Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2010/04/18
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
_Nanga_Parbat.jpg){kind=link}
-sm.jpg){kind=link}
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 05:39, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 11:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 05:42, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 11:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Category:Primitive photo editing? Useless. Out of project scope. 78.55.213.195 06:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted - Out of scope, not in use anywhere. –Krinkletalk 09:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
wrong name and doublette of File:Crawler crane, dresden.JPG --Asmodai (talk) 08:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Exact or scaled down duplicate: File:Crawler crane, dresden.JPG -- Common Good (talk) 19:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
It´s distasteful in so many ways for apparent reasons for anyone with a sane mind! This picture should be published in some death-gore-bizarro site instead of WikiMedia. 213.113.125.197 11:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter how distasteful it is, Wikipedia is not censored. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTCENSORED#Wikipedia_is_not_censored If you want a censored wiki, then go start your own Wikipedia. 83.142.0.60 02:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Delete It seems to me that the Flickr uploader did not have the rights. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. -- Cirt (talk) 18:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Orphan. Quibik (talk) 17:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyright violation: http://templates.entheosweb.com/template_number/9733.asp -- Common Good (talk) 19:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Source Google? Dédi's (talk) 17:47, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 11:33, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
horribly out of focus image, unused malo (talk) 23:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Julo (talk) 09:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Copyrighted MapMike Krüger (talk) 04:14, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 14:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
self Error, no "Panoramafreiheit". Lysippos (talk) 11:37, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. A church designed by Architects Rumpel und Krutzsch. Architect Gustav Rumpel died in 1904 (see here) and the second architect Arthur Krutzsch died in 1919. Therefore, their work should be judged as public domain.
- Und nochmal ausführlicher auf Deutsch: Da die Architekten bereits weit vor 1938 verstorben sind, sollte ihr Werk heute PD sein. Da beide die Kirche entworfen, aber nicht erbaut haben, erklärt sich auch die Bauzeit der Kirche bis 1909 und der Tod Rumpels 1904. Ich sehe auch keinen auffälligen plastischen Schmuck, der evtl. noch geschützt sein könnte. Zahlreiche der am Innenausbau beteiligten Künstler sind zudem ebenfalls vor 1939 verstorben. Ergo: Bild behalten. --Paulae (talk) 17:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Keep per above. --Elekhh (talk) 04:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Of course there is Panoramafreiheit in Germany. And Dresden is in Germany. --PaterMcFly (talk) 14:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Kept. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
This says "playing" but its clearly an attack photo. --71.228.221.51 14:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Kept - No reason to delete the image. –Krinkletalk 15:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
It is showing animal cruelty and it is offensive and upsetting! 212.183.140.51 20:09, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- Keep: This the the Wikimedia Commons, not the All-Dog Cute Photo Extravaganza. -- Tuválkin ✉ 05:50, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Kept: . Commons is not censored, and legitimately includes content which some users may consider objectionable or offensive. --Tarawneh (talk) 15:54, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
unused selfportrait - private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 04:42, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 18:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
unused protrait of an islamic teacher - notability not proven, looks like a copy vio, no exif, only edit of this user = out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 04:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 18:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
scan? - taken from a website , copyright violation Cholo Aleman (talk) 05:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. {{Npd}} would have been appropriate here too. Wknight94 talk 11:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 18:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 05:41, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 18:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 05:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 18:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 06:07, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 18:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
unused, out of scope Amada44 (talk) 12:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 18:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image Amada44 (talk) 12:47, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Delete per nom, no source Cholo Aleman (talk) 13:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 18:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
