Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2010/05/12
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
_Viseo.jpg){kind=link}
test image, just a shape, no description, uncategorized, I think this is a test image malo (talk) 02:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, plainly useless. Nyttend (talk) 12:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Delete - pointless Fale (talk) 12:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted quite pointless indeed. Out of scope.-- Deadstar (msg) 14:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Probable copyvio. 99of9 (talk) 10:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
file made useless by the last edit; the equivalent and current file can be found at File:GG-ftpoint-bridge-2.jpg --Santosga (talk) 13:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. Housekeeping, could be speedied. --Dschwen (talk) 13:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Deletedbut not by -- Deadstar (msg) 14:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
The logic of "young' being arbitrary and consensus found at the Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Young female porn actresses applies to this category. This category is now redundant. --ARTEST4ECHO (talk) 13:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. Category is empty already. Where did the contents go? --PaterMcFly (talk) 15:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
_Viseo.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Viseo.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
If source = Shell Nederland LPG BV, it's not self made. Copyvio. -- Deadstar (msg) 14:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
_Viseo.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
_Viseo.jpg){kind=link}
Mazenod College WA Logo, not self made -- Deadstar (msg) 15:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Please tag such images as {{Copyvio}} in future. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Copyright violation - the organization that bestows this medal was founded 1965. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete as uploader but please note that I have also flagged it {{copyvio|its copyright will not expire until at least 2072, 70 years after the death of its rightsholder, photographer Yousuf Karsh, the image of Churchill was probably taken in the US, and the Commons uploader has replaced it on English Wikipedia for Fair Use as en:File:Winston Churchill Memorial Trust Fellowship Medal, Obverse Side.png.}}. — Jeff G. ツ 22:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, so this is from Karsh, but after that there are the rights of the engraver, probably "O.M.". I have googled a bit, but I cannot find who that is. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think we need to worry about the engraver's rights or the rights to the text "With opportunities comes responsibility." in the Trusts' motto until at least 2072. — Jeff G. ツ 00:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, so this is from Karsh, but after that there are the rights of the engraver, probably "O.M.". I have googled a bit, but I cannot find who that is. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted 23:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC) by TheDJ (talk | contribs) because it was a "Copyright violation: its copyright will not expire until at least 2072, 70 years after the death of its rightsholder, photographer Yousuf Karsh, the image of Churchill was probably taken in the US, and the Commons uploader has replaced it on English Wikipedia for Fair Use as en:File:Winston Churchill Memorial Trust Fellowship Medal, Obverse Side.png." — Jeff G. ツ 00:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Churchill himself appears to have authored that sentence:
- "With opportunities comes responsibility. Strength is granted to us all when we are needed to serve great causes. - Winston Churchill, speech, New York, March 15, 1946." http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/675732/posts
- So since he published that sentence in New York, New York, USA, his rights to that sentence would be subject to USA text copyright until 2015, 50 years after his death in 1965, per en:Template:PD-old-50. — Jeff G. ツ 00:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Remark: I don't think that Churchill ever had copyright on this. If he held a speak in New York at the end of the war, that text will be PD-USGov then. --PaterMcFly (talk) 09:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Under what circumstances was he employed by the USGov(ernment)? — Jeff G. ツ 04:42, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
- Never mind, I was thinking he was an american general. Shame on me. --PaterMcFly (talk) 11:22, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
- No problem. — Jeff G. ツ 06:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- Never mind, I was thinking he was an american general. Shame on me. --PaterMcFly (talk) 11:22, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
- Under what circumstances was he employed by the USGov(ernment)? — Jeff G. ツ 04:42, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
- Remark: I don't think that Churchill ever had copyright on this. If he held a speak in New York at the end of the war, that text will be PD-USGov then. --PaterMcFly (talk) 09:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Churchill himself appears to have authored that sentence:
Commons is NOT to be used as a blog or a webspace provider --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 21:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Keep Invalid reason. Sure, commons is not a blog or a webspace provider. These two galleries contain only uploads by the user (as he already said somewhere - don't remember where). I checked some. That's legitimate - for example too keep track of your uploads. His uploads seem also to be well categorized - so of much use to commons. Also I have to add that many images are in fact "tasteful nudes" - looking through this gallery is like walking through a photographic exhibition. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 21:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Not all of them... There are some "bondage" and other erotic imgs there. --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 22:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Well, some are as the title of the second gallery says: BDSM I cannot see the problem here. These people like to play with ropes and such. Other people like to eat dead animals - disgusting, isn't it? ;) --Saibo (Δ) 22:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- I like Saibo, he uses common sense. And perhaps if User:Tyw7 stopped trying to "change the world one edit at a time", his action across various WMF projects wouldn't be so disruptive. I like to post images of nipples, you like to post images of Chess pieces, and Saibo likes to post images of Romanian monarchy...isn't it wonderful that we all live and let live? Don't go trying to delete corners of the project you played no role in creating. Max Rebo Band"almost suspiciously excellent" 04:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- How can you make that comment? You have NEVER met me on En Wikipedia where I made various contributions such as the one at w:Norton Internet Security and helped with the WikiProject Train newsletter. YOu are basically gone to using personal attacks. --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 22:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Trying to delete someone's user page is a pretty personal thing, and not a friendly one.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:37, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- How can you make that comment? You have NEVER met me on En Wikipedia where I made various contributions such as the one at w:Norton Internet Security and helped with the WikiProject Train newsletter. YOu are basically gone to using personal attacks. --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 22:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- I like Saibo, he uses common sense. And perhaps if User:Tyw7 stopped trying to "change the world one edit at a time", his action across various WMF projects wouldn't be so disruptive. I like to post images of nipples, you like to post images of Chess pieces, and Saibo likes to post images of Romanian monarchy...isn't it wonderful that we all live and let live? Don't go trying to delete corners of the project you played no role in creating. Max Rebo Band"almost suspiciously excellent" 04:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Well, some are as the title of the second gallery says: BDSM I cannot see the problem here. These people like to play with ropes and such. Other people like to eat dead animals - disgusting, isn't it? ;) --Saibo (Δ) 22:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Not all of them... There are some "bondage" and other erotic imgs there. --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 22:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. Isn't a user allowed to keep a gallery of his uploads? One could argue about whether every last picture is truly within the Commons scope, but that's not an argument about the user page. (And when the photos are artful, this should be contested). Even if a user is not allowed to keep such a gallery, you should tell him how many pictures he's allowed to put up and get him to edit it, or continue on with discussions about policy violations — deleting the user's entire page is not the proper fix here. Wnt (talk) 23:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- P.S. Various persons have proposed restricting certain types of images, but one doubts that anyone can agree on any of the boundary lines that have been proposed. But here is a lesser challenge: is it possible for Wikipedia editors to collaborate and agree on a "Tasteful Nudes (female)" category? Is it possible for such subjective and aesthetic judgments to be converted into objective lists by more than a single individual? Wnt (talk) 23:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep user upload galleries are within the scope of commons. Gigs (talk) 01:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, obvious, duh. All images on the page are ones I uploaded, and every image I uploaded is listed on the page. They're hidden in galleries that are not immediately viewable, both for the sake of size (page is 7MB, eep) and prudish users who don't want to be assaulted with an image illustrating Breast Bondage. Nominator appears to just be pursuing a rabid agenda way beyond the limits of common sense. Max Rebo Band"almost suspiciously excellent" 04:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not rabid... I was just pushing for a tighter stance against pornography, which is a growing issue on Commons as pointed out by various resources. Remember no personal attack. It seems that many of your images are not used else where and is verging on the point of pornography! Are you a porno craze person? --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 05:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Take a look at these comments:
- "hi guys... invite as many of my pics to your groups as you want. bloggers, photomanip guys, and graphic artists are welcome to use them too. i luv hot and sexy comments, notes, and favorites also! or just save them to your photostream. thanks..." (http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Woman_in_Schoolgirl_Fetish_Uniform_lifts_Shirt.jpg&oldid=35851581.)
