Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2010/05/09
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
The filename (and staged image) suggests this is scanned form a cd cover. Probably copyvio IMO. 99of9 (talk) 10:50, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 11:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
clearly copyrighted material --MIRROR (talk) 00:37, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. I think the odds that this image is validly licensed is vanishingly small Herby talk thyme 12:52, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Invalid source; possible copyvio; possibly incorrect license --Mikemoral♪♫ 18:55, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Non-free image, random copyright tag selected (from NASA..), @uploader: Read the first steps. --Martin H. (talk) 19:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
This image may be an offense for some people in some part of the world I don't know GaAs11671 21:59, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Keep There is always somewhere somebody offended by something. And usually, this somebody, writes to FBI. But for different purposes than the apparent one. Cops knows. That's why they are dangerous. --Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 00:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept Was joke. Me joke not funny so. Stop I there. --Aʁsenjyʁdəgaljɔm11671 08:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
accidentally uploaded wrong file - has wrong licience Snowmanradio (talk) 20:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Speedied. fetchcomms☛ 03:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Zirland: In category Copyright violations; no license
This image is pedopornography. It clearly shows underage children about to make sex. The girl is clearly sexualy bounded (look how she is opening her legs), the boy is clearly running towards her to do *very bad* things. Such awfull things should not be allowed on the Commons. GaAs11671 21:49, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Agree all revision should be oversighted--DieBuche (talk) 21:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Come on guys. Be gentlemen. However, hilarious protest: perfect picture for. (Or am I missing something?)--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 00:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Delete All it needs is a word balloon saying "I have you now, my pretty!" Obviously this boy intends to make her his queen and take over the world, starting with Wikipedia. And that gravel pit around her? Those are sharks. Dcoetzee (talk) 05:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Good idea, I'll do this derivative work
--Aʁsenjyʁdəgaljɔm11671 05:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC) - OK, I close this DR. --Aʁsenjyʁdəgaljɔm11671 06:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Good idea, I'll do this derivative work
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Kept I didn't really meant it. But I laughed out loud. --Aʁsenjyʁdəgaljɔm11671 08:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- unclear source,
- licese tag invalid since no author of the drawing is given,
- wrong author (Peter Damian is just the photographer of this 2D image of 2D art) and
- of course not educational and does not add to the sum of human knowledge Saibo (Δ) 02:10, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, I forgot: and it's not encyclopaedic and of poor quality. --Saibo (Δ) 02:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm afraid you are right. The illustration is by Alfred Bestall and while it is well over 50 years old, Bestall died in 1986 so it is probably not out of copyright. Actually I think Daily Express still own the copyright on it, not Bestall's estate.
So, delete this image (which is sadly the only image of Bestall's beautiful art work on the commons). I believe this nomination is a sort of revenge for my having nominated some of the revolting pornography for deletion. So be it. Delete Bestall's work, which was loved by generations of children, and replace it with cumshot on face or whatever, I'm sure the 10 year-olds will much prefer that.
PS I have discussed this deletion request on Wikipedia Review here. I will probably be indef-blocked for doing so (as a few times before) but then you anti-censorship types are generally quite keen on the block button, I find. Peter Damian (talk) 09:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- The image's description only was/is "illustration of a castle" and no categories referring to en:Alfred Bestall. Provided this, I made my judgement in point (4.) above. Sadly it is still in copyright - I would like to keep it now.
- Peter, maybe you recognize the wording I used in (4.) and (5.): now, knowing about the real author, these points are even more ironic as they were intended to be.
- Please notice, I really do not know why you should be blocked now. Could you please explain this to me (maybe on my talk page)? Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 11:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- I have been blocked on English Wikipedia for some time for my outspoken and trenchant criticism of the administration there. This criticism was thought so dangerous that my talk page was also blocked, and email access. Many articles were also deleted because made by a banned user, although all - for example but one have been restored, such as en:Illuminationism. This is the irony of the 'free speech' brigade. They cannot accept any criticism. The picture of the castle was on my user page for a long time. Peter Damian (talk) 15:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for the en.wiki link. It is too much to dig in now (and these awful signature colors everywhere...) and it seems rather a long story, though. I am not familiar with the situation regarding the admins at en.wiki - deleting articles just because a banned user wrote them sounds very strange, indeed. Sorry for nominating this obviously connotated image - this really was not my intend. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 17:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- OK, understand. (The most amusing situation was when I took en:History of Logic to FA and nearly achieved it - then the administration spotted it and broke up the whole FA process - see here [1], if you have the patience. Perhaps you can see now why I get frustrated when the 'no censorship' crowd get into action. It is mostly these people who are the first to block and ban good content contributors). Regards Peter Damian (talk) 18:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- I think I got your point referring to the FA process - I had a 3 minutes look at it. Despite doing so I do not understand the correlation/connection between the "'no censorship' crowd" and the blocking and banning admins. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 22:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- It was a row with the 'no censorship' crowd that got me banned in the first place. In my experience it is the most extreme advocates of 'free content' who are at the same time the most liberal in their application of the block button. The best thing is to maintain a sense of humour about it! Cheers Peter Damian (talk) 07:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- I think I got your point referring to the FA process - I had a 3 minutes look at it. Despite doing so I do not understand the correlation/connection between the "'no censorship' crowd" and the blocking and banning admins. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 22:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- OK, understand. (The most amusing situation was when I took en:History of Logic to FA and nearly achieved it - then the administration spotted it and broke up the whole FA process - see here [1], if you have the patience. Perhaps you can see now why I get frustrated when the 'no censorship' crowd get into action. It is mostly these people who are the first to block and ban good content contributors). Regards Peter Damian (talk) 18:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for the en.wiki link. It is too much to dig in now (and these awful signature colors everywhere...) and it seems rather a long story, though. I am not familiar with the situation regarding the admins at en.wiki - deleting articles just because a banned user wrote them sounds very strange, indeed. Sorry for nominating this obviously connotated image - this really was not my intend. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 17:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- I have been blocked on English Wikipedia for some time for my outspoken and trenchant criticism of the administration there. This criticism was thought so dangerous that my talk page was also blocked, and email access. Many articles were also deleted because made by a banned user, although all - for example but one have been restored, such as en:Illuminationism. This is the irony of the 'free speech' brigade. They cannot accept any criticism. The picture of the castle was on my user page for a long time. Peter Damian (talk) 15:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Speedy delete This is an obvious copyright violation. The uploader clearly knew full well it was such and added so it would get deleted and he could play the victim. Just another of this user's clever destructive little games that got him a whole project ban in the past. Nobody outside Wikipedia Review shares your sense of humor Peter. --Simonxag (talk) 22:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- Just to recall: This picture was uploaded long ago: 20. Dez. 2008 --Saibo (Δ) 10:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Speedy delete. I am sorry but I objectively have to agree with Simonxag. Jacopo Werther (talk) 06:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted as expected, as image still (until 2056) copyrighted by illustrator Alfred Bestall. If needed, it could be uploaded under fair-use to :en, at least. --Túrelio (talk) 21:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Bestall is not the copyright owner, as pointed out above. 2056 is incorrect. Peter Damian (talk) 07:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
