Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2010/11/01
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
Bad filename Andy Dingley (talk) 16:04, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio: (incorrectly named) duplicate of File:Bristol Centaurus, crankshaft and connecting rods.jpg
Image is marked "bolsilludo.com", doesn't match up with uploader info Ytoyoda (talk) 03:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, copyright violation. Infrogmation (talk) 06:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
unused a bit strange private image - out of scope, not realistically usable - file includes link to a strange pdf-File - selfadvertisement Cholo Aleman (talk) 09:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
I withdraw my DR - there is an article about him http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Searl Cholo Aleman (talk) 10:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept, DR withdrawn by nominator. In scope as shows person with article. Infrogmation (talk) 06:38, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
76.208.160.63 13:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Keep - no valid reason for deletion. — Jeff G. ツ 17:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept, no reason for deletion offered nor apparent. Infrogmation (talk) 06:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Tineye shows this image in 36 instances, and no free licence for any. o licence here, suspected copyvio. Rodhullandemu (talk) 23:47, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Cookie: Copyright violation
Screenshot of copyrighted website getupmc.org, Website and image both indicate "©2009 Copyright PHDMC all rights reserved". —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 05:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Dammit, I'm sorry, I meant to nom this for speedy. I've retagged. Please close as I'm unfamiliar with Commons' process. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 05:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Herbythyme: Copyright violation
Becasue I am not going to use it and its my file. Wacarp71 (talk) 17:58, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio: Uploader request: I didn't know my articles would be so hastily refused so this file needs to be removed
This image is not public domain, see OTRS ticket 2010110110006649. The rights owner is content for it to remain on the various Wikipedia projects under a Fair Use rationale where appropriate but the image is not PD, the original claim was based on a misunderstanding. Guy 22:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Copyright renewal R447684 confirmed. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:52, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Fair use does not apply, as there are plenty of pulp fiction mags which are not covered; there are even issues of this series for which the copyright was not renewed. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:55, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- En bloc no, but it may apply to individual cases. That's a matter for the local Wikipedia editors IMO. Guy 07:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- I agree it is a matter for the local Wikipedia projects, however the content around the copyrighted image must justify why it is fair use to use this cover as oppose to other similar covers which are not covered by copyright. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:20, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- En bloc no, but it may apply to individual cases. That's a matter for the local Wikipedia editors IMO. Guy 07:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Delete Not free content. As above, fair use needs to be handled on a Wikipedia-by-Wikipedia basis. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Blurpeace 18:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
uploaded by mistake. I created new file instead of updating of original file. Mtd (talk) 12:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. MGA73 (talk) 19:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Becasue I am not going to use it and its my file. Wacarp71 (talk) 17:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete prompt uploader request; no project scope usefulness apparent. Infrogmation (talk) 07:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by EugeneZelenko: Copyright violation: Logo. Not text only
Becasue I am not going to use it and its my file. Wacarp71 (talk) 17:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by EugeneZelenko: Copyright violation: Logo. Not text only
Becasue I am not going to use it and its my file. Wacarp71 (talk) 17:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete prompt uploader request; looks to be personal artwork, no project scope usefulness apparent. Infrogmation (talk) 07:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by EugeneZelenko: Copyright violation: Logo. Not text only
because its is not a true representation of miss wales 2007 this girls looks nothing like kelly pesticcio 194.176.105.41 13:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Keep I can't say I know her personally, but the woman in this image actually does look remarkably like Kelly-Louise Pesticcio, so much so in fact that you'd swear it was the same person... See her Miss World picture on this page (detail: here) or do an image search. Also this is in use on a number of wikipedia editions. Assuming no copyright or other problems we should keep. (Note in passing: this is yet another example of why the far too convenient 'Nominate for deletion' side menu option should be restricted to registered users only.) Anatiomaros (talk) 00:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
THE ABOVE PICTURE IS NOT A TRUE REPRESENATION OF MAYSELF, AS MYSELF I FEEL THAT I AM THE BEST TO JUDGE THIS. FURTHERMORE THIS PHOTO IS IMPACTING ON MY JOB AS A MODEL WHO IS WELL KNOWN I OFTEN GET LOOKED UP ON THE INTERNET BEFORE CASTING FOR A JOB. I HAVE HAD WORK REFUSED BASED ON A GOOGLE SEARCH OF THIS PICTURE. I WOULD LIKE IT DELETED AS IT IS COST ME FINCIAL PROBLEMS AS WELL AS EMOTIONAL STRAIN. KELLY PESTICCIO
- Dear Mrs. KELLY PESTICCIO,
as we can't be sure about the identity of the above IP's comment, please email your complaint (you can use the same words, but don't forget to mention the file name, File:Miss Wales 07 Kelly-Louise Pesticcio.jpg) to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 10:54, 5 November 2010 (UTC)- Mail received, but from a social network domain (OTRS ticket 2010110510005124). I requested to mail again from a domain that we can verify. Jcb (talk) 13:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- Jcb asked me for a second opinion about this picture and the mailconversation on OTRS. I think it is plausible that Mrs. Kelly-Louise Pesticcio did sent those emails and wrote the message above. So my opinion is to delete this image. She also proposed to send us another image as replacement. Although I don't really know how this is handeled normally on commons, I think the file should be deleted if this picture has that much inpact on her life. Freaky Fries (talk) 14:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- Not having seen the OTRS mail and conversation, I'm in no position to judge, but I do find it a bit odd that she hasn't complained about the use of the same image on