- "you wanna see more of her ? ... just gimme some comments, please !" (http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Fabian_Photo_in_White_Bikini.png&oldid=39173001)
Don't they seem like the kind of stuff you see in a porn gallery? --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 05:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- I have no idea, you clearly know porn galleries better than I do. But I'm quite sure that comments on Flickr photos are absolutely irrelevant to copyright and scope questions. I will also point out that many of the images are in use, and more are put in use on WP and other projects every week. In fact, you nominated many images in use on as many as four projects for deletion falsely claiming they were only in use on my userpage. Max Rebo Band"almost suspiciously excellent" 06:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Your comments are not suggesting that you have "more" of the images and these images are just the "taster". Plus, according to the Images, they were not used else where. Or else it would be stated by the system at the images. In addition, since the Flickr user is gone, there is no way to verify the license the images are released. --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 06:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- As per the comment left at File:Testicle Cuff with Weights.jpg, the author User:LordO wanted the image remove from commons and have already deleted it from his flickr page. So there is doubt how many of these images are taken by the author and whether he wants these img deleted as well. --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 08:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- I have no idea, you clearly know porn galleries better than I do. But I'm quite sure that comments on Flickr photos are absolutely irrelevant to copyright and scope questions. I will also point out that many of the images are in use, and more are put in use on WP and other projects every week. In fact, you nominated many images in use on as many as four projects for deletion falsely claiming they were only in use on my userpage. Max Rebo Band"almost suspiciously excellent" 06:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. If there is a problem with specific images, nominate them for deletion. If there is a problem with a user's userpage, ask him to edit it. Deletion is not a suitable solution unless we are to decree that some users cannot ever have user pages. Powers (talk) 12:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - A user can show his own uploads on his own userpage. Garion96 (talk) 14:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Strong keep - Tyw7 appears to be on a crusade to delete from Commons anything that conforms to their definition of pornography. IMO nothing on this page is pornographic and this attempt to delete it is seriously misguided.--ukexpat (talk) 16:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per above. Suggest speedy close as keep. Infrogmation (talk) 16:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Keep censorship and puritanism away from Wikimedia. --Cyclopia (talk) 17:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Unvalid DR. 1) Concerns about porn doesn't mean there are clear rules at present, everything is in discussion ; 2) do you want to delete the files or Max Rebo Band's profile page ? (since you applied the "speedy deletion" template on his profile page, it's not clear if you understand how Commons works !) --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 18:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- I think a new rule should be pushed of whether porn/near porn contents can be "gathered" on an editor's userpage --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 19:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Well you have perfectly the right to think that, but you can't decide that yourself ! Do you know how Commons (and Wikimedia) works ? Rules are based on collective decisions/votes. So if you want to define new rules, propose them, but don't try to make your wishes be respected if it's not linked to an existing rule. Do you understand that ? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 19:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- As I was saying, in English Wikipedia, all such erotic images should ONLY be used in the article space and NOT userspace. Perhaps such rule should be adopted? --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 22:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Of course, perhaps we urgently need a rule that users are only allowed to use words with a maximum of 6 letters and not ending on "L", too. ;) --Saibo (Δ) 00:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- As I was saying, in English Wikipedia, all such erotic images should ONLY be used in the article space and NOT userspace. Perhaps such rule should be adopted? --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 22:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Well you have perfectly the right to think that, but you can't decide that yourself ! Do you know how Commons (and Wikimedia) works ? Rules are based on collective decisions/votes. So if you want to define new rules, propose them, but don't try to make your wishes be respected if it's not linked to an existing rule. Do you understand that ? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 19:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- I think a new rule should be pushed of whether porn/near porn contents can be "gathered" on an editor's userpage --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 19:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep A user has the pictures he uploaded on his user page. Shocking. So do I; you going to censor my page because it has naked tortoise butt on there? You picked the most absurd place to promulgate a new rule, by attacking a user who unquestionably has a reason to have these images on his page.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:37, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per TwoWings. This is not the place to propose new rules. –SJ+ 05:37, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Also, restrict users to one failed DR per day unless the failure rate is less than, say, 10%. Erik Warmelink (talk) 06:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Deletion request not supported. Notes to nominator/advocate: If you wish to propose changes in Commons:Policies and guidelines you may do so, but an individual deletion request listing is not an appropriate place to discuss proposed Commons-wide policy changes. Take some time to look around the Commons:Community portal and Commons:Village pump. Infrogmation (talk) 13:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
en:mahalo.com is not an author - it is a search engine. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
*{{Vk}} as I, the uploader, made the attribution more specific (Author=Mahalo.com Incorporated) in this edit. — Jeff G. ツ 23:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Still, mahalo is not a good source. The image must come from from somewhere. TinEye suggests that it was cropped from this image. Uploaded by some contributor who made a page on mahalo with a list of Playmates of the year. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Comment Hm... I get an 404 error when attempting to access the given source link http://content.mahalo.com/images/0/07/Corinna_Harney_djs_2041.png. Secondly, at the file page I am missing the full attribution guidelines to be found here. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- They are there now, per this edit. — Jeff G. ツ 04:50, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Uncropped version of this image found in Google cache (but deleted), on myspace and elsewhere; allways in low-res. Unlikely to be free. --Túrelio (talk) 09:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
/Step1/14889.htm&usg=__JEjhn9fiFLonL6FKCYC_NvSnlo8=&h=340&w=240&sz=68&hl=de&start=7&itbs=1&tbnid=PvkZlZgkw_t9sM:&tbnh=119&tbnw=84&prev=/images%3Fq%3DCorinna%2BHarney%26hl%3Dde%26sa%3DG%26gbv%3D2%26tbs%3Disch:1){kind=link}
