Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2011/01/10
 |
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}
.png){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
enough penis in erection GFreihalter (talk) 10:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Bad quality, so out of scope. Yann (talk) 10:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Inadequate source and author info. The case appears to be related to en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Amir.Hossein.7055. Note that the file description states that "This work has been released into the public domain by its author, Mahshidnadimi". en:User:Mahshidnadimi is one of the previously blocked socks of Amir.Hossein.7055. Nsk92 (talk) 14:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Imported sockpuppet upload via fa.wp. --Martin H. (talk) 16:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Inadequate source and author info. The case appears to be related to en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Amir.Hossein.7055. Note that the file description states that "This work has been released into the public domain by its author, Mahshidnadimi". en:User:Mahshidnadimi is one of the previously blocked socks of Amir.Hossein.7055. Nsk92 (talk) 14:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- You mixed the deletion request reason up with File:Dastjerdi.jpg. The author stated here is, from what I see, someone else on fa.wp, his upload log is here. This image does not have the sockpuppet problem of this Amir.Hossein.7055 plague, it may be ok kudging by uploads of 28/29 July 2007, it may have problems too broaden the judgement on the April and June 2007 uploads. Unlikely someone with a semi-professional camera and the ability to attend sport events make such blurry photos with 2-3 different cams. Worth a review. --Martin H. (talk) 16:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, you are right, I did confuse this one with File:Dastjerdi.jpg. This one was indeed uploaded to fa-wiki by someone other than Mahshidnadimi. On en-wiki there is a CSD criterion G5 which makes all files uploaded by blocked/banned users in violation of their block speedily deletable. I feel that something like that is appropriate here at Commons too, especially in the case of users engaged in long term and systemic abuse, such as what we have in this instance. So, to be honest, I would be inclined to delete all files uploaded by persistent sockpuppets, regardless of their licensing status, to discourage further sockpuppetry. Aside from that, given how many socks this guy has created at Commons and at en-wiki, it is quite possible (and even likely) that he has a truckload of socks on fa-wiki as well. So I would not AGF any images that he tries to transfer from fa-wiki to Commons. Nsk92 (talk) 18:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Agree with Nsk92. The image is not in use, it will still exist on fa.wp, at fa.wp people with language skills can deal with it, here on Commons we have to consider the problematic background of Amir.Hissein.7055 (and to be honest: I'm tired of him). --Martin H. (talk) 18:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Inadequate source info. The uploader is a serial sockpuppeteer with a long history of copyright violations, see en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Amir.Hossein.7055. Nsk92 (talk) 14:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Extracted from Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rowhani and Putin.jpg, faked source, bogus license claim. --Martin H. (talk) 16:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
No evidence of first publication >30 years ago in Iran. The given date is constructed to meet the copyright tag {{PD-Iran}}, the required evidence is however not some date of creation but the date of publication and the publication in Iran. Martin H. (talk) 07:51, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. - Jcb (talk) 19:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Inadequate source info. The uploader is a serial sockpuppeteer with a long history of copyright violations, see en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Amir.Hossein.7055. Nsk92 (talk) 14:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. The image does not come from the claimed source http://archive.kremlin.ru/events/photos/2007/10/148247.shtml but is rather a photo stolen from some random source and uploaded here with faked information. The image appears to be a press photo credited to agencies. Martin H. (talk) 16:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Inadequate source info. The uploader is a serial sockpuppeteer with a long history of copyright violations, see en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Amir.Hossein.7055. Nsk92 (talk) 14:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Image does not come from the claimed source http://archive.kremlin.ru/events/photos/2007/10/148247.shtml but is rather stolen from http://www.irdiplomacy.ir/Images/Gallery/%D8%A7%D9%8A%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%86/FullPic/2008-06-08_12.34.59_1.jpg with the watermark cropped out and uploaded here with faked source and bogus license claim. --Martin H. (talk) 16:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Sculptor Hiltunen died only in 2003 and FOP of Finland, where this work is located, is only valid for buildings. Thereby likely a copyvio. --Túrelio (talk) 08:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- The same problem with all images in Category:Sibelius Monument. --Túrelio (talk) 09:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 01:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
according to [1] Fernrohr (talk) 10:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, relevant file has been already moved to wikipedia, no need to keep similar files elsewhere. NVO (talk) 09:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 01:12, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Create mistake, now moved to TimedText:WalesAnniversaryAddress.ogv.en.srt Waihorace (talk) 07:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. already deleted Captain-tucker (talk) 15:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
