Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2010/11/26
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.jpg){kind=link}
mis-named image used only for vandalism of Photosensitive epilepsy Uncle Milty (talk) 00:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted Seems to be a clear case of the image being an attack image and as such falling in the category what COM:SPEEDY covers... though I'm fairly sure this is the most literal form of "attack image" we've ever had... Tabercil (talk) 00:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
mis-named image used only for vandalism of Photosensitive epilepsy Uncle Milty (talk) 00:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted Seems to be a clear case of the image being an attack image and as such falling in the category what COM:SPEEDY covers... though I'm fairly sure this is the most literal form of "attack image" we've ever had... Tabercil (talk) 00:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
The girl is ugly. 192.193.171.216 07:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Is not my fault. Can a sysop end this useless request? Thanks. --Snowdog (talk) 09:37, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Speedy keep; these types of DRs are offensive to our contributors and those portrayed.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:12, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept Irrelevant or sarcastic anon deletion listing. -- Infrogmation (talk) 21:39, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
I have a wikipedia page already Genideva (talk) 21:17, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Jameslwoodward: Author requested deletion or blanked page: content was: '{{delete|reason=I have a wikipedia page already|subpage=Игорь_Борисович_Березовский|year=2010|month=November|day=26}} Игорь ...' (and the only contributor was '[[S
Для переименования Alessin (talk) 23:32, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio: (incorrectly named) duplicate of File:Tretiakov.jpg
This is not a panorama of the town. It's its industrial ugly zone. That picture is associated with the Blagoevgrad facebook page which is embarrassing! Recommending Blagoevgrad.Downtown.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Blagoevgrad.Downtown.jpg Joron77 (talk) 08:28, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose - sorry, but that's not really a valid reason for deletion. That's a real picture of a real place and not liking what it represents does not mean it should be deleted. --Laveol (talk) 10:33, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Strong
Keep No reason to deleted. If you think another photo is more beautiful or shows the city better, you may edit articles to substitute a better photo (it often is best to suggest the change on the article talk page a few days before making the change to get feedback from other editors). You may suggest on the Facebook page that a different photo be used if you wish. Whatever your personal emotional response to the photo, there is nothing inherently wrong with it and it is a possibly useful free licensed in scope illustration, and therefore should not be deleted from Commons. Infrogmation (talk) 18:08, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Kept. No valid reason exists for deletion of this freely licensed, useful and well used picture. →Spiritia 11:08, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/Commons:Deletion requests/Commons:Первые шаги
Negative OTRS. Jcb (talk) 12:23, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio: Speedydelete
Negative OTRS. Jcb (talk) 12:23, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio: Speedydelete
Negative OTRS. Jcb (talk) 12:23, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio: Speedydelete
copyvio: http://fotoforum.gazeta.pl/zdjecie/1247935,1,0,746,alSolidarnosci-105.html. Violation has been reported by the author himself on Polish wiki. Lampak (talk) 19:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Masur: Commons:Deletion requests/File:KamienicaJacobsona.jpg: copyvio: http://fotoforum.gazeta.pl/zdjecie/1247935,1,0,746,alSolidarnosci-105.html
double: File:Fountain, RegentsPark, London, UK 640.jpg Anna reg (talk) 12:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Exact or scaled-down duplicate: File:Fountain, RegentsPark, London, UK 640.jpg -- Common Good (talk) 22:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
double: File:Regent's Park bandstand.jpg Anna reg (talk) 12:45, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Exact or scaled-down duplicate: File:Regent's Park bandstand.jpg -- Common Good (talk) 20:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Vandalism George Chernilevsky talk 19:08, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted speedily. Picture was uploaded for vandalism only, moreover, it was a copyvio (see tineye). Trycatch (talk) 06:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Out of project scope and probably copyvio from xbox.com George Chernilevsky talk 18:49, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. ZooFari 04:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Not in use as associated Wikipedia article was deleted. AlexanderBurkardt (talk) 13:14, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. out of project scope, promotional George Chernilevsky talk 11:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Not in use as associated Wikipedia article was deleted. AlexanderBurkardt (talk) 13:15, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. out of project scope, promotional George Chernilevsky talk 11:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Out of project scope. Private photo. Unused and has poor quality George Chernilevsky talk 18:45, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by ZooFari: No license since 23 November 2010
