Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2010/03/26
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
That flickr user is not the author. Look at other images in the photostream, look at the EXIF of some other candids. Martin H. (talk) 02:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- Go ahead delete it, sorry I didn't notice that he is not the author MaenK.A.Talk 08:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Adambro (talk) 09:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I have uploaded the file without checking the name. However, there was already another file with exactly the same name on Wikipedia. I will upload this one under a different name instead. Cinosaur (talk) 05:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Exact or scaled-down duplicate: File:Krsna playing flute.jpg -- Common Good (talk) 19:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Itsn't a free image, no OTRS ticket --Esteban (talk) 22:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Comment, possibly {{PD-textlogo}} because of its simple geometry? Blurpeace 23:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 14:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
no consent by displayed persons, unused, nothing to illustrate with Polarlys (talk) 01:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- Check the yellow sign to the right of the picture. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 03:03, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Keep. Delete. Being unused by a wikipedia is not a criteria for deletion. The image has an appropriate personality rights warning and the image is appropriately licensed. The image illustrates fashion in 2009 and there is a witticism in the sign in the right of the image. Snowmanradio (talk) 10:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, so it’s okay to go outside, take a photo of some women walking around, upload it to flickr, transfer it to Commons (what is the intended use?) and display the person here without any consent to do by the displayed subjects? I think not. The personal rights warning is no carte blanche to upload everything. --Polarlys (talk) 11:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- The photograph and additional artwork in the yellow sign is appropriately copyrighted under a creative commons licence and with a personality rights banner. The picture shows people in a public place going about every-day-activities. I guess that there are tens of thousands of such images of people walking about on flickr and on commons. Snowmanradio (talk) 14:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- So are non-notable people walking in a public place (which is not displayed) going about every-day-activities within COM:SCOPE? This edit unsigned by Polarlys (talk)
- It is a reasonably high resolution photograph of fashion in 2009 and it is in an appropriate fashion category. Many people study fashion, and so I think this photograph has educational value, now and in the future. Snowmanradio (talk) 15:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- I have just added it to the category "Humor". Snowmanradio (talk) 15:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- I have uploaded a cropped version without the sign to avoid any possible interpretation or misinterpretation of the sign. The cropped version retains the educational fashion content. I think that the original version under discussion here can be deleted, solely because of the reason given by the user below about possible misinterpretation or interpretation of the humour in the sign. Snowmanradio (talk) 17:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- I have just added it to the category "Humor". Snowmanradio (talk) 15:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- It is a reasonably high resolution photograph of fashion in 2009 and it is in an appropriate fashion category. Many people study fashion, and so I think this photograph has educational value, now and in the future. Snowmanradio (talk) 15:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- So are non-notable people walking in a public place (which is not displayed) going about every-day-activities within COM:SCOPE? This edit unsigned by Polarlys (talk)
Delete (weak): The image appears to have been manipulated to change the wording on the sign. I wonder if it might be construed as defamatory to the clearly identifiable women in the photograph, as there is an oblique reference to the longstanding "dumb blonde" joke. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 16:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for making a constructive criticism of the file. I had not thought of any "dumb blond" references. Anyway, I have uploaded a cropped version without the sign to avoid any possible interpretation or misinterpretation of the sign. The cropped version retains the educational fashion content. Snowmanradio (talk) 16:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, per JackLee. The cropped image seems sufficiently educational to be within project scope. Blurpeace 23:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
this way to treat with personal rights is not acceptable Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 14:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
not own work. see watermark. 78.55.62.232 06:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 14:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Obsolete 195.68.29.72 10:03, 26 March 2010 (UTC)/Ritzparis (talk) 10:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Keep: In what way is it obsolete? It's a clear, in-focus, well-composed photograph and it is in use in numerous articles. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 16:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)- Keep Ah, yes, the cars in the street have changed since then
. --GaAs11671 16:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
![25 File:Sculpture_entitled_"Alison_Lapper_Pregnant"_-_geograph.org.uk_-_104026.jpg](#File:Sculpture_entitled_"Alison_Lapper_Pregnant"_-_geograph.org.uk_-_104026.jpg){kind=link}
Kept. Mbdortmund (talk) 14:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Obsolete Ritzparis (talk) 10:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep: the image is slightly out of focus and could be replaced by a better image, but it is currently in use so until it has been replaced it should be kept. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 16:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
per JackLee Kept. Mbdortmund (talk) 14:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Out of scope Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 18:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- delete, "justin" seems to be on the image, but is also listed as author. As uploader and author are different, we aren't sure if the author agreed to the stated licence. Also there may be personality rights concerns because we don't know if "justin" (the person on the image) agreed to this picture (especiall as he is called a Partypooper). --Isderion (talk) 12:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 00:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
private picture, no model consent Polarlys (talk) 01:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC). See also File:Nude sam 2.jpg and File:Nude sam.jpg.