converted to DR by me from a speedy by User:Wikipeder for "this is a hand drawn copy of a copyrighted original: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/316/5829.cover-expansion. No matter if the copy passes the threshold of creativity, we have no licence to publish derivatives of the original. And original is from "Art Wolfe/Getty Images" to allow for discussion as the are more drawings like this by the same uploader. --Túrelio (talk) 07:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. 99of9 (talk) 09:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Bad Name Bunbunrun (talk) 07:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- Why don't you suggest a better name? Images can be easily renamed. --NEURO ⇌ 20:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Please use the rename template instead. 99of9 (talk) 09:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Amada44 talk to me 09:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Very poor quality for use George Chernilevsky talk 08:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
quality is so bad that the image becomes out of scope. we also have lots of good rock dove images. Amada44 talk to me 09:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Delete Per nom. --Yikrazuul (talk) 22:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 08:25, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
mistake - please delete Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 17:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Please delete (wrong written; I 've made a new category) Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 09:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Deleted by Herbythyme Captain-tucker (talk) 15:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
probably not own work, no EXIF data, small size Yann (talk) 10:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Deleted by Okki Captain-tucker (talk) 15:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
empty (wrong category!) Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 10:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- Nonsense action of Bernd Schwabe in Hannover reverted --Rabanus Flavus (talk) 16:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. 99of9 (talk) 09:40, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
As evidenced by the 800×600 upload by Ringchen, this is a photo of a photo. So, who is the copyright owner of the original photo? Lupo 12:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- The link you supplied doesn't work for me. --99of9 (talk) 09:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- That's because the image has been deleted in the meantime at the Chinese wikipedia since it was transferred to here. See their deletion log. But the Internet archive still has it: here is the page Ringchen gave in 2005 as the source; and here's the image he uploaded (800×600px) on 2005-12-2, 02:55. It's clearly a photo of some panel on which the photo of these three people was mounted. Lupo 10:06, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. 99of9 (talk) 11:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
User photograph. Used only on spam WP:EN user page which is probably now deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 08:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 08:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
This image is available http://www.dominiquepersoone.be/dominique-persoone-philosophy.asp?taal=uk with a copyright notice right below it. -- Deadstar (msg) 14:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. 99of9 (talk) 09:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
structure incorrect (charge), poor quality, superceded Yikrazuul (talk) 18:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Replaced by File:Ceftarolinfosamil.svg. --Leyo 18:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 08:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
structure wrong (CH3 missing), bad quality; superceded. Yikrazuul (talk) 19:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per request. --Leyo 19:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 08:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
disfigured version of File:59120064_German_whores_in_backstage,_freshing_up_their_Make-Up,_Berlin_2001.JPG; does not effectively hide identity, has no use on Wikimedia Prosfilaes (talk) 20:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Keep La mia opinione è qui. [My opinion is here.] [2] [3] --Ligabo (talk) 09:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)- Delete. Per Prosfilaes. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per Pro. --Yikrazuul (talk) 22:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per Pro. --George Chernilevsky talk 08:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:0405.Annabell_002-2.jpg&diff=48120781&oldid=48096532){kind=link}
![[3]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:59120145_Whore,_Berlin_2001-2.JPG&diff=prev&oldid=48147153){kind=link}
Deleted. Failed identity hiding. 99of9 (talk) 10:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Vanity photo, Low Quality, out of scope, no foreseeable use. Only use was in a vanity article probably about the uploader. FASTILY (TALK) 20:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. out of project scope, unused and self-promotional George Chernilevsky talk 08:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
better images exists Reinhardhauke (talk) 20:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Unused, poor quality. Far butter photo of same object exist George Chernilevsky talk 08:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
useless, better images exists Reinhardhauke (talk) 20:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Unused, poor quality. Far butter photo of same object exist George Chernilevsky talk 08:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
nothing to see Reinhardhauke (talk) 21:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- OK (uploader) --Harmonia Amanda (talk) 07:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 08:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 08:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Copyright viol. The license claims that 60 year copyright has expired but it is for a 2010 film Kenmayer (talk) 22:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. 99of9 (talk) 10:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Copyright violation--license claims that 60 year copyright has expired but it is a 2010 movie Kenmayer (talk) 23:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. 99of9 (talk) 10:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Own work seems to be highly doubtful: no EXIF information, extremely low image resolution and one of the few contributions of the uploader. I assume copyright violation. Because of the bad image quality it could be some screenshot 80.187.106.82 11:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - Looks like a screenshot, Added File:Beáta Dubasová.jpg, the users only other upload. --Captain-tucker (talk) 18:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 23:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Photograph of a 1984 book. -- Deadstar (msg) 13:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 23:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
