Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2010/06/29
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
![40 File:"Song_of_Shambhala".jpg](#File:"Song_of_Shambhala".jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Vulgar photomontage about an unknown band. Their entry on enwiki was speedy deleted. The picture in question it's not illustrative, in my opinion, and it couldn't be considered as satire even at a very low level: it's just crap. According to my point of view, naturally. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 09:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, Vanity insult prank image. Infrogmation (talk) 10:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Out of scope: Unused personal picture. Eusebius (talk) 08:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Keep, apparently is blogger Doug Ireland, who has articles about him in en and de Wikipedias. I've restored the image to the en:w:Doug Ireland (it was in earlier versions of the article) and added identity to the image description. Infrogmation (talk) 10:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Eusebius (talk) 10:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Obviously a fake. The Doug Ireland of the article was born in 1946, this one could be his son. Edelseider (talk) 20:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-free image. The image that was originally uploaded to en-WP in 2006 by User:Irelandd is apparently not available anymore (I'm not sure why it's not, but anyways). In 2008, another user uploaded another image over it using the same file name, but he did not change the description page to reflect the copyright status of the new image. See the upload history of en:File:Doug.JPG on en-WP. From the upload comment of this second uploader and from his other contributions, it is obvious that this second image referred to a different person, a certain Doug Walker. Which would be the same guy as on this other image on en-WP. As it can be seen, the image is tagged as non-free. The two images being likely from the same source, the image in question here in this deletion request should be considered the same way as the other. (The omission of the second uploader to change the description page obviously confused a third user who eventually moved the image to Commons without really verifying its history.) -- Asclepias (talk) 23:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Delete I see now that the image of the notable blogger uploaded by User:Irelandd is apparently lost, and this image is an apparently unrelated one inappropriately uploaded over it by another user. Infrogmation (talk) 02:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Source and author information as given in the info box is incorrect, see here Uwe (talk) 10:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 22:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Image reconstructed under the name: Dioptasetsume5.jpg by the same author Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, this was nominated for a quality image. Images nominated for quality are necessary for archival purposes (and definitely in valid use) here at Commons, so they shouldn't be deleted unless copyright issues come up. I seriously doubt that there will be copyright issues with an own-work photo of a rock. Nyttend (talk) 14:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Kept - per Nyttend, and File:Dioptasetsume5.jpg does not exist (non-admin closure). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:41, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
poor quality Garitzko (talk) 21:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Delete - unused, unusable, unknown musician Cholo Aleman (talk) 22:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delete The best of the best about amateur musicians. What a pity that has such a poor quality. Otherwise I would have been in favor of keeping it.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 11:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - low quality - unusable.--E8 (talk) 14:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete bad blurry photo of unknown person sitting at a drum kit. No indication of any importance of subject that would compensate for the lousy image quality. Infrogmation (talk) 14:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 00:04, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 04:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Category: Happy funerals. Without any further information, what can I say?.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 11:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom; poor image quality, no in scope usefulness evident. Infrogmation (talk) 14:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 00:04, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 19:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Commons is not a repository of unused and supertiny resolution images, I think. --Leoboudv (talk) 06:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 00:06, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Design is copyrighted by the Royal Canadian Mint Connormah (talk) 01:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
No FoP in the UAE. 84.61.146.104 18:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Keep
FoP is not a reason to delete an image. If you are trying to use the Burj Khalifa issue, well, you need to read better, 'cause in that case the images were deleted because the design of the building was copyrighted. Prove that this towers are copyrighted. --190.25.105.119 08:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete FOP is very much a reason to delete an image. Copyright in the UAE applies without by default, without requirement of registry or any other formalities. These towers are copyrighted because they exists.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per Prosfilaes.--E8 (talk) 14:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete According to UAE FOP, there is no Freedom of Panorama in the UAE for modern works of art or architecture. --Leoboudv (talk) 06:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Not Free, this is a cartoon designed in 2007. - Zil (d) 19:47, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete unless we get OTRS proof that the uploader is Lewis Trondheim. Nyttend (talk) 15:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