unused, I can't see the scope Amada44 (talk) 12:49, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Delete per nom, looks like a test or broken file Cholo Aleman (talk) 13:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 18:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image Amada44 (talk) 13:01, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Delete per nom (for these images is also a speedy deletion possible, though it is not a strong consensus, if "out of scope" is a case for a speedy deletion) Cholo Aleman (talk) 13:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 18:05, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope, looks like a scan, improper description, unusable Cholo Aleman (talk) 13:04, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Mbdortmund: Per Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Mim1.jpg
unused personal image Amada44 (talk) 13:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 18:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image Amada44 (talk) 13:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 18:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Unused personal photo (the userpage that links to this image is an old one, it used to link to a photo with the same file name that has been deleted). Buxtehude (talk) 13:34, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
deleted. INeverCry 03:09, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Image is clearly signed and is caption as the work of Erik Heyl (died 1973). The only evidence to support the claim that this work is PD is that it appears on a USN website. Contra there is the fact that it was first published in a copyrighted book (Heyl's work was published with notice and renewed, example renewal here). Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete His bio is very clear that he never worked for the Navy, so these (and 17 other images on Commons) are copyvio.. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 14:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 18:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Unused and a likely copyvio. Quibik (talk) 14:23, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom. –Tryphon☂ 06:42, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. — Dferg (talk) 21:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
unused image of an unknown rugby club - bad quality - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 06:18, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 21:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
This is a copyrighted logo of an University. The uploader must not be the owner Jyon (talk) 18:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- If the information template is changed to reflect the logo is copyrighted, the logo could remanin in the wikipedia article?--Veracrux (talk) 05:11, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. I have uploaded it to en.wp and fr.wp, which allow logos; de.wp and es.wp do not allow non-free content. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:38, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
strange and unused selfpromotion of a metal band - only edit of this user - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 06:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
- No veo porque debería ser borrada, no me parece correcto. (comment of an IP, moved by me from the now-deleted talkpage of this rfd. --Túrelio (talk) 14:35, 18 April 2010 (UTC))
Deleted. Orphaned image, unclear copyright status. --Martin H. (talk) 16:15, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
modern mural, not public domain --Gryffindor (talk) 06:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
- Comment - If you do this, you're going to have to eliminate all murals and mosaics. ----DanTD (talk) 06:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Comment There is no freedom of Panorama for works of art in the US, see Commons:FOP - so for the US you are right, all murals younger than 70 years are copyviolations (even memorial plaques in the US are sometimes taken as "copyrighted text" here in the commons. Cholo Aleman (talk) 07:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Agreed. Like it or not, murals get the same protection as any other art work. FOP applies only to buildings. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 14:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete copy vio Cholo Aleman (talk) 19:14, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Question Has the artist who created this mural complained about the use of it here? ----DanTD (talk) 22:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- That's beside the point. The law is that the artist is entitled to copyright protection. If artists want to show their work here, they can license it -- many artists do. If you don't like the law, complain to your Senator and US Representative. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 22:58, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 17:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
source is a webpage - copyright violation Cholo Aleman (talk) 18:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. {{Npd}} would have been appropriate here. Wknight94 talk 11:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 17:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
out of scope picture malo (talk) 23:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Amada44 (talk) 10:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 17:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
The image is published under a flickr CC license under CC-BY-NC Bsadowski1 21:38, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Two separate flickrmails were sent here by Captain tucker on March 9 and April 9, 2010 without success. And yet the flickr owner (I AM KEB) has uploaded an image on her account here on April 26, 2010. There clearly is not going to be any permission forwarded. This image must be deleted...eventually. --Leoboudv (talk) 05:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted as Flickr-review shortly after transfer from :en to Commons showed it to be NC-licensed on Flickr; another case of Jeremiah 31,29. --Túrelio (talk) 06:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Orphan. Quibik (talk) 16:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Delete per nom - unusable Cholo Aleman (talk) 19:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted "orphan" is not a valid reason, but "unusable" is one abf «Cabale!» 14:00, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Orphan, likely to be out of project's scope. Quibik (talk) 17:14, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Aliman5040: Out of project scope