unused nearly private diagram - out of scope, unusable for others (missing context) Cholo Aleman (talk) 13:17, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Leyo 15:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - should be a wrestler, but looks like a joke Cholo Aleman (talk) 15:13, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom--DieBuche (talk) 21:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Even blurred.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 23:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete speedily. self promo, out of scope-- malo (talk) 21:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Dschwen: Out of project scope
This looks like a fairly professional photo from the sixties -- note that there are at least two flashes used. Source and author "unknown". Uploader claims own work. This, and Vicente de Solminihac, a nonsense biography gallery that contained it, are the only two contributions of the uploader. My concerns are possible copyvio (although Tineye=zero), also out of scope. --. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 01:50, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. --myself488 talk 21:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
looks like an advertisement for something - unused - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 14:59, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Agree.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 23:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- Bórrese --Arcibel (talk) 14:40, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete --AllyUnion (talk) 22:20, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted Infrogmation (talk) 02:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Copyright violation [2] --Cyrilb1881 (talk) 20:52, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Not free license. What a pity, it's a great shot. --Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 00:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Agreed, on both counts -- lots of nice images there. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 18:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted Infrogmation (talk) 03:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Low quality and plenty of other material of similar depictions TheDJ (talk) 01:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- could have been speedied, no need for DR. Trycatch (talk) 08:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Nevertheless, TheDJ, thank you for being cautious. If this one was a better quality I'd voted for keep. I don't think we've got more than enough: Apparently (if I haven't done anything wrong and all files are categorized correctly (but I now they aren't)) we have only eight pictures of human, erect, circumcised Penises. --Saibo (Δ) 22:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. –SJ+ 07:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete--E8 (talk) 07:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted Infrogmation (talk) 03:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Commons is not a collection of private pornographic images. Private image; not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Cran32 (talk) 00:14, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - COM:NOPENIS. --E4024 (talk) 02:13, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- Deleted, per nomination. Thuresson (talk) 18:52, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Getty Images/AFP photo: http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/51957801/AFP No evidence this is PD since it belongs to a non-Argentinian publisher. --Ytoyoda (talk) 02:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete agreed. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 12:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?»ABF is back to cabale! 16:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Out of project scope, actually not used in a Wikimedia user page Trixt (talk) 07:34, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Do not bite newbies. The image was uploaded this morning. She may be wanting to make a user page on a local wikipedia. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, for sure we can wait years. Leisurely. Image is actually used in a "template page" on en.wiki. Have we got a future wikipedian or another CV on en.wiki and relative unuseful image on Commons?--Trixt (talk) 17:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- You nominated for deletion within half an hour of the upload, without knowing what the photo might be intended for. I moved the misplaced CV to user space, but I agree, it does not really belong there either in this shape. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- It was clear what the photo was intend for. That user page and this image should be speedy deleted because they are out of projects scope, there is an obvious promotional purpose. This is not assuming good faith, this is a waste of time, as usual.--Trixt (talk) 18:20, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- You nominated for deletion within half an hour of the upload, without knowing what the photo might be intended for. I moved the misplaced CV to user space, but I agree, it does not really belong there either in this shape. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, for sure we can wait years. Leisurely. Image is actually used in a "template page" on en.wiki. Have we got a future wikipedian or another CV on en.wiki and relative unuseful image on Commons?--Trixt (talk) 17:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep for now per Pieter Kuiper. Wknight94 talk 12:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Shows earrings and fashion. Snowmanradio (talk) 20:39, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Comment Hot chick but quite poor quality picture. A bit blurred also. She could have chosen a better one or asked to her chevalier, or whoever is the photographer but I guess a young man imaging the tremor to have her so close (but it's just an hypotheses), a second shot. At once, the picture seems useless to me. In my opinion we need the advice of an expert. How is it called that brilliant guy, I'm not kidding - just look at his work -, that is categorizing all that pictures of nude women? He is our man.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 00:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Raises policy question that I haven't seen addressed. If user wants a photo of self on his/her User Page, do we permit it? We clearly have users, including admins, now who have such a photo. So, given that it doesn't cost much and there's a precedent, I think we keep this one. (Yes, I know, this may just be self-promotion, but be nice to newbies and assume good faith... It doesn't cost much.) . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 12:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept per discussion. abf «Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?»ABF is back to cabale! 16:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
This statue was unveiled in 2007 and there is no FOP for statues in the United States. Eusebius (talk) 11:18, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Agreed. Not even fair use, I think. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 13:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?»ABF is back to cabale! 16:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Outside of Commons' project scope. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete It was actually in use on en wb so I've reverted myself here. However I think it probably is out of scope and possibly, as a scanned image of a book, a copyvio. --Herby talk thyme 16:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Just to point out that's definitively not a scan (text is selectable). Anyways, the same text can be found at this website (copyright notice on the website's homepage say all rights reserved). Uploader could be the author, nonetheless i think it is out of scope on Commons. -- IANEZZ (talk) 22:36, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Without source, this looks like a clear copyvio to me. Can't be "from a book" and "own work" at the same time. --PaterMcFly (talk) 20:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello to all. I'm really new to all this and trying to understand what is right and what is not... I have compiled a lot of information through the years to teach my classes and now I want to put them together as resources for whoever need them. In this process I may have information from different websites but I don't really remember all of them. My question here is: how do I get them to wikibooks? Do I send them to the diferents websites or can I copy the information in the main page? What do I do if I have the information in my computer for a long time and I don't even remember where they come from? I want to do everything right so please help me. Thank you --Adalvis (talk) 02:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- In short: don't upload texts, images or other works if you don't know who created them. In particular, do not claim that you created the work entirely yourself (as you did with this file) when you know that's not the case. Read Commons:Licensing. You might also wish to have a look at Commons:Project scope#Non-allowable reasons for PDF and DjVu formats. (Given the content of the file, I'd also recommend reading b:en:Wikibooks:What is Wikibooks#Wikibooks is not a soapbox, but that's a matter for Wikibooks, not Commons.)
