Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2010/12/10
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
_&_Redonditos_1978.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
No real source. The site is a bit unreliable. FunkMonk (talk) 00:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete: I can't find anything on the source website that states the true source of the image. Without more evidence, we can't determine whether the image is indeed in the public domain. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 08:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Julo (talk) 01:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Apparently a book cover so needs permission. But is also unused and appears to be quite non-notable so out of COM:SCOPE. Uploader's only contribution. Wknight94 talk 02:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete for nominator's reasons. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 08:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Julo (talk) 01:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Unused and apparently out of COM:SCOPE. I could not determine what this was but it doesn't appear to be of any use. Wknight94 talk 02:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete for nominator's reason. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 08:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Far out of scope and no any EV George Chernilevsky talk 10:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Unused and out of COM:SCOPE. A hazy picture of some concert in an unknown place with some unknown band(?) and from a terrible vantage point. No apparent use. Wknight94 talk 02:24, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete for nominator's reasons. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 08:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Useless picture George Chernilevsky talk 10:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Unambiguous advertising 198.30.161.15 04:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Comment: page has already been deleted. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 08:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. by Wutsje Captain-tucker (talk) 22:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Userpage resume of user with only contributions to own userspace MorganKevinJ(talk) 04:38, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: COM:ADVERT. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 08:38, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. by Herbythyme Captain-tucker (talk) 23:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
it was upload for auto promotion for a business that no longer exist Mothpre (talk) 06:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: unused logo not useful for any project. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 08:39, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Julo (talk) 01:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
out of project scope. Private photo. Unused and uncategorized since 2009. George Chernilevsky talk 06:38, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete for nominator's reasons. Commons is not a personal file server. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 08:39, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Julo (talk) 01:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
out of project scope. Private photo. Unused and uncategorized since 2009. George Chernilevsky talk 06:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete for nominator's reasons. Commons is not a personal file server. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 08:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 18:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Private picture, upload without asking the depicted first. Michael von Albrecht has stated (via mail) that he wants this picture removed. 
Jonathan Groß 
06:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Courtesy deletion. Dschwen (talk) 22:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Same as above, but with strong manipulation. Out of project scope. Private photo. Unused and uncategorized since 2009. George Chernilevsky talk 06:41, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete for nominator's reasons. Commons is not a personal file server. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 08:41, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 18:40, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
out of project scope. Private photo. Unused and uncategorized since 2009. George Chernilevsky talk 06:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete for nominator's reasons. Commons is not a personal file server. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 08:41, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 18:40, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
out of project scope. Private photo. Unused and uncategorized since 2009. George Chernilevsky talk 06:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete for nominator's reasons. Commons is not a personal file server. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 08:42, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 18:40, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
out of project scope. Private photo. Unused and uncategorized since 2009. George Chernilevsky talk 06:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete for nominator's reasons. Commons is not a personal file server. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 08:42, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 18:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Poor quality jpeg. Probably unused button or banner. George Chernilevsky talk 06:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: unused logo not useful for any project. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 08:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 18:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Unusable poor screenshot photo George Chernilevsky talk 06:51, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete for nominator's reasons. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 08:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 18:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
out of project scope self-portrait. Unused and uncategorized since 2009. Uploader only contribution George Chernilevsky talk 06:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete for nominator's reasons. Commons is not a personal file server. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 08:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 18:42, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
out of project scope self-portrait. Related article es:Yárzer zadia Yemhniz has been deleted George Chernilevsky talk 06:57, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete for nominator's reasons. Commons is not a personal file server. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 08:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 18:42, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
out of project scope private photo George Chernilevsky talk 06:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete for nominator's reasons. Commons is not a personal file server. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 08:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 18:42, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
