Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2010/09/22
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
No FOP in France. Stifle (talk) 21:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Keep no real copyright problem in this case IMO --George Chernilevsky talk 10:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
- Why not? It's a photograph of a unique piece of architecture, with a special design, and the hotel is the main focus of the photo. Stifle (talk) 14:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I do not see anything copyrightable. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Trixt (talk) 21:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
No FoP in France. 84.61.172.89 11:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep has been discussed already. --PaterMcFly (talk) 14:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Delete Another picture of the building, File:Sequoia_Lodge.jpg, is currently under DR, so it would be nice of us to close them in the same way. In US law, a number of court cases about buildings have been for fairly mundane residential houses. I'm forced to assume that anything but the most purely derivative work would be likewise protected in France, including protected against photography.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Kept, nothing copyrightable in the picture. Kameraad Pjotr 19:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
as per https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Commons:Deletion_requests.2FFile:Disneyland_June_2008-1.jpg Yann (talk) 08:37, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delete; until shown otherwise, my theory is that the limit for copyright for buildings is the same as for novels or photographs. In most countries, you can not copy someone's novel or photograph, no matter how unoriginal, until said unoriginality reaches the level of simple copying. If an architect actually sits down and draws out a new building, it gets a new copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:44, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delete I think that this passes the threshold of originality. --Bob247 (talk) 17:44, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted Thanks to Prosfilaes for a very clear statement of the issue. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:33, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
COM:FOP#France. 84.61.147.158 19:33, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Speedy close -- deleted per discussion above. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
No FOP in France. Stifle (talk) 21:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep no real copyright problem in this case IMO --George Chernilevsky talk 10:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
- Why not? It's a photograph of a unique piece of architecture, with a special design, and the hotel is the main focus of the photo. Stifle (talk) 14:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I do not see anything copyrightable. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Trixt (talk) 21:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
No FoP in France. 84.61.172.89 11:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep has been discussed already. --PaterMcFly (talk) 14:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Another picture of the building, File:Sequoia_Lodge.jpg, is currently under DR, so it would be nice of us to close them in the same way. In US law, a number of court cases about buildings have been for fairly mundane residential houses. I'm forced to assume that anything but the most purely derivative work would be likewise protected in France, including protected against photography.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Kept, nothing copyrightable in the picture. Kameraad Pjotr 19:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
as per https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Commons:Deletion_requests.2FFile:Disneyland_June_2008-1.jpg Yann (talk) 08:37, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delete; until shown otherwise, my theory is that the limit for copyright for buildings is the same as for novels or photographs. In most countries, you can not copy someone's novel or photograph, no matter how unoriginal, until said unoriginality reaches the level of simple copying. If an architect actually sits down and draws out a new building, it gets a new copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:44, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delete I think that this passes the threshold of originality. --Bob247 (talk) 17:44, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted Thanks to Prosfilaes for a very clear statement of the issue. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:33, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
COM:FOP#France. 84.61.147.158 19:33, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Speedy close -- deleted per discussion above. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
prinses 83.119.231.95 13:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Kept, public domain art work in scope and in use in Wikimedia; no criteria for deletion. Infrogmation (talk) 18:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Copyrighted design. FunkMonk (talk) 06:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyright violation: http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41HU2kV1fyL._SS500_.jpg -- Common Good (talk) 19:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
copyvio http://www.salmaccarone.com/page6.html Hohum (talk) 20:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Comment You had not notified uploader, as with the rest of your nominations of these files (please consider a mass DR in the future). It seems to me that this is likely with some kind of permission, OTRS would be needed to confirm that there is a free license from the artist and from the photographer. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
- This is my personal photograph of the Sal Maccarone sculpture. I am the author of his book "The woodwork and sculpture of Sal Maccarone". Why would someone want to delete my contribution? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faukina (talk • contribs)
- I have no doubts that you are Anthony Faukina, but it would be good if you could send confirmation to COM:OTRS, preferably from the salmaccarone.com domain. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Faukina sent me an email, I am convinced, but he should of course contact OTRS. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
- Comment My apologies for not contacting the author, I used the toolbox menu option and didn't notice an instruction to do so - however, if I had engaged my brain, it would have been evident that it would have been a good idea. I will be more careful in future.
- I saw the same images on a website with copyright notices, and saw no permission - my actions were in good faith. Hohum (talk) 21:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
- There are problems with the toolbox script, it does not alway finish all the actions that should be done, and the message in {{Delete}} does not always show. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
'Kept, got OTRS. DieBuche (talk) 10:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Reopened -- The previous DR missed the fact that we do not have permission from the sculptor, Sal Maccarone. This is a Derivative Work and FOP cannot apply both because he is a US sculptor and it's not permanently mounted in a public place. While the OTRS addressed the issue of the photographer's copyright, it did not cover the question of the sculptor's copyright. For that we will need an OTRS permission from Sam Maccarone. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I would regard Faukina as the sculptors agent. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Comment If he is, then it will be easy for him to get the necessary permission. Agency agreements do not usually include blanket powers of attorney, which is what would be required for Faukina to give us a valid license. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
kept. Sorry for having been unclear before: the ticket contains permission from the sculptor himself. --DieBuche (talk) 09:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Exact duplicate uploaded under new name; this file did not generate thumbs. Wilson44691 (talk) 17:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Exact or scaled-down duplicate: File:MesselShaleOutcrop081310.JPG -- Common Good (talk) 19:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
wrong name Arnaud Ramey (talk) 10:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio: (incorrectly named) duplicate of author misnamed it and has asked for help in its deletion
proszę o usunięcie zdjęcia na którym jestem, nie myślałem że siostra wyśle je do internetu. 79.185.164.152 21:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Julo (talk) 06:27, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
very small resolution --3122WIKI ✉ 17:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep In use. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep No valid reason. --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 12:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- File:Puchary1.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Puchary2.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
partial images are copyrighted Xjr (talk) 15:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. 99kerob (talk) 11:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Rocket000: copyvio
Self-portrait, unused, belongs on FaceBook. Sole upload by this contributor. Anatiomaros (talk) 23:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 20:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
No FoP in France. 84.61.172.89 07:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Comment It looks to me like the majority of the photo is of a body of water, with the shape of the hotel (I presume that's the problem?) visible in the distance. Infrogmation (talk) 18:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep The image is an overview and the building is only a part of it. So, the image doesn't violate COM:FOP#France --Civa (talk) 16:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolution, missing EXIF. Uploaded by User:Gonza77 = blocked indefinite since 10.2007 in Commons. This is the remaining, critical file, as I detected another copyvio today of an upload from 2007 (File:Blizzard-beach.jpg), grabbed from Panoramio. Additionally I raised today a sockpuppet suspect via Commons:Deletion requests/File:Estadio padre ernesto martearena.jpg, regarding an upload of User:Gonza777, most likely a reincarnation of User:Gonza77. Summarizing: IMHO untrusted user uploading a bunch of copyrighted material (small/inconsistent resolutions, missing/inconsistent exif) so this one (per COM:PRP, considering also upload behaviour = +40 copyvios/otherwise deleted files) can't be believed either. Gunnex (talk) 19:59, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 06:48, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