- Delete - it has become painfully obvious that Mahalo.com Incorporated is applying a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License to content on its website that it does not own. Consequently, all images sourced from there should be scrutinized and sourced instead from elsewhere, including File:New York Jets cheerleaders.jpg, which I am adding to this nomination because I think the flickr user fell for the same claims on Mahalo that I did. And I move to delete per W:WP:SNOW and the comments obviously leading towards deletion from AFBorchert and Túrelio, not to mention the nominator Pieter Kuiper. — Jeff G. ツ 05:09, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination and speedily as we have consensus here. I haven't deleted the other one. As far as I understand the Flickr page, this image was not copied from Maholo but the opposite happened, i.e. Maholo and some other blogs copied that image from Flickr. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:38, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Someone keeps nominating this file for speedy deletion, so I'm converting it to a regular DR. Even with our new sexual content policy, I do not think there are grounds to delete this file (let alone speedy delete it). It is not pornographic, and is one of the few images left in Category:Clamps (BDSM), which makes it in scope. –Tryphon☂ 21:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. –Tryphon☂ 21:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Miserable quality, not in use, and File:Nipple Clamps in Use.png can fully substitute it. Quality, not quantity, should be our goal. -- smial (talk) 03:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Well, the file you mention is extracted from this one. It's good practice to keep the original image. –Tryphon☂ 05:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Comment According to the 1986 Attorney General's Commission on Pornography, pornography is "Material that is predominantly sexually explicit and intended primarily for the purpose of sexual arousal." I think the image meets that description. --JN466 14:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Poor quality, not in use. --JN466 14:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep No valid reason of deletion. NB : the argument "not in use" is not pertinent : we don't delete pictures because they're not in use but only if they're not usable (which is not the case here). Actually, as Tryphon perfeclty noticed it, there's no reason to delete the original file when the crop is considered in the scope ! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 18:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Undeniably pornographic as being a simulated sexual act of fellatio. Not in scope, delete for this and above reasons. - Stillwaterising (talk) 20:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep not too bad to prohibit use, useful, and rare picture. We are not deleting source pictures of derived pictures. @Smial, I am wondering a bit about your comment. --Saibo (Δ) 00:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, per Saibo and TwoWings. Max Rebo Band"almost suspiciously excellent" 05:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep it is in use, basically, as long as the derivative works are in use.--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope, not ever likely to be used for any educational purpose. Neither entertainment nor titillation are not valid uses for Commons. (You can find plenty of image sharing sites that fit the bill if that's what you want.) Jehochman (talk) 02:45, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
- The crop of this file IS used ! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 09:11, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
- Note that Jehochman proposed to speedily delete this file. Noting that the proposer to delete has shown an inability to properly propose deletion is not a personal attack, it doesn't attack the person, it attacks the way said person tries to reach a goal. The inability of Jehochman to understand the goal and procedures of commons is stunning. That the only uses Jehochman can imagine are "entertainment []or titillation", is just an argumentum ad ignorantiam and, before Jehochman starts whining to (s)he/its puppet masters, pointing out a logical fallacy isn't a personal attack either. Erik Warmelink (talk) 23:52, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep needed as paper trail for File:Nipple Clamps in Use.png. Erik Warmelink (talk) 23:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment this file is not in use and should be deleted as out of scope (com:porn). - Stillwaterising (talk) 08:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- Multiple people above you have claimed that it effectively is in use as long as its crop is.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep as per whatever Flickr policy's standard, this image is tasteful and depicts a thought-provoking perspective which I believe is primarily intent to send messages rather than merely to provoke a shallow erousal, it can help to illustrate several concepts in various sexual subcultures. I would be all for moving/changing the name to something more apt though. Do we know that Strawberry Love is its given title? TY© (talk) 13:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- KeepI see no reason for deletion. --Ladislav Faigl (talk) 07:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep--DieBuche (talk) 22:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept. In scope by virtue of the crop being in use. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 03:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. –SJ+ 10:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - agree with SJ Fale (talk) 12:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 19:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, as well as the other 3 images Anoron Quessir has contributed. These images might be useful if we knew more about the subjects, but Anoron hasn't participated on Commons for 3 & ahalf years. -- llywrch (talk) 00:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 13:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 03:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. –SJ+ 10:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - agree with SJ Fale (talk) 12:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 19:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 13:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - unusable (something is missing) - out of scope , not notable Cholo Aleman (talk) 03:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Deadstar (msg) 12:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - agree with Deadstar Fale (talk) 12:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete With Cholo.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 19:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 13:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
unused private image (looking out of the window somewhere) - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 04:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, lack of context makes this useless. If only we had a location, this might be useful. Nyttend (talk) 12:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator & Nyttend; looking at this image, I have no idea if this street scene is in Spain, the Balkans, or California. -- llywrch (talk) 00:37, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 13:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