English wikipedia (nothing on the talk page there anyway). Also, the same picture is used on a number of Miss World-related websites. Comparing the deleted picture ([1]) and several others of her on the web (e.g. on this page = this pic) I can't say I'm absolutely convinced. If the complaint is genuine then I agree that it was right to delete the file, but can you be sure about this? Anatiomaros (talk) 21:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- Such situations often require a weighing up. If the complaint is true, we temporarily lost an image, but were promised to get a new/better one, and, more important, we took into account human dignity of the depicted person (remember WMF Resolution about living people). In case the complaint turns out to be a hoax, restoration of the file is just 3 clicks away. --Túrelio (talk) 22:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- That's fine. As you say, if it's true then we should have genuine sympathy and deletion was the correct course. I was just a bit confused by the evidence available online. No problem, and tnx for the reply. Anatiomaros (talk) 22:20, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- Such situations often require a weighing up. If the complaint is true, we temporarily lost an image, but were promised to get a new/better one, and, more important, we took into account human dignity of the depicted person (remember WMF Resolution about living people). In case the complaint turns out to be a hoax, restoration of the file is just 3 clicks away. --Túrelio (talk) 22:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- Not having seen the OTRS mail and conversation, I'm in no position to judge, but I do find it a bit odd that she hasn't complained about the use of the same image on English wikipedia (nothing on the talk page there anyway). Also, the same picture is used on a number of Miss World-related websites. Comparing the deleted picture ([1]) and several others of her on the web (e.g. on this page = this pic) I can't say I'm absolutely convinced. If the complaint is genuine then I agree that it was right to delete the file, but can you be sure about this? Anatiomaros (talk) 21:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- Jcb asked me for a second opinion about this picture and the mailconversation on OTRS. I think it is plausible that Mrs. Kelly-Louise Pesticcio did sent those emails and wrote the message above. So my opinion is to delete this image. She also proposed to send us another image as replacement. Although I don't really know how this is handeled normally on commons, I think the file should be deleted if this picture has that much inpact on her life. Freaky Fries (talk) 14:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- Mail received, but from a social network domain (OTRS ticket 2010110510005124). I requested to mail again from a domain that we can verify. Jcb (talk) 13:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio: precautionary deletion as per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Miss Wales 07 Kelly-Louise Pesticcio.jpg
Likely a catalog shot, judging by quality and low resolution, unlikely that image belongs to uploader Ytoyoda (talk) 00:11, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. — Tanvir • 05:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Masur (talk) 10:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Not sure about copyright status of this image. The creator died 1967, Aus PD for an artwork requires creator died before 1955. It might be that this is being claimed as PD under one of the other Aus PD categories but if so I'm not sure which. If the image is Commonwealth or State owned then the image page should say so; does the fact that the image is held by a State Library prove that the copyright is held by them too? (I don't think that should be taken for granted.) I don't think "published editions" covers an artwork like this (it isn't e.g. typesetting that is the claim of the copyright). Unfortunately the link to the State Library is dead, which doesn't help. TheGrappler (talk) 13:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with that analysis. Under Australian copyright law, this qualifies as an "artistic work". It is still under copyright both in Australia and in the U.S. Hesperian 23:39, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- P.S. I have fixed the source link. Hesperian 23:39, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete this link is to the info at State library of south Australia there is a link to copyright on that page but it leaves the SLSA page and goes to SA.gov page, there it offers up two option one says Copyright material that is not owned by the Government of South Australia is clearly identified further on down the page it says Unless otherwise stated, the copyright in all images and graphics on this website is owned by a third party. then at the bottom of the page is a CC-by-SA 2.5(au) license but that most likely applies to the information on the page rather than the image, so thats now clear as mud. Then view the image try this link it says no publication in any form without permission: contact the SLSA there is no clear assertion of SLSA ownership as such theres insufficient information to claim PD as per pt E on the license. With the lack of information we can only presume that pt C applies which is death of author was pre 1955. Gnangarra 01:59, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per all of above. <sigh> Moondyne (talk) 08:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Masur (talk) 10:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
fake Reinhardhauke (talk) 16:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- No. It really shows me. I swear! --Liebe Paula (talk) 16:27, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- I see no evidences for a fake. So I don't see any reason for a deletion request. In dubio pro reo Keep --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 20:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Why keeping this pic in a useless resolution? --Yikrazuul (talk) 22:34, 1 November 2010
(UTC)
- It's my picture for my user-page. Even Jimbo has a photo in his user-page. There is no other use for it. It was my intention to make this photo exactly in this resolution with a professional camera. It's not necessary to see anything better. Keep --Liebe Paula (talk) 23:39, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Comment Yes personal photos are allowed in user pages. But I see that this photo is not being used now. Also, do you have more than one account on Commons, User:Liebe Paula, User:Böse Paula? Infrogmation (talk) 06:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- That's right. I intended to insert the photo in my user page User:Liebe Paula, as I did now. Yesterday I hadn't the heart to do so, because of this discussion. Isn't it allowed to have more than one account on Commons? If it isn't, I will delete my second account User:Böse Paula, I promise you. --Liebe Paula (talk) 10:06, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- If there is any administrator: Please delete this ugly picture! It's the most pornographic picture since 24 th of March this year. I changed my opinion. Btw: It's not the first time, that someone thought I were a fake *lol*. But really, I'm not. Yours --Liebe Paula (talk) 20:54, 4 November 2010 (UTC) (red wine drunken tonight..)
