Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2010/06/05
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
Speedy delete for blatant copyright violation: image is incorrectly tagged as "own work" by uploader; this is a scan of a 1967 painting (still under copyright by the heirs of the creator). cmadler (talk) 17:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- I apologize for a somewhat malformed deletion request but the image itself is protected. This appears to me to be a speedy deletion candidate. cmadler (talk) 17:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Rlevse: Copyright violation: moved to en wiki with FUR
COM:SCOPE. Orphaned and no apparent use. Uploader's only contribution. Wknight94 talk 12:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Delete unused, can easily be reproduced if needed. Amada44 (talk) 17:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Leyo 17:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
a VERY personal image, uploader notes is for craigslist, out of scope malo (talk) 17:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Doesn't have any educational value. 67.188.10.178 05:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Closed. Out of scope & privacy concerns--DieBuche (talk) 17:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Very low-quality photo of an unknown piece of art. Not in use anywhere and really isn't in usable condition. COM:SCOPE problem and no source. Uploader's only contribution. Wknight94 talk 12:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, photo of a painting and painter is not mentioned, therefore {{No source since}} added. Besides that the quality of the photo is indeed bad and makes this photo impossible to be used anywhere. --Martin H. (talk) 12:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 14:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
COM:SCOPE. Orphaned rectangle thing. No apparent use. Wknight94 talk 12:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 14:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Too small to be of use (fails COM:SCOPE), and improper license. Wknight94 talk 12:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: I don't see any use for it. TFCforever (talk) 23:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 14:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
COM:SCOPE. Unused pink triangles. No apparent use. Wknight94 talk 12:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Delete unused, not useful. Amada44 (talk) 17:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Can't you see the description? It's geometric! ;)
No, seriously, deleted. No apparent use imaginable. abf «Cabale!» 14:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
COM:SCOPE. Personal photo I assume with no apparent use. Further, without knowing where the photo was shot, the statue photo may be a copyvio. Wknight94 talk 13:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 14:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
COM:SCOPE. Unused personal photo. Uploader's only contribution. Wknight94 talk 15:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Delete unused personal file. Amada44 (talk) 17:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 14:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
COM:SCOPE. Unused personal photo. Uploader's only contribution. Wknight94 talk 15:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Delete unused personal file. problematic one only contribution Amada44 (talk) 17:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 14:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
COM:SCOPE. Unused personal photo. Uploader's only contribution. Wknight94 talk 15:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Delete unused personal file. no info. Amada44 (talk) 17:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 14:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
no educational value, self promotion, out of scope malo (talk) 17:08, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Delete unused, no info, per nom. Amada44 (talk) 17:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 14:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
COM:SCOPE. Unused personal picture with no apparent use. Uploader's only other contribution is similar. Wknight94 talk 17:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Delete unused per nom. Amada44 (talk) 17:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 14:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
mspaint drawing, out of scope malo (talk) 17:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Delete unused per nom. Amada44 (talk) 17:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 14:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
COM:SCOPE. Unused personal picture with no apparent use. Uploader's only other contribution is similar. Wknight94 talk 17:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Delete unused per nom. Amada44 (talk) 17:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 14:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
COM:SCOPE. I guess we made a nice image host for someone's science class. Wknight94 talk 17:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Delete unused nonsense. Amada44 (talk) 17:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 14:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
COM:SCOPE. I guess we made a nice image host for someone's science class. Wknight94 talk 17:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Delete unused nonsense. Amada44 (talk) 17:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 14:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
COM:SCOPE. I guess we made a nice image host for someone's science class. Wknight94 talk 18:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Delete unused nonsense. Amada44 (talk) 16:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 14:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE. Orphaned useless image, apparently of uploader's production company logo. Wknight94 talk 03:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --E8 (talk) 07:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 21:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Orphaned and out of COM:SCOPE. No apparent use. Wknight94 talk 03:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --E8 (talk) 07:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 21:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Orphaned and out of COM:SCOPE. No apparent use. Wknight94 talk 03:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --E8 (talk) 07:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 21:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Orphaned and out of COM:SCOPE. No apparent use. Wknight94 talk 03:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --E8 (talk) 08:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 21:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Orphaned and out of COM:SCOPE. No apparent use. Wknight94 talk 03:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --E8 (talk) 08:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 21:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Orphaned and out of COM:SCOPE. No apparent use. Wknight94 talk 03:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --E8 (talk) 08:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 21:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Out of project scope, possible copyright violation (screenshots of some websites) NickK (talk) 09:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Advertisement for someone's website. Jafeluv (talk) 10:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 21:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Unnecessary page created by x-wiki spammer; see meta:Talk:Spam blacklist#Kliddell2.community.officelive.com --A. B. (talk) 19:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Untitled---==+p'40110------.jpg --A. B. (talk) 19:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- See these edits: [1][2][3] + this new file: File:KJ2 2098.jpg + the x-wiki contributions logs for Corporate+Equalizer and 99.141.83.57 --A. B. (talk) 21:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 16:16, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Unnecessary page created by x-wiki spammer; see meta:Talk:Spam blacklist#Kliddell2.community.officelive.com --A. B. (talk) 19:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- See also: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Untitledanti tyrrany org1.jpg --A. B. (talk) 19:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- See these edits: [4][5][6] + this new file: File:KJ2 2098.jpg + the x-wiki contributions logs for Corporate+Equalizer and 99.141.83.57 --A. B. (talk) 21:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 16:16, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Non-sourced image (upper part is a scan from unknown book). 178.176.239.81 09:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Uploader claims compatable license, but the image is from this fully copyrighted website. Also note copyright symbol in the file summary. 74.198.28.32 23:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
First license cannot be valid since no publication date is given. The second license box needs the author's name - he is unknown.