I fail to see what this picture could be used for on any Wikimedia project PiRK (talk) 12:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Unused personal image Justass (talk) 18:58, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
If the book is from the 1930s: Who drew the picture on the cover? How long has he been dead? There might still be copyright claims to it. X-Weinzar (talk) 13:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete As it says on the cover, nl:André Vlaanderen, who died 1955. Uploader not notified, I will do that now. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Still under copyright. MKFI (talk) 19:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Justass (talk) 20:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
France does not have Freedom of Panorama. This building may be considered to be architecturally distinct. In that case it needs to be moved to the English and French Wikipedias WhisperToMe (talk) 17:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- OK ! I uploaded this image into Commons. If there is a problem of NO freedom of panorama in France, why can I found so many images of skyscrapers of la Défense on Commons ? I only added one more ! And there are also images of Tour Eiffel on Commons. As far I as know, lighting of the Eiffel Tower is copyrighted (stupid, I think, but it is copyright laws...). However, I find many images of Tour Eiffel by night (it is very nice, you should come to see them...).--Tangopaso (talk) 20:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- Panoramic views are not protected by copyright, but individual views of new buildings (where the architect is still alive or died recently) are under copyright. Anyway, the Eiffel Tower pics at night that are under a claim of copyright are those after 1989, when a lighting display was installed. WhisperToMe (talk) 08:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. No freedom of panorama in France Justass (talk) 20:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Image contains copyrighted logos 68.52.13.123 23:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Nearly all the states of the FSU, including Russia, do not have freedom of panorama for commercial reuse. NW (Talk) 00:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. No freedom of panorama in Russia Justass (talk) 20:55, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Source and/or permission for each image is missing 132.199.211.14 13:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Justass (talk) 18:53, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
France does not have freedom of panorama, so this image may have to be moved to the English Wikipedia WhisperToMe (talk) 09:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete If there is no freedom of panorama, then this image must be deleted here. --TcfkaPanairjdde (talk) 14:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. No freedom of panorama in France --Justass (talk) 19:05, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
This file violates the copyright that appears to come from somewhere else and it is unclear in the absence categorize information and disrespects the license file and which is not working proper Elberth 00001939 (talk) 19:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Duplicate of File:Paul-mcgowan-sml.jpgJustass (talk) 19:21, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Unfocused, low-quality image. 78.32.159.25 17:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Not used, not useful. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 12:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Marked as copyvio, but linking to OTRS ticket (in italian). Can anybody confirm the permission. Zirland (talk) 14:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I've asked about the OTRS at COM:OTRS/N. Wknight94 talk 14:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete The copyright holder didn't choose a clear license in the OTRS ticket. When given a list of acceptable free licenses, their response was essentially "OK". Killiondude (talk) 17:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 11:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
This file violates the copyright that appears to come from somewhere else and it is unclear in the absence categorize information and disrespects the license file and which is not working proper Elberth 00001939 (talk) 19:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Agree that own work is unlikely. Wknight94 talk 11:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
An unused picture of an unnotable band. Quibik (talk) 15:49, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 14:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
uploader is not the author, wrong license Ronn (talk) 19:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, likely copyright violation. Kameraad Pjotr 18:51, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
France has no freedom of panorama, and this image was there to highlight a particular building. This image needs to be moved to the English Wikipedia and French Wikipedia WhisperToMe (talk) 17:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, no FOP in France. Kameraad Pjotr 18:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
No Freedom of Panorama in France Triwbe (talk) 21:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- Picture seems to have been made and uploaded by the owner of the building, the Council of Europe themselves. --Edelseider (talk) 21:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep AGF. -Nard the Bard 23:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep The Council of Europe should know. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep As someone pointed out on my talk page, this building is officially not on the French territory. I have absolutely no idea which copyright law applies. I would tend to rely on the OTRS ticket from the Council: they "should know", as Pieter says, they would be our contact if we wanted to reach the architect, and they know what he has allowed or not. --Eusebius (talk) 07:09, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept, per Eusebius cs. Kameraad Pjotr 19:00, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