In case you are sober again, please state finally what you want. This image is in scope as long as it is used for your userpage (on any Wikimedia project). But if you prefer its deletion, then confirm, please. --Túrelio (talk) 10:10, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for your statement. I'm sober again. Some minutes ago I uploaded another photo for my user page. I hope Reinhardhauke can live with it. It's ugly, too. I can't help. Please delete this one (File: 1264626_full.jpg). I think it's better.. --Liebe Paula (talk) 14:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- No, it's not ugly. Besides, that wouldn't matter. --Túrelio (talk) 14:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for your statement. I'm sober again. Some minutes ago I uploaded another photo for my user page. I hope Reinhardhauke can live with it. It's ugly, too. I can't help. Please delete this one (File: 1264626_full.jpg). I think it's better.. --Liebe Paula (talk) 14:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- If there is any administrator: Please delete this ugly picture! It's the most pornographic picture since 24 th of March this year. I changed my opinion. Btw: It's not the first time, that someone thought I were a fake *lol*. But really, I'm not. Yours --Liebe Paula (talk) 20:54, 4 November 2010 (UTC) (red wine drunken tonight..)
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
![[1]](http://fr.academic.ru/pictures/frwiki/77/Miss_Wales_07_Kelly-Louise_Pesticcio.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted., uploader request (was userpageimage). Túrelio (talk) 14:05, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
I see this is not the place for my artwork so wiching to delete my files DctFlatt (talk) 01:04, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Uploader request; Orphan personal artwork, no in scope usefulness apparent. Infrogmation (talk) 06:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Jameslwoodward: Per Commons:Deletion_requests/Images_by_DctFlatt
false tag, can't be PD-old Secret (talk) 01:58, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Actually a 1936 photo could be PD-Old now if the photographer/copyright holder died within 4 years of taking the photograph. However here the photographer is listed as "unknown", and sourced only to a website which gives no details about the photographer nor copyright status, so no reason to assume the claimed license. Infrogmation (talk) 06:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Derivative work of design printed on can. Dcoetzee (talk) 02:53, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes Annabel280710 (talk) 03:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
No Annabel280710 (talk) 03:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Keep Annabel280710 (talk) 03:31, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete ? In any case, it's a simple exact duplicate of the older File:Zeichen 281.svg.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Keep Annabel280710 (talk) 03:32, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Er, what? In any case, it's a simple duplicate of an existing file.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:11, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Photo of Alexander Gomelsky (died in August 16, 2005 - www.gazeta.ru). more versions of this photo can be seen her. seems that this specific photo taken during CSKA won Olympic gold medal in 1988 ceremony. Very unlikly upladers own work. - Geagea (talk) 03:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Keep InterstateKazuya40 (talk) 03:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Low quality, not notable person, not in use. Personal photo?
Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 05:37, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Looks like a copyvio to me, though I don't have the clear evidence to say so. You might argue that the service icons at the bottom are copyrighted (though you might call them de minimis). May fall under COM:ADVERT, particularly considering this user's other uploads. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 06:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Delete The content comes from Atomic Interactive. While like Mendaliv I can't see the exact page from which it came, the text is copyrighted to Atomic Interactive, and I assume per the description that this is a screenshot of a page generated from that content. So I see it as a copyright violation, in both the text being reproduced and the design elements. - Bilby (talk) 07:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Isn't it screenshot of copyrighted software? Taivo (talk) 14:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, mostly likely of the atomic game engine. --Ahecht (talk) 15:34, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 14:31, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Some images removed from commons..re edit this image or delete KALARICKAN | My Interactions 07:10, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Comment two component images were deleted. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Screenshot Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Zooland Records is a fairly big dance record label in Germany and this is their logo, apparently cropped from the same source as [2]. I believe it's above the threshold of originality so {{PD-text}} does not apply. On the unlikely chance the uploader represents Zoolander, they must submit this through OTRS. Dcoetzee (talk) 07:58, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
![[2]](http://www.zooland-records.de/www/_gfx/zooland_logo.gif){kind=link}
- Keep - ineligible for copyright. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - I'm not really comfortable saying this is ineligible, and it's definitely not the uploader's own work to release (besides, how can it be licensed as PD and GNU?) David Fuchs (talk) 19:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- The US Copyright office would refuse to register this, compare other examples in Threshold of originality#United States, so this is {{PD-ineligible}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept.
Although the typeface for the large "ZOO" is unusual, it is simply a typeface. Our policy is that logos that consist only of letters set in type are PD-textlogo. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Copy of [3], likely copyvio unless there's some reason this image has been released under a free license. I can't read the author field or the source webpage so could use a second look. Dcoetzee (talk) 08:37, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
![[3]](http://www.electrotrans.spb.ru/img/index_51.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. I, too, don't read Russian, but the source page has a (c), so unless we get other evidence, this is a copyvio. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Egor97 is not an author. The source is vagons.tramvaj.ru. Dinamik (talk) 08:51, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Source site has (C) Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Promotional, out of scope. Jafeluv (talk) 09:00, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
unused and unusable - advertisment for a xing-forum - no value for wp-projects !! ((?? - consens??)) Cholo Aleman (talk) 09:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete! --Kaster (talk) 11:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Comment - this vote for deletion is from the uploader Cholo Aleman (talk) 08:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
unused private image, blurred - no real value for the commons - out of socpe Cholo Aleman (talk) 09:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 09:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
unused strange drawing - unusable, out of scope, no real source and author Cholo Aleman (talk) 10:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Infrogmation (talk) 06:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Uploader might be the photographer, bun I really doubt he is the author. Avron (talk) 10:17, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- "Note that the copyright status of the photographed works have been validated by the respective museums and other copyright holders for licensing under Creative Commons BY and BY-SA licenses". Maybe first contact the WLANL organisation and ask for the details regarding te copyright status from this picture before deleting it. Mvg, Basvb (talk) 10:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - the real author is not given, no way to establish PD status. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. see Commons:Deletion requests/File:WLANL - mchangsp - Bijval uit het duister, 1970.jpg Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
unused private image, blurred - out of scope, not really useful Cholo Aleman (talk) 10:17, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Orphan. Low res blurry image of a person; no indication of any compensating notability nor importance. Infrogmation (talk) 06:42, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
unused private image, blurred , cannot be identified (I cannot....) - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 10:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
The author Fritz Behrendt died in 2008, I doubt the photographer has the copyrights Avron (talk) 10:21, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- "Note that the copyright status of the photographed works have been validated by the respective museums and other copyright holders for licensing under Creative Commons BY and BY-SA licenses". Maybe first contact the WLANL organisation and ask for the details regarding te copyright status from this picture before deleting it. Mvg, Basvb (talk) 10:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Apparently the the author is wrong. Marc Chang Sing Pang may be the photographer, Fritz Behrendt is the author. If this is already wrong so I have some doubts if this image is licensed correctly.--Avron (talk) 11:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete No reason to assume that this is free. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted.
The template over-reaches. Although there is broad FOP in the Netherlands, our summary explicitly tells us that museums are not included in the places where works may be photographed. This assumes that the English summary of the Dutch law is correct, but since Pieter Kuiper (nl,en-3,sv-3,nds-2, etc.) has opted for delete, I think that is a safe assumption. This is a DW of a work by Fritz Behrendt, an artist who died in 2008 and it won't be PD until 2078.
Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
insufficient information regarding authorship, same picture is used on this site (http://www.breda-en-alles-daaromheen.nl/zoveel-doden-voor-een-onvermijdelijk-verlies.htm), where it is dedicated to Kees Wittenbols Mathonius (talk) 10:21, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - probable copyvio. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:04, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted.
