Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2010/11/12
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
![38 File:Africa_HIV-AIDS_with_"wrong"_colors.svg](#File:Africa_HIV-AIDS_with_"wrong"_colors.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
hjhjjghhhjbnmnn 90.154.225.200 04:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Speedly kept. vandalism by nominator (90.154.225.200) --George Chernilevsky talk 09:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
I gave a mistake file name to tihs file, that should be "Flag of Taipei City 1981-2010.svg". Jitcji (talk) 09:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Duplicate with correct name exist --George Chernilevsky talk 09:25, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Out of scope. Self-portrait in poor quality George Chernilevsky talk 09:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Promotional material apparently from puppet accounts - gone Herby talk thyme 22:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Out of scope. Self-portrait George Chernilevsky talk 09:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Herbythyme: Out of project scope
It is on the zoo's website at http://www.brandywinezoo.org/whatsnew.html - I presume that it is copyvio. Also consider other uploads by same editor. Snowmanradio (talk) 12:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Agreed - clear copyvio - gone Herby talk thyme 13:29, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
no license for commerical use ("so long as you do not profit") Allesmüller (talk) 09:24, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Commercial use must be allowed Belgrano (talk) 19:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Nouvelle Vague (official) 89.47.185.240 14:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Keep I don't understand why this is nominated. It's illustrating a keyboard-related Romanian article. What more does it need? Cmprince (talk) 14:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC)- Keep It's in use, and it's not a copyright violation. That's about all that needs to be said.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. George Chernilevsky talk 08:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
It's obvious that he is still alive. I believe that this file are misinformated and unapropiate Bestiasonica (talk) 20:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Delete Inappropriate, not in use, not useful. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:39, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 08:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE and unused. Apparently just a picture of some guy. Uploader's only contribution. Wknight94 talk 17:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. out of scope George Chernilevsky talk 10:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE and unused. Apparently just a picture of some guy. Uploader's only contribution. Wknight94 talk 17:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. out of scope George Chernilevsky talk 10:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE and now unused (I speedy deleted the en.wp user page as simple spam). Apparently some non-notable cartoon. Uploader's only contribution. Wknight94 talk 17:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 10:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Out of project scope. Common Good (talk) 20:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 11:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
There already exists same photo with higher resolution on commons - File:Acivro Ilex aquifolium.jpg. Vearthy (talk) 09:40, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry. I have written in the image {{Duplicate|Acivro Ilex aquifolium.jpg}}--Miguel Bugallo 16:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Shizhao: Dupe of Image:Acivro Ilex aquifolium.jpg
The depicted sentence is copyrighted in Chile. 84.61.153.119 20:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- "We are well" is a sentence that cannot be copyrighted. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:37, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
no educational value, no informative description. Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 02:19, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination Incredible how people can forget to add some categories or at least a little tiny description. I don't remember seeing this note in 2010. BUT: Pieter Kuiper is absolutely corrrect. And thanks for adding the category! Strong keep!!! --Hedwig in Washington (MAIL?) 17:48, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
- And its a real shame that the uploader claims this his own work. The work as well as the reproduction, nothing of this is the uploaders work. Aditionally there is a problem with copyright, contrary to what is said above. See http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-11605409 refering to exactly this piece of paper. See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Estamos bien los 33.svg. Delete, Wikimedia Commons can not overrule an accepted copyright registration application. --Martin H. (talk) 20:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
- The photo was of so poor quality that I assumed uploader had made it. But a TinEye search shows this image. If the sentence is copyrighted, File:Mensaje Mineros Copiapó.jpg ia also a problem. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:12, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
- And its a real shame that the uploader claims this his own work. The work as well as the reproduction, nothing of this is the uploaders work. Aditionally there is a problem with copyright, contrary to what is said above. See http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-11605409 refering to exactly this piece of paper. See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Estamos bien los 33.svg.
deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Estamos bien los 33.svg the text is copyrighted. --PierreSelim (talk) 09:26, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
The depicted sentence is copyrighted in Chile. 84.61.153.119 20:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- Could you show a proof of that, please? Anna (Cookie) (talk) 20:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep User 84.61.153.119 has been unable to proove his allegation here and there. Jorge Barrios (talk) 01:59, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - ineligible. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Per above. IP just disrupting the project. Diego Grez return fire 16:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. See this for a discussion about 84.61.153.119 who has been blocked recently for trolling on en: and de:. --Amga (talk) 08:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Kept It is not eligible for copyright. Anna (Cookie) (talk) 23:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Uploader claims own work but images is low res, has no viable metadata and uploader changed source to something different where I can't see the image. Uploaders also fails to follow simple instructions to send a mail to OTRS regarding permission. Denniss (talk) 16:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Herbythyme: Copyright violation
Out of scope. Non-notable band George Chernilevsky talk 09:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by ZooFari: No license for more than seven days.
