Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2010/07/23
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
The image is used in a CC-licensed blog, but the file was neither created by the write nor is it free. See http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/71643380/AFP Martin H. (talk) 01:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Delete, {{Copyvio}}. Bogus licensing by the cited source. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
bad name, see File:Oregon_State_Capitol_Interior_Rotunda.JPG Aboutmovies (talk) 19:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Uncontroversial and unused duplicate. Could have been tagged for speedy deletion as {{Duplicate}}. Wknight94 talk 13:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
No indication that this image is CC, uploader had previous Pierces copyvio (File:ThePierces.jpg) Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 05:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete photo by Edward Badham. no permission. -- Common Good (talk) 21:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Done copyvio from http://www.media.wmg-is.com/media/portal/media/cms/images/200703/edward-badham-photo-6-extralarge_1175095853250.jpg
Deleted by Micheletb: copyvio of http://www.media.wmg-is.com/media/portal/media/cms/images/200703/edward-badham-photo-6-extralarge_1175095853250.jpg
empty --Fingalo (talk) 18:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 14:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image, out of scope Santosga (talk) 11:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Delete Missvain (talk) 21:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted Out of COM:SCOPE. SV1XV (talk) 18:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
photo of a musical group with no notability, related article en:Vinyl Mind was deleted from en wikipedia for no notability - out of scope Santosga (talk) 12:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. No notability, out of COM:SCOPE. SV1XV (talk) 18:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE and unused. Yet another bunch of kids with a garage band. Article deleted on en.wp. Wknight94 talk 13:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted Out of COM:SCOPE. SV1XV (talk) 19:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Probably not own work. No meta data and exactly the same as on http://static.texastribune.org/media/images/Norma_Chavez_jpg_800x1000_q100.jpg It is the only image uploaded by User:Bigger Than Jesus. Wouter (talk) 18:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- I cannot see anything here. Broken image? --PaterMcFly (talk) 10:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- I tried and do not have any problem to see the image. Wouter (talk) 14:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 13:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
This file is bugged, and therefore unusable. -Strogoff- (talk) 20:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Keep "bugged" is the wrong word in this context. If you mean it's buggy, I don't see anything wrong with it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Mbdortmund (talk) 13:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
A blurry image only used at the deleted en:Viral Green (Puerto Rico). Not likely to be useful, so out of scope. Nyttend (talk) 16:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 13:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
bad mood of image OptoScalpel (talk) 12:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- ??? What do you mean? How can an image be in bad mood? --PaterMcFly (talk) 06:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, nothing wrong with this image. OptoScalpel, since you're the uploader, perhaps you could create a better version and upload it on top of this one? Nyttend (talk) 16:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
I do not agree with usage of this photo over Internet. OptoScalpel (talk) 08:20, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Herby talk thyme 16:48, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
bad mood of image OptoScalpel (talk) 12:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, nothing wrong with this image. OptoScalpel, since you're the uploader, perhaps you could create a better version and upload it on top of this one? Nyttend (talk) 16:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
I do not agree with usage of this photo over Internet. OptoScalpel (talk) 08:19, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Herby talk thyme 16:48, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
bad mood of image OptoScalpel (talk) 12:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, nothing wrong with this image. OptoScalpel, since you're the uploader, perhaps you could create a better version and upload it on top of this one? Nyttend (talk) 16:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
I do not agree with usage of this photo over Internet. OptoScalpel (talk) 08:19, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Herby talk thyme 16:48, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
There does not seem to be any permission for the use of this photo russavia (talk) 08:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
The uploader is unable to release into PD, as it includes photographs and logos of the newspaper russavia (talk) 13:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
-Must not be deleted, This picture is not the copy of the full newspaper but instead its use for Reference Purposes. This is not a copyright violation in any case, neither did it opposes to any of the wikipedia's policy...
I propse to scale down this image, and release it on wikipedia in a low resolution version(Just for Reference Purposes). In that way it shall not be a copyright violation.
regards.