It is exactly the same size as the image cited by Mathonius. It is, of course, possible that Kees Wittenbols is User:Westbrabander, the uploader, but we need to hear that from him or her. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
The author Fritz Behrendt died in 2008, I doubt the photographer has the copyrights Avron (talk) 10:21, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- "Note that the copyright status of the photographed works have been validated by the respective museums and other copyright holders for licensing under Creative Commons BY and BY-SA licenses". Maybe first contact the WLANL organisation and ask for the details regarding te copyright status from this picture before deleting it. Mvg, Basvb (talk) 10:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - http://www.fritzbehrendt.nl/ says that Behrent donated the proceeds of a €20 CD with his work to a charity in Bosnia, but nothing suggests a free license for his work. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. see Commons:Deletion requests/File:WLANL - mchangsp - Bijval uit het duister, 1970.jpg Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
The author Fritz Behrendt died in 2008, I doubt the photographer has the copyrights Avron (talk) 10:22, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- "Note that the copyright status of the photographed works have been validated by the respective museums and other copyright holders for licensing under Creative Commons BY and BY-SA licenses". Maybe first contact the WLANL organisation and ask for the details regarding te copyright status from this picture before deleting it. Mvg, Basvb (talk) 10:58, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - http://www.fritzbehrendt.nl/ says that Behrent donated the proceeds of a €20 CD with his work to a charity in Bosnia, but nothing suggests a free license for his work. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
The author Fritz Behrendt died in 2008, I doubt the photographer has the copyrights Avron (talk) 10:23, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- "Note that the copyright status of the photographed works have been validated by the respective museums and other copyright holders for licensing under Creative Commons BY and BY-SA licenses". Maybe first contact the WLANL organisation and ask for the details regarding te copyright status from this picture before deleting it. Mvg, Basvb (talk) 10:58, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - http://www.fritzbehrendt.nl/ says that Behrent donated the proceeds of a €20 CD with his work to a charity in Bosnia, but nothing suggests a free license for his work. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
The author Fritz Behrendt died in 2008, I doubt the photographer has the copyrights Avron (talk) 10:32, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- "Note that the copyright status of the photographed works have been validated by the respective museums and other copyright holders for licensing under Creative Commons BY and BY-SA licenses". Maybe first contact the WLANL organisation and ask for the details regarding te copyright status from this picture before deleting it. Mvg, Basvb (talk) 10:58, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - http://www.fritzbehrendt.nl/ says that Behrent donated the proceeds of a €20 CD with his work to a charity in Bosnia, but nothing suggests a free license for his work. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
The author Fritz Behrendt died in 2008, I doubt the photographer has the copyrights Avron (talk) 10:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- "Note that the copyright status of the photographed works have been validated by the respective museums and other copyright holders for licensing under Creative Commons BY and BY-SA licenses". Maybe first contact the WLANL organisation and ask for the details regarding te copyright status from this picture before deleting it. Mvg, Basvb (talk) 10:58, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - http://www.fritzbehrendt.nl/ says that Behrent donated the proceeds of a €20 CD with his work to a charity in Bosnia, but nothing suggests a free license for his work. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
The author Fritz Behrendt died in 2008, I doubt the photographer has the copyrights Avron (talk) 10:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- "Note that the copyright status of the photographed works have been validated by the respective museums and other copyright holders for licensing under Creative Commons BY and BY-SA licenses". Maybe first contact the WLANL organisation and ask for the details regarding te copyright status from this picture before deleting it. Mvg, Basvb (talk) 10:58, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - http://www.fritzbehrendt.nl/ says that Behrent donated the proceeds of a €20 CD with his work to a charity in Bosnia, but nothing suggests a free license for his work. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
The author Fritz Behrendt died in 2008, I doubt the photographer has the copyrights Avron (talk) 10:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete - http://www.fritzbehrendt.nl/ says that Behrent donated the proceeds of a €20 CD with his work to a charity in Bosnia, but nothing suggests a free license for his work. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
extremely poor quality, varios better images exist Antemister (talk) 12:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
private artwork based on afghan flag, no educational porpose Antemister (talk) 12:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
German "Kunsturhebergesetz §22" - In the photo mainly people, are the need to agree to publication. "Langeoog" is not the main cause of the image. Mef.ellingen (talk) 13:53, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted.
see Commons:Photographs of identifiable people -- in Germany you need permission, even in a public place. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Incorrect source Vssun (talk) 14:51, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
applies also to the derivative works:
- File:Paul Cézanne in Aix-en-Provence by Gertrude Osthaus, 1906-crop.jpg
- File:Paul Cézanne in Aix-en-Provence by Gertrude Osthaus, 1906-crop2.jpg
PD-old apparently wrong: Gertrude died 1975 [4]. Marriage was 1899. Plausible death date. Saibo (Δ) 15:17, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Redundant Pedro Felipe (talk) 16:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom (the only editor of the category). — Jeff G. ツ 17:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
This seems to be either advertising or a copyright vio. Mr.choppers (talk) 17:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted.