This is a famous t shirt picture on a dog tag. So, it is copyrighted. --Peregrine Fisher (talk · contribs) Correct malformed DR. --Captain-tucker (talk) 09:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - unless copyright release is received. (I heard the artist speak recently - should be easy to get permission if you can find a way to get in contact.) –SJ+ 10:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete unless permission from artist is recieved per SJ. Derivative work; photographer is not the copyright holder. Infrogmation (talk) 17:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete--DieBuche (talk) 22:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 13:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Low quality, artefacts inaccurate description. NPR (though it seems to be from a public event. –SJ+ 08:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Yikrazuul (talk) 15:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete low quality blurry image, orphan, as far as I can see doesn't show anything important not illustrated better in other images. -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment It seems that uploader was not notified. And what does "NPR" mean? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Notified. Personal release may not be an issue as this was a public event. –SJ+ 10:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Useless image. Just a personal porn collection hosted on Commons. When do we start blocking accounts that persistently abuse Commons in this way? Jehochman (talk) 12:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment you mean, accounts that upload a wide variety of pictures in an attempt to cover a subject well? Hopefully never.--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment When will we block single-purpose-accounts who use out-of-process speedy deletes to lower commons to the neo-puritan standards of the only country which has used nuclear arms against civilians, where a majority doesn't even speak two languages? Erik Warmelink (talk) 02:02, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- Your personal attacks and nationalistic attacks are astonishing. I can't understand why you are allowed to treat other editors that way. On Wikipedia your account would be indefed if you made remarks like that repeatedly. Jehochman (talk) 20:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment NPR is not a reason to delete. Erik Warmelink (talk) 02:02, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- Stricken, see above. –SJ+ 10:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete because of its low quality (blurry, inexperienced application of the scissors with hard edges). This is out of COM:SCOPE and it is no wonder that it is currently unused. --AFBorchert (talk) 14:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- I agree (as uploader) that its poor cropping is the primary problem and prevents it from being useful. If somebody could take a few minutes to rework the file from its source, it would be greatly appreciated. Max Rebo Band"almost suspiciously excellent" 19:15, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete pointless image. --JN466 22:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 13:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Close up shot of a logo for a guitar brand (?), Vester. Likely a derivative. Also, in the permission field it states "no please ask" - so in contrast with the license given. -- Deadstar (msg) 09:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, background isn't simple enough for this to be a PD-textlogo. Photographer's permission is irrelevant, since this is an uncreative reproduction of a 2-D image — only the copyright status of the original image is relevant. Nyttend (talk) 12:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 13:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Out of scope and poor quality. 99of9 (talk) 10:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete poor private photo. –SJ+ 10:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, quite useless. Nyttend (talk) 12:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete low quality image; no indication of in scope usefulness. -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Uhm --Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 20:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, but please wait some time. A better description would help a lot. Erik Warmelink (talk) 02:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 13:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Poor quality and out of scope: only used for deleted en:wp article on John Efren. Nyttend (talk) 12:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC) Nyttend (talk) 12:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 20:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 13:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
WolfgangP 13.05.2010
- Delete Even if u get that permission, "mit der einzigen Einschränkung, nicht für Medien anderer Parteien" is not acceptable--DieBuche (talk) 22:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted leider nicht für COM:L akzeptabel. abf «Cabale!» 13:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC) abf «Cabale!» 13:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
not relevant, self promotion Leonardo (talk) 23:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Adv. No evident other purpose.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 20:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 13:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Redundant to superior SVG --Koavf (talk) 17:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: I agree. Moreover, it has been used repeatedly to disrupt pages on the English Wikipedia. Thomb (talk) 23:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete --DieBuche (talk) 22:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 21:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
False licensing. DW from File:Florida Box Turtle Digon3.jpg --Ю. Данилевский (talk) 12:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, both copyright issues and out of scope. Nyttend (talk) 12:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 21:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
No Content, no usage --Ervaude (talk) 12:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Mbdortmund: Empty category: content was: '{| cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" class="plainlinks" style="clear:both; width:80%; margin:.5em auto; background:#fcfcfc; border:3px solid #b22222;" |- | style="padding:8px 8px 0; background:#ffdbdb; border:none;" | File:Nuvo
No content, no usage --Ervaude (talk) 12:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, only empty because the nominator removed several images from it. Nyttend (talk) 12:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Mbdortmund (talk) 21:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
This looks like an official design drawing for a boat, including the logo of the maker's and dimensions. It also seems to be signed. I have a suspicion it is not self made. -- Deadstar (msg) 14:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 21:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
This looks like a screenshot to me (photo of television screen?) -- Deadstar (msg) 14:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Or a useless crop. Until further explanations.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 20:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 21:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
This Category was a confusing combination of Category:Female politicians, Category:Women's rights and Category:Feminism. As I moved the images and subcatagries into one of those three categories the category became empty.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 20:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Mbdortmund: Empty category: content was: '{{Delete |reason=This Category was a confusing combination of Category:Female politicians, Category:Women's rights and Category:Feminism. All images and subcatagries were esally removed to one of those three c
renaming of account --10070 14:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Move talkpage to new account. -- Deadstar (msg) 15:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. – Kwj2772 (msg) 14:00, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
font rendition is incorrect and needs reformatting --Philg88 (talk · contribs) --Correct malformed DR. --Captain-tucker (talk) 08:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, if something needs to be reformatted, please take it to the Graphic Lab. Nyttend (talk) 12:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
No reason for deletion. kept--DieBuche (talk) 00:21, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
The portrait of Latham in the ad in this photo is likely copyrighted and surely not covered by FOP of Australia (The freedom provided by Section 62 does not apply to graphic works (which will typically be two-dimensional) such as ... advertising hoardings, .... These cannot be uploaded to Commons without a licence from the copyright holder even if they are permanently located in a public place.[2]).