File: Balistoides viridescens 09629 nevit.jpg 88.203.37.204 20:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Reason? --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 15:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. No reason given. -- Common Good (talk) 20:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
i'm wrong Itxaso Guillen (talk) 17:04, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by ZooFari: No license since 26 November 2010
Reasons for deletion request: My own, low quality, unused, large file and out of focus image -Craigboy (talk) 14:30, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Delete per uploader's request --Simonxag (talk) 20:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. per uploader's request, very poor quality George Chernilevsky talk 13:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Derivative work of a copyrighted poster. -- Kam Solusar (talk) 05:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Japanese FOP for artworks is only for non-commercial purposes. --Simonxag (talk) 20:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 00:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Out of project scope. Private photo. Unused George Chernilevsky talk 12:42, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 00:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Out of project scope. Private photo. Unused. Possibly non-notable musician George Chernilevsky talk 13:07, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 00:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Out of project scope. Private photo. Unused, article was deleted in EnWiki. George Chernilevsky talk 13:32, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 00:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
This image is claimed as "own work", but the photo includes a photo credit to somebody else, and the photo is promo image from http://www.franticamber.com/pics.html which clearly identifies that all material is copyrighted by Frantic Amber. There is no evidence the uploader has the rights to release this image under a free license. Whpq (talk) 17:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - watermark, no evidence of permission. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 01:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 00:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Out of project scope. Private photo. Unused and has poor quality George Chernilevsky talk 19:13, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom; orphan, blurry low-res photo of person with no indication of notability nor in scope usefulness. -- Infrogmation (talk) 21:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 00:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
see Commons:Currency#United_Kingdom Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep see Commons:Currency#United_Kingdom. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- You just !voted keep for the exact reason I nominated for deletion. I don't understand. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
- Just read. To the end. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
- You just !voted keep for the exact reason I nominated for deletion. I don't understand. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep This image was created over 50 years ago and is no longer subject to Crown Copyright. --Stevouk (talk) 16:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
"Published photographs or engravings subject to Crown Copyright which were created more than 50 years ago are now in the public domain (use PD-UKGov) and so images of British coins which were minted and circulated more than 50 years ago are permissible." Kept. Mbdortmund (talk) 00:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
The name of the temple is spelled incorrectly - I will try to upload a corrected version now John E. Hill (talk) 05:43, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Moved to correct spelling File:Trilokinath_temple_courtyard.jpg. Captain-tucker (talk) 23:24, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
No global use (Article deleted and protected in es.wiki), Useless image of a blue "mountain". See also the autor's other contributions. Savh, Any questions? 06:07, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - art. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Comment Article was deleted in es.wiki because it was irrelevant. The author of this "piece of art" called himself "Diego el profeta". Savh, Any questions? 20:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
- Narrowminded people - art is not irrelevant. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
- Please see his blog. Savh, Any questions? 21:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
- For non-Spanish speakers, he says:
In reality, even if it's very dificult to understand, I am Jesus Christ made man, really the reincarnation of Jesus Christ, in another body and another name.