private portrait, sole contribution of uploader, no category no description, useless Havang(nl) (talk) 18:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
-2011-01-10T18:01:00.000Z-File:Sanchez.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 23:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Disfigured version of File:Jane_-_Rio_-_2006.jpg; despite claims, doesn't effectively hide identity Prosfilaes (talk) 20:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep La mia opinione è qui. [My opinion is here.] [4] [5] --Ligabo (talk) 09:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. Per Prosfilaes. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 23:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Česky: Not usable - blurry, bad quality Aktron (talk) 21:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Captain-tucker (talk) 21:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
This is a copyright violation: the image has surely an author and the copyright has not expired. Just because on this private website additional author information is missing does not mean that the author is anonymous. This file is just a webgrab without any valid source/author and licensing information. 80.187.106.82 11:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- What is your statement about a copyright violation based on? The photo is possibly a presentation photo, maybe taken by a photographer of company Sodomka, Tatra or Czechoslovakian State Railways. Sodomka and Tatra were nationalised after WWII and if either of them had a right to the photo, it is not easy to say who do the possible immaterial rights belong in these days. Regarding the railway company, I don't know. And still there is a chance the photo has been taken by someone else. Because you claim you know better about this, please tell me who to contact to find out the copyright issue. Whose permit can be accepted as a legal statement about free usage? --Gwafton (talk) 12:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. The image is from 1934. Tatra KLUB presents themselves as the copyright holder (probably baseless, but we can believe it) and states no specific author of this photo, i. e. presents is as an anonymous work. Thus, the photo is under PD-anonymous as long as the real author will not be claimed. --ŠJů (talk) 23:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. It is very important to know who the copyright holder is: believing is not in enough on Commons, per our precautionary principle. As long as there is no certain evidence about the author and or licencing this one is deleted. --High Contrast (talk) 07:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
It's not the uploader's "own work", and the stylized maple leaf, incorporating a wave, window and roof, is of sufficient originality that it is likely covered by copyright. Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Permission has been sent to update this image. Since the author is the representative for the use of the trademark logo, it is not in violation of copyright laws. If you have any more comments please direct them to me. --Andy1896 (talk) 19:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. - we received OTRS permission - Jcb (talk) 11:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
quality to low to be useful Amada44 talk to me 09:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Blurred, noise → useless. --Daniel Baránek (talk) 08:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
The file has been uploaded by the Uploader to be used in a Thai Wikipedia article lacking of significance and promoting oneself. The artcile has now been deleted. Aristitleism (talk) 09:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:39, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
according to [6] Fernrohr (talk) 09:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
according to [7] Fernrohr (talk) 09:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, far better pics available. NVO (talk) 09:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom (internally linked decision: Commons:Deletion requests/Kotelnicheskaya). See also Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/01/Category:Buildings in Russia. — Jeff G. ツ 19:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
according to [8] Fernrohr (talk) 09:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
according to [9] Fernrohr (talk) 09:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
according to [10] Fernrohr (talk) 10:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Author of the art (en:Dmitry Chechulin) died in 1981. 70+4 years PMA jurisdiction. Retired electrician (talk) 10:13, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- Russia now has Freedom of Panorama for buildings: {{FoP-Russia}}... but who took this photo, and why is the photo PD? Storkk (talk) 12:02, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- It's a drawing, not a photograph. At Corbis, it is credited to Thomas Johnson/Sygma/CORBIS [11]. That's probably this Thomas Johnson, who worked for fr:Sygma 1992–2002. On the other hand, Corbis claims that the image is from 1934 – Johnson was born 1955. Quite possible that Johnson just used it in one of his publications, possibly without referencing the original author? Here is a black and white version of it with a page or image number plus lots of context (other images, text). Can't read it, though. --El Grafo (talk) 13:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- No way. It's the 1934 original displayed at the Moscow museum of architecture and reproduced all over the web. Here is the same image in high res [12], here's how it actually hung on the wall in 2015 [13] (scroll some 2/3 down), and there are black-and-whites for the 1935 magazine [14]. So much for