This image has a logo of copyright --Drow male (talk) 10:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep It would be nice if someone could cleanly remove that watermark. But it's irrelevant; just because we have notice that there is copyright on the image doesn't mean that we don't have the right to use it under the CC-BY-SA, which depends on someone having copyright on the image.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Work of Flickr user looks OK, license is confirmed by bot. Watermark is no problem since every freely licensed work is also protected by copyright! -- Herby (Vienna) (talk) 18:06, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
out of scope Amada44 talk to me 13:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 20:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image Amada44 talk to me 13:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 20:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image Amada44 talk to me 13:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 20:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
orphaned personal photo, not in project scope Martin H. (talk) 23:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 20:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
This picture has been traced to its owners (A.D.A.M. Inc.) and it is NOT public domain. Notice the terms on the NIH website, that some of the material is copyrighted. Matt (talk) 17:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Copyright violation. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Comment Can you say where is this image from? So I will can know if this image has copyright. Luispihormiguero (talk) 13:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- The image is here: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/imagepages/9980.htm clearly with the ADAM logo and here: http://www.adamimages.com/Placenta-Illustration/PI5346/F4 . This image will have to be deleted aswell: File:Placenta_ja.jpg. I have made a replacement here: File:Placenta.svg. -- Amada44 talk to me 10:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Amada44 talk to me 12:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
No evidence this is a free-use image --Bms4880 (talk) 14:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Amada44 talk to me 13:06, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Doesn't appear to be in the public domain; source site has a copyright: --Bms4880 (talk) 13:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Amada44 talk to me 13:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
No evidence this is a free-use image; source page has a copyright. --Bms4880 (talk) 15:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Amada44 talk to me 13:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
uso ilegal de imágen, sin autorización, perteneciente a mi persona. Gracias Ricardomh (talk) 00:39, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - probable copyright violation. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Amada44 talk to me 13:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Failing COM:SCOPE ("makes available public domain and freely-licensed educational media content"). deerstop. 23:54, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Amada44 talk to me 13:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
unused image of an unknown person Mktyscn (talk) 00:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Amada44 talk to me 13:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Out of project scope and not used anywhere. Is there evidence of consent? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 01:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Sheen.jpg -- Common Good (talk) 19:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. User page has been deleted on en:wp. Amada44 talk to me 13:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Copyrighted design. FunkMonk (talk) 06:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Oh. A VW Beetle has a copyrighted design too... - Al Lemos (talk) 19:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete A purely artistic sculpture is copyrighted.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Amada44 talk to me 13:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
very unlikely that this PD-old can apply here Avron (talk) 11:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Object is old enough, but the photo clearly isn't.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Amada44 talk to me 13:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
low resolution, not likely to be own work, also considering user's upload history grillo (talk) 17:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Amada44 talk to me 13:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
promotional, spam Esteban (talk) 21:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Amada44 talk to me 13:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Orphaned personal picture, out of project scope Martin H. (talk) 21:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Amada44 talk to me 13:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Wrong license, no indication of appropriate license at source. ZooFari 23:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Amada44 talk to me 13:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
File's name is wrong. The statue it's not made by Noè Marullo, but by Michele Guerrisi Rmec (talk) 22:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. See Category:Michele Guerrisi -- Common Good (talk) 19:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
No FoP in the UAE. 84.61.172.89 18:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete FOP doesn't even apply here, as this is a model. --PaterMcFly (talk) 09:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Trycatch (talk) 12:25, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Formulas can be created in text as needed, small -- almost illegible Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, use TeX . /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
_1.jpg){kind=link}
_2.jpg){kind=link}
_689.jpg){kind=link}
_in_New_York_harbor.jpg){kind=link}
_b.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Jafeluv (talk) 08:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
uploader is not copyrightholder, see http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskussion:Uddevallabron grillo (talk) 17:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - I removed the watermark from identical File:Uddvallabron1.jpg and should have noticed that author did not match the uploder name. --Jarekt (talk) 00:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete copyvio. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:44, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jafeluv (talk) 08:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
uploader is not copyrightholder, see http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskussion:Uddevallabron grillo (talk) 17:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - I removed the watermark and should ave noticed that author did not match the uploder name. --Jarekt (talk) 00:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Copyvio. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jafeluv (talk) 08:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
uploader is not copyrightholder, see http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskussion:Uddevallabron grillo (talk) 17:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - I removed the watermark and should have noticed that author did not match the uploader name.--Jarekt (talk) 00:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Copyvio. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jafeluv (talk) 08:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Another creative, but impractical, creation from this prolific inventor Andy Dingley (talk) 10:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- What's wrong? Mostly the seal position, but the rest doesn't help. It's also (as usual) littered with unimportant details (what's that green wire?) but distorts the key basics. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Water is an incompressible fluid... assuming that valve 5 is supposed to be a one-way valve, it just won't work. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- Also related Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pipe pump module.png Andy Dingley (talk) 08:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Uploader's own invention. No realistic educational value. Globbet (talk) 16:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, out of project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 18:52, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
To large eyes. 83.185.31.221 11:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, out of project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 21:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
different maybe copyvio images Perhelion (talk) 11:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no suitable permission. Kameraad Pjotr 21:36, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
The CN logo in the corner gives it away, this image is not free Samuell (talk) 01:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, clear copyright violation. Kameraad Pjotr 21:38, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
It misidentifies the image as Reading Railroad train shed. The same image is posted and correctly identified as the Pennsylvania Railroad train shed (note the caption) at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:BroadStreetStationTrainShed.jpg BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 20:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Kept, change the description and file a rename request to correct the errors. Kameraad Pjotr 21:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Logo is likely copyrighted. Kaldari (talk) 18:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, logo is copyrighted. Kameraad Pjotr 21:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Contains a copyrighted Canadian coin design. 84.61.131.18 11:59, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Kept, coin is de minimis. Kameraad Pjotr 21:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Not a logo of PSP, it's just Czech coat of arms with text. Ragimiri (talk) 18:33, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Kept, no evidence that this file is wrong, it's used by many projects and thus within project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 20:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