-Viplovecomm (talk) 14:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. No evidence given to support the PD claim. Looks like a copyvio. -- Asclepias (talk) 01:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:26, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Source is said to be http://www.yahrzeit.com and so far as I can see these photographs are not freely available (see http://www.antiquejewishbooks.net/rabbis.html). No reason to suppose this image is PD and good reason to think otherwise. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete There is no permission from the author. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:27, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Unclear copyright status (Permission is "not published"). Beside that, it seems to me that the image is outside of COM:SCOPE Church of emacs (talk) 19:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:27, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Question own work. See http://forbesparky.wordpress.com/ Wouter (talk) 08:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:28, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
It was never used and it's not going to be in the future. JokerXtreme (talk) 14:40, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
The image is used in a CC-licensed blog, the image is however not free, see http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/71643259/AFP Martin H. (talk) 01:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, {{Copyvio}}. Bogus licensing by the cited source. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:34, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
This looks like a company image - look at the source. Without OTRS-Release it could be copyvio by just picked of the company website. Jutta234 (talk) 06:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:34, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
This looks like a company image - look at the source. Without OTRS-Release it could be copyvio by just picked of the company website. Jutta234 (talk) 06:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Source does not say the image is released as GNU-FDL. Please follow Commons:OTRS to transfer the license to Commons. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 06:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Source is http://www.hardenmachinery.com/photos/dual-shaft-shredder.jpg. Website does not state the image is in the public domain Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 06:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted once as a copyvio, while ownership is possible it's unproven - especially as the picture's metadata appears to be from a scanner. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Copyvio from http://www.qwankido.fr/ufat/php/ufat_qwankido_equip.php, I guess. This picture was added in may 2009, but according to Webarchive, it was first published in 2007 on the website above (see here, and the history too). Binabik155 (talk) 09:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
out of scope diagram, related article was deleted from en wikipedia en:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intelligit for advertising/spam Santosga (talk) 10:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Derivative work Ferbr1 (talk) 10:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. Two ovals and the word "Ford" meets the definition of {{PD-textlogo}}. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep see Threshold of originality#United States, and remove the FoP tag. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- Good call on the FoP template. I didn't notice that at first. It's inapplicable not only because the subject is not copyrightable, but also because it is not permanently exhibited in a public place, so I've removed it. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- I think the "F" has originality. Alakasam (talk) 21:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- Letters are never copyrightable according to US law, regardless of the Font (and this is a simple one anyway) see COM:L#Fonts. --PaterMcFly (talk) 06:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, the subject of the photo is too simple for copyright, and the photo itself is freely-licensed. Nyttend (talk) 16:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I think it's clear that the grille around the logo does not meet the definition of {{PD-textlogo}} ... however it does meet the definition of {{Useful-object-US}}. So we're good keeping it.--Elvey (talk) 00:30, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
- And the letters are older than 1923, so they are PD anyway: File:Ford_logo_1911.png. W3ird N3rd (talk) 14:02, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
out of scope photo of a poet with no notabiltity, related article was deleted from es wikipedia es:Wikipedia:Consultas de borrado/Cosme Álvarez for autopromotion Santosga (talk) 11:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
- (a) An SVG is available.
- (b) Why keep one PNG out of about 70 International Code Flags?
- (c) In any event, the color is wrong, it should be pure yellow as seen in the SVG version, not orange. -- Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Doubtful own work claim. Uploader originally had www.google.sk as the source but removed it. All uploads are questionable at best. Wknight94 talk 13:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:49, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
A blurry image only used at the deleted en:Viral Green (Puerto Rico). Moreover, not realistic — it's a digital modification of File:Viral 11 (before).png. Not likely to be useful, so out of scope. Nyttend (talk) 16:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:55, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
A blurry image only used at the deleted en:Viral Green (Puerto Rico). From that article, it seems that this is a digitally modified version of an actual photo. Not likely to be useful, so out of scope. Nyttend (talk) 16:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:56, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Insufficient source information: this file is definately not the own work of the uploader. High Contrast (talk) 16:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- What about changing the license to PD-art? The scanned page seems to be really old. --PaterMcFly (talk) 19:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
YES, it is! It's dated 1667..... --Ubimaior