Corbis credibility. Retired electrician (talk) 21:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- I realize just now that my comment wasn't really helpful. Somehow I got confused by Storkk's comment and had the impression that Chechulin was only the architect of the building and someone else did the drawing. But based on the links you provided (run through Google translator), it's pretty clear: Chechulin is the author of the artwork. Looks like it was never actually built? But even if it was: The building being PD because of FOP doesn't mean that concept art made before its construction is PD as well. Chechulin died 1981 → not PD → Delete. --El Grafo (talk) 08:23, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- I realize just now that my comment wasn't really helpful. Somehow I got confused by Storkk's comment and had the impression that Chechulin was only the architect of the building and someone else did the drawing. But based on the links you provided (run through Google translator), it's pretty clear: Chechulin is the author of the artwork. Looks like it was never actually built? But even if it was: The building being PD because of FOP doesn't mean that concept art made before its construction is PD as well. Chechulin died 1981 → not PD →
- No way. It's the 1934 original displayed at the Moscow museum of architecture and reproduced all over the web. Here is the same image in high res [12], here's how it actually hung on the wall in 2015 [13] (scroll some 2/3 down), and there are black-and-whites for the 1935 magazine [14]. So much for Corbis credibility. Retired electrician (talk) 21:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- It's a drawing, not a photograph. At Corbis, it is credited to Thomas Johnson/Sygma/CORBIS [11]. That's probably this Thomas Johnson, who worked for fr:Sygma 1992–2002. On the other hand, Corbis claims that the image is from 1934 – Johnson was born 1955. Quite possible that Johnson just used it in one of his publications, possibly without referencing the original author? Here is a black and white version of it with a page or image number plus lots of context (other images, text). Can't read it, though. --El Grafo (talk) 13:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:16, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
according to [15] Fernrohr (talk) 10:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:42, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
There are numerous reasons. 1)I do not see a specific license stated in the OTRS ticket that is linked to on the image's page. 2)Even if there was a license mentioned, I think a release from sculptor would be necessary. 3)There is no blanket freedom of panorama for artwork in the United States. This sculpture was installed in 1989 according to the Smithsonian, so the 1923 rule does not seem to apply. Rockfang (talk) 10:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Logo for a shipyard, unlikely to be self made. If kept, in dire need of a crop anyway. -- Deadstar (msg) 11:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Advert for a 1963 yacht. Unlikely to be self made. -- Deadstar (msg) 11:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
random group of students, the associated article was deleted from nl: wiki. I don't see particular use for this image. -- Deadstar (msg) 14:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
press shot means it's not self made. Incorrect license. -- Deadstar (msg) 14:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
unused screenshot of pay-per-view channel, article was deleted here en:ViewOn.Tv and here fr:ViewOn.Tv as advertising and out of scope; also possible copyvio of the movie if not the channel itself. Santosga (talk) 14:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Low quality nude picture. shizhao (talk) 17:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Changes? Picture is of questionalbe quality. I suspect also copyvio, with the small size (of the pic) given. --Yikrazuul (talk) 19:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Probably copyvio, small resolution. --Daniel Baránek (talk) 08:41, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Masur (talk) 14:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
probably not own work Yann (talk) 20:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 14:26, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/Google Chrome screenshots
Google Chrome screenshots
[edit]- File:Google Chrome.png
- File:Chrome windows.png
- File:Aw, Snap!.png
- File:Sad Plugin.png
- File:Google Chrome incognito-es.png
- File:Chrome options russian.PNG
- File:Google Chrome task manager-es.png
- File:Gchrome.jpg
- File:Google Chrome def.jpg
- File:Google indisponível.png
- File:Bcxfu75k exa.JPG
- File:Chrome Wikipedija XP.JPG
- File:Chrome en Windows XP.jpg
- File:Chrome-history.PNG
- File:Chrome.jpg
- File:Chrome.png
- File:Chybné zobrazování referencí.png
- File:File-Google Chrome kawiki.png
- File:Google Cache Censorship.png
- File:Google Chrome Beta1 enwiki.png
- File:Google Chrome Beta1 eswiki.png
- File:Google Chrome Beta1 zhwiki.png
- File:Google Chrome Dutch.jpg
- File:Google Chrome Fawiki WinXP.jpg
- File:Google Chrome Finnish.png
- File:Google Chrome Limburgish.jpg
- File:Google Chrome OS browser ru.png
- File:Google Chrome incognito.png
- File:Google Chrome maximized windows XP.PNG
- File:Google Chrome normal windows XP.PNG
- File:Google Chrome os.png
- File:Google Chrome ru.png
- File:Google Chrome sad tab-es.png
- File:Google Chrome sreenshot Vi wikipedia.PNG
- File:Google Chrome tt.png
- File:Google Chrome-es.png
- File:Google Chrome-ko.png
- File:Google Chrome-pt.png
- File:Google Chrome.JPG
- File:Google chrome Maximized screen vista.png
- File:GoogleChrome uk.png
- File:Km.wikipedia Chrome.jpg
- File:Sad tab of death.JPG
- File:SadTab.png
- Category:Screenshots of Google Chrome
Google Chrome is not a free and open source software (FLOSS) and not under the BSD License. Google Chrome Terms of Service explicitly claims:
| “ | 9.2 Subject to section 1.2, you may not (and you may not permit anyone else to) copy, modify, create a derivative work of, reverse engineer, decompile or otherwise attempt to extract the source code of the Software or any part thereof, unless this is expressly permitted or required by law, or unless you have been specifically told that you may do so by Google, in writing. | ” |
Google Chrome and Chromium are two different browsers. The Terms considered here to be Google