This applies also to the linked (see "other versions") reworked version. Saibo (Δ) 00:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- Should be Template:PD-Australia. Taken prior to 1. Januar 1955 (Readford died 1901) and of Australian Origin. According to the State Library of Queensland is the copyright expired. ([7]). sугсго 09:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Can I just fix this, or do they have to be deleted? It's all a little confusing... Soozlepip (talk) 02:11, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- No, no deletion necessary. I've changed it. Thank you syncro! Altough the URL is not working - could you please provide a working one? Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 14:34, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- Can I just fix this, or do they have to be deleted? It's all a little confusing... Soozlepip (talk) 02:11, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Apparently a logo of some kind? At best, no apparent use and out of COM:SCOPE. At worst, a copyvio. Uploader's only contribution. Wknight94 talk 03:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. no apparent use. --E8 (talk) 07:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Delete per nom Cholo Aleman (talk) 06:21, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Out of project scope NickK (talk) 09:32, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Based on a 1972 composition which is only PD if it was published without a copyright notice, which is very unlikely. Jafeluv (talk) 09:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Keep This concern would be legitimate if it was the song itself which was uploaded here. Musical notes, just in themselves, are not eligible for copyright Belgrano (talk) 15:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- Of course they are. Jafeluv (talk) 11:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Sheet music is the same as any other medium of expression in terms of copyright law. Jujutacular T · C 13:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Keep This is but a brief quotation, like one or two sentences from a book. Of course they are protected by copyright, but the right for quotation is always granted when the quotation is this short. I would keep it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.146.186.180 (talk • contribs) 08:53, 12 June 2010 (UTC) (UTC)
- You're right that it's a brief quotation, but Commons doesn't accept fair use material. Jafeluv (talk) 09:11, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Derivative of a non-free, copyrighted model of planned future buildings. Not covered by Swedish freedom of panorama, as the work is not permanently placed outdoors. The same also goes for File:Modell PMB.jpg and File:Modell vy mot stadshuset.jpg. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete All three. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:21, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
typo in the main pannel, better schemes can be found in the Category:Computer hardware tree Santosga (talk) 14:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Jameslwoodward: Out of project scope
book cover, either real and copyrighted, or fake and out of scope. I would have speedied it, but I couldn't find it on TinEye and I don't know Portuguese. Prosfilaes (talk) 14:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
No Commons:Freedom of panorama in Belarus. Sculptor is still alive. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete NO FOP in Belarus and this is a sculpture. Image focuses solely on it. --Leoboudv (talk) 20:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Unused image, replaced by File:Flag of Ethiopia (1975-1987, 1991-1996).svg. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Replaced by File:Flag of Fukuoka Prefecture.svg, which matches current legislation. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
No realistic educational value. Uploader has modified an existing File with his own ideas (some of which don't make sense and could cause confusion) and has added a lengthy article-like text description that misses the point of Commons. Globbet (talk) 21:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
bogus deletion reason
I didn't "just copy" the file from Slashme, in fact, I and Slashme worked together on making the first file. My file is simply a variation and since I use the appropriate license (same as original) its completely legal. As for making "no sense", I beg to differ, perhaps you can explain why it wouldn't work ?KVDP (talk) 12:51, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Off the top of my head, it shows an electrically controlled filling valve to the cold supply, a cold supply delivered through the base of the tank and without any form of air-break or non-return. The hot delivery from the attic-mounted(!) burner goes to the lower end of the heat exchanger coil. There is no venting or pressure relief shown, not any provision for expansion of the heated water. This system would be highly unsafe and specifically illegal in the UK.
- There's also the problem that the drawing is literally meaningless, as it has obscure "modules" drawn all over it, but no key to indicate what they are.
- So that's a Delete then Andy Dingley (talk) 13:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- I'm guessing that (2) and (8) are the "water sensor and valve" (everyone else simply sticks a check valve, possibly with a float, on the intake).
- The diagram is too complex to be used as a schematic, but too simple to be used for implementation. Delete. --Carnildo (talk) 19:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- The diagram is too complex to be used as a schematic, but too simple to be used for implementation.
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
No educational value. Uploader using Commons as personal blog for highly speculative design ideas. Globbet (talk) 21:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep own work is allowed at wikimedia commons. Would refine the images further depending on user suggestions. Please check
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Project_scope and http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:What_Commons_is_not#Commons_is_not_Wikipedia these prove my point here Besides, Appropedia is not my personal "blog", instead its an actual organisation, certified as a non-profit KVDP (talk) 13:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Comment Own work is allowed, but you are not allowed to use Commons as a personal web-space to promote your own ideas. What you do on some other wiki is not our concern. This file has no realistic educational purpose. Improving the image is not the issue. See Commons:What_Commons_is_not#Commons_is_not_your_personal_free_web_host. Globbet (talk) 23:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Please, for the sake of all of us, learn something about your topic before inflicting these ridiculous doodles on us any further. For one simple thing, learn just a little about the problems of designing a concentrating heliostat. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete No possible educational use. The device pictured in this image is completely unworkable. --Carnildo (talk) 01:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
No educational value. Uploader using Commons as personal blog for highly speculative design ideas. Globbet (talk) 22:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep own work is allowed at wikimedia commons. Would refine the images further depending on user suggestions. Please check
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Project_scope and http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:What_Commons_is_not#Commons_is_not_Wikipedia these prove my point here Besides, Appropedia isn't my personal "blog", instead it's and actual organisation, certified as a non-profit KVDP (talk) 13:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Own work is allowed, but you are not allowed to use Commons as a personal web-space to promote your own ideas. What you do on some other wiki is not our concern. This file has no realistic educational purpose. Improving the image is not the issue. See Commons:What_Commons_is_not#Commons_is_not_your_personal_free_web_host. Globbet (talk) 23:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Just as for the other heliostat, and this one comes with an added ridiculous mis-drawn turbine. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. The phrase "cargo-cult engineering" comes to mind here: sticking bits together without a real understanding of what they do. --Carnildo (talk) 02:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom.--E8 (talk) 11:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
No educational value. Uploader using Commons as personal blog for highly speculative design ideas. Globbet (talk) 22:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep own work is allowed at wikimedia commons. Would refine the images further depending on user suggestions. Please check
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Project_scope and http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:What_Commons_is_not#Commons_is_not_Wikipedia these prove my point here Indeed this is only a concept, however it's also categorised as such KVDP (talk) 13:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Own work is allowed, but you are not allowed to use Commons as a personal web-space to promote your own ideas - that is not what 'own work' means. This file has no realistic educational purpose. Improving the image is not the issue. See Commons:What_Commons_is_not#Commons_is_not_your_personal_free_web_host. Globbet (talk) 23:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Clear that the uploader is not the original author (by U.S. standards), but unclear whether image is in the public domain. Closeapple (talk) 04:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Per nominater. No proof that image is PD. MGA73 (talk) 21:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
This image is extremely out of focus it is difficult to make out any details, any of the 40+ images in Category:Rush_hour would adequately replace it on the "rush hour" page where it is currently used. JesseW (talk) 22:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- It is in use so it will not be deleted. Besides, blur fits well to many people's associations to rush hour. And it can be seen as a quality that the individual faces cannot be recognized (privacy). Please read guidelines before nominating files for deletion. Thank you. Nillerdk (talk) 07:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per Nillerdk. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:25, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Kept. In use. MGA73 (talk) 21:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Unused, out of scope, even if OTRS is available. -Nard the Bard 20:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
It was intended that this file replace the existing one, if possible, and is to be used both for the English language article "Doomby" and the French language one. The French language version of the article is still in preparation, and illustrative images on fr.wikipedia require licensing (fair use is insufficient). --Colinblane (talk) 12:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- So put it in your article then. -Nard the Bard 22:51, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Easier said than done! As the existing reference in the article is to "Homepage-doomby.png" (being the original upload), how do I replace it with "Homepage-doomby.png" (being the new upload)? Sorry, but I can't figure it out ... --Colinblane (talk) 12:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Kept. (marked duplicate on en.wikipedia with "NowCommons", so the Commons file should be in use after deletion) --:bdk: 20:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
The painter (Pellervo Lukumies) still living. FOP in Finland for buildings only. Apalsola t • c 20:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep This also shows architectural detail. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. When the art is the "central element of the picture," the fact that there are architectural details no longer allows for FOP in Finland. Here the art is unquestionably the central element. -- Avi (talk) 15:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Bad auto-trace, unused. Quibik (talk) 14:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. DieBuche (talk) 19:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Date of photograph is not given. Also, user is not the copyrightholder; so invalid license. Vssun (talk) 03:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- File:Konda reddies.jpg is a similar image.--Vssun (talk) 03:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Comment clarification: looks like a copyright violation, not old enough to be free Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted as this book was published in 1982 by University of California Press. The author and photographer is Christoph von Fürer-Haimendorf (1909–1995) who performed his research in the years 1940–1980. These photographs were apparently taken but not published before January 1, 1978 and are in consequence (see COM:L#United States) protected for 95 years from the date they were registered for copyright (until 2077) or for 120 years from the year of creation (at least until 2060 if taken in 1940), whichever expires first. Until then it is a copyright violation unless we get a permission. --AFBorchert (talk) 12:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