- Comment The picture (as all pictures of the same model) is issued from an account on Flickr. As always, it's hard to know if the model gave her consent. This is a never-ending problem that we really have to deal with on Commons : how can we check such a consent ? Instead of launching DR, shouldn't we really think about that in order to find a solution ? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- Comment This is quite simple: All flickr content (or content from other external sources) which is uploaded to commons and which is impacted by trademark rights, international patent law, personality rights, etc., must have OTSR-Tickets. In my opinion we also should not use a bot to check licenses, because a bot does not have a sense for "faked" licenses. We all know those flickr accounts which post images with a "free" license, which are not really free, because they themselve have stolen those images somewhere else.
I know this would hinder mass uploads very much, but: What do we really want at commons? Most authors on all wikipedias try to enhance content, write articles which are useful and deliver best possible information. However, on Commons in many areas we are gathering any incoming rubbish - quantity instead of quality. We have several projects (QI, FP, ...) that want to advance quality, but they seem to be without much effect on overall level. If we want to be the best source of free images on the web we must be much more selective. -- smial (talk) 09:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- TwoWings, since you upload a lot of such files which remain unused, have a strong private character and no model consent the question is: Why don’t we avoid such problems by not uploading this images without an idea what they are needed for except some user pages where huge collections of such images are displayed? Don’t get me wrong, I want bottoms and breasts and vulvas and penisses, but with an approach to illustrate our articles in an educational manner. We are no flickr mirror and if there are such a lot of problems are going along with these uploads, we should avoid them if these images are not practically necessary. --Polarlys (talk) 12:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- My thoughts exactly. Rocket000 (talk) 13:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- @Everyone who reacted to my comment : don't get me wrong ! The fact that I uploaded such files doesn't mean that I don't want to respect model consent. Actually I generally upload such files from Flickr when I tend to think that there is really no problems. I generally do manage to make the difference between people who really took the concerned pictures and those who collect pictures from other sources (often unfree sources of course). The question is : how could we check consent ? It's not only about Flickr but also about nude files uploaded directly by users. This is a big issue and I've been thinking about that problem for years, asked for a collective reflection about it several times, but I had never seen any will to find solutions, answers or appropriate guidelines. A recent DR also proved that the OTRS may not be ready for such issues. So we should really start a collective reflection in order to find solutions. I do not want some kind of censorship (I know that's not about that but if we don't find solutions for nudity and sexuality, our offer about such subjects would be very very poor if we decide to delete most of the concerned files) neither some abuse on the other extremity (accepting anything on the base of good faith doesn't work, especially for that kind of file).
- Before I close, I just want to answer something else, about the fact that many of those nude/sec files are unused : the purpose of Commons is not to make everything been used in the Wikimedia projects. It's also a collection of files about subjects that are treated by all the projects. Therefore if, for instance, the articles about fellatio use only one or two pictures, it wouldn't mean that the other unused pictures are useless and should be deleted just for such a reason. Strangely, that kind of argument is rarely used when it comes to famous monuments for which we have tons of various pictures. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 16:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- My remarks about quality do not refer only to nudity, though this category is particularly affected. -- smial (talk) 16:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- Yes I thought it was about that but in any case I just wanted to be clear !