- Admins, given this edit by the uploader, please speedy delete
- File:What is the Bible.pdf along with
- File:Obstacle course.pdf,
- File:PPF req..pdf (notwithstanding the claim that "The original information come from President's Challenge website", the images may have been found elsewhere, and there's no source to verify it), *File:Adventurer Uniform.pdf,
- File:Camping with Kids six through eight.pdf,
- File:Camping checklist.pdf,
- File:GAMES FOR CAMPING.pdf,
- File:Area Campoutfinalcopy 2010.pdf and
- File:Bible Info.pdf. Thanks!
- (File:Physical Activity and Fitness Awards program.pdf should probably be kept, as it's clear it's a government work. If there's some other reason to delete it, I believe it should be nominated separately.) —LX (talk, contribs) 17:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment I took the liberty of adding bullets to the list above to make it easier to read. Adalvis, there are two unrelated problems with these images.
- You may not own the copyright, which is addressed above
- Most images of text, and most PDFs, are out of scope for Commons. In general, we are a repository for media -- mostly images -- not for text, and that means that most images of text do not belong here. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 13:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion (note: also the gov's flyer for beeing outside scope) abf «Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?»ABF is back to cabale! 16:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
painting belongs to Viktor Sydorenko, not free image Rubin16 (talk) 13:38, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete The artist, Victor Sydorenko, is alive. Unless the painting is located in a country with Freedom of Panorama for art (if there are any), this is a clear copyvio. If I had seen it first, I would have tagged it {{Copyvio}} and saved time here. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 13:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?»ABF is back to cabale! 16:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Orphaned personal picture with no apparent use. Out of COM:SCOPE. Wknight94 talk 14:11, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. Personal image, out of scope, no educational value. Kaldari (talk) 18:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Low quality, low resolution.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 23:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?»ABF is back to cabale! 16:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Probable copyvio, Tineye search comes up with this in other locations. Tabercil (talk) 14:40, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted * (show/hide) 18:19, 18 May 2010 EugeneZelenko (talk | contribs | block) deleted "File:55150316-duyettinviet trinh-185.jpg" (Missing essential information: source and/or license: since May 9, 2010) (view/restore) (global usage; delinker log) abf «Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?»ABF is back to cabale! 16:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
strange unused private drawing - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 15:02, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom--DieBuche (talk) 21:52, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Bórrese --Arcibel (talk) 14:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?»ABF is back to cabale! 16:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
unused bad diagram - out of scope (there should be better diagrams of incoherence) Cholo Aleman (talk) 15:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom--DieBuche (talk) 21:52, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 23:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?»ABF is back to cabale! 16:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 15:17, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom--DieBuche (talk) 21:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 23:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?»ABF is back to cabale! 16:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Unused personal image, out of project scope. --Karppinen (talk) 15:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Delete - per nom Cholo Aleman (talk) 15:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- DeleteLot of time photoshopping. Good job, nice guy, we all love you. But next round with something more interesting --Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 23:46, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?»ABF is back to cabale! 16:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
private unused advertisement - not concept art, but a cover for a series of architectural drawings , all unused since 2008 - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 15:50, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom--DieBuche (talk) 21:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Tell us how we can use it and we will keep it. Swear. --Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 23:49, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?»ABF is back to cabale! 16:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
advertisement for a spanish physician - out of scope (contrary to the portrait of him) (by the way: I doubt the notability, despite the article about him) Cholo Aleman (talk) 15:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom--DieBuche (talk) 21:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment The doctor was pretty smart. Difficult decision. To keep or not to keep. It's a really borderline decision. Anyway, if it's an advertisement, in my opinion, it ridicule him more than giving him a hit. Only for that, I would keep it and send it to the National Spanish Medicine Academy. Dunno --Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 23:55, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- I think we got a pretty good pic of him here File:InstitutoPalacios.jpg. Otherwise we could crop out the female, but his head woud be blury anways.--DieBuche (talk) 00:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Armani glasses. Our doc is a gaga. What about keeping the picture of him reading, or pretending to, something really odd (what's that?) on the board and deleting this one where, staying behind the nurse, sincerely, he remembers me Nosferatu?--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 04:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete After a good sleep, I have cleared my mind.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 16:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?»ABF is back to cabale! 16:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello,I`m the author of both photos,have read and understood the discussion. So, finally the photo behind the contol panel with a nourse has been deleted, hasn`t it? but what about the other one with the x-ray? are you ok with that one?