Unused personal photo. Buxtehude (talk) 14:51, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. Green Giant (talk) 14:38, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
This is a deletion request to make the point for Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#File:Hamid Mir interviewing Osama bin Laden.jpg; similar situation, in a country with copyright. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - seriously? I most certainly have the right to publish a photograph taken with my own camera, of myself and a person who explicitly agreed to the photograph, under any license I damn well please. J.delanoygabsadds 04:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- Just as serious as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hamid Mir interviewing Osama bin Laden.jpg, that Rama deleted. If you undelete that one, I will withdraw this DR. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:22, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Stop being petty. This is fine and thinking otherwise is just copyright paranoia. No one cares about this being used, because it's fine to use it. Any DR started based off POINT should immediately be closed because that's not a valid rationale for deletion. ←fetchcomms 04:28, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- Let me be clear: I would like the other image to be undeleted, too. But deleting more images is not the way to save that one. We would need a community consensus on who has the ability to release such images (if they asked someone else to take it under circumstances like this image) under a certain license. ←fetchcomms 04:34, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- There was consensus in the [[DR, but User:Rama deleted it anyway. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:21, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- That's not J.delanoy's fault. Get community consensus to overturn Rama's actions or ask Mike Godwin if he's still contactable now what is the best thing to do. ←fetchcomms 02:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- J.delanoy uploaded a photo without evidence of the photographer's permission. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- That's not J.delanoy's fault. Get community consensus to overturn Rama's actions or ask Mike Godwin if he's still contactable now what is the best thing to do. ←fetchcomms 02:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- There was consensus in the [[DR, but User:Rama deleted it anyway. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:21, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- Let me be clear: I would like the other image to be undeleted, too. But deleting more images is not the way to save that one. We would need a community consensus on who has the ability to release such images (if they asked someone else to take it under circumstances like this image) under a certain license. ←fetchcomms 04:34, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Um, yeah, what rationale did you think actually applied to this photo? Jclemens (talk) 07:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- Well, obviously we do not know who made this photo. We do not have a paper signed by five witnesses that transfers the copyright on that photo to uploader. That seems to be the requirement for the Osama photo. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:21, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- So you're saying now that the Osama photo was correctly deleted? Because if you do, then it's not POINTy anymore, it's just ridiculous. And then we can close this DR for having a lack of a valid deletion rationale. ←fetchcomms 02:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- The lack of consistency is ridiculous. Different rules for administrators should be embarrasing. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- So you're saying now that the Osama photo was correctly deleted? Because if you do, then it's not POINTy anymore, it's just ridiculous. And then we can close this DR for having a lack of a valid deletion rationale. ←fetchcomms 02:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Well, obviously we do not know who made this photo. We do not have a paper signed by five witnesses that transfers the copyright on that photo to uploader. That seems to be the requirement for the Osama photo. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:21, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete The fact that no one cares if it is being used does not mean we ignore COM:PRP. The person taking the picture is the author of the work for copyright purposes, unless this was a work for hire, I don't believe there can be any reasonable doubt of that. The subject could be explicitly granted an exclusive license or have the copyright transferred but that would require a contract. It is also clear that the photographer is granting an implied license, by virtue of the fact that they took the picture in the first place. Unfortunately there are two problems with an implied license: 1) it is restricted in scope to what would have been agreed to had formal negotiations been performed. Again, per the precautionary principle I don't believe we can categorically state that photgraphers would be okay with their work being reused commercially, for instance. 2) Unless there has been consideration, an implied license is revocable, which means the photograph couldn't be distributed under the non-revocable CC/GFDL licenses. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Comment See also: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dwight Noga.JPG. We may have to delete tens of thousands of files. Anatiomaros (talk) 20:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. No valid reason for deletion. Yann (talk) 10:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