The OTRS ticket isn't valid. It's close unsucceful. There isn't permission to use the image Esteban (talk) 04:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete Uploader nominated the SVG for deletion for the same reason. File:Map of Pichilemu (English).jpg should be deleted too. ZooFari 22:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and ZooFari. — Jeff G. ツ 03:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Deleted as this permission could never be confirmed. The email bounced and meanwhile the domain of the source site is gone including the email address of the copyright holder. --AFBorchert (talk) 22:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
out of scope, promotional, not in use Esteban (talk) 21:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Fair use is not allowed on Commons Belgrano (talk) 23:50, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
No evidence of permission. Sourced to "COPA" but there's no evidence that the uploader is COPA GrapedApe (talk) 04:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 21:14, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Original apparently has an ND license - OTRS Required? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Nom's obsession with this photo is puzzling. Clearly owned by the original uploader and if he wants a different, less restrictive, license here than on Flickr, so be it. Please let it go. Wknight94 talk 04:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Image contains fair-use logos which are not licensed under Creative Commons or the GNU FDL Fuzzy510 (talk) 01:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I fixed it. patshih (talk) 05:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Deleted version as of 12:54, 20 September 2010 (Copyright violation: Google maps) -- Common Good (talk) 19:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I wanted to do that but I don't think my account has the access privilege to do so. Btw, I was looking into (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Uses_of_logo_derivatives), and it doesn't seem like there is a clear policy on this topic. I'm starting to wonder whether it's enough to just change the license to "release to public" (PD-self) and continue to use the image overlaying team logo over Google Maps, since it's a lot more intuitive and appealing. Could someone please comment on this topic? As a related topic, is there a way for me to change the license of a file that I uploaded? I simply picked the current license because it is listed as the "recommended" option, but I don't mind releasing it to the public at all. Also, is there a way to unflag the image now that the issue seems to be resolved? patshih (talk) 22:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Image no longer contains fair-use logos. Can we close this discussion? TFCforever (talk) 20:59, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
does not need to be up here longer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hillmaniscool (talk • contribs) 09:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, lacks suitable permission. Kameraad Pjotr 18:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
No FoP in Belgium. 84.61.172.89 07:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Against deletion: This picture illustrates a unique (historic) event in time; the Berlaymont building itself is not the topic of the picture and is shown only (very partially) in the background. Therefore it is imv unjustified to (anonymously!) ask for deletion. --Zinneke (talk) 09:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
See Belgian copyright law, Art. 22. § 1: "Lorsque l'oeuvre a été licitement publiée, l'auteur ne peut interdire: 1° la reproduction et la communication au public, dans un but d'information, de court fragments d'oeuvres ou d'oeuvres plastiques dans leur intégralité à l'occasion de comptes rendus d'événements de l'actualité; (...)" (bold by me). This picture clearly falls into the category of compte rendus d'événements de l'actualité and also fulfills the requirement of court fragments (...) d'oeuvres plastiques, as only a tiny bit of the entire building itself is shown. --Zinneke (talk) 09:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Building and the banner on it are both in violation apparently. Wknight94 talk 17:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, no freedom of panorama in Belgium. Kameraad Pjotr 20:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
No FoP in the UAE. 84.61.172.89 17:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no freedom of panorama in the United Arab Emirates. Kameraad Pjotr 20:38, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
No FoP in the UAE. 84.61.172.89 17:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no freedom of panorama in the United Arab Emirates. Kameraad Pjotr 20:38, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
No FoP in the UAE. 84.61.172.89 17:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no freedom of panorama in the United Arab Emirates. Kameraad Pjotr 20:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
No FoP in the UAE. 84.61.172.89 17:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no freedom of panorama in the United Arab Emirates. Kameraad Pjotr 20:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
No FoP in the UAE. 84.61.172.89 17:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep No copyrightable elements in this image. Just the skeleton of some sky scrapper. --PaterMcFly (talk) 09:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - Per precedent at Burj Khalifa, buildings with far from finished exteriors are not copyrightable, and hence FoP does not apply. CT Cooper · talk 16:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Kept, nothing copyrightable in the picture. Kameraad Pjotr 20:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
No FoP in the UAE. 84.61.172.89 17:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- I doubt there's enough originality visible in this image to count as art. --PaterMcFly (talk) 08:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Kept, nothing copyrightable in the picture. Kameraad Pjotr 20:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
No FoP in the UAE. 84.61.172.89 17:57, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- No special art visible in this image that would make it copyrightable IMO. --PaterMcFly (talk) 08:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Kept, nothing copyrightable in the picture. Kameraad Pjotr 20:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
No FoP in the UAE. 84.61.172.89 17:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no freedom of panorama in the United Arab Emirates. Kameraad Pjotr 20:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
No FoP in the UAE. 84.61.172.89 18:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no freedom of panorama in the United Arab Emirates. Kameraad Pjotr 20:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
No FoP in the UAE. 84.61.172.89 18:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no freedom of panorama in the United Arab Emirates. Kameraad Pjotr 20:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
No FoP in the UAE. 84.61.172.89 18:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Kept, nothing copyrightable in the image. Kameraad Pjotr 16:50, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
No FoP in the UAE. 84.61.172.89 18:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - Per precedent at Burj Khalifa, buildings with far from finished exteriors are not copyrightable, and hence FoP does not apply. CT Cooper · talk 16:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Kept, nothing copyrightable in the picture. Kameraad Pjotr 16:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
No FoP in the UAE. 84.61.172.89 18:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no freedom of panorama in the United Arab Emirates. Kameraad Pjotr 19:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
No FoP in the UAE. 84.61.172.89 18:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Nothing really special about this tower IMO. --PaterMcFly (talk) 09:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Kept, per Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Burj Khalifa. Kameraad Pjotr 19:15, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
No FoP in the UAE. 84.61.172.89 18:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no freedom of panorama in the United Arab Emirates. Kameraad Pjotr 19:16, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
No FoP in the UAE. 84.61.172.89 18:57, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep In my opinion, this building under construction is not close enough to its final aspect to bear the artistic value of the completed building. Therefore, there is no copyright enfringement. For previous discussions about the copyright status of buildings in construction, see for example Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Burj Khalifa. — Xavier, 21:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept, per Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Burj Khalifa. Kameraad Pjotr 20:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Info file was deleted, see [1]: "14:29, 9 January 2016 Krd talk contribs deleted page File:BDLH21.jpg (no FoP in Dubai - Using VisualFileChange.)" _ Comment by non admin JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:46, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=File:BDLH21.jpg){kind=link}
No FoP in Belgium. 84.61.172.89 07:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Keep -- No sense in this nomination -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- oppose, tJust a door way.82.45.232.218 16:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Kept, nothing copyrightable in the picture. Kameraad Pjotr 20:32, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
No FoP in Belgium. 84.61.172.89 07:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep -- I see no sense in this nomination. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- oppose, Building is not notable or interesting. Clearly okay under Belgian law.82.45.232.218 16:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no freedom of panorama in Belgium. Kameraad Pjotr 20:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
No FoP in Belgium. 84.61.172.89 10:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- oppose, only of a small external feature (blinds) - this is not notable and hence okay under Belgian FoP laws.82.45.232.218 16:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Kept, nothing copyrightable in the picture. Kameraad Pjotr 20:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