The Sphere is a work by Fritz Koenig, who is still alive. Image cannot be in public domain. This applies to all other images of The Sphere in Category:WTC Sphere. --Gryffindor (talk) 17:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, unfortunatelly. Would need permission from author (which could even be granted in this case, as it's a memorial work) --PaterMcFly (talk) 20:38, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete agreed, including all other photos of the Sphere, both before and after 9/11. The wp:en article anticipates this; its image from before 9/11 is listed as fair use. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 14:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?»ABF is back to cabale! 17:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Sculpture by Mac Adams, dedicated in 1991 [3]. Image is not in public domain, modern sculpture images in US are not allowed. --Gryffindor (talk) 17:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Agreed. As noted in the other discussion of this memorial, this was commissioned by a private group, not the US government and is, therefore, still in copyright. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 17:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?»ABF is back to cabale! 17:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
American Merchant Mariners' Memorial was created by Marisol Escobar b. 1930 and dedicated in 1991. --Gryffindor (talk) 18:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete This is the same case as Commons:Deletion requests/File:American Merchant Mariners Memorial.JPG below and deserves the same conclusion -- the group that organized the creation of this sculpture was not the US Government, so PD-gov cannot apply. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 17:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?»ABF is back to cabale! 17:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Probable copyvio, can be found elsewhere on the 'Net Tabercil (talk) 23:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Examples are here and here. Tabercil (talk) 23:29, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete It appears like a screenshot or a photophrame of Italian RAI TV. The Sanremo Festival, for Italy, it's even more "important" than what is the Oscar Award for US. It's a multimillionaire show-biz. There is no way to be so close to the singer on the stage, not even for an officially accredited photographer. At least, if the uploader it's the real author of the picture, and it could be, he has to give some additional credentials. Or he can have the permission, also, to upload the picture but he didn't show it. So. --Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 00:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?»ABF is back to cabale! 17:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
It is a personal photo. But wait until the AfD on enwiki for the only page it is being linked to also it can get deleted. Orphan, no source. Andewz111 (talk) 02:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope, no source, no license. --Martin H. (talk) 22:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Personal pic, unused. Eusebius (talk) 11:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted * (show/hide) 22:39, 22 May 2010 ABF (talk | contribs | block) deleted "File:Davidfurtado.JPG" (In category Media without a license as of 8 May 2010; no license) (view/restore) (global usage; delinker log) abf «Cabale!» 23:17, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Personal pic, unused. Eusebius (talk) 11:20, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 23:17, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
unused mixture of personal files - or: several advertisements for a beer - both out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 19:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Nice party, anyway. --Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 00:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 23:18, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
unused image of an unknown school band - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 19:17, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete There was a summer hit, in Italy, years ago about a guy playing in a boy-band. How was that? --Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 23:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 23:19, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
unused logo of a musical group with unclear notability - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 19:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 23:19, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Description tells us about public domain, in fact file is licensed under CC, and source says nothing about free content at all. Is this file really free ? Rubin16 (talk) 10:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete:The statement about the Copyright of the Italian Senate Site media says:
L'utilizzo, la riproduzione, l'estrazione di copia, ovvero la distribuzione delle informazioni testuali e degli elementi multimediali disponibili sul sito del Senato è autorizzata esclusivamente nei limiti in cui la stessa avvenga nel rispetto dell'interesse pubblico all'informazione, per finalità non commerciali, garantendo l'integrità degli elementi riprodotti e mediante indicazione della fonte.
Pratically all the contents of the site are free to use but only, I quote, "in respect of public interest and information, for not commercial purposes, with the guarantee of the integrity of reproduced material, and requested attribution". No commercial - No changes - No derivative works.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 23:02, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Agreed. Italian government images have been discussed a lot, but our policy today is that they have no special status. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 12:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:38, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Charging Bull by Arturo Di Modica, who is alive, is a modern work of art. --Gryffindor (talk) 18:10, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Agreed. No FOP for sculpture in USA. Also File:Toro bronce.jpg, whose discussion is just below. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 17:39, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 01:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Charging Bull by Arturo Di Modica, who is alive, is a modern work of art. --Gryffindor (talk) 18:10, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 01:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
The site quoted on the picture www.unffmm.com releases his material under a CC-by-nc-sa. Is it not compatible with Commons licensing policy. Or am I missing something? Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 22:47, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete cc by-nc-sa. "nc" = "non commercial", which is not compatible with our policy. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 18:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 01:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
rights belong to Domino Records, copyrighted, not copyleft-permission Rubin16 (talk) 13:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 11:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
unused private drawings (from a village in peru) - - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 14:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Keep now it is used in the quechua-WP (and categorized), seems to be a kind of translation from quechua to other, smaller languages - obviously useful - I withdraw my deletion request. Cholo Aleman (talk) 10:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Comment: can someone please close this request? - now it is used and categorized, I withdraw the request Cholo Aleman (talk) 07:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
unused logo of inactive user - similar image is there (see his contribs) - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 14:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 12:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Uploader is not the phototgrapher, so PD-Self doesn't fit. GeorgHH • talk 10:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- KeepThe picture could only have been taken by a photographer of the US-Navy. It seems like an official picture. In my opinion, it's wrong the licence, but the picture is in PD as work of the US Navy --Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 23:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep more info on this image + the original that was framed on http://www.navsource.org/archives/06/223.htm . It could do with a rename/remove border though. -- Deadstar (msg) 14:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Agreed. War-time photo of naval vessel, as noted above sourced as US Navy. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 12:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Stifle (talk) 15:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