unused nearly private image - advertisment for an artist (?) - source (webpage) does not exist Cholo Aleman (talk) 04:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete MTV Power. When a coup will take place in the West (it will soon) the juntas will obscure all media but MTV and copycatting channels. More propaganda than that.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 11:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, if it's taken from a website, it's not an own work, and PD-self is only for own works. This is apparently some sort of copyvio. Nyttend (talk) 15:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
unused image of an unknown band - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 04:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Another boy band showing off. --Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 11:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
diagram of market share in the us - should be - no good source given - unusable and out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 04:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Out of scope. Personal work, nothing that can't be done in wiki-text (if noteworthy). –Tryphon☂ 07:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Looks out-of-scope to me (unless I'm missing something), also it's apparently not own work. Eusebius (talk) 08:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Comment: Female example of Category:Homo sapiens. --Dezidor (talk) 08:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)- Delete Very interesting indeed. Apparently, according to the description, the girl is the fiancee of an unknown spanish or latin american talking extra that participate, from time to time, in some crap telenovelas for teenagers. Telenovelas that, as they say in Argentina, "te comen la cabeza" (they eat your head). That's why they are produced. Anyway checking here and there the girlfriend of mister teen-beauty looks like the girl in the picture but I cannot say she is the same person. Not even a CSI according to the fiction: police, in reality, cannot find an elephant in a crystals shop. So, I guess, she is just a teenager fan of the boy-doll, looking like the gilfriend of his. She take the picture by herself and she added the prank. Perhaps she is really his girlfriend, I don't wanna say. In a case or in another I'm for deletion: that's not the way to cooperate with Commons.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 11:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, it's the uploader's only contribution, and there's no real reason to believe that it's in scope. Nyttend (talk) 14:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
unused image of a flyer for a party in the Netherlands - out of scope Santosga (talk) 13:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator. Out of scope. --Leoboudv (talk) 06:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
unused image of a flyer for a party in the Netherlands - out of scope Santosga (talk) 13:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Apparently uploaded for use on the uploader's en:wp userpage; however, a different image is now used there, so this is out of scope. Moreover, it's a very non-descriptive name; a file with this name should be protected with an image like File:Logo.jpg. Nyttend (talk) 14:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. New creations of this file name blocked. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Who is this? No name given in description, and the uploader's never added it to any page in any project. If the uploader wants to identify this person and explain why the image is in scope, I'll reconsider. Meanwhile, note that this is presumably different from the image deleted four years ago. Nyttend (talk) 11:10, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- Delete and protect against further uploads - this is an unused personal photo with little educational value per COM:EDUSE. Green Giant supports NonFreeWiki (talk) 11:26, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted The file name was protected against uploads until another Admin deleted it last month. I've reset the protection -- hopefully this time it will stick. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:30, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private artalbum. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Some unknown band related material.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 18:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 17:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete The image is OK but the subject does not appear notable. The uploader also has few images here (less than 6) and this photo is unused. It should not remain here in this case. --Leoboudv (talk) 05:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope (user from en wikipedia) Cholo Aleman (talk) 18:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete I agree. -- H005
19:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
strange unused collage / drawing - advertisement?? - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 18:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete I agree. -- H005 19:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
strange unused drawing of a cafe - unusable - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 18:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete I agree. -- H005 19:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Out-of-context, and therefore out-of-scope. Lacking author information, a working source, and a description; seems like a random satellite image with no apparent use. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Derivative work of the presumably copyrighted sculptures. Powers (talk) 20:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Out of project scope: encyclopedic use not thinkable. High Contrast (talk) 20:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Does not look like own work, more specific source needed. ZooFari 22:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep no reason. --Starscream (talk) 23:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete I don't think that is own work. Per ZooFari. --Diego Grez return fire 01:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- Why? I don't understand. --Starscream (talk) 03:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete It would be own work if this was taken 60 or 70 years ago--definitely not today. This looks like a probable scan. Its either a copy vio. A pd-old tag could have been applied to it if it was known who or when the image was taken/published. --Leoboudv (talk) 06:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Converted from {{no source}}; edit summary: no real source (Flickr user is not the author). Converted due to high usage. --ZooFari 23:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Very value --Starscream (talk) 23:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- Comment source Some rights reserved. Good criteria. --Starscream (talk) 23:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete It's "very value" alright, but that Flickr uploadr appears to have a track-record of untrustworthy claims of authorship, so we just can't trust it. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Andy Dingley is both the uploader and an experienced Commons person, so it would be hard not to follow his recommendation, despite the fact that this image is widely used. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Converted from no source. Source is PD-self, but out of scope. --ZooFari 23:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- speedy delete Ugh! This should have been deleted 3-4 years ago. Its absolutely uselesss. The only image by one uploader. This is truly a speedy delete candidate. --Leoboudv (talk) 05:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Worse copy of File:United China Relief 1.png 151.57.93.161 15:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete as a duplicate; I have replace usage. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:51, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I'd keep them both. Although the PNG is larger, it has two creases and the color isn't as good. I think this one is better for most purposes. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Kept, per Jameslwoodward. Kameraad Pjotr 19:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
photo originates from this fully-copyrighted website Steamroller Assault (talk) 18:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Name of person shown in image, Commons User name, and website copyright holder seem to match. I have requested permission/clarification with a {{Npd}} notice. Infrogmation (talk) 10:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- Comment The nominator had not alerted the photo's uploader to this discussion as policy specifies; I have notified them on their talk page. -- Infrogmation (talk) 20:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Although it borders on out-of-scope promotion, the man is arguably notable, see Charles A. Williams III. As Infrogmation says, the photographer, uploader, and subject are all the same name -- leaving aside the question of who actually pushed the button (as we often do in cases like this), it looks OK to me. But, this user has a poor rep on WP:EN. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, lacks suitable permission. Kameraad Pjotr 19:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Der Titel unterstellt, dass es sich bei den Abgebildeten um Dalits handelt. Dies ist ersten hoechstwahrscheinlich falsch und zweitens eine Beleidigung der Personen. Re-upload mit neutralem Titel waere OK. Tomeasy (talk) 12:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
[Machine translation:
- The title imputes that the person portrayed is a Dalit. This is first most likely incorrect and secondly offensive. Re upload with neutral title would be OK.]
- Comment In use. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
- Comment I tend to agree with the nom. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Kept, file is in use, I agree it should be renamed though. Kameraad Pjotr 19:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Copyright violation (work of art inside building; the work has already been the subject of legal action by the artist/VG Wort concerning copyright, see de.wikipedia article w:de:Der Bevölkerung) AndreasPraefcke (talk) 14:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
It's not really inside the building. You can see it on google maps. --Ephraim33 (talk) 16:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete It is. I've been there. Es spielt keine Rolle, ob man es vom All aus sehen kann. -- H005 15:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- Comment The dewp article refers to efforts by the Bundestag to make this installation free of copyright - any news? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 19:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
su autor ya no autoriza la presencia Galandil (talk) 21:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- So, you are not the author? --Túrelio (talk) 08:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete No evidence for permission by Rafael Álvarez Cacho. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:05, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, lacks suitable permission. Kameraad Pjotr 19:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Because this file already exists. Luiz83 (talk) 04:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- Umm, what do you mean? Is there a similar image under a different name? Keep unless a similar image is found. Nyttend (talk) 14:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- Comment see File:Diadema - Centro1.png, but I'm not sure which one I like better. This one has better clouds -- the other one is brighter, but the clouds are washed out. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Kept, files are not exact duplicates. Kameraad Pjotr 19:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
not releated to ferries. JarredTheYoutuber2 (talk) 03:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- Why not? (Read the text). Maybe not an optimal file name, but that's not a reason to delete. --PaterMcFly (talk) 07:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Not used, does not seem in COM:PS. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:43, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, out of project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 19:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
en:File:Voltas_bldg.jpg says it was taken from a newspaper, and is only for educational use. dave pape (talk) 03:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete so it does. That is, the original uploader at en.WP says that it was taken from a newspaper.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- To me, there's no reason to delete this image. Educational use is, or should be, the main reason for the existence of the wikipedia project. So I think that this image, as many other purposed to be deleted, should not be deleted for this reason. --Sng (talk) 10:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Yes Wikipedia is educational but files on Commons has to be free for all. Also for commercial purpose. MGA73 (talk) 08:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