From the Carlsson web site. The company apparently makes mod-kits for the Smart car, but I don't think it passes the notability test. Although the uploader may be connected with the company, we have no evidence that he holds the copyright. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Either a copyright vio or an attempt at advertising. Mr.choppers (talk) 17:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
do not need it anymore in the wikipedia article as the unicode display is now correct. Redefinegravity (talk) 06:37, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. — Jeff G. ツ 17:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 14:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
The actual New York State Route 950D does not use this style marker. As a reference route, it is unsigned with the numerical designation. Imzadi1979 (talk) 18:06, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 21:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
image only used in hoax article [5] Peter E. James (talk) 18:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
unused text - out of scope, unusable Cholo Aleman (talk) 18:14, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 14:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Advertisement KALARICKAN | My Interactions 18:23, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 14:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Incorrect rendering of the marker. Not in use anywhere. Imzadi 1979 → 18:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
- Delete Garbled, unusable SVG with no clear purpose. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 21:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete as unusable. I think there's an image in there, but it won't render in any of the three browsers I've tried. –Fredddie™ 22:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 14:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Poor quality image lacking sufficient context to be useful (i.e. no scale on x-axis). Superior illustration of the concept already exists at File:Half-age-plus-seven-relationship-rule.svg. Uncle Dick (talk) 20:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:41, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
seriously faulty colors. Compare to File:Munich Sendling Schmied von Kochel Memorial.jpg. replaced in only use h-stt !? 20:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
The board is intellectual property of English Heritage, I think. Fronſère (talk) 21:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - no FOP for this in the UK. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
87.121.174.36 21:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - this is the Bulgarian Language version of Commons:Village Pump. — Jeff G. ツ 15:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep No reason was given for the deletion request. --JuTa (talk) 19:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I think it should be deleted (the talk page, I mean). The text is sort of an advertisement of the activities performed by UNICEF Bulgaria; not really what is expected to stay on this talk page. →Spiritia 12:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
OK, and I see that is what you have done -- the main page remains, the talk page is gone. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
This is Selig's official MLB photo per his profile, and it is highly doubtful that MLB would release it into the public domain. BrokenSphere (Talk) 22:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Comment I agree it is doubtful. The above website, as well as the source website on the image description page, both have clear copyright notices. I have requested the uploader provide license confirmation from the copyright holder per OTRS. If no permission is shown, delete. Infrogmation (talk) 07:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete copyvio Secret (talk) 21:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
This photograph is an aerial shot of the ruins of the Golden Church.
The uploader says it comes from http://www.imagesfrombulgaria.com/v/The_Bulgarian_History/National_Museum_of_History. From the EXIF, this photograph was taken on 15:39, 29 April 2006. That places it somewhere around the range of images P1070683 and P1070687. There is no way the photographer can take photographs in a museum, board an aircraft, take an aerial photgraph, and come back into the museum and resume photography in less than a minute.
Observe the photograph at full size (2560x1920). There is a crease line that runs down the middle of the photograph from top to bottom. There is also part of a white tag on the left side just above the bottom tree line. It is impossible for the focus of the ruins be that blurry while the words "ntury AD" are so sharp, not to mention that such a tag would be ridiculously large if it were actually on the ground there. This is a photograph of a photograph! ImagesfromBulgaria.com has also expunged this photograph from their database. Anyone is free to verify this themselves by going through Nenko Lazarov's contributions at the following link: http://imagesfrombulgaria.com/main.php?g2_view=members.MembersItems&g2_form[list][page]=109&g2_userId=10559.
In conclusion, this image is a derivative of an aerial photograph (unknown author). Nenko Lazarov had no right to release this derivative under a Creative Commons license. This material is a copyright violation. Jappalang (talk) 22:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per analysis above. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Original uploader on en: is not the author. On the source webpage I only can find a copyright notice. JuTa (talk) 23:27, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Comment I have alterted the uploader, User:DoxTxob to this deletion request. Unless User:DoxTxob is the same person as the "Thomas R Machnitzki" on the linked webpage, the license seems wrong. Infrogmation (talk) 07:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. Many of the user's other uploads have the same name so it appears DoxTxob == Thomas R Machnitzki. (Although COM:OTRS would be nice). Wknight94 talk 10:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. Yes, I am Thomas R Machnitzki. I usually upload the photos under my real name. The Nutbush photo as well as the other photos of Nutbush were taken by me and can be freely used for all purposes according to the license chosen for the image on Wikimedia. I did not request OTRS since there are about two dozen images of Nutbush that are on my private website as well as on Wikimedia and it was too much paperwork to get all the file names together for the request. doxTxob \ talk 12:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for clearing this up. Keep, the question seems favorably resolved. Infrogmation (talk) 14:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for clearing this up.
