Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2010/05/06
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
It is unclear why this image can be published under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 Generic licence. The stated source gives no clarification of fact. High Contrast (talk) 15:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Masur (talk) 15:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
low resolution, I need to upload another file in .jpg --LaPizia (talk) 14:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted Per quploader/subject request. Tabercil (talk) 16:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
uploader is not the author, and the work is available under CC-BY-NC 2.5 -- IANEZZ (talk) 11:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Common Good (talk) 21:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
This image is not a photo Ferbr1 (talk) 21:16, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept. I have checked the authorship mentioned at the "Historia Argentina" book, and it's indeed a work by Fernando García del Molino (1813-1899). I have fixed the image according, with the correct licence tag. Belgrano (talk) 22:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
product promotion, uncategorized, out of scope malo (talk) 23:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Purely promotional and so out of scope & speedy Herby talk thyme 14:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Non free Flickr license, however PD-art may apply here due to the age of the source image and that the derivative work is a slavish mechanical reproduction of the original. My personal instinct is to respect the time and work of the photographer speedy delete and look for a version freely given, but others will no doubt disagree. --KTo288 (talk) 18:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Keep I really don't see why PD-art wouldn't apply here. Of course, if there are better alternatives, those could be used. --PaterMcFly (talk) 08:09, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Clear case of PD-art. Nyttend (talk) 13:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept, with license change to {{PD-Art}}; 16th century painting. -- Infrogmation (talk) 18:26, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Appears to be taken from bbc.co.uk: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/photo_galleries/4936124.stm --Ytoyoda (talk) 20:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, Copyright violation/false license by Flickr uploader. -- Infrogmation (talk) 18:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Not used, not useful, low-quality svg, out of scope. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep: Pieter is going around looking for battles against his "enemies," using deletion requests as his weapon. Surely Commons has a noticeboard to discuss this idiocy? --MZMcBride (talk) 22:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Delete I'm going to have to agree. ZooFari 23:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)- Delete per nom. Amada44 (talk) 09:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, unfortunately appears to be more of the same from this user, agree with MZMcBride (talk · contribs). -- Cirt (talk) 09:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Useless, just a toddler's drawing. - Erik Baas (talk) 12:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete leaving aside the apparently bad faith nomination, the image still has to fit COM:PS#Must_be_realistically_useful_for_an_educational_purpose. At first sight, I can't see any educational purpose for this image. If this image does have an educational purpose then please state it here. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete I will repeat what I wrote in another one of Pieter's recent nominations: "Regardless of why this was nominated at this particular time or by whom, the nomination is accurate: the file is neither educational nor in valid use on any WMF project, so it is out of scope." Black Falcon (talk) 07:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, regardless of nominator's purpose in nomination, it's clearly useless. Nyttend (talk) 13:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Infrogmation (talk) 18:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per uploader request to me. NW (Talk) 03:40, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Illustration of "heads must roll"? Not in use, not useful, out of scope. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope. --GaAs11671 09:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Meh. Technically, this is out of scope, since it's not used anywhere and thus can't even squeak in on the "small number of images used on user pages" exemption, although I suppose one could try to pass this off as "relating to projects or events of the Wikimedia Foundation". However, I would also strongly support slapping the nominator with a trout (as long as it's all safe and consensual, of course). Or does someone actually think that deleting this file would help Commons fulfill its mission? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 10:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)- This was used on a few people's monobooks on enwiki. Not sure if many people still have it. Killiondude (talk) 16:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Comment I suspect this is motivated by the nominator's feelings (IMO justified anger) toward the uploader of the image. I don't think this is a good way of expressing them, though I can't see much to say in favor of the image. --Simonxag (talk) 20:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- No anger really, just a feeling of annoyance at this admin's strange ideas of project scope; what if someone uploaded such images of Gordon Brown or of the Pope? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep: Pieter, stop being a dick. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Not used, not educational. MZ, grow up. Erik Warmelink (talk) 22:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Regardless of why this was nominated at this particular time or by whom, the nomination is accurate: the file is neither educational nor in valid use on any WMF project, so it is out of scope. Black Falcon (talk) 22:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep if only for a moment of levity, there are a lot of pictures of Jimbo, many of them I guess unused, actually a lot of images on Commons are unused so the test is of being of potential use rather then actual use.KTo288 (talk) 22:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Stupid gif animation that serves no purpose whatsoever. /grillo (talk) 19:07, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. Not "realistically useful for an educational purpose". VernoWhitney (talk) 22:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Not what we have Commons for. Njaelkies Lea (talk) 15:52, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete No encyclopaedic use possible. According to Mr. Wales the file is out of scope of the project. --Matthiasb (talk) 18:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 19:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
bad quality, scope, copyvio? ← Körnerbrötchen » ✉ 09:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 19:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Another picture taken from a fansite, no clear authorship statement. Eusebius (talk) 11:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, no real evidence of permission. Nyttend (talk) 01:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete A posed shot like this is very likely copyrighted by a professional photographer (or their employer), so more than just a link to a fansite is needed to show that this was freely licensed. --RL0919 (talk) 19:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 19:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
no description, bad filename, uncategorized, class photo, I think it's out of scope malo (talk) 20:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 19:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
This image is not a photo Ferbr1 (talk) 21:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep There's just a wrong license tag in the image description. A scan (or photograph) of a 19th century image from a book from 1971 is of course PD. If I understand the image description, it says that this was taken from a recent book but shows an old drawing. --PaterMcFly (talk) 08:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
There is no evidence that this picture is of the nineteenth century. Ferbr1 (talk) 09:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep It is from a book about the iconography of a historical period; the original is in the national museum of history; drawing must be old. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:22, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Still, the license tag needs to be changed, at least. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:26, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep This is an anonymous lithography, kept at the "Museo Histórico Brigadier General Cornelio de Saavedra" historic museum. See here. Circumstances make it very unlikely not to be a work as old as to be in public domain. Lithographies are largely outdated, and a historic museum would keep just images of historical value. Besides, the time span required by anonyous work is small: simply 50 years after publication (see {{Anonymous work}}). The chance of a lithography being made after 1960 (and before 1971), kept at a historical museum, but whose author got lost, seems so unlikely that I think it's quite safe to simply dismiss it. Belgrano (talk) 21:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment I have updated the information with this one, and replaced the licence tag for the one intended for anonymous works Belgrano (talk) 03:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
The information must be unambiguous. Everything you say is pure speculation. Ferbr1 (talk) 17:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Factual information so far
- It's a lithography
- It's an anonimous work
- It's kept at a historical museum
- Anonimous works go into public domain 50 years later.
Which realistic scenario can there be to assume this work to still be subject to copyright? Belgrano (talk) 18:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- You forgot: it was published in 1971 in a book about the iconography of the period. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Mbdortmund (talk) 19:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
out of scope malo (talk) 21:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 19:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
out of scope malo (talk) 21:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Orphan personal image uncategorized for more than a year. Infrogmation (talk) 18:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 19:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
out of scope malo (talk) 21:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Orphan blurry low res personal photo, not categoriezed in more than a year. Infrogmation (talk) 18:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 19:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
terrible out of focus, uncategorized, out of scope malo (talk) 21:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Infrogmation (talk) 18:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 19:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
image of just text, uncategorized, unused, out of scope malo (talk) 21:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Infrogmation (talk) 18:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 19:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
out of scope, nn-band photo malo (talk) 22:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Also orphan, uncategorized for more than a year, and a poor photoshop job. Infrogmation (talk) 18:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 19:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
self promotional artist image, out of scope malo (talk) 22:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 19:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Non free Flickr license, however PD-art may apply here due to the age of the source image and that the derivative work is a slavish mechanical reproduction of the original. My personal instinct is to respect the time and work of the photographer speedy delete and look for a version freely given, but others will no doubt disagree. --KTo288 (talk) 22:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Any claim of copyright over such an old image is copyfraud. Nyttend (talk) 13:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 19:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Non free Flickr license, however PD-art may apply here due to the age of the source image and that the derivative work is a slavish mechanical reproduction of the original. My personal instinct is to respect the time and work of the photographer speedy delete and look for a version freely given, but others will no doubt disagree. --KTo288 (talk) 22:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Any claim of copyright over such an old image is copyfraud. Nyttend (talk) 13:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- I second that... The image should ideally be in the Public Domain.. Nirvaan.wiki (talk)
Kept. Mbdortmund (talk) 19:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
of no encyclopädic value, blurred Herzi Pinki (talk) 23:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Infrogmation (talk) 18:41, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 19:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
limited value, out of scope, blurred Herzi Pinki (talk) 23:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete can hardly see what it is. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:24, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, it's the original version of File:Não morda os novatos.png, which is in use on several projects (albeit only in user/project space). This image would be useful for anyone wishing to improve or translate the edited version. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep "Don't bite." /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per Ilmari Karonen; while Commons has better less blurry yawning cat images, this one should be kept to preserve source for the derivative work in use in multiple projects. -- Infrogmation (talk) 18:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Mbdortmund (talk) 19:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
COM:SCOPE and possibly copyright problem. Orphaned file. Uploader seems to be uploading numerous personal files with no apparent use. Wknight94 talk 02:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted as clearly out of scope, simply a website URL. --Túrelio (talk) 21:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
COM:SCOPE and possibly copyright problem. Orphaned file. Uploader seems to be uploading numerous personal files with no apparent use. Wknight94 talk 02:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete unless some usefulness within project scope is demonstrated. Infrogmation (talk) 18:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - not a personal photo archive. –SJ+ 09:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 15:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
This image is not a photo Ferbr1 (talk) 20:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete as a copyvio. It claims to be PD-old, but its description seems to say that it was published in 1971. Nyttend (talk) 13:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete PD-old dosen't fit. --GeorgHH • talk 22:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Ups, my error. es:José María Cao Luaces is dead in 1918 (see). This image is a pd-old. Ferbr1 (talk) 07:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept per nom, artist died 1918, Argentina's rule is 70 years PMA. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 14:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
No files included --Bestiasonica (talk) 12:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- no longer empty --Bjs (talk) 08:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep because it's now being used. Nyttend (talk) 13:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep –SJ+ 09:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Mbdortmund (talk) 16:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
no description, uncategorized, no source, unused, out of scope malo (talk) 20:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Missing all source information. --GeorgHH • talk 22:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 16:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
This image is not a photo, is a drawing Ferbr1 (talk) 20:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- This is a 30 year old photograph of a PD-old source, so I don't understand why the given license tag would be wrong. --PaterMcFly (talk) 08:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
there is no evidence that this picture is old. Drew Who? What year? Ferbr1 (talk) 09:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- The person depicted died 1804. Assuming the drawing was made during his lifetime seems reasonable. I can't find anything (matching) on both Juan Carmona or Joaquín Insa, another hint that they are not recent artists. --PaterMcFly (talk) 20:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Mbdortmund (talk) 16:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Derivative work Ferbr1 (talk) 21:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Of what? Of an 1888 map? This is obviously PD-old. --PaterMcFly (talk) 08:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
There is no evidence that this picture is of that year. Ferbr1 (talk) 09:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- The date of the map is even in the map, so there's no reason to believe it is younger. If that map was really made later, the description would say so. Also, it does look like an old map and not like one, that was later made to show how it had looked like. If you question a date indicated on the source, we'd have to delete about all PD-old stuff here, or do you personally remember when each of those works were done? --PaterMcFly (talk) 20:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- KeepAlthough there are certainly plenty of maps made recently that imitate old maps, it's not our job to worry about frauds. This map has an 1888 date and its style is consistent with 1888, so we can assume it was drawn in 1888. The age of the photo or scan is not a concern under our {{PD-art}} policy.. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 15:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Mbdortmund (talk) 16:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
COM:SCOPE and possibly copyright problem. Orphaned file. Uploader seems to be uploading numerous personal files with no apparent use. Wknight94 talk 02:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. — Dferg (talk) 10:32, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
COM:SCOPE and possibly copyright problem. Orphaned file. Uploader seems to be uploading numerous personal files with no apparent use. Wknight94 talk 02:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. — Dferg (talk) 10:32, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
COM:SCOPE and possibly copyright problem. Orphaned file. Uploader seems to be uploading numerous personal files with no apparent use. Wknight94 talk 02:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of the project scope. — Dferg (talk) 10:28, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
COM:SCOPE and possibly copyright problem. Orphaned file. Uploader seems to be uploading numerous personal files with no apparent use. Wknight94 talk 03:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. — Dferg (talk) 10:29, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
COM:SCOPE and possibly copyright problem. Orphaned file. Uploader seems to be uploading numerous personal files with no apparent use. Wknight94 talk 03:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- Also File:Resultados 2007-2011.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log), cover page.
Deleted. — Dferg (talk) 10:32, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
COM:SCOPE and possibly copyright problem. Orphaned file. Uploader seems to be uploading numerous personal files with no apparent use. Wknight94 talk 03:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. — Dferg (talk) 10:33, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
COM:SCOPE and possibly copyright problem. Orphaned file. Uploader seems to be uploading numerous personal files with no apparent use. Wknight94 talk 03:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. — Dferg (talk) 10:33, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
COM:SCOPE and possibly copyright problem. Orphaned file. Uploader seems to be uploading numerous personal files with no apparent use. Wknight94 talk 02:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- Also File:Soportujar portada BRUJAS.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log), cover page.
- Delete. –SJ+ 09:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete plus all of these separately listed below from this uploader:
- File:Carpinteria_Soportujar.jpg
- File:FERIA2009.jpg
- File:Soportube.jpg
- File:Feria2009.pdf
- File:Libro_de_Soportujar1.pdf
- File:Resultados_2007-2011.pdf
- File:Resultados 2007-2011.jpg
- File:Semana_Cultural_2008.jpg
- File:Semana_Cultural_2008.pdf
. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 12:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Huib talk 17:16, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Updated chart available: File:Population of Japan since 1872.svg. Demmo (talk) 08:20, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- Strong Keep There is a historical interest in knowing what was projected at any given time -- on this pair it is interesting that the subject chart shows a projected population in 2100 of 65 million, while the "replacement" shows a projected population in 2100 of 45 million. So, the two charts, taken together, illustrate a difference of opinion or change in thinking about population trends in Japan. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 12:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Note also that the nominator created the "replacement". While this sequence is not against our rules, and I'm happy to assume he or she is acting in good faith, it makes me uneasy when someone creates a new graph with different data and then proposes the old graph for deletion. At the very least, the nominator might have set forth the creation of the new graph in the nomination.. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 12:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment I nominated it for deletion just because it is not useful on my opinion. I believe the data is similar and it only reflects the fact that the newer file uses updated projection figures. No need to delete if there is an opposition.Demmo (talk) 19:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Huib talk 17:20, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Newer version exists: File:Population of Armenia since 1949.svg. Demmo (talk) 07:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- Strong Keep see my comments above under Commons:Deletion requests/File:Japanese population chart 1870-2100.png which also apply here. Also, the two charts here cover different time periods and have different data for the period covered. This could be errors in census work, political manipulation of data, or otherwise, but the fact that the population and its trend are very different from two sets of data is itself interesting. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 12:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Huib talk 17:20, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Newer version exists File:Population of Israel since 1949.svg Demmo (talk) 07:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- Weak Keep Although the new file is a simple extension of the old one and therefore my strong objections at File:Armenia-demography.png and File:Japanese_population_chart_1870-2100.png don't apply, I can't see why we don't keep the older version. As an example, someone writing a History of Israel in the 20th Century would prefer the older version. I recognize that this is not a high probability use, but we have many files which are low probability and it costs almost nothing to keep one.. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 12:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Huib talk 17:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Newer version exists: File:Population of Japan since 1872.svg. Demmo (talk) 07:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. These are very different graphs. The subject covers 1961-2003 while the "replacement" covers 1872-2110. The subject could easily be useful to someone writing about post-war Japan. The "replacement" is likely to interest only those with specific demographic interest in the future population. See also my comments at Commons:deletion requests/File:Japanese_population_chart_1870-2100.png. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 12:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep AgreeDemmo (talk) 19:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Huib talk 17:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
This image is supposedly created by the uploader, but is the uploader really an authorised employee of the Commonwealth of the Bahamas? In all likelihood, this is under Crown Copyright; even if Bahamian government images are public domain, the uploader did not create it. Nyttend (talk) 14:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete I come to the same conclusion from different direction, namely that there is no exemption for government works in Bahamian Copyright law, see Chapter 323, Part II, Section 8. I suppose it's arguable whether this is complex enough to deserve copyright, but I'm sure the Bahamian Government would take that position.. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 13:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, surely the coat of arms is complex enough for copyright. Nyttend (talk) 13:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted Infrogmation (talk) 03:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Out of scope. This appears to have been used at one point on a userpage, but as {{Userpageimage}} says, it's eligible for deletion because it's not educational or informative because it's not in use. If uploader puts it back on his userpage, I'll not hesitate to withdraw this nomination. Nyttend (talk) 03:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Private photo, not used. Kulmalukko (talk) 20:27, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 04:16, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:23, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
project scope --← Körnerbrötchen » ✉ 09:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per nom abf «Cabale!» 14:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
No clear source (meaning no sign of authorship statement), no sign that the source website is the copyright holder. Eusebius (talk) 11:21, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- What is your problem you stalker — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chambord (talk • contribs) 11:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC) (UTC)
- I'm not stalking you, I'm doing my job as an admin. I have had a look at your uploads because it appeared that you don't have a good understanding of either copyright or the copyright-related requirements of this project. Please remain civil. --Eusebius (talk) 12:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- I saw no evidence of the license claimed at the soure website. {{Npd}} added to image page. Unless evidence for claimed license can be shown, Delete Infrogmation (talk) 18:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - copyright uncertain. –SJ+ 09:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - ( Abu Torsam 19:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC))
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 14:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
looks like copyvio to me (from a TV show?) Amada44 (talk) 11:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, appears to be a collage of screenshots of this video (or some other version of the same original video). I see nothing to indicate that it would be freely licensed or that the uploaded would have the authority to license it so. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 22:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Image copied from amateurish web site possibly owned by uploader. Was used briefly on a now-deleted spam gallery. This is a small, off color image that does not appear to be useful and may be copyvio -- there are many copyvios on the site. --. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 12:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete No in scope usefulness I can see. -- Infrogmation (talk) 18:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Tiptoety talk 01:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- Provocative image: "Users vs Trolls: Choose your side" --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 15:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- This doesn't sound like a valid deletion reason. Image is in use. --PaterMcFly (talk) 08:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep as being used on multiple Wikimedia projects without legal issues. Nyttend (talk) 13:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep provacative is allowed, in use. –SJ+ 09:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- "In use" is not valid argument. Some pornographic images may be in use too. --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 12:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep The deletion request is poorly motivated. "Users vs Trolls" is an abstract motto, I do not see how can it be provocative at all. Potekhin (talk) 11:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP#Estonia, probably could have even filed it as speedy. Hluup (talk) 14:16, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand the problem. It would seem the last phrase in the Estonian law is the critical one, with my emphasis: " ... to communicate such reproductions of works to the public EXCEPT if the work is the main subject of the reproduction AND it is intended to be used for direct commercial purposes." The work clearly is the "main subject" BUT it is NOT intended for "direct commercial purposes". However, I'm certainly no expert here.Wilson44691 (talk) 15:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- My knowledge is, that everything in Commons has to be licensed so that it could be used for commercial purposes. Pictures of Estonian buildings, that still have their copyright, can't. Hluup (talk) 15:40, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Hluup has it right. All Commons images must be available for all uses, including commercial use. The only restriction permitted is that attribution may be required. FOP in Estonia is for non-commercial use only.. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 13:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Please delete then. I understand.Wilson44691 (talk) 20:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Tiptoety talk 01:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
The picture has (as many old uploads) no source on german Wikipedia. According to this forum discussion (where the pic is available a bit larger) it was made in 1917 and published in a calendar in 1979. There is no mentioning of other sources or earlier publishing (even though they are likely) and also no mentioning of the autor. Currently we don't have enough information to guarantee that the licence is indeed valid as the picture is only ~90 years old we don't know when the author died. Does anybody have access to books about WW1? He was a cavalry general in the german army during this war when the pic was made. Cecil (talk) 11:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted as long as wedo not know the author... :( abf «Cabale!» 23:06, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Derivative work Anatoliy (talk) 19:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
This image is not "own work", is a clearly derivative work Ferbr1 (talk) 21:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
HIH The Prince Konstantin V Mustafaev
[edit]- File:HIH The Prince Konstantin V Mustafaev.jpg
- File:HH The Prince Konstantin V Mustafaev, The Royal House of Osman.jpg
Possible Flickr washing. These two files are identical and both loaded from Flickr with the same license, however the Flickr pages from which they have been uploaded belong to different Flickr users and the dates for which it is claimed that they were created differ by about 10 days. However it could be that they are both derivatives of a properly licensed image--KTo288 (talk) 23:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
No reason for speed deletion. File is original and contain supportive information. No signs of washing. Files on Flickr are identical with same license, because files are for PUBLIC use which is normal. Decision to keep original version of the file based on Wikipedia Policy.
Dear KTo288, This file available for public view and released in many websites as image for public use. Many identical files can be found in Internet. Flickr is easiest way to use and upload images. Exact creation date of this image unknown. Thank you for understanding. http://www.kultur.gov.tr Ssultan RHO
Comment We need a better source than Flikr. User:Ssultan RHO directs us to a Turkish government tourist site which has (c) all rights reserved on its English home page. That is not what we want or need to see. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 15:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
This is * http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/HIH_The_Prince_Konstantin_V_Mustafaev) confirmed source and confirmed information. Original permission was located on official website of HIH Prince Konstantin V - http://mustafaev.org/LSNZq.jpg and image located at:http://mustafaev.org/HIH%20Prince%20Konstantin%20V%20Mustafaev.jpg
This Information is released for Public publication and use. Image should stay for public use and source of History information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Archwikis (talk • contribs) 09:56, July 7, 2010 (UTC)
- The cited site gives very little information -- the base URL http://www.mustafaev.org/ is a 403 error (Forbidden). The site is owned by someone in Portland, Oregon, USA. There is no evidence there that whoever owns the site has the rights to put the photo in PD. I am still inclined to delete. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 12:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
This image is not a photo Ferbr1 (talk) 21:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Again: Wrong license. The person depicted died 1863, so this is old enough. --PaterMcFly (talk) 08:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
There is no evidence that this drawing was made during life portrayed. Ferbr1 (talk) 09:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- How would you create a portrait of someone after he's dead? That might go for paintings with some context (i.e religuous paintings of saints), but not for portraits. Portrait images of unknown artists are usually kept when the person depicted died in the 19.th century or before. --PaterMcFly (talk) 20:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Although I'm inclined to agree with PaterMcFly that it's an old painting, I was burned recently by a drawing of a saint who died in 1840. I came out strongly in favor of keep only to find out that it was made in 1998. It is certainly possible to make a painting or drawing of a person long after death. Our rules make it entirely up to the uploader to prove that it was made long ago. That may take a little research, maybe just reading the caption in the book from which it was copied. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 15:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, not a photo, date of creation and first publication not known. Kameraad Pjotr 19:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
This image is not a photo Ferbr1 (talk) 21:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep There's just a wrong license tag in the image description. A scan (or photograph) of a 19th century image from a book from 1971 is of course PD. If I understand the image description, it says that this was taken from a recent book. --PaterMcFly (talk) 08:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
There is no evidence that this picture is of the nineteenth century. Ferbr1 (talk) 09:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Obispo San Alberto.jpg; the inscription says that the es:José Antonio de San Alberto presently is archbishop. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Drawings by Paolo Steffan
[edit]- File:Andrea Zanzotto- portrait by Paolo Steffan.JPG
- File:Giorgio Gaber , Paolo Steffan ' s portrait.jpg
- File:Jimi Hendrix, portrait by Paolo Steffan.jpg
![[1]](http://rebstein.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/andrea20zanzotto.jpg){kind=link}
![[2]](http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_68glsgNsvO4/SRGppgzp8dI/AAAAAAAAAYk/gwRXbQVHNEA/s400/g.jpg){kind=link}
![[3]](https://www.bbc.co.uk/totp2/features/wallpaper/images/1024/jimi_hendrix.jpg){kind=link}
Derivative works. Don't know about File:Paolo Steffan, 'Andrea Zanzotto', 2009.jpg.--141.84.69.20 15:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- Addendum: The fourth image might be original, since there seems to be Zanzotto's autograph on it.--141.84.69.20 00:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep On his user page, the uploader, User:Vaghestelledellorsa, claims to be the creator of these works, Paolo Steffan. Assuming that's true, there's no copyright problem. There might be an out of scope problem on the grounds that Seffan is not an important artist, but these drawings are widely used, so that's probably not true. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 14:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete See Commons:Image casebook#Drawings based on photographs. Also discussions like Commons:Village pump/Archive/2007Dec#Wrongly decided deletion debates? are instructive. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:08, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
This section copied from User talk:Juliancolton
It is not the question if the uploader drew the pictures, but if he shot the photographs they are made from. He did not.--141.84.69.20 19:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
- Redrawing a portrait of another image is not in violation of copyright, is it? –Juliancolton | Talk 20:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, it is. Commons:Derivative works#What is a derivative work?. Since a photograph is a copyrightable work, a redrawing trivially is based upon an existing work. Also, see the musings on Commons:Fan art#Re-drawing does not avoid copyright infringement.--141.84.69.20 00:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
- Hmm... it might be a good idea to ask Jameslwoodward (talk · contribs) to explain his vote further before I take any action. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
- Please see Commons:Image casebook#Drawings based on photographs. Also discussions like Commons:Village pump/Archive/2007Dec#Wrongly decided deletion debates? are instructive. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
- Hmm... it might be a good idea to ask Jameslwoodward (talk · contribs) to explain his vote further before I take any action. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, it is. Commons:Derivative works#What is a derivative work?. Since a photograph is a copyrightable work, a redrawing trivially is based upon an existing work. Also, see the musings on Commons:Fan art#Re-drawing does not avoid copyright infringement.--141.84.69.20 00:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I understand now that User:141.84.69.20 is asserting that these were drawn from photographs. If that is correct, then they may be derivative works and therefore copyvio -- it depends on how close to the photo the drawing is. The statement at Commons:Image_casebook#Drawings based on photographs,
- "Drawings based on several photos are derivative works of all of them"
is a little too strong -- it says, in effect, that you must actually have seen the subject in person to make a drawing free from copyvio, because otherwise it would be derivative of all the photos you had ever seen. That's just silly. The standard is actually the same sort of fuzzy standard as for text -- the new work needs to be different enough to not be recognizable as from the same source.
With that in mind, if User:141.84.69.20 would give us links to the photos from which he or she believes these were made, we can make a decision. And, Juliancolton, should we reopen the deletion request and copy all of this there? Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
- Image links for the first three images are provided in the DR, too subtly, it seems. Sorry, my bad. I can't say anything about the fourth pic.--141.84.69.20 15:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
- I found these ones, for all it's worth: [4][5][6][7][8][9]. Third and fifth look like it.--141.84.69.20 16:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
- Chalk it up to learning -- when an admin looks at images in a dr, there is an extra pair of links at the end of the name -- "[del][keep]", so the first one looks like this:
- File:Andrea Zanzotto- portrait by Paolo Steffan.JPG [del] [keep] [1]
- so I didn't even notice your links. For the future, remember that many people on Commons have limited English, so subtlety is not a good thing.
- I agree on deleting [2] and [3] without question. [1] is more subtle -- enough of the details are different so I'd be inclined to keep it. I'm a little stronger about keeping [4]. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
- The first is still too similar, imo. It's the same pose from the same perspective.--141.84.69.20 16:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
- Chalk it up to learning -- when an admin looks at images in a dr, there is an extra pair of links at the end of the name -- "[del][keep]", so the first one looks like this:
- I found these ones, for all it's worth: [4][5][6][7][8][9]. Third and fifth look like it.--141.84.69.20 16:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
![[4]](http://www.lafeltrinelli.it/static/images-1/m/565/2380565.jpg){kind=link}
![[5]](http://www.jolefilm.it/media/fa_zanzotto.jpg){kind=link}
![[6]](http://flussidiversi.jimdo.com/s/cc_images/cache_1301078514.jpg){kind=link}
![[7]](http://www.griseldaonline.it/foto/zanzotto.jpg){kind=link}
![[8]](http://steffanpaulus.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/andrea-zanzotto.jpg){kind=link}
![[9]](http://ainostriposti.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/azanzotto.jpg){kind=link}
- As for the fourth, it likely is completely original, since there appears to be Zanzotto's signature on it.--141.84.69.20 19:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
- I've reopened the DR then, since I also misinterpreted the issue. My apologies for the inconvenience. –Juliancolton | Talk 12:03, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
end of copied section Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but I realize now about these deletion requests. I can confirm that portraits representing Gaber and Hendrix are derivative works, but I didn't know it's a copyviol. So, now I agree and you can delete them.
- But, the situation is different about portraits representing Zanzotto, because I met him: so the first one is a reworking, remembering (not copying) the most famous picture of the poet, but also adding something else (from the real vision of the poet); the second portrait is taken from some pictures that I made to the poet in 2009, revisiting them, starting from other impressions (the signature isn't Zanzotto's signature, but his name writen by me on portrait: in fact on left there's my signature). I hope I was clear (despite my bad english), so you can decide more consciously about these files. Greetings --Vaghestelledellorsa (talk) 08:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Question Can we agree to delete Hendrix and Gaber, but keep the two Zanzotto's since they seem to be drawn mostly from life? If so, I'll do that in a few days. And thanks to Vaghestelledellorsa for a straightforward and honest explanation. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- As noted above, the first Zanzotto can still clearly be attributed to what appears to be Zanzotto's most popular image. I can't tell if it satisfies to bring enough of your own into an existing work to not make it a derivative, but that sounds unintuitive to me, at least.--141.84.69.20 00:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC) PS: Especially, as long as one can still tell it is based on the original photograph.--19:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, derivative works of copyrighted photographs. Kameraad Pjotr 17:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)