The book this seems to have been originally published in (Roerich's "Shambala") had its copyright renewed in the United States; besides, it is not clear where this was originally published. —innotata 17:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
![17:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2010/06/29#c-Innotata-2010-05-18T17:40:00.000Z-File:"Song_of_Shambhala".jpg){kind=link}
- Roerich had a lifetime obsession with Shambhala and it featured in several of his paintings and writings. The book you talk about was first published in 1930, whereas this painting is from 1943. This work was painted in India and Roerich died in 1947, which is more than 60 years ago. The licensing seems correct. Keep -Nard the Bard 21:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- It matters where it was published, not painted. It also needs to be PD in the US, and {{PD-old}} applies to authors who died over 70 years ago. —innotata 22:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, and this file doesn't adequately describe its source, hence my confusion with the book. —innotata 23:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I think {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} probably applies here.—innotata 00:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- Calculated that off a different Roerich artwork. I can find no evidence this is PD in the US. —innotata 16:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- Roerich's paintings had better be discussed at the village pump, not here. —innotata 01:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept, as {{PD-US-no notice}}; the painting is the public domain in India, and was very likely published in the U.S. without notice. Otherwise it is {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}. Kameraad Pjotr 13:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
![13:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2010/06/29#c-Kameraad_Pjotr-2010-10-03T13:02:00.000Z-File:"Song_of_Shambhala".jpg){kind=link}
Potential copy violation tagged as a speedy delete but its noted that the image uploaded here is larger than the site given as source. This is a procedural nomination in rejecting the speedy deletion I'm not expressing an opinion either way Gnangarra 12:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, no evidence of being a copyvio; as it's in the public domain, operationmend.ucla.edu is free to use smaller versions without attribution. Even if I weren't credited here, we wouldn't say that this file was a copyvio. Nyttend (talk) 15:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete All of this uploader's other images have either been deleted as copyvio or have DRs on them now. (Full disclosure -- I either closed or tagged some of those.) All were labeled "own work" when obviously they weren't. If this user took this image with his own $5,000 (list price) Nikon D3 professional camera as the EXIF data says, why aren't there any more images by him and why has he uploaded a number of copyvios? It doesn't make sense. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Kept, due to a lack of possible sources on the internet, AGF on uploaders behalf. Kameraad Pjotr 18:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
speedydelete à la demande de la personne photographiée. Olivierfavier (talk) 11:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
speedydelete demande de la personne photographiée (merci d'appliquer cette action aux fichiers précédents de la même photo). Olivierfavier (talk) 11:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
unused advertisment for a clinic in spain, uncategorized - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 04:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- I'm the author of the photo, I don't consider it an advertisment at all, since it just shows an image of a doctor that has been and is still a very important scientist in his terrain, for the development of the women medicine — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.203.195.149 (talk • contribs)
- DeleteDon't tell me that this is the waiting room of the private clinic of that doctor looking as Nosferatu behind the chick at reception (picture deleted few weeks ago). The same doctor that, in another picture, is pretending to analyze an X-ray-whatever. Fantastic. I'm for deletion of this picture for obvious reasons but not at all against the Nobel Prize for Medicine for Doc Nosferatu. Anyway, to own a private clinic in Spain it's not up to everyone so: Freemasonry or Opus Dei? Just for a better categorization.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 11:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- ?? - it is not an image of the doctor, but of the waiting room of the clinic Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 04:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete According to my Mexican friends you cannot be anyone there if you are not "in the system". The guy it's pretty in it according to his propaganda-biography. So "in" that he is a candidate for some political elections. Better for him not to boast off too much his, own attributed, successes. Otherwise people might understand the truth behind him.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 11:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Source is dead link. No evidence the original work is public domain. User has history of copyvios. Dcoetzee (talk) 05:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- I agree, just want to add the source links (it had the corbis watermark), so we not need to search it: This version is http://www.corbisimages.com/Enlargement/Enlargement.aspx?id=EX1065, there is also a b&w version at http://www.corbisimages.com/Enlargement/Enlargement.aspx?id=BE034063 - so maybe the image and the colors come from different times and authors and we have to consider different copyrights. That not makes it easier here. --Martin H. (talk) 05:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- That style of painting at least looks old. Probably taken from a 19th century book. --PaterMcFly (talk) 07:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Corbis says "undated painting from a wash drawing," should be pre-1923. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Cache of "source" link website gives no actual source nor copyright info for image. It does look like the type of illustration found in late 19th and early 20th century US pop history books. Corbis copyright claim is dubious. However we don't have enough info to determine if the image is copyright expired or not, and alternative images are available. There are many artists' depictions of the Franklin kite experiment with adequate sourcing, including File:Franklin lightning engraving.jpg on Commons. Image is in use; I suggest replacing it with the file mentioned or something similar and then deleting unless better info on this one is added. Infrogmation (talk) 14:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Replaced and deleted as likely copyright violation. Kameraad Pjotr 19:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Is this for real? Looks like somebody photoshopped some blurry naked guys with odd facial hair onto a ribbon. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 10:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, out of project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 16:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