J.delanoy is not the copyright holder and thus cannot release the image under a free license. (See above for expanded reasoning.) VernoWhitney (talk) 22:13, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- Again, Keep. I don't think we're ever this picky with userpage pics anyway. I know it may not be legally applicable, but I think this is when IAR can be applied. (Also, I don't see a point in reopening such a recent DR. Unless there is a serious legal issue with this photo, I think we can stretch this a little bit as J.delanoy requested the photo taken for him, etc.) ←fetchcomms 03:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- I appreciate your opinion and I really do understand where you're coming from. What the question really comes down to is how seriously we are to take the precautionary principle (
and IAR is Wikipedia, not Commons, for what it's worth). The point in reopening the recently closed deletion request is per the instructions at Commons:Deletion requests#Appeal since the closing admin refused to even address my prior point, let alone provide a statement as to whether they would reconsider it. Since that section further states that "admins cannot ignore Commons policies nor any applicable copyright law even if a majority of users expressing opinions want them to do so" and as this seems to me to be exactly what happened I felt that this needed to be addressed and not simply ignored. Either we are holding userpage pictures and the like to a different standard and we need to make that clear at COM:DR, COM:PRP, and COM:L, or all images should be held to the same standard and require verifiable permission if they are not uploaded by the copyright holder or otherwise clearly freely licensed/PD/etc. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- I appreciate your opinion and I really do understand where you're coming from. What the question really comes down to is how seriously we are to take the precautionary principle (
- For the record, meta:Ignore all rules is a Wikimedia-wide guideline. However, straying from the project scope by ignoring basic principles of copyright law and deliberately hosting incorrectly licensed files does not improve the project. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:54, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the pointer; I hadn't seen that on meta before. I've retracted that part of my statement above. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:35, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete. Commons is a repository of files that anyone may legally use for any purpose, and we should work at all times to be a reliable source of such free files. Commons is not a repository of some free files that anyone may legally use for any purpose plus some non-free user page files where we stretch the truth a bit about who is the copyright holder and pass them off as being just as free as other files. The photo was taken in the US, where works for hire require either an employer–employee relationship or a written contract. Owning a camera does not make one the author or copyright holder of photos taken with it any more than owning a brush makes one the author or copyright holder of anything painted with it. Only the photographer can issue a valid license. —LX (talk, contribs) 06:21, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - I most certainly am the copyright holder of this image.
- This photograph was taken using my own camera, which I legally purchased with my own money (which I legally earned at the place in which I was lawfully employed, which itself was in full compliance with all applicable laws governing the employment of persons at their consent) from a retailer which legally obtained the camera (either directly or via a third party, e.g. a wholesale electronics firm) from the camera's manufacturer, Sony. Both (or all) of these parties (Sony, the retailer, and any third parties) were in full compliance with all applicable laws regarding the creation and sale of electronic devices, in all applicable jurisdictions in which the actions leading to this device's creation and transportation took place.
- Furthermore, the photograph was taken using the camera's self-timer feature, a software device which will mechanically (i.e. with no further human intervention) trigger the shutter exactly ten seconds after the shutter button is pressed. If I recall correctly, I pressed the shutter button with my own hand after enabling this feature on my camera. Are you suggesting that my camera's computer should hold the copyright for this photograph? Because that is the only possible entity other than myself which could hold copyright for this file.
- In addition to this, prior to creating the photograph, I obtained the explicit permission of Jimmy Wales to create the photograph. He gave his consent after I explicitly informed him that I intended to upload the work to the Wikimedia Commons in order to display the work on my English Wikipedia userpage. Both of us understood that this action implied publishing the image under a free license, allowing others to copy and/or modify the image if they wished (as long as they followed the terms of the license). The other subject of the image (my own person) is not subject to the restrictions surrounding the usage of a likeness, as I am clearly not required to explicitly give consent to the creation of an image of myself which I create with my own hand.
- Finally, this request is a classic case of double jeopardy, if I may use such a term for something so trivial. This photograph was already the subject of a request for deletion for this exact reason, and that request was closed by an uninvolved administrator as keep because there was "No valid reason for deletion".
- The first time that this file had a request for deletion filed against it was rather annoying, but I do understand Mr. Kuiper's frustration, even if I do not necessarily agree with his position or his methods. I am frankly not amused at all by the re-opening of this nonsense. I used to wonder why people hated Commons. Now I know. I appreciate your assistance in allowing me to understand this vexing problem.