This image would be copyrighted by the province of Ontario in Canada. Also all federal Canadian government pictures are copyrighted for 50 years. Leoboudv (talk) 06:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- ...And that's why the licensing is copyrighted. However this is a public works photo and thus can be used with the correct licensing. Haljackey (talk) 14:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted as copyvio. We would need a permission by the copyright holder through OTRS to keep this photograph. Otherwise see COM:L#Canada. --AFBorchert (talk) 19:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
The image contains a model of a planned future building. Given that the uploader appears rather critical of the plans, it seems unlikely that the uploader would be the architect holding the copyright to the design plans. The same also goes for File:Slusstorget efter 1.jpg. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Seems to be own work. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- Really? In that case I think we need an OTRS mail from the architect firm confirming the release of their design. Again, based on the uploader's criticism of the design, I don't think they represent the architects. Perhaps you could elaborate your reasoning. —LX (talk, contribs) 07:47, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- Do you accept that File:Slusstorget före 1.jpg is uploader's own photo? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- My concern is the design of the planned building. Hence: it seems unlikely that the uploader would be the architect holding the copyright to the design plans. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- I do not see an infringement, nor would any court in Sweden. Ideas cannot be copyrighted. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- The idea of a building can't be copyrighted, but designs, drawings and models certainly can be. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- I do not see an infringement, nor would any court in Sweden. Ideas cannot be copyrighted. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- My concern is the design of the planned building. Hence: it seems unlikely that the uploader would be the architect holding the copyright to the design plans. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- Do you accept that File:Slusstorget före 1.jpg is uploader's own photo? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- Really? In that case I think we need an OTRS mail from the architect firm confirming the release of their design. Again, based on the uploader's criticism of the design, I don't think they represent the architects. Perhaps you could elaborate your reasoning. —LX (talk, contribs) 07:47, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete All images of this uploader are suspective, some have been already deleted. In order to keep them we need at least a more clear statement from the uploader, but we don't have it. Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 04:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted as derived works of the architectural drawings incorporated into the photographs. Please note the description by the uploader: Picture of the Stockholm view with the planned buildings photoshopped into the picture. I assume that the photograph and the photoshopping process was done by the uploader but no claim has been made nor any explanation given regarding the source or copyright of the inserted architectural drawings. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
no proof the stamps from austria are regarded as official work, see also de:Wikipedia:BM#.C3.96sterreichische_Post Isderion (talk) 15:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 19:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
If "PD-Denmark50" is used then essential information is missing (as everybody can read in tag-description itself). you must provide where the image was first published and who created it. High Contrast (talk) 14:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- The link to source points to [Museumscenter Hanstholm] Museumscenter Hanstholm or better. If this is wartime images what kind of copyright is there to consider? (Or is it allied victory 1945, late 40-ties, 50-ties? The source state (google translate) "FUMO 213 in an anti-aircraft battery Hanstholm [Museum Center Hanstholm]" --Andrez1 (talk) 13:55, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Regardless of what the template says, the short Danish term for simple photographs is independent of publication date (only creation date matters) and who the photographer is. Being a wartime picture is enough to establish a pre-1970 creation date and the atlantikwall.info source should be ok as a verifiable source for the image itself. Peter Alberti (talk) 06:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Based on a 1970 composition which is only PD if it was published without a copyright notice, which is very unlikely. Jafeluv (talk) 09:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Keep This concern would be legitimate if it was the song itself which was uploaded here. Musical notes, just in themselves, are not eligible for copyright —Preceding unsigned comment added by Belgrano (talk • contribs) 15:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- Uh, no. The original recording (which I presume you mean by "the song itself") is actually not copyrighted, at least not on the federal level, since it's pre-1972; see {{PD-US-record}}. However, the underlying composition is protected by copyright (unless of course it was published without a copyright notice), and this file is a derivative work of the composition. Jafeluv (talk) 15:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- DeleteI'm not sure where several of our colleagues have gotten the idea that sheet music is not subject to copyright. How do they think composers made money before recordings? Selling sheet music was once a substantial business and, of course, required copyright to prevent pirates from simply making copies. Any songbook or hymnal you buy today will have a copyright notice and if you want to commercially sing or play someone else's music, you must buy a license. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, clear copyright violation. Kameraad Pjotr 19:04, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
It's a copyrighted logo from a private soccer club in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Mwaldeck msg 23:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Keep:Copyrighted and not original though. The badge is a regular shape for coats and football logos, also consits of only black & white stripes,a ball and a name. Mizunoryu (talk) 00:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep):. O USO restrito de Conteúdo logos Abrange de tempos de futebol. Sem Contar Que Já É A PRÁTICA Outras Utilizada em wikis. Junius (talk) 14h52min de 07 de junho de 2010 (UTC)
Comment Junius@: The practice in other wikis doesn't influence Commons. Commons has it's own policies. Your argument is vague and irrelevant. Mizunoryu (talk) 15:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Question In what year was this MFC logo used first? (The club was founded in 1920, but the logo is probably later.) Also, who painted that logo? Is there evidence it was without copyright at the beginning of 1996? Is the same logo with different letters used for other clubs? --Closeapple (talk) 09:10, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand anything about football. But this was certainly paited by a random fan in a gate. Because I saw sucha thing in stadiums here. This is kind usual. About the year, I don't think even the photographer knows about it. Mizunoryu (talk) 12:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Kept as {{PD-ineligible}}. Kameraad Pjotr 13:02, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Enwiki duplicate tagged as non-free with different sourcing.. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- My File is from a free source, that's why I use this correct license. Do you read this license? What the en-wiki does, is not our problem. Kept -- How (talk) 18:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- Source stated as unknown - so how do we know that the file was first published in the US between the necessary dates and without a copyright notice?Nigel Ish (talk) 08:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- Read the Article about Mason Remey! He was an american Bahá'í and died 1974. So what? -- How (talk) 09:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: Lack of source in the file description means there is no evidence this work was first published anywhere but the United States, and no evidence this work was published without a copyright notice between 1923 and 1977. Copyrighted until the end of 2044 (Mason Remey's death + 70 years) unless proven otherwise. (In reality, How uploaded an identical copy of the file en:File:Bahai how tehran.jpg, where it is tagged as fair-use, with a big red copyright symbol and the words "This work is copyrighted". ("Do you read this license?") That file description also says the picture was published in a copyrighted 1974 book, with no evidence of prior non-copyright publication. In any case, whether you check en-wiki or not, there is no evidence the work is out of copyright.) --Closeapple (talk) 07:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep What happend, if there is a correct free file at de:wp and a nonfree at en:wp? You'll delete the correct file? Really? Do you read the article about Mason Remey and the book?! Sfan00 IMG has own problems with files, so he's not allowed to mark other files! Do you know en:Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point? -- How (talk) 08:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- No, one deletes the incorrect upload, which (in this case) is File:Tehran - Iran.jpg on Commons, because it is nonfree and Commons does not have fair use exceptions. (en.wiki may still use it there, but only uploaded directly on en.wiki while it is used for en.wiki articles, because the file is restricted to fair use. Recently someone said "What the en-wiki does, is not our problem.") I don't know Sfan00 or his images; regardless of who or what he is, this nomination is not "disrupting Wikipedia", especially since he appears to be right because File:Tehran - Iran.jpg appears to be copyright. Why do you keep saying to read the article? There is no evidence in Mason Remey about it being published without a copyright message. There is also no evidence in the file description of it being published without a copyright message. It's a U.S. work by a person who has been dead less than 70 years. --Closeapple (talk) 10:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- KeepRead the book and show us the copyright-tag, before you talking about! -- How (talk) 07:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- That's the problem: Which book? In order to show first publication was without a copyright notice, one needs to know the first publication and its year. That is why the uploader must provide the source, and why "unknown" source leads to deletion. --Closeapple (talk) 12:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete License states it was published between "1923 and 1977" but there is no publication date given neither a source is. de.wiki dup is deleted. --Saibo (Δ) 21:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- KeepWhats going on? Mason Remey dies 1974 in the USA, so he can't paint this file 1980! de:wp has no license-tag like this, so thats no reason. -- How (talk) 07:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- Please note the difference between create and publish. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 16:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- Here that's the same, he can't publish the file after 1974! -- How (talk) 06:44, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- It is not a requirement that an artist be his own publisher. He may have donated these drawings to the church, who authorized their publication later or allowed a newspaper to print them for the first time. Or his direct heirs may have had them. It is not uncommon at all that someone's work reaches publication after the author's death. (Mark Twain's final works are being released this year, and he died 100 years ago. But more commonly, heirs or an employer will wait a few years after the author's death and then publish that person's "rare" works.) Remey died in 1974, but his heirs or the church could have first published this drawing (for the public) in books or magazines later. --Closeapple (talk) 12:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- Which "church" do you mean? There is no church at the Bahá'í Faith! Mark Twain is a wrong example, because the pictures of Mason Remey is published long time ago, you see... Theres no copyright anymore, because Mason Remey was a en:Covenant-breaker (like en:Excommunication) in his later years. Do you have any facts ("is)" and no more fiction ("may", "if")? I see, you know nothing about the Bahá'í-history to wrote about. -- How (talk) 09:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- Here are the facts:
- U.S. copyright, on published worked by known authors, lasts at least 70 years from the author's death. (See Commons:Licensing#United States.)