As this image is in use on :en, in case of deletion from Commons, it might be uploaded under fair-use locally to :en. Túrelio (talk) 15:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete agreed. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 17:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 11:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
This seems to me like a scan from the book, judging, in part, by the fonts used, and the general look of the schema (I've seen quite a few), also note the small rotation of the image. Why would you make your "own work" not straight and square? Besides, you can even see the text bleeding from the other side of the page. --Wesha (talk) 20:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment I guess it's scanned from a book too. Is the book, somehow, in PD? I dunno, a soviet publication or something now in PD? I'm very ignorant about russian rules about copyright. Just asking.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 20:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment post-WWII that's for sure (since it describes WWII events), therefore not PD yet. -- Wesha (talk) 01:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete I agree that unless the uploader can provide an explanation, it looks like a copyvio. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 22:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. --Blacklake (talk) 15:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
No personal release information. (But see below re: material published elsewhere.) No compelling reason to use. –SJ+ 07:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Update - subject does have a lot of material elsewhere online, and this image is used as an example of nude poses on a few galleries in userspace. Now I am neutral about whether or not this is out of scope. See also Commons:Deletion requests/Biamyinmd. --SJ+ 03:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete out of scope, as usual...--Yikrazuul (talk) 15:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep SJ, what personal information do you want? Her phone number? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Confirmation that the subject allowed their publication. Letting someone take a posed photo is not the same as approving of publication -- and Commons provides very effective global publication. Where the photographer is obligated to get personal releases from their subjects, the existence of such a release should be confirmed just as copyright release is confirmed. In cases such as this, where the original photos are no longer available anywhere online and the original photographer and uploader are likewise unreachable, one has reason to think that no such release was granted. –SJ+ 10:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- If you want to check what is avaible on line of Biamyinmd, you need to turn your safe-search off. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- There is a lot online. (Though none of it seems to be CC any longer.) I don't use 'safe' search, but simply followed the broken source link. It seems likely to me now that the subject is an amateur model, but imo it wouldn't hurt to err on the side of caution re: checking copyright and personal releases -- rather than believing the claims of a removed flickr account. --SJ+ 11:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- If you want to check what is avaible on line of Biamyinmd, you need to turn your safe-search off. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- Confirmation that the subject allowed their publication. Letting someone take a posed photo is not the same as approving of publication -- and Commons provides very effective global publication. Where the photographer is obligated to get personal releases from their subjects, the existence of such a release should be confirmed just as copyright release is confirmed. In cases such as this, where the original photos are no longer available anywhere online and the original photographer and uploader are likewise unreachable, one has reason to think that no such release was granted. –SJ+ 10:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep You have no standing to demand "personal release information". Erik Warmelink (talk) 00:42, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what this means. Photos of private individuals in private spaces should have a personal rights release from the subject just as they have a copyright release from the photographer. --SJ+ 11:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep The fact that the user has left Flickr doesn't mean anything ! No valid reason of deletion. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 12:12, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per Yikrazuul. The empty Kleenex box and messy armchair by the bed detract from what little educational value there might have been. --JN466 17:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep pas de raison plus que d'autres d'être supprimée --P@d@w@ne 09:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete SJ is right, we have little evidence that this satisfies COM:PEOPLE. None that I know apart from the original Flikr username including the name Amy (but any ex-boyfriend could achieve that). I view deleted accounts as suspicious. The rest of this series were deleted. --99of9 (talk) 13:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete this picture is not for public (but how to prove?) and if so it's no good example for nude poses --89.246.186.116 18:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Sanbec (talk) 18:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Statues in countries without FOP (mostly Russia)
[edit]Works of Yevgeny Vuchetich
- File:Dzerzhinsky Statue, which once dominated Lyubianka Square.jpg
- File:Moscow Dezerzhinskiy Lubyanka head.jpg
- File:Moscow Dzerzhinskiy Lubyanka.jpg
- File:Plach materi.jpg
- File:Vatutin Kiev.jpg (In Ukraine, doesn't have FOP either)
- File:Kiev rodina mat 2001 07 11.jpg (As above)
- File:Felix Dzerzhinsky2.jpg
- File:Feliks Dzierżyński-pomnik w Parku Sztuki.jpg
- File:Визволителям Ростова.JPG
Unknown authors (I didn't put much research in most of them, but they are clearly built recently, as in less than 70 years ago, so that the author couldn't be dead that long)
- File:Dzierznynski-Minsk.JPG (In Belarus, doesn't have FOP)
- File:Дзержинский.JPG
Following are from Zaporizhia, Ukraine
- File:Запорожский Национальный Технический Университет (ЗНТУ) - Памятник Поддерёгину129.jpg
- File:Запорожье 05328.JPG
- File:Запорожье 9100217.jpg
- File:Запорожье DSC02529.JPG
- File:Запорожье Памятник Дзержинскому 102.jpg
- File:Проспект_Леника_Запорожье.jpg
_-_%D0%9F%D0%B0%D0%BC%D1%8F%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA_%D0%9F%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B4%D0%B5%D1%80%D1%91%D0%B3%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%83129.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
There's no FOP in these countries. Neither are those statues old enough for their author to be dead for more than 70 years. This is by no means a conclusive list, I just gave up. Some categories that should be certainly looked over are: Category:Monuments in Ukraine, Category:Monuments_in_Russia, Category:Monuments and memorials built in the Soviet Union (again, I'm not going to list them all). This should really be looked into, it's hectic.
I admit that I don't know a whole lot about copyright laws. Maybe these laws apply only to the works that are made after certain date? If so just, explain and close this. --Hluup (talk) 11:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, a shame though. Erik Warmelink (talk) 02:10, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Moved from Commons talk:Deletion requests/Statues in countries without FOP (mostly Russia): –Krinkletalk 11:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)- Following are from Zaporizhia, Ukraine
- File:Запорожский Национальный Технический Университет (ЗНТУ) - Памятник Поддерёгину129.jpg This is statue in memory of first rector Zaporizhzhya National Technical University.
- File:Запорожье 05328.JPG Monument in place of arms ashore, from which an offensive developed putting beginning of liberation of Zaporizhzhya and right-bank Ukraine in the w:en:World War II. Renewed in 2010, in honour the 65 year of Victory.
- File:Запорожье 9100217.jpg Monument in memory in w:en:Vladimir Lenin, second on a height (24 meters) in the USSR.
- File:Запорожье DSC02529.JPG Monument in place of arms ashore, from which an offensive developed putting beginning of liberation of Zaporizhzhya and right-bank Ukraine in the w:en:World War II. Build in 1963, in honour the 20 year of Liberation.
