Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2010/10/12
 |
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}
_1_.jpg){kind=link}
_.jpg){kind=link}
_3_.jpg){kind=link}
_2_.jpg){kind=link}
_.jpg){kind=link}
_.jpg){kind=link}
_.jpg){kind=link}
As with more uploaded files, this user claims own work while it is taken from other sources. This is taken from busfoto.nl, a cropped version from an existing image. The full image was uploaded as well and was recently deleted for copyright violation. Original full image can be found here: busfoto.nl/foto/displayimage.php?album=561&pos=21 Fogeltje (talk) 09:13, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Common Good (talk) 19:09, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Non-free logo. ChrisRuvolo (t) 16:56, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept: It is fine with {{PD-textlogo}} and {{Trademarked}}. --Leyo 17:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Non-free logo. No source. ChrisRuvolo (t) 16:57, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept. It is fine with {{PD-textlogo}} and {{Trademarked}}. --Leyo 17:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
No valid source; most likely not the uploader's own work. The uploader blanked the problem tag, hence nominating here instead. —LX (talk, contribs) 05:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- Rather than commenting here, the uploader chose to blank the notification about this ongoing deletion discussion from the file description page. They did, however, also add the source, which is clearly marked "© Time Inc. For personal non-commercial use only", so it's a {{Copyvio}} and the uploader's claims of being the copyright holder are indeed patently false. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- Further info: the photographer, Hart Preston, was still alive at the age of 94 in 2005.[1] —LX (talk, contribs) 18:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. 99of9 (talk) 05:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
There's no solid evidence that the uploader was the copyright holder of this image, especially given the watermarks on this image. Nyttend (talk) 00:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
CommentAt a minimum, the uploader should upload a watermark-free version, so as to confirm it is his/her image, and so as to save someone the trouble of trying to remove the unnecessary watermarks in this version of the image. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- Forgot to note — the uploader is BlueWorld1, and the author is credited as John H Roewer; the uploader hasn't given any indications to say that the two are the same. Nyttend (talk) 23:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
(per file desc.) derivative work of a picture without a known author, if the uploader is not the autor or doesn't have permission from the author, (s)he cannot release this work under PD, the source given is under CC-BY-NC-SA 3.0, uncompatible license. --Màñü飆¹5 talk 02:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
License is PD-old and the source is "Barbara Tull." Who is Barbara Tull, and when did she die? When was this photograph taken? There's not enough evidence that this is trule PD GrapedApe (talk) 03:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Delete Agree with nominator. Onus is on the uploader to show image is public domain, and there is insufficient information here. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC)- Comment It (probably) does not matter when the author died. This image was scanned from a rastered print in a book by Barbara Mitchell Tull, "150 years of excellence", printed 1991. If this had been printed before, it could be {{PD-US-no notice}} or {{PD-US-no renewal}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:59, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Agree that the fact that the image was published in a 1991 book doesn't help the public domain cause. But looking at the photo, it could be pre-1923. Unfortunately, given the lack of information provided by the uploader, we have no way of knowing for certain whether it was published before 1923 or not, so need to presume that the image is still under copyright. Pieter, any information in the book? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:57, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- It is a "picturial history", and (published by an academic institution) it should have photo credits. But it is not on Google books or Amazon. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Agree that the fact that the image was published in a 1991 book doesn't help the public domain cause. But looking at the photo, it could be pre-1923. Unfortunately, given the lack of information provided by the uploader, we have no way of knowing for certain whether it was published before 1923 or not, so need to presume that the image is still under copyright. Pieter, any information in the book? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:57, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Could be any of
- {{PD-old}} if first published in the USA before 1923
- {{PD-US-no notice}} (unlikely if published in a book)
- {{PD-US-no renewal}} if first published before 1963 and not renewed
- still in copyright
all depending on facts we don't know. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Bogus authorship claims and bogus claims of being the copyright holder. (It would seem that {{Money-BR}} does not apply either, because the restrictions mentioned therein are not met.) —LX (talk, contribs) 05:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:57, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Not pre-1923, but published 1926. Copyright may have lapsed, but that would need some good evidence as this is still in print with a claim of copyright. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Onus is on uploader to show copyright has expired/was not renewed. Has not done so. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
More likly Flickr washing. 62.90.5.209 08:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
The file is Own work--Lucas gc (talk) 15:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept. This is a very large image -- unlikely to be found on the web. Mostly likely own work. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Not own --62.90.5.209 08:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC) Каква е причината за изтриване ? LeeKeoma (talk) 11:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Not own? Taken from where? 
Keep If no proof given! -- Herby (Vienna) (talk) 20:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Own work.LeeKeoma (talk) 06:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Game screenshots would need a confirmed copyright release or an OTRS ticket to verify that the anonymous uploader has the relevant authority to release copyright. Fæ (talk) 10:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:15, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Game screenshots would need a confirmed copyright release or an OTRS ticket to verify that the anonymous uploader has the relevant authority to release copyright. Fæ (talk) 10:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Game screenshots would need a confirmed copyright release or an OTRS ticket to verify that the anonymous uploader has the relevant authority to release copyright. Fæ (talk) 10:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
If the maker died 1945 this piece of art can't be in the public domain. 32X (talk) 10:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
The authorship of the image is doubtful, there is an image with more detail at http://www.nndb.com/people/674/000083425/ and the uploader on enwiki has a history of uploading copyright violations. Hekerui (talk) 11:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- Speedy delete Copyvio/no permission. ←fetchcomms 19:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Is anyone suggesting nndb.com is the holder of the copyright? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 23:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted.
In answer to Michael Bednarek's question -- no, although NNDB claims copyright. We don't know who holds the copyright, but the license on the image is unlikely. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
File:Affiche_lithographiée_Toulouse_1934_-_Trincherazo_de_Domingo_Ortega_-_C._Ruano_Llopis.jpg
[edit]
Based on es:Carlos Ruano Llopis, Carlos Ruano Llopis died in 1950. It will be PD in 2021. - Zil (d) 12:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- You are right but make sure that it is the image in the background which is from C. Ruano Llopis not the poster. The poster is a free reproduction of the painting with text and wording. Nicourse (talk) 21:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted.
I don't understand Nicourse's comment -- we can assume that the creator of the poster obtained a proper license to use the painting from Carlos Ruano Llopis or his heirs, but that doesn't extend to us. This image is a derivative work of both the original painting and the poster. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
copyrigh violation Thoasp (talk) 13:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept. {{PD-textlogo}} Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Derivate work of the Franklin sculpture by George Lundeen, a living professional artist. The copyright was properly registered (#VA0000290888). GrapedApe (talk) 13:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Wrong author, wrong source, and the images are under copyright on the official site http://www.ibiblio.org/theeuro/InformationWebsite.htm?http://www.ibiblio.org/theeuro/files/files.nat/monaco.s01.htm Ionutzmovie (talk) 13:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Wrong author, wrong source, and the images are under copyright on the official site http://www.ibiblio.org/theeuro/InformationWebsite.htm?http://www.ibiblio.org/theeuro/files/files.nat/monaco.s01.htm Ionutzmovie (talk) 13:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Wrong author, wrong source, and the images are under copyright on the official site http://www.ibiblio.org/theeuro/InformationWebsite.htm?http://www.ibiblio.org/theeuro/files/files.nat/monaco.s01.htm Ionutzmovie (talk) 13:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Wrong author, wrong source, and the images are under copyright on the official site http://www.ibiblio.org/theeuro/InformationWebsite.htm?http://www.ibiblio.org/theeuro/files/files.nat/monaco.s01.htm Ionutzmovie (talk) 13:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Wrong author, wrong source, and the images are under copyright on the official site http://www.ibiblio.org/theeuro/InformationWebsite.htm?http://www.ibiblio.org/theeuro/files/files.nat/monaco.s01.htm Ionutzmovie (talk) 13:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Inappropriate name for userpage image (self-nominated) Jackl (talk) 13:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - not really for the reasons given - not bothered about the name - but because the author clearly doesn't want this one, and it's no use for anything else. Looks like the author has other versions which they're using, ie File:Jackl usrpageheader.png. Chzz ► 06:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Derivative work of a sculpture. No evidence that the sculpture is PD (i.e. no date or author given). GrapedApe (talk) 14:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Derivative work of a t-shirt design. GrapedApe (talk) 14:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
License is PD-old and the source is "Barbara Tull." Who is Barbara Tull, and when did she die? When was this photograph taken? There's not enough evidence that this is trule PD GrapedApe (talk) 14:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Barbara Tull published a book about Wesleyan in 1991, and probably this rasterized print can be found there. Maybe the book contains refernce to previous publications, which may be {{PD-US-no notice}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
License is PD-old and the source is "Barbara Tull." Who is Barbara Tull, and when did she die? When was this photograph taken? There's not enough evidence that this is trule PD GrapedApe (talk) 14:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Wrong name, reuploaded as File:FrydenlundSlotDk.jpg Elgaard (talk) 14:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
TODA LA INFORMACION ES FALSA Y LA PAGINA QUE NOMBRA NO EXISTE EGRAP (talk) 15:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Copyright violation Savh, Any questions? 15:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Probably a copyright violation: "© TREND Holding, s.r.o. / Autorské práva sú vyhradené" - "© TREND Holding, s.r.o. / All rights reserved" Chiak (talk) 16:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
In response to the "no source" tag, uploader says he took the image, pointing to various legitimate uploads of his own photos he'd taken of the same subject a year earlier; however, the uploader's own photos are full resolution and have the expected Metadata. The nominated image is low resolution, no Metadata, and the uploader has an unfortunate track record of copying copyrighted images off the internet and claiming them as his own. Unless the uploader can provide a higher resolution version of this image, with Metadata (just like his legitimate uploads), or the uploader can provide a source showing that the image is public domain or freely licensed, this image should be deleted as a probable copyvio. Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- Higher resolution accomplished.--Harfang (talk) 15:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- But that would just be a blow-up of the previous image, with Metadata that suggests the photo was taken today. That doesn't show that you took the image; in fact, it reinforces the opposite. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 22:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Higher resolution accomplished.--Harfang (talk) 15:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
No FoP in the UAE. 84.61.131.141 18:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Clear case. — Xavier, 20:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
No FoP in the UAE. 84.61.131.141 18:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Clear case. — Xavier, 20:51, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
No FoP in the UAE. 84.61.131.141 18:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep In my opinion, this building in 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, 20:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
copyvio - uploader is not author of image Ragimiri (talk) 20:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:57, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm the initial uploader (no commons account though); please remove the screenshot due to legal concerns - the screenshot might look too similar to other games of the genre. --~ 93.243.61.100 20:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Orphaned personal picture, not in project scope Martin H. (talk) 21:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I do not see any indication on this poster that it would be free. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Unused, no educational value which I can see. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete I also don't see educational value as it does not appear to be a reproduction of a commonly used symbol (no similar image found with google), rather a (very poor quality) image created by a commons user. I am concerned about the potential racist intent of this. --Elekhh (talk) 00:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
By definition of its name this category could contain large amounts of pictures from its parent cat Category:Korea and its subcats. Therefore category useless. --Valentim (talk) 23:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC) --Valentim (talk) 23:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
This image has copyright since Indumil was taken for the official company - --Angel paez (talk) 19:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- I agree that it is correct to be suspicious when a good looking image shows up as the only contribution from a new User, but do you have any particular reason here? The Uploader claims it is his own work and we normally assume good faith when in doubt. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
versions on the net are smaller Kept. Mbdortmund (talk) 22:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
per COM:PEOPLE an identifiable person in a private location with no evidence of consent 99of9 (talk) 13:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Appears to be a home shower - subject has a reasonable expectation of privacy. Absent sufficient evidence of consent, delete. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- But did she consent to release them? This could easily be an ex-boyfriend uploading private pictures to humiliate her. 99of9 (talk) 10:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Please see her old account page - does look as if she likes to share her pictures. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 22:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
per COM:PEOPLE identifiable person in a private location with no evidence of consent to release this image 99of9 (talk) 13:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete And again with all those "Ashley", "Amy" and whatsoever pics: They have been deleted from FlickR, maybe because of copyvio, maybe because "Ashley" didn't want to be shown in that way, whatever. With no reasonalbe use for Wiki and those problems -> delete it! --Yikrazuul (talk) 20:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- keep not deleted from flickr, balatant lie. --Snotty (talk) 23:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Derivative of this image which has a watermark. Thanks to Methem for tracking this down. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per discovery. Missvain (talk) 16:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete As per nominator. --Hold and wave (talk) 20:39, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Well, well, well, as told in the DR before: YOU CANNOT TRUST FlickR. Please bann the uploader. --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:01, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- User added to bad flickr list. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Good catch, Methem. --Leyo 16:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Copyvio. Courcelles (talk) 05:10, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
_1_.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1_.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
erreur de nom pour l'un des éléments de la photo Parent Géry (talk) 18:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
_1_.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted by Túrelio: Exact or scaled down duplicate: File:Sidérite, quartz, pyrrhotite (Mexique) 1 .jpg
_1_.jpg){kind=link}
_.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
erreur de nom pour l'un des éléments de la photo Parent Géry (talk) 18:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
_.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted by Túrelio: Exact or scaled down duplicate: File:Sidérite, pyrite, pyrrhotite (Mexique) .jpg
_.jpg){kind=link}
Non-free fair use image 117.206.3.78 18:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted Infrogmation (talk) 00:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
_3_.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_3_.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
mauvais nom de l'un des éléments de la photo Parent Géry (talk) 18:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
_3_.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 23:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
_3_.jpg){kind=link}
_2_.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_2_.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
erreur de nom pour l'un des éléments de la photo Parent Géry (talk) 18:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
_2_.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 23:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
_2_.jpg){kind=link}
_.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
erreur de nom pour l'un des éléments de la photo Parent Géry (talk) 18:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
_.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 23:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
_.jpg){kind=link}
_.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
erreur de nom pour l'un des éléments de la photo Parent Géry (talk) 18:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
_.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 23:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
_.jpg){kind=link}
no es información real. Hausvonbuda (talk) 00:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
El contenido no es enciclopédico. Hausvonbuda (talk) 01:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Please delete this file because isn't an verificated information. wikiman234 02:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Uploader request. Geagea (talk) 03:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Copiapó mining accident graphs
[edit]
The problem with those images is that the source is unfree, the question is, if the images are different enough to be kept. --Amada44 talk to me 13:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep See Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2010-09#File:MSJ.en.svg. These files should not have been tagged for speedy deletion, and should not have been deleted without discussion. And I do not see any reason to bring them up here again: information is free. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- I preferred you first comment here before you edited again because it was free from acusations. Anyhow, the idea of this DR is that we have more opinions about it and that the result is a final one. cheers, Amada44 talk to me 14:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Files were not tagged, only one of the uploaders was notified. It is still not clear what the problem is supposed to be. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- I preferred you first comment here before you edited again because it was free from acusations. Anyhow, the idea of this DR is that we have more opinions about it and that the result is a final one. cheers, Amada44 talk to me 14:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Information is not always free. See maps for example. How is this different to a map? The other thing which needs clarifying is, that if the source is not free, (but the information is?) should the non free source be quoted at all? This DR is not to get the images deleted but to clarify that. Amada44 talk to me 16:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- This diagram is just great, however I am confused that it claims to be original research (which, I thought, was a major "no no" on Wikipedia?) and when I follow the link to the alleged author's original webpage/publication I see radically different diagrams (has it been moved?). I am unclear if the link needs to be modified, if it was ever legit, and/or if the authorship is acceptable. But again -- I do appreciate the diagram very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.141.186 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- Factual information is not copyrightable. The way you express it is. For maps... you are determining how specifically detailed you want borders to be, which elements you include, the graphic appearance, etc. Factual information from the map would not be covered though. [One note -- unless a border is exactly the same as the surveyed border, I would think the map maker is generally making creative decisions on which details to omit, so the exact outlines you see on a particular map would be considered creative work, I would think, and not purely factual.] The other part is that a creative selection and/or arrangement of factual information can itself be copyrightable.
- As for the nominated images.... euf. These can be hard. Gut feeling to me, the MSJ ones are different expression of the same idea, so I think they are perfectly fine, as said in the undeletion request. Less sure on Minasanjose2... it is significantly different though, with I think the only potential issue being the outline of the mine, which is different from the original, but.. hrm. The sourced original is a map from the mining company provided to the newspaper I think. Most detail from it has been omitted. I may lean towards keep on that one too I think, but less sure. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep the MSJ ones: they appear to be original drawings based on the specified source.
- Delete Minasanjose2 for two reasons: 1) it appears to be a straight tracing of the source material, and 2) even with the source, I can't make heads or tails of it. --Carnildo (talk) 19:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep The MSJ drawings are clearly done in a different style than the referenced source, the La Tercera site, are not the same illustration. If presenting information were copyrightable, it leads to the absurd conclusion the first news service to report an event would have a copyright lock on the story and no competing services would be able to mention it, even using words the differ from the first report. Moreover, Minasanjose2.svg shouldn't be deleted just because user Carnildo "can't make heads or tails of it": Annotation needs to be added to make it clearer.
- Keep As a first-time viewer of the drawing, I found the drawing useful to understanding the underground situation at San Jose; I hope they will not be deleted.
Quicksilver@ 20:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I think the images are sufficiently different. This is not a direct copy. A similar diagram would probably emerge from textual sources. We allow many other such diagrams on Wikipedia, given that they are original works. As noted, factual information is not copyritable. Danski14 (talk) 15:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- Note: I was referring to the first 3 images. The last one is similar, but is more of a direct copy of a map. Perhaps it should be discussed desperately. Danski14 (talk) 15:41, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Who cares!! The important thing is to inform people! :P
- Keep I go along with Danski14. --Markscheider (talk) 16:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept the first three. Delete the last. Per the discussion and inspection of the source, the first three are quite different from the source. The last is more of a copy and is very hard to understand. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:35, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
All images by User:Breana P
[edit]- File:Deon cosmetics mor 1.jpg
- File:Deonstmor.jpg
- File:MOR NORDICA FREIA LOWRES2009.jpg
- File:MORIMPERIAFRUITSOFCORNUCOPIALOWRES2009.jpg
- File:MORIMPERIAFLOWEROFNARCISSUSOLD2009.jpg
- File:ORANGEBLOSSOMCOLLECTIONFEB2010.jpg
- File:MOR MA05 MARSHMALLOW BODY WASH BOTTLE LOWRES.jpg
- File:MOR LI01 LIP DELIGHT SORBET LOWRES.jpg
- File:MOR MA08 MARSHMALLOW FRAGRANT TEACUP CANDLE LOWRES.jpg
- File:MOR IMPERIA EAU DE PARFUM BOTTLE LOWRES.jpg
- File:Passionflowerlipdelight.jpg
- File:MM EDP.jpg
- File:MOR NORDICA FREIA LOWRES.jpg
- File:ORANGEBLOSSOM.jpg
- File:MOR IMPERIA FLOWER OF NARCISSUS LOWRES.jpg
- File:MOR IMPERIA FRUITS OF CORNUCOPIA LOWRES.jpg
- File:MOR MARSHMALLOW LOWRES.jpg
- File:Moremporiumsoap.jpg
- File:MORO LOGO TAKE 2.jpg
- File:MORLOGO1.jpg
- File:MORLOGO.jpg
Promotional images used only in Deon St.Mor and MOR Cosmetics articles that were deleted half a year ago as spam --Justass (talk) 10:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. Clearly promotional images. Geagea (talk) 10:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Good photos with a free license. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:11, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:15, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
_.jpg){kind=link}
_.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
erreur dans un des éléments Parent Géry (talk) 18:09, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
_.jpg){kind=link}
Comment Please suggest new names for these files by putting {{Rename}} on them. A wrong name is not a reason to delete.
- File:Sidérite,_quartz,_pyrite_et_phlogopite_(Mexique)_.jpg
- File:Sidérite,_quartz,_phlogopite_(Mexique)_3_.jpg
- File:Sidérite,_quartz,_phlogopite_(Mexique)_2_.jpg
- File:Sidérite,_quartz,_phlogopite_(Mexique)_1_.jpg
- File:Sidérite,_phlogopite_(Mexique)_.jpg
- File:Sidérite,_quartz,_phlogopite_(Mexique)_.jpg
Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
_.jpg){kind=link}
[List above modified by Parent Géry] and reverted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
_.jpg){kind=link}
- Please do not change the list in my post. Please use the {{Rename}} template on each image to provide the new names. There are instructions here in many languages. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Les images peuvent être renommés, suppression n'est pas nécessaire. Tu peux utiliser la modèle {{Rename}} pour proposer un nom de fichier correcte. Jafeluv (talk) 23:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 12:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
_.jpg){kind=link}
_.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
erreur de nom de minéral dans le titre Parent Géry (talk) 17:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Speedy closed. This issue was decided above. A bad name is not a reason for deletion. Put {{Rename}} on the file. Please do not do this again or you may be blocked from editing. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)