- Mason Remey died in 1974.
- Therefore, copyright for his work lasts until at least 2044.
- Public domain claims require a specific reason why public domain applies.
- All the reasons for public domain of U.S. private works require knowing the year of first authorized publication; and if the year of publication is between 1923 and 1977, it also requires knowing which authorized publication, because public domain isn't the normal status unless it is shown that the publication was released without a copyright message.
- Public domain is not the default for U.S. works after 1922. It is the duty of the uploader to prove that the work has some special exception that causes that work to be public domain. U.S. copyright doesn't make a distinction between "covenant breakers" and anyone else. Your upload doesn't even have a source, let alone a date. --Closeapple (talk) 21:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
- Here are the facts:
- Tell us the copyrightholder! There is no one, because Mason Remey was a en:Covenant-breaker!
- I know, that Mason Remey died 1974 in the United States...
- No, because there is no copyright-tag! Do you see any in the www? Show us or let it be!
- There is a special reason, because Mason Remey was a en:Covenant-breaker.
- We know the possible latest year of publishing, it was before 1940 and that's between 1923 and 1977. There are more fiction by you: "and if the year of publication is between 1923 and 1977, it also requires knowing which authorized publication, because public domain isn't the normal status unless it is shown that the publication was released without a copyright message. Public domain is not the default for U.S. works after 1922. It is the duty of the uploader to prove that the work has some special exception that causes that work to be public domain. U.S. copyright doesn't make a distinction between "covenant breakers" and anyone else." Do you know all U.S. works after 1922 to say that? Covenant breaker is one reason, why this file is public domain, because there is no copyright holder anymore, also no "church" you're talking about. Which "church" do you mean? -- How (talk) 07:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- What makes you think United States copyright law says anything about "covenant breakers"? Do you really think the law of the United States cares about who breaks some covenant? The copyright holder is Mason Remey until his death, then whoever inherits his property. (And there is almost always an inheritor under United States law.)
- Yep.
- It is the uploder's duty to prove that there is not a copyright, per Commons:Licensing: "All information required by that license must be provided on the description page. The information given on the description page should be sufficient to allow others to verify the license status." (My emphasis.) The uploader has to prove the license; telling everyone else they should have to prove copyright instead is insufficient — it's already obvious that works have copyrights unless proven otherwise.
- Again, I have no idea what would make you think "covenant breaker" has any effect in any copyright law. It doesn't matter if the guy broke covenants or kicked puppies or used the wrong fork during a formal dinner. (Even Adolf Hitler's works are still in copyright in Germany until 2015.)
- How do we know the latest year of first publishing? You don't even have a source, let alone a year. And yes, all works in the United States after 1922 are under copyright unless shown otherwise: Commons:Licensing#United States. --Closeapple (talk) 20:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- There is no copyright, because Mason Remey draw this file for the Bahá'í-Community, but they did not have the copyright and Mason Remey too. After become a covenant breaker, there is no copyright anymore.
- Yo!
- And you can say, that you want without any sources? You should read my links....
- There is no copyright, because Mason Remey draw this file for the Bahá'í-Community, but they did not have the copyright and Mason Remey too. After become a covenant breaker, there is no copyright anymore. Adolf Hitler is no example, what's that? Your'e true meaning?! You compare Mason Remey with Adolf Hitler??? Go away and let it be!!!
- Tell us your sources or let it be. I see, you know all files from the United States after 1922 to say that, so you should Template:PD-US-no notice nominate for deletion, because it seems to be not true... And where are youre sources to say that? You can say what you want without sources? You should really read my links and the links there... -- How (talk) 06:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep by User:How. Only true and useable facts are reasons to delete files and not false fiction. -- Geo-His (talk) 11:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- Possible sock of User:How; only edits are vks in RfD which affect User:How--DieBuche (talk) 12:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- Hast du langeweile? "Possible sock" is no reason to strike my comments! Entweder du beantragst einen CU oder ich melde dich wegen PA auf der VM. Ich bin von der de:wp, im Gegensatz zu How! Was soll der Quatsch? -- Geo-His (talk) 13:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- Dann ist es wohl Zufall, dass du das gleiche Bild auf de.wiki hochgeladen hast, mit quelle http://www.9-b-19.de/bahai/impressum.php --DieBuche (talk) 13:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- Hast du langeweile? "Possible sock" is no reason to strike my comments! Entweder du beantragst einen CU oder ich melde dich wegen PA auf der VM. Ich bin von der de:wp, im Gegensatz zu How! Was soll der Quatsch? -- Geo-His (talk) 13:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no source, no date of first publication, unless published in the US without a notice or before 1923, or with a notice and not renewed, this image does not enter the public domain before 2044. Kameraad Pjotr 20:12, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Images of Thepascalid
[edit]Images of an amateur music group. out of COM:SCOPE. See also ja:Wikipedia:削除依頼/THE PASCAL ID --Kkkdc (talk) 05:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Some more near duplicate Images of Fale 2
[edit]Capo Mimosa
[edit]Near duplicated files. This one could stay:
Monaco1
[edit]- File:Fale - Monaco - 96.jpg
- File:Fale - Monaco - 95.jpg
- File:Fale - Monaco - 93.jpg
- File:Fale - Monaco - 92.jpg
keep this one:
Monaco2
[edit]keep this one:
Monaco3
[edit]- File:Fale - Monaco - 163.jpg
- File:Fale - Monaco - 165.jpg
- File:Fale - Monaco - 166.jpg
- File:Fale - Monaco - 168.jpg
- File:Fale - Monaco - 169.jpg
- File:Fale - Monaco - 170.jpg
keep these two:
Milano
[edit]keep this one:
Cordoba
[edit]keep this one:
Spain Nature
[edit]delete both!