- File:Запорожье Памятник Дзержинскому 102.jpg Monuments of Felix Dzerzhinskiy, soviet statesman, founder of "All-russian extraordinary commission on a fight against counter-revolution and sabotage" - soviet organ of state security, one of organizers of "red terror".
- File:Проспект_Леника_Запорожье.jpg Foto of main street at w:en:Zaporizhia, one of the longest (22 kilometres) boulevards of Europe.
- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mixabest (talk • contribs) 15:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Yes, it's too bad, but the FOP rules -- or, I should say, the lack of them -- are clear in Russia and Ukraine, so we must delete all of these. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 17:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep So many beautiful momuments must be deleted? Very sad. --Starscream (talk) 20:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 09:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
According to the description, "The illustration is a drawing copy of a photo from the journal Science, 2010", so {{Derivative}}. However, an user disagreed. --Dodo (talk) 16:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment I didn't disagree with deletion, I disagreed with speedy deletion. A drawing based on a photo is not simple enough for speedy deletion in my opinion. It was not a photo of some piece of artwork, it was a photo of an anthropological find. All of the photographic creativity characteristics seem to disappear... Wknight94 talk 16:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- oppose From what I know it in not possible to copyright a fossil specimen. As such copyright law does not apply to the image as it is only of the fossil and not of everything in the photograph.--Kevmin (talk) 18:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- It is not possible to copyright a fossil, but a photograph is copyrighted by definition (unless it is of a photo of a 2 dimensional work of art which is in the public domain). This is based on a specific photograph[3], actually traced, so it is technically a copyvio. FunkMonk (talk) 19:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Right: it is not possible to copyright a fossil, so anyone can make a derivative work (drawing, photo) from it. *But* the derivative work can be copyrighted. We have a drawing made from a photo made from a fossil. The photo has been published it Science, so I think it has been copyrighted. --Dodo (talk) 10:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- It is not possible to copyright a fossil, but a photograph is copyrighted by definition (unless it is of a photo of a 2 dimensional work of art which is in the public domain). This is based on a specific photograph[3], actually traced, so it is technically a copyvio. FunkMonk (talk) 19:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
![[3]](http://newtech.aurum3.com/images/australopithecus-sediba-skull.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete Unless the photograph is PD for some reason which isn't obvious, the drawing is derivative and therefore copyvio. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 22:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. NW (Talk) 03:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Unused. Redundant to File:Autofellatio6.jpg except for some non-functional padding in the image. Dragons flight (talk) 13:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. –SJ+ 10:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. Delete. Extremely erotic in nature. Not encyclopedic content. --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 00:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- A photo proving autofellatio possible is very important for any encyclopedia article on the subject. I don't find the photo the least bit erotic, but to each their own.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- Question: Since, Autofellatio6 & Autofellatio5 appear to be identical, which should we prefer? The smaller file (Autofellatio5.jpg is 104 KB) or the larger (Autofellatio5.jpg is 176 KB), assuming it has more detail? My inclination is to keep the smaller one in these cases -- which means to keep this file, but delete the one which has not been nominated. -- llywrch (talk) 00:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Why look at sizes? Look at the pictures, and which one's are in use.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep both. Do not force your auto-censored after threats by User:Lar standards on more enlightened wikipedias. Erik Warmelink (talk) 01:38, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keepboth of educational value--DieBuche (talk) 22:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- DeleteIt's practically the same as Autofellatio6.jpg, which is the only reasonable subject of discussion here.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept, files are not exact duplicates, no other reason for deletion. Kameraad Pjotr 20:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Redundant; almost identical to File:Autofellatio6.jpg, which is in use on several projects. One shot from this series is enough to be of use. — Scott • talk 13:30, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
- Oh. I just saw the listing above. Shrug. Note that the image is still unused, three years after the original DR. If Commons feels the need to keep whole series of self-made exhibitionist photographs just because the images are slightly different to each other, that's a total failure of editorial judgment, but so be it. — Scott • talk 15:03, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- I didn't respond to your original post, because it had a point. But just because it's a naked photo of the uploader doesn't give you the right to make personal judgments on them, nor should we treat them differently then we would a series of photos of flowers.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:02, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, he is an exhibitionist. — Scott • talk 16:49, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- So what? Lots of people have lots of motives for uploading pictures. We never argue that a picture of a rose is problematic because the user wants to show off their roses and has been pushing it on Wikipedia.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:22, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- Enough with the attempts to compare someone who likes exhibiting their penis in public to someone who likes flowers. It's pathetic. As you can see from the link above, this user has already brought Commons into disrepute. — Scott • talk 22:03, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- What other websites choose to inanely chatter about is their own business, and is not a reason for deletion. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:39, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- Your attempting to dismiss the outside world was entirely predictable, as you're one of the main cheerleaders for the Commons penis-collecting gang. Thankfully, there are many people who can see past the ends of their own feet. — Scott • talk 09:11, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- What other websites choose to inanely chatter about is their own business, and is not a reason for deletion. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:39, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- Enough with the attempts to compare someone who likes exhibiting their penis in public to someone who likes flowers. It's pathetic. As you can see from the link above, this user has already brought Commons into disrepute. — Scott • talk 22:03, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- So what? Lots of people have lots of motives for uploading pictures. We never argue that a picture of a rose is problematic because the user wants to show off their roses and has been pushing it on Wikipedia.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:22, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, he is an exhibitionist. — Scott • talk 16:49, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- I didn't respond to your original post, because it had a point. But just because it's a naked photo of the uploader doesn't give you the right to make personal judgments on them, nor should we treat them differently then we would a series of photos of flowers.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:02, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- Delete, redundant entry, not unique. -- Cirt (talk) 20:39, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- Keep - I see no reason for deletion - the image is within scope, that it is not in use is irrelevant. That it is similar to another image is also fairly irrelevant, unless you're going to start nominating all 10,000 versions of the Mona Lisa for deletion. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Image is in scope.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:48, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- Keep as per mattbuck. COM:Dupe only applies to exact duplicates, and for redundant files "you will need to provide reasons why a particular file is inferior to the alternative version". Handcuffed (talk) 21:23, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Since it's almost identical to a file that is in use means that it is useful. Since it's almost identical means that it's unique. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 10:27, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- Keep In scope. Not a duplicate. Tm (talk) 02:19, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Kept as per concensus, and as per there being no requirement that unused files must be deleted if they are not in use. russavia (talk) 03:16, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
I am the original copyright holder and wish for it to be deleted. StandardCarl (talk) 03:17, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep: sorry, the CC-BY-3.0 license does not provide for revocation.