No FoP in Belgium. 84.61.172.89 11:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- oppose, this is inside the building. The limit on FoP is the outside of buildings, this is just a room and hence has no unique architecture displayed.82.45.232.218 16:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep just furniture. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept, nothing copyrightable in the picture. Kameraad Pjotr 20:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
No FoP in Belgium. 84.61.172.89 11:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no freedom of panorama in Belgium. Kameraad Pjotr 20:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
No FoP in Belgium. 84.61.172.89 11:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- oppose, it is just a door way. No unusual architecture.82.45.232.218 16:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no freedom of panorama in Belgium. Kameraad Pjotr 20:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
No FoP in Belgium. 84.61.172.89 11:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no freedom of panorama in Belgium. Kameraad Pjotr 20:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
No FoP in Belgium. 84.61.172.89 11:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no freedom of panorama in Belgium. Kameraad Pjotr 20:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
No FoP in the UAE. 84.61.172.89 18:56, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep In my opinion, this building under construction is not close enough to its final aspect to bear the artistic value of the completed building. Therefore, there is no copyright enfringement. For previous discussions about the copyright status of buildings in construction, see for example Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Burj Khalifa. — Xavier, 21:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, the building is sufficiently finished and thus non-trivial to warrant copyright protection. Kameraad Pjotr 19:59, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
No FoP in Belgium. 84.61.172.89 12:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Keep FoP? Please explain. --Andrejj (talk) 19:47, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- FoP means freedom of panorama. Jafeluv (talk) 08:35, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no freedom of panorama in Belgium. Kameraad Pjotr 20:45, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Features a non-free design on the national side of the euro coin. Eleassar (t/p) 14:50, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
- Previous DR as FOP case (Belgium has FOP now). Could be this considered as FOP case? --Amitie 10g (talk) 15:25, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
- I don't think so. The coin was not 'designed to be placed on a permanent basis in public places'. --Eleassar (t/p) 16:18, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:12, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
No FoP in the UAE. 84.61.172.89 18:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no freedom of panorama in the United Arab Emirates. Kameraad Pjotr 21:11, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
No FoP in France. 84.61.172.89 07:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete : The building is the main subject of the image. So, the images violates COM:FOP#France--Civa (talk) 16:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no freedom of panorama in France. Kameraad Pjotr 19:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
No FoP in France. 84.61.172.89 07:43, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no freedom of panorama in France. Kameraad Pjotr 19:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
No FOP in France. The main subject is the building (see how the file is used). If the gardens are of importance, the picture could be cropped (but then it would probably be useless for the article where it's in use now). –Tryphon☂ 11:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Just to show what might be required to go by "de minimis", I've uploaded a cropped version over the original image (and then immediately reverted to the original). One can see the severely cropped image now in the version history. As long as France refuses FOP, we'll have these problem, sadly. --Túrelio (talk) 12:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Should we then delete this one and upload Túrelio cropped version under the name "Parc des Vallons" ? --Pethrus (talk) 07:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no freedom of panorama in France. Kameraad Pjotr 16:58, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
No FoP in Belgium. 84.61.172.89 12:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- And what exactly would be copyrightable here? The building doesn't seem to be the main focus (and isn't too special, after all). --PaterMcFly (talk) 15:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- oppose, building is only in the background and is not notable. The photo is of the flags and poles.82.45.232.218 16:57, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Kept, nothing copyrightable in the picture. Kameraad Pjotr 18:54, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Please delete! The flags and poles are part of the architectural complex, thus legally speaking part of the building. Thus the lack of Freedom of Panorama is an issue here. --Dimi z (talk) 09:00, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Dimi z as Copyvio (copyvio) Yann (talk) 11:41, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
- @Dimi z: . Larie en apekool! Alle gekheid op een stokje, maar dat zou er toch werkelijk "over" zijn. Zou dat betekenen dat dit gebouw ook niet meer mag vertoond worden tijdens nieuwsuitzendingen? Lotje (talk) 08:07, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: There is no FOP in Belgium, building doesn't seem to be DM and Lotje there are exceptions in copyright law that make it possible for news agency's can show this building but those are not accepted at Commons. Natuur12 (talk) 21:26, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
No FoP in Italy. 84.61.172.89 15:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Kept, nothing copyrightable in the picture. Kameraad Pjotr 19:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
No FoP in Italy. 84.61.172.89 15:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Keep Nothing copyrightable to be seen here. -- Herby (Vienna) (talk) 17:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Kept, nothing copyrightable in the picture. Kameraad Pjotr 19:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
No FoP in France. 84.61.172.89 07:47, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no freedom of panorama in France. Kameraad Pjotr 19:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
No FoP in France. 84.61.172.89 07:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no freedom of panorama in France. Kameraad Pjotr 19:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
No FoP in Belgium. 84.61.172.89 12:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Nothing copyrightable in this image. The flags certainly don't fall under belgian copyright. --PaterMcFly (talk) 15:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no freedom of panorama in Belgium. Kameraad Pjotr 20:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
No FoP in Belgium. 84.61.172.89 12:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- ????? Did you even look at the image??? --PaterMcFly (talk) 16:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Kept, nothing copyrightable in the picture. Kameraad Pjotr 20:00, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
No FoP in Belgium. 84.61.172.89 12:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- oppose, does not show Berlaymont, only the council building which is of no unusual architecture and hence does nto count as any work of art under FoP.82.45.232.218 16:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Kept, nothing copyrightable in the picture. Kameraad Pjotr 18:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
_1.jpg){kind=link}
_1.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No FoP in Belgium. 84.61.172.89 13:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
_1.jpg){kind=link}
- oppose, this is inside the building. The limit on FoP is the outside of buildings, this is just a room and hence has no unique architecture displayed.82.45.232.218 16:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Kept, nothing copyrightable in the picture. Kameraad Pjotr 18:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
_1.jpg){kind=link}
_2.jpg){kind=link}
_2.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No FoP in Belgium. 84.61.172.89 13:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
_2.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep Nothing copyrightable here. Just desks. --PaterMcFly (talk) 16:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- oppose, this is inside the building. The limit on FoP is the outside of buildings, this is just a room and hence has no unique architecture displayed.82.45.232.218 16:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Kept, nothing copyrightable in the picture. Kameraad Pjotr 19:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
_2.jpg){kind=link}
No FoP in Belgium. 84.61.172.89 15:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Mainly picture of flagpoles. -- Herby (Vienna) (talk) 18:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Kept, nothing copyrightable in the picture. Kameraad Pjotr 19:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
It is not Wikipedia's or Commons' job to propose alternate borders based on the opinions of our editors. Constantine ✍ 11:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. Out of COM:SCOPE. This map is original research. It diplays an alternative proposal the uploader would have made if he was a participant in the Treaty of Sèvres (1920) using ethnographic data collected before the Balkan Wars (1912-1913)! SV1XV (talk) 05:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per Sv1xv Ggia (talk) 14:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
This map gentleman is not for fixing the problems of Balkan today, this is my point of view for the Macedonian Question in the begining of the XX c. This country Macedonia was deleted in 1913, and Macedonians were forbiden to speak, learn, teach, stamp, go to churh, forbiden to be what they realy are. The name of our nation was erased from the map of the Balkan.( like the Kurds!!!!. We have right to propose something or not. This was a proposal in the Paris conference, in 1919 Versaille. Today its not a question the bondaries and changed them. Today Macedonians in Greece, Bulgaria, Albania Serbia want their rights like other in the states have, to be elected, to speak, to learn, to have cultural autonomy, and everything that the EU lets.