derivative work; the copyright belongs to the tattoo artist, or possibly to the tattooed person. –Tryphon☂ 09:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep If we are so strict we should delete allmost all the picture from Category:Tattoos. I think that it is an utilitarian art and should be treated like a kind of costume... See -> Template:Costume. Electron <Talk?> 09:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Comment If we go that way of thinking like Tryphon it can be impossible to take photos of people with tattoos on the whole - because they are stayed copyrighted :) Electron <Talk?> 09:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- De minimis applies in some cases. But here, it's clearly the main focus of the picture. –Tryphon☂ 10:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- OK. But in your opinion it is a good way of thinking that painted people are copyrigted? So, allmost all women should be copyrigted because they do make up every day... :) The nature is not copyrigted and men are a sort of a part of it. Neverteless they are painted or not. Electron <Talk?> 10:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- BTW. See here -> File:Murzi3.jpg - the woman has very oryginal design on her body. Maybe copyrighted? So you should see all Category:Women of Ethiopia - there are much more such photos... Be serious - copyrights paranoia is not a good thing. Electron <Talk?> 10:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- Thats traditional design/folklore, as such it is not eligible for copyright and not comparable to the case we have here. --Martin H. (talk) 22:51, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- Are you sure that it is tradicional make up? Maybe yes, maybe not... Especially this tattoo on her belly. To say the truth I am not sure it is 70-ty years old design of an unknown artist. 23:25, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thats traditional design/folklore, as such it is not eligible for copyright and not comparable to the case we have here. --Martin H. (talk) 22:51, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, derivative work of copyrighted design. Kameraad Pjotr 20:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This flag was never a flag of a corporation governed by public law. It was the flag of a private organisation. The current license tag is therefore not applicable. The same applies to File:Erste Schwarz- Rot- Goldene Fahne 1815 (Farbe).jpg. ALE! ¿…? 15:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
- And which tag do you propose? When deleting the current tag, there is no license left. And without a license the images have to be deleted. --ALE! ¿…? 21:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- PD-art? The flag is obviously out of copyright. I'm unsure however, whether the image can be seen as simple 2D-reproduction. --PaterMcFly (talk) 07:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- I think {{PD-art}} can not be used as the flag is not a painting. --ALE! ¿…? 18:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- It's a photo of a flag whose creator definitely died more than 70 and even 100 years ago. Any standard licence for photos will do. -- H005 08:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- Update: I just saw that the user who uploaded the photo has been permanently blocked; thus he will not be able to provide a proper licence. This would indeed justify the deletion of the image. -- H005 08:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- He's a reincarnation of the blocked user (Commons, de.Wikipedia, en.Wikipedia) Kay Körner, who has uploaded non-free copyrighted material several times in the past. --32X (talk) 18:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- PD-art? The flag is obviously out of copyright. I'm unsure however, whether the image can be seen as simple 2D-reproduction. --PaterMcFly (talk) 07:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- And which tag do you propose? When deleting the current tag, there is no license left. And without a license the images have to be deleted. --ALE! ¿…? 21:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Considering the new information (lack of hope to get a proper license, plus suspecting that the uploader is porobably not even the ownerI, I change my vote to deletion. -- H005 15:14, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, likely copyright violation. Kameraad Pjotr 19:41, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Missing author. Too young to be PD in Germany. --sугсго 14:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, too young to be {{PD-old}} thus copyright violation. Kameraad Pjotr 20:18, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
and File:Jurvinart color kunstakadem.jpg, File:Kunstakademi jurvinart eye allah 2004.jpg, File:Kunstner jurvinart tvboy.jpg, File:Naivistisk københavn jurvinart naivisme.jpg, File:Kunstakademi afgang naivisme.jpg
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private artalbum. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, out of project scope, only used on the user page of a user who has made no edits but to his user page. Kameraad Pjotr 20:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Converted from {{npd}}. Tagged as no source, but the content from en.wiki was Template:Gfdl-self. Thus may be own work and there's metadata. --ZooFari 01:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- so what ? correct it --Gruß Tom (talk) 14:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep no reason. --Starscream (talk) 23:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Kept as own work. Kameraad Pjotr 20:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Low-quality image with no use. Requested by author.