- For non-Spanish speakers, he says:
- Please see his blog. Savh, Any questions? 21:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
- Narrowminded people - art is not irrelevant. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Savh, Any questions? 10:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many. (Matthew 24:5) - Porque vendrán muchos en mi nombre, diciendo: Yo soy el Cristo; y a muchos engañarán (S. Mateo 24:5) - Jcb (talk) 17:24, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 17:24, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
No permission: File talk:Angelina & Velvets Beautiful Entrance 2.jpg 78.55.66.96 06:08, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 17:25, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
see w:Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2007 October 5#Image:DefenceMedalObv.png Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - This work is in the public domain worldwide according to en:wp where it's taken from [1]. It's not the same picture (or medal) as mentioned above either. --KEN (talk) 10:52, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
![[1]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:WM39-45obv.jpg){kind=link}
Kept. Jcb (talk) 23:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Same reason as Commons:Deletion requests/File:AEW diamond solo white.gif and File:AEW Logo QiP dark.gif, both of which were copied from AEW for the exclusionist association on meta, which was silly. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 07:51, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. - no valid reason for deletion - Jcb (talk) 00:04, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Personal logo. Unused and out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 10:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Dferg: Per Commons:Deletion_requests/File:LogoMinAl.jpg
Out of project scope. Private photo. Unused George Chernilevsky talk 11:22, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. --Dferg (talk · meta) 12:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Looks like a photo's photo, author taken the image from a framed photo. We can see the photo frame and flash light on the glass Kiran Gopi (talk) 12:50, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 00:06, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Out of project scope. Private self-portrait of non-notable person George Chernilevsky talk 13:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. --Dferg (talk · meta) 12:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
error map, see File:Myotis capacciniiMap1.png shizhao (talk) 13:45, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. - in use - Jcb (talk) 00:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Uploader claims public domain, which is not clear at all. The image is older than suggested by the uploader (as can be seen from the picture which shows clearly not a man in his early twenties, which it should at the suggested date), and here we can see that the picture indeed is created in 1937, which makes PD-old unlikely. Lymantria (talk) 14:55, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- http://www.lbl.gov/image-gallery/public.html states free for educational and non-commercial use. I used the form to get Commons:OTRS permission. Matt (talk) 10:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- They got this from the Bancroft Library. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 00:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Typographical and spelling errors, poor quality. McMonster (talk) 15:34, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- What is a problem to repair errors and to replace this file with better quality one? Julo (talk) 21:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - in use. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 00:24, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Publicity, out of scope. Javier ME (talk) 16:48, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 00:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
(copyvio note converted to a DR to discuss it the proper way - sorry for not using a DR in the first way)
if it's a museum of contemporary art the paintings shown in photo are probably contemporary art and therefore are still copyrighted. If not: please provide permission / proof that they are out of copyright
uploader response on talk page: "O, o forgot! Paintings in the museum are under copyright! Thanks for pointing out! Ekabhishek (Diskussion) 13:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC)" --Saibo (Δ) 15:45, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
admin response from file's talk page: The photograph contains many images of art, that it is not specifically of the piece of art and is of a general scene probably should be seen to exclude the issues of intellectual property protection. The right of intellectual property protection is to protect their rights, and in this situation, it would be seen to be so in this photograph (IMNSHO). — billinghurst sDrewth 15:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- So you are referring to Commons:De minimis? From a German view of law this photo is not de minimis since the paintings are an essential part of the picture. The photo would be worse if it would only show white walls. Until we have an example that this is de minimis I would refer to COM:PRP. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 17:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. - some of the works are not de minimis imho - Jcb (talk) 00:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Photograph of notable person certainly not "ineligible for copyright". Infrogmation (talk) 17:55, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Comment - uploader may mean {{PD-US-no notice}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Thankyou soo much for your input Infrogmation I'm sure you want to see this valuable contibution to wikimedia commons remain accessable to the public domain as much as I do, so I would be most gratefull for you help with giving the image the correct copyright tag, the leaflet was just a hand out for people attending the concert given in memory of Charles Kennedy Scott who was my Great Grandfather, and I can see no issue with it's low quality reprodution on here so as there is no authership mentioned on the actual original document (which I own) please could you tag this image with the appropriate copyright tag which will allow it to stay on Wikimedia commons and not wastefully be deleted! many thanks Jimmy3d0 (talk) 14:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - this photo (not very old) and this folder from 1976 are protected by copyright in the UK. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:03, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- Comment No-one has done anything to help try and keep this image and folder in the commons you simply want it to be deleted! Why is that? as people are hell bent on deleting my valuable contribution without the slightest thought of actually helping me, then I will do it myself. DO NOT delete the image as I am going to contact the Trinity College London and request permission to use the image on Wiki, If any one does actually want to help me rather that just deleting images for the sake of it without even offering one shred of help or advice, then please advise me of the right permissions template to email to the Trinity College so that I can forward it the the OTRS volunteers, Thanks, as you may be able to sense I am starting to get pretty fed up with power crazed admins who just go round deleting everything they can but have no time it seems to actually help anyone who like me are less familia with all the correct copyright tags and procedures, I have had several images deleted or nearly deleted and then undeleted because they are perfectly ok to be on here but some people on here obviously get some power kick out of deleting worthy contibs who's uploaders are newer and less adept at getting everything right, Some people obviously find people like me easy pray and should be taking the time to think how they could actually help keep valuably contribs IN the commons rather than just hunting for easy victims like me, there is sticking to guidelines for the good of Wiki and there is being bloody minded and detrimental to the wider aims and objectives, the people suggesting this file be deleted are the being latter. Jimmy3d0 (talk) 15:44, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep and offer the uploader (me) any help and advice he may need in order to obtain the correct copyright emails for OTRS or tags for the image and other versions to remain on Wikimedia and othe Wiki projects or pages, do not delete until all options and avenues have been fully explored and only delete if you feel that nothing else at all can be done to help obtain and mark with the relevant copyright tag. Jimmy3d0 (talk) 16:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- Templates you can find at COM:OTRS, but it is difficult to obtain sufficient permission; it may be unclear to Trinity College whether the College is the sole owner of the copyright on the folder, and it may be difficult for a single official to give away intellectual property owned by the college. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- Jimmy3d0: We may be curt, but there is no rudeness directed towards you. Wikimedia Commons is quite simply for media that are either free licensed or public domain ONLY. The information and copyright tag you put on your image seems wrong, and there is no obvious reason for the image to be public domain or free licensed. We have given you the benefit of a doubt by not deleting the image immediately, but rather giving you time to get permission, fix the info, or whatever else might be needed to establish proper license. If the image cannot be shown to be either public domain or released under a free license by the copyright holder, it does not belong here on Wikimedia Commons. If you have specific questions about using Wikimedia Commons you can't find an answer to, feel free to ask. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 18:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 00:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Looks like it fails the De minimis policy. Consists of nothing but a collage of copyrighted images (which were certainly not original to Azerbaijan). Kaldari (talk) 20:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- Keep - it's a postage stamp! Already tagged with {{PD-AZ-exempt}} from its country of origin.
- BTW, Kaldari, do you have the copyright information handy that you couild post here to defend your nomination? Radiopathy (talk) 21:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- The drawing on the stamp is by John Lennon himself. As it is one of the most famous drawings in the world, I didn't expect to have to prove this, but if you insist: [2][3]. Kaldari (talk) 05:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Excuse me but "De minimus" means "minimal" or as in the Wiki definition...
is translated as "the law does not concern itself with trifles". Some technical breaches of the law are considered to be so trivial and inconsequential that a court may decide that they should not be treated as breaches at all. The concept applies to many branches of the law, but here we consider its application specifically to copyright law. If proved in court, de minimis can be a complete defence to a copyright infringement action.