- Delete. At the same time, similar Greek maps were presented (in 1918, Paris). But Greeks wished to take the half of today's Bulgaria, on their maps. Wiki is a medium for presenting facts, not the unrealistic, past dreams. By the way: the ethnic groups were much more mixed, before the 1923, than the map shows them. You would not avoid conflicts, anyway. --Dimkoa (talk) 16:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, out of project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 20:01, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Copyrighted screen elements too central to image to fall under de minimis. fetchcomms☛ 02:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- I don't understand what de minimis means. Sp33dyphil 00:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, derivative work of a copyrighted work. Kameraad Pjotr 21:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Uploaded as PD-text, but the crest in the middle certainly is eligible for copyright. GrapedApe (talk) 03:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Deletes, passes the threshold of originality, uncertain whether it was published before 1923. Kameraad Pjotr 21:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
I do not see it proven that this in the public domain in Russia (i.e., the author died pre-1940). Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted: per Magog the Ogre. Martin H. (talk) 17:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Flickr license is biased. Seems like a copyrighted poster. — Tanvir 18:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. This file is missing evidence of permission, as it says on it's own page. It also appears on this site as "© 2010 Tara Stiles". So, it needs to confirm the permission via OTRS, or get deleted. — Tanvir 13:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Hello? I can't imagine clearer non-free copyvio than this. And yet it's still here after four months? Time to speedy it. Daniel Case (talk) 05:58, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete We have {{Copyvio}} and {{Npd}} for a reason :) ←fetchcomms 03:27, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Wknight94 talk 05:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Keep oppose deletion, converting it from a "speedy". i appreciate the efforts of the uploader (& speedy nominator), in providing both files, however, the suggested alternate file is different but not really "better"; different images, in different formats, & neither one is that great (no offense intended to the uploader!). compare: 
& 
at least unless/until we get some significantly better versions of this, i think we should keep both.
Lx 121 (talk) 04:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Kept Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
No FOP in Luxembourg. fetchcomms☛ 02:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Keep. Luxembourg copyright law was already raised by one of the Wikipedia administrators when I first included the image in a WP article. However, as far as I could see, only vague references to the actual content of the Luxembourg copyright law have been addressed by Wikipedia/Wikimedia. As a result, I spent quite some time studying the full text of the law and its amendments in the original French. I concluded that the law was very specific on protecting author rights to literature, art, music, performing artists and to artifacts displayed in museums, etc. I found no specific coverage of the protection of rights on photographs of buildings although there is discussion of photographs of scuptures in public places. I therefore concluded that inclusion of an outdoor photograph of the Philharmonie concert hall, a public building in any case, would not be infringing the law. Indeed, I could find no evidence of any proceedings whatsoever taken in connection with the use of photographs of Luxembourgish buildings less than 70 years old on the internet. Before any action is taken on this, I would therefore strongly suggest that a valid opinion is sollicited from French-speaking lawyers who can study the Luxembourgish copyright law in detail and ascertain whether there is indeed any protection for outdoor photographs of buildings. In particular, I would draw attention to the fact that Luxembourg copyright law also emphasises the right of an author NOT to enforce protection of his works. Despite the specific provisions of the law, it would therefore also be possible to contact the author, the architect Christian de Portzamparc if there is any doubt about this specific case. See here.
Luxembourg publications have also carried numerous photographs of the Philharmonie with impunity and the "Luxemburger Lexikon", Luxembourg's German-language encyclopedia, carries a large outdoor photograph of the Philharmonie on page 26 (ISBN-13: 978-2-87954-156-3) specifically labelled "Philharmonie (2005)". I would also draw attention to the fact that there are already over 20 similar images of the Philharmonie on Flickr which are covered by the Creative Commons licence (see http://www.flickr.com/search/?l=commderiv&q=philharmonie%20luxembourg) and which would therefore appear to be suitable for inclusion in Wikimedia Commons.