- Regards, J.delanoygabsadds 01:11, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- Well, ownership of the camera is irrelevant (as I explained above), but the information that it was taken using a self-timer is and would have saved a lot of time had it been mentioned sooner. If the camera was not handled by another person when the photo was taken, we can keep it. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- Even if I asked someone else to take the picture for me, the copyright would still belong to me, since I would in effect be commissioning the portrait. I am not a lawyer, nor am I studying law, so I will not attempt to give a full legal explanation of how copyright works, (largely because I am not sure that my unprofessional assessment would be fully or even partly accurate) But I based on my limited understanding, I have come to the (inevitable) conclusion that this entire discussion is completely inane. I have never seen wikilawyering on this scale before, and I only have to wonder why you are not going after any of the many other Wikimedians who have uploaded photographs of themselves to Commons. See w:en:WP:FACEBOOK for a large collection. I would be very, very interested to know why my image, out of all of those images, is being "singled out". And especially after so long. It's not like I've hidden the picture - it's been displayed on my userpage for nearly 18 months, and many, many, many, many, many' people have seen it since then [1]. Somehow, I'd imagine that at least a few of the ~1000 people who are viewing my userpage every month (even though I very rarely edit due to real-life commitments) both understand copyright fairly well, and know of the processes required to remove violations. The fact that no one brought this up for nearly a year and a half, and then only to make a point, is very, very telling. Regardless, I wash my hands of this nonsense. If the picture is deleted, I honestly do not care. I have better things to worry about, such as the three finals I will be taking in the next 96 hours... J.delanoygabsadds 17:17, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- As LX said: if no other person handled your camera then you are the sole copyright holder and there's no issue. As the image is not level as it would generally be were the camera on a tripod or placed on some surface in order to use the timer and you did not clarify the situation during the previous deletion request I at least (and I imagine Pieter Kuiper as the previous nominator) presumed it was taken by someone else, and so I renominated it per policy in light of the copyright situation. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- Even if I asked someone else to take the picture for me, the copyright would still belong to me, since I would in effect be commissioning the portrait. I am not a lawyer, nor am I studying law, so I will not attempt to give a full legal explanation of how copyright works, (largely because I am not sure that my unprofessional assessment would be fully or even partly accurate) But I based on my limited understanding, I have come to the (inevitable) conclusion that this entire discussion is completely inane. I have never seen wikilawyering on this scale before, and I only have to wonder why you are not going after any of the many other Wikimedians who have uploaded photographs of themselves to Commons. See w:en:WP:FACEBOOK for a large collection. I would be very, very interested to know why my image, out of all of those images, is being "singled out". And especially after so long. It's not like I've hidden the picture - it's been displayed on my userpage for nearly 18 months, and many, many, many, many, many' people have seen it since then [1]. Somehow, I'd imagine that at least a few of the ~1000 people who are viewing my userpage every month (even though I very rarely edit due to real-life commitments) both understand copyright fairly well, and know of the processes required to remove violations. The fact that no one brought this up for nearly a year and a half, and then only to make a point, is very, very telling. Regardless, I wash my hands of this nonsense. If the picture is deleted, I honestly do not care. I have better things to worry about, such as the three finals I will be taking in the next 96 hours... J.delanoygabsadds 17:17, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- Well, ownership of the camera is irrelevant (as I explained above), but the information that it was taken using a self-timer is and would have saved a lot of time had it been mentioned sooner. If the camera was not handled by another person when the photo was taken, we can keep it. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Kept No new argument since last time. This discussion is going nowhere. Yann (talk) 15:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Out of scope: We have wikitables for this; not used anyway. Leyo 10:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. — Jeff G. ツ 01:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 12:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Scaled-down duplicate of File:Rec determination.pdf. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 22:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. Duplicate. -- Jtneill - Talk 11:55, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 12:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Bad file, blank image. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 22:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- I get a fine image from my end??? —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.242.100.166 (talk) 06:29, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- Comment File works, but no preview. Easily replaceble by wikitable or File:Weiner.jpg -- Common Good (talk) 21:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Duplicate of File:Weiner.jpg. -- Jtneill - Talk 12:45, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. not used and better version exist George Chernilevsky talk 12:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Picture are inside of the Churche, and the windose from Max Spielmann (1906-1984) have copyright. And the bulding was build in 1950-52, its never 70 years PmA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobo11 (talk • contribs) 16:54, 5 November 2010 (UTC) –Krinkletalk 02:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Recent church, no COM:FOP#Germany inside buildings. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete COM:FOP#Germany only for external appearance. MKFI (talk) 20:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 01:21, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
possibly copyright violation 78.55.55.66 06:36, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep webpages say that uploader Kelly Dunn is assistant to Laurieann Gibson. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:56, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Source? Copyright? --Yikrazuul (talk) 23:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 01:22, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
