Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2010/09/08
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
Photo from 20minutes.es marked as "FOTO: ARCHIVO". Unlikely this photograph was created by 20minutos.es -- the photograph is available on the official site of Antonia San Juan as part of large photo set, very unlikely created by 20minutos. Full resolution of the file available here (page) -- it was created in 2006, two years before the 20minutos.es article. Trycatch (talk) 00:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Deleted - Clear copyright violation. Anna (Cookie) (talk) 00:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes Kazuya360 (talk) 06:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Exact or scaled-down duplicate: File:Pw09-07(1).png -- Common Good (talk) 19:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
not needed empty category --Pessottino (talk) 10:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC) --Pessottino (talk) 10:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Category:Motorcycle racers from the Czech Republic -- Common Good (talk) 19:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
duplication Arunvet (talk) 16:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Exact or scaled-down duplicate: File:Painted Sawtooth,Five bar Swordtail.JPG -- Common Good (talk) 19:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
duplication Arunvet (talk) 16:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Exact or scaled-down duplicate: File:Plains Cupid .JPG -- Common Good (talk) 19:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
No evidence that the photo is old; it was just grabbed from a link on this web page. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Delete, per requests. Obelix (talk) 20:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)- I can't remember why I uploaded this picture or why I tought that it is free (The possibility that it is free is still high, but I can't prove this); so I replaced the picture were it was used and deleted this one. --DaB. (talk) 22:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. DaB. (talk) 22:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Monument located in France where the is no FOP. Creator fr:Antoine Sartorio died in 1988 so it is not yet 70 years ago. Same thing with other images (see gallery on page mentioned before) MGA73 (talk) 20:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- deleted No FOP in France, author died recently. Not Free until 2059. Rama (talk) 20:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
dubious provenance, with no indication of free release. Rodhullandemu (talk) 00:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by EugeneZelenko: Missing essential information: source and/or license: since August 6, 2010
Magazine/Book Cover of some sort. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 02:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete for nominator's reasons. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 06:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. --Saqib21 (talk) 08:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Julo (talk) 11:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Also available at http://www.snehasallapam.com/malayalam-movie-discussions/909-indian-actresses.html#post144051 Sreejith K (talk) 13:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Converted speedy deletion request to normal deletion request. The other link given here is from a forum which probably will not hold the copyright of the image. --Sreejith K (talk) 14:01, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Forums which is using our (Mallu Man Max) images does not own any copyright, This image has been distributed to severl websites, publications (Print) visual media for their library usage, It is not restricted by me...So Please advice further steps to stop the deletion request.. Mallu Man Max (talk) 12:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. On the forum a watermark is fully visible, here on Commons the watermark is still halfe visisble, make it big and look at the shoulder - It was not never added to this upload but it was tried to remove the watermark to hide something. Reviewing the uploaders uploads we have >3 cameras, we have different author information in the file File:KALARICKAL.jpg... All in all: Fishy. --Martin H. (talk) 21:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
- .... And surprisingly it is not the first time he tried this. The version history of some en.wp articles screems that this is a socking copyright violator, imo. --Martin H. (talk) 21:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Explanation
[edit]
Wrong photos came into hand and uploaded it on the wrong location. It was done purposefully to put the image into the articles of wiki, Now understand the commons objectives and turned back to normal editing...now contributing only genuine images...(Signing on the name of old sock account (As i dont have access through socked account)--Mallu Man Max (talk) 07:59, 05 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Julo (talk) 11:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Photo by Dan Farrell New York Daily News - that does not seem to be the user who licensed this on flickr, just review some files left and right of this image in the photostream. Invalid licensing, flickrvio. Martin H. (talk) 23:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Delete: Blatantly obvious copyvio. I believe this can be speedied. Soundvisions1 (talk) 02:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:34, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:DhakaCollegiateSchoolMemeryStone.JPG photo. Bellayet (talk) 04:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: scaled-down version of other file mentioned. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 06:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio: Exact or scaled down duplicate: File:DhakaCollegiateSchoolMemeryStone.JPG
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Flickr user milad101 is probably not the photographer. deerstop. 13:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Same image (though lower quality) also found in this 2008 blog entry[1]. --Túrelio (talk) 06:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Yann: Copyright violation
Cover of copyrighted magazine, no evidence of permission Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted (speedy). Eusebius (talk) 11:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