The COM:VRTS only applies to the photo, not the architecture. Additional VRTS correspondence from the heirs of architect w:en:Henry Bernard (architect) is also required. The architect died in 1994, and unfortunately there is no commercial freedom of panorama in France which would safely bypass or ignore the rights of architect's heirs. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:26, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- Keep I see no evidence of your assertion that the Council of Europe, when they granted permission for the use of this image, considered only the copyright of the photographer, and not that of the architect. It is possible, maybe even likely, that the contract under which the building was built gives them the right to dispense permission in this way. @Eusebius: 's arguments above still hold good. Before we remove such a long standing and well used image, I think we need evidence, rather than a simple assertion, that our current permission is insufficient. -- Chris j wood (talk) 16:58, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Chris j wood: per COM:EVIDENCE, the burden of providing evidence lies in the uploader or the users in the side of defense. Such claim of contract between the Council and the architect must be substantiated, not by blanket statement like yours. Also your assumption may not apply to France: as per COM:CRT/France#Works of arts, including architecture, exhibited in public spaces: The architect of a notable building owns copyright over the representations of that building, including postcards and photographs....While architects may have rights to works derived from their work of art, this is not the case of the owners of works of art or buildings, in general. The summary of the conclusions of a May 7, 2004 ruling by the Court of Cassation was: The owner of a thing does not have an exclusive right over the image of this thing; he or she can however oppose the usage of this image by a third party if this usage results in an abnormal disturbance to him or her." Abnormal disturbance, here, may include breach of privacy (but such is irrelevant here). What I am pointing out is that in many cases, architects continue to hold copyright over peoples' images or videos of their architectural works. France is a consistent droit d'auteur country. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:04, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- @JWilz12345: and I'm pointing out that we have been granted permission to use this image by the 'copyright holder'. You seem to know that this permission is not valid because the 'copyright holder' is not the architect, his heirs, or somebody to whom he has legally transferred copyright rights to, but you do not say how you know that. It seems to me that you can actually only know this if you have seen the permission email, but at no point have you said that you have. I'm asking you to provide evidence, or even a sense, of how you know. As I'm neither the uploader nor a user, I don't see how COM:EVIDENCE is relevant to my keep vote. -- Chris j wood (talk) 19:03, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Chris j wood: the reason is because most VRTS permissions only concern the photo permission, but not the artwork permission (see also Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Buildings in Davao City, where VRTS permission was found to be insufficient, likely because the uploader thought permission comes from the owners, which is not so). Thus additional permission from the heirs of Henry Bernard is also needed. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:19, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
- @JWilz12345: But we are not discussing "most VRTS permissions", we are discussing a specific VRTS permission. I think you have just confirmed that you have no more idea what that says than I do. And I think you need to know what it says if you want to propose basing a delete request on it not covering the requirements of French law. Have you tried raising the question on COM:VRTN?. -- Chris j wood (talk) 14:35, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
- Comment I think we also need to address whether French law even applies, given the extra-territorial nature of the Council of Europe. -- Chris j wood (talk) 14:44, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Chris j wood: in my opinion DR is the best approach in such cases. I don't know if someone from that area (VRTN) will entertain my concern if ever. Regarding extraterritoriality, it does not apply to grounds of diplomatic missions and areas where another country owns (see also Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Canadian National Vimy Memorial). For embassies, see also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Japanese embassy in Iceland.JPG, Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2021-03#File:US Embassy Athens.jpg (my failed UNDEL attempt for U.S. embassy in a no-FOP country), and Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2021-07#File:Australian_Embassy_in_Paris.jpg. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:54, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