This file is too old and i will upload another image lateron. Hussainvp2100 (talk) 07:00, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: Unsourced image. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 08:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 18:43, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Just a hand palm. Very small and not useful photo George Chernilevsky talk 07:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete for nominator's reasons. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 08:45, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 18:43, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Derivative work (crop) of http://www.flickr.com/photos/edyson/4147765493/, which is licensed CC-BY-NC-2.0, an unacceptable licence for the Commons. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 07:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete as an improperly licened image. Thanks, Jack Merridew 08:03, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- Apologies, I obviously wasn't paying enough attention. Microchip08 (talk) 00:36, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- It's not really your fault. You obtained the file from a Flickr user who had released the cropped image under a free licence (which he was not entitled to do). I only noticed that the image had in fact originated from a different Flickr user when Jack Merridew pointed this out to me. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 09:40, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- Yup, and I only noticed because I knew Assange was not in Barcelona on that date. Cheers, Jack Merridew 02:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 18:43, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
out of project scope self-portrait. Unused and uncategorized since 2009, Uploader olny contribution. George Chernilevsky talk 10:25, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 18:44, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
The source says the license is -NC. This is not sufficient for Commons. I think this file needs a formal permission from OTRS, and the uploader has not answered to my message (or I didn't see it). Yann (talk) 10:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Kept. The license was updated. Yann (talk) 10:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
out of project scope uploader's private logo. Sole contribution since 2009 George Chernilevsky talk 10:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 18:44, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Far out of project scope also promotional and violating personal rights George Chernilevsky talk 10:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 18:45, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Blatant advertise, out of project scope. Uploader olny contribution since 2009 George Chernilevsky talk 10:47, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 18:45, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Out of project scope self-portrait. Unusable poor and small picture George Chernilevsky talk 10:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 18:45, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
out of project scope self-portrait. Uploader olny contribution since 2009 George Chernilevsky talk 10:50, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 18:46, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Just a test ulpload. Unusable George Chernilevsky talk 10:54, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 18:46, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Corrupt file George Chernilevsky talk 10:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Julo (talk) 23:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
out of project scope unused private logo. Uploader olny contribution since 2009 George Chernilevsky talk 10:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 18:46, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
out of project scope unused private logo. Also probably copyvio / DW George Chernilevsky talk 11:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 18:46, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
No FOP for sculptures in USA A.J. (talk) 11:00, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- Applies to almost all files in Category:King Jagiello Monument A.J. (talk) 15:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Dschwen (talk) 22:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
out of project scope unused private logo. George Chernilevsky talk 11:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 18:47, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Blatant advertise, out of project scope. George Chernilevsky talk 11:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 18:47, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Advertise, out of project scope and unusable too small George Chernilevsky talk 11:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 18:47, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Far out of project scope tiny animated portrait without any EV George Chernilevsky talk 11:13, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 18:48, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
out of project scope tiny self-portrait. Uploader olny contribution since 2009 George Chernilevsky talk 11:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 18:48, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
out of project scope private photo with strong manipulation. Personal rights violation, no EV. Uploader olny contribution George Chernilevsky talk 11:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 18:48, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
I Wrote discription to wrong photo.... Schlanbusch (talk) 11:25, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 18:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Far out of project scope self-portrait with self-promotional description. Uploader only contribution since 2009 George Chernilevsky talk 11:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 18:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Blatant copyvio, unused and has poor quality George Chernilevsky talk 11:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 18:50, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Blatant advertise out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 11:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 18:50, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
out of project scope private photo. Unused and uncategorized since 2009. George Chernilevsky talk 11:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 18:50, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