- Keep No valid reasons for deletion for me. The picture is illustrative even if not used at the moment (but anyway Commons it's not the only-in-use-on-wikipedia pictures archive) and it's the only one we have about that subject. The author can produce a better one and then we could delete the lower quality version of it.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 09:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete I concur with the nominator's request. It is indeed a low quality image and is not used for this reason. I don't see this as a bad faith nomination at all and think the creator's wishes should be honoured here. The image's deletion would cause minimal or no loss to the Common's project. --Leoboudv (talk) 05:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, uploader request and image is not used. Kameraad Pjotr 19:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I am e new in the "commons" and there are an arrors in the file, but no copyright problem-i am the artist of this painting Denys3200 (talk) 16:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Delete What errors? Why do you, the artist, want to delete it? --Having asked that, however, I also have to ask if this isn't out-of-scope. Savchenko does not appear to be a notable artist. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, out of project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 19:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
November 2009 (unclosed nomination)
[edit]
Evidently non-educational motives 84.74.147.73 09:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Keep strong keep; "motives" are irrelevant. 2 young adult males in underwear, not even mildly "controversial". this "anonymous" IP nominator has gone on a spree of spurious deletions, repeating the same invalid reasons mostly. appears to be associated with someone who has at least some commons experience. Lx 121 (talk) 04:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
June 2010 (re-listed nomination)
[edit]
likely copyvio -- highly doubt uploader owns rights to this (compare uploader's other contribs), looks like it was taken from a commercial porn site Wikignome0530 (talk) 07:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, copyright violation. TinEye finds it at [1] (June 2007, so predating Commons upload by 2 years) -- Infrogmation (talk) 10:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Star wars logos
[edit]- File:Logo Star Wars Battlefront III.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Logo Star Wars Battlefront II.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Logo Star Wars Battlefront.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
File:Star Wars Logo 2.svg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)KeptFile:Star Wars Logo..png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)KeptFile:Star Wars Logo.svg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)KeptFile:Starwarslogosquareish.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)KeptFile:Star wars2 .svg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)Kept- File:Star Wars logo.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Star Wars logo.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Logos for Star Wars are made of a very special, custom-designed font [2]. They furthmore feature particular ligatures ("ST" and "RS") that add to the originality of the design. Some of these designs also feature deformations and metalic effects which further add to the originality of the design. I do not believe that these logos are trivial and I believe that the "does not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection" claim is without merits. --Rama (talk) 09:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Rama (talk) 09:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Per rama. Esby (talk) 10:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Per rama. These logo have originality in the design. Ludo (talk) 10:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep May be for this picture, this picture, this picture and this picture. But no for the other. Cody escadron delta (talk) 10:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- There is 3 pictures where is really metalic effects Cody escadron delta (talk) 10:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- I don't this that application orfgradients or similar effects is as problematic as the use of the custom font with original ligatures that you find on File:Star Wars Logo.svg. The only argument I can imagine for "triviality" of this logo is that it can now be recreated using computer fonts, but these fonts have been created because of the logo, not the other way round; that would rather reinforce the arguments that the lettering is very original. Rama (talk) 10:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep In my opinion it consists only of a rather plain text and it does not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection, so it is PD-ineligible. Some small changes in design don't change the situation (e.g. see File:ARD logo.svg). Electron <Talk?> 10:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Per Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Star Wars Logo.svg -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 10:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- As I said above, the logo pre-dated the fonts. If anything, the creation of fonts that mimick the logo furthers the point of how very original the logo is. Rama (talk) 10:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. According to COM:L#Fonts the rasterization of a font is not copyrightable, no mather how complicated the font is. --PaterMcFly (talk) 07:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC) PS: This may not apply for the svg versions, however.