- @JWilz12345: Fair enough as far as the extraterritoriality argument goes. But if we are to discuss deleting an image because the VRTS permission record is not valid, I think we need to start from an understanding of what the VRTS record says. If, as you suggest, WP procedures do not permit us to get that information, then the inevitable conclusion is that this is the wrong forum to discuss a deletion on these grounds. Kick it upstairs to the VRTN community and move on. -- Chris j wood (talk) 08:49, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- pinged to Commons:Volunteer_Response_Team/Noticeboard#2008031710012506 rubin16 (talk) 13:14, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Rubin16: I have updated the file description page in this edit. We did ask for permission from the architect in an email message with "Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 18:09:43 +0000", but got no response. Despite that, I think the presence of his name in the "© Photo credit" section of https://www.coe.int/en/web/portal/disclaimer indicates they have his permission and incorporated that into their permission to us. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:34, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- Weak keep per the first section, the keeps above, and the URL above, qualified by the lack of response to a 10-year-old email message. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:57, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Kept: Per latest comments from VRT. --rubin16 (talk) 16:14, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
The United Arab Emirates does not have the Freedom of panorama, so this image of a building MAY have to be sent to the English Wikipedia WhisperToMe (talk) 06:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, no FOP. Kameraad Pjotr 18:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
The United Arab Emirates does not have the Freedom of panorama, so this image of a building MAY have to be sent to the English Wikipedia WhisperToMe (talk) 06:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, no FOP. Kameraad Pjotr 19:11, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
The United Arab Emirates does not have the Freedom of panorama, so this image of a building MAY have to be sent to the English Wikipedia WhisperToMe (talk) 06:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- Keep It is far from an architectural masterpiece. -Nard the Bard 07:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- Is this decision based on what UAE law would consider to be a unique work, or is this a personal opinion of what one would consider to be "an architectural masterpiece"? If your post is the latter, please think in UAE law terms of what a distinct architectural building would be. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- Based on neither. Based on about 5 years of experience debating these on Commons and Commons policy. Threshold of originality and all that. -Nard the Bard 01:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- Is this decision based on what UAE law would consider to be a unique work, or is this a personal opinion of what one would consider to be "an architectural masterpiece"? If your post is the latter, please think in UAE law terms of what a distinct architectural building would be. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, no FOP. Kameraad Pjotr 19:10, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
unused private image (historian from Germany, but not notable until now) selfpromotion - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 07:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 13:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation; nothing on tineye. There's no evidence of permission either. Bsadowski1 09:03, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: The long file name already says where it is from: a copied image from her Orkut profile, http://www.orkut.com/Main#AlbumZoom?gwt=1&uid=6570234841706671733&aid=1229710149&pid=1229735594585 --Martin H. (talk) 11:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 13:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
_Nanga_Parbat.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Nanga_Parbat.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Image is published under "All rights reserved" license on flickr Bsadowski1 21:56, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
_Nanga_Parbat.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete File was uploaded to Commons 7 May 2006 and the license could have been free at that time. Sadly file was not reviewed at that time and on 2006-10-02 it was All rights reserved per User:Para/Flickr/Licensing differences/Incompatible. Also Internet Archive does not help us [1] or [2]. User has less than 500 edits on Commons [3] so I think we should delete this image to be sure. --MGA73 (talk) 17:35, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete The flickr owner never responded to your requests on the license. While its a great photo, there is no evidence, it was ever free. --Leoboudv (talk) 09:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I don't know if his flickr account is inactive but I have his permission to use his images on wikipedia. I sent him a personal message "FlickrMail" and I received the following response (timestamp 25 Apr 06, 9.15AM PDT):
- From:
- blu sky No real name given
- Subject: Re: About Pakistan Concordia, K2 photos
- Hi Waqas,
- Thanks for the compliment.
- Feel free to use my pictures on wikipedia (if you add the link), but let me know if you want to use them otherwise in the future.
- Greetings,
- Pierre
- Waqas.usman (talk) 14:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- Also, I'm surprised at the logic of "delete if the uploader has less than 500 edits". I have not been active on wikipedia lately but I focused on quality and not the number of edits, I never uploaded any images for which I did not have permission. I'm sure there are several uploaders who have thousands of edits on commons but they don't care about copyrights. Focus on Quantity and NOT quality is what will determine "keep or delete"? That is twisted logic.Waqas.usman (talk) 14:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Waqas.usman. The comment regarding the number of edits is based on the asumption that if a user has thousands og uploads and/or edits and has made very few mistakes then we can trust that the author knows which licenses can be accepted on Commons. If a user has many edits and make a lot of mistakes then we can see it on the user talk or "deleted contributions" and then "trust" will not be an option. The comment about less than 500 edits is just to indicate that you are still a "new" user and therefore it is hard for us to be sure that you know if you know when an image is safe to upload.
- Normally we do not accept a permission "for Wikipedia" because Wikipedia is non profit. But a free license also allows usage outside Wikipedia - including usage for commercial purpose. The mail you mention says "but let me know if you want to use them otherwise in the future" so we can not be sure, that the Flickr user agrees that they can be used to other things. --MGA73 (talk) 15:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- Hi MGA73, thank you for your clarification on the number of edits comment. I have sent another personal message to blusky for clarification. In the meanwhile, if there is no further confirmation (if the account of blusky is dormant), how can the images be continued to use? Since he has given permission specific to wikipedia, shouldn't there be a category for such images where authors allow their work to be used for wikipedia but not necessarily for Copyleft or Creative Commons?Waqas.usman (talk) 19:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, there is no such category. For Commons, it's free license or nothing. howcheng {chat} 23:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- There is no fair use on Commons but wikipedia only files can be directly loaded to individual wikis that allow it.KTo288 (talk) 18:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, there is no such category. For Commons, it's free license or nothing. howcheng {chat} 23:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- Hi MGA73, thank you for your clarification on the number of edits comment. I have sent another personal message to blusky for clarification. In the meanwhile, if there is no further confirmation (if the account of blusky is dormant), how can the images be continued to use? Since he has given permission specific to wikipedia, shouldn't there be a category for such images where authors allow their work to be used for wikipedia but not necessarily for Copyleft or Creative Commons?Waqas.usman (talk) 19:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 13:26, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
_Nanga_Parbat.jpg){kind=link}
Unused and a likely copyvio. Quibik (talk) 14:20, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 13:27, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
uploader is unlikely to be the copyright owner (and logo is not simple enough for PD-textlogo) Quibik (talk) 15:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 13:33, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
The band logo is not simple enough for PD-TEXTLOGO. Quibik (talk) 15:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
- It's a copyrighted logo. Delete --201.236.9.230 21:07, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete not simple (enough). --Diego Grez return fire 18:12, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 13:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
This is an unused, unneeded personal image. --Karppinen (talk) 15:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Was only uploaded for en.wp vandalism. Wknight94 talk 13:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Not used in any projects. Quibik (talk) 15:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 13:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Image is not used in any projects. Quibik (talk) 15:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 13:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Image is not used in any projects. Quibik (talk) 15:39, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 13:39, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Image is not used in any projects and seems unlikely to be otherwise useful. Quibik (talk) 15:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 13:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Not used in any projects and unlikely to be useful, bad quality. Quibik (talk) 16:18, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 13:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Orphan. Quibik (talk) 16:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 13:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Orphan. Quibik (talk) 16:41, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 13:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Orphan Quibik (talk) 16:49, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 13:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Orphan, seems to be out of project's scope. Quibik (talk) 16:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 13:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Orphaned, likely out of project's scope. Quibik (talk) 17:00, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 13:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Dubious file description: could be a copyvio. Orphaned, but potentially useful. Quibik (talk) 17:03, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Unlikely own work, different name for author so permission would be needed anyway. Wknight94 talk 13:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Orphan. Quibik (talk) 17:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 13:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Orphan, likely to be out of project's scope. Quibik (talk) 17:27, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 13:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Orphan, likely to be out of project's scope. Quibik (talk) 17:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Non-notable band but also too blurry to be useful. Wknight94 talk 13:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Orphan, likely to be out of project's scope. Quibik (talk) 17:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 13:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
unused text, out of scope (strange content, joke?) Cholo Aleman (talk) 17:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 13:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 17:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 13:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
-sm.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