unused diagram - unusable without context = out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 13:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 16:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 14:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
- KeepUnused but quality picture. In scope since it could be used in various fashion/style articles. Should get a better name though...--DieBuche (talk) 21:50, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep The picture will be used. It says too much in itself.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 23:36, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep if categorized. I don't object to keeping it, but if User:DieBuche and Giorgiomonteforti think it is worth keeping then one or both of them should add appropriate categories so it actually will be used. Maybe we should just hold this discussion open until that is done. I agree it needs a new name, as well. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 13:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Thank you James for the remark. You are right. Anyway, searching for a category, I had time to better observe the picture. It's a picture of a poster! Look at the reflections on the right, and how it bends on top. It's not a shot of a real man dressed in a so gaga way. Therefore it's a derivative work. And the uploader didn't give enough information on the copyright status of his source. May be he is the author of the poster too, but he didn't explained it. So, perhaps, we should delete it not because not in scope but for copyright reasons.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 18:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment these spots could be a bad print as well..--DieBuche (talk) 19:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- This user did upload several images of himself, sometimes as a reknowned guitarist, sometimes as a black indian, some of his women - more or less all are funny, but not really in scope (as far as I understand). If someone sees an educational value in it - feel free to do so. I will not oppose Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Stifle (talk) 16:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Also File:Yukawa hideki statue2.jpg. No COM:FOP for statues in Japan. Wknight94 talk 14:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Delete The subject won the Nobel Prize in 1949. It is, therefore, possible that this bust was created before 1960, the sculptor died before 1960, and, therefore it is PD in Japan. Given that the subject's 1981 death is on the plinth, this seems unlikely, hence my vote. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 14:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- I uploaded the picture. I'm not lliving in Kyoto, so am not able to check when the statue was erected.--Moja (talk) 10:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 16:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
File:Statue of Jerzy Popieluszko, Popiersie ks. Jerzego Popiełuszki na Greenpoint u zbiegu Nassau Ave i Bedford Ave w sąsiedztwie McCarren Park (2).jpg
[edit].jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
bust is a modern work of art, since Popieluszko died in 1984. Images of modern art in US are not free. --Gryffindor (talk) 18:13, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep This has an OTRS permission. I'd assume the OTRS team did know what the requirements for keeping such an image are. At least one should check that report. --PaterMcFly (talk) 20:47, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- DeleteThat doesn't make a difference to the copyright of the work unless the artist himself gave permission. That proof is missing. Gryffindor (talk) 01:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- How would you know? I would assume that having an OTRS permission for such an image confirms just that. Oterwise the guy handling the OTRS request would have slept. --PaterMcFly (talk) 12:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Assumption is not good enough, where is the proof that the artist himself gave permission? Gryffindor (talk) 17:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- How would you know? I would assume that having an OTRS permission for such an image confirms just that. Oterwise the guy handling the OTRS request would have slept. --PaterMcFly (talk) 12:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- probably Delete. I have posted a request at the OTRS noticeboard for clarification, but it seems likely that Gryffindor is right because the sculptor is not listed in the image file, nor does he/she pop out of a Google search. If we can't find the sculptor, then we have to delete. If we do, by some odd chance, keep it, let's change the name. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 18:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Info A bit of information from a native speaker of Polish: I have been asked by PaterMcFly (talk · contribs) to give my opinion on this matter. I am sad to say that the OTRS ticket comes from the photographer, not the sculptor ("I give my permission for the pictures I have taken to be used outside Wikipedia without any payment (...)"). I believe the OTRS agent who dealt with the ticket did not know that such pictures are copyrighted under the US law; we don't have the permission of the sculptorer so I think this file should be Deleted. odder (talk) 22:31, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 16:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Files of Ashleigh thompson
[edit]- File:Suricata suricatta -Auckland Zoo -group-8a.jpg**
- File:Suricata suricatta -Auckland Zoo -group-8b.jpg**
- File:Suricata suricatta -Auckland Zoo -group-8c.jpg**
- File:Prosthemadera novaeseelandiae -Tiritiri Matangi Island-8.jpg*
- File:Prosthemadera novaeseelandiae -Tiritiri Matangi Island-8b.jpg*
File:Platycercus eximius -perching in tree-8.jpgFile:Cacatua sulphurea -Auckland Zoo-6a.jpg- File:Ara ararauna -Auckland Zoo-6a.jpg*
- File:Anthornis melanura -Tiritiri Matangi-8a.jpg*
- File:Ara ararauna -Auckland Zoo -flying-8a.jpg*
- File:Porphyrio hochstetteri -Tiritiri Matangi Island-8b-3c.jpg
- File:Prosthemadera novaeseelandiae -New Zealand-8.jpg
- File:Anthornis melanura 2.jpg*
File:Porphyrio hochstetteri -Tiritiri Matangi Island-8b.jpg
* These are images the author wants deleted, with the double emphasis on the Meerkat photos, the others the author said "can stay on the website" but I don't think we have expressed permission yet for any. [UPDATE: we have permission for the crossed out images]
We received a request Template:OTRS ticket from the photographer to delete the files, under the impression that we were using them without expressed permission. The images were all sourced to Flickr, and have since been deleted from that user's photostream. I explained about the CC licensing on Flickr, and how it is "perpetual" and non-revocable, but the photographer still would like the images deleted. Even though we are within the terms of the original license to keep them, I'd ask the community to consider accepting this request as a courtesy (or at the very least consider deleting the unused images). Thanks--Andrew c (talk) 13:31, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I hope that the author does understand that CC licensing that is used on flickr is non-revocable. I would prefer to keep these files on commons, and so I would ask the author to reconsider. I had added the {{Flickr-change-of-license}} to each of the images to explain the status of each of the images. If these files are deleted, then commons users and editors time will have been waisted. Snowmanradio (talk) 14:31, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I'd support a courtesy if it were pictures of himself etc. but these are clearly usefull--DieBuche (talk) 21:47, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Message from Author Ashleigh Thompson via OTRS:
they are my photos i took the effort on taking them at Auckland Zoo. some of those photos acutally belong to Auckland Zoo.