- @DoxTxob, did they really ask you for every photo name? I've never dealt with OTRS. It would seem you could just tell them/prove to them that you are Thomas R Machnitzki and that would suffice. But maybe I'm wrong. Another idea is to label the images on your web site with the license of your choice. Then it wouldn't matter whether or not DoxTxob == Thomas R Machnitzki. Just a thought... Wknight94 talk 16:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
fake Reinhardhauke (talk) 20:14, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - no intelligible reason is given for deletion. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Comment No description, no categories, Out of scope? Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by EugeneZelenko: Missing essential information: source and/or license: since November 1, 2010
As per NoFOP in UAE - Changing from speedy to Normal KALARICKAN | My Interactions 08:32, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete No FOP in UAE. --Leoboudv (talk) 19:53, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- kept. This is a building, not artwork - Jcb (talk) 12:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
No Freedom of Panorama in UAE, All the architectures are copyrighted to the creator of the work..for more information please see this Commons FoP - UAE ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 10:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Although I worked on this image, like this image, think it has great value on wiki projects, and think no FOP is ridiculous, I thought this vote was a no-brainer: it should be deleted because it contravenes the rules on FOP for UAE. However, After looking at the English translation of the relevant law, I cannot see that it is clear that there is no FOP in UAE. Furthermore, there is still much debate concerning this on Commons talk pages (e.g Commons talk:Freedom of panorama). Until such discussion has reached a definite conclusion, it would be wrong to delete this image (or any other such image). --Tom dl (talk)
- Delete This is a modern building and the architect cannot be deceased for 70 years. So COM:FOP applies here. There is no FOP for buildings in the UAE, so I don't see how this picture can be kept when it focuses exclusively on the building itself. Its not as if the building in the picture is only a trifle and say forms part of circa 10-15% of the picture. Then Commons could keep it. --Leoboudv (talk) 22:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment This FoP situation was under dispute, and after analyzing several law sources and websites, we all together managed to close the discussion on the talk page of COM:FOP, it can be read over there...--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 06:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete This is a picture of copyrighted architecture, and there is no freedom of panorama in the United Arab Emirates. The discussion on the issue has been had, and has reached the conclusion affirming the lack of FoP in the UAE. I provided a detailed summary on why arguments against the claim that there is no FoP in the UAE did not stand up to scrutiny on the actual evidence that was provided. The building is clearly the subject of the image - so de minimis does not apply, and clearly copyrightable parts are visible so claims it is not architecture and/or does not meet the threshold of originality do not apply either. CT Cooper · talk 14:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. Sadly, but clearly, as this building is pure creativity. --Túrelio (talk) 17:12, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per Túrelio --Herby talk thyme 17:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC)*
- Keep This is culture! Who cares if it has an FOP or not. I'm doing this as a project and for me to see this building gives me an idea of how wonderful this country is.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.142.185.72 (talk • contribs)
- Who cares ..? - The judicial system of UAE does care; they even imprison and fine tourists for taking photos, as you can see from recent UAE newspaper reports[6]. Apart from that, we don't want that people, who re-use images from Commons, get sued by the architect who holds the copyright for that nice building. --Túrelio (talk) 07:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Uploaded a new file that is more updated Liberal (talk) 07:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep: What is this updated file? I don't see any other image of Adam Cwejman in "Category:Folkpartiet liberalerna". In any case, unless the old file is defective in some way and therefore not as useful as the new file, the fact that there is now a new file is not a sufficient reason for the old file (which appears to be properly licensed) to be deleted. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 13:53, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Copyright issues. We, Liberal Youth of Sweden, hold the copyright to this picture and wants it to be removed from this site Liberal (talk) 09:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept.
Actually, there is File:Adam Cwejman 304.jpg, which I have added to Category:Folkpartiet liberalerna . However, Jacklee is correct, there is no reason why we should not have two images of this man.
As for the second DR, Liberal cannot be, as he claims, "Liberal Youth of Sweden", because Liberal is an individual and "Liberal Youth of Sweden" is, I guess, a political organization. The correct procedure for this is for "Liberal Youth of Sweden" to send an e-mail from its own e-mail address following the procedure at Commons:OTRS. We do not respond to take down demands from new contributors, particularly when they first give one reason to delete the image and then another. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
copyright issues. LIberal youth sweden holds the copyright to this picture and does not want it to be available on this website Liberal (talk) 09:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Speedy close -- no new reasons given. As noted above, the correct procedure for this is for "Liberal Youth of Sweden" to send an e-mail from its own e-mail address following the procedure at Commons:OTRS. Please do not put a {{Delete}} on this image again; repeating a DR , as you have done, is a violation of policy. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
- The OTRS ticket didn't give a reason to delete either. Jcb (talk) 15:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- It claims the authorship for the picture. --Mbdortmund (talk) 18:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
it ist not a correct foto Reinhardhauke (talk) 19:03, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - be specific about what it is that you think is not "correct". /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Files of User:Nepal-bijay
[edit]
Self-created artwork without obvious educational use. Both images appear to be self-created solely for promotional/image-hosting purposes. --Uncle Dick (talk) 19:31, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
