть :). В школе еще учил англ, ща напишу свое мнение. I think we must agree with timir01 and trust him. Потому что мне кажется что он все объяснил и подтвердил уже. I favor the abandonment of this picture and the establishment of authorship of timir01!
Looked photographs of both participants in the discussion and came to the conclusion that for the article it's necessary leave the picture proposed timir01. Moreover, it is your own work. Definitely leave Timir`s photography
I think that the author timir01 rights and his authorship is confirmed. I propose to leave this picture for this article. Xusanboy
exif data and author's statement Kept. Mbdortmund (talk) 23:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
I, the author of this image, say the place of this photo is in the dustbin. My camera was becoming crazy when I shot it, with theese pinks all over the sky (there are several of my images suffering the same illness at this time on Commons, but let's talk of this one). I didn't ask for deletion before because there was no replacement, but now there is (see Category:Gare de Moret - Veneux-les-Sablons). --GaAs11671 18:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- PS: CheckUsage: Moret-Veneux-les-Sablons3.jpg says there are none. --GaAs11671 18:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 19:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Looks like a copyright violation. I think is needed a metadata scan to the main images, uploaded in en.wikipedia. --190.29.151.115 06:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delete I found the original from here. --190.29.131.86 19:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Was already marked as missing sources (see Category:Montages of cities) and now profen: Montage contains non-free parts, false claim of sole authorship. --Martin H. (talk) 23:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
I can't remember the artist's name, but this is not a free file. btw: Why this German painting has only a Russian description? It is scanned from a German book! --78.55.113.44 20:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- Hmmm... The description sais (according to google): The painting was done in the early 30-ies of the 20 century. So this could be PD by age, but if we knew the painter, this would really make it easier. --PaterMcFly (talk) 20:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- Hi, I have found the reason for the missing description: This is Bäuerliche Venus by de:Sepp Hilz http://goutsoullac.livejournal.com/tag/art. Bye Bye, Venus 78.55.107.84 00:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Painter died 1957; did the book mentioned as the source really not mention who the auther was? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Question You're probably right, but a question anyway: Who would own the rights today if Hitler had bought his work? According to the german article, Hitler bought quite a few works from this artist (presumably including the rights). --PaterMcFly (talk) 08:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- I would assume that Hilz only sold the physical object, and that his heirs own the copyright. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- /kinda offtopic/ Hard to say, but if somebody as famous and "great" as he himself buys something from you, wouldn't you be honored to give him all you have? Just guessing what it must have meant if Hitler liked your art at those times. --PaterMcFly (talk) 15:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- I would assume that Hilz only sold the physical object, and that his heirs own the copyright. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delete The painter, Sepp Hilz, died in September 1967 (and not in 1957 as said on the German Wikipedia). Thus the information saying this painting is in the public domain because the painter died more than 70 years ago is wrong. -- Basilus (talk) 14:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 02:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
inappropriate Yikesurnaked (talk) 21:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio. --myself488 (talk) 22:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Too generic name, no usage whatsoever.--213.168.118.150 22:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC) --213.168.118.150 22:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 02:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Poor quality photo. Green box further mars image. -Atomaton (talk) 16:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Delete Poor quality image. Photographer should resubmit with original. Atomaton (talk) 20:07, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Comment Not sure why Atomaton wants file without green boxes. Does not affect subject in question. Bound breasts. Does he need to be able to identify person — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.186.154.112 (talk • contribs) 18:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- The issue is firstly that it is a dark and poor quality and grainy image. The second is that the green box further mars the image. If anonymity is an issue, then either don't submit for commons, or crop the image first. For instance, look at the next image by the same photographer File:Breasts in Bondage 4.jpg It is a bright a clear image, and the face is not in the frame so apparently the photographer felt no need to block the face with a bright green box. Just because a person takes a photo doe snot mean it should be on commons. The photographer should submit his best images only, IMO. Atomaton (talk) 18:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Delete Poor-quality pornographic image --JN466 01:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete This image is surely not pornographic, but poor quality. Antonsusi (talk) 01:58, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted as poor-quality private shot which is not realistically useful for an educational purpuse per COM:PORN and COM:SCOPE. It was not used anywhere with the exception of a local gallery page. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
The shape is not correct: two overlapping ovals, not an inner circle (see here and here). --Leyo 18:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
de:Datei:Iranische Atomenergieorganisation logo.svg could probably be transferred to Commons and equiped with {{PD-shape}}. --Leyo 14:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, and replaced with Iranische Atomenergieorganisation logo.svg. Kameraad Pjotr 07:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