Your argument is a non-argument... maybe should use a different legality for copyright infringement... —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.200.197.25 (talk) (UTC)
- Comment Maybe this image was licensed to be used in the stamps, but there is no evidence the image is in the public domain in the United States and indeed no evidence Azerbaijan is the source country of the image, making the public domain status questionable. Unless there's better evidence I suggest caution, it's not proper for Commons to take up stuff that was moved from Western countries to places with small copyright lengths and then brand it as free on copyright expires there, often under very different conditions. I suggest a {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} notice is needed in any case. Hekerui (talk) 17:41, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- I removed that, I cannot see what it has to do with this stamp that always was free in its source country. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:41, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- The original work used doesn't have its source country in Azerbaijan because it's from the Imagine soundtrack. Hekerui (talk) 20:06, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- I removed that, I cannot see what it has to do with this stamp that always was free in its source country. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:41, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'd say Delete as still copyrighted in the U.S. Hekerui (talk) 17:46, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, I think Hekerui is correct. The stamp may be PD Azerbaijan, but the photo of and drawing by John Lennon were most probably not produced as works for the government of Azerbaijan; unless there is some evidence that the Azerbaijan postal authority obtained permission from the actual copyright holders, it would likely be a derivative violation. -- Infrogmation (talk) 18:14, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I had closed this as keep in January. I cannot see what copyright foreign stamps can be in the US if they are PD in the source country. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:24, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Because of the rule of the shorter term not applying to the U.S. (did I mention this ;) Hekerui (talk) 18:43, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- The rule of the shorter term is irrelevant here. A letter from Azerbaijan to the US is no copyright violation, printing this in a stamp catalogue in the US is no copyright violation, and I do not believe that blow-ups of this stamp to postcard format would be copyright violations. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- We argue whether the work from which the stamp is derived is copyrighted. In the U.S. it is likely because of the rule of the shorter term. Whether anyone would sue over a letter is distinct from that question, especially since that stamp was likely licensed by the copyright holder. Hekerui (talk) 19:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Whether or not the stamp itself is a copyright violation is irrelevant. It is probably properly licensed as far as I know. That does not mean, however, that the image is public domain in the United States. Lots of modern US stamps, for example, are neither PD nor copyright violations (they are licensed copyrighted works). For a work to be hosted on Commons it must be free in both the source country and in the US. There are no records of John Lenin's estate releasing any IP to the public domain ever, and certainly not for Lenin's most famous drawing (which is even trademarked). Without any evidence to the contrary, we must assume that this stamp contains material that is still copyrighted within the US. Kaldari (talk) 23:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed, the rule of the shorter term is irrelevant (the U.S. does not use it anyways). A letter using the stamp is no violation, correct, presumably Azerbaijan has a license to sell stamps that way and anyone can use those stamps. Showing it in a stamp catalogue should also be quite fine, under fair use. Blowing it up and selling postcards with the image on it... doubt that would be OK. That is beyond fair use I think. Not a cut-and-dry situation, as use of the unmodified image of the stamp should have pretty wide fair use possibilities, but I'm not sure it amounts to "free". And, of course, most any derivative work which removes the stamp context would be a definite violation. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
- We argue whether the work from which the stamp is derived is copyrighted. In the U.S. it is likely because of the rule of the shorter term. Whether anyone would sue over a letter is distinct from that question, especially since that stamp was likely licensed by the copyright holder. Hekerui (talk) 19:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- The rule of the shorter term is irrelevant here. A letter from Azerbaijan to the US is no copyright violation, printing this in a stamp catalogue in the US is no copyright violation, and I do not believe that blow-ups of this stamp to postcard format would be copyright violations. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Because of the rule of the shorter term not applying to the U.S. (did I mention this ;) Hekerui (talk) 18:43, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: I shall assume in good faith that the Azerbaijan authorities obtained licences from the copyright holders of the Lennon drawing and photograph. Such licences most likely only permitted use of the images on the stamp and did not release the images into the public domain or permit the images to be used for other purposes, including modification and/or further distribution. Unless there is evidence of licences having the latter effect, I believe the images are still copyrighted in the United States. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 18:48, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, as per the nominator , likely derivative violation. Off2riorob (talk) 15:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete De minimis obviously does not apply (the drawing is an intentional prominent part of the design). The law in Azerbaijan may very well allow them to declare works which are copyrighted in other countries to be in the public domain inside Azerbaijan, but to be uploaded to Commons they must be free in both the source country and the U.S. Being derivative of a work first published inside the US, I believe US law will be more inclined to defend the US copyright of the original drawing than to respect a foreign law stripping the work of copyright. Dcoetzee (talk) 06:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete I don't think it can be assumed that this is PD in the United States, although it certainly is in the source country. Jafeluv (talk) 18:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Note also derivative works File:JohnLennon.jpg and File:JohnLennon1.jpg. Jafeluv (talk) 09:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- I have nominated these files for deletion, referring to the discussion at this page. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 09:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 00:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