-sm.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Orphan, likely to be out of project's scope. Quibik (talk) 18:04, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
-sm.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 13:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
-sm.jpg){kind=link}
unused private image - self promotion - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 19:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 14:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
unused collage - looks like a joke Cholo Aleman (talk) 19:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 14:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 19:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 14:04, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
low quality Erik Baas (talk) 22:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
- There's a better version now, so please don't delete it. - Erik Baas (talk) 18:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Image only exists to disparage its subject malo (talk) 22:47, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Wknight94: Per Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Guit.jpg
unused video, that just has the word "Hey!" no audio, ? malo (talk) 23:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Delete - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 05:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Wknight94: Per Commons:Deletion_requests/File:HEY!.ogg
Most likely not own work (low resolution celebrity shot). Maybe a screenshot. –Tryphon☂ 08:39, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I co-wrote, produced, directed, shot and edited the indie film "Stage Fright," which this frame was taken from. I own the film, lock stock and barrel. We shot it in the summer of 1987 and it premiered at the 1989 Berlin Film Festival. I am currently in the process of loading media from over 30 years worth of work for stage and film. I am also going to be loading in some of my "art" photography, for lack of a better word. Now then, among some of the theatre I have directed, there are productions for whom I do not own the production shots, and those I am not loading into this place. I am very careful about this sort of thing. Visit my website www.bradmays.com if you think that might help you get a sense about this. Are you referring to Susan Rome as a celebrity, BTW? Good actress, very smart woman, but a celebrity? Perhaps this is subjective. Thanks for the input. Bradmays (talk) 09:38, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - unless COM:OTRS permission is given. Wknight94 talk 13:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 11:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Logo consists ofcontains some elements that are not text, so PD-TEXTLOGO does not cover it. Quibik (talk) 14:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
- Should be simple enough for it, though. --PaterMcFly (talk) 14:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
- I don't agree, the non-text elements are not trivial geometric shapes. Quibik (talk) 15:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 11:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
The main part of the logo being simple geometry or text is disputable. Quibik (talk) 15:23, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, {{PD-text}} (the letter "X" and "Japan"). –Tryphon☂ 06:50, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per above. 75.154.92.156
- (Regardless of whether or not the nomination is still alive) It all depends on the X. The word "Japan" in that form is considered public domain. As for the X? mechamind90 05:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Stifle (talk) 11:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
No COM:FOP#Ukraine. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:43, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep In the real life there are no FOP problems in Ukraine. Photos of modern monuments are freely duplicated in Ukraine. And this photo will be published as a picture album part too (at May 2010). No reason for deletion IMO --George Chernilevsky talk 05:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. We don't go by what other people do, we obey the laws. Stifle (talk) 11:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Was nominated for speedy deletion, converted to regular DR by me: duplicate of Template:editprotected
Since it is used on Commons:Requested updates to protected images, I think speedy deletion is not suitable. Please review this request. Thanks. – Kwj2772 (msg) 14:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Kept. You could redirect it. Stifle (talk) 11:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
The uploader to English Wikipedia claimed PD-USGov, but the actual source is this website -- http://www.luft46.com/junkers/ju187.html which makes no such claim. Copyright status is therefore unknown, but is probably a work of the German government or whoever owns the intellectual property of the Junkers company these days. Rlandmann (talk) 20:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 11:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
This file claims to be released to the public domain, but it is based on a non-public-domain image. I suspect the many similar images in Category:SVG maps of Canada are likewise wrongly licensed. Powers (talk) 18:27, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. Just fix the tag or add a note that it is a derivative work and therefore needs to attribute the original author. Deletion is unnecessary. Wknight94 talk 12:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, just fix the tagging. Uploader is clearly happy for the modifications to be PD so they can also be CC-BY-SA etc. Stifle (talk) 11:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not personally comfortable with changing the licensing on an incorrectly licensed image. Especially when I don't think this is the only one so affected. Powers (talk) 14:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- I just did it for you. Wknight94 talk 14:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