- BTW there's also something I wanted to say : I don't think bots are a problem and I suppose we could actually make them forbid some uploads from the Flickr accounts we know they are unreliable. I've always wanted to ask that to the bots' masters... --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 17:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- My remarks about quality do not refer only to nudity, though this category is particularly affected. -- smial (talk) 16:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- My thoughts exactly. Rocket000 (talk) 13:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- See User:FlickreviewR/bad-authors. It’s to tilt at windmills. --Polarlys (talk) 17:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- We have neither working mechanisms to get information on the age of the displayed women, nor their consent to be displayed at all. Wikimedia Commons shows some “my girlfriend (bitch!!1!) choose another guy and now I upload her nude pics to flickr” stuff? No problem, since we don’t care, if only the licensing is okay. This girl looks pretty young? Who cares. We have thousand of explicit pictures which can be reached without any age-validation procedures? Who cares. Unfortunately, this is no anonymous porn site, but one of the world’s most prominent websites at all, used daily by minors. We have no solution for all these aspects and all can see is people aware of this (you for example) even upload more of this content, doubling and tripling the problem for no reason (illustrating articles, giving educational surplus). --Polarlys (talk) 17:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- There are guidelines about use of flikr images elsewhere. There are no guidelines about OTIS being needed for flick images. Snowmanradio (talk)
- It’s not about the source flickr. --Polarlys (talk) 17:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I see no reason to suspect that model did not give permission. Flickr users have a lot of "nude images" and many of them show people in public places. So I think the photographer meets a lot of people that likes to be nude and be seen nude.
- Some like to think that we should ban nude images from Commons and then "no model consent" is an easy argument to use. So is age. When someone says "underage" then most people scream "kiddy porn - lets delete". Not all images of nude people are porn. If it was would it not be illegal to see a nude child on a beach? That would be live kiddy porn. That is even worse.
- Not used does not mean not usefull. If so we should get a bot to delete all images that was not used for more than a month. Wikipedia often links to categories on Commons and users can visit the categories and look at the images. In my opinion that is usefull. --MGA73 (talk) 19:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- It’s not about unused, but uploaded with potential problems and unused. As I stated above and elsewhere, I am in no way opposed to nudity on Wikimedia Commons. --Polarlys (talk) 11:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. I see no reason for deleting any of the three images listed above. Snowmanradio (talk) 20:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I agree with MGA73. Jacopo Werther (talk) 21:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- Instead hearing vague arguments over policy or model consent or whatever I'm more curious to hear some views on what educational value this brings to Commons. Not because I want to something to argue against but because I genuinely have no idea what motivates people to upload stuff like this here. I would like to try an see it from another perspective. Instead of another "no reason to delete" how about a "reason to keep" for a change? Let's put nudity aside (that tends to get in the way a lot, both sides thinking the other has an agenda to either censor or turn Commons into Wikiporn). This is just some pic of a random girl. It's no different than uploading random vacation photos of your family. Flickr is made for that purpose. That's where you go and look at this stuff. Random, ordinary, non-educational, everyday snapshots. Commons has a different purpose I thought. We're not just another indiscriminate file-hosting site, are we? Enlighten me. Rocket000 (talk) 21:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- Good point. The question is "What is educational"? Sex and nudity is something that many finds interessting. But is the interesst for educational purpose or is users looking for porn? If you ask most users would probably say educational purpose. Should we censor what users should choose to look at and what not? I say no. Commons is not censored. --MGA73 (talk) 21:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, so please tell me how to establish a model consent, a true source and some mechanism to prevent people from seing explicit, more-or-less educational content as requested by national laws (as implemented at the site of origin. To accuse people of “Censorship” is used all too often to silence people who deal with the problems described above. Unfortunately these problems will not vanish this way. --Polarlys (talk) 11:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
- Good point. The question is "What is educational"? Sex and nudity is something that many finds interessting. But is the interesst for educational purpose or is users looking for porn? If you ask most users would probably say educational purpose. Should we censor what users should choose to look at and what not? I say no. Commons is not censored. --MGA73 (talk) 21:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- We are not censoring what users should look at if we were simply mirroring content from somewhere else in the first place. We don't control users, we control this site. They can still look at any image they want, it doesn't have to be on a site designed for another purpose. Anyway, I said let's leave porn/nudity out of it. That just makes people miss the point. Are you're saying because we're not being censored we should disregard the site's purpose and allow anything and everything just because we can? Rocket000 (talk) 22:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- No I'm saying unless we are sure it is not possible to use it for educational purpose we should not delete it. Just because you and I can not find a good Wikipeda article for an image does not mean it is not possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MGA73 (talk • contribs) 23:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- That's true for any image - we never know 100% if a image may find use or not. Anything is possible. And because of this we shouldn't make any judgment calls? If so, that does means keeping everything indiscriminately. Rocket000 (talk) 01:26, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
- If you start a DR and 5 users say delete and noone says keep then we should be safe. But if 5 says delete and 4 says keep then it is not a clear result. But I think we should be careful to delete as out of scope if someone thinks they are useful. --MGA73 (talk) 08:58, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
- Of course. If the consensus is to keep it, then we should keep it obviously (like this one). I'm not saying one person's judgement of "out of scope" should override others judgement of "within scope". I was just asking for some reasons why people thought random pics that don't really illustrate anything (besides the non-notable subject, itself) add value to Commons. Rocket000 (talk) 18:58, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
- If you start a DR and 5 users say delete and noone says keep then we should be safe. But if 5 says delete and 4 says keep then it is not a clear result. But I think we should be careful to delete as out of scope if someone thinks they are useful. --MGA73 (talk) 08:58, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
- That's true for any image - we never know 100% if a image may find use or not. Anything is possible. And because of this we shouldn't make any judgment calls? If so, that does means keeping everything indiscriminately. Rocket000 (talk) 01:26, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
- No I'm saying unless we are sure it is not possible to use it for educational purpose we should not delete it. Just because you and I can not find a good Wikipeda article for an image does not mean it is not possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MGA73 (talk • contribs) 23:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- We are not censoring what users should look at if we were simply mirroring content from somewhere else in the first place. We don't control users, we control this site. They can still look at any image they want, it doesn't have to be on a site designed for another purpose. Anyway, I said let's leave porn/nudity out of it. That just makes people miss the point. Are you're saying because we're not being censored we should disregard the site's purpose and allow anything and everything just because we can? Rocket000 (talk) 22:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep In my opinion, it's the best photo in the Category:Female bottomlessness in photography. And erotic photography is an important topic, important no less that yet another beetle or air show. This photograph is not in use, but many another similar photographs (anonymous model, unnotable photographer, even shots of this model by this photographer) are in use (for example, this and this are in use, this photo was in use). And we have series of photographs with this model (with different level of nudeness, clothes) what makes it potentially highly useful as part of whole. Trycatch (talk) 00:28, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
- Another thing bothers me -- if flickr user is really author of this photographs? Many photos from his photostream are marked as "from net" and are taken from random Internet sites but still licensed as CC-BY-SA. Photos of "Sam" are not marked in this way, but have low resolution and no EXIF too... Hmm... Trycatch (talk) 01:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
- Does that not show that user is honest? He tells if it is not his own? --MGA73 (talk) 19:24, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
- But how do you fulfill the CC-BY-SA requirements without knowing the real author? Rocket000 (talk) 19:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
- We don't. Any images "From net" are not ok unless they link to a source that confirms CC-BY-SA. --MGA73 (talk) 19:45, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Um, what do you think CC-BY-SA means? If we don't credit the author, it's a copyvio.Nevermind, I missed the "not" part. Rocket000 (talk) 21:53, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
- We don't. Any images "From net" are not ok unless they link to a source that confirms CC-BY-SA. --MGA73 (talk) 19:45, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
- He is honest in 2010, and he was honest in 2009, but was he honest in 2008? (btw "from net" is not a best author attribution in the world) Or maybe he simply forgot to mention that the photos are not his own? Pictures of Sam are very different to other user's photos, and he provides absolutely no context in description of this photos (who is Sam? when the photos were taken? all the photos are identically titled as "nude sam", even dressed ones like this) -- it's very suspicious. Trycatch (talk) 01:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
- But how do you fulfill the CC-BY-SA requirements without knowing the real author? Rocket000 (talk) 19:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
- Does that not show that user is honest? He tells if it is not his own? --MGA73 (talk) 19:24, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Small size, no EXIF, highly unlikely to be Flickr user's own work. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:05, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete together with similar photos from same source. Per Pieter Kuiper and precautionary principle. Nillerdk (talk) 05:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
reasons:
- The woman looks quite young, we should be very careful concerning personal rights
- The flickr-user published different pictures with the source: "from net", his description don't give enough informations to believe that the woman on the picture accepted worldwide publishing of this private image even for commercial purposes
- EXIF missing is a further hint that there maybe problems
- I have no problems with pictures of nudity but the question of personal rights is even more important than in other cases, for instance people in public situations. Nobody accepts to be presented in a real private situation in the internet without clear evidence that he accepted that. We cannot develop criteria for such cases in a single DR but perhaps it is important to lead this discussion in another place.
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 14:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- Please delete the other similar files of "Sam" from that Flicker account due to the same reasons. Nillerdk (talk)
- done (x) --Mbdortmund (talk) 22:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
non notorious, original research. --91.168.35.152 21:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Personal image in use on the user page. Trycatch (talk) 02:04, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Kept. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - unusable without a better description, out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 15:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
emilie schindler, wife of oscar schindler - but copyvio - source is "Google" Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 15:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image - out of scope, only edit of this user Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 15:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
unused "me" - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 21:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 15:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
non sharply Sarkana frag den ℑ Vampir 23:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 16:01, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Apparently a copyright violating derivative work. Blurpeace 23:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- See http://iardacil-stock.deviantart.com/art/Stream-2-111015947 (copyright status). Blurpeace 23:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per above, ec'd on the link to the image. fetchcomms☛ 23:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 16:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
This is not own work. License not OK in my opinion. Identical to image on http://galeriegraal.com/galerie-art-contemporain-peinture-roger-suraud-vertige. See also other contributions of the user http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Myriam-P. Wouter (talk) 23:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 16:01, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 16:01, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Dervative of copyrighted work fetchcomms☛ 23:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 16:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
self-promotion (nominated by Ezarate) --by Màñü飆¹5 talk 22:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 09:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
maybe a copyright violation --Esteban (talk) 22:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, seems sufficiently simple for {{PD-textlogo}}. Blurpeace 23:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Polarlys (talk) 09:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
I believe this figure (i.e. the church bell) is sufficiently complex to be copyrightable and thus is a derivative work of http://www.orkelljunga.se/i/logo2.gif Lokal_Profil 00:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 09:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
A cropped version of the image pubished (in different resolutions) here, here or here, presumably an official band photo. No evidence for permission. High on a tree (talk) 04:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 09:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Photograph of unknown copyright situation: claimed to be PD from 1930, but that's not early enough to assume 70 years p.m.a.; author unknown, no source. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Source is zf.ro, http://www.zf.ro/poze/4881296/ /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:17, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, but that still doesn't solve the issue of the copyright status, does it? That online link contains no information about the original creator and the publication history that I can see, so the PD-old claim is unsubstantiated, and the online link itself contains no copyright notice. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- Plausibly, this was made and published when subject was installed as prime minister in 1931. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, that's entirely plausible, but we still don't know who the photographer was and when he died. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- And that is why it is tagged {{PD-anon-70}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- PD-anon-70 is only for cases where we know it was published anonymously. To justify that, we'd still need information about its precise publication history. "Anonymous" is not the same thing as "we don't know who created it because some Wikipedia editor was too lazy to find out." Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- And that is why it is tagged {{PD-anon-70}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, that's entirely plausible, but we still don't know who the photographer was and when he died. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- Plausibly, this was made and published when subject was installed as prime minister in 1931. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, but that still doesn't solve the issue of the copyright status, does it? That online link contains no information about the original creator and the publication history that I can see, so the PD-old claim is unsubstantiated, and the online link itself contains no copyright notice. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. no proper source to establish status as an anonymous work Polarlys (talk) 09:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
possibly copyvio? Havang(nl) (talk) 09:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