I therefore argue in favour of keeping this image in Wikimedia Commons. - Ipigott (talk) 09:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per the eloquent argument presented above, Luxembourg copyright law regarding architectural creation should be investigated prior of taking a decision on this deletion request. --Elekhh (talk) 07:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted: Despite the eloquence of lpigott, he or she misses the point that such investigation and proof is the obligation of those who want to keep the image. It is not up to other editors to take on major tasks in order to keep one image -- until the research is completed successfully, our current policy on FOP in Luxembourg stands. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
No source given for the individual images. Seems highly unlikely that they're all the uploader's own work. –Tryphon☂ 05:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Elitism . . . — Preceding unsigned comment added by PU1JFC (talk • contribs) 15:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Unclear situation. Source is given in year 1999. But this doesn't work with this license. Avron (talk) 11:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Unfree company logo. Unused. No valued company. --Kaganer (talk) 12:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - unfree company logo. --Kaganer (talk) 12:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
what is it? Amada44 talk to me 13:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- It is the accredition of an elections observer. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, my message was a bit cryptic. Quality is so low that one can hardly make out what it is. We don't know from which election, what it says on the card etc. I think this image is not worth keeping. If somebody thinks otherwise, please also try and find a category for this image. Amada44 talk to me 08:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
This is a 2D picture of a 3D object that's not in the public domain, and that's made by a commercial company, Parastone. Fram (talk) 13:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
No FoP in Belgium. 84.61.172.89 15:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- oppose, this is a wide shot of the Schuman roundabout and rue de la loi. Berlaymont (only unusual building there) is only just in the corner. It is not the subject nor dominantly shown.82.45.232.218 16:56, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Noooooo keep the photo
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
_689.jpg){kind=link}
_689.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No FoP in Belgium. 84.61.172.89 15:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
_689.jpg){kind=link}
- oppose, this is a wide shot of the roundabout and rue de la loi. Berlaymont (only unusual building there) is only just in the corner. It is not the subject and is not entirely shown.82.45.232.218 16:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
_689.jpg){kind=link}
No FoP in Belgium. 84.61.172.89 15:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- oppose, this is a wide shot of the rue de la loi. Berlaymont (only unusual building there) is only just in the corner. It is not the subject and is not entirely shown.82.45.232.218 16:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
No FoP in Belgium. 84.61.172.89 15:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- oppose, this is a wide shot of the rue de la loi. Berlaymont (only unusual building there) is only just in the corner. It is not the subject and is not entirely shown.82.45.232.218 16:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
No FoP in Belgium. 84.61.172.89 15:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - As no building is the "central motive" of this photograph, I assumed it did not contradict FoP rules. It's essentially just a road junction; the surrounding buildings are incidental. --David Edgar (talk) 00:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
No FoP in Belgium. 84.61.172.89 15:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- oppose,building is not of notable architecture, just an office complex that has a curve in it - hundreds of them. Does not count as art under Belgian law. Also not the only element in photo.82.45.232.218 17:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- support, Picture is not intended to be a work of art, but rather a representation/piece of information about the European Commission. Being the building in which the commission does its work, it meets both criteria.
- Oppose This is definitely not notable architecture. It's a roundabout and a completely average-looking complex of offices. - 158.39.125.137 23:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: Belgium does not indeed have a freedom of panorama, but the picture also contains other architectural elements at the very right. -Mardus (talk) 17:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- Comment, I'd assume any Freedom of Panorama constraints in Belgium would take, first, a back-seat to US law. And, second, the Berlaymont building is very important. It is the main building for the European Commission and, slap-bang in the middle of Brussels. I would, on principle, be opposed to deletion of the image on those grounds alone. However, in addition the building was completely gutted and renovated through the late mid-late 1990s to remove dangerous asbestos. I would argue this is a 'perfect', concrete, representation of the European Commission; which is why I'm now going back to Wikinews to stick it on the main page to illustrate a story about the EC. --Brian McNeil / talk 17:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
No FoP in Italy. 84.61.172.89 15:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Generic concrete construction. Nothing copyrightable to be seen here. -- Herby (Vienna) (talk) 17:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep idem. --Lalupa (talk) 14:16, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
not own work, no exif data, low resolution, also, see http://www.eldrecords.se/sweindex/img/press/leif&matspress2low.jpg grillo (talk) 17:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Copyvio. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:53, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe it's time to close this? /grillo (talk) 00:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: 09:28, 26 February 2011 by Túrelio, closed by Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Per http://www.dailycal.org/article/1009/father_figure, statue was placed onsite in 1994; no FOP in the US. BrokenSphere (Talk) 17:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete derivative work of copyrighted statue. MKFI (talk) 20:52, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
empty --Electro07 (talk) 18:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Can be speedied. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Copyvio - claimed as own work, clearly not Andy Dingley (talk) 22:43, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- It is photo of the paper with instructions, but not plagiarism. E.x., photos of road signs are not forbidden here. Dmitry G (talk) 13:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Dmitry! Photos depicting road signs are only allowed if the signs themselves are freely licensed, if the signs are in the public domain, or if freedom of panorama applies. Road signs may be in the public domain because of age, because of laws that place all works of a particular government in the public domain, or because they are too simple to meet the threshold of originality, for example.
- If you take a photo of a non-free, copyrighted work such as a drawing or a sign that is not freely licensed, in the public domain, or covered by freedom of panorama, you cannot issue a valid license to the resulting photo, because the copyright of the original work also applies to the photo. See Commons:Derivative works. In this case, I think the depicted work is not simple enough to claim that it doesn't meet the threshold of originality. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- Probably it is need to delete Dmitry G (talk) 13:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- If you take a photo of a non-free, copyrighted work such as a drawing or a sign that is not freely licensed, in the public domain, or covered by freedom of panorama, you cannot issue a valid license to the resulting photo, because the copyright of the original work also applies to the photo. See Commons:Derivative works. In this case, I think the depicted work is not simple enough to claim that it doesn't meet the threshold of originality. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
No FoP in France. 84.61.172.89 07:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep There is a "no FoP in France" problem if the image is an image of the building architecturally distinct. But here, it is an overview, with the trees and the lake. The building is only in background. There is no a "no FoP in France" problem. And dear IP, be courageous ! Make your deletions requests with your name and not your IP... --Tangopaso (talk) 19:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- There is no obligation to create an account to nominate photos for deletion.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Very true. However, anyone who wants to contribute to a Wikimedia project should always be encouraged to create an account. There are benefits for all sides when a contributor creates & uses an account. -- llywrch (talk) 21:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- There is no obligation to create an account to nominate photos for deletion.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete It's a picture of Sequoia Lodge; it says so right on the label. Since buildings are copyrighted in France, this isn't permissible.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Commons:Deletion requests/File:Disneyland June 2008-1.jpg is another DR on the same building, which passed the first time but has been brought up again.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Kept: Per Tangopaso and precedent set at other DR and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tour Montparnasse Closeup.JPG, etc. Wknight94 talk 13:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
File:US_Navy_060823-O-0000X-001_Artist_Concept_of_the_amphibious_transport_dock_ship_USS_New_York_(LPD_21)_in_New_York_harbor.jpg
[edit]_in_New_York_harbor.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_in_New_York_harbor.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Tom Freeman is not a US Government employee, and I have no idea if navy.mil was authorized to release his artwork Never Forget to PD. Trycatch (talk) 22:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Not navy, not free. Multichill (talk) 17:14, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted Wknight94 talk 13:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
This is an official Peugeot image ? How can it be on Commons ? 193.56.37.1 11:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- What is the problem? Permission to use this image was confirmed through OTRS letter by official Peugeot representative in Russia. Is there a special rule that official images cannot be uploaded to Commons? --Maximkaaa (talk) 04:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
- Peugeot Russia does not own the copyright for these images. The rights for this image are owned by PSA Peugeot Citroën, a company incorporated in France. Hektor (talk) 15:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- As far as I understand the word representative means that Peugeot Russia represents PSA Peugeot Citroën in Russia, e. g. official permission from Peugeot Russia is actually official permission from PSA Peugeot Citroën. You don't ask an author if you can read his book printed by some publishing house though only the author is the rights owner and publishing house just represents him. Anyway I'm not a lawyer and cannot be sure about this things. Just make sure that before you delete these images you consult a competent specialist. --Maximkaaa (talk) 17:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- Peugeot Russia does not own the copyright for these images. The rights for this image are owned by PSA Peugeot Citroën, a company incorporated in France. Hektor (talk) 15:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Kept. No rationale developped to justify the deletion. Dereckson (talk) 00:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- Could you then pls. remove the DR-template from the imagedesciption page too. thx. --Jutta234 (talk) 12:59, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- No. Note that the debate has been reopened below. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:34, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I would like the OTRS ticket to be verified. This is an official Peugeot promotion picture, and a retailer in Russia cannot be a valid organization to provide such an authorization, since it does not own the rights of the pictures. Hektor (talk) 09:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- That does not mather IMO. If he's an official representative of peugeot, he can grant us the right to use it. If he didn't receive the rights to do so internally in the company, that's not our problem, but his. Generally, if someone claims to be the copyright owner of something and releases it under a certain license and it later gets clear that he indeed did not own the rights to do so, he's responsible for paying the (financial) damage to whoever used the image in good faith (or mere, to the real copyright holder). --PaterMcFly (talk) 15:18, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- Let's keep all the copyvios, let's lead users into error, let the situation deteriorate, let damages occur, let people sue each other and then let them all sue Wikimedia and the OTRS volunteer who mistakenly placed an approval tag? I don't think that's what we do. Our mission is not to trick people into disseminating a copyvio and create difficulties for everybody. When there is a serious doubt about the validity of a claim, and even more when it is quite clear that a claim cannot possibly be valid, then acting like it were valid and being reckless about the damaging consequences is encouraging the copyvio. Especially when a file is actively tagged with an OTRS ticket, which is tantamount to stating "trust us and take our word for it, Wikimedia guarantees you that this license is valid". -- Asclepias (talk) 16:14, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. A representative cannot alienate completely different rights that he never owned nor was he ever mandated to transact in the first place. Thus a representative who is licensed to sell and service cars cannot sell or otherwise alienate the Peugeot company's intellectual properties, nor could he start selling or giving Peugeot's patents on a car model design, or sell or give one of Peugeot's manufacturing plants, or, while he's at it, sell or give the whole Peugeot company to one of his friends. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:14, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- It seems it was an official representative of the company, not only someone of a car shop, so he is indeed able to sell its intellectual properties. As stated above, there's no reason not to believe that the claim is valid. If someone claims plausibly that he is the copyright owner, OTRS has little possibilities to question this. Just deleting a picture because we think that it might not be ever possible that someone releases such an image under PD would be counter-productive. --PaterMcFly (talk) 16:44, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- Well there is a series of press release pictures of that car which are coming from the same source, I keep thinking that it wouldn't be such a large effort for the Foundation to contact Peugeot's Public Relations at their headquarters in Paris and check if they are happy with this OTRS. Hektor (talk) 07:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- It seems it was an official representative of the company, not only someone of a car shop, so he is indeed able to sell its intellectual properties. As stated above, there's no reason not to believe that the claim is valid. If someone claims plausibly that he is the copyright owner, OTRS has little possibilities to question this. Just deleting a picture because we think that it might not be ever possible that someone releases such an image under PD would be counter-productive. --PaterMcFly (talk) 16:44, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- File:Peugeot-SR1-Back.jpg
- File:Peugeot SR1.jpg
- File:Peugeot-SR1-Front.jpg
- File:Peugeot-SR1-Left-Side.jpg
- File:Peugeot-SR1-side.jpg
- File:Peugeot-SR1-side.jpg]]
- DeletePeugeot will never license its images for us. Remember that our requirements are a license that allows image manipulation and commercial use. Why would Peugeot license its images for potential use by competitors in negative ads? Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- Comment- Perhaps you believe these intellectual property things are just a joke. Then I invite you to read this article of wired. 195.169.141.54 16:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Question Where did that come from? -- I think you misunderstand -- I take IP very seriously -- it's been a significant part of my life and income for 32 years. My remark about Peugeot was perfectly serious -- they have absolutely no incentive to freely license their photos of their cars. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- Jim: I don't agree. They might well be interested in their promo pics being published all over the place. Any image of the car not created by Peugeot cam be freely licensed, so we could as well host a very similar image without any problem (removing the background isn't too difficult for someone understanding photoshop). That one might not use such an image in a negative advertisement campaign is not a copyright issue but is regulated in local advertisement laws. These are quite different for different countries. While it is legal in the US to make jokes about competitor's products in ads, it's illegal to do so in most of europe. But again: This is not a copyright issue. --PaterMcFly (talk) 15:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Ahem. I guess the Comment was not intended for you. Hektor (talk) 19:28, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- Once again : why not just check with the PR guys of Peugeot in Paris ? Ask them if they are happy with this OTRS ticket ? this is the most straightforward solution. Hektor (talk) 21:17, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept, if OTRS assumes this permission as valid, it should be assumed to be valid until proved otherwise. Kameraad Pjotr 21:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
no more penis! 21wine (talk) 02:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, Wikicommons has plenty of penis photos. Thuresson (talk) 01:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- Keep No special reason to delete this one and not other pictures of penis of the same quality. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 12:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- Keep high quality photo.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- Keep, as above, invalid rationale for deletion; comoons is not censored.
also the nominating user is a "new" account whose only activity is to spam deletion noms of "naughty" pictures; disruptive & borderline vandalism. it's wasting the time of editors who actually contribute something useful to the project, having to deal with this kind of crap!