- Keep, the source is plainly the document from which this was scanned. It helps to have a PD-self tag on this image, because reusers in countries such as the UK can know that the uploader won't try to sue them like the NPG threatened to do to Dcoetzee. Nyttend (talk) 16:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:57, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
The author information is likely wrong and not verifiable. The image is essentially a copy from http://www.senat.fr/senateur-3eme-republique/baufle_maurice0680r3.html#1889-1940. Physical ownership of a copy of the image does not make someone the author nor does it make one the copyright holder. Martin H. (talk) 17:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Converted from speedy with reason: "unauthorized use of an MP's signature". I think we generally keep signatures. PaterMcFly (talk) 19:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, such a reason for speedy deletion is irrelevant to copyright. We're happy to host signatures. Nyttend (talk) 16:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Was Speedy with rationale {{Non-free software screenshot}}, but this is not a screenshot as such, it is just the program output. This cannot be copyrighted by the author of the software. PaterMcFly (talk) 20:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
No freedom of Panorama in Ukraine. MGA73 (talk) 22:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
The original image was deleted from en-wiki as "image with unknown source". Trycatch (talk) 22:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Photo by UK photographer Walter Stoneman, not public domain in the country of origin. Martin H. (talk) 23:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete, ...the work was photograph with a known author taken before 30 June 1957 then copyright also expires 70 years after the death of the author. feydey (talk) 14:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete also File:Baroness Emma Orczy by Bassano.jpg - same problem. feydey (talk) 15:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, non-free in country of origin. I've uploaded it to en:wp, because it's used there and because it's PD in the USA. Nyttend (talk) 15:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete the baroness as well; I've uploaded it to en:wp. Nyttend (talk) 15:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Downgraded from no-source to DR. Can anyone else read the he.wp information to determine the source? Count me as abstain until someone can decipher. Wknight94 talk 13:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- Which Hebrew script you mean? Geagea (talk) 15:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- It says it was originally uploaded at he.wp. I wondered what it said there. Wknight94 talk 16:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- Noting as I see. But the source is given. I just move it to the correct place. Geagea (talk) 16:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- It says it was originally uploaded at he.wp. I wondered what it said there. Wknight94 talk 16:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Kept - changed license to {{PD patents}} (non-admin closure). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
derivative work Polarlys (talk) 21:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
- Delete The ring is a sculpture which has its own copyright. I don't see any mention of the designer anywhere or any reason to believe that he or she has been dead for the required 70 years. It's up to the uploader to give us a name and further evidence. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, derivative work: photo from a copyrighted object, FOP or similar do not apply. Kameraad Pjotr 20:04, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
derivative work Polarlys (talk) 21:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
- Keep It says 1889. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- This is the year the college was established. --Polarlys (talk) 23:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- Such rings are typically traditional. The article where this image is used mentions the designer; must be at least 70 years old. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- This is the year the college was established. --Polarlys (talk) 23:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep it is the ring with the shield and the shield is 70+ years old, please help remove deletion request
- Delete The ring is a sculpture which has its own copyright. I don't see any mention of the designer anywhere or any reason to believe that he or she has been dead for the required 70 years. It's up to the uploader to give us a name and further evidence. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:12, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, per Commons:Deletion requests/File:My Saint Anselm College Ring 2010 (22).JPG. Kameraad Pjotr 20:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
Possible copyright violation from http://www.jehovahswitnesstruth.com/nikodemus.jpg Sentausa (talk) 16:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Comment looks like a widely spread image http://oneyearbibleimages.com/nicodemus.jpg and http://jlfoundation.net/da-nicodemus.gif - could be PD-old or PD-1923. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:40, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Possibly based on a version without the cross. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- if a source can be found for this, we should upload one of the higher resolution versions of this file, though. This one is very low res. --PaterMcFly (talk) 06:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- I found another source here, which is taken from the Ultimate Bible Picture Collection, where it is claimed that copyrights had expired. In this version, Jesus had been given a haircut... /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:18, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- And here is a flipped version without the cross. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- This is likely to be the original (no author given). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- Hmmm, the fact that this image is spread with so many variants of the background would support the claim that it is old enough to be PD (unless everyone else is doing a copyvio too). However, this would only make the original PD, not necessarily the variants with added background. --PaterMcFly (talk) 10:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- The page where a lot of these images are hosted says they're PD unless otherwise noted. Unfortunatelly, there's neither an author, nor a source, nor a date given. --PaterMcFly (talk) 10:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- This is likely to be the original (no author given). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- And here is a flipped version without the cross. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- I found another source here, which is taken from the Ultimate Bible Picture Collection, where it is claimed that copyrights had expired. In this version, Jesus had been given a haircut... /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:18, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- if a source can be found for this, we should upload one of the higher resolution versions of this file, though. This one is very low res. --PaterMcFly (talk) 06:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I uploaded a version with somewhat higher resolution from http://clipart.christiansunite.com/ which claims that the images are free (probably scanned from pre-1923 US childrens' bibles). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep From some old forgotten work, expired copyright in the US. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 14:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, unless a reliable source is provided, we cannot be sure that this image is indeed from a pre-1923 or otherwise public domain source. Kameraad Pjotr 21:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
copyrighted: author died in 1950 http://et.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valter_Lemberg. WikedKentaur (talk) 18:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, copyright violation: not yet in the public domain. Kameraad Pjotr 09:03, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Violación de la privacidad al tratarse de una imagen personal. Pierre Marie Mouronval Morales 18:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Question I don't know what's going on here. The subject of the photo, who is apparently also the uploader, has uploaded seven more or less identical versions of this (with one street scene in the sequence) and now asks for it to be deleted on privacy grounds. I'd be inclined to refuse the deletion, except that the subject does not appear to be particularly notable, so maybe it is out of scope? Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:24, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, out of project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 15:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Not own work. This is the official portrait of the Hungarian prime minister, copied from his website. [1] copyright 2009-2010 Beroesz (talk) 17:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Uploader claimed to be an employee of the office of the prime minister. --Tgr (talk) 14:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, lacks suitable permission. Kameraad Pjotr 15:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
error Inventamultimedia (talk) 10:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Question Please tell us what kind of error, otherwise maybe this is a keep. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Kept, unclear deletion request. Kameraad Pjotr 17:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
- Deleted. I overrule the decision. Small photo without metadata. Uploader's request next day after uploading, this would qualify even for speedy deletion. Taivo (talk) 12:46, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Offizielles Dokument der DB, es konnte keine Genehmigung erhalten werden. Lok82008 (talk) 10:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- Crop and keep. The list is certainly not copyrightable. --PaterMcFly (talk) 06:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Kept the cropped version, as the list is {{PD-ineligible}}. Kameraad Pjotr 18:03, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
No reason to believe that this research would not be protected by copyright. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 00:54, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Unclear copyright situation. en:User:Quickload is highly likely not the copyright holder of this image. Further proof why this file can be placed in the public domain is not stated. High Contrast (talk) 20:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, no reason given for "Quickload is highly likely not the copyright holder of this image"; I can't see why someone with access to such a rifle couldn't take such a picture of it. Nyttend (talk) 15:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete it, it was surely taken from the web. H18:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, a person claiming to be author of the work is presumed to be an author unless proven otherwise.--RussianTrooper (talk) 06:48, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept, AGF on uploaders behalf. Kameraad Pjotr 12:03, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Downgraded from no-source to DR. Since this is used in so many places, I wanted to get more eyes on it. Uploaded in 2006 and uploader hasn't edited since 2007. Can someone find a source for this to verify the 1911 and the license's claim that the author died 70 years ago? Otherwise, I guess it has to go. Wknight94 talk 15:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Subject lived 12 October 1875 – 1 December 1947, so taken in 1911 seems reasonable, judging on the age in the photo. --PaterMcFly (talk) 19:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- I found this at Getty Images. Not sure how helpful it is, although it dates it from the 19th century anyway. Wknight94 talk 21:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- Hmm... Not really helpful. They're doing a blattant copyfraud there IMO. --PaterMcFly (talk) 06:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- They also say in their caption that he was a teenager at the time of the photo. Which, to me, seems more believable than that he was in his mid-30s. In fact I came here to find more information since I was having trouble believing the caption given on the English Wikipedia, which I have now changed. In fact, it even says in the original upload notice that it was "circa 1900". But that, I suppose, isn't the real issue here: we're wondering if it's really public domain or not? Soap (talk) 21:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- Hmm... Not really helpful. They're doing a blattant copyfraud there IMO. --PaterMcFly (talk) 06:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- I found this at Getty Images. Not sure how helpful it is, although it dates it from the 19th century anyway. Wknight94 talk 21:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no evidence that this was published before 1923 in the US or the author died 70+ years ago. Kameraad Pjotr 19:02, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Unclear copyright status. See file_disc and User talk:Tursun. GeorgHH • talk 13:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, likely copyright violation. Kameraad Pjotr 20:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