This file is useless now because it is not updated, even showing wrong data as of 2006 and we do have a updated at Image:Cumulative Current Account Balance.png Saki (talk) 22:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete I think this file should be deleted. --Saqib21 (talk) 08:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Keep it is just outdated. Keep for historical reasons. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 20:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Kept. There is no reason we should not have a series of these, one for each year. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Widely used (see tineye) promotional photograph of "La familia Mata". It's nearly impossible that 20minutos.es indeed created this photo. Trycatch (talk) 00:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- In commons you can see a lot of promotional photograph (File:El Internado.jpg or File:Los Serrano.jpg) and say that the photo's author is 20minutos.--Botedance (talk) 21:26, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for driving attention to the problem, I've nominated both files for deletion. 20minutos.es attribution practice is rather bad, sometimes they properly credits promotional pictures like this, but frequently -- no. For example, here ANTENA 3 is properly credited, but here collage using the very same picture bylined as "Foto: 20MINUTOS.ES" without any mention of ANTENA 3. It's important to be extremely cautioned with this source. Trycatch (talk) 22:28, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
- The photo is form here where say the author is 20minutos.--Botedance (talk) 18:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, they are highly inaccurate with their attribution, and sadly byline "Imagen: 20MINUTOS.ES" doesn't mean much. See example, one more, another one when pictures from 20minutos.es with this byline have been deleted as copyvio. Trycatch (talk) 18:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
- The photo is form here where say the author is 20minutos.--Botedance (talk) 18:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for driving attention to the problem, I've nominated both files for deletion. 20minutos.es attribution practice is rather bad, sometimes they properly credits promotional pictures like this, but frequently -- no. For example, here ANTENA 3 is properly credited, but here collage using the very same picture bylined as "Foto: 20MINUTOS.ES" without any mention of ANTENA 3. It's important to be extremely cautioned with this source. Trycatch (talk) 22:28, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per Trycatch and TinEye. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 22:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
File:New_World_Translation,_American_Standard_Version,_Emphetic_Diaglott,_Kingdom_Interlinear_Translation_of_the_Greek_Scriptures.jpg
[edit]
Nominating this for deletion at the request of the uploader Rodejong, following discussion: The user uploaded the image in good faith, but asks for it to be deleted because they now think that there is a copyright infringement, as according to Commons:Derivative works Chzz ► 16:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - just simple text, {{PD-ineligible}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per Pieter. Nothing copyrightable here. --PaterMcFly (talk) 08:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
License status of PD being appliable to the image is a hoax, most likely deliberate ("counts as a justification with no questions asked? let's use it"). The establishment with which logo is associated dates back to 2009. The person on the picture passed away in 2005. Also, there was no such horrible typesetting tradition 70 years ago >_>. So I'd say the status of the image is fair-use at best. 213.171.63.227 13:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Eusebius (talk) 11:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Unfocussed, unused. Classic example of COM:SCOPE#File not legitimately in use. Rodhullandemu (talk) 15:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Coyau (talk) 14:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Flickr user milad101 is probably not the photographer. deerstop. 11:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Looks like Flickr washing. The image is also published here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete look at flickr stream strongly suggests flickr washing. The same issue is with File:31686462712914l.jpg, File:Afshin-ghotbi-2.jpg Hekerui (talk) 20:40, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. bad flickr account, flickr washing by uploader. --Martin H. (talk) 11:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Promotional image of some sort used in a now deleted article on en.wikipedia. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 00:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Comment I see no particular reason to be suspicious. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Lots of pixels here, with EXIF data, probably didn't come off the web. Certainly usable, although it would be nice to know exactly where it is. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Photograph itself is free, but the focus of the image is a copyrighted feed broadcast on the jumbotron. Ytoyoda (talk) 03:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: unauthorized derivative work. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 06:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 23:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Orphaned company logo used in a now deleted advert on en.wikipedia. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 05:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: logo is too complex for {{PD-textlogo}}. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 06:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 23:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
This is a photograph of CBS's broadcast - general public doesn't go inside Butler Cabin, and other photos by this Flickr user are of CBS's Masters broadcast. Ytoyoda (talk) 06:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: copyrighted screen capture. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 06:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: Go ahead and delete the image, I trusted the tag on flickr but I should not have done, so!Bluedogtn (talk) 04:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 23:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
unused poor quality (children's?) drawing - out of scope Santosga (talk) 11:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 23:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Uploaded by user to promote his personal blog - user now blocked on en.wiki as a sockpuppeteer Green Giant (talk) 11:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 23:27, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Uplaoded by blocked sockpuppeteer to show what he was presented with for some minor blogging award Green Giant (talk) 11:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 23:27, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Out of focus: The pullover in the background is sharp, the cat isn't. The special robe structure of the Cornish Rex is not visible. 134.96.231.107 12:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC) --134.96.231.107 12:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I replaced this picture on the mentioned wikis. For Cornish Rex there are at least about 20 pictures showing cats of different colours and age and two fur detail pictures. Allthough I don't like the setting, I think File:Nestori jouluna.png shows the characteristics of a Cornish Rex best. 134.96.220.123 09:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- On cs-wiki, a regular har edited the article Cornish Rex and he didn't revert my change. On es, the article seems to be orphaned (most edits are bot edit or vandalism reverts), I don't expect a revert there either. 84.165.248.135 10:52, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- Prosfilaes, did you ever look at the picture and the others we have in Category:Cornish Rex? I think, this should be a clear case judging the quality of image. 134.96.220.124 10:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think the quality issue is relevant to my arguments.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep even if it is out of focus and even it it ever becomes orphaned within wikimedia projects. I echo the concerns of Prosfilaes. I see no need to delete such images and I am concerned that other images are being deleted unnecessarily for trivial reasons. Commons images are also linked from outside wikimedia, and this one from 2005 may very well be "in use" on web pages, in blog archives, and who knows where. Let us not add to the considerable and growing linkrot. As I understand it deleting will not save disk space in any case. If there are too many similar images in a category then move some to a subcategory for lower quality or poor focus. -84user (talk) 23:56, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Neutral, leaning to delete, now that it's orphaned. Contrary to what some of the comments above seem to be suggesting, Commons is not an indiscriminate collection of random photos. Our mission is to collect free educational media, which means that our files are required to be realistically useful for an educational purpose. In my opinion, this photo meets that criterion only barely, if at all, and even that only because of the regrettably low quality of all the alternative photos currently in Category:Cornish Rex. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- I know that the files must be realistically useful for an educational purpose; but all files in use on Wikipedias are considered useful in that manner. Commons is here to serve Wikimedia projects, not run them, and I think there's a bad habit of trying to orchestrate their image use. The fact that we can remove an image from Wikipedia pages in languages we can't read, and then delete it here, does mean that we should.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delayed Delete When it becomes difficult to find good images in the multitude of poor quality ones I think is justified to delete unused images. I agree that this nomination was far too early as the file was still in use. Certainly some time (30 days?) should be allowed from the moment of replacing an image in Wiki articles to the time of DR, to have a reasonable certainty of consensus. So if the image is still not in use in 30 days I'll support deletion given its very low quality and the availability of better images. --Elekhh (talk) 02:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- Now there is enough delay, isn't it? Time to delete this one. 134.96.220.123 13:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete I still have concerns about removing images from use right before a DR, but it's been long enough to make it clear that no one is missing this file.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 23:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Duplicate of http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mercedes_Benz_450SL_1973.jpg Peter.shaman (talk) 12:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 23:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Moved all files to: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Mercedes-Benz_R107_and_C107 Peter.shaman (talk) 12:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 23:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Moved all files to: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Mercedes-Benz_R107_and_C107 Peter.shaman (talk) 12:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 23:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Useless image with no educational use. Probably copyright violation. Luispihormiguero (talk) 13:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 23:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Also available at http://www.koodal.com/tamil/movies/actress/photogallery/281/meera-jasmine/stills-42/tamil-actresses-meera-jasmine-national-award-winner-picture Sreejith K (talk) 14:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Image distributed to several websites as it does not own any copyright—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mallu Man Max (talk • contribs) (UTC)
- With this comment from the uploader above, it is no question about the fact that the user does not understand how the copyright system works, but treats it as public domain and indirectly "his". Nymf (talk) 11:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
- From the comments Mallu Man Max has put on my talk page in Commons and english wiki, he is claiming that the images he uploaded are all pictured by him. These pictures uploaded in commons are far better quality that is available elsewhere on the web. In addition, all the images has EXIF data intact. I feel its safe to assume that the uploader owns rights for the images. --Sreejith K (talk) 15:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I think an OTRS ticket is going to be necessary here. Can you coordinate that? I am not sure how well the uploader's English is, which is probably why there has been a misunderstanding. Nymf (talk) 19:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Delete the image is not far better quality, it is slightly retouched and darkened. In fact it is worser in quality because of some jpg artefacts and it is not 'more original' but 'more edited' and cropped. This user is copy&pasting images from other websites, editing them and claiming them own work. Looks like his story is advanced and looks like he tend to repeat the story, but that does not make the images his work. Commons:Deletion requests/File:REMYA NAMBEESHAN.jpg gives the clearest evidence that not others reuse his work (with watermarks) but that he is stealing from others and removing their watermarks. --Martin H. (talk) 21:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
- Now that you mention it, if you compare [2] and [3] you can tell that it is quite clearly cropped to remove the watermark. I agree that this is a copyvio. Nymf (talk) 21:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
- And there is more, not only that in the file discussed here the Watermark at the bottom is cropped as Nymf showed. Also the date and time of photo creation of this is exactly the same as File:VEL NATE.jpg. 13:44, 7 February 2010. So not only watermark is removed but also the EXIF is manipulated to more hide the stealing. --Martin H. (talk) 23:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
- And the EXIF date of File:DHANYA MARY.jpg is the same as the EXIF date of File:Priyaa Lal.jpg. Either the EXIF was copied or this kind of manipulation is systematically done by a sockpuppet zoo. Given the large amount of stolen photos related to malayali actors I suspect the second. --Martin H. (talk) 12:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
![[2]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4d/MERA_JAS.jpg){kind=link}
![[3]](http://www.koodal.com/cinema/gallery/actress/meera_jasmine/meera_jasmine_42_320200915901123.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 18:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
This logo is wrong. We are changing it so it does not have .net in the end. Gc2010 (talk) 13:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Krinkle: Uploader request: "The logo is wrong" --User:Gc2010
Uploaded by user whose contributions have been copyvios. No evidence that this is a free photo. Ytoyoda (talk) 05:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Trycatch (talk) 20:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Copyright violation - http://www.jula.se/mediaarchive/4493823/zoom/761015-jpg.jpg Oddjob (talk) 07:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Trycatch (talk) 20:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
This image is just the black and with change of http://www.hassan-koubba.com/photos.cfm/278253_hassan_koubba.html?&modLg=en Hercule (talk) 10:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. No evidence of permission. Trycatch (talk) 20:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
After IRC suggestion of Rodejong, this may not be free due to Derivative Work-rules and/or FoP. –Krinkletalk 14:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- I don't understand why it is nominated for deletion. The image is uploaded as self made and no other copyright issues. The magazine or book covers are under faie usage control.Logicalthinker33 (talk) 10:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- I've nominated it for deletion because the photo pictures works by other authors of which you are not the sole copyright holder. Fair use is only about it's use in certain countries under certain conditions. It does not make those books freely usable on all Wiki projects. Wikimedia Commons only allows freely usable content. See also Commons:Fair use and Commons:Licensing. –Krinkletalk 19:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Trycatch (talk) 20:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Derivative of [4] Magog the Ogre (talk) 15:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Trycatch (talk) 19:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Based on user's other upload and absence of detailed source information, likely that this is not a free image. Ytoyoda (talk) 19:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Trycatch (talk) 20:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
No permission for this license, photo is copyrighted Daryona (talk) 12:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC) moving to new date, because first time I didn't make all steps --Daryona (talk) 21:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Trycatch (talk) 19:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
no evidence of permission Eeekster (talk) 22:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. GeorgHH • talk 01:26, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Promotional material, out of scope. Missvain (talk) 19:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. Out of scope Kgorman-ucb (talk) 20:05, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Note that the two images under this name are not related. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Unused logo image, without Wikipedia article (that I can find). Out of educational scope. Logo may also be above COM:TOO. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 22:55, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Guanaco (talk) 08:01, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Source site has very tight copyright notice, no evidence of permission, template used is not correct. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Trycatch (talk) 19:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Source site has very tight copyright notice, copyleft template is not correct, no evidence of permission Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per above and crosswiki spam problems related to the source site (see meta:Talk:Spam_blacklist#sysoon.com for ugly details if you care). Gavia immer (talk) 03:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Trycatch (talk) 19:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Image is only free for non-commercial use until 70 years following the artist's death per COM:FOP#Iceland. Artist was Valgerður Bergsdóttir. She lives. Fingalo (talk) 15:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC) --Fingalo (talk) 15:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Photo was uploaded as part of some hoax/social experimentation project in en-wiki. The uploader is already indefblocked in en-wp, two other edits by the uploader on Commons are plain vandalism. No reason to believe in the source/description/license of this photo. Trycatch (talk) 02:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Vandal upload. --Martin H. (talk) 01:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
This is a copyrighted image. The company's website indicates that the company is only a few years old, so the claim that the image is in the public domain because it is older than 1923 is clearly deceptive. -Deli nk (talk) 19:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Edgar181: Copyright violation: from tajapi.com
the category is now: Stained glass windows of Église Saint-Pierre de Montmartre Reinhardhauke (talk) 14:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete empty. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:35, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. empty cat Túrelio (talk) 14:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Promotional image of some sort used in a now deleted article on en.wikipedia. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 00:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:16, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Company logo used for advertisement purposes, out of scope. Jafeluv (talk) 09:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:17, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Company logo used for advertising, out of scope. Jafeluv (talk) 09:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:18, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Strasser would like that the picture is removed -Rogernot (talk) 09:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
As a general rule we do not delete images at the request of the subject. Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
The logo is wrong. We are changing it so it does not have .net in the end. Gc2010 (talk) 12:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:22, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
This logo is wrong. We are changing it, so the two words become separate. Gc2010 (talk) 12:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:22, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
there is nothing on the source website that indicates this image can be used; it is apparently copyrighted Stickpen (talk) 13:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- nothing copyrightable imo --Mbdortmund (talk) 18:11, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:23, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Promotional photo of an individual. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 02:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 19:43, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- File:Live In Zas Tras Fest.jpg
- File:Daniel Prado.jpg
- File:Max dmv.jpg
- File:Ivam dmv.jpg
- File:Med ar.jpg
Out of COM:SCOPE, non-notable band. Article en:Ação Reação DMV was deleted. –Tryphon☂ 16:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 17:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
duplication Arunvet (talk) 16:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Pictures in Category:Moduza procris are not exact duplicates. Julo (talk) 11:19, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
If User:Arunvet can give us a file name that is an exact duplicate, then this is a delete. If not, it's a keep. Multiple images of interesting subjects -- particularly beautiful interesting subjects -- are a good thing. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 01:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Taking a picture or a copyrighted image does not make it free, especially when it's the main subject of the image. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 17:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. There's also no freedom of panorama in the U.S. Wikipedia might be able to host this under a non-free use claim, but Commons can't. Postdlf (talk) 13:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 01:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
copyright violation: political campaign photo Jonathunder (talk) 22:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- User claims to have permission from the Emmer Campaign to use this picture. It doesn't appear to be a copyvio, but a campaign picture similar to those used by other candidates and politicians here on wikipedia. 96.42.240.93 23:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- It is a campaign photo, but this does not exempt it from copyright law. Jonathunder (talk) 12:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - Source can not be accessed and can very well be copyright. There are plenty of photos from state government that are legal. There is no proof that this one is. All of the other candidate photos are legal, as they are government property and specified public domain. This Emmer photo does no fall into that category. Delete... Dinkytown (talk) 02:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Permission confirmation via COM:OTRS should have been requested instead, by tagging the file with {{subst:npd}}. —innotata 23:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 01:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
My mistake, this isn't David Mason, but Kean Spencer. Thought I remembered Mason sitting there, but now that I look closer... Codehydro (talk) 23:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 01:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
without information Reinhardhauke (talk) 14:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep It is from the Notre Dame. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Where is the category?--Reinhardhauke (talk) 19:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Copyvio of actual sign Svgalbertian (talk) 14:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Comment: Here is a photo: http://www.canadiandesignresource.ca/officialgallery/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/red-coat.jpg --Svgalbertian (talk) 15:01, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Seemed to be a similar type of logo used on quite a few American road templates. Thought it would be OK to use....It is up to you'se if you know best. There will be a number of templates and articles to update if the deletion is completed70.76.43.200 23:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- As with many other countries the UK defines an exception to copyright infringement for artistic works on public display. Section 62 of the Copyright Designs & Patents Act 1988 states that it is not an infringement of copyright to film, photograph, broadcast or make a graphic image of a building, sculpture, models for buildings or work of artistic craftsmanship if that work is permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public." Canada is part of the UK 1 I don't know if that helps or not. Kind Regards70.76.43.200 23:11, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- The designation is very current for the route to be named Red Coat Trail...so shield is likely subject to Canadian Crown copyright, which carries a term of 50 years...Here is the contact for SK department of Highways...http://www.highways.gov.sk.ca/Contact ... So far the highways have not had a problem with copyvio, and have been very forthcoming with info.SriMesh | talk 23:14, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- I have messaged SriMesh directy to address some of these points and keep converstation from muddling both this DR and Commons:Deletion requests/File:YellowheadShield.jpg, but I will try to summmarize. Canadian copyright law is it's own, not UKs. The Canadian Copyright Act allows copyrighted images to be photograped but not as the focus, see Commons:De minimis#Canada. Government works in Canada are treated very differently in than the US which is why you see so many United States road sign images on Commons, see Template:PD-Canada and Template:PD-USGov.--Svgalbertian (talk) 05:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
- I have received an reply from the Ministry of Highways. What do I do with it, I have never submitted a permissions before. Do you have an email Svgalbertian and I can send the email to you? I vaguely remember that there was a permissions page somewhere on commons. Kind Regards Julia
- I have never done it myself, but the details are at Commons:OTRS. --Svgalbertian (talk) 05:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Approval was granted by the government of SK, sent the email to the email on the OTRS page. Thanks for posting the link, I couldn't remember where it was. Kind Regards SriMesh | talk 16:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- I have never done it myself, but the details are at Commons:OTRS. --Svgalbertian (talk) 05:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 11:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work of a copyrighted billboard. Ytoyoda (talk) 20:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Under Article 151 of Mexico's copyright law, it is ok to reproduce something like this as long as there is no direct financial gain. See http://www.sice.oas.org/int_prop/nat_leg/mexico/lcrd.asp#tit6cap2AlejandroLinaresGarcia (talk) 14:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Freedom of panorama applies guerreritoboy (talk) 17:52, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Not sure how FOP applies when the billboard is the focus of the photo. It's clearly not there by accident and something that takes up the majority of the frame isn't exactly de minimis. Ytoyoda (talk) 22:40, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept, freedom of panorama applies. Kameraad Pjotr 17:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Not a work as specified in the selected license tag (work, such as a legal regulation, decision, public charter, publicly accessible register etc.) Martin H. (talk) 17:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- The reason quoted for the deletion is not correct. Is is an official work of the Czechoslovak government in exile during the World War II and it is a work where there is a public interest in its exclusion from copyright protection. According to the Czech Copyright Act, this image is in the public domain.--Petr89745612B (talk) 09:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no evidence that this image is in the public domain. Kameraad Pjotr 20:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Not a work as specified in the selected license tag (work, such as a legal regulation, decision, public charter, publicly accessible register etc.) Martin H. (talk) 17:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- The reason quoted for the deletion is not correct. Is is an official work of the Czechoslovak government in exile during the World War II and it is a work where there is a public interest in its exclusion from copyright protection. According to the Czech Copyright Act, this image is in the public domain.--Petr89745612B (talk) 09:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, not an "official work" as described in {{PD-CzechGov}}. Kameraad Pjotr 21:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Greece Magog the Ogre (talk) 15:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed. --Geraki TLG 23:26, 7 November 2010 (UTC) (I am the uploader)
- Delete derivative work of copyrighted statue. MKFI (talk) 20:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
The authors are Werner Heil and Prof. John M. Wilcox. Heil is from NASA, but Wilcox is presumably from Stanford, so his work is not automatically in the public domain. There is no notice at http://wso.stanford.edu that indicates this image is PD. –Tryphon☂ 16:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Copyright paranoia at its finest. Keep Plainly US government original research. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 02:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- Stanford is a private university, and this is an artist's impression, not plain research results. –Tryphon☂ 02:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- Comment As you stated that is an artist's impression, you have to find out who draw this. Before you find the one, I would assume that is NASA one. Chanueting (talk) 03:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- Comment According to [5] "Prof. John M. Wilcox was one of the discoverers of the heliospheric current sheet and did much to develop our understanding of it during the 1960s and 1970s. He worked with NASA artist Werner Heil to create this picture.". So it seems that the NASA artist draw the image, using hints from the Stanford professor. Olaf (talk) 09:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- lost my login. but Keep. plainly Wilcox is not the artist. and if you care that much, why not ask the regents of stanford university whether they are prepared to place this image, which is obscure, decades old and of only scientifific and pedagogic value into the public domain. once they've stopped laughing of course they'll say yes if they hold the rights. if they even *know*. it seems unikely though. nasa owns the image odds on. if you care enough to bother us, care enough to make enquiries to ensure material of value stays on the page. only then scream DELETE in a shrill voice. what's your motive? You seem more vitriolic and indolent than paranoid as Nard suggested78.86.176.22 03:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - artist's conception by NASA artist Werner Heil. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Nominating this for deletion at the request of the uploader Rodejong, following discussion: The user uploaded the image in good faith, but asks for it to be deleted because they now think that there is a copyright infringement, as according to Commons:Derivative works Chzz ► 16:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Why should there be a copyright problem with this image? The book covers are way to simple to be copyrightable and the text in the open book is not readable. --PaterMcFly (talk) 08:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- I do not want them to be deleted, but one user at nl.wikipedia.com, thinks it might be in conflict. So that's why I ask Commons to rule about this.--Rodejong (talk) 01:37, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- I would like to keep this. But I think the cover is a non-free media and hence should be uploaded in the particular wiki project where it is used with a non-free license as a book cover.--സ്നേഹശലഭം (talk) 19:18, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- I do not want them to be deleted, but one user at nl.wikipedia.com, thinks it might be in conflict. So that's why I ask Commons to rule about this.--Rodejong (talk) 01:37, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - this does not infringe on any copyrights. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. per PaterMcFly Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Nominating this for deletion at the request of the uploader Rodejong, following discussion: The user uploaded the image in good faith, but asks for it to be deleted because they now think that there is a copyright infringement, as according to Commons:Derivative works Chzz ► 16:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Ineligible for copyright - just text. --PaterMcFly (talk) 08:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- I do not want them to be deleted, but one user at nl.wikipedia.com, thinks it might be in conflict. So that's why I ask Commons to rule about this.--Rodejong (talk) 01:37, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - this does not infringe on any copyright. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Completing DR - original reason was "Archivo no utilizado" (Unused file) --Dferg (talk · meta) 16:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Image appears to be a scan, but uploader lists as own work. See also w:Talk:Sorensen Institute for Political Leadership Frank (talk) 19:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- It is a scan. The image/scan is from a compilation of readings that the Institute produces annually for their youth programs. Both the original (hard copy) picture and subsequent copies uploaded to Wikipedia Commons are owned by me. This image has also appeared on promotional materials on behalf of the Institute. The Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license should cover this to the best of my knoweldge. Bmh8n (talk) 20:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Owning a copy of the photograph and owning the copyright to the photograph are two different things. You carefully do not say that you are the photographer, therefore we must assume you are not. Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Copyrighted figurine for domestic sale, so freedom of panorama cannot apply to a photograph of one, which is a derivative work and thus protected by the same copyright. Rodhullandemu (talk) 20:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Unused and no justification for this being a free image Rodhullandemu (talk) 20:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
The same as File:Guayaquil LaRotonda Bolivar SanMartin.JPG - two uploader, two author claims, whom to believe? I think this is not trustfull, the uploader not even got the date right. Martin H. (talk) 18:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, likely copyright violation. Kameraad Pjotr 19:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Possible invalid license. Source is "Orkut Pessoal", Author is "Felipe Rodrigues" and uploader is "Bruno Wesley" - who is the real author? From the image name I would gather it is "Felipe Rodrigues." We need an OTRS from them. --Soundvisions1 (talk) 01:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- real image
The old image, she was the real image of Felipe de Souza Campos, He was standing next to him a Asian fanAbodi009 (talk) 01:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 01:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Renomination #1
Personal photo of user, not in use anywhere, out of scope. Martin H. (talk) 16:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. --Denniss (talk) 13:29, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Out of project scope: unused personal image, potential personality rights problem. (The file use on enwiki is of 2010 and referring to a previously deleted file with the same name.) ireas (talk) 10:53, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination --Krd 16:54, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Eyes too large. Many also regard it as feathered. Conty (talk) 06:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Kept. Unsourced mass request for deletion by uploader (?). DieBuche (talk) 14:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
The eyes are too large. Also, the lack of feathers are also a problem. Conty (talk) 12:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Kept, file is in use. Kameraad Pjotr 19:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-3){kind=link}
As per previous nominations by uploader. The image is highly inaccurate in many ways (eye too big, arms too skiny, shouldn't have kneecaps, lacks feathers, nostril too large, lower arms too long), it is not in use, and has no educational value with File:Alxasaurus YWRA 400.JPG existing. Therefore, this file is beyond commons project scope and should be deleted so that it is not used. Reid,iain james (talk) 23:51, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom. -- Tuválkin ✉ 15:02, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted. INeverCry 01:44, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Unclear source and license: Originally uploaded wigh GFDL-self, changed by User:Julien Carnot to PD-old. Is this really an old postcard? At top ther is "1991" noted. GeorgHH • talk 13:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Uploader says 1991 is the number of the card in the series, and not the date. --Eusebius (talk) 14:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep published by Mellet in Harfleur. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 12:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Also available at http://malayalavedi.blogspot.com/2010/08/bhama-in-traditional-saree.html Sreejith K (talk) 13:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Converted speedy deletion request to normal deletion request. The other link given here is from a blog which probably will not hold the copyright of the image. --Sreejith K (talk) 13:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Copy right
[edit]
This image has been distributed to several website for the usage and any one can use itn unless restricted by law.