Snowmanradio: You need to understand that i am the owner of these photos and these photos belong to me not you. so i suggest you remove them of your website....... everyone please i just want them off the website.. please i begging you... these are my all time favourite shots and i am very upset that they happend to be up on here... all my effort and now people are stealling my photo. -Ashleigh Thompson 05/10/2010 05:39:48
- -Andrew c (talk) 14:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- All the images were creative commons on flickr. Please withdraw the allegation that people are steeling your images. Snowmanradio (talk) 23:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Comment I understand now, Andrew, what did you mean with your first statement. More than a matter of courtesy, it seems to me, as an issue of compassion. No further comments: the message is commenting by itself. The point is that, such a deletion, could represent a risky precedent for all the authors that changed their mind with licensing. Or not? So, I'm just curious, I ask you, Andrew, how many requests of this kind you/we receive periodically? I'm just paranoid or there is, effectively, the risk of receiving an avalanche of personal-please-please-people-stealing-I-beg-you requests?--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 16:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- I don't believe I've handled any requests like this in the past year that I've been an e-mail responder, but I know I've seen a discussion about another set of images on the listserve a few weeks ago. I can say that this isn't a very frequent occurrence, but it has happened before. I can't really speak on specifically how many requests of this sort we get via e-mail because there are a number of other agents handling e-mail responses as well and I'm not sure how to even search for something like that. I agree that this could set a bad precedent, but as I stated originally, maybe as a compromise, we could delete the unused and very similar photos to at least reduce the number of images. That said, I'm a little concerned with what was said in the reply. Are these images copyright of the Zoo? -Andrew c (talk) 16:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment What's, Andrew, in your opinion the best option in such a case? Which kind of compromise you suggest? Many OTRS requests pass from your hands (you have seen many oddities, I guess) so you are high qualified, at least for me, to propose the right move to take in order to save this and that. I'll pass you the monkey.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 07:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- I've been talking to the author a bit more on OTRS, and a) they seem like they'd be OK if we kept some of the most used images, as long as we deleted some of the unused/redundant images so that at least we were using less content of their content. This seems reasonable because some of the images are really similar just slightly different angles, and there are some unused images. b) furthermore, it doesn't appear that the author knows what the creative commons business is, and doesn't recall choosing that option (even if we have evidence that it was used). Because this may not be a situation of "oh, i've changed my mind", but instead "I made a mistake, or the upload form was confusing, or the images were tagged on accident and I never agreed to the license" or something along those lines, I'm also more inclined to lean on the delete side of things. But that is my personal opinion, I really think this should be a community decision, or else I would have speedied them :P -Andrew c (talk) 13:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Comment I guess that your sensation that is may be better to delete all of them, Andrew, it's more than a simple sensation. You are the big guy, in this case. The pitiful message could be explainable taking in consideration the fact that the photographer didn't know anything about licensing and just randomly choose the coolest name for one of them while uploading. But, may be not. I'm up for your solomonic solution: let's keep the most used and delete all the rest. I have to mumble on it but I'm shaping my decision. Hope the others will intervene too.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 15:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- Update. We have expressed permission for the 3 images that I struck above. I also received this from the author: i have just found out under my flickr settings that it was on that Creative Commons License. i must of not changed when i first started using flickr... but i have changed it now and any other settings that were conected with this stuff. So it appears the images were never intentionally licensed freely. I don't think it's fair to say "you didn't understand Flickr's interface, therefore we get to use your photos as we please" and would ask that the remaining images be deleted as a courtesy to this, with the expressed understanding that this shouldn't be precedent, and that Creative Commons licenses are non-revocable, etc. -Andrew c (talk) 23:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I'll follow your suggestion, then. Let's keep the picture we have permission for and Delete delete the rest. For me it's reasonable that way even if, from what I have heard until now, I don't fully trust that guy. Let's see the others. --Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 23:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep all CC-licensed images At upload, all images on Flickr are marked as all-rights-reserved; you can't mark them as anything else without meaning to. Nyttend (talk) 03:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Although I don't think "changed my mind" is a reason for us to delete images -- there is a general rule of law that something done by mistake is not binding. If, as it appears above, Ashleigh Thompson never intended to freely license these images, then we should cut some slack. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 13:38, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per Nyttend and others above. As the duplicate upload of Anthornis melanura demonstrates, the image was displayed on flickr under the CC license for a considerable period, so no reason to assume a "mistake". However, I would agree with deletion of:
- The two Ara ararauna images File:Ara ararauna -Auckland Zoo-6a.jpg, File:Ara ararauna -Auckland Zoo -flying-8a.jpg as not in use, limited quality and much better images available in that category.
- File:Anthornis melanura 2.jpg, which is simply a duplicate of File:Anthornis melanura -Tiritiri Matangi-8a.jpg.