out of project scope self-portrait. Very poor quality. Uploader olny contribution since 2009 George Chernilevsky talk 11:38, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 18:51, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Animated advertise, large file without any EV. Far out out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 11:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 18:51, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Animated advertise, large file without any EV. Far out out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 11:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 18:52, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Corrupt file George Chernilevsky talk 11:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 18:53, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Corrupt file George Chernilevsky talk 11:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 18:53, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
coppupt file George Chernilevsky talk 11:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Julo (talk) 23:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
out of project scope private photo. Unused and uncategorized since 2009. George Chernilevsky talk 11:51, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 18:53, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
out of project scope self-portrait. Unused and uncategorized since 2009. George Chernilevsky talk 11:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 18:54, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
logo IG Schwarze (talk) 12:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- It's {{PD-textlogo}}, but not used anywhere... Out of scope? A.J. (talk) 12:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Dschwen (talk) 22:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
This was speedy deleted as out of scope, but was contested in an undeletion request. Up for discussion. 99of9 (talk) 12:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 18:55, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Copyrited painting, perhaps "published with the author agreement", but no OTRS : to fix please. --MGuf (d) 12:45, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, fixed, was a duplicate of an other file, with good licence. ----MGuf (d) 15:12, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Dschwen (talk) 22:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
useless Reinhardhauke (talk) 12:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 18:56, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 13:00, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Dschwen (talk) 22:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
useless Reinhardhauke (talk) 13:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. out of scope, promotional self-portrait George Chernilevsky talk 11:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 13:03, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Dschwen (talk) 22:47, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 13:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Per nom,. also probably copyvio George Chernilevsky talk 11:18, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
_%26_Redonditos_1978.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_%26_Redonditos_1978.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
useless Reinhardhauke (talk) 13:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
_&_Redonditos_1978.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Dschwen (talk) 22:47, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
_&_Redonditos_1978.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 13:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. private photo, out of scope George Chernilevsky talk 11:19, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
useless, without descrption! Reinhardhauke (talk) 13:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 18:57, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 13:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. poor quality private drawing George Chernilevsky talk 11:22, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
useless Reinhardhauke (talk) 13:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 11:23, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 13:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 11:25, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
useless Reinhardhauke (talk) 13:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. very blurred, useless George Chernilevsky talk 18:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
spam Reinhardhauke (talk) 13:12, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Dschwen (talk) 22:50, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 13:13, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Keep no. --Dschwen (talk) 22:51, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Geagea (talk) 03:16, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 13:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Advertisement George Chernilevsky talk 11:30, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 13:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Useless screenshot of a not defined software George Chernilevsky talk 11:32, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 13:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Answer: This might not be in the scope of everybody, but surely might be in the scope of enough others. Of course the missing category was not benefiting, but insted of saying only "out of scope" adding a category could had helped more and saved my time. Esmile 14:03, 11 December 2010
- Delete Commons is a database for the purpose of an encyclopedia. If you cannot demostrate a project scope, it's nice, but useless. --Yikrazuul (talk) 22:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 11:27, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
unused personal foto Reinhardhauke (talk) 13:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 11:34, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 13:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- KeepHow out of scope? We can use the image in Karthik's, Nagesh's article. --Kiran Gopi (talk) 12:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Geagea (talk) 03:18, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 13:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Copy&paste from google books. --Yikrazuul (talk) 23:06, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 11:36, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
unused personal foto Reinhardhauke (talk) 13:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. out of scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:14, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Private photo, not used. Kulmalukko (talk) 11:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:37, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
unused personal foto Reinhardhauke (talk) 13:24, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. out of scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:17, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 13:26, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. per nom, also poor quality George Chernilevsky talk 18:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 13:26, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. useless poor quality. Unused private photo George Chernilevsky talk 18:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
useless, without description! Reinhardhauke (talk) 13:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 18:59, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 13:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 11:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