no file uploaded --Xgeorg (Diskussion) 07:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC) Xgeorg (talk) 07:47, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- Comment image seems to have disappeared¿? can be reuploaded from source. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:00, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 01:23, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Out of scope. Non-notable band George Chernilevsky talk 09:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 01:24, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Out of scope. Self-portrait George Chernilevsky talk 09:07, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 18:15, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Out of scope: We have wikitables for this; not used anyway. Leyo 10:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 16:23, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Out of scope: We have wikitables for this; not used anyway. Leyo 10:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. — Jeff G. ツ 01:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 16:23, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
This file is full of contradictions. The user claims that it was released to the public domain but also says that rights to it are owned by Jeff Dye. Furthermore, there is the statement that the image is privately owned by Jeff Dye. The user seems to be a single purpose account over at the English Wikipedia who has changed the redirect at Jeff Dye's article to an attempt at a full article. Dismas (talk) 23:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete this would need OTRS. Amada44 talk to me 12:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete It asserts rights, so delete. Cmprince (talk) 14:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 16:25, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
This is a photograph of a drawing, so the copyright of the drawing prevails. The date in the lower right hand corner is 1982, so there is no evidence this is in public domain. Cmprince (talk) 14:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- Der Urheber dieses Werkes, Antoni Gaudí, ist am † 10. Juni 1926 in Barcelona verstorben und somit länger als 70 Jahre tot. Ergo wäre die Zeichnung (eine Kopie) ebenfalls eine Urheberrechtsverletzung!! --Böhringer (talk) 19:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- The drawing style and the date in the corner made me think this was a modern recreation, and not an original Gaudi drawing. If it is, then the photograph is fine. (Es tut mir leid, mein Deutsch is nicht gut. Der Stil und das Datum in der Ecke des Bildes sieht modern, nicht von Gaudi. Wenn die Zeichnung ist alt, dann ist es gut. Cmprince (talk) 22:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- Signed R. Berengar?? Odd. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:12, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - I think that the "signature" is a later stamp from when the drawing came into the possession of Berengar. Per w:Sagrada Família, the site was designed by Antoni Placid Gaudí i Cornet, who died in 1926. Applying 80 years pma per COM:L#Spain and the 1879 law, it appears the designer's copyright expired at the end of 2006. OTOH the stitch work down the center could be better. — Jeff G. ツ 23:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep as Jeff G. --Böhringer (talk) 19:22, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - recent drawing; COM:FOP#Spain is outdoors only. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 16:28, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
The license indicated requires a link to the original file and the author (the uploader provided his name, which is dubious). ZooFari 16:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 16:29, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
and other upload by Jasmine1805 (talk · contribs). Likely to be corporate advertisement, not own work, because of small size. Also out of Commons:Project scope. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 16:32, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
If information indicated is true, the copyright does not expire until next year. ZooFari 17:07, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- You probably mean 2016, don't you? -- Common Good (talk) 20:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- Whoops, yes. ZooFari 21:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 16:36, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
If information indicated is true, the copyright does not expire until next year. ZooFari 17:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- You probably mean 2016, don't you? -- Common Good (talk) 20:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- Woops, yes. ZooFari 21:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 16:36, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
No source and no date of the data given, not in use, better maps available Antemister (talk) 18:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. — Jeff G. ツ 02:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 13:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
duplicate of File:Africa HIV-AIDS.svg, no explanation of the colors Antemister (talk) 18:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
![18:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2010/11/12#c-Antemister-2010-11-12T18:16:00.000Z-File:Africa_HIV-AIDS_with_"wrong"_colors.svg){kind=link}
- Fine to delete. There was some problem with the colors in the original SVG file, which I worked out with another wikipedian. It is a duplicate and doesn't need to remain around. Reuvenk (talk) 17:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. — Jeff G. ツ 02:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 13:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
![13:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2010/11/12#c-Jcb-2010-12-16T13:44:00.000Z-File:Africa_HIV-AIDS_with_"wrong"_colors.svg){kind=link}
practically a duplicate of File:Map-of-HIV-Prevalance-in-Africa.png Antemister (talk) 18:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. — Jeff G. ツ 02:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 13:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
no evidence that image has a free license Avron (talk) 19:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 16:37, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
no evidence that image has a free license Avron (talk) 19:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 16:37, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but there is no FoP in the UAE. Dura lex, sed lex. 84.61.153.119 20:41, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 16:39, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
duplicate image Cuddlestheboa (talk) 20:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. - if it's duplicate, please provide a link to the other copy - Jcb (talk) 16:40, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
No es un trabajo propio. Basta con leer el EXIF. 186.173.18.234 00:15, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Question How does the EXIF show that the uploader was not the photographer? If there's evidence to that effect, I'm not seeing it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:25, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. Ruthven (msg) 13:48, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
picture useless without description 78.55.121.239 21:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep It is the category:Białoprądnicki Manor House. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:43, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 13:39, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
violation of copyright, Tyler Olsen is a canadian photographer at the Morning Star (British Columbia) Traumrune (talk) 21:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete blatant {{Copyvio}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:47, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 13:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
This image might not be the uploader's work, see the caption below the image. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 22:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
This is my own work as this diagram has been developed from the source that is listed in the APA reference below. If you read this specific article you can see I have created this Venn diagram to illustrate the three important elements discussed in the authors journal that I have sourced. Perhaps I should have written 'adapted from' instead of source? I am a new student to wikiversity and am still learning how to go about uploading images to commons. I have let my instructor know that this image has been tagged for deletion and hopefully he can guide me as to how i go about fixing up the image so this does not happen. U118827 6:46, 15 Novemeber 2010
Keep. Probably "adapted from" or even better "based on" would be more appropriate. A new corrected image could be uploaded over the top of this one. Or remove this info altogether from the image and instead include it in the description. For now, I've updated the description. -- Jtneill - Talk 12:08, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 20:52, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
This image might not be the uploader's work, see the caption below the image. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 22:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I am still learning how to use wiki and please forgive my poor referencing. The actual reference should read:
The Notion of a "Good Theory"
Note. Adapted from "Mind the gap: In praise of informal sources of formal theory", by S.T. Fiske, 2004, Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 132-137.
Its not sourced directly from this aerticle but rather I have developed this diagram to depict the seven key criteria Fisk (2004) has outlined within the abovementioned article. I there anyway the diagram can be changed to insure it is not deleted? (as I am not confident in how to go about making changes but I would love some help?). Cheers, U118827, 15th Novemeber 2010, 7:01.
Keep As the uploader notes, this is an originally created image based on ideas presented in the cited article. I've adjusted the image description to reflect this. The image can be changed on your local computer (keep the filename the same), then re-uploaded. This will overwrite the old image with the new. e.g., change "Adapted from" to "Based on". -- Jtneill - Talk 12:40, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 20:52, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
This image might not be the uploader's work, see the caption below the image. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 22:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
I have developed this image from the article I have referenced below the image. There is no image available for use on wiki or freely licenced to uses on wiki when I carried out my extensive search on google images. Although this image is often depicted in the social-learning theory, this specific image I have uploaded to commons has been created from start to finish by myself using power point. I really, really need to use this image in the project I am working on (Student Motviation Theories). Is there anything I can do to make sure my images is not deleted? Cheers, U118827. 7:26, 15th novemeber 2010.
- To prevent the page from being deleted, you must provide solid evidence that the caption is irrelevant and that only you are the creator and uploader of the file in question. Furthermore, the file must be freely licensed under terms compatible with Commons (see Commons:Licensing). If you are working on the image to use for the project Student Motivation Theories only on wikiversity, then I can have it transferred to that project instead of keeping it here, since Commons only allows free media. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 06:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Sounds good. The project is only on wikiversity and its a collaborative effort for all students in my university course as we all write a chapter for the on-line textbook (available only through wikiversity) called Motivation and Emotion, my chapter I have written is named Student Motivation Theories. Is this enough information for you to transfer my diagrams? U118827, 16 Novemeber 2010
Keep. As can be seen here a wide variety of similar images have been created and copyrighted by others. The uploader created this image as an original based on the ideas discussed in the cited article (which does not contain any images). I have improved the image description to reflect this. Ideally the uploader would re-upload and remove the text (put this in the description instead) or replace "Adapted from" with "Based on". -- Jtneill - Talk 12:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 20:53, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Quite certainly NOT uploader's "own work", the image is (as stated) from the 1926 film Metropolis by Fritz Lang. Fritz Lang died in 1976, so this film will still be copyrighted for quite some time. Rosenzweig δ 23:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 20:54, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Poster is by Werner Graul (see http://www.michaelorgan.org.au/Metroja.htm), who died after 1984. So this poster is still under copyright for a long time. "Klebrand" is not the author's name, but German for "edge to put glue onto", since this is only the upper part of the original poster, the lower part had to be glued on. Rosenzweig δ 23:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. FunkMonk (talk) 00:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - that is funny, "Klebrand" is widely mentioned as the author of posters... /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- Comment See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Maria Metropolis 1926.png for another version of this image. --Rosenzweig δ 12:54, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 20:54, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