Kept. Stifle (talk) 16:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
irrelevance. is not an outstanding student. this user already has many personal photos. 190.160.159.72 14:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep In use. ZooFari 14:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept. See our rules outlined in {{Userpageimage}}. --Martin H. (talk) 14:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
spanish diagram, unused since 2006, two edits of this user - out of scope, unusable for others (missing context) Cholo Aleman (talk) 13:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Just to note, this looks like a Spanish UML diagram. --AllyUnion (talk) 11:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Comment thanks for the category - if it has any use / context we can keep it. Cholo Aleman (talk) 06:49, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Per Reliwiki.nl's license, content from that site is not for commercial use. That is incompatible with our license so needs explicit permission. Wknight94 talk 12:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- First of all: the content they descibe in your given link above is about photos but this file is a technical drawing, not a photo. About other content they state here (in Dutch): Reliwiki... alle informatie die u toevoegt beschikbaar komt in het publieke domein.. Translation: Reliwiki...all info you add will become available in the public domain. Regards --Sonty567 (talk) 12:34, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment User:Sonty567 has not answered the question. The translation given appears to be an instruction to persons who might add material to the site. It would not be unusual to tell editors that their additions will be available in the public domain as a short, simple, description of a more complicated license that might not meet our needs. We need to read that license, not the instructions to the site's editors. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 13:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- (ianal) If there are serious doubts about this, it has to be removed. The only thing I was aware of before uploading this picture was the statment they made about the content ppl add to their website with the mentioning of publieke domein. This term is, as far as I know it, used for licensing under PD. If they want to exclude PD-licensing, that would/should state openbare domein/openbaarheid instead of publieke domein. Anyway, remove this drawing if necesarry. Regards --Sonty567 (talk) 13:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete non-commercial license. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, can not be used for commercial purposes. Kameraad Pjotr 19:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
No permission, no date. –BruTe Talk 10:39, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Delete unless we get tags. I have left the user a note suggesting that he/she tag this and File:IC Big Band Bull's Head Poster.jpg properly. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 13:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Again this is my work but I dont know how to change the licence Ckeiderling
Deleted. Per en:Imperial College Big Band, User:Ckeiderling is probably Chaz Keiderling, the "Webmaster & Librarian" for the band from 2008-2009. There is no reason to believe this professional-looking shoot was executed by their webmaster, or that copyright was transferred to him. Note also the low resolution - if Mr. Keiderling were the photographer he should be able to produce original-resolution JPEGs with full EXIF metdata. Finally, if he had executed this photo, he could have provided more information in the last 6 months. I advise him to contact me if he has any further questions at User talk:Dcoetzee. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:47, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
This is a DR for this category as well as the images File:Rabbid cosplay (edit).jpg and File:Rabbid cosplay.jpg. Both files show a cosplayer who designed his costume after these critters, so it's derivative work. As for the category, every image concerning these designs would have to be a dw somehow.--141.84.69.20 13:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep We have many cosplay images, see Category:Cosplay and subcategories. Some are more, other less detailed costumed. See cosplay of Star Wars, Pirates of the Caribbean, Master Chief (Halo) and others. --Kungfuman (talk) 17:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- This isn't just cosplay with clothings, but wearing a full body costume of a toon.--141.84.69.20 15:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Kept. I personally consider this kind of work derivative and would vote delete on it, but consensus has come down firmly in favour of allowing costumes of copyrighted characters (see Commons:Deletion requests/Images of costumes tagged as copyvios by AnimeFan). The fact that it's a full-body, rigid costume is not usually considered enough to disallow it (see e.g. File:Darth Vader costume.jpg for a similar example). Dcoetzee (talk) 00:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - should be actor and singer, but notability is not proven Cholo Aleman (talk) 14:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- He has an edit in english wikipedia. For real, it seems, he is an actor and singer, unless the page is a prank.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 23:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Keep - I withdraw my DR - sorry, I overlooked that he has an article in the english WP Cholo Aleman (talk) 07:47, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment I wonder though whether uploader has the rights to this (professional looking) image. If he is Walter van Dyk himself, he hardly took the image with the self-setting on the camera... -- Deadstar (msg) 14:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I agree there might be a problem, but we can't figure it out here. I would guess that someone else actually shot the picture, maybe with his camera. If a professional took it, van Dyk may actually have purchased the rights. There's no way to tell -- we should assume good faith on his part. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 14:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Published on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/people/Walter-Van-Dyk/600666922. Permission needed. Wknight94 talk 12:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Kept. It is reasonable to believe Wvan Dyk is the uploader and owns copyright to a photo taken of himself for promotional purposes, such as this one appears to be. Commons doesn't care about notability, only potential encyclopedic value. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Sculpture by Mac Adams, dedicated in 1991 [4]. Image is not in public domain, modern sculpture images in US are not allowed. --Gryffindor (talk) 17:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Hmmm... Would need more info on the sculptor and the date/circumstances of the creation. Could be PD-USGov if he had the official task to create a monument. --PaterMcFly (talk) 20:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- A PD-USGov tag is a photo by the US government or US government agency, not about a work of art for the US government. Gryffindor (talk) 01:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- PD-USGov can cover any work done by an employee of the US Government. I don't think this is one, though.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- I doubt that simply because a government employee took a picture of a copyrighted work of art, it automatically makes it public. The copyright of the artist cannot be overridden simply because a government employee took a picture. Gryffindor (talk) 05:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not talking about the picture but about the statue. Also that one could be a work of a sculptor working for the government. --PaterMcFly (talk) 14:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Well then how do you explain this disclaimer Category:Korean War Veterans Memorial [5]? Gryffindor (talk) 17:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- That is about another monument of another sculptor. I'm not saying that the sculptor really did work for the government at that time but that it is possible. We need more information to judge this. --PaterMcFly (talk) 08:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I don't quite follow your argument. Modern works of art per law cannot be public images in the United States Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#United_States unless there is specific statement regarding the artwork making it under freedom of panorama. Unless there is a specific statement by the sculptor Mac Adams (b. 1943), which I don't see. Gryffindor (talk) 13:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- That is about another monument of another sculptor. I'm not saying that the sculptor really did work for the government at that time but that it is possible. We need more information to judge this. --PaterMcFly (talk) 08:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- Well then how do you explain this disclaimer Category:Korean War Veterans Memorial [5]? Gryffindor (talk) 17:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not talking about the picture but about the statue. Also that one could be a work of a sculptor working for the government. --PaterMcFly (talk) 14:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- I doubt that simply because a government employee took a picture of a copyrighted work of art, it automatically makes it public. The copyright of the artist cannot be overridden simply because a government employee took a picture. Gryffindor (talk) 05:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- PD-USGov can cover any work done by an employee of the US Government. I don't think this is one, though.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- A PD-USGov tag is a photo by the US government or US government agency, not about a work of art for the US government. Gryffindor (talk) 01:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- DeleteMcFly is completely correct. If the artist were on the US Government payroll or, because of the USA work for hire rule, was not careful in writing a contract with the US Government, the statue could well be PD-gov. This is true of any work, not just photos, made by an artist working for the government. For example, all the works made by the Works Progress Administration are PD-gov.