- Unauthorized usage is restricted by law. If you are not the copyright holder of the image, which you have claimed in the image page, this image cannot be kept in commons (or Wiki) --Sreejith K (talk) 11:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Advice
[edit]
Please advice, how to claim the copyright holders details, Is i need to send the original .RAW file, Which is about 29 Megabytes
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 18:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Also available at http://nanaonline.in/Gallery.aspx?Id=23&CatId=3 Sreejith K (talk) 13:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- This file seems to be pretty much taken from nana magazine's website. The absolute url of the image is http://nanaonline.in/Gallery/3/132/Photos/1.jpg. But the image in commons seems to be more rich in colour and it has all attached EXIF as well. So the uploader could also be the original copyright holder. --Sreejith K (talk) 13:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Reply
[edit]
As described in my talk page, All the image uploaded by me is owned by me and has been distributed freely through the web for usage, it has been used in Nanaonline and several blogging sites, and in several film related sites... Mallu Man Max (talk) 12:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC), If you really want to remove the image you can do it, and please advice how to prove i am the copyright owner...
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 18:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Not a work as specified in the selected license tag (work, such as a legal regulation, decision, public charter, publicly accessible register etc.) Martin H. (talk) 17:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- The reason quoted for the deletion is not correct. Is is an official work of the Czechoslovak government in exile during the World War II and it is a work where there is a public interest in its exclusion from copyright protection. According to the Czech Copyright Act, this image is in the public domain.--Petr89745612B (talk) 09:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. - insufficient reason to apply the 'such' in the template to this - Jcb (talk) 12:35, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Not a work as specified in the selected license tag (work, such as a legal regulation, decision, public charter, publicly accessible register etc.) Martin H. (talk) 17:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- The reason quoted for the deletion is not correct. Is is an official work of the Czechoslovak government in exile during the World War II and it is a work where there is a public interest in its exclusion from copyright protection. According to the Czech Copyright Act, this image is in the public domain.--Petr89745612B (talk) 09:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 12:35, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Not a work as specified in the selected license tag (work, such as a legal regulation, decision, public charter, publicly accessible register etc.) Martin H. (talk) 17:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- The reason quoted for the deletion is not correct. Is is an official work of the Czechoslovak government in exile during the World War II and it is a work where there is a public interest in its exclusion from copyright protection. According to the Czech Copyright Act, this image is in the public domain.--Petr89745612B (talk) 09:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 12:35, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Not a work as specified in the selected license tag (work, such as a legal regulation, decision, public charter, publicly accessible register etc.) Martin H. (talk) 17:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- The reason quoted for the deletion is not correct. Is is an official work of the Czechoslovak government in exile during the World War II and it is a work where there is a public interest in its exclusion from copyright protection. According to the Czech Copyright Act, this image is in the public domain.--Petr89745612B (talk) 09:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 12:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Not a work as specified in the selected license tag (work, such as a legal regulation, decision, public charter, publicly accessible register etc.) Martin H. (talk) 17:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- The reason quoted for the deletion is not correct. Is is an official work of the Czechoslovak government in exile during the World War II and it is a work where there is a public interest in its exclusion from copyright protection. According to the Czech Copyright Act, this image is in the public domain.--Petr89745612B (talk) 09:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- What's the evidence that it is an official work of the Czech government? DrKiernan (talk) 11:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 12:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Will not be needed for any article anymore Xarquis (talk) 18:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
No usage 63.87.170.71 22:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, out of project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 21:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)