likely copyvio from http://www.michellemcgann.com/mm_fund/ 132.239.214.39 18:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- Questionable. Our image could be older. If it were a copyvio, it would be a very bad one, because the uploader has removed the background. --PaterMcFly (talk) 19:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, because our image is far larger than the one at the URL the IP cites. You can't take an image, expand it several times, and have the result look as natural as this one does; consequently, this can't be a copyvio of the source the IP cites. Nyttend (talk) 16:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Kept, AGF on uploaders behalf. Kameraad Pjotr 19:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Files of User:Asevilla
[edit]- File:CHaRLY05.JPG
- File:Drax.jpg
- File:Drax.gif
- File:Integrantes cross.JPG
- File:LOGO DIABLO.jpg
- File:Marcelino cruz.jpg
- File:Alejandro cruz.JPG
All files - one logo and 6 photos - relate to a rock band with no notability, no related article exists in es or any other wiki projects. Although some of these images are categorized (into Category:Drummers, Category:Musicians and Category:Logos) I don't see any real usefulness in any of them, so I am nominating them for being out of scope. --Santosga (talk) 00:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:32, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
This work of art is obviously not 2D, therefore {{PD-art}} does not apply. Somebody should check enwiki and hewiki to find out what exactly was the _original_ license, since the log here looks confused. But unless the original uploader is the author of the photograph (and has licensed the photograph under a free license), the file is a copyright violation. Mormegil (talk) 08:31, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Verrocchio died 1488, not 1988. Should be PD-Old. -- smial (talk) 09:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- The problem is not the sculpture, the problem is the photograph of the sculpture. Who took the photograph? We do not know. The file is tagged as {{PD-art}}, which means “we do not care who took the photograph, it does not matter for images of 2D public domain works”. But in this case, the public domain work is not 2D, so that we need to know the photograph’s author and we need the author’s license. --Mormegil (talk) 10:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Blatant wrong use of {{PD-art}} tag.--Trixt (talk) 22:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, according to the original upload log visible near the bottom of the file description page, it was originally tagged as cc-by-2.5. Nyttend (talk) 16:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- That is why I asked somebody to check the respective deleted pages on the English and Hebrew Wikipedias (oh, my…). The snippet shown comes from the Hebrew Wikipedia, and AFAICT it says the image comes from the English Wikipedia, states that the image is under cc-by-2.5, but it does not mention the author, making it a copyright violation, so I find it quite hard to take the license information at face value. Furthermore, the English Wikipedia log (which is the original source of the image at Wikipedia) shows en:User:Athaeneara “corrected” the file information here on Commons: see her edit, removing the cc-by-2.5 claim and replacing it with PD-art, presumably according to the original license stated at the English Wikipedia. --Mormegil (talk) 16:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no evidence that this photograph is freely licensed. Kameraad Pjotr 18:59, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
No COM:FOP#Argentina. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Keep This is a mere tourist guide Belgrano (talk) 23:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Comment The nominator has been blocked after starting this deletion request. See Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#Pieter_Kuiper Belgrano (talk) 03:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Keep Public tourist information sign. --Commonlingua (talk) 09:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Delete "A mere tourist guide" -- Sorry, but neither Argentine law nor Commons has an exception for mere tourist guides -- there's a copyrighted map and other information. This could be a "Speedy".
- And, fairness requires me to add, while Pieter Kuiper irritates the bejasus out of me on occasion, he is right much more often than he is wrong and the fact that he is blocked at the moment is irrelevant to this discussion other than for the fact that he is not here to defend his DR. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:12, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, he has been blocked precisely because of the deletion requests he was starting, focused on uploads by admins, following each one by alphabetical name. Starting with a "B", it was my turn, but Bastique complained first, and there we are. He has not been blocked by some unrelated issue. I'm not saying that the block invalidates the deletion requests he started (if I thought so I would had simply closed it), but that the whole context should be taken into account. Belgrano (talk) 16:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- Aha. OK, my apologies, you're right, it is relevant. However, on this one, I'm sorry to say that I think he's right. (Ask me if I'm surprised that I'm defending Pieter Kuiper's actions? After all, I've been on his Wall of Shame.) Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:16, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Keep No copyright violation. Luispihormiguero (talk) 20:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Article 1 of the Argentinian copyright law includes planos y mapas in the types of works that are protected by copyright. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, clear derivative work of a copyrighted work: no freedom of panorama in Argentina. Kameraad Pjotr 19:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
The image was originally uploaded by Thalios, a user who saved the file as his own; in fact, the picture was taken by me (Guigondi) and I want to remove it from Wikimedia. I have the original, unprocessed file if needed. --79.145.108.61 16:30, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Kept, upload a better version over this one if you have one. Kameraad Pjotr 19:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