-2010-03-26T09:33:00.000Z-File:Compartir_77.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 09:40, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately, this statue was not permanently displayed on the fourth plinth in Trafalgar Square, so freedom of panorama does not apply. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 11:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
![11:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2010/03/26#c-Jacklee-2010-03-26T11:57:00.000Z-File:Sculpture_entitled_"Alison_Lapper_Pregnant"_-_geograph.org.uk_-_104026.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 09:40, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
![09:40, 4 April 2010 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2010/03/26#c-Polarlys-2010-04-04T09:40:00.000Z-File:Sculpture_entitled_"Alison_Lapper_Pregnant"_-_geograph.org.uk_-_104026.jpg){kind=link}
Unfortunately, this statue was not permanently displayed on the fourth plinth in Trafalgar Square, so freedom of panorama does not apply. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 11:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 09:40, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
There is absolutely no additional information given that would verify a PD-USGov-licence. It remains unclear if this file is in the public domain. Due to the facts that this photograph is supposed to be shot in the 80s and that this vehicle is of soviet origin makes it unlikely that a PD-USGov-licence fits. High Contrast (talk) 13:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for notifying me, but the original uploader is a user at the English wiki. If you want details (if he/she is still active) you better put a notification at his/her talkpage. --Hardscarf (talk) 13:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- These user notifications are created automatically on the talk page of the user that uploaded a certain file. I have notified User:BasouKazuma on en:wiki. But I am afraid he will not take part in this discussion here, his last edits were made on November 6, 2008. --High Contrast (talk) 14:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- Why must everything of unknown provenance be immediately deleted? Is there a fear that Wikimedia might be sued for copyright infringement, by the Russian government no less? Is it a widespread obsession with rules, or a form of compulsive deletionism? In any case, this photo has already been used elsewhere, and in one case credited to "Wikipedia Commons"![1] Include, don't delete. 24.218.128.115 17:25, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
- If we do not care copyright issues carefully, this project here can be closed. We have certain requirements for verifying the copyright status in order to show that one file is really free (for more information, please read COM:L). Consequently, this image is insufficiently sourced. This is no question of deletionism, but when basic principles of Commons are not met, any file must be considered to get deleted. --High Contrast (talk) 06:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
- Why must everything of unknown provenance be immediately deleted? Is there a fear that Wikimedia might be sued for copyright infringement, by the Russian government no less? Is it a widespread obsession with rules, or a form of compulsive deletionism? In any case, this photo has already been used elsewhere, and in one case credited to "Wikipedia Commons"![1] Include, don't delete. 24.218.128.115 17:25, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
- These user notifications are created automatically on the talk page of the user that uploaded a certain file. I have notified User:BasouKazuma on en:wiki. But I am afraid he will not take part in this discussion here, his last edits were made on November 6, 2008. --High Contrast (talk) 14:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 09:40, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
This file is a copyright violation because There is absolutely no additional information given that would verify a PD-USGov-licence. It remains unclear if this file is in the public domain. High Contrast (talk) 13:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- Comment What vehicle? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- corrected; copy&paste error --High Contrast (talk) 07:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete I cannot find this Clifton James at NARA. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:51, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 09:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Reasons for deletion request - I uploaded new, actually map File:Plan Kurowa 2010.png Piott (talk) 16:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - new version does not cause to delete the old one. Julo (talk) 08:45, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per Julo. Also all you've changed is deleting one label (which was fine imo) and changing other's color. It's better to upload new version of 2007 and Delete 2010. Herr Kriss (talk) 22:30, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Polarlys (talk) 09:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Probably a still copyrighted cover Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 18:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't think that it would be subject to copyright at this time. I've seen similar images distributed. Kynexn (talk) 11:52, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
File:Missouri_4.png is what I want to discuss.
So far, this is the only thing I have contributed to wikimedia.
This image was taken by me with a DC Media camera, I cropped out the table that I set it on.
The reason why I chose to capture that image was to used it in a wikipedia article about the Missouri Waltz. I have seen similar covers distributed. At the time this cover was released to the public there was no copyright on it, just the sheet music inside.