The projection is off or unclear. It appears to be equi-rectangular, but note the Alaska-Canada border is not vertical. I put a thing in Roke's talk page here http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Roke#map_error_in_your_pacific-centered_map that notes another inconsistency about the antimeridian. DrZygote214 (talk) 18:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - not a reason to delete. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- why not? the map has errors, unless it's some weird/custom projection, which is not mentioned. Besides it looks like it's supposed to be equirectangular. The file from which this file is derived says it was derived from a robinson projection, and then altered using a python script from some website. either that script has errors or it wasn't applied/used right. DrZygote214 (talk) 02:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 00:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
It's copryighted image, not own work. 99kerob (talk) 18:28, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 00:48, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
It's copryighted image, not own work. 99kerob (talk) 18:28, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 00:48, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Copyvio. Screenshot from a game. 1c is Russian software company George Chernilevsky talk 18:57, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 00:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Out of project scope. Unusable poor drawing George Chernilevsky talk 18:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 00:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
unclear copyright situation; author is unknown, source is a forum, but free license is granted Avron (talk) 19:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 00:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Upload history on en indicates original uploader meant to uploader this as {{Fair use}}. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. - that original seems to be a completely different image - Jcb (talk) 12:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Out of project scope. Private photo. Unused and has poor quality George Chernilevsky talk 19:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 12:42, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
I hate to rain in on everyone's fun, but is this 3D object copyrightable? Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:13, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Comment I don't know. (The human figure is hardly more detailed than a generic stick figure, and the rest is simple geometric shapes.) However it can certainly be trademarked and has an "(R)" notice, so I have added {{Trademark}} to the image page. I note this image is in use in en:W. -- Infrogmation (talk) 21:51, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 12:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work of the doll. Stefan4 (talk) 19:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- I didn't see that it had already been proposed for deletion before. I would guess that something like this is copyrightable, but I'm not sure. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:36, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted The sculpture may be simple, but the law makes it copyrightable in any case. The TOO in the USA for sculpture is very low. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:11, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
En.wp lists this file as fair use: w:File:Arabsat.jpg. Unclear if this is a text-logo... I am officially neutral but I want to give the community a chance to decide before I delete the upload at en.wp. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. The logo includes a short text in two languages and a pattern made of simple geometrical forms. Ruslik (talk) 14:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 12:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
PNG duplicate of this SVG File:Afghanistan COA Transparent.svg Antemister (talk) 20:21, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. - not identical - Jcb (talk) 12:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
image broken, nothing to see Antemister (talk) 19:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Speedy kept - image is not broken, see e.g. its use here - Jcb (talk) 17:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
PNG duplicate of this SVG File:Afghanistan COA Transparent.svg Antemister (talk) 20:20, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. - not identical - Jcb (talk) 12:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
PNG duplicate of this SVG File:Afghanistan COA Transparent.svg Antemister (talk) 20:21, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. - not identical - Jcb (talk) 12:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
I see no reason to believe this is PD. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:57, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Comment If an official Tito era Yugoslav government work, I think it could be. However we don't really have good sourcing to verify. The editor who uploaded it to en:Wikipedia didn't provide good source info, and the editor has been retired from editing for about 2 years now. -- Infrogmation (talk) 22:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
The editor who uploaded it to en:Wikipedia wrote about source Yugoslav Peoples Army- JNA and as author Former Yugoslavian Armed Forces--Gaetano56 (talk) 22:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 12:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
The sculptural work is from 2001, see http://digitizethis.com/travelogue/2003_sackler/index.html - protected by copyright, the license for this derivative work meaningless without permission by Xu Bing. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Delete No FOP for artworks in the US. --Simonxag (talk) 20:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 12:50, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
resolution too low 78.55.175.14 21:15, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Invalid reason. Do you have a better freely usable image ? –Krinkletalk 22:45, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 12:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Probably a copy vio: This image can also be found here on a page from 2008 (the author pretends to have taken the foto in 2009) ireas :talk: 21:17, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 12:57, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
duplicate Musicman624 (talk) 23:43, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
duplicate 24.45.95.176 19:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. - this can only be a valid deletion reason if you provide a link to the other duplicate - Jcb (talk) 12:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC)