Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2010/10/31
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
My error: bad name (1836 - not 1837) André Koehne TALK TO ME 13:09, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, god... My error it's here! The correct date its 1837 {see this reference). Please, delete the File:1836_first_caricature_in_Brazil_-_Regency.png... (sorry my bad English) André Koehne TALK TO ME 11:34, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Done. It's possible to use {{Rename}} for such cases. Trycatch (talk) 21:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Copy of File:Rothesay_Castle_entrance.JPG JNélis 21:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio: Copy of File:Rothesay_Castle_entrance.JPG
copyvio Photo by Gregory Shamus/Getty Images North America (see http://www.zimbio.com TaraO (talk) 17:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Herbythyme: Copyright violation
new file uploaded http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Olabeaga.jpg Tuc negre (talk) 09:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by DieBuche: Commons:Deletion requests/File:A4894b00.jpg: new file uploaded http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Olabeaga.jpg
see better file File:Limburg-Dom5.JPG GFreihalter (talk) 16:12, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- I'm the original uploader of that file, and it's fine with me because the other file really is much better and mine is virtually useless as it is too grainy and small. Gryffindor (talk) 20:33, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Usused out of scope image ZooFari 00:02, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 21:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Unused out of scope image. ZooFari 00:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 21:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Not own work. Copyrighted Google Earth image. Chech Explorer (talk) 02:07, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 21:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
This does not look like a self created image. It seems to be an old postcard. The imprint of the stamp can be seen on left. Therefore: Unknown author, unknown age --> no proof of free license. JuTa (talk) 02:25, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Copied from webpage http://www.retepuglia.uniba.it/ComuneConversano/comune%20di%20conversano/benedetto.htm. Probably a cpvio. Needs to b verified by OTRS or removed. JuTa (talk) 02:49, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Common Good (talk) 20:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Out of scope, low-resolution, not in use Banfield - Amenazas aquí 04:26, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
unknown author. Either verify license through OTRS or delete, JuTa (talk) 06:38, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Is this PD-US? Otherwise it's probably too young for PD-old with unknown author. JuTa (talk) 06:47, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. The source site explicitly disclaims responsibility for any knowledge of copyrights on its material. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Possibly unfree image. Low resolution image, and Flickr source has a manipulated exif data. KALARICKAN | My Interactions 07:40, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
- File:Drontti Edvard 1.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
No COM:FOP#Finland for this. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:07, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- What's wrong? It's just part of Muumimaailma. —kallerna™ 12:23, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- You are an administrator, you should be aware of COM:DW. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
unusable image of an unidentified building - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 08:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 21:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
unused strange "logo" , nearly a joke - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 08:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 21:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope - only edit of this user (not realistically useful) Cholo Aleman (talk) 08:43, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 21:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
1. Unsourced, own research with in all likelyhood made up percentages. 2. Not used in any article. 3. Irrelevant. Koyos (talk) 08:46, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
unused, no cat, no description, bad quality, useless, no encyclopedic value Frédéric (talk) 08:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Irrelevant and personal musing (as a graphic) of no use to any Wikipedia project. Koyos (talk) 08:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
There are significant mistakes in it 87.178.119.66 08:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- As a general rule, in cases of mistakes on maps, we put a note in the description with suggested corrections. You can also add {{Disputed diagram}}. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
looks like copyvio to me.... Amada44 talk to me 09:11, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Delete Yep.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:03, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
not useful, we have enough of these already. Besides, it's a poor photoshopping job. 220.235.83.159 09:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 22:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
From 1914, I doubt this is own work Avron (talk) 09:49, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
unused a bit strange image without description, unusable and out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 09:59, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 22:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
taken from a website - copyright violation Cholo Aleman (talk) 10:24, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
CC-BY-NC-ND-2.0, not allowed in Commons. — Tanvir • 10:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Keep It's published in 1712; no matter what the Flikr operator says, it's PD-Art.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)- Keep No matter if PD-Art or PD-old, it's published in 18th century.--Gloecknerd (talk) 07:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Read {{Pd-art}}; photos of PD art are still PD. ←fetchcomms 15:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Not the own work of the uploader 93.211.68.188 10:54, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
verkeerde foto gebruikt, zie titel ervan Roberta4ever (talk) 11:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 22:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Photo taken from printed photograph KALARICKAN | My Interactions 11:04, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- The original photograph was taken in 1982 and I completely owns the copyright of this photograph. This is a black and white photograph and is loosing its clarity when scanned. So I retook a photo of this image in my mobile phone camera and is looking better than its scanned copy. --Sreejith K (talk) 17:32, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- Copyright belongs to the original photographer, as you said 'I completely owns the copyright of this photograph'. You have to make it clear that you are the original photographer of the persons. Since you have photographed the photo, i have a doubt for the copyright, whether it belongs to the original photographer or you. Admins must share there thoughts here, Like taking a photograph of a copyrighted picture and owns the photograph (copy).And dont remove the deletion tag, change to normal deletion until a user consensus has been made between the nominator and the up loader.--KALARICKAN | My Interactions 18:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- This is a photograph of my uncle and was taken during my sister's marriage. I have explained the reason why I had to photograph this 1982 image again rather than scanning it, in the description page for the image. --Sreejith K (talk) 17:51, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- In the explanation itself, its clear that you are not the photographer.??OTRS will come to this scene--KALARICKAN | My Interactions 05:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- In marriage photographs, the photographer is appointed by the family to cover the marriage paying him for his work. The entire photos he has photographed was bought from him including the negatives. Please don't ask me proof for that. Being married yourself, hope you can understand. --Sreejith K (talk) 07:00, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Simple answer from my side is that...Commons require such kind of information to stay...all need to follow the policies of commons...such an authorisation to release this image into CC or PD...Since you asked about mine..This is not the personal website to keep the marriage photos of mine..if it have an educational value or can be used by anybody for any purpose..that's okay...I can clear it..KALARICKAN | My Interactions 07:34, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Copyright belongs to the original photographer, as you said 'I completely owns the copyright of this photograph'. You have to make it clear that you are the original photographer of the persons. Since you have photographed the photo, i have a doubt for the copyright, whether it belongs to the original photographer or you. Admins must share there thoughts here, Like taking a photograph of a copyrighted picture and owns the photograph (copy).And dont remove the deletion tag, change to normal deletion until a user consensus has been made between the nominator and the up loader.--KALARICKAN | My Interactions 18:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- The original photograph was taken in 1982 and I completely owns the copyright of this photograph. This is a black and white photograph and is loosing its clarity when scanned. So I retook a photo of this image in my mobile phone camera and is looking better than its scanned copy. --Sreejith K (talk) 17:32, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
There is a provision in Indian Copyrights that:-
In the case of a work made in the course of the author’s employment under a contract of service or apprenticeship, the employer shall, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, be the first owner of the copyright therein.
As per this condition, this image can be kept.--Vssun (talk) 02:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- This is a breakthrough...this image can be kept, but we need to check wheather this image need to meet US requirements, as it is hosted on foundation's servers..and whether we need to follow Indian copyright law for the photographs or US law???--KALARICKAN | My Interactions 03:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- The Picture is taken in India, so this is more than enough --Kiran Gopi (talk) 05:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- If the user has the sole copyright in India, I think there is no objection on hosting it on US servers on whatever license he may want to have.--164.100.34.150 07:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- A new copyright tag can be made with this...that will benefit many..--KALARICKAN | My Interactions 09:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Sure --Kiran Gopi (talk) 10:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- If the user has the sole copyright in India, I think there is no objection on hosting it on US servers on whatever license he may want to have.--164.100.34.150 07:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
If its according to the copyright law of india, evidence is required to prove such instances of copyright ownership or an infringement. This is denoted by the word provided with:-
- Moreover this image is attached with the clause(b) of Indian copyright act of 1957, Chapter IV- Sec:17. As this image is primarly focused on the person photographed and he will became the first owner of the photograph. If it need to be denied photographer need to show a proper agreement with the person photographed to claim the rights about that, Best example is a candid shot in the streets, Or you are standing infront of a statue and telling the stret walkers to take your photograph. (Candid shots law in US need to be checked)
- Here we have 3 persons
- # Photographer (First Party)
- # Person who photographed (Second party)
- # Uploader (referred as owner)
- First instance this will go under the clause(b) for second party. if it need to come into the clause(c) or clause (a) adequate evidences are required. And if its not being proved that this image is on clause (c) or clause (a) second party will hold the copyright, and will be able to publish after 60 years of the death of the author (Second party)
- If its need to be proved that, this image belongs to the employer, further evidences and over-ruling on the second persons rights need to be produced.
- Or if it need to follow US laws and Indian laws [[::Commons:Licensing#Berne_Convention|Berne Convention]] agreements shall apply here.
- further check need to be done that {{Personality rights}} will apply here or not - As per Identifiable peoples
KALARICKAN | My Interactions 11:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Could not verify the source, Invalid license Vssun (talk) 11:55, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- File:Pradip1.jpg is a duplicate. --Vssun (talk) 11:56, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- File:Pradip.jpg falls under the same category. --Vssun (talk) 11:58, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
May be copyrighted image. No source available for publication date. Jayanta Nath (talk) 12:45, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 13:36, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 22:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 13:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 22:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 13:40, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 22:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
plain text = out of scope, additionally copyright violation - the copyright is with the journal Cholo Aleman (talk) 18:14, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 22:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
unused, no cat, no encyclopedic value, useless Frédéric (talk) 20:04, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 22:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Wrong image Alexis Rivier (talk) 21:02, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 22:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
one of the strange images of this user - for me : out of scope, should be a kind of art, user:Menetekel started an extra category for these "composition notebooks" Cholo Aleman (talk) 12:49, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Derivative work of original copyrighted photo Grifomaniacs (talk) 13:51, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- What is the original? --Marcok (talk) 20:01, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- There's not an original photo behind. This is a work made with some kind of mixed tecnique, made from scratch. Basically drawings, shapes and shades made with gimp, aiming to represent a young ms.Lario, then vectorised a few times, then mixed and selected (12 levels). Open the file with inkscape to see details. --Yuma (talk) 03:00, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- I do not question the authenticity of the work, but unless you had made a live portrait of Ms Lario, I suppose that you got inspired by a former picture. If this is the case, I'm sorry but we still are in a form of derivative work. For example, in my opionion the picture at the address http://www.valdelsa.net/files/veronica_lario.jpg resembles this file.--Grifomaniacs (talk) 18:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Disappointed, but if this is the ratio, ok. I was plannig to make some more drawings based on my view of people (inspired from photos, but non directly obtained from the photo itself) for missing portrait of people, but if I'm wrong in considering my work original, I will abstain. Please note that if you will delete this one there is only another similar work I made that meet same criteria: File:Piercorallo.svg. Other drawings I made, like File:Abraham Yehoshua.png are in some way less realistic, and blatantly drawed, so at least I hope you will not consider it derivative (although, also in that case, I never personally met mr. Yehoshua). --Yuma (talk) 19:00, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- P.S.:
- It's several years I'm around here, but I still miss a point, about this matter. Probably it's my mistake, I'm not defending myself or my work, but... I really need to undersand better. If you look at something like File:Bertolt Brecht.png, probably you will not ask for deletion. But in fact, i made it after looking some copyrighted photos, like this one. Then, I took a pencil, keeping in mind the figure, and I made a drawing. ...Now that you know it you will ask for deletion? ... So, please, I need to know what is exactly the 'border': how much a work must be far from the original to be considered a new work? If you compare the Lario picture and my Lario portrait, what you see exactly that make you think I'm including copyrighted stuff in my work? There is a ratio in separating derivative work from works so far from the 'original' to be considered new? Thanks if you will give me an answer.--Yuma (talk) 20:17, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Hi, I'm sorry I'm answering you so late, but here I am. IMHO this is a matter of threshold between the sources of inspiration for the portrait and the final result. In the Lario picture case, I think that your rework of the original picture or pictures is not as sophisticated as in the Yehoshua one. If this picture will be deleted after review by administrators, I will fill a request for deletion for the Piercorallo file as well.--Grifomaniacs (talk) 20:42, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
- I do not question the authenticity of the work, but unless you had made a live portrait of Ms Lario, I suppose that you got inspired by a former picture. If this is the case, I'm sorry but we still are in a form of derivative work. For example, in my opionion the picture at the address http://www.valdelsa.net/files/veronica_lario.jpg resembles this file.--Grifomaniacs (talk) 18:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
I made some change to the file, you maybe can delete the old version -if it was too resemblant to a non-free image. --Yuma (talk) 02:28, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
- The new portrait is significantly different from the previous one, but maybe is still a derivative work. At this point, let's wait for a review by an administrator.--Grifomaniacs (talk) 20:42, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
- Of course, and it's ok for me in any case: in case of deletion, I will definitely know the threshold is as you explained, in case of deletion of the old version only or in case of keep, the threshold to consider will be a little bit (or a little more) different. Anyway, thanks for your time. --Yuma (talk) 20:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Keep Assuming we take Yuma's description of the creative process in the third paragraph above at face value (Commons:Assume good faith), then this is OK. Grifomaniacs' point of view basically says that no artist can draw or paint a portrait of, say, Ronald Reagan, unless the artist had seen Reagan while he was living, because otherwise, inevitably, the work would be derivative of copyrighted photographs. This is not good reasoning.
Just as our colleagues on WP can read a biography of a person and then write an article about the person without infringing on the copyright of the source biography, an artist can view a selection of photographs of a person and then draw or paint a new, original work, which does not infringe. I am not saying that all drawings are OK -- far from it -- but that Yuma's process, as described, appears to be OK. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
per Jims arguments Kept. Mbdortmund (talk) 14:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Advertising for a company and not in public domain. The goal of commons is not to make publicity for a company. Duch.seb (talk) 14:26, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
poor quality, not suitable for the articles about this football player Poco a poco (talk) 14:45, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
We have 14 images of David Villa. Deleted this and the next one, per nom. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
too poor quality of a person who has been pictured lots of times Poco a poco (talk) 15:33, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
see better file File:Limburg Dom Fenster.JPG GFreihalter (talk) 16:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. We had three images:
- File:Limburg-Dom6.JPG 2520 x 3776, from left, saturated, very sharp, probably best? not in use
- File:Limburg Dom Fenster.JPG 1531x2041, straight on, but unsaturated, not as sharp. in use
- File:Limburg_200822.JPG 768x1024 from left, better saturation, small, not as sharp, not in use
I deleted this one as it is inferior to the first in every respect. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
see better file File:Limburg Dom Fenster.JPG GFreihalter (talk) 16:10, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Question You want to delete a picture causing it with the existence of the identically same picture, which can't be better?? Keep --Emha (talk) 10:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. see my comment at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Limburg_200822.JPG Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
does not appear on cited source -- may or not be the work of an NIH employee -- many images there are not. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:26, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept.
Found it at http://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/resources/bioethics/events.cfm Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Web used as advertising for a website, useless for an educational purpose. Duch.seb (talk) 16:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
clear copyviolation - the copyright will be with the journal that published it, not with the author, who did the upload Cholo Aleman (talk) 18:12, 31 October 2010 (UTC) PS: even worse: the uploader does not seem to be the author Cholo Aleman (talk) 18:17, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
This image contains only text that is much better presented as math markup. Constant314 (talk) 18:14, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
There is no evidence this image is free - it lacks an author and there is no information on the source page on who took the photo and whether that person is dead for 70+ years. The text is not decipherable to me. Hekerui (talk) 19:14, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
mistake in liscensing Ryan.Murphy94 (talk) 22:01, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:32, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Low quality picture, easily replaceable. Abujoy (talk) 16:28, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- Not easy to replace a picture of a cat who is no longer with me that was taken earlier I'm afraid. But I won't stand in the way of this kind of crusade. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:19, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep It's in use.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:10, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Folgende Begründung wurde angegeben: from 1914, probably PD-old, but I doubt the uploader is the heir of the author, so cc is probably wrong Avron (talk) 09:45, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. no source Polarlys (talk) 01:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
There is no evidence that the uploader has rights to this image. Banfield - Amenazas aquí 04:24, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 22:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Unused icon having an unorthodox name and format. --NoNews! 06:55, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 22:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
No FOP in UAE Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#United_Arab_Emirates KALARICKAN | My Interactions 07:23, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept. - all buildings are DM - Jcb (talk) 22:28, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
No FOP in UAE Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#United_Arab_Emirates KALARICKAN | My Interactions 07:29, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 22:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 08:36, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
fake Reinhardhauke (talk) 18:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 21:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
for me a bit strange, not really usable for the commons, no description - out of scope (borderline, I know, should be discussed) Cholo Aleman (talk) 08:46, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- I see no reason to delete, but have no strong feeling - I merely cropped a border. If kept, it should be categorised and given a description. The original uploader does not seem to be active - it was their only edit. Finavon (talk) 09:40, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep The tattoo is worth to keep the picture. --Havang(nl) (talk) 10:07, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
I admit that I am not interested in tattoos... @Finavon: it was just the mechanism to notify the last person involved. Cholo Aleman (talk) 12:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 22:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Images by DctFlatt
[edit]- File:Alacuisine01.jpg
- File:Sgppmr01.jpg
- File:PinPlavThi01Pnt.jpg
- File:PinMartineGauthierPnt.jpg
- File:OldFashionedFm.jpg
Not realistically useful for an educational purpose, uses photos of unknown copyright status, possibly defamatory because the women are French public personalities (like Ségolène Royal in File:PinPlavThi01Pnt.jpg, Christine Lagarde in File:Dblotk01.jpg). Hekerui (talk) 11:14, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- Note Author requested deletion of File:Alacuisine01.jpg here. Hekerui (talk) 08:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. — Jeff G. ツ 19:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete --lovekrittaya (talk) 08:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete this image has a weird and critical background, is blurried and no clear view. The description about getting "a good help" causes worries and is not suitable for Wikimedia Commons. Better remove it from here --77.181.200.208 12:50, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Salisbury was a British artist who painted many famous people and visited the USA from time to time. There is no reason to believe that he was ever an employee of the US Federal Government. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:31, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Did the artist have to be American? Other official White House portraits use the same copyright tag. Britannic (talk) 20:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- The tag on this image -- {{PD-USGov-POTUS}} and other variations of {{PD-USGov}} -- require that the artist was an employee of the Federal government -- not just that he was paid to do work for the government, but that he was actually an employee. Therefore the tag is invalid if it is clear that the artist was not an employee -- citizenship does not matter.