Kynexn (talk) 11:46, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
And example of someone else having a similar image copyrighted is found here. [2] If one tries to right click the image, the claim appears. Please notify me. If it is found to be in violation, I will try to use fair use.
- Wikimedia has strict rules about copyright. You are not allowed to upload images that are copyrighted. Look at Commons:Licensing for details. This image does not look like it is old enough to be in the public domain, just like that. For that the author should have died more than 70 years ago. You say that there was no copyright on it when it was released. You will have to provide a link to a reliable page that states that. The booklet was published by Forster Music Publisher Inc. They probably owned the copyright, unless it has been waived at a certain moment. Please, clarify why this cover apparently was published without copyright, or why the copyright has expired. Please note from Commons:Licensing that fair use is not allowed on commons.wikimedia. If you want to upload an image under fair use, you can only do that at the english wikipedia. You will have to upload it there, and you can only use it there, but fair use images are only accepted there under strict rules. Kind regards. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 15:22, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
- I am doing more reasearch about this. However, for now it will be deleted. Also, some additional information about this cover. This sheet music was purchased in 1941, by my mother's father. I will be able to learn more about it from her, and a public library. Thank you for assisting me with this. In addition, it is difficult to find copyright records that old. Kynexn (talk) 10:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 09:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
The designs of Thai baht bank notes are copyrighted by the Bank of Thailand,[3] and the same most likely applies for coinage as well. The photo appears to be a derivative work. Paul_012 (talk) 18:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 09:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation - image would be useful if public domain status was confirmed, but it has a false description and was uploaded for vandalism. There is a larger version on Uncyclopedia, but its original source is unknown Snigbrook (talk) 19:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 09:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
When uploaded the source was claimed to be File:Swarthmoor_Hall.jpg, which is a completely different image. Image appears to be from http://www.swarthmoorhall.co.uk/images/Swarthmoor_hall_front_side.jpg and there does not appear to be any evidence of permission or suitable licence Snigbrook (talk) 19:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 09:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Copyvio. Copyright owner is the photographer or "SLOVENEC" Karsten11 (talk) 19:39, 26 March 2010 (UTC) --Karsten11 (talk) 19:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 09:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Image is copyright the ESA, not NASA. — Huntster (t @ c) 19:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- Suggestions ? I don't have a clue, how to deal with ESA, and not for the lack of trying. Pictures i see, have per-case permissions, if i'm correct, and that's too much time consuming. If it can not be used, or is problematic, drop it, i will put some replacement image in my gallery to keep reminding me to replace it, or maybe on the article talk page, where this image is ? There are a couple more like this, check gallery on my user page, a couple are credited to ESA. I wrote 'authors:ESA, NASA' in such cases, but still put under NASA copy-right&left --ThorX13 (talk) 05:04, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
- Can you change this into some acceptable policy, to show me ? I will then keep that pattern, and make update on my Wiki user page, for the rest, to avoid this problem, probably with a separate subsection and all. --ThorX13 (talk) 05:04, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
- There's a lot of images like this in the rest of the future new articles, and i would very much like solution to this problem, which would allow me to upload them. --ThorX13 (talk) 05:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
- I'll reply on your Wikipedia talk page. — Huntster (t @ c) 14:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 09:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
double, also out of scope (twitter user) (despite I have to admit that it has some qualities) Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 09:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
double file - other is useful, musician Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 09:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
I think it is very doubtful that the user Kings son, a user without a userpage, is the photographer of this official politician fotography (see [4]). By saying he would be the copyright holder, the uploader may mean that he scanned the picture himself. --Dein Freund der Baum (talk) 21:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 09:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Flickr washing. The flickr user that uploaded this file to flickr has not the right to publish this file under a free licence High Contrast (talk) 22:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 09:36, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Images of coins of Singapore
[edit]
Although the photographs of the coins were all taken and properly licensed by Rswamy85, the copyright in the designs of the coins held by the Government of Singapore has not expired: see "Commons:Licensing#Government works". Thus, the photographs of the coins are derivative works, and there is no indication that the Government of Singapore has freely licensed the designs to the Commons. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 16:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 09:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC)