Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2010/05/07
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
![41 File:Ростовская-на-Дону_дизайн_группа_"Дизайн-Pro".jpg](#File:Ростовская-на-Дону_дизайн_группа_"Дизайн-Pro".jpg){kind=link}
A follow-up to Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 May 7, the user who originally uploaded the file at the English Wikipedia, Mcelite, seems to have taken pictures of copyrighted images and uploaded the files, while claiming copyright. As these files were originally uploaded on Wikipedia before being transferred here, these may as well be copyright violations as well. — ξxplicit 02:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Speedy really - it is a clear copyright violation to me. Herby talk thyme 14:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
The image was not a copyright violation. The picture was taken by my sister during TRL in New York City. Many others were also taking a picture of the singer at the time and this is not my fault. That is like saying well this photographer has taken a picture of an actress when dozens of others are taking the same picture but because someone posts it and put their name on it does not make it the only legit picture. Now I no longer have the picture because my laptop crashed and I lose the photo and I'm unsure if my sister has it is it possible to restore it or has the picture been perminately removed?66.253.240.79 07:48, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
joke image, unusable, out of scope malo (talk) 12:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, out of scope vanity prank, never had source info. Infrogmation (talk) 14:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Graphic depictions of child pornography. --Stillwaterising (talk) 14:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Delete (If you're not sure about the stated reason for deletion, look at the full sized image). Also derivative; showing commercial art which is not de minimus. Note: Image is currently in use in multiple Wikimedia pages. -- Infrogmation (talk) 14:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Speedily deleted per Stillwaterising and Infrogmation. Thanks for spotting this. --AFBorchert (talk) 15:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Copyvio from http://who-is-who.com.ua/bookmaket/uspihibisnesa2008/2/186.html --Yakudza (talk) 14:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyright violation so speedy deletion Herby talk thyme 16:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I suspect that the paintings on the shoes are original and in copyright. If so, they are not permitted here. --. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 18:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Herbythyme: Out of project scope
no educational value, extremely blurred Herzi Pinki (talk) 00:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I have uploaded this picture exactly becaus it is blurred. It is part of a page which tries to demonstrate that to play with focus can develop an aesthetic in its own right (Images_with_blurs). However, if this is not tollerated then go ahead and delete. I think this would be a pitty though... --Christoph Michels (talk) 06:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Keep Image is in use, so this can be kept. --PaterMcFly (talk) 08:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- sorry, I did not see that the image is in use, only here at commons and on some user pages. The page is not accessed that often. Nevertheless I will withdraw my request. Although usually people know quite well how to shoot blurry images, so the educational value is still limited :-).
Herzi Pinki (talk) 16:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- sorry, I did not see that the image is in use, only here at commons and on some user pages. The page is not accessed that often. Nevertheless I will withdraw my request. Although usually people know quite well how to shoot blurry images, so the educational value is still limited :-).
Kept, withdrawn. Ilmari Karonen (talk) 09:40, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Orphaned, Vanity photo/out of project scope, low quality, no foreseeable use. FASTILYsock(TALK) 18:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
deleted duplicate of File:Liampatrickmooney1986.jpg axpdeHello! 09:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
test image, out of scope malo (talk) 00:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 19:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
promotional band image, out of scope malo (talk) 00:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 19:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
test/joke image, out of scope malo (talk) 01:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 19:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
joke image, out of scope malo (talk) 02:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom Infrogmation (talk) 14:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete--DieBuche (talk) 21:34, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 19:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
image of just text, description is that same text, no need for image malo (talk) 02:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. -- IANEZZ (talk) 22:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 19:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
out of scope, malo (talk) 12:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Not in use, out of scope. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 19:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
joke image, out of scope malo (talk) 13:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Infrogmation (talk) 14:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 19:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Out of scope, orphan personal image --Infrogmation (talk) 14:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 19:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
strange unused advertisement for something - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 17:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom Infrogmation (talk) 18:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 19:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope - see description (loveletter) Cholo Aleman (talk) 18:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 19:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 18:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 19:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Not useful. In addition that it contained personal info. Diego Grez let's talk 20:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Out of focus, out of scope. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 19:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Flickrwashing. This is a screencapture from a television broadcast, so the broadcaster must own the copyright. The Flickr account is "WB", but that's "Warren B.", the person in this screencapture. --Chaser (talk) 20:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Television screenshot. Hekerui (talk) 12:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 19:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
sexually explicit content! I can see six naked legs and four sextoys/dildos. This harms innocent teenagers when doing their homework using the wikimedia projects. Saibo (Δ) 22:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. Pointless; uncategorised, not used anywhere. --JN466 00:26, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Comment How terrible! Also four naked noses and fife naked ears! Antonsusi (talk) 02:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Please stop it. I can't take it any more. Delete it asap! Innocent children will be spoiled by watching this child porn image if not immediate action is taken. --Saibo (Δ) 02:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- It seems, that we cannot image, what the one with the sickle is doing in that night with this tool. He shoudt use it very carefully... Antonsusi (talk) 16:16, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 20:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Sexual intercource!!!!! therefore completely out of scope Saibo (Δ) 01:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Inaccurate deletion reason. Sexual intercourse can be educational (we have lots of such images), but I don't think this applies in this drawing. Delete, I don't see how this comic image could be useful. --PaterMcFly (talk) 08:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- In case you do not know this discussion yet: Commons:Village_pump#Cleanup policy
- Usage: It is used on a user page. --Saibo (Δ) 12:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Well, thanks for that link, I didn't know that before. But anyway, I don't see anything actually being sexual in this image. --PaterMcFly (talk) 08:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Keep and close please - This one should be clearly ironical for someone involved in the black weekend. Things have settled down (Pater see your talk page). Although, I'd say that the usefullness of these comics (the user has uploaded a lot) is not perfectly clear to me. But let's keep them for peace. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 10:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept as this was simply a staged DR by User:Saibo to make a w:WP:POINT. --Túrelio (talk) 21:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
We have a better-quality photo of the same building, namely File:Organ Schoolhouse New Mexico.jpg; the present photo is of lower resolution and has a strong color cast. AllenS (talk) 01:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Shows building from the other side. Nothing wrong with having additional image(s) which show aspects of something not visible in the preferred best image. Infrogmation (talk) 14:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep For the very same reasons as Infrogmation. -- IANEZZ (talk) 22:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, having images of different parts of a building is very useful. Nyttend (talk) 13:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep No valid reason for this DR. --GeorgHH • talk 22:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Mbdortmund (talk) 22:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
self promotion, out of scope malo (talk) 02:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, quite useless for our purposes. Nyttend (talk) 13:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete –SJ+ 09:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 22:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
out of scope, promo malo (talk) 02:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete agreed. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 14:00, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 22:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Out of project scope: we have more than enough pictures of women, the fact that the person in the image might be a neurologist does not make it any more usuful. Quibik (talk) 11:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Weak keep. While no evidence of notability of subject, a better than average photo portrait, might be of use in illustrating fashion she's wearing. Infrogmation (talk) 14:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - like infrogmation - good foto, more than average Cholo Aleman (talk) 15:34, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Clear Keep The subject is en:Louann Brizendine, whose wp:en article does not have a photo, see another photo of her here. She, and her book have wp:en articles, so notability should not be an issue. The uploader, User:Tom Photos refers us to his commercial web site, so it appears that the license is valid. It looks like a clear keep. I have added it to the wp:en article on her. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 14:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept, per Jameslwoodward. Shows person who is subject of Wikipedia article, in use in article, thus definitively in scope. -- Infrogmation (talk) 22:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
There is no Freedom of Panorama in France. Given the subject, this sculpture have been made after World War II and therefore will still be in copyright until at least 2015. (The rule is 70 years after the death of the artist.) --. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 12:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Coyau (talk) 10:33, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
There is no Freedom of Panorama in France. The artist, Lucien Jonas died in 1947, so this will be in copyright until 2017. (The rule is 70 years after the death of the artist.) --. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 12:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Coyau (talk) 10:33, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
The sculptor, Eugène Dodeigne is living. The monument is in Lille, France. There is no FOP in France, therefore it is subject to copyright. --. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 12:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Coyau (talk) 10:36, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
The sculptor, Eugène Dodeigne is living. There is no Freedom of Panorama in France and the sculpture is clearly the principal subject of the photograph. --. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 12:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Coyau (talk) 10:37, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
The sculptor, Eugène Dodeigne is living. Since there is no Freedom of Panorama in France, it is subject to copyright. --. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 12:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Coyau (talk) 10:37, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
The sculptor, François Cacheux is living. The statue is in Lille, France. Since there is no FOP in France, this is copyvio. --. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 13:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Coyau (talk) 10:38, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
The sculptor, Jean Roulland, is living. The statue is in Lille, France. There is no FOP in France. Therefore, this is copyvio. --. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 13:08, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Coyau (talk) 10:40, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
The artist, Boris Taslitsky, died in 2005. This work is in France, where there is no FOP. Therefore, this is copyvio. --. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 13:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Coyau (talk) 10:40, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
The sculptor, Robert Coin, died in 2005. This is in Lille, France, where there is no FOP. Therefore, it is copyvio. --. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 13:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Coyau (talk) 10:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
The sculptor, Robert Coin, died in 2005. This is in Calais, France, where there is no FOP. Therefore, it is copyvio. --. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 13:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Coyau (talk) 10:42, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
masturbation and anal sex! even animals do it. disgusting! Saibo (Δ) 23:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: No valid reason for deletion given. However, I'm somewhat concerned about the sourcing of Nona Tony's uploads (and those of Davitech, who seems likely to be the same user). In particular, TinEye finds two hits for File:Primates masturbation.jpg, [1] and [2], which are clearly (versions of) the source for the lower part of the picture, and of which the latter has a watermark saying "copyright 2003". I suspect that all of these users' uploads may in fact be derivatives of non-free photos. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 10:14, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Very unlikely to be own work. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per my rationale at Commons:Deletion requests/Files of User:Nona Tony and User:Davitech: highly unlikely to be own work. Black Falcon (talk) 22:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Low quality, and almost definitely not own work. Steven Walling 02:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Low quality copyvio. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
![[1]](http://cdn.liveleak.com/thumbs/2007/Nov/20/398641_474_avatar.jpg){kind=link}
![[2]](http://www.100monkeystyping.com/wlog/spank.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
promotional logo, out of scope malo (talk) 00:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
The image fails to clearly illustrate its subject. It is not at all clear that the image depicts a donkey punch, and it appears just as likely (if not more so) that the man is flexing his muscles a la American Psycho while standing behind the woman or that he is simply preparing to punch a nude woman on all fours. --Black Falcon (talk) 02:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep; insufficent grounds for deletion. Image is in use illustrating the linked Wikipedia article, and has been for more than a year, thus is in project scope. If you can draw or obtain a free licensed image which illustrates the subject better, please do so. I oppose deletion unless there is a superior replacement. Infrogmation (talk) 14:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep In use, insufficient reason for deletion. — raeky (talk | edits) 23:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per Infrogmation. - Stillwaterising (talk) 18:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- KeepI see no reason for deletion --Ladislav Faigl (talk) 07:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Looks like promotional photo, for example here is high resolution version of it used as a poster. Apparently copyvio. --Blacklake (talk) 11:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Tineye finds three additional hits. While it's certainly possible that the image is the uploader's own work, he or she should declare that here. Otherwise we should assume it's a copyvio. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 14:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Logo for "Design pro", Rostov/Don. Non-notable company logo, out of scope/Spam. Martin H. (talk) 11:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
product promo, out of scope malo (talk) 13:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 14:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
out of scope, uncategorized, unused malo (talk) 13:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Private image, out of scope. --GeorgHH • talk 22:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 14:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Photo was used for deleted commercial artical on NL:wikipedia. This factory is not notable and the picture has no other use for Wikipedia Joris (talk) 14:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep A decent and potentially useful photo of a factory building; Commons isn't just for hosting Wikipedia images. Nyttend (talk) 13:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept - per Nyttend. –Krinkletalk 09:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Out of scope: private photograph: Commons is not somebody's photo album High Contrast (talk) 19:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom. — Dferg (talk) 22:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 14:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
The uploader claims this file to be a work of a US employee but the source ([3]) does not proof this High Contrast (talk) 22:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Agreed -- the source is ARRC -- a multinational force -- so the photographer could have been a US government employee or not -- I couldn't find anything, one way or the other. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 15:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 14:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
self promotion, out of scope malo (talk) 12:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 23:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
out of scope band photo malo (talk) 13:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 23:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Used by uploader in prank edit with false description [4], orphan, dubious. --Infrogmation (talk) 14:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, useless. Nyttend (talk) 13:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 23:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Invalid permission, uploader is not the author, the author just stated "you can use it". Not licensed by the author. Yellowcard (talk) 14:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 23:09, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
The artist died in 2003, so the work is still under copyright. Freedom of panorama in Finland only applies to buildings. Jafeluv (talk) 09:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Comment Tekijänoikeuslaki (copyright law) 25§ a: "Taideteoksen kuvaaminen on sallittua .. teos on pysyvästi sijoitettu julkiselle paikalle tai sen välittömään läheisyyteen. Jos taideteos on kuvan pääaihe, kuvaa ei saa käyttää ansiotarkoituksessa. Tekstiin liittyvän kuvan saa kuitenkin ottaa sanomalehteen tai aikakauskirjaan." which roughly translates to "Taking photos of work of art is allowed .. if the work is permanently situated at public place or very close to public place. If the work of art is the main subject of the photo, it cannot be used to gain commercial benefit." --Harriv (talk) 19:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Exactly, but Commons does not accept non-commercial only licenses. Jafeluv (talk) 19:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. As Jafeluv notes, Finnish copyright law does not permit using images like these for commercial purposes, making them insufficiently free for Commons. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 09:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Agreed. Too bad, nice pic. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 14:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. 99of9 (talk) 11:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
This looks to me like a scan of a copyrighted work without even attributing it. --AFBorchert (talk) 14:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 11:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Appears to be a publicity shot, seen here and elsewhere on the web --Ytoyoda (talk) 14:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete unless permission is provided to COM:OTRS from official web site or similar. I will notify en.wp uploader. Wknight94 talk 11:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Never mind my comment above. Uploader at en.wp has a talk page full of image violations. This is obviously copyvio. Wknight94 talk 11:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I doubt own work by User:Gerundiy from ru:wiki who is claimed to be the author of this image. The original file on ru:wiki has insufficient source and author information to proof the public domain status of this photograph (see here). Besides this photograph appears in the internet on other websites, like for example here. High Contrast (talk) 19:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Agree. I deleted the original file in ruwiki. --Blacklake (talk) 12:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 11:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Image published and belonging to AFP, no evidence that it is in public domain, since it was published internationally, not just in Argentina. --Ytoyoda (talk) 18:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. No evidence that Argentina is the country of origin (first publication), from the author side its likely not Argentina. --Martin H. (talk) 18:30, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Image belongs to Getty Images, no evidence it qualifies as PD under Argentine law. --Ytoyoda (talk) 19:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Delete. {{PD-AR-Photo}} clearly states that "date and source of any publication prior to 20 year old must be indicated so anyone can check it." Those have not been provided during the two months since this discussion was initiated. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Getty is very US and UK/Europe focused. http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/1629155/Getty-Images-Sport supports this idea, Argentina is neither the country of origin from the author side (an UK based company is indicated) nor the country of first publication (no evidence for that). --Martin H. (talk) 18:18, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Supposed to be Polyphemus from Avatar but actually just retouched image of Jupiter. Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (talk) 20:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- The directors dyed in blue Jupiter see the french article.
- Cody escadron delta (talk) 06:40, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. After thinking about this for some time, I think getting rid of the image is the best solution. Several users, such as the one above, seem to think this is *actually* Polyphemus, despite that being a fake planet that the Avatar CGI department dreamed up. Having the image here simply leads to confusion. — Huntster (t @ c) 07:52, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, I'd like to throw in the images from Category:Polyphemus (Avatar) for the same reason. All of them (except for File:Pandora-vs-Polyphemus.JPG, which I've tagged as a copyright violation) are simply photoshopped images of Jupiter. — Huntster (t @ c) 07:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Keep 
--HAF 932 (talk) 16:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- May I ask a rationale behind the keep !vote? — Huntster (t @ c) 21:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Used on Wikipedia articles. Furthermore, the legend clearly states it's based on a photography of Jupiter. Dereckson (talk) 01:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Also nominating File:Buddhaghosa.jpg, File:Sanghamitta.jpg, and File:Buddha tooth pilgrims.jpg. Mangostar (talk) 13:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
copyright violation - modern painting. artist born 1897[5], began work on these murals when he was 30 years old (1927) and finished when he was 50 (1947).[6] In Sri Lanka, copyright lasts until 50 years after the death of the author (see {{PD-Sri Lanka}}). The artist died in 2009.[7] still copyrighted. Mangostar (talk) 13:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think that source says he died in 2009. It's listing anniversaries, including the anniversary of his birth in 1897. Ucucha (talk) 01:29, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- This source says he died in 1975. That still means the painting is in copyright, though (assuming your information about Sri Lanka copyright law is correct). Ucucha (talk) 01:31, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- The copyright detail which was given by Mangostar is completely wrong.In {{PD-Sri Lanka}}- Photographic works or applied art: 25 years from the making of the work. These pictures are not copyrighted any more and can be used in both Wikimedia Commons and in Wikipedia. Thanks.124.43.111.205 06:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
- Mangostar got it right. The work here is the painting not the photograph.--Chanakal (talk) 07:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
- The copyright detail which was given by Mangostar is completely wrong.In {{PD-Sri Lanka}}- Photographic works or applied art: 25 years from the making of the work. These pictures are not copyrighted any more and can be used in both Wikimedia Commons and in Wikipedia. Thanks.124.43.111.205 06:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
- This source says he died in 1975. That still means the painting is in copyright, though (assuming your information about Sri Lanka copyright law is correct). Ucucha (talk) 01:31, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Blacklake (talk) 13:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
COM:DW, derivative photo of a mosaic with unknown copyright status. Source of mosaic would need to be determined to show it is not copyrighted. Wknight94 talk 15:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Appears to have been made for the en:Bethlehemites, who were last active 190 years ago. Should be tagged as PD-art, since it's an unoriginal photo of a PD-old subject. Nyttend (talk) 13:19, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep This photo is from my own work and was made for the Museo Interactivo de Economía based on Mexico city and its covered by Commons:Freedom of panorama that rules in this country (BTW, where I live) for photos taken of buildings permanently located in public places, so I think it´s not necesary to tag photo as PD-art. But if you think I´m wrong, please help me to understand what to do. Halweb12 (talk) 11:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Tagged {{FoP-Mexico}} and kept. This work is inarguably "visible from a public place." Even if it weren't it would probably be {{PD-old-100}}. Remember, PD-Art only applies when we don't have a free license from the photographer (in this case we do). Dcoetzee (talk) 23:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Il file non è potenzialmente utilizzabile da alcun progetto Wikimedia, attuale o futuro(la pagina sul cognome Perioli NON è enciclopedica/The file is not potentially usable by any Wikimedia project, present or future ( the page on surname Perioli is NOT considered encyclopedic) --Occult (talk) 17:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Commons does not make inclusion decisions. The surname Perioli, its crest, and its distribution in Italy, could conceivably be the subject of a Wikipedia article at some point in the future. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:34, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
The page refers to a work taken from the following website "http://www.stemmario.it/stemmi/perioli" and only from here (in fact it is indicated as a "new creation"). Nevertheless the site from wich it is taken prohibits reproduction even in the form of derivatives of works listed on the site (http://www.centrostudiaraldici.org/copyright-e-note-legali/). I therefore believe that the image does not comply with the copyright of the Centro Studi Araldici. Rodda12 (talk) 21:18, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Kept. per nom. --JuTa 23:21, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Il file non è potenzialmente utilizzabile da alcun progetto Wikimedia, attuale o futuro(la pagina sul cognome Perioli NON è enciclopedica/The file is not potentially usable by any Wikimedia project, present or future ( the page on surname Perioli is NOT considered encyclopedic) --Occult (talk) 17:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Commons does not make inclusion decisions. The surname Perioli, its crest, and its distribution in Italy, could conceivably be the subject of a Wikipedia article at some point in the future. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:34, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- The image does not show correct data as this is not the distribution of the surname Perioli in Italy, so the file is not potentially usable by any Wikimedia project (as the data is incorrect) - The image, though altered, is derived from the site COGNOMIX (http://www.cognomix.it/mappe-dei-cognomi-italiani/PERIOLI) which specifies that it does not release the content of its page freely (La riproduzione dei materiali contenuti all'interno del sito, con qualsiasi mezzo analogico o digitale, non è consentita senza il consenso scritto di Cognomix.it), so there's a copyright infringement (http://www.cognomix.it/disclaimer.php)
Rodda12 (talk) 21:00, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - Delete per out of scope--ARTEST4ECHO talk 19:30, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per discussion. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 01:36, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- Also merged into this review: File:Imagem senador vasconcelos.jpg
Copyviol from [8] (clik on "Campo Grande") --Amarvudol (talk) 08:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment The front page of the site [9] says it is licensed under Creative Commons attribution 2.0 Brasil, so image may be OK with a correction of source and license. Infrogmation (talk) 14:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep as a free image per Infrogmation's findings. Nyttend (talk) 13:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- I read "Copyright © 2002 Prefeitura da Cidade do Rio de Janeiro" in the home page of Bairros Cariocas [10]. I think only the new portal of Prefeitura de Rio de Janeiro is CC-by. --Amarvudol (talk) 11:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete (I added exact source links to the image.) Not only is the license of the Bairros Cariocas page uncertain, but it appears to be a derivative work of satellite data of unknown source. This creates too much uncertainty for me. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:23, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