Lx 121 (talk) 20:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Kept. — Dferg (disputatio) 14:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Low quality photo (nearly over the 2000px threshold; lighting is off) and unused. We have over 1000 penis photos, and this one is no more significant than the others. Blurpeace 19:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Over a thousand, huh? Are we counting all the Virgin Mary pictures again? Category:Penis, male human, by condition of the foreskin has five images outside subcategories; Category:Penis, male human, uncircumcised has 65 images; Category:Penis, male human, circumcised has 26 and its subcategory Category:Penis self-pictures (circumcised) has 51. Assuming those are disjoint, that's 147 and that should include all of them.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Good point, Prosfilaes !--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 23:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Yikrazuul (talk) 23:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Nominator should first learn to count. Erik Warmelink (talk) 00:15, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept per previous discussion, no consensus to delete more recently, false claims of nominator. Infrogmation (talk) 18:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Uploads by RadomirPutnik (talk · contribs)
[edit]Images listed below were made in period from 1991 til 2008. I don't believe that the user created all of them. There are no EXIF data, pictures are of different sizes and resolutions.-- Bojan Talk 12:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Image:CrownPrinceAlexanderVuk.jpg
- Image:SrpskiVUK.jpg
- Image:VukUNV.jpg
- Image:VukD.jpg
- Image:SerbianSoldier.jpg
- Image:SerbianSoldiers.jpg
- Image:SPOVUK.jpg
- Image:BorisTadica.jpg
- Image:DevetiMartVuk.jpg
OK, what amount of time should pass before someone else give his opinion? -- Bojan Talk 10:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
File:Молодая женщина. Город Ахалцих. Грузия. Армяне. Фотограф Д.А. Никитин. 1881 г.jpg and File:Армянки в нарядной одежде. Город Ахалцих. Грузия. Армяне. Фотограф Д.А. Никитин. 1881 г..jpg
[edit]
Данный файл взят с сайта МАЭ РАН без официального разрешения, см. http://www.kunstkamera.ru/info/copyright/ This file is taken from MAE RAS website without special permission, see http://www.kunstkamera.ru/en/info/copyright/ . Nominator: User:Prater.
- Keep. Public domain. If the mention on the description page is correct, the author died in the 19th century. --Asclepias (talk) 13:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. More then 70 years since the authors death. Geagea (talk) 20:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep More than 70 years, public domain. Julo (talk) 06:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Kept Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Files of User:MKDiamond
[edit]- File:MK Diamond Group Photo.jpg
- File:MK Diamond Historical Photo.gif
- File:MK Diamond History.gif
- File:MKlogo.jpg
All contributions from this user both in commons and in wiki en en:User talk:MKDiamond relate to a company [2] whose article has been deleted here en:Mk diamond and here en:MK Diamond for no notability, autopromotion and copyvio. Due to the low resolution of these images, we can also suspect image copyvio, and the company's no notability also makes these images out of scope. --Santosga (talk) 14:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Delete - several reasons: advertisement, no notability, unclear copyrights Cholo Aleman (talk) 07:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted reasons mentioned by Cholo Aleman --Jcornelius (talk) 21:39, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
replaced with better file 
--Kikos (talk) 18:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
File is replaced with better file in commons Kikos (talk) 18:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Proszę o usunięcie w/w zdjęcia. Zdjęcie znalazło się tu bez mojej zgody. Nie chce być pośmiewiskiem. Prawdopodobnie siostra wysłała te zdjęcia za kare(dla kawału). No cóż odgryzła się, ja także czasem podsyłam jej zdjęcia. menello17@vp.pl 83.23.196.229 16:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
proszę o usunięcie zdjęcia na którym jestem, nie myślałem że siostra wyśle je do internetu. 79.185.164.152 21:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Julo (talk) 06:27, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Zdjęcie załadowano bez mojej zgody.Proszę usunąć to zdjęcie i zablokować profil energyboy2009. Energyboy2009 (talk) 14:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Proszę o usunięcie w/w zdjęcia. Zdjęcie znalazło się tu bez mojej zgody. Nie chce być pośmiewiskiem. Prawdopodobnie siostra wysłała te zdjęcia za kare(dla kawału). No cóż odgryzła się, ja także czasem podsyłam jej zdjęcia. menello17@vp.pl 83.23.196.229 16:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete: See my comments at "Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kombinezon1.jpg".
(Something is screwing up the formatting, but I can't figure out what it is.)— Cheers, JackLee –talk– 13:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Julo (talk) 09:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
proszę o usunięcie zdjęcia na którym jestem, nie myślałem że siostra wyśle je do internetu. 79.185.164.152 21:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Julo (talk) 06:27, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Proszę o usunięcie w/w zdjęcia. Zdjęcie znalazło się tu bez mojej zgody. Nie chce być pośmiewiskiem. Prawdopodobnie siostra wysłała te zdjęcia za kare(dla kawału). No cóż odgryzła się, ja także czasem podsyłam jej zdjęcia. menello17@vp.pl 83.23.196.229 16:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Personality rights claimed.
Deleted, as four next requests Julo (talk) 14:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
proszę o usunięcie zdjęcia na którym jestem, nie myślałem że siostra wyśle je do internetu. 79.185.164.152 21:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Julo (talk) 06:27, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Request by uploader Grenouille vert (talk) 03:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Kept: Upload the better one under another name and use it. The image is free, it is good, so why not offer a selection. -- Cecil (talk) 14:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
this file has been replaced by the file "Mack, Ludwig; Arbeiten von Ludwig Mack, Bildhauer in Stuttgart. In Conturen gezeichnet von Rudolph Lohbauer. Mit Gedichten von Rudolph Magenau, Ludwig Neuffer, Gustav Schwab, Stuttgart 1829.pdf" with a more speaking name by which I think the file will be more easily found Gerd Leibrock (talk) 15:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted: Duplicate of File:Mack, Ludwig; Arbeiten von Ludwig Mack, Bildhauer in Stuttgart. In Conturen gezeichnet von Rudolph Lohbauer. Mit Gedichten von Rudolph Magenau, Ludwig Neuffer, Gustav Schwab, Stuttgart 1829.pdf Martin H. (talk) 13:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
_b.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_b.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
wrong Person, this is Ludwig Konrad Albert Koch, 27. 1. 1850 Darmstadt, † 18. 5. 1938 Heidelberg, see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ruperto_Carola_500-23.jpg Jowinix (talk) 15:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
_b.jpg){kind=link}
PS. Hier ist er schon: File:Ruperto Carola 500-23 Ludwig Konrad Albert Koch.jpg --Jowinix (talk) 15:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
_b.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep Are you saying the name is wrong? Just use {{Rename}} and it will be moved. Wknight94 talk 13:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: File is not in use, smaller duplicate of File:Ruperto Carola 500-23 Ludwig Konrad Albert Koch.jpg. Martin H. (talk) 13:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
_b.jpg){kind=link}
this file has been replaced by the file "Pfeiffer, Bertold, Klassizistische Bildwerke an Grabdenkmälern in und um Stuttgart, Stuttgart 1912.pdf" with a more speaking name by which I think the file will be more easily found Gerd Leibrock (talk) 15:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted: Duplicate of File:Pfeiffer, Bertold, Klassizistische Bildwerke an Grabdenkmälern in und um Stuttgart, Stuttgart 1912.pdf Martin H. (talk) 13:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Hieroglyphics with errors. There is another right: File: Egyptian-ptḥ.PNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by JMCC1 (talk • contribs) 10:37, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
The snout has the wrong shape. Conty (talk) 05:58, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Kept Jcb (talk) 19:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