- But it wasn't a font until the logo was made. Rama (talk) 08:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- I don't undertand you: a font is a font newertheless it is said openly or not. It was created in the time of date of composition. In this particular case - in the time of using it in SW logo... Electron <Talk?> 10:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- You are mistaken. The entire font was not created at the time, and the logo uses particular ligatures that are not featured in the fonts. Rama (talk) 20:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- I don't undertand you: a font is a font newertheless it is said openly or not. It was created in the time of date of composition. In this particular case - in the time of using it in SW logo... Electron <Talk?> 10:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- But it wasn't a font until the logo was made. Rama (talk) 08:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per Rama. Obviously, the logo pre-dated the fonts. Hr. Satz 14:24, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep all the simple logos without effects. See Threshold of originality#United States. For example, the font of Myst is much more original than this font -- it's not just a variation of the Latin alphabet, but a completely new fictional alphabet, created from scratch. But the Copyright Office refused to register it, because "Congress did not consider the design of typeface to be copyrightable pictorial, graphic or sculptural authorship..." (and so on). This issue has been discussed numerous times, and nothing have changed from the previous DR, read the previous discussions: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Trycatch (talk) 19:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Per Rama. --Taichi (talk) 06:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep File:Star Wars Logo 2.svg, File:Star Wars Logo..png, File:Star Wars Logo.svg, File:Starwarslogosquareish.png and File:Star wars2 .svg, because they are not enough original for a copyright. Delete the others. Tbhotch (talk) 20:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per Rama Otourly (talk) 21:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per Rama Kyro (talk) 17:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- Comment It's very irresponsible to vote for deletion of file which is in use on several thousands of pages without good understanding (or even attempts to understand) of the problem in question. Fortunately, DR is not a voting. Trycatch (talk) 17:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per rama. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep At least the simpler versions of this logo are ineligible for copyright protection, according to Threshold of originality. SV1XV (talk) 21:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Rama is incorrect in this case. Per U.S. Copyright guidelines, it does not matter if a font is custom or not -- they are still letters, and it is still typeface, and it is not copyrightable, no question. They have even denied protection on a made-up alphabet, since it was a "system of communication", and also handwritten letters (far from a standard font). It does not matter whether the font existed before or not, nor whether there are some minor variations on the letters (the "RS" and "ST" or whatever) -- it is all typeface, which is not copyrightable. The "standard font" thing in the tag, at least for the U.S. means "font with letters", as opposed to something like Dingbats (i.e. copyrightable graphics don't become uncopyrightable just by putting them in a font). The logos with heavy shading *might* be an issue, but the simpler ones, no, not close. The shading *might* be an issue, as that is unrelated to the shape of the letters, but simple gradients probably aren't enough these days. The two at the end are the ones I'd have the most concern about. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- I removed the deletion requests for files #3, 4, 5, and 7, per Carl Lindberg. If there is an issue with shading and gradients, it does not affect them. SV1XV (talk) 17:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, as explained in detail by Carl Lindberg. Delete the last two if you really must, but they're probably fine. –Tryphon☂ 21:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Kept, these logos do not pass the threshold of originality; {{PD-textlogo}}. Kameraad Pjotr 20:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Abenteuer-Camp.jpg
[edit]
For the following files:
- File:Abenteuer-Camp.jpg
- File:Käpt'n_Blaubärs_Gummikutter.jpg
- File:Ponyreitbahn.jpg
- File:Nilpferd in der Wasserbahn.jpg
- File:Käpt'n Blaubär und Hein Blöd.jpg
No licence of the owner has been provided. --H005 13:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- The same applies for File:Backgr RSL RV.jpg--AQ (talk) 20:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, lacks suitable permission. Kameraad Pjotr 15:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No evidence that image is a work of the US Federal government: appearing on http://globalwarming.house.gov/mediacenter/pressreleases_2008?id=0223 does not entail automatic entry into the public domain. If the camera was fixed, the view may escape copyright protection, but this one appears to be a moving directed camera. See Commons talk:Licensing#US gov website public domain 84user (talk) 21:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
BP oil spill still May 14 image
[edit]
As the person who placed the oil spill image on Wikimedia Commons/Wikipedia, I do not definitively know whether this is a Government-owned, BP-owned or independent contractor-owned image. What we do know, of course, that it is being fed live to multiple US government websites and media worldwide on a daily basis since the spill began many weeks ago and as you have seen from ongoing media coverage. Most importantly, I agree with Kaldari's point, that the camera is recording everything that happens in front of it. It is most definitely a still, fixed-position camera at the moment that the shot is being taken because as you have no doubt seen from these images, there is no camera movement whatsoever, the only possible movement is of the oil/gas/water flow. So, that means this camera is not mounted to a remote submarine or other moving vehicle that changes position minute to minute. Instead, the camera appears to be permanently affixed for weeks at a time or longer to show the flow of the oil/gas/water. There is no creativity involved at all. So, it seems it should not be covered by a copyright, but I am no lawyer. Any copyright lawyers care to comment? No doubt the image is providing an important public service as it clearly communicates like nothing else can to the public what is taking place one mile below the Gulf of Mexico with the disastrous BP oil spill. Mykjoseph (talk) 13:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, yes, these cameras are mounted on mini-subs. This one in particular is the Skandi Neptune ROV, which has been doing a yeoman's job monitoring the breakpoint. They use dynamic positioning to maintain very steady positions for long periods of time, but an operator was responsible for operating and positioning the ROV (and thus the camera), so creative process was most definitely involved. It's a private piece of equipment, operated by a commercial organisation, thus the only possible outcome for this image, nice as it would be to have, is delete. — Huntster (t @ c) 19:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- Also, I'd like to see better evidence confirming that under US law there is no creativity involved in producing a video image by means of a surveillance, and thus copyright cannot reside in surveillance videos. So far, the only evidence that has been provided is a Federal district court decision. Has the point been discussed by the Supreme Court, or are there any relevant academic opinions? (See "Commons talk:Licensing#US gov website public domain".) — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 11:30, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Isn't this free by press release?
[edit]
From the main feed page I get to a page ([3]) which says "May 19, 2010 – Following a demand from Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) for a live feed of the BP oil spill to be made publicly available on the web, BP said they would release the feed and it will be shown on Rep. Markey’s committee website at www.globalwarming.house.gov. The release of the live link to Rep. Markey is expected tonight." I assume that the White House isn't violating copyrights, that the other media sources reprinting the photo aren't violating copyrights, and that if there were restrictions on redistributing images there'd probably be some kind of copyright notice on it. While it would be best to find the actual "release", I think it's pretty obvious that this is an image that Commons can house. Wnt (talk) 00:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
- "Publicly available" does not mean "public domain" in terms of licensing, it simply means that the images and video must be made available for viewing by the public (BP was keeping all video, etc private prior to this demand). The White House can use media under fair use the same as our projects can...they shouldn't, in my opinion, but there's nothing technically stopping them (I'm trying my hardest to avoid making political insinuations here, which is difficult). BP and the ROV operators have no interest in trying to enforce copyright law right now, with all the other trouble going on, but that doesn't change the legal status of the media. Unless it is explicitly released as PD or another free license, we cannot keep it; see the primary web feed page here, which clearly has "© 1999-2010 BP p.l.c." at the bottom of the page, and no other licensing notices apparent. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Delete. It's well established here at the Commons that we cannot accept content that is simply made available for public viewing (e.g., media packs) unless it is made clear that the content can be freely modified by other users and used for commercial purposes as well. Comparison with use by the media is incorrect, because most countries' laws specifically provide exemptions for fair use of works for news reporting. The Commons cannot rely on this defence to copyright infringement as it is neither a media organization nor does it report news. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 11:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. "Publicly available" does not mean "publicly licensed for commercial use, including modifications and derivative works". Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)