Barcellona 1
[edit]- File:Fale - Barcellona - 177.jpg
- File:Fale - Barcellona - 176.jpg
- File:Fale - Barcellona - 175.jpg
- File:Fale - Barcellona - 174.jpg
- File:Fale - Barcellona - 173.jpg
- File:Fale - Barcellona - 171.jpg
- File:Fale - Barcellona - 170.jpg
- File:Fale - Barcellona - 169.jpg
- File:Fale - Barcellona - 168.jpg
- File:Fale - Barcellona - 167.jpg
- File:Fale - Barcellona - 166.jpg
keep:
Barcellona 2
[edit]keep:
Barcellona 3
[edit]keep:
Barcellona 4
[edit]- File:Fale - Barcellona - 125.jpg
- File:Fale - Barcellona - 124.jpg
- File:Fale - Barcellona - 122.jpg
- File:Fale - Barcellona - 121.jpg
keep:
Barcellona 5
[edit]keep:
Barcellona 6
[edit]- File:Fale - Barcellona - 72.jpg
- File:Fale - Barcellona - 70.jpg
- File:Fale - Barcellona - 69.jpg
- File:Fale - Barcellona - 68.jpg
- File:Fale - Barcellona - 67.jpg
keep:
Barcellona 7
[edit]keep:
Hanbury 1
[edit]- File:Fale - Giardini Botanici Hanbury in Ventimiglia - 98.jpg
- File:Fale - Giardini Botanici Hanbury in Ventimiglia - 96.jpg
delete both. (out of fokus)
Hanbury 2
[edit]- File:Fale - Giardini Botanici Hanbury in Ventimiglia - 73.jpg
- File:Fale - Giardini Botanici Hanbury in Ventimiglia - 72.jpg
- File:Fale - Giardini Botanici Hanbury in Ventimiglia - 70.jpg
- File:Fale - Giardini Botanici Hanbury in Ventimiglia - 69.jpg
- File:Fale - Giardini Botanici Hanbury in Ventimiglia - 68.jpg
- File:Fale - Giardini Botanici Hanbury in Ventimiglia - 67.jpg
- File:Fale - Giardini Botanici Hanbury in Ventimiglia - 66.jpg
- File:Fale - Giardini Botanici Hanbury in Ventimiglia - 65.jpg
- File:Fale - Giardini Botanici Hanbury in Ventimiglia - 63.jpg
- File:Fale - Giardini Botanici Hanbury in Ventimiglia - 62.jpg
- File:Fale - Giardini Botanici Hanbury in Ventimiglia - 61.jpg
keep:
Hanbury 3
[edit]- File:Fale - Giardini Botanici Hanbury in Ventimiglia - 721.jpg
- File:Fale - Giardini Botanici Hanbury in Ventimiglia - 720.jpg
- File:Fale - Giardini Botanici Hanbury in Ventimiglia - 718.jpg
- File:Fale - Giardini Botanici Hanbury in Ventimiglia - 717.jpg
- File:Fale - Giardini Botanici Hanbury in Ventimiglia - 716.jpg
- File:Fale - Giardini Botanici Hanbury in Ventimiglia - 715.jpg
keep:
Hanbury 4
[edit]- File:Fale - Giardini Botanici Hanbury in Ventimiglia - 714.jpg
- File:Fale - Giardini Botanici Hanbury in Ventimiglia - 713.jpg
- File:Fale - Giardini Botanici Hanbury in Ventimiglia - 711.jpg
- File:Fale - Giardini Botanici Hanbury in Ventimiglia - 710.jpg
- File:Fale - Giardini Botanici Hanbury in Ventimiglia - 709.jpg
- File:Fale - Giardini Botanici Hanbury in Ventimiglia - 708.jpg
- File:Fale - Giardini Botanici Hanbury in Ventimiglia - 707.jpg
- File:Fale - Giardini Botanici Hanbury in Ventimiglia - 706.jpg
- File:Fale - Giardini Botanici Hanbury in Ventimiglia - 705.jpg
- File:Fale - Giardini Botanici Hanbury in Ventimiglia - 703.jpg
- File:Fale - Giardini Botanici Hanbury in Ventimiglia - 702.jpg
keep:
- File:Fale - Giardini Botanici Hanbury in Ventimiglia - 704.jpg
- File:Fale - Giardini Botanici Hanbury in Ventimiglia - 712.jpg
Hanbury 5
[edit]- File:Fale - Giardini Botanici Hanbury in Ventimiglia - 644.jpg
- File:Fale - Giardini Botanici Hanbury in Ventimiglia - 643.jpg
- File:Fale - Giardini Botanici Hanbury in Ventimiglia - 641.jpg
- File:Fale - Giardini Botanici Hanbury in Ventimiglia - 640.jpg
- File:Fale - Giardini Botanici Hanbury in Ventimiglia - 639.jpg
- File:Fale - Giardini Botanici Hanbury in Ventimiglia - 638.jpg
- File:Fale - Giardini Botanici Hanbury in Ventimiglia - 637.jpg
- File:Fale - Giardini Botanici Hanbury in Ventimiglia - 636.jpg
- File:Fale - Giardini Botanici Hanbury in Ventimiglia - 635.jpg
- File:Fale - Giardini Botanici Hanbury in Ventimiglia - 634.jpg
keep:
Hanbury 6
[edit]keep:
Hanbury 7
[edit]- File:Fale - Giardini Botanici Hanbury in Ventimiglia - 619.jpg
- File:Fale - Giardini Botanici Hanbury in Ventimiglia - 618.jpg
- File:Fale - Giardini Botanici Hanbury in Ventimiglia - 617.jpg
- File:Fale - Giardini Botanici Hanbury in Ventimiglia - 616.jpg
- File:Fale - Giardini Botanici Hanbury in Ventimiglia - 615.jpg
- File:Fale - Giardini Botanici Hanbury in Ventimiglia - 613.jpg
- File:Fale - Giardini Botanici Hanbury in Ventimiglia - 612.jpg
- File:Fale - Giardini Botanici Hanbury in Ventimiglia - 611.jpg
- File:Fale - Giardini Botanici Hanbury in Ventimiglia - 610.jpg
- File:Fale - Giardini Botanici Hanbury in Ventimiglia - 609.jpg
- File:Fale - Giardini Botanici Hanbury in Ventimiglia - 607.jpg
- File:Fale - Giardini Botanici Hanbury in Ventimiglia - 606.jpg
- File:Fale - Giardini Botanici Hanbury in Ventimiglia - 605.jpg
keep:
- File:Fale - Giardini Botanici Hanbury in Ventimiglia - 614.jpg