orphaned picture of non-notable youtube user Martin H. (talk) 14:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 11:40, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Naming mistake, should be 1959 not 69 DL24 (talk) 15:24, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, and rename. ----MGuf (d) 15:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Poor quality personal image Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. File has no license and it is not used. MGA73 (talk) 17:48, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
and other uploads by Stardhruvpatel (talk · contribs). Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:45, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 19:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Porn. 84.61.182.248 20:03, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - very unlikely to be used.62.254.133.139 21:26, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete With so many dicks given in this qual, out of scope. --Yikrazuul (talk) 22:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. poor quality photo George Chernilevsky talk 18:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Far too blurred to be of any real value to the project Herby talk thyme 13:49, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete and salt Out of scope, also rather undescriptive file name. funplussmart (talk) 22:36, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Worthless, poor quality, redundant and out of scope. AshFriday (talk) 06:10, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 21:04, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Unused COM:PENIS with low quality. — regards, Revi 10:56, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 00:54, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Low quality COM:PENIS photo, unlikely to be useful A1Cafel (talk) 16:32, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, very poor quality penis selfie. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:22, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Commons:Nudity#New uploads of penis photo, not special enough to be educationally useful A1Cafel (talk) 04:23, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- I would keep this. The quality is acceptable, and we'll otherwise get new (and much poorer) uploads under this name over and over again. PaterMcFly (talk) 14:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Interesting argument, but this photo is just not good enough for me to agree. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:02, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 14:38, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
This is a difficult case. The image is derived from an image, which I'm sure is freely licensed, as it was a picture of a political rally, posted to FlickR (pretty normal for such photos to be released freely). However, this is a photo of a photo, and the original photo is not, as far as we know, freely released. No information on that photo is known. As a matter of principal, you can't take a photo of a photo, and declare the result to be free. I'm sure there's no legal problem for us to use the photo, but I do think it doesn't belong on Commons because it is not truly free. Now, if the original photo is actually free, then in that case, we should get that photo, and not rely on a low quality "photo-of-a-photo". Rob (talk) 20:25, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: it's not that difficult a case. It's an unauthorized derivative work of a copyrighted photograph. We can't have it in the Commons unless there is evidence that the copyright holder of the original photograph has released it into the public domain or licensed it under a free licence. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 18:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 19:04, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
First off, I am uncertain if this is the right procedure so if not, please correct me. I have strong suspicions that this image is not free of rights because it seems to have been published by the company Movistar. The user uploaded several pictures, all appearing to have been borrowed from several websites. It seems to me that this is an issue that should be investigated. Badzil (talk) 21:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: no evidence of permission from copyright holder. Please visit the pages of all similar images uploaded by the user and click the "No permission" link on the left side of the screen. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 18:41, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 19:05, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
I created a new archive with same image. The new archive was named as Kit_body_atletico2001 Felipe Timmermann (talk) 21:24, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Duplicate of File:Kit body atletico2001.png. author's request. Geagea (talk) 03:34, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Commercial picture file. No possible use in projects --Thorbjoern (talk · contribs) Correct malformed DR. Captain-tucker (talk) 22:57, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Advertisement, out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 11:43, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 13:25, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep wetland. -- Docu at 12:55, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 13:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- File is dupilicate of File:Zanahoria ALARP.png - which IS in use (and therefore in scope).Nigel Ish (talk) 18:19, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
The subjects of the photograph do not want to have their picture up. Labraun90 (talk) 04:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep: useful image of a photovoltaic array. The persons featured in the photograph are quite small and, in my view, not identifiable, but if this is thought to be an issue the image can be tagged with {{Personality}}. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 08:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- You could pixelate the faces and upload the result over this image and I will delete the old version. Thx --Mbdortmund (talk) 18:38, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 00:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
No evidence of copyright permission Kafuffle (talk) 12:26, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 02:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
marcedirico Marcedirico (talk) 15:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
por haberlo vendido 209.13.155.187 11:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
vendi el auto y no deseo publicar un vihiculo ajeno Marcedirico (talk) 11:45, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
marcedirico Marcedirico (talk) 11:36, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Dschwen (talk) 21:42, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
marcedirico Marcedirico (talk) 15:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
por haberlo vendido 209.13.155.187 11:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
vendi el auto y no deseo publicar un vihiculo ajeno Marcedirico (talk) 11:45, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
marcedirico Marcedirico (talk) 11:36, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Dschwen (talk) 21:42, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
29 GIFs from Occult Philosophy
[edit]- File:ANL001.gif
- File:ANL002.gif
- File:ANL003.gif
- File:ANL004.gif
- File:ANL005.gif
- File:ANL006.gif
- File:ANL007.gif
- File:ANL008.gif
- File:ANL009.gif
- File:ANL010.gif
- File:ANL011.gif
- File:ANL012.gif
- File:ANL013.gif
- File:ANL014.gif
- File:ANL015.gif
- File:ANL016.gif
- File:ANL017.gif
- File:ANL018.gif
- File:ANL019.gif
- File:ANL020.gif
- File:ANL021.gif
- File:ANL022.gif
- File:ANL023.gif
- File:ANL024.gif
- File:ANL025.gif
- File:ANL026.gif
- File:ANL027.gif
- File:ANL028.gif
- File:ANL029.gif
These comprise the first 29 gifs of a 607 image set, the entire set exists at Michigan State University Libraries together with a pdf of the entire set. The pdf has been converted to DjVu with OCR layer and uploaded to Commons here for use on Wikisource at: Three Books of Occult Philosophy. The gifs were initially used at wikisource by the uploader, 虍 (talk · contribs), and appear to have been part of a project to support the entire work with images; however no other files were uploaded and the uploader has gone inactive. Although the gifs are of better quality, this group of files is such a limited sample as to be of no value, particularly with the gifs readily available from MSU. Additionally, images ANL001, ANL002, and ANL004, above, are blank. If the files are not deleted, they should be renamed to more useful names, such as "File:Three Books of Occult Philosophy image 1.gif" (Not "page 1" as image 28 is page 1 of the book).--User:Doug(talk • contribs) 11:12, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete all Not needed. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- Files exclusively used at Wikisource, no required, and no other obvious educational use, when existing images can still be captured from djvu files
Contradictory source information and PD rationale. Supposedly created in 1961 by Plutarch, who had been dead for 18 centuries by then. If it was indeed created in 1961 by a living author, the author cannot have been dead for more than 70 years. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:03, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 11:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
unused personal foto Reinhardhauke (talk) 13:08, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 11:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
useless, without description! Reinhardhauke (talk) 13:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 11:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
spam Reinhardhauke (talk) 13:12, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 11:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 13:16, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Gola H. Sebenar might be a relevant historical person, but that discussion belongs elsewhere. --Dschwen (talk) 16:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. - permission unclear, relevance unclear - Jcb (talk) 11:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 13:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep portrait of author. -- Docu at 12:54, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Kept. - we have an article about him - Jcb (talk) 11:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
useless, without description! Reinhardhauke (talk) 13:19, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 11:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 13:19, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 11:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 13:21, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep why would this be out of scope? Seems quite useful for the clothing in the picture alone. MKFI (talk) 16:17, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with User:MKFI but what about permission? --Geagea (talk) 03:21, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 12:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 13:25, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. - copyvio from here - Jcb (talk) 12:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 13:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 15:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
it is obsoleted by Copula_gaussian.svg Zasf (talk) 13:42, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Kept. - not identical - Jcb (talk) 12:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
No FOP in Greece. The church actually dates from 1974 (I though it was older when I took the pictures). Eusebius (talk) 15:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- Also to be deleted (probably) on the same basis (all my work):
- File:Patras cathedral - central dome.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Patras cathedral - chandelier 1.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Patras cathedral - chandelier 2.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Patras cathedral - interior.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- Comment No FOP in Greece, so the entire Category:Cathedral Agios Andreas probably has to go. MKFI (talk) 16:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- Text law is pretty clear, it covers only "occasional reproduction and communication by the mass media". Anybody else than a mass media company is not allowed to publish it, therefore it is not possible to release it under a free license (which must allow anyone to reuse the picture for any purpose). This is why this paragraph is clearly and unambiguously labelled
Not OK. --Eusebius (talk) 12:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- The text could also mean: 'occasional reproduction' and 'communication by the mass media' - Jcb (talk) 14:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- Which remains a disjunction of restrictions both incompatible with free licenses. --Eusebius (talk) 15:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- The word 'occasional' is so vague that it can be applied to anything. Jcb (talk) 15:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- Except something that is definitely not occasional, like a permanent display. --Eusebius (talk) 16:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- The word 'occasional' is so vague that it can be applied to anything. Jcb (talk) 15:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- Which remains a disjunction of restrictions both incompatible with free licenses. --Eusebius (talk) 15:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- The text could also mean: 'occasional reproduction' and 'communication by the mass media' - Jcb (talk) 14:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. - the law text as present at COM:FOP seems to allow it, let's first clear up COM:FOP#Greece, before nominating images for deletion - Jcb (talk) 12:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
per Eusebius' original deletion reason. FOP in Greece is limited to "occasional reproduction by the mass media", which fails "freeness" doubly: "occasional", and restricted to the "mass media". Lupo 22:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per my previous nomination. And also for the following pictures (also taken by me), probably:
- File:Patras cathedral - central dome.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Patras cathedral - chandelier 1.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Patras cathedral - interior.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- I'm sorry I made the original mistake about this building, resulting in one QI and three VIs nominated for deletion. --Eusebius (talk) 07:01, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but there is no FoP in Qatar. Dura lex, sed lex. 84.61.182.248 15:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 12:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
and other uploads by Thinker 6 (talk · contribs). At least dates of life of subject should be provided, if it's impossible ti find out photographers information. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. Like with the rest of the user's uploads, the authors field has been filled with nonsense ("wp:dp"), and there is no information to verify the claim that the author died more than 70 years ago. According to bg:Вела Пеева, the subject lived 1922–1944, making it quite possible that the photo was created less than 70 years ago, and the author may even be alive today. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:38, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 12:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
and other scouts related uploads by Owen1985 (talk · contribs). Unlikely to by own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- Agree, sadly the editor refuses to communicate with others who are trying to tell him what works and what doesn't, the uploads don't look right to me.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 03:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Kept. - what happened to AGF? absent exif doesn't mean everything - Jcb (talk) 13:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: text document. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Not all text documents are necessarily out of scope (see here). I think we need to have a native Spanish speaker analyze the content before we make a decision. TFCforever (talk) 01:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 15:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
COM:DW 78.55.206.228 17:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- das ist kein "Werk". wenn es auf Commons anders gesehen wird, dann geht das eben nach .de --Ralf Roletschek (talk) 17:12, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. - of course this is copyrighted - Jcb (talk) 15:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Charles E Brown photos are not PD-GOV-UK - he was a commercial photographer who died in 1982 Nigel Ish (talk) 17:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- As stated above - Charles E. Brown was a commercial photographer. His photos were generally NOT Crown Copyright when created - according to - http://www.rafmuseum.org/london/collections/photographic/charles_brown.cfm the collection was purchased in 1980, which even if the images became crown copyright when they were purchased, would mean that copyright would not be expired. Charles Brown died in 1982, so its possible that they might not become pd until 2052 (70 years after death).Nigel Ish (talk) 17:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 15:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
C E Brown images are still copyright RAF Museum and not in public domain MilborneOne (talk) 18:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Removing this file would denigrate the memory of Bill Humble. This image could be seen as representative of his character and its removal from the internet would be deprive the general public of an important piece of history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.31.40.237 (talk • contribs) 20:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Note: The above are remnants of an incomplete deletion request. The file was tagged and this deletion request subpage was created, but it was never added to Commons:Deletion requests/2010/05/24 (archive). The file was also nominated for deletion as part of Commons:Deletion requests/File:B 26.jpg, but was never tagged with a deletion template pointing out that discussion. When that discussion was closed, the deletion tag pointing to this discussion was removed. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:38, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Charles E Brown was a commercial photographer, not a UK Government employee so impages were not pd-gov-uk when created. according to - http://www.rafmuseum.org/london/collections/photographic/charles_brown.cfm the collection was purchased in 1980, which even if the images became crown copyright when they were purchased, would mean that copyright would not be expired. Charles Brown died in 1982, so will not become pd until 2052 (70 years after death). Nigel Ish (talk) 17:25, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 15:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Charles E Brown died in 1982 - hence photo still in copyright Nigel Ish (talk) 17:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Kept. - Brown is not mentioned at the image description page - Jcb (talk) 16:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
There is absolutely no evidence for this image being a work of a U.S. Army soldier or employee. Just because it appears on a US Army flickr account doesn't make a US soldier work. It is more likely that this image was taken by the weapon manufacturer. As consequence it must be proven that this is not the case. 80.187.106.255 18:12, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- We have had this discussion before with another XM2010 picture. When PEO Soldier releases copyrighted pictures it marks them as copyrighted in the EXIF data. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 18:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- I think I found evidence here Gut Monk (talk) 15:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
- Dead link but I found the article anyway. Keep. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 05:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
- I think I found evidence here Gut Monk (talk) 15:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
There is an image on the main page of this article with Project manager Col. Douglas Tamilio HOLDING this weapon without a visable suppressor (the image is cut off). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:XM2010_Douglas_Tamilio.jpg Though the suppressor/mock-up of a barrel attachment, may not be pictured with the Project manager, you can clearly see the similar and distinct features of the weapon discussed here and the one held by the project manager. Full length flat top picattiny rails, clear lack of full barrel length side picatinny rails, bolt action, visually similar reciever, and fully adjustable check plate and shoulder pads are apparent in both images. You can even see what I can only assume is a side-folding stock on both the picture in question and the image of Col. Douglas Tamilio, again, HOLDING, the gun. If we are required to have a press release image of the contract weapon, then yes this should be removed. Clearly this is a new model line produced either as a prototype or final production weapon. There are so many configurations for a picatinny based platform that an accurate baseline image, such as the current image, would suffice for general description of the weapon system in my opinion.
- We do not discuss weapons details but licensing problems. --High Contrast (talk) 15:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete There is no evidence that this file is the work of a U.S. Army soldier or employee - as the nominator stated. An PD-US-Gov licence can only be used for images that were actually taken by US Gov employees. This is not possible without evidence. The EXIF data contains no information that could prove something. --High Contrast (talk) 15:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
- The media has always labeled these images as PD-gov. They were put on a U.S. government photostream and all files on government sites are PD unless otherwise stated. The same series of photos was nominated for deletion and kept before: Commons:Deletion requests/File:XM2010 (Right back view).jpg. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 18:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Kept. Jcb (talk) 16:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
There is no evidence that this file is the work of a U.S. Army soldier or employee - as the nominator stated. An PD-US-Gov licence can only be used for images that were actually taken by US Gov employees. This is not possible without evidence. The EXIF data contains no information that could prove that this file is in the public domain. High Contrast (talk) 17:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Keep - All files on U.S. Military photostreams and websites are Public Domain unless otherwise stated. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 02:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- No, they aren't. Why ever would you think that? Images created in the process of the work of US government employeess falls under this blanket, but the US gov is still permitted (with their author's permission) to host images from other sources (contractors and suppliers being the obvious ones) and these do not come under the blanket. Unless you have some other evidence of which their licensing is, you cannot assume that a resource is US gov PD, simply because it's on a .gov or a .mil site. Andy Dingley (talk) 03:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
"These pictures are made available for news organizations and the general public. These pictures may not be used in any promotional materials; advertisements; or any medium that suggests approval or endorsement by PEO Soldier, the U.S. Army, or the U.S. Government." - flickr profile. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 06:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Exactly! That is not the US gov PD licence. Note also that an image under that licence might be accepted for WP, but it's not free enough for use at Commons. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- No it is PD. The images on the Army website carry the following restrictions: "If imagery, either still or motion, is to be used for commercial advertisement, marketing or promotional activities or communications, follow the guidelines in this section. Additionally, the proposed layout with its accompanying copy must be approved by the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs." The Seal of the FBI for example is public domain but we are not allowed to use it "in connection with any advertisement, circular, book, pamphlet or other publication, play, motion picture, broadcast, telecast, or other production, in a manner reasonably calculated to convey the impression that such advertisement, circular, book, pamphlet or other publication, play, motion picture, broadcast, telecast, or other production, is approved, endorsed, or authorized by the Federal Bureau of Investigation." Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 14:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Keep - As far as I can see it's likely to be US gov work and PD for that reason. High Contrast for no apparent reason calls that my "opinion" in a quite unfriendly way, but it's not an opinion at all. 100% proof is a myth. If it's likely to be OK we should AGF and keep the image. That's why I kept the image. High Contrast concludes from the fact that I took a decision different from his vote that I have to learn things from him. I don't like such an arrogant behaviour. Jcb (talk) 15:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- It is very sad that you identify faithful help as "arrogant behaviour". But this is your problem. Again, I am asking you again: which facts make you think this file falls under a PD-Army licence? You still do not act after hard and obvious facts, it is your subjective thinking of this being likely a US gov work. And no, I have absolutely no problem with different opinions but I refuse to accept decisions without valid explanations. And finally, you have to apologize for your anchorless accusations that you keep bringing against me incessantly. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 16:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- "likely to be" doesn't cut it for copyright issues. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Please, please. This needs broader and more dispassionate treatment here. We have at least 120 images from the US Army's Program Executive Office -- PEO Soldier web site. Unfortunately the home site, although located at army.mil, has absolutely no copyright information, so the cautions above are entirely correct -- it is very possible, maybe 50/50, that any photos of the new equipment shown on the site came from a contractor and not an Army photographer. On the other hand, it would be unfortunate if we concluded that we had to delete all 120 (and more to come, I'm sure) as they are well photographed images of which the subject is a good example.
We need ideas, not bickering, people. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- I strongly agree with you. It would be have those above-average images kept on Commons. But there is no evidence for these images to be released under PD-Army. As long this is not the case, we cannot hold them. The only solution I see is to contact the people on charge on for example Army.mil. Then we have to wait for a positive response. --High Contrast (talk) 16:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- No evidence whatsoever? Gut monk has already shown you an example of the media labeling the image as public domain. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 17:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- You are talking of this link? This image is of different resolution. The only statement that can be considered as a source citation is "U.S. Army". Not "U.S. Army photo" or whatsoever. In addition we need evidence of a primary source: COM:L: The primary source should be provided. --High Contrast (talk) 17:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- No evidence whatsoever? Gut monk has already shown you an example of the media labeling the image as public domain. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 17:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- Seems that one of the easy things to do is to email them and ask. It isn't rocket science, so I have emailed and done so. We will await a response. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- Ask and one receives, their reply is
- Seems that one of the easy things to do is to email them and ask. It isn't rocket science, so I have emailed and done so. We will await a response. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the images fall under the public domain as images taken by US
Federal government employees, taken or made during the course of an
employee's official duties. Please credit any photos used with PEO
Soldier/U.S. Army.
Thank you! Have a great day!
<name redacted>
<name redacted>
Public Affairs/Strategic Communications
PEO Soldier - Soldier Protective and Individual Equipment
NCI, Inc.
- So to me, any photo from that site is Keep — billinghurst sDrewth 04:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- So to me, any photo from that site is
- Thanks for your efforts in chasing this. However I'm not sure that message actually tells us anything new. We already knew that "during the course of official duties" means PD-US-Gov, no matter who hosts it. There's no additional indication that all PEO content falls under this. Is it true to think that there are no contractor images on the site?
- It's also a problem to credit images, or at least a problem to promise that such images will be credited. This is a PD situation, not a CC-by licence. Although we would of course love to credit them, it's not a requirement of PD content that it be so credited in the future, and thus it's hard for us to enforce this on downstream uses of the content. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Thanks to billinghursts for his great help. Final evidence has been brought now.
Copyright problems with the owner of the advertising trailer Juan2x (talk) 18:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Kept. - just text - unblanked the author field - Jcb (talk) 16:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Skyboard 01.jpg (currently open). No release under a free license by "Hartz" (apparently the uploader isn't "Hartz" - see the other DR). Saibo (Δ) 21:51, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Here is a very similar photo: File:Skyboard360.JPG (uploaded by the assumed "Hartz"...). --Saibo (Δ) 21:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC) Deleted: murky authorship situation, unclear who the real author of the file is and if the upload here was authorized. --Rosenzweig τ 12:11, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
obviuosly not self-made: flickrvio Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Keep It is properly attributed to flickr and was verified. Bobby122 (talk) 00:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- But the flickr user is not the author, which is the problem. Calliopejen1 (talk) 03:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 20:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Ouranosaurus nigeriensis.jpg SabreTooth (talk) 20:16, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Kept. - you must specify a reason for deletion - Jcb (talk) 21:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
This file's source (http://olegvolk.net/gallery/technology/arms/M105calico4143.jpg.html) has no evidence of Creative Commons licensing, nor does the gallery itself. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 21:35, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 21:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Uploads of AsakuraAssachi
[edit]- File:Emo Asakura von der Band Anguish.jpg
- File:EMoAsakuraAssachi.jpg
- File:EmoBlueEyes.jpg
File:AsakuraAssachi.jpgUnusable poor --George Chernilevsky talk 09:48, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Commons isn't a personal photo album, out of scope. --BrokenSphere (Talk) 21:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 21:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Copyrightable image is focus of photo Svgalbertian (talk) 04:57, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: The Yellowhead Highway shield is likely subject to Canadian Crown copyright, which carries a term of 50 years. The highway was first opened in the 1970s. The Wikipedia article dates the sign as being from the 1980s. A trademark issued for the highway in 1992.--Svgalbertian (talk) 05:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- Here is the contact for SK department of Highways...http://www.highways.gov.sk.ca/Contact ... So far the highways have not had a problem with copyvio, and have been very forthcoming with info. If you want to drop them a line. The photo follows protocols of many other highway signs of both USA and Canada, which is why I thought that wikimedia commons had OK'd them..."Exceptions to copyright
As with many other countries the UK defines an exception to copyright infringement for artistic works on public display. Section 62 of the Copyright Designs & Patents Act 1988 states that it is not an infringement of copyright to film, photograph, broadcast or make a graphic image of a building, sculpture, models for buildings or work of artistic craftsmanship if that work is permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public." Canada is part of the UK 1 I don't know if that helps or not Kind RegardsSriMesh | talk 23:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- I have messaged SriMesh directy to address some of these points and keep converstation from muddling both this DR and Commons:Deletion requests/File:RedCoatTrail.png, but I will try to summmarize. The Canadian copyright law is it's own, not UKs. Canadian Copyright Act allows copyrighted images to be photograped but not as the focus, see Commons:De minimis#Canada. Government works in Canada are treated very differently in than the US which is why you see so many United States road sign images on Commons, see Template:PD-Canada and Template:PD-USGov.--Svgalbertian (talk) 05:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
- Note have sent letter to Ministry of Highways-Government of Saskatchewan regarding the wheat sheaf, close up of images regarding wikimedia commons existing highway signs - complete, wikimedia commons licensing, wikipedia highway articles and the OTRS recommendations. They will reply as soon as possible. Kind Regards SriMesh | talk 19:53, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- I have received an reply from the Ministry of Highways. What do I do with it, I have never submitted a permissions before. Do you have an email Svgalbertian and I can send the email to you? I vaguely remember that there was a permissions page somewhere on commons. Kind Regards Julia
- I have never done it myself, but the details are at Commons:OTRS. --Svgalbertian (talk) 05:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Approval was granted by the government of SK, sent the email to the email on the OTRS page. Thanks for posting the link, I couldn't remember where it was. Kind Regards SriMesh | talk 16:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- I have never done it myself, but the details are at Commons:OTRS. --Svgalbertian (talk) 05:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 11:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
