Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2010/04/20
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.JPG){kind=link}
unused test image, it seems malo (talk) 02:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Delete Not useful, and text is probably a copy of some book, like this one (I didn't find exact match). --GaAs11671 08:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Speedy deleted - Out of scope, unused. –Krinkletalk 10:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't believe this is self made, user claims "own" then writes "laatste nieuws" in source and author field. Sizewise it looks like a grab from a website. -- Deadstar (msg) 09:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyright violation: http://www.parool.nl/parool/nl/11/SPORT/article/detail/263930/2009/10/07/Geen-scherm-in-Kuip-voor-Ajax-Feyenoord.dhtml -- Common Good (talk) 19:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 16:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, yoinked from facebook, false license by uploader. Infrogmation (talk) 20:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope (no ethnographical value....) Cholo Aleman (talk) 17:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Infrogmation: Copyright violation
Pornography. This has no educational purpose. The Cleaner (talk) 18:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Keep labeling a photo of a woman in a low-cut brassire where part of nipples are visible as "pornography" is an overly broad definition I think, and in any case not in itself a valid reason for deletion. Bad faith nomination by editor wishing to censor Commons. -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)- Keep Absurd deletion request (from Afghanistan?); anyway, she got rid of the implants, see en:Carolina Gynning. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, so the photo is of an actress who has articles about her in more than half a dozen Wikipedias? Clearly well within project scope for that reason alone. -- Infrogmation (talk) 23:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Speedy keep - invalid reason for nomination. Tabercil (talk) 03:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Derivative work of photograph. I am not sure the source photograph is uploader's "own work" too. Teofilo (talk) 07:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I took this photograph of a polar bear at the cleveland ohio zoo. i photoshopped it. i use it as my online avatar across the entire internet. portraits throughout history have used different mediums. including mixed mediums. a caricature is also a portrait. this image is how i am visually identified across the internet. the background has been changed to red and the bear reduced to grey scale for graphic impact and easy recognition as a thumbnail. my portrait is a zoomorphism which i believe captures my personality. it is not a "head shot" and it is not a simple "photograph".--BoBoMisiu (talk) 05:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- Can you upload the original non-photoshopped polar bear picture ? You don't have to, but it would fit the collection at Category:Polar bears in zoos in the United States. Can you remember the date when the picture was taken ? Anyway this deletion request is withdrawn. Request withdrawn. Teofilo (talk) 06:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Withdrawn -- Deadstar (msg) 07:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for withdrawl of request for deletion. No, I will not upload the original. I'm reserving it future use.--BoBoMisiu (talk) 01:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
--Deror avi (talk) 21:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio: Uploader request: mistake
--Deror avi (talk) 20:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio: Uploader request: mistake
mistake in name --Deror avi (talk) 20:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio: Uploader request: mistake
(reason for deletion) --Deror avi (talk) 20:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio: Uploader request: mistake
(reason for deletion) --Deror avi (talk) 20:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio: Uploader request: mistake
(reason for deletion) --Deror avi (talk) 20:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio: Uploader request: mistake
(reason for deletion) --Deror avi (talk) 20:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio: Uploader request: mistake
(reason for deletion) --Deror avi (talk) 21:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio: Uploader request: mistake
(reason for deletion) --Deror avi (talk) 21:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio: Uploader request: mistake
(reason for deletion) --Deror avi (talk) 21:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio: Uploader request: mistake
(reason for deletion) --Deror avi (talk) 21:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio: Uploader request: mistake
(reason for deletion) --Deror avi (talk) 21:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio: Uploader request: mistake
(reason for deletion) --Deror avi (talk) 21:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio: Uploader request: mistake
out of focus, out of scope, unused image malo (talk) 02:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete No interest. --GaAs11671 09:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Unused, undescribed, uncategorized, very low quality, no detectable relevence. Infrogmation (talk) 19:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 12:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
unused image, out of scope. malo (talk) 02:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, orphan undescribed personal image of no evident relevence. Infrogmation (talk) 20:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 12:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
unused private image, very small, unusable - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 04:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --JN466 10:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 12:52, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image Amada44 (talk) 07:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom Infrogmation (talk) 20:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 12:52, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Sculpture on mardi gras float in New Orleans USA. No FOP in USA. COM:FOP#United States Teofilo (talk) 07:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep it's a photo of a parade. I still haven't found any evidence this sort of photo has ever been considered a real world copyright problem. The Library of Congress (the U.S. copyright repository) doesn't seem to think there's any problem with floats in photos of Mardi Gras parades, eg, File:ZuluHappyMonarchMGD2006CarolHighsmith.jpg a much more blatant example of a parade photo including a float with a "sculptural" element, is labeled by the Library of Congress as having "No known restrictions". -- Infrogmation (talk) 14:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- All that means is that the Library of Congress is not reliable when dealing with derivative works. See http://loc.gov/pictures/item/2010630001/ and compare with Commons:Deletion requests/Balmy Alley murals. Teofilo (talk) 05:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per Infrogmation. Decisions on Commons are very inconsistent, compare Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2008-12#Mardi Gras float and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Artcarfest in San Francisco.jpg. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Kept. A rename is necessary though. –Juliancolton | Talk 12:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
The planet design is not simple enough to fall under pd-textlogo. fetchcomms☛ 01:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- note from uploader (tvkid5000) sorry never edited a special page b4 so sorry its messy but this is xat.com logo... Does it matter if its not simple enough? i put the logo there because its there logo... The preceding unsigned comment was added at 07:05, 21 April 2010 by User:89.240.32.172
- Delete @tvkid5000: Yes it matters as the license that's on it is then not valid. I agree with nominator. -- Deadstar (msg) 07:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- Ok then delete away or changed the license.. i just checked anyold one ... Although me and a few other moderators on xat have worked on that article and saw no problems in it.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.32.172 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted - The logo is not simple enough to be copyright free. it's a copyrighted logo, unfree material. Deleted. –Krinkletalk 11:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Non-compliance with 18 U.S.C. § 2257 UAltmann (talk) 16:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- Please read 18 U.S.C. § 2257 and state that all requirements of the law are met. Please provide this statement in the file itself also. --UAltmann (talk) 22:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
It has not been seen so far by anybody, that 18 U.S.C. § 2257 states some requirements concerning explicit sexual conduct material, such as the duty to exactly verify and testify the legal age of the persons pictured. As long as this is not the case, the picture must be removed. This is not a moral discussion here, this is about law. --UAltmann (talk) 07:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. Could you please provide a link to that law? Sexual intercourse is not pornography. And that picture this can clearly be of educational value. I don't think that pictures of sexual intercourse are forbidden in the US. --PaterMcFly (talk) 08:34, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Nobody said pornography. Just enter '18 U.S.C. § 2257' at google.com . The law provides that records of the persons pictured must be kept and it must be testified that the persons pictured are of legal age for being pictured. It is not enough to state that the persons pictured are obviously adults, it must be testified with the picture in verifiable form. --UAltmann (talk) 23:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- Please read (f) (4) of 18 U.S.C. § 2257:
"It shall be unlawful...knowingly to fail to comply with the provisions of subsection (e) or any regulation promulgated pursuant to that subsection ... (4) for any person knowingly to sell or otherwise transfer, or offer for sale or transfer, any book, magazine, periodical, film, video, or other matter... which does not have affixed thereto, in a manner prescribed as set forth in subsection (e)(1), a statement describing where the records required by this section may be located, but such person shall have no duty to determine the accuracy of the contents of the statement or the records required to be kept..." Therefore: DELETE. --UAltmann (talk) 15:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Rare. --Starscream (talk) 20:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Unlawful for above reasons. --UAltmann (talk) 10:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- Please don't vote more than one time. --GaAs11671 13:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, UAltmann. Your nomination with explanation is counted as a delete vote. Please don't add an additional "vd" because this could be considered double voting. - Stillwaterising (talk) 12:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Please don't vote more than one time. --GaAs11671 13:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete does not comply with legal requirements --Broonschwaaich (talk) 10:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This user is a confirmed sockpuppet of User:UAltmann. Tiptoety talk 20:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- A statement you've made on 8 DRs, so far your sole contribution to Commons.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Wikimedia's attorney has expressed a lack of concern about that law and its applicability to us. Given that, I see no reason to delete perfectly useful and educational media.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- Which attorney and for what reason this should not be applicable? The applicability is self-evident! I also dare say that this is not about education or any usefulness, but only about the indecent exposure of some users, which simply does not comply with the law cited. Please keep in mind that this is not a moral, but a legal issue. --UAltmann (talk) 22:28, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Unlawful for above reasons. Prosfilaes, please provide link to this attorney's opinion. -- Stillwaterising (talk) 12:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Speedy deleted per COM:SCOPE and COM:NUDE. Tiptoety talk 20:59, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Non-compliance with 18 U.S.C. § 2257 UAltmann (talk) 16:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- Please read 18 U.S.C. § 2257 and state that all requirements of the law are met. Please provide this statement in the file itself also. --UAltmann (talk) 22:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
It has not been seen so far by anybody, that 18 U.S.C. § 2257 states some requirements concerning explicit sexual conduct material, such as the duty to exactly verify and testify the legal age of the persons pictured. As long as this is not the case, the picture must be removed. This is not a moral discussion here, this is about law. --UAltmann (talk) 07:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, actually, there was a big discussion on the Village Pump about it. Mike Godwin is unconcerned, and there's been at least one court case overturning it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- Could you please cite the court decision, once it has been published? Did this decision concern this image or did it concern the law itself? --UAltmann (talk) 22:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC) And, could you please provide a link to that discussion, if available? --UAltmann (talk) 22:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- The 2008 6th Circuit Court of Appeals 2-3 decision that 18 U.S.C. § 2257 is unconstitution in the case of a certain set of swingers videos was overturned by the same court in 2009. Discussion can be found at the end of Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Stan Spanker with references. - Stillwaterising (talk) 11:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Rare. --Starscream (talk) 20:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Unlawful for above reasons. --UAltmann (talk) 10:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete does not comply with legal requirements --Broonschwaaich (talk) 10:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- A statement you've made on 8 DRs, so far your sole contribution to Commons.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I can't see why I should comply to US laws. --GaAs11671 13:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- As far as I know, the server of WC is located in the US. --UAltmann (talk) 22:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Wikimedia's attorney has expressed a lack of concern about that law and its applicability to us. Given that, I see no reason to delete perfectly useful and educational media.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- Which attorney and for what reason this should not be applicable? The applicability is self-evident! I also dare say that this is not about education or any usefulness, but only about the indecent exposure of some users, which simply does not comply with the law cited. Please keep in mind that this is not a moral, but a legal issue. --UAltmann (talk) 22:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Comment The first proof of respect would be to give a link for those who don't know this law ! (especially for non-Americans because I remind you that not all Wikimedia users are American, there's a world outside!) --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 06:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)- Delete Unlawful for above reasons. -- Stillwaterising (talk) 11:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Tiptoety: Out of project scope: , please see COM:NUDE
unsicher 84.145.227.184 12:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Non-compliance with 18 U.S.C. § 2257 UAltmann (talk) 16:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- Please read 18 U.S.C. § 2257 and state that all requirements of the law are met. Please provide this statement in the file itself also. --UAltmann (talk) 22:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
It has not been seen so far by anybody, that 18 U.S.C. § 2257 states some requirements concerning explicit sexual conduct material, such as the duty to exactly verify and testify the legal age of the persons pictured. As long as this is not the case, the picture must be removed. This is not a moral discussion here, this is about law. --UAltmann (talk) 07:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. Could you please provide a link to that law? Sexual intercourse is not pornography. And that picture this can clearly be of educational value. I don't think that pictures of sexual intercourse are forbidden in the US. --PaterMcFly (talk) 08:38, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Nobody said pornography. Just enter '18 U.S.C. § 2257' at google.com . The law provides that records of the persons pictured must be kept and it must be testified that the persons pictured are of legal age for being pictured. It is not enough to state that the persons pictured are obviously adults, it must be testified with the picture in verifiable form. --UAltmann (talk) 17:40, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- Please read (f) (4) of 18 U.S.C. § 2257:
- "It shall be unlawful...knowingly to fail to comply with the provisions of subsection (e) or any regulation promulgated pursuant to that subsection ... (4) for any person knowingly to sell or otherwise transfer, or offer for sale or transfer, any book, magazine, periodical, film, video, or other matter... which does not have affixed thereto, in a manner prescribed as set forth in subsection (e)(1), a statement describing where the records required by this section may be located, but such person shall have no duty to determine the accuracy of the contents of the statement or the records required to be kept..." Therefore: DELETE. --UAltmann (talk) 15:42, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Rare. --Starscream (talk) 19:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
- Not sure how this is "rare." There is tons of images just like this one all over commons, just take a look at Category:Photographs of sexual intercourse and others like it. Tiptoety talk 21:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- There's ten files in that category. There's a probably a million photos of buildings on Commons, but for something that is even more universal in human society than building buildings, we have ten pictures.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- Not sure how this is "rare." There is tons of images just like this one all over commons, just take a look at Category:Photographs of sexual intercourse and others like it. Tiptoety talk 21:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Unlawful for above reasons. --UAltmann (talk) 10:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete does not comply with legal requirements --Broonschwaaich (talk) 10:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This user has been blocked as a sock. Tiptoety talk 21:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- A statement you've made on 8 DRs, so far your sole contribution to Commons.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Wikimedia's attorney has expressed a lack of concern about that law and its applicability to us. Given that, I see no reason to delete perfectly useful and educational media.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- Which attorney and for what reason this should not be applicable? The applicability is self-evident! I also dare say that this is not about education or any usefulness, but only about the indecent exposure of some users, which simply does not comply with the law cited. Please keep in mind that this is not a moral, but a legal issue. --UAltmann (talk) 22:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete some people only see what laws apply to their own countries and forget that this website is also accessed by everybody else in the world including children. A drawn picture would have been much better. Let wikipedia be a tool that everybody in the world should enjoy using. The picture is definately porn. Nothing of good value that I see is good for the world that want to learn. otherwise Wikipedia should have some pages with age restricts and if possible some countries should be able to filter information to only allow what is valued in their country. Please do not support porn on public educational sites. heri 00:24, 27 April 2010
- Some people forget that not everything shares their standards. Some want to remove every woman not wearing a burqa; some regard that is intolerable. There is no happy medium. In any case, this is policy question to be taken up elsewhere; for the purposes of a deletion request, the issue's closed. Commons is not censored.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete as per above - Stillwaterising (talk) 04:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep It's in use, it's fulfilling its purpose and I don't see how harm can be done with that picture.--Lamilli (talk) 11:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Comment The file is "in use" on user talk pages and one project page giving it as an example of images "desirable for some" in a long list of image (replaceable example). Not a valid reason to keep. - Stillwaterising (talk) 11:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - Per COM:SCOPE and COM:NUDE. Tiptoety talk 21:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete This is porn! You can pretent it to be educational, but in fact it's not, you'd lie to yourselve. A scetch may be educational, but this one won't help my children to understand, what sexual intercourse is. For them in this age it is just disgusting, not educational at all. --Matthäsius (talk) 08:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. Good quality image of vaginal intercourse. We do have images of erect and ejaculating penisses and of open vulvas but no examples showing the interaction of both in a natural act of procreation. Hence it is clearly educational. Still it can be looked as being erotic but clearly not pornographic (this classifcation must come from people that have only seen such images in porn magazines which they hide in the back of their drawer). In Wiki it clearly has educational value as it simply depicts an act of joy, affection and love between two human beings. 212.27.185.253 09:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Unlawful for above reasons. –BruTe Talk 09:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
deleted Out of project scope commons is no pornographic magazine axpdeHello! 21:36, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Non-compliance with 18 U.S.C. § 2257 UAltmann (talk) 16:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- Please read 18 U.S.C. § 2257 and state that all requirements of the law are met. Please provide this statement in the file itself also. --UAltmann (talk) 22:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
It has not been seen so far by anybody, that 18 U.S.C. § 2257 states some requirements concerning explicit sexual conduct material, such as the duty to exactly verify and testify the legal age of the persons pictured. As long as this is not the case, the picture must be removed. This is not a moral discussion here, this is about law. --UAltmann (talk) 07:15, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Rare. --Starscream (talk) 20:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Unlawful for above reasons. --UAltmann (talk) 10:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete does not comply with legal requirements --Broonschwaaich (talk) 10:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- A statement you've made on 8 DRs, so far your sole contribution to Commons.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Wikimedia's attorney has expressed a lack of concern about that law and its applicability to us. Given that, I see no reason to delete perfectly useful and educational media.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- Which attorney and for what reason this should not be applicable? The applicability is self-evident! I also dare say that this is not about education or any usefulness, but only about the indecent exposure of some users, which simply does not comply with the law cited. Please keep in mind that this is not a moral, but a legal issue. --UAltmann (talk) 22:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Unlawful for above reasons. -- Stillwaterising (talk) 12:12, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Good quality image depicting vaginal intercourse between (presumably) adults with clear educational value. The image can certainly be classified as erotic but not "pornographic". We also have images of erect and ejaculating penisses and open vulvas on Wiki but only rare examples depicting the interaction of both sex organs in fullfilling their biologic function. A depiction of a natural act of joy, affection and in many cases love between two human beings should not be banned on Wiki 212.27.185.253 09:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Can anyone give a link to inform non-Americans about that law ?!!! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 16:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
- Just google for "18 U.S.C. § 2257". --UAltmann (talk) 08:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
- I now remember that I had a discussion about that law 2 years ago and I'm still convinced that we're not concerned by this law. First, we don't risk anything because, according to the WP article Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act : On October 23, 2007, the 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that the record keeping requirements were facially invalid because they imposed an overbroad burden on legitimate, constitutionally protected speech > I guess Wikimedia doesn't risk anything, especially as a "second producer". Moreover, in the 2257 Regulations, I think paragraphs c4ii, c4iii and c4iv may exclude Wikimedia. So I'd say Keep --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 10:18, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
- I now remember that I had a discussion about that law 2 years ago and I'm still convinced that we're not concerned by this law. First, we don't risk anything because, according to the WP article Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act : On October 23, 2007, the 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that the record keeping requirements were facially invalid because they imposed an overbroad burden on legitimate, constitutionally protected speech > I guess Wikimedia doesn't risk anything, especially as a "second producer". Moreover, in the 2257 Regulations, I think paragraphs c4ii, c4iii and c4iv may exclude Wikimedia. So I'd say
- Just google for "18 U.S.C. § 2257". --UAltmann (talk) 08:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment It would have been better IMO to launch a mass DR instead of so many separate process... --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 16:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
- Educational value? If you wanted to use such material for education, why don't you go ahead and buy porn for your kids. Would be practically the same! For kids, this material is shocking and offensive, therefore it can't be educational in any way! People here seem to believe that WC is a sphere free of law, but it definitively is not. The way this picture is made gives me the impression that this is taken from a porn site, so, we also have a copyright problem here. The file name alone indicates a closer relation to the porn scene than to education purposes. --UAltmann (talk) 08:06, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
- "Educational" doesn't mean "for kids". Even adults have to be educated. And for God's sake, stop using the "non educatinal" argument. Wikimedia is not ONLY educational, it's also informational and so on. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 10:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
- In the world are not only kids. Many people in our planet are adult. --Starscream (talk) 10:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
- "Educational" doesn't mean "for kids". Even adults have to be educated. And for God's sake, stop using the "non educatinal" argument. Wikimedia is not ONLY educational, it's also informational and so on. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 10:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Comment The discussion is not whether this image is educational or not, but rather if it breaks the law or not. Even if the lawyers described above don't find interest in the legal implications, someone did, and such legal requirements haven't been clarified as met. --Bobjgalindo (talk) 13:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
- The discussion is about whether to delete this image, and you'll note that the proposer who brought up the legal issues also brings up the education issues. I think since Wikimedia does have a lawyer for this, we should follow the advice of him; when he says that we don't need to be concerned about a law, we should take that argument. He's the guy who's going to have to talk to the FBI if they call, after all.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:37, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
deleted Out of project scope commons is no pornographic magazine axpdeHello! 21:33, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Non-compliance with 18 U.S.C. § 2257 UAltmann (talk) 16:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- Please read 18 U.S.C. § 2257 and state that all requirements of the law are met. Please provide this statement in the file itself also. --UAltmann (talk) 22:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete It has not been seen so far by anybody, that 18 U.S.C. § 2257 states some requirements concerning explicit sexual conduct material, such as the duty to exactly verify and testify the legal age of the persons pictured. As long as this is not the case, the picture must be removed. This is not a moral discussion here, this is about law. The little amount of pubic hair of the female person may indicate, that age requirements of the law are not met. In any case, age recording and testifying requirements are not met. --UAltmann (talk) 07:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- Alternately, the amount of pubic hair might coincide with other indicators that she is Japanese, and hence not as hairy as the average European.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:43, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Rare. --Starscream (talk) 20:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete does not comply with legal requirements --Broonschwaaich (talk) 10:53, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- A statement you've made on 8 DRs, so far your sole contribution to Commons.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Wikimedia's attorney has expressed a lack of concern about that law and its applicability to us. Given that, I see no reason to delete perfectly useful and educational media.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- Which attorney and for what reason this should not be applicable? The applicability is self-evident! I also dare say that this is not about education or any usefulness, but only about the indecent exposure of some users, which simply does not comply with the law cited. Please keep in mind that this is not a moral, but a legal issue. --UAltmann (talk) 22:34, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- If it's not a moral issue, then I ask that you strike your statement that the exposure was indecent, since indecent is purely a moral word. The consistent behavior of this website is to not be concerned with this law, which has been found an unconstitutional violation of freedom of speech by a judge[1]. At such point where our attorney has ruled otherwise, or the board of directors demands otherwise, I don't see where we should be concerned.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:43, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
- I said that imho some users aim at being indecent (which is not a moral term, but a normative one, since this term is used by law) or provocative by picturing their genitals and publishing them here, so I am talking about their intention rather than about the picture itself. This is, why I say, that this is about conduct and not about speech here, therefore, the court's ruling quoted does not apply. Keep in mind that no other Encyclopedia whatsoever uses such explicit material. This leads me to the conclusion that other intentions than only the explanation of the topic stand in the foreground. --UAltmann (talk) 06:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Unlawful for above reasons. -- Stillwaterising (talk) 12:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Legal threat noted. Erik Warmelink (talk) 20:12, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
deleted Out of project scope commons is no pornographic magazine axpdeHello! 21:37, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Cheap porn - not educational in any way, delete ASAP -- 04:20, 2 January 2010 190.10.13.186
Non-compliance with 18 U.S.C. § 2257 UAltmann (talk) 16:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep -- It already survived
twothree previous deletion nominations, as recorded at Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Het1.jpg. I vote to keep unless someone can explain very specifically what exactly has changed since then... AnonMoos (talk) 20:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- Please read 18 U.S.C. § 2257 and state that all requirements of the law are met. Please provide this statement in the file itself also. --UAltmann (talk) 22:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- 1) I am not the the original uploader, and have not claimed to be the original uploader. 2) As I stated before, I will vote to "keep", until someone can explain very specifically exactly what has changed since the previous THREE deletion nominations occurred, all with a result of "Keep". -- AnonMoos (talk) 05:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
It has not been seen so far by anybody, that 18 U.S.C. § 2257 states some requirements concerning explicit sexual conduct material, such as the duty to exactly verify and testify the legal age of the persons pictured. As long as this is not the case, the picture must be removed. This is not a moral discussion here, this is about law. --UAltmann (talk) 07:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- Please read (f) (4) of 18 U.S.C. § 2257:
- "It shall be unlawful...knowingly to fail to comply with the provisions of subsection (e) or any regulation promulgated pursuant to that subsection ... (4) for any person knowingly to sell or otherwise transfer, or offer for sale or transfer, any book, magazine, periodical, film, video, or other matter... which does not have affixed thereto, in a manner prescribed as set forth in subsection (e)(1), a statement describing where the records required by this section may be located, but such person shall have no duty to determine the accuracy of the contents of the statement or the records required to be kept..." Therefore: Delete --UAltmann (talk) 15:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Rare. --Starscream (talk) 20:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
- Unlawful for above reasons. --UAltmann (talk) 10:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete does not comply with legal requirements --Broonschwaaich (talk) 10:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- A statement you've made on 8 DRs, so far your sole contribution to Commons.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Wikimedia's attorney has expressed a lack of concern about that law and its applicability to us. Given that, I see no reason to delete perfectly useful and educational media.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- Which attorney and for what reason this should not be applicable? The applicability is self-evident! I also dare say that this is not about education or any usefulness, but only about the indecent exposure of some users, which simply does not comply with the law cited. Please keep in mind that this is not a moral, but a legal issue. --UAltmann (talk) 22:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- Mike Godwin, presumably, but he's well known as a latitudinarian.. AnonMoos (talk) 05:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
- Which attorney and for what reason this should not be applicable? The applicability is self-evident! I also dare say that this is not about education or any usefulness, but only about the indecent exposure of some users, which simply does not comply with the law cited. Please keep in mind that this is not a moral, but a legal issue. --UAltmann (talk) 22:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Useful pic, not "cheap pornography" plus it's pretty awesome. - Limpbizkit1848 (talk) 02:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Unlawful for above reasons. -- Stillwaterising (talk) 12:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
deleted Out of project scope commons is no pornographic magazine axpdeHello! 21:34, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Non-compliance with 18 U.S.C. § 2257 UAltmann (talk) 16:35, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- Please read 18 U.S.C. § 2257 and state that all requirements of the law are met. Please provide this statement in the file itself also. --UAltmann (talk) 22:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
It has not been seen so far by anybody, that 18 U.S.C. § 2257 states some requirements concerning explicit sexual conduct material, such as the duty to exactly verify and testify the legal age of the persons pictured. As long as this is not the case, the picture must be removed. This is not a moral discussion here, this is about law. --UAltmann (talk) 07:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Rare. --Starscream (talk) 19:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Unlawful for above reasons. --UAltmann (talk) 10:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete does not comply with legal requirements --Broonschwaaich (talk) 10:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- A statement you've made on 8 DRs, so far your sole contribution to Commons.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Wikimedia's attorney has expressed a lack of concern about that law and its applicability to us. Given that, I see no reason to delete perfectly useful and educational media.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Law is different in every country. In my one it is allowed. Deleting means destroying the work of someone. I see no reason to do so!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.184.24.124 (talk • contribs) 16:46, April 23, 2010 (UTC)
- Which attorney and for what reason this should not be applicable? The applicability is self-evident! I also dare say that this is not about education or any usefulness, but only about the indecent exposure of some users, which simply does not comply with the law cited. Please keep in mind that this is not a moral, but a legal issue. --UAltmann (talk) 22:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Unlawful for above reasons. -- Stillwaterising (talk) 12:12, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Delete unless both persons have given explicit authorization. "Own work" is not enough if two people are involved. Capmo (talk) 17:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete unused, not of any realistic encyclopaedic use, concerns over potential legal ramifications given that the subjects are unidentified. Commons should not be hosting material like this "just because we can", even if that is indeed accurate (which is open to debate). JzG (talk) 06:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- Comment In addition, no "realistically educational purpose" and disgusting to boot. - Stillwaterising (talk) 22:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
- AKA IDONTLIKEIT. Tabercil (talk) 23:26, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
- Answering the question "what happens during sex" is not realistically educational?--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
- The file name alone indicates a closer relation to the porn scene than to education branch. Keep in mind that for kids such material is severely shocking and scary, therefore not even potentially educative. By the way, the quality is disgusting. --UAltmann (talk) 08:11, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
- I think you're displacing your feelings here. And not all education is for adults; a Wikimedia version of w:Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex (But Were Afraid to Ask), for adults only of course, could use this image to great value. The simple fact that sex isn't antiseptic and squeaky clean is an important one to illustrate.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:16, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
deleted Out of project scope commons is no pornographic magazine axpdeHello! 21:18, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image Amada44 (talk) 07:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Deadstar (msg) 12:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. — Dferg (talk) 12:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image Amada44 (talk) 08:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Deadstar (msg) 12:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. — Dferg (talk) 12:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image Amada44 (talk) 08:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Deadstar (msg) 12:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Delete per nom .Cholo Aleman (talk) 06:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. — Dferg (talk) 12:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image Amada44 (talk) 08:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Deadstar (msg) 12:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. — Dferg (talk) 12:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Pornography. What educational purpose can this ever have? The Cleaner (talk) 18:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. –Tryphon☂ 18:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep "Pornography" seems to be your opinion (and from your edits you seem to have an very broad personal notion of what you consider pornographic) and is not in itelf a reason for deletion. Purpose: To illustrate the actress shown and/or the practice shown. -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Invalid reason as Commons is not censored. Tabercil (talk) 03:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Jacopo Werther (talk) 08:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Not pornographic (using european standards), image of a porn actress who, by definition of her job, tends to be a lot naked (so it has intrinsic educational value), and most importantly image was provided with OTRS clearance, so there is not a personality rights (as far i see). Tm (talk) 03:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Common Good (talk) 19:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
for violation of personality rights, see this thread. Depicted has already provided a replacement image. Túrelio (talk) 15:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Related request: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jan Jelinek2.jpg.
- Keep, in use. Besides, it was shot and most likely uploaded in Canada, so German law doesn't apply. –Tryphon☂ 15:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
This is actually not about legality in Canada or the US but a question of courtesy and kindness. In the times of internet local laws might not apply but since the depicted doesn´t ask of Wikipedia to give up it´s ideals but only to respect his relative privacy, there should be no reason not grant him this. The person shown is German and is simply appealing to Wikipedia´s politeness and respect of his personality rights which are held highly in his native country. The unauthorised picture does not illustrate more than the other but the depicted feels (for his own private reasons) more comfortable with the authorised foto that he offered. It´s simply a matter of politeness here not of public interest. The article would be quite sufficient and informative without a picture at all! It doesn´t cost Wikipedia anything to Request for privacy should be respected. It doesn´t cost Wikipedia anything to replace the picture but it leaves a human beings dignity and personal rights untouched. Replace picture or do without one.--92.226.51.24 18:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, in use. Even if it wasn't, it would be part of a collection of images useful for Wikimedia projects for educational purposes. Anybody considered notable enough for a Wikipedia article should have at least a half-dozen pictures on Commons if possible.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Please show me where one can find this rule about at least 6 pictures, or is this just your personal opinion. If you want half a dozen pictures of Jan, feel free to ask him for some. He will be happy to provide you with them. Who is Wikipedia to defy courtesy and dictate what Jan Jelinek has to tolerate and what not? What´s so important about the pictures in question that Wikipedia is determined to sacrifice all manners and politeness?--93.219.183.24 08:15, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- Wikimedia Commons is not sacrificing all manners; it's violating a certain code, much less widespread and strict then the code against, say, graphic images of the Prophet.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- Comment There's still only these two photos in Category:Jan Jelinek. It's impossible to look at and compare the replacement if it's not here and properly categorized.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
- As already mentioned and linked in the discussion on Commons talk:Licensing, even before you have been commenting there, the possible replacement image is currently on :de, where it is undergoing copyright clearance, before it will be moved/copied to Commons. So stop this strawman argumenting. --Túrelio (talk) 10:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
- A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. If it's "undergoing copyright clearance", then considering it as a replacement is premature. I can't tell if we're getting the large (i.e. 600x480) version; even if we do, it's still smaller than the one we have, and he is proportionally less of the picture.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:17, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
- True. However, this is not a speedy, but a regular DR and inbetween the uploader has already added one of two missing informations, the name of the photographer. --Túrelio (talk) 06:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. If it's "undergoing copyright clearance", then considering it as a replacement is premature. I can't tell if we're getting the large (i.e. 600x480) version; even if we do, it's still smaller than the one we have, and he is proportionally less of the picture.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:17, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Photo of a performer performing at a festival; there is no privacy problem. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep There is no copyright problem, obviously. They're tagged with {{Personality}}. There's nothing offensive to the subject in these pictures, either, although they're not the best quality. It would set a poor precedent for the project to remove images of someone as a personal favor - if you want to decrease exposure of these images, the best way is by contributing superior pictures, which will then probably be used in articles instead of the existing ones. Dcoetzee (talk) 15:08, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Comment The "replacement"-Image was deleted, the uploader won't get the permission of the photographer of the PR-picture. --Quedel (talk) 16:11, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept. –Tryphon☂ 05:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
for violation of personality rights, see thread. Depicted has already provided a replacement image. Túrelio (talk) 15:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Related request: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jan Jelinek.jpg.
- Keep, the "replacement" is small as a post stamp and is a typical heavily-retouched press picture (seriously, could you even tell it's the same guy?) This picture shows him doing his work, which is much more valuable to illustrate an article about him. –Tryphon☂ 15:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
There are actually two authorised pictures with different resolution in the German article. The person shown is German and is simply appealing to Wikipedias kindness and respect of his personality rights which are held highly in his native country. The current image does not show him "doing his work" (It shows him sitting somewhere). BTW, who tells you that this actually IS Jan Jelinek - if you doubt that with the press foto?. The unauthorised picture is not "more valuable" than the other. It´s simply a matter of politeness here not of public interest. The article is quite sufficient and informative without a picture at all! Request for privacy should be respected. Replace picture or do without one.--93.219.184.202 15:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- @93.., where is the second image? I didn't find it on :de. --Túrelio (talk) 16:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Click on the picture. There you should find the same pic in two different resolutions. The bigger one was uploaded 08:10, 19. Apr. 2010. the smaller one at 8:26. If in doubt about the depicted person, feel free to contact Jan through his website Faitiche.de.--92.226.51.24 18:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. I just wonder why they used the low-res version on :de. --Túrelio (talk) 18:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- I just want to clarify my comment about not being able to tell if it's the same guy. I meant it is so set up and polished, in contrast to the picture you want deleted (where he looks much more natural and "real"), that it's hard to see a resemblance. But of course, I'm not questioning the fact that it really is Jan Jelinek. –Tryphon☂ 18:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
So what? It´s a press picture. How much "realness" does Wikipedia demand. That sounds very voyeuristic. Wikipedia is not a tabloid paper. Do you feel you have the right to see the "real" Jan and not the "artificial and artistic media figure" that he likes to create for reasons of protecting his private life and family? Should he drop his pants for you or let everyone be able to count the spots on his cheeks? You want to refuse him the right to be vain about his image? Believe me, I know him well and hardly recognized him on the FlickR pic. This discussion is getting out of hand. Do you seriously want to base a decision wether the pciture should stay or not on the question of authenticism?--92.226.51.24 18:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- @92., in case you are the same as 93. at noon, you might want to read my comment on User talk:93.219.184.202. --Túrelio (talk) 18:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- Comment There's still only these two photos in Category:Jan Jelinek. It's impossible to look at and compare the replacement if it's not here and properly categorized.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep for the same reasons given at Jan Jelinek.jpg. It's one of only two images we have of a person with a WP page.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep As at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jan Jelinek.jpg. Dcoetzee (talk) 15:08, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Photo of a performer performing at a festival; there is no privacy problem. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:48, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep --Eva K. is evil 23:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Comment The "replacement"-Image was deleted, the uploader won't get the permission of the photographer of the PR-picture. --Quedel (talk) 16:11, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept. –Tryphon☂ 05:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
unused strange image with a guitar - unused and out of scope (where is the wikipedia article where it fits??) Cholo Aleman (talk) 19:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, orphan uncategorized undescribed; looks like it may be snapshot from tv screen Infrogmation (talk) 20:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 14:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
A sculpture is not a building. No FOP in Norway per COM:FOP#Norway Teofilo (talk) 05:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete agreed. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 14:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 17:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
This looks to me like a modern portrait of Avicenna on a woven carpet. A quick check on the licensing helpdesk confirmed that the creator of the carpet probably holds rights over this work of art. -- Deadstar (msg) 08:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Except if there is evidence it is old enough. --GaAs11671 14:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. I agree. The copyright holder is the person who designed the carpet, not necessarily the maker (i.e., the weaver) of the carpet, but in any case there is insufficient evidence that the designer has licensed the image to the Commons. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 06:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 17:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
unused, no source, bad quality Amada44 (talk) 08:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete no info on what type of dog etc. Out of scope. -- Deadstar (msg) 12:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 17:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
copyvio http://i.ytimg.com/vi/mdSqQlkBzLQ/0.jpg Kattenkruid (talk) 20:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, blatant copyvio, screenshot from nl:New Kids. --Martin H. (talk) 21:43, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
unused blurred image of a shop (Tiendas de ....) - selfpromotion, nearly private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 16:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom -- malo (talk) 23:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Bórrese --Arcibel (talk) 16:44, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 17:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 16:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Unused old personal image by inactive user. -- Infrogmation (talk) 20:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 17:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Very low resolution, no EXIF metadata; very doubtful that this is own work. –Tryphon☂ 18:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Probable copyright violation; unlikely to be used for articles about doing the en:laundry. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per the communitys oppinion abf «Cabale!» 17:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
unused image, very dark, malo (talk) 21:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Delete - unused private.. - out of scope (the background would be OK, but this would be derivative.... -:) ) Cholo Aleman (talk) 23:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 17:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
unused image, old, color distorted and faded, unremarkable malo (talk) 21:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Delete - per nom, clearly private Cholo Aleman (talk) 23:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 17:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
unused image, only exists for self promotion malo (talk) 21:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 17:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
not own work by author. It's the seal of the National Intelligence Organization (Turkey). See also Google. Sonty567 (talk) 10:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Speedy deleted - Thanks! Please tag these kind of images with {{copyvio|reason here|source=http://url_to_original .}} in the future instead of nominating them, that way they'll be taken care of quicker. –Krinkletalk 02:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
I've been looking at the dodgy images here (steady) with the view many of them aren't needed. This one can't have an educational purpose The Cleaner (talk) 18:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, unused derivative of File:Bruna Ferraz 2.jpg. –Tryphon☂ 18:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete For Tryphon. Jacopo Werther (talk) 08:04, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Not being used is not a reason to be deleted, and this image is within scope and not dodgy, as her genital area is censured, giving option to different wikis of using this image or the explicit one. This image depicts a famous (in Brazil and Portugal) brazilian porn actress, who, by definition of her work is regularly photographed and filmed naked, so is natural that appears images of her naked (see in Google images explicit content, with a search string of "Bruna Ferraz naked" in Portuguese what i mean). Tm (talk) 03:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I guess it may illustrate censorship ! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 06:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted weak decission however. Reasons: Might illustrate censorship. True. Con to that: Noone really censores like that in general. She being an p*** actress, and therefore being only rarely photographed clothed up is also a reason, but if you need her image for an article, you clould just cut her head out of another free image, wich is much more suitable. abf «Cabale!» 17:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
duplicate upload Gverdtsiteli-tamara (talk) 18:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
- Where is the duplicate? File also has a copyvio notice. -- Deadstar (msg) 08:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
The duplicate is HERE: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tamriko_GV.jpg, my own upload of the same file...
HELP!!! I DUNNO WHAT TO DO!!!! I uploaded my own photo, gave a good description and wrote that the photo can be freely used by other people... I spend hours just to make suitable corrections, but it's becoming worther...
I wonder if it is possible to give a correct description to the file...
Deleted by ABF: In category Media without a license as of 12 April 2010; no license
The enwiki source image's original description was "SfR images; Created by Sf-Karabinier". The original uploader has confessed that images tagged that way were uploaded without permission: en:User_talk:Karabinier#Another_image_question. Quibik (talk) 23:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Missing permission. High Contrast (talk) 21:07, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Design on a train. FOP in Japan is non-commercial only, therefore not suitable for Wikimedia Commons. Teofilo (talk) 07:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Delete Agreed. That's three polar bears in a row I've commented on (see above). . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 14:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 15:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Art painted on a house. No FOP in Norway for bidimensional art. See COM:FOP#Norway Teofilo (talk) 07:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Delete Agreed. Now four polar bears in a row (see above). Weird. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 14:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 15:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Sculpture in Norway. No FOP for sculptures in Norway per COM:FOP#Norway Teofilo (talk) 08:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Neutral Is this really artwork? --GaAs11671 10:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)- Keep It is decoration only, comparable with the figurines seen in many asian restaurants for example. BjørnN (talk) 10:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Delete "Decoration" is copyrightable. "Figurines" are copyrightable -- the fact that the bears are realistic does not disqualify them -- a realistic photograph still has a copyright. And not only the bears, but their arrangement with the arches is also copyrightable. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 14:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 15:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Origami (paper art). No permission from creator. Delete per COM:DW. Teofilo (talk) 09:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. At first I thought the origami piece might have been the uploader's own work, but it says it was made by Nicolas Terry, an origami artist who has a website; hence not free.
--JN466 10:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
The photography is ALL MINE, the the paper bear was designed by Nicolas Terry and it is published in his book "Passion Origami".
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 15:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Unused image, initially used for an article on nl: wiki but article was deleted as person lacked encyclopedic value. -- Deadstar (msg) 10:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 15:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
and File:Instrument technician Class A.jpg. Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete This user has a history of uploading this kind of image and of removing {{speedydelete}} and similar tags:
- Ian Rhel Datu (deleted four times)
- File:Ian Rhel Datu. Instrument master technician in Saudi Kayan February 2, 2006.jpg
- File:The DCS CONSOLE these picture was taken in saudi during the opeartion.jpg
- File:The console Instrumentation.JPG
- File:Alone black and white.jpg
- File:Loop checker Saudi Kayan.jpg
He or she has also tried similar things on :en, here.. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 16:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 15:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Copy-vio? Can Mattias B be the copyright holder of a photo by Tim De Waele? Pirker (talk) 15:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete It at least needs more explanation. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 15:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 15:10, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
unused "private" image from a company in mexico - unusable and unused - out of scope (no drought for images like this) Cholo Aleman (talk) 16:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 15:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - somewhere in india - unusable, out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 16:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 15:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
unused image of a youth club in spain (or a spanish speaking country) - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 16:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 15:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
unused strange logo - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 18:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 15:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
unused architectural concept - self promotion of an architect, misclassified as "art" - out of scope (like several other files of this user) Cholo Aleman (talk) 18:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Delete Agreed. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 15:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Wknight94: Per Commons:Deletion_requests/File:23_0809_Ü1_MaikeSpringer_Pos-Neg.JPG
unused, user made screenshot of a derisive userbox malo (talk) 02:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 11:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Sculptor died in 1952. No FOP in France. Hektor (talk) 15:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Delete Agreed. We should also delete this whole category on the same grounds. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 15:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 11:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
McDuffie County is in Georgia, not in California, thats what the talk linked in the PD-because rational was about. IMO every state is different and requires an idividual check. The reason to start this discussion is of course: Copyright status unclear, invalid pd-because rational. Martin H. (talk) 16:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 11:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
reproduction of a map which is likely protected by copyright; uploader's claim of self-creation seems unlikely --75.171.180.120 19:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 11:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
reproduction of a map which is likely protected by copyright; uploader's claim of self-creation seems unlikely --75.171.180.120 19:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 11:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Problems with author - the photo is described as made by Adrian Nikiel - I received an email from Mr Nikiel who says that he did not take this photo nor uploaded it to Commons. If the uploader is not Adrian Nikiel (as described) then the license given is not valid and should be deleted. Not to mention its poor quality anyway. Zureks (talk) 20:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom A.J. (talk) 12:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Does Mr. Nikiel confirm authorship and license for File:Ks Rafal Trytek.jpg? It should be OTRS-ed, because apparently other person uploaded these photos. A.J. (talk) 12:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
- Mr Nikiel confirmed that the photo File:Ks Rafal Trytek.jpg is indeed taken by him and there is no problem with copyrights/license. --Zureks (talk) 21:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 11:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 19:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Comment - candidate for a public duty in mexico, selfpromotional userpage (talk-page, see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Amanda_obregon ) - obviously a misunderstanding of the commons Cholo Aleman (talk) 19:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Keep I agree that there is a large element of self promotion here, but she's a candidate for public office and therefore, arguably, notable. If she wins, es: will probably need a photo. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 15:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Comment if she wins in twenty years ?! - this image is unused until May 2009 - I see it the other way round: her userpage here is a misuse (or better a misunderstanding) of the commons. Until there is no WP-article about her, she is not notable. Cholo Aleman (talk) 09:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, out of project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 18:53, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
United States Holocaust Memorial Museum photographs and texts
[edit]
File is marked with "Copyright: United States Holocaust Memorial Museum" on source website. Teofilo (talk) 05:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep see User:USHMM for OTRS ticket number. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- I know. I was editing this request, adding more details, as follows :
- One file from this uploader was already deleted in the past : Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Buchenwald Hinzert SS 34557.jpg (deleted in August 2008)
- Unsigned message at User_talk:USHMM#License_PLEASE_READ says : This user is in fact affiliated with the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. Content the user posts that is a copyvio from the USHMM is OK-- gave permission via OTRS ticket ticket #2007071910012533.
- File:Buchenwald_Children_26146.jpg
- is marked with "Copyright: United States Holocaust Memorial Museum" on source website page.
- is described with a long encyclopedic text, copied from source website, whose licencing status is unclear.
- is lacking an OTRS template
- is tagged with {{PD-USGov}}, which is a contradiction.
Either the copyright owner is the museum or the united states government. It can't be both at the same time. Teofilo (talk) 06:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)Either the museum owns copyright, or the work has never been eligible to copyright protection as photograph taken by a United States federal government employee. (PD-USGov doesn't apply to works the US Gov merely owns, just the ones it created : Prosfilaes on Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Buchenwald Hinzert SS 34557.jpg) Teofilo (talk) 08:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- Help has been asked at Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard##2007071910012533. Teofilo (talk) 06:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- If we keep the image, we should purge the description page of the text which is probably copyvio. --GaAs11671 08:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- The OTRS volunteer at Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard##2007071910012533 says the ticket cannot be found. So I am going to list more files for a mass deletion request. Teofilo (talk) 09:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- Please see my addition there. —Pill (talk) 11:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you. So the ticket has been found. I summarize for the people here : user is "affiliated" with USHMM, but the E-mail contains no permission or copyright statement. In my view, this action by this uploader does not constitute a valid Public Domain release of the properties of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum (because {{PD-USGov}} expresses the view that the pictures were never protected by copyright law as federal employee's works). The question of one upload by user:Wiggum, and of the pictures with copyright ownership attributed to third parties is also very problematic. Teofilo (talk) 12:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- See also ushmm.org General Disclaimer Copying or redistributing the text, images, and other content on this Web site for commercial use, including commercial publication, or for personal gain is strictly prohibited : why should they make an exception for a few (less than 230) pictures ? Teofilo (talk) 12:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- Please see my addition there. —Pill (talk) 11:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- The OTRS volunteer at Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard##2007071910012533 says the ticket cannot be found. So I am going to list more files for a mass deletion request. Teofilo (talk) 09:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- All of the Buchenwald photographs uploaded by USHMM were done with the express permission of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. USHMM was acting on behalf of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. We purposefully preserved our captions exactly as vetted by the museum for online distribution. The Museum has worked hard to do everything it could to make these photographs, to which we retain rights, available to the public via Wikimedia. Please DO NOT delete these images. It is sad that one of our photographs has already been deleted. It is unclear how many times we will have to continue to explain this fact. Please tell me exactly what you need for the Museum to do in order to convince each new editor from trying to delete the photos which we uploaded. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.208.61.196 (talk • contribs) 20 April 2010 20:53 (UTC)
- What is needed is not merely a permission to upload. Because Wikimedia requires the contents to be freely licenced. So a licencing agreement must be confirmed by E-mail by every copyright owner whenever the uploader is not the photographer himself.
- Please send an E-mail similar to COM:OTRS#Declaration of consent for all enquiries, including a detailed list of every picture intended for for free use, for anybody, including commercial use, and whose copyright is owned by the museum, to the address mentioned at the top of COM:OTRS.
- The E-mail must also contain a statement regarding the copyright ownership of text, and a free licencing agreement (including commercial use) for the texts whose copyright is owned by the museum.
- For pictures whose copyright is not owned by the museum (including those marked as "Copyright: Agency Agreement" on ushmm.org), please get in touch with the copyright owners and ask them to send separate E-mails.
- Less urgent, but quite helpful, would be to reach the webmaster of the ushmm.org website, asking him to mention the free licences below each picture on the ushmm.org website itself. The terms of the ushmm.org General Disclaimer should also reflect the fact that the freely licenced items are available to anybody for any kind of use, including commercial use. If the museum has lawyers, the lawyers of the museum should help to find the appropriate wording of the new terms of use. You can't at the same time come here and tell us the pictures are available for commercial use, and on your own website say that they aren't : it is schizophrenic.
- Teofilo (talk) 08:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- What is needed is not merely a permission to upload. Because Wikimedia requires the contents to be freely licenced. So a licencing agreement must be confirmed by E-mail by every copyright owner whenever the uploader is not the photographer himself.
All deleted, except those that are likely {{PD-USGov}}. I do not doubt that USHMM is affiliated with the museum, but the museum does not hold the copyright to most of these images. Without permission from the copyright holders or evidence that they are PD-USGov, none of them can be kept. Kameraad Pjotr 12:16, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Design on flying (landing) airplane. No FOP for non permanently located or bidimensional art in Canada. See COM:FOP#Canada Teofilo (talk) 07:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- Hmm... I'd say this mostly pictures the aircraft, and not the tail. --PaterMcFly (talk) 11:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- That tail must be notable and conspicuous enough. Otherwise the uploader would not have written "Tail art: Polar bear cubs "Klondike" and "Snow"" in the description, (and I would not have found the picture while reviewing the polar bear pictures). Teofilo (talk) 09:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- Fine, so why not just remove that text from the infobox? Deleting this photo seems overkill and silly. --Makaristos (talk) 22:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- I would further question why there is no discussion of any other photos of Frontier Airlines's planes on Commons; under this particularly narrow interpretation of FOP, they might all qualify as "reproductions". This is absurd on its face. These are photographs of airplanes, nothing more. --Makaristos (talk) 21:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- Airplanes do have the habit of not standing at one location for very long. So we'd probably have to ask whether applying canadian law is actually the right thing to do. --PaterMcFly (talk) 17:51, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete It's catch 22 -- since already we have around 200 photos of Airbus 319s, the only reason to keep this photo is for the tail art, and that reason requires deletion. Our casebook says,
- "If the vehicle carries an original painted design, there will be copyright in that design even though there is no copyright in the 3D shape. Unless the design is insignificant enough to be ignored, a photograph of the vehicle may not be uploaded without the designer's permission."
- The tail art here is not insignificant.
- As for choice of law, PaterMcFly raises a good point, but as Frontier is a US airline and the US and Canadian law are the same on this subject, the point is moot.
- Finally, yes, we should delete other Frontier tail art, such as File:FrontierA319.jpg. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 14:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 11:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
This mugshot image is non-free. Copyrighted by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. It is not PD-USGov as claimed. Polpo (talk) 16:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- KEEP. You are INCORRECT. It is *NOT* "non-free" (and honestly, what does that mean anyway? If you're going to use such NONsense please define your terms). It has been released to the press and the public for public use and is no different than HUNDREDS of other California Corrections mug shots, for example C. MANSON. Do you also propose to remove MANSON'S mugshot? All the other California Corrections mug shots? I also see that you have created your account specifically to contest this image. Please disclose your POV? Are you related to the subject? If the copyright citation needs to be changed, so be it, but removal is not warranted. =//= Proxy User (talk) 01:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- No need to get defensive. Please assume good faith. As for the meaning of "non-free", it is a common phrase on Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons and means either not explicitly licensed under a free license or not in the public domain. Non-free images may be uploaded to Wikipedia, but not Commons. Please see Commons:Licensing for more information. As for the reason for my deletion request, I was under the impression that mugshots taken by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation were subject to copyright, as are many mugshots not taken by the federal government (see wikipedia:Template:Non-free mugshot and wikipedia:Template talk:Non-free mugshot). Release to the press of an image does not relinquish copyright. In this case, however, it looks to be that images created by the State of California are free. See Template:PD-CAGov and Wikipedia:WP:PDOMG#Template:PD-CAGov. I will mark any California Department of Corrections images I come across with the proper template. Note that if any other mugshots I came across were indeed non-free, I would have also requested their removal from Commons. Polpo (talk) 07:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep As per my explanation above. California Department of Corrections images are in the public domain. Polpo (talk) 07:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Stifle (talk) 11:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