- However, that was not the case here. The Korean War Veterans Memorial Committee was a private group and the US Government had nothing to do with it.. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 14:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- Not sure if this debate is still open, but the logical thing to do (in the months this has been open) would have been to contact the Korean War Veterans Memorial Committee and the designer and ask them about the copyright situation. Find out (instead of speculating) whether it was a work for hire or not, and if it was a work for hire find out (instead of speculating) what the Korean War Veterans Memorial Committee's stance is on copyright. You might find there is room for something that allows photos such as this under a license Commons will accept if you take the time to ask. Carcharoth (Commons) (talk) 07:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- Have been unable to find details for the 'Korean War Veterans Memorial Committee' (some sources call it a 'commission'), but it is possible to contact the artist here. Will see what comes of that. Carcharoth (Commons) (talk) 09:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
- My (brief) correspondence with the sculptor indicated to me that delete is the best option here, at least until things are clearer. I have offered to put the sculptor in contact with OTRS volunteers if he or his representatives want to resolve this issue quicker than the timescale of this deletion debate, but have yet to hear back from him. Carcharoth (Commons) (talk) 14:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- Have been unable to find details for the 'Korean War Veterans Memorial Committee' (some sources call it a 'commission'), but it is possible to contact the artist here. Will see what comes of that. Carcharoth (Commons) (talk) 09:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Per Carcharoth's excellent research, there is no clear evidence from either public records or the original artist indicating that the work is or was intended to be public domain. The artist can donate their own version at a later time through OTRS if they become available. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Modern work of art installed in 1963, cannot be in public domain. --Gryffindor (talk) 17:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Delete Just to be clear, I'm not talking about copyright in the photograph, but the copyright in the statue, of which the photo is a derivative work.
- This is a much more difficult case than the other war memorials under discussion today, all of which were commissioned by independent non-profit groups. This memorial was commissioned by The American Battle Monuments Commission which is an agency of the Federal government. Therefore, since the United States has a work made for hire rule, the copyright to the statue may belong to the Federal Government and therefore be PD. In order to answer the question, we would have to know the form of the contract between the government and the sculptor, which I have not found. Absent that information, our rules make it up to the uploader to provide such information. Without it, we must delete. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 17:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Opened in May - information regarding the precise form of the contract under which this work was created is evidently not forthcoming. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:03, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
American Merchant Mariners' Memorial was created by Marisol Escobar (b. 1930) and dedicated in 1991. Work is not in public domain, memorial is also not insignificantly placed enough in this image to pass. --Gryffindor (talk) 18:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Hmmm... Would need more info on the sculptor and the date/circumstances of the creation. Could be PD-USGov if he had the official task to create a monument. --PaterMcFly (talk) 20:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- A PD-USGov tag is a photo by the US government or US government agency, not about a work of art for the US government. Gryffindor (talk) 01:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, but the statue itself is PD-USGov if it was created by the government. Nyttend (talk) 03:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- A PD-USGov tag applies for the image, not the work itself, and the photographer did not work for the government, see here for example Category:Korean_War_Veterans_Memorial. Gryffindor (talk) 13:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, but the statue itself is PD-USGov if it was created by the government. Nyttend (talk) 03:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- A PD-USGov tag is a photo by the US government or US government agency, not about a work of art for the US government. Gryffindor (talk) 01:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete This is the same potential case as at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Koreabattery.JPG. If the sculptor was on the Federal payroll or if the sculptor's contract with the Federal government was not carefully written (making it a work for hire), then it would be PD-gov. Anything done in the course of one's duties while on the Federal payroll -- photography, fine art, music, sculpture, architecture, whatever, is PD-gov.
- However, I come to the same conclusion here as there -- the group that organized the creation of this sculpture was not the US Government. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 15:10, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- Not sure if this debate is still open, but the logical thing to do (in the months this has been open) would have been to contact the Maritime Foundation and the designer and ask them about the copyright situation. Find out (instead of speculating) whether it was a work for hire or not, and if it was a work for hire find out (instead of speculating) what the Maritime Foundation's stance is on copyright. You might find there is room for something that allows photos such as this under a license Commons will accept if you take the time to ask. Carcharoth (Commons) (talk) 07:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- Certainly it's the logical thing, but someone needs to do it. That person is usually the uploader -- an image that is uploaded with a questionable copyright status will be deleted and someone who uploads an image without that information is just wasting time. Commons Admins are not quite staying ahead of the flood of new work here as it is. Please don't for a minute think that we have time to research individual images, much as we would like to in some cases. If you think this image is worth saving -- which I do -- then why don't you do the research? Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- I've been unable to find contact details for the artist (Marisol Escobar) who is probably retired now. May try and contact the Maritime Foundation, but I've taken another look at the picture and it is not very good quality. There is a seagull on the memorial and it is not in a very good state (seagulls and water are no respecters of copyright and have been gradually modifying this sculptural work). What I did find is that the clock tower in the background is a WWI memorial installed in 1919: "The Pier A clock tower seen to the right rear was America's first WW1 Memorial. It was installed in 1919". If we don't have any pictures of that, could that be cropped from this picture? Carcharoth (Commons) (talk) 09:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC) Actually, I found suitable pictures in Category:City Pier A. Will find out details of the architect and add to the images. 09:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
- Update: based on this and this, it was the clock, not the tower that was the memorial. i.e. the tower already existed and a clock was added (I think). But yeah, this picture (of the maritime memorial) is not worth saving and there is no need to crop a picture of the tower from this picture, though I may still contact the Maritime Foundation and find out what the status of the memorial is (well, I would but the webpage seems to no longer be there). Carcharoth (Commons) (talk) 09:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
- I've been unable to find contact details for the artist (Marisol Escobar) who is probably retired now. May try and contact the Maritime Foundation, but I've taken another look at the picture and it is not very good quality. There is a seagull on the memorial and it is not in a very good state (seagulls and water are no respecters of copyright and have been gradually modifying this sculptural work). What I did find is that the clock tower in the background is a WWI memorial installed in 1919: "The Pier A clock tower seen to the right rear was America's first WW1 Memorial. It was installed in 1919". If we don't have any pictures of that, could that be cropped from this picture? Carcharoth (Commons) (talk) 09:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC) Actually, I found suitable pictures in Category:City Pier A. Will find out details of the architect and add to the images. 09:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Not de minimis. Not created by the federal government, and no way to contact copyright holder for more details about their contract. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:06, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