(non-admin closure)Heavy Water (talk) 04:06, 24 January 2023 (UTC)- We can give this a week of discussion (last one was in 2013), so closure removed. --Rosenzweig τ 07:19, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- I am the subject, photographer, editor, uploader, owner etc. of this image. After over 10 years on the wikimedia commons, and little to no history of even being used on the wikipedia page for which it was originally uploaded, I wish for it to no longer be on here. Thank you for your time. --StandardCarl (talk) 23:40, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Krd 18:25, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
Uploaded by drive-by contributor whose only other action was to vandalise COM:OTRS, image seems like just a load of promotion to me. I grant it's a decent photo, but it makes me wonder whether the uploader was really the copyright holder. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Assuming good faith, I don't believe that his first contribution was a vandalism, just a newbie error. However, I agree that this should be a potential self-promotion, but imho the photo is useful, and the uploader/subject should be the copyright holder (a "work for hire"). A description page cleanup and a renaming are needed.--Trixt (talk) 21:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Per nom, merely a container for self promotion. --Martin H. (talk) 03:22, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Not free in the country of origin (published in Italy). Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Monneret de Villard (1881-1954) it's not the author of the pictures. It's just the writer of the book and texts under the pictures. The authorship of illustrations has to be attributed, as it's written in the book under everyone of them [4], to Foto Moscioni, evidently some Photo Studio. In this case we can argue that, without further information, it's impossible a proper attribution. It's pretty alike as anonymous/unknown so it should be considered the date on publication (1913). On the other hand the author could have been Attilio Moscioni, quite famous photographer at his time, that died in 1950. But there isn't any evidence that exactly Mr. Attilio shot the picture. To add the last element of evaluation, if Attilio Moscioni is the author, despite the italian name, he was resident, may be citizen, in the USA.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 20:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no evidence that the image is in the public domain in the source country. Kameraad Pjotr 19:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
This image is very likely a copyvio, as the same photo, with different definitions, may be seen on various sites (http://cybevasion.reservit.com/general/images/customer/112/hotel/7787/2375a_big.jpg, http://fr.hotels.com/13/hotels/3000000/2370000/2360300/2360225/hcom_2360225_17_b.jpg, ...). At least, nothing proves that it is the uploader's own work. Croquant (talk) 07:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Res is higher than any other image i can find. Exif data specify 22. Jul. 2003--DieBuche (talk) 22:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. This is a version of the same photo seen at the Hotel's official website (look closely at the water). Close examination shows it is not only highly processed but has also been reduced to 256 colours, indicating it used to be a GIF (again suggesting that it was yanked from a website somewhere). I don't know where they got a high-resolution version of it, but it's highly improbable that the Hotel Beaufort is using an image from Commons. There is no camera data in the EXIF - 2003 is just the last modified date on the file. Dcoetzee (talk) 02:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Auther is unknown. Hence, it is unsure if he has been dead for at least 70 years. --Leyo 20:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Just change the license to {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Do it when you are sure that it is the correct license. --Leyo 21:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Taken in 1907. Unknown author. So in PD. Or I'm missing something. 70 years should have passed from the release/publication/shot of the picture, not from the death of someone unknown. How is it possible to calculate when an unknown/anonymous could eventually have died? I'm asking. Just to learn something more. --Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 20:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Clearly a professional portrait. Unlikely that the author - whether a studio or an individual - decided to remain anonymous. More likely we just can't figure out who it is. Dcoetzee (talk) 02:14, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
There is a higher quality version of the image at File:Tropical Cyclone Sean 2010-04-23 lrg.jpg - Anhamirak (talk) 23:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment The NASA Earth Observatory web site provided two versions of this image. The high resolution raw image File:Tropical Cyclone Sean 2010-04-23 lrg.jpg and this lower resolution version annotated with North direction, a scale, the Indian Ocean and Samba island labeled. --Captain-tucker (talk) 10:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Infringement on the copyright of A. Ciffrin, town planner. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Israeli law allows to photograph maps that are on public display. Deror is a lawyer, he knows what he's doing. MathKnight 07:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- An amazing trust in lawyers. Would you let someone get away with murder, just because "he knows what he's doing"? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Deror is not some unknown lawyer. He is a respected Wikipedian at he.wikipedia, member of Wikimedia Israel association and recently was one of the main actors in organizing and winning the bid of Wikimania 2011 to be hosted in Haifa, Israel. He understands the Israeli law better than you, and has good reputation. MathKnight 11:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- He is an anti-copyright activist, it seems. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Berlin musee juif feuilles.JPG, Commons:Deletion requests/Fallen Leaves in Berlin Jewish museum, and Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2009-12#Berlin musee juif feuilles.JPG for how he can be lawyering impossible cases. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- As before Pieter Kuiper has no knowledge of Israeli Law and is active prosecutionof my images and Israeli images in Israel. His language is slanderous. I am a copyright lawyer, and I am activist - therefor I specialize in this dipartment. Kuipe is just clueless.