cf. http://hotactressesimages.blogspot.com/2010/06/priya-lal.html Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Low quality image is noticed in the link, and may be the original photographer uploaded it to en.wiki...--KALARICKAN | My Interactions 03:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Obviously the pictures in the blog are stolen ones, they all have watermark on them. This blog cannot be termed as the source of original photograph. --Sreejith K (talk) 05:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Comment - um, I wasn't saying he got it from the blog, I was saying they both got it from the same source. If it means anything, there's currently a contributor copyright investigation on him at en.wp, where he's also been blocked for copyright violations. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Comment - I see a few close matches here [7] but not the very same image. --Sreejith K (talk) 06:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Comment No body knows, that the user is from metro matinee or not...what ever it is- The higher res image will win, If the user have obvious copyright violations, this can be put into PUF..--KALARICKAN | My Interactions 09:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Does commons have PUF? All his contributions are at PUF at en, or I speedy-deleted them. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- if he is not having a bad history in commons we can keep it, or it need to be deleted--Kalarickan | My Interactions 08:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- I don't understand what you're saying. At any rate, it was transfered from en.wp where he does have a bad record. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- if he is not having a bad history in commons we can keep it, or it need to be deleted--Kalarickan | My Interactions 08:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- Will you able to identify that, with this picture upload, he became a good contributor....?? or still have the bad record of uploading copyrighted images..??Kalarickan | My Interactions 03:50, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- Really? Really?' We have someone with persistent copyright violations, and one of the images in the middle of those copyright violations that looks completely professional, and just like another set that is copyrighted, and for which he would have needed unfettered access (unlikely as it is, and which he has claimed to have had falsely before), and we're assuming good faith? Frankly, that is patently ridiculous. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Then delete it..--Kalarickan | My Interactions 09:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. User's uploads are all clear copyvio. Even if the source is not that blog, the fact remains that the real source is not the uploader. Wknight94 talk 18:50, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Creator:Erich Heermann died 1947 Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- deleted - not yet PD - Jcb (talk) 12:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
bad name Sureau (talk) 18:38, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Question I don't understand. Carina Barone is a Canadian actress. This may or may not be her, but the name of the file matches the description in the file. "Bad name" is not a reason to delete, particularly here. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 00:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
No FOP in UAE (Discussion continues on talk page of the file) KALARICKAN | My Interactions 05:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- More discussion can be found at File talk:Dubai 051.JPG--KALARICKAN | My Interactions 05:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. - 'architecture' is not the same as 'a building' - Jcb (talk) 14:08, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
No Freedom of Panorama in UAE, All the architectures are copyrighted to the creator of the work..for more information please see this Commons FoP - UAE ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 16:58, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - Possibly only a weak delete as the picture doesn't show that much beyond simple walls and a clock, though my guess is it is probably still complex enough as a whole to be copyrighted, and hence should be deleted as there is no FoP in the UAE. CT Cooper · talk 17:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - I don't see how this simple square tower with a clock meets the threshold of originality - Jcb (talk) 16:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
- Everything is simple, but its overruled by architecture, thus it creates its own copyright..?? ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 06:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
- The threshold of originality also applies to architecture. Jcb (talk) 10:33, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
- Everything is simple, but its overruled by architecture, thus it creates its own copyright..?? ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 06:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Jcb is right. A simple square tower with a clock does Not meets the threshold of originality. What is so special about this design? Its not like the Gugenheim in Spain. If this was a unique design, then it should be deleted but its a very bland design...with zero originality. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 03:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - This image meets threshold of originality as the structure is clearly visible & prime focus, so it will attract copyright, or else a free image similar to this need to be shown to prove that this is a derivative of that, and does not bear any independent idea of the architect... copyright can be claimed for parts of the structures......Captain......Tälk tö me.. 09:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't know the local case law, but this would surely have a copyright in the USA and most other places, therefore it is deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:30, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Recent structure and referred to COM:FOP#United_Arab_Emirates KALARICKAN | My Interactions 08:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 14:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
No Freedom of Panorama in UAE, All the architectures are copyrighted to the creator of the work..for more information please see this Commons FoP - UAE ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 16:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator. The primary subject of the images is clearly the building(s) which do show copyrighted architecture, and since there is no FoP in the UAE, this image sadly should go. CT Cooper · talk 17:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Montages with common Euro face
[edit]- File:Megalodon tooth Euro.jpg
- File:Jetztspenden-160x96.jpg
- File:Jetztspenden-100x60.jpg
- File:Jetztspenden-200x120.jpg
- File:Jetzt spenden - transparent mit Logo - 250x180.png
- File:Embryo 9 Wochen mit Groessenvergleich2.JPG
- File:Embryo 9 Wochen mit Groessenvergleich3.JPG
These montages include the common face of the Euro coin, concluded to be non-free. Either they need to be adapted, or they should be deleted. -TheDJ (talk) 14:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Comment We have not yet concluded that. Hold this until Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Euro coin common face 2 is closed. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- It is closed now. Can this one be closed too? -- Asclepias (talk) 23:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, thank you. Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)