- File:Fale - Giardini Botanici Hanbury in Ventimiglia - 608.jpg
Hanbury 8
[edit]- File:Fale - Giardini Botanici Hanbury in Ventimiglia - 590.jpg
- File:Fale - Giardini Botanici Hanbury in Ventimiglia - 586.jpg
keep:
Hanbury 9
[edit]- File:Fale - Giardini Botanici Hanbury in Ventimiglia - 56.jpg
- File:Fale - Giardini Botanici Hanbury in Ventimiglia - 54.jpg
- File:Fale - Giardini Botanici Hanbury in Ventimiglia - 53.jpg
- File:Fale - Giardini Botanici Hanbury in Ventimiglia - 52.jpg
- File:Fale - Giardini Botanici Hanbury in Ventimiglia - 51.jpg
- File:Fale - Giardini Botanici Hanbury in Ventimiglia - 50.jpg
- File:Fale - Giardini Botanici Hanbury in Ventimiglia - 49.jpg
- File:Fale - Giardini Botanici Hanbury in Ventimiglia - 48.jpg
- File:Fale - Giardini Botanici Hanbury in Ventimiglia - 47.jpg
- File:Fale - Giardini Botanici Hanbury in Ventimiglia - 46.jpg
- File:Fale - Giardini Botanici Hanbury in Ventimiglia - 45.jpg
- File:Fale - Giardini Botanici Hanbury in Ventimiglia - 44.jpg
- File:Fale - Giardini Botanici Hanbury in Ventimiglia - 43.jpg
- File:Fale - Giardini Botanici Hanbury in Ventimiglia - 42.jpg
- File:Fale - Giardini Botanici Hanbury in Ventimiglia - 41.jpg
- File:Fale - Giardini Botanici Hanbury in Ventimiglia - 39.jpg
- File:Fale - Giardini Botanici Hanbury in Ventimiglia - 38.jpg
- File:Fale - Giardini Botanici Hanbury in Ventimiglia - 37.jpg
keep:
- File:Fale - Giardini Botanici Hanbury in Ventimiglia - 55.jpg
- File:Fale - Giardini Botanici Hanbury in Ventimiglia - 40.jpg
Hanbury 10
[edit]- File:Fale - Giardini Botanici Hanbury in Ventimiglia - 541.jpg
- File:Fale - Giardini Botanici Hanbury in Ventimiglia - 538.jpg
keep:
Hanbury 11
[edit]keep:
Hanbury 12
[edit]keep:
Hanbury 13
[edit]- File:Fale - Giardini Botanici Hanbury in Ventimiglia - 487.jpg
- File:Fale - Giardini Botanici Hanbury in Ventimiglia - 485.jpg
keep:
Hanbury 14
[edit]keep:
Hanbury 15
[edit]keep:
Hanbury 16
[edit]keep:
Hanbury 17
[edit]- File:Fale - Giardini Botanici Hanbury in Ventimiglia - 271.jpg
- File:Fale - Giardini Botanici Hanbury in Ventimiglia - 270.jpg
- File:Fale - Giardini Botanici Hanbury in Ventimiglia - 269.jpg
keep:
Hanbury 18
[edit]- File:Fale - Giardini Botanici Hanbury in Ventimiglia - 658.jpg
- File:Fale - Giardini Botanici Hanbury in Ventimiglia - 659.jpg
- File:Fale - Giardini Botanici Hanbury in Ventimiglia - 661.jpg
- File:Fale - Giardini Botanici Hanbury in Ventimiglia - 662.jpg
- File:Fale - Giardini Botanici Hanbury in Ventimiglia - 663.jpg
- File:Fale - Giardini Botanici Hanbury in Ventimiglia - 664.jpg
- File:Fale - Giardini Botanici Hanbury in Ventimiglia - 665.jpg
- File:Fale - Giardini Botanici Hanbury in Ventimiglia - 666.jpg
keep:
Hanbury 19
[edit]- File:Fale - Giardini Botanici Hanbury in Ventimiglia - 593.jpg
- File:Fale - Giardini Botanici Hanbury in Ventimiglia - 592.jpg
delete both.
Hanbury 20
[edit]- File:Fale - Giardini Botanici Hanbury in Ventimiglia - 364.jpg
- File:Fale - Giardini Botanici Hanbury in Ventimiglia - 363.jpg
keep:
Hanbury 21
[edit]keep:
Hanbury 22
[edit]- File:Fale - Giardini Botanici Hanbury in Ventimiglia - 313.jpg
- File:Fale - Giardini Botanici Hanbury in Ventimiglia - 315.jpg
- File:Fale - Giardini Botanici Hanbury in Ventimiglia - 316.jpg
keep:
Hanbury 23
[edit]- File:Fale - Giardini Botanici Hanbury in Ventimiglia - 327.jpg
- File:Fale - Giardini Botanici Hanbury in Ventimiglia - 328.jpg
- File:Fale - Giardini Botanici Hanbury in Ventimiglia - 330.jpg
keep:
Hanbury 24
[edit]- File:Fale - Giardini Botanici Hanbury in Ventimiglia - 33.jpg
- File:Fale - Giardini Botanici Hanbury in Ventimiglia - 35.jpg
keep:
Hanbury 25
[edit]- File:Fale - Giardini Botanici Hanbury in Ventimiglia - 379.jpg
- File:Fale - Giardini Botanici Hanbury in Ventimiglia - 380.jpg
keep:
Hanbury 26
[edit]keep:
Hanbury 27
[edit]- File:Fale - Giardini Botanici Hanbury in Ventimiglia - 517.jpg
- File:Fale - Giardini Botanici Hanbury in Ventimiglia - 518.jpg
- File:Fale - Giardini Botanici Hanbury in Ventimiglia - 519.jpg
- File:Fale - Giardini Botanici Hanbury in Ventimiglia - 520.jpg
- File:Fale - Giardini Botanici Hanbury in Ventimiglia - 521.jpg
- File:Fale - Giardini Botanici Hanbury in Ventimiglia - 522.jpg
delete all. all of them are out of focus!
Hanbury 28
[edit]- File:Fale - Giardini Botanici Hanbury in Ventimiglia - 669.jpg
- File:Fale - Giardini Botanici Hanbury in Ventimiglia - 670.jpg
keep:
Hanbury 29
[edit]- File:Fale - Giardini Botanici Hanbury in Ventimiglia - 96.jpg
- File:Fale - Giardini Botanici Hanbury in Ventimiglia - 97.jpg
- File:Fale - Giardini Botanici Hanbury in Ventimiglia - 98.jpg
- File:Fale - Giardini Botanici Hanbury in Ventimiglia - 99.jpg
delete all. all of them are out of focus.
Summary
[edit]User:Fale uploaded all the files of the camera without doing a selection. Lots of User:Fale's images have been delete before. see: here and here. you can see a gallery view of all the images here!. Only two files are beeing used and those are marked as keep.. None of the images have been tagged with delete. If this should happen, we should get a bot to do this. User has been informed. Amada44 (talk) 12:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- Nice photos, but nearly useless without an adequate description. "Botanic garden" is a bit vague... --PaterMcFly (talk) 21:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Amada44 thx for your reliable work Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 14:02, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Station mascots of Tosa Kuroshio Railway
[edit]- File:Akano Station 01.jpg
- File:Akano sta 03.jpg
- File:Akaoka station 02.jpg
- File:Ananai station 02.jpg
- File:Ioki station 01.jpg
- File:Kagami station 03.jpg
- File:Kyujomae station kochi 01.jpg
- File:Nahariko-chan.jpg
- File:Nishibun station 01.jpg
- File:Nishibun sta 02.jpg
- File:Shimoyama station kochi 02.jpg
- File:Tosa-Kuroshio-Line-Gomen-Ekio.jpg
- File:Wajiki station 01.jpg
- File:Yasu station kochi 02.jpg
- File:Yasuda station kochi 01.jpg
- File:Yosikawa station 01.jpg
According to [8] and [9], these mascots are copyrighted by the creator Takashi Yanase (やなせたかし). {{FoP-Japan}} covers only buildings, so they are not freely usable. Yasu (talk) 14:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Its not legal. I can't speak english enough - sorry 80.142.251.222 19:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- Die Vorlage ist nicht geeignet Bilder der DBAG zu lizenzieren. Das Zitat der Geschäftlichen Mitteilungen darf wegen Urheberrecht nicht verwendet werden. --80.142.245.213 04:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Seit wann fällt der Text, mit dem gewisse rechtliche Fragen für die Allgemeinheit geklärt werden, unter das Urheberrecht? Welches schutzwürdige Werk liegt denn hier vor? Im übrigen ist der Verfasser des Textes genannt, es handelt sich also um ein Zitat, das korrekt als solches gekennzeichnet ist! M.E. ist dieser Text genauso zu behandeln wie ein Gesetzestext! axpdeHello! 15:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- Die Geschäftlichen Mitteilungen der DB sind ein Bahn-internes Schriftstück. Es ist der Öffentlichkeit nicht zugänglich. Auch wenn andere Webseiten diesen Inhalt abdrucken, sollten wir uns sicher sein ob das für die Commons richtig ist. Der abgedruckte Text eines internen Schriftstücks der DBAG ist m. E nicht ohne Zustimmung der DB zulässig.
- Die Diskussionen hier sowie hier und hier in der de:WP um eine möglicherweise andere oder richtige Lizenzierung ist zu keinem Ergebnis gekommen, welche diese Vorlage als probates Mittel für die Lizenzierung von DB Bildern auszeichnet. Du hattest diese Vorlage hier zur Diskussion gestellt. Das einzige Votum zu dieser Vorlage war m. E. nicht zustimmend. Es entsteht der Eindruck mit dieser Lizenz ist es möglich Bilder ohne Probleme hier hoch zu laden. --80.142.184.127 19:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- Bei dieser Mitteilung handelt es sich mitnichten um ein internes Schriftstück, dann hätten wir überhaupt keine Probleme, sondern könnten weitermachen wie bisher! Leider handelt es sich um eine offizielle Stellungnahme seitens der DBAG bzgl. Bilder, die auf ihrem Grund und Boden angefertigt wurden, mit der zum ersten Mal explizit das Hausrecht eingefordert wurde! axpdeHello! 23:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- Werde mal schauen ob ich die Mitteilung als Papier auftreiben kann. Trotzdem ist in den oben angeführten Diskussionen kein Konsens zu dieser Vorlage entstanden. --80.142.238.150 12:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Delete Ein ziemlich langes Zitat im Bezug zum sich damit beschäftigenden Text = evtl. Zitatrecht nicht gültig. Außerdem ist die Vorlage reichlich irrelevant und nutzlos. Eine normale Lizenzierung nach Wahl des Fotografen tut es auch. Das Hausrecht ist nur eine Sache zwischen dem Fotografen und der Bahn. Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ) 01:06, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Delete Commons is a place to upload images which can be used for comercial purposes, so, this tag is useless. Luispihormiguero Any problem? 15:06, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 16:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Not the category itself, but all of the images currently in it, except one. Maltese coins are copyrighted and since these are all Euros, they all have a long time left on their copyrights. These are:
- File:1 Euro coin Mt.gif
- File:1 cent Euro coin Mt-full.gif
- File:1 cent Euro coin Mt.gif
- File:1 cent Malta.jpg
- File:1 cent coin Mt serie 1.png
- File:1 cent coin Mt.jpg
- File:1 euro Malta.jpg
- File:1 euro Malta.png
- File:1 euro coin Mt serie 1.png
- File:1 euro coin Mt.jpg
- File:10 cent Malta.jpg
- File:10 cent coin Mt serie 1.png
- File:10 cent coin Mt.jpg
- File:10 cents Euro coin Mt.gif
- File:2 Euro coin Mt.gif
- File:2 cent Malta.jpg
- File:2 cent coin Mt serie 1.png
- File:2 cent coin Mt.jpg
- File:2 cents Euro coin Mt.gif
- File:2 euro Malta.jpg
- File:2 euro Malta.png
- File:2 euro coin Mt serie 1.png
- File:2 euro coin Mt.jpg
- File:20 cent Malta.jpg
- File:20 cent Malta.png
- File:20 cent coin Mt serie 1.png
- File:20 cent coin Mt.jpg
- File:20 cents Euro coin Mt.gif
- File:2008.Malte.euro.piece10c.jpg
- File:2008.Malte.euro.piece1c.jpg
- File:2008.Malte.euro.piece1e.jpg
- File:2008.Malte.euro.piece20c.jpg
- File:2008.Malte.euro.piece2e.jpg
- File:2008.Malte.euro.piece5c.jpg
- File:5 cent Malta.jpg
- File:5 cent Malta.png
- File:5 cent coin Mt serie 1.png
- File:5 cent coin Mt.jpg
- File:5 cents Euro coin Mt.gif
- File:50 cent Malta.png
- File:50 cent coin Mt serie 1.png
- File:50 cent coin Mt.jpg
- File:50 cents Euro coin Mt.gif
- File:Euro-Malta 1 euro.JPG
- File:Euro-Malta 10 cents v.JPG
- File:Euro-Malta 10 cents.JPG
- File:Euro-Malta 2 cents.JPG
- File:Euro-Malta 2 euro.JPG
- File:Euro-Malta 20 cents v.JPG
- File:Euro-Malta 20 cents.JPG
- File:Euro-Malta 5 cents v.JPG
- File:Euro-Malta 50 cents v.JPG
- File:Euro-Malta 50 cents.JPG
- File:Malta 2009 UEM.png
- File:Malta 2009 uem.JPG
- File:Malta 2009 uem.png
- File:Mtgold08-50.jpg
Note that File:MTeur1.jpg is not on the list -- the image of each coin is de minimus
Use of images of the country side of the coins is clearly prohibited, see Commons:Currency#Malta.
As for the EU side, the EU rules severely limit derivative works, see Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Money-EU
Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- You are wrong, these images are correctly licenced by the ECB according to its terms. The Maltese legislation does not apply to Euro coins, given that these rights have been transfered to the ECB which is the sole emitter of the currency, even if they were initially designed by the Maltese government.
- Now those exclusive rights are no longer owned by the Maltese government (this was a condition required by the European legislation, that all Euro coins and bills coudl be used throughout the European Union under the same conditions, with a strict equivalence). The ECB just requires citing the source of these applicable copyrights (including in derivatives).
- The question of derivatives from works published on the Maltese back website does not apply to the documents whose rights are not owned by the Maltese government or the website's authors, that publish the European designs under agreement.
- For information purpose, and at the presented resolution, there's no risk of counterfeighting the currency where it is used here for educational purpose. Derivation is certinaly possible as long as there's no attempt to counterfeight the euro currency.
- May be those images should contain an additional watermark like "SPECIMEN", but anyway, the category itself is not violating any term, and is not different from other categories for currencies. The category even helps sorting those images and verifying their applicable licences.
- All the images about euro coins and euro bills have the same conditions and are governed by the same laws. If you think that there's a copyvio, then all images of Euro coins and bills should be deleted at the same time for exactly the same reason.
- The question will be different for commemorative coins, given that they don't have legal tender in all countries.
- verdy_p (talk) 21:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- Further notes: almost all images on Commons are copyrighted (a extremely tiny part is in fact in the public domain, for which no prior licence or written permission or registration is necessary).
- The copyright itself (including with a "copyleft" licence such as the GPL or permissive OSI licences like BSD and MIT licences) is definitely not a problem. Only the terms of the applicable licence should be considered: right of republication, and right of creating derivatives (even if this right is limited by some other requirements to respect, such as citing the source, a copyright obligation, or limiting the resolution, size, or nature of the reproduction, or adding some "SPECIMEN" word on top of the image with a minimal size to avoid counterfeighting true currencies).
- verdy_p (talk) 21:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: Malta does not have a copyright exception for currency, and according to the ECB the copyright on the national side is decided by its member states; and as Malta does not have an exception for currency and non of these designs is in the public domain for other reasons, they must be deleted. This is not a matter of "counterfeiting", but a matter of "copyright", namely the copyright on the artwork that is the national side of a Euro coin. Kameraad Pjotr 10:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- The copyright of an artwork of a currency has never been an issue anywhere. At least I haven't heard or read anything about that. Do you have a source for that designer's copyright? The claim of ECB's rights over any euro coins seems very more likely. 85.217.43.85 16:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion above and at Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Euro coin common face Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Non-free images, they restrict derivatives. ~~helix84 15:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- In general, limitations for use that exist for some other reason than copyright, aren't considered unfree in Commons. The rationale for this limitation seems to be anti-counterfeiting, not copyright. Samulili 08:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - Not valid reason for deletion. The passage »as long as reproductions in advertising or illustrations cannot be mistaken for genuine banknotes« didn’t restrict derivatives – only forgery... --FSHL 13:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
- Keep counterfeiting laws !=copyright. -Nard 04:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Copyright. ---HonzaXJ 09:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Copyright. --Carlomorino 12:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Per the above. —Nightstallion (?) 22:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep There are no valid reasons for this deletion. --Mess 14:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep As FHSL, Nightstallion and Mess. There is no valid reason to nominate this template for deletion. And, for the record, all this copyright paranoia (as opposed to genuine licencing adherence) is a very bad thing for the Wikimedia projects. — OwenBlacker 14:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
This template is under discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Euro coin common face 2. Please make comments there. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Comment See also File:1000DM.JPG should be restored if the outcome is positive (see Commons:Deletion requests/File:1000DM.JPG). –Krinkletalk 21:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Closed discussion. Template was deleted previously. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
This template has already been deleted following a regular (and long) deletion request. Eusebius (talk) 07:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
As Eusebius says, this had a long, arduous, and thorough discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Euro coin common face 2. The appropriate place for any further discussion is Commons:Undeletion requests. I tagged User talk:79.52.212.245 with {{Dont recreate}}. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Previously deleted. Eusebius (talk) 06:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: The "template:Money-EU" was deleted after a deletion discussion started about the "template:Euro coin common face" (Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Euro coin common face 2). However, each template is about a different subject, a different copyright owner and a different set of copyright conditions:
A) "Template:Euro coin common face" dealt with the designs owned by the European Community. Which means the designs of the common faces of the euro coins. The official reproduction conditions for those are there. On Commons, there were some 20 images that could possibly have used this template, mostly grouped there. (Most of those images should have been deleted as per the deletion decision, but many of them are still waiting).
B) "Template:Money-EU" deals with the designs owned by the European Central Bank. Which means, in fact, the designs of the euro paper banknotes (despite some confusing wording that unfortunately afflicted this template at some point). The official reproduction conditions for those are there and there. On Commons, there are some 70 images correctly tagged with this template, mostly grouped there. (In addition, some users incorrectly placed this template on other images that have nothing to do with it, but that doesn't count.)
I don't know if mixing the two subjects and deleting this template along with the other left an entirely clear situation. Pehaps it might be preferable for this template to get its own decision? So we can get out of this infernal cycle of recreation - deletion - recreation...
-- Asclepias (talk) 19:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
To better explain what I believe would need clarification: In the deletion debate "Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Euro coin common face 2", the opinion of some participants, and possibly the decision, was apparently based in good part on the analysis of the text of the Eu. Commission's conditions regulating the reproduction of the Eu. Community's designs for the common faces of the coins, and in particular on a perceived problem with the "faithful likeness" clause, which is found in that text. However (unless I missed it), there is no such clause in the text of the Eu. Central Bank's conditions regulating the reproduction of its designs for the banknotes. And the participants didn't seem to examine much the Bank's texts. In the end, the motives for the deletion of the "template:Euro coin common face" (relative to the Comission's conditions regulating the designs of the coins) are explicitely enunciated. But the motives for the deletion of the "template:Money-EU" (relative to the Bank's conditions regulating the designs of the banknotes) do not appear as explicitely. My hope is that this deletion request can be closed with a clear statement to the effect that, based on the examination of the Bank's conditions about the designs of the banknotes (in the documents linked above), those conditions are considered ["free" or "not free"] enough for Commons.
-- Asclepias (talk) 02:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. - please check the usage, which seems to not have been done at previous deletions. All inclusions must be checked. If the usage is invalid, the inclusion must be deleted. If after removal no valid license template remains, file must be nominated for deletion. If valid inclusions remain, there is no reason to delete the template. At previous deletions, no delink took place, which caused recreation time after time - feel free to renominate after taking mentioned steps - Jcb (talk) 23:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
(i) it clearly says the notes are ECB copyright. (ii) it says the notes may be reproduced subject to certain restrictions (see COM:EURO; for example having SPECIMEN across the image). (iii) most if not all of the images using the template fail to meet the restrictions, and therefore are a breach of the copyright. In addition, it's not clear that the restrictions are compatible with COM:L requirements. Unless this can be cleared up, all files using it should be deleted, and then the template should be converted to a speedy-delete template (like {{Fair use}}). Rd232 (talk) 15:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Oppose converting into a speedy-tag without making the uploaders aware of the problem. That is deceitful. -- Rillke(q?) 15:55, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- (i) that's a process issue, not a reason to oppose conversion. And I meant conversion after existing files using it have been deleted, BTW, so speedy process would apply to new uploads (doing it for old ones may be confusing). I've clarified that above. (ii) this is not a case where more information from uploaders is likely to be helpful, so informing them isn't really achieving anything - there's nothing they can do about it. Sure, we can notify them if that's what people want, but I'm not really seeing the point. Rd232 (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
No consensus to delete -FASTILY (TALK) 05:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
We do not have specific knowledge of any copyright exemption for any of these countries. Therefore, our rules tell us to assume that they are all copyrighted. In addition, of course, many countries have rules against reproduction of currency and coins. Note that this DR is for the Gallery and all of its contents. -- Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- to your side note: Anti-Counterfeiting laws have nothing to do with copyright and commons does accept images of currency. See Commons:Currency. --PaterMcFly (talk) 21:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- That's absolutely correct. But a citizen of X might think long and hard before posting images of his or her county's currency if there were a five year jail sentence for making the photographs. My point is simply that images of currency and coins have potential issues beyond those we are directly concerned with. It pays to be sure of the law before proceeding. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- There's no issue with our use. David Fuchs (talk) 15:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
- Oh? On what do you base that statement? Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 19:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)