- And to the point- free for two reasons - first the chart belongs to the city of Naharia, who authorized photogrpahy - but that was not necessary as it is a useful chart permenantly dipslayed in a public location is free according to Israeli copyright Law. In any case 70 years has elapsed so it is free to be photographed even if it has not been FOP. Deror avi (talk) 21:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- May I point out to my very learned friend that COM:L#Israel states that works become free 70 years after the death of the author? Does my learned friend the activist intend to amend that page? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Kuiper I am not going to bather and explain to you why you are wrong as you never listen anyways. Deror avi (talk) 07:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- May I point out to my very learned friend that COM:L#Israel states that works become free 70 years after the death of the author? Does my learned friend the activist intend to amend that page? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- He is an anti-copyright activist, it seems. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Berlin musee juif feuilles.JPG, Commons:Deletion requests/Fallen Leaves in Berlin Jewish museum, and Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2009-12#Berlin musee juif feuilles.JPG for how he can be lawyering impossible cases. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Deror is not some unknown lawyer. He is a respected Wikipedian at he.wikipedia, member of Wikimedia Israel association and recently was one of the main actors in organizing and winning the bid of Wikimania 2011 to be hosted in Haifa, Israel. He understands the Israeli law better than you, and has good reputation. MathKnight 11:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- An amazing trust in lawyers. Would you let someone get away with murder, just because "he knows what he's doing"? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- "Maps" is one of the categories of works protected by the Israeli copyright law. Unlike the categories of architecture, sculpture and permanently placed applied art, maps are not exempted in the FOP provision in the Israeli law. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
- It's a long time since I last looked at this but I assume I was basing my comments on Presenti's suggestion that applied art "includes art work (like adverts, advertising, maps etc) which transfers useful information". However, looking again at the Copyright Act 2007 would seem to contradict that. It defines an "artistic work" as including maps and works of applied art. That section 23 then only refers to one of the mentioned possible types of artistic works, applied art, suggests to me that the others in the definition, including maps, are not covered by section 23. On that basis my position is Delete. I recall suggestions that "applied art" is a general term but I've yet to be persuaded by that. Whilst I appreciate that Presenti will know a great deal more about Israeli law than I do, I simply cannot understand why she suggests maps are covered by section 23. Adambro (talk) 09:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
- Presenti is the leading expert in copyright law. Deror avi (talk) 20:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
- That doesn't answer the question here though. I and I'm sure many others aren't experts in copyright law yet it is ignorant people like me who make up the majority of Commons users and decide what stays and what goes. That means that we need to be able to ensure that those who aren't experts in copyright law are able to understand it enough to know whether something is acceptable or not. I don't think it is fair to demand that people simply accept comments from Presenti as facts and I think many will be cautious about doing so. As I've highlighted now and previously, there seems to be a contradiction between section 23 referring to only "applied art" and the term "artistic works" being defined in the Act to include a number of types of works including maps and "applied art". I would like to try to understand that more. I recall suggestions that "applied art" as the final term in the definition of "artistic works" is a broad term which includes all the earlier types but I've yet to be convinced why that would be the case. It puzzles me that the Act defines the term "artistic works" then would chose to use a term not defined "applied art" to apparently mean the same thing. Perhaps you could help me see how that works? As you'll have seen, I've already changed my mind once on this and I'm happy to change it again. I just need to be able to understand this better. Adambro (talk) 21:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
- Presenti is the leading expert in copyright law. Deror avi (talk) 20:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
- It's a long time since I last looked at this but I assume I was basing my comments on Presenti's suggestion that applied art "includes art work (like adverts, advertising, maps etc) which transfers useful information". However, looking again at the Copyright Act 2007 would seem to contradict that. It defines an "artistic work" as including maps and works of applied art. That section 23 then only refers to one of the mentioned possible types of artistic works, applied art, suggests to me that the others in the definition, including maps, are not covered by section 23. On that basis my position is
- "Maps" is one of the categories of works protected by the Israeli copyright law. Unlike the categories of architecture, sculpture and permanently placed applied art, maps are not exempted in the FOP provision in the Israeli law. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I, and, I think, Adambro, would appreciate a little clarity here. In section 1, Definitions we have:
- " Artistic work – including, drawings, paintings, works of sculpture, engravings, lithography, maps, charts, architectural works,, photographic works and works of applied art;"
I would construe that to mean that applied art is one of ten mutually exclusive categories of Artistic Work. Of course I don't know the rules of construction in Israeli law nor do I read Hebrew or know that the English translation is accurate. We then have in section 23,
- "Broadcasting, or copying by way of photography, drawing, sketch or similar visual description, of an architectural work, a work of sculpture or work of applied art, are permitted where the aforesaid work is permanently situated in a public place."
Which specifically lists "architectural work, work of sculpture, or work of applied art" -- three of the ten categories. My reading would be that the other seven categories -- drawings, paintings, engravings, lithography, maps, charts,and photographic works are not covered by Section 23 and therefore are subject to the ordinary rules requiring permission for a derivative work.
I would very much appreciate an explanation that covers the apparent gap between a reasonable reading of the law and what two experts are saying. This is not the first time the subject has come up, and it surely will not be the last. Let's get a definitive explanation so that we can put the next one to bed faster than five months. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:56, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, per Adambro. Kameraad Pjotr 20:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Nipper's Greatest Hits
[edit]- File:Bill Murray - Grand Old Rag.ogg
- File:Alma Gluck - Carry Me Back To Old Virginny.ogg
- File:Al Jolson - That Haunting Melody.ogg
- File:Ben Selvin - I'm Forever Blowing Bubbles.ogg
- File:Enrico Caruso - Over There.ogg
- File:Jack Norworth and Nora Bayes - Mister Moon Man, Turn Off The Light.ogg
- File:Bill Murray - In My Merry Oldsmobile.ogg
- File:In The Good Old Summertime.ogg
While these original recordings were done pre-1923, these particular files are taken from copyrighted remasterings done for a 1991 CD entitled "Nipper's Greatest Hits: 1901 - 1920". (amazon link). Themfromspace (talk) 21:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Or do you have any evidence that remastering gives new copyright? /Pieter Kuiper (talk)
- Delete There are no PD sound recordings under Florida Law; the law has no expiration date. Like all sound recordings before 1972, there is no federal copyright, but there is state protection. The federal law will override the state laws in 2067 and all pre-1972 recordings will be clearly PD, but that's a long ways away.--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Copyright seems to depend on ownership of the master recording? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep There's no copy right violations here. How may I serve you? Marshall Williams2 Talk Autographs Contribs 00:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
- Comment See Commons_talk:Licensing#Public_domain_sound_recordings. If indeed public domain recordings pre-1972 will not enter the public domain before 2067, we have much bigger problems than this little bunch of files. Dcoetzee (talk) 02:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted.
One more complex aspect to USA copyright law -- essentially all pre 1972 sound recordings will be in copyright until 2067 and, yes, Dcoetzee is right, we have about 1,900 recordings that are problematic. For those who would like to learn more, take an hour and study chapter 4 of this. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Restored in 2022 with {{PD-US-record-expired}}, as there were all recorded (and presumably also published) before 1923. --Rosenzweig τ 21:44, 2 January 2022 (UTC)