- The Federal government has employed many creators, mostly photographers, and many of our images come from them. It has employed many fewer painters and sculptors and this tag is widely misused on such work. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
What about other presidential portraits that use the same copyright tag? Britannic (talk) 19:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 22:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Official insignia and PD-self are not likely to agree. Possibly (but not likely) the logo has been released as PD but if that is the case a source proving this would be needde. 94.193.242.248 12:11, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- Not eligible for copyright, and any copyrights in the svg code released by author. Keep nothing to see here. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 13:10, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 22:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
This image seems sufficiently complex to pass the threshold of originality. There was a previous DR that simply asserted with no explanation as to why that it is ineligible for copyright. But this looks like it would meet the threshold of originality most places in Europe. Is there a rule that original works of the EU are PD? UserB (talk) 01:25, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- Keep As above. --Leyo 06:12, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- So, just like the above DR, "keep, but I refuse to say why it's ineligible for copyright"? Just saying it's ineligible doesn't make it so. I'm perfectly willing to accept that there might be some actual reason it is not subject to copyright protection (works of the EU are PD? The threshold of originality in its home country, which I guess is Luxembourg is a lot higher than the US?) But nobody has said what that reason is. --UserB (talk) 12:10, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with UserB that it would be "very nice" to know why this file is actually supposed to be PD/freely licensed, {{PD-textlogo}}
certainlyIMO doesn't apply. Any explanation, Leyo? FDMS 4 14:07, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- COM:TOO actually does apply IMO. --Leyo 15:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for linking a guideline and providing no explanation. That's helpful! The image we're discussing is not simple geometric shapes. The curves and lines all have rigid indentations. The standard for originality is whether two people could possibly independently come up with the same output and the answer, of course, in this case, is no. If you look down at the counterexamples in Commons:Threshold_of_originality#United_States, this logo is far more complex than the Car Credit City example, which has copyright protection in the US. Now, all that said, if you tell me that the lines and curves in this logo are actually an Ancient Roman design and so there's no original authorship here - just putting three PD elements (the lines and curves, the flag, the words) together, then okay, fine, you're correct. But if these lines and curves are not from a source that is ineligible for copyright protection or out of copyright, then this clearly meets a threshold of originality. You're welcome to wish it away, but that doesn't make it so. At [1], they claim copyright over their "logos" and remember, in order for it to be used on COMMONS (which is where we are), it needs to be PD not just in the United States, but also in its home country. I have no idea what the home country here is (Luxembourg is where the EU parliament is located, so that might be it), but a lot of the European countries are even more restrictive than the US is with threshold of originality. --UserB (talk) 20:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- COM:TOO actually does apply IMO. --Leyo 15:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- Keep Fry1989 eh? 17:51, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- Any particular explanation as to why? Or should we just keep it because it's useful and the rules shouldn't apply? --UserB (talk) 20:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- Keep, below TOO. --Krd 14:16, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Kept: with doubts because I agree partially with the arguments why this would be complex others seem to evaluate this as too simple. As simple vs complex is hardly quantifiable I'll keep it under consensus. Basvb (talk) 16:18, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
- Apparently there was a new version uploaded, the nomination however was based on other versions. The other versions are above the threshold of originality and I've thus made them invisible. Basvb (talk) 14:42, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Porn...Copyrighted music.??? KALARICKAN | My Interactions 14:37, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Pornografico...Falto a la moral SOFIABOYD |My Interactions 15:33, 05 Diciembre 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 22:41, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Seems unlikely "own work" for new user? Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:44, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- It's my own photogallery http://lionheart.ic.cz/pha/ Linjin
Deleted. - no indication of permission, the image is not even present in the linked gallery - Jcb (talk) 22:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
erro 189.42.238.178 17:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
erro Roobsaibot (talk) 17:21, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 22:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
I can't find any license on the source web-page. Needs to be verified by OTRS. JuTa (talk) 20:47, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
The OTRS ticket of File:Pennaria disticha.jpg should be 2007101410010556 --Esculapio (talk) 23:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
There is such a ticket, perhaps an italian OTRS-member can check it later. --Mbdortmund (talk) 22:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 22:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
The author isnt stated, so PD-old doesnt fit. GeorgHH • talk 21:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- Pictures of around 1990 rarely mention any author. This really doesn't make sense, sorry. We El (talk) 22:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. - license corrected - Jcb (talk) 22:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Back in 2011 we considered a work much too easy to be anonymous. No evidence that this would have been an anonymous work an no indication that the author would have died before 1947. The Netherlands has the PMA+70 rule. Jcb (talk) 22:34, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 11:32, 5 February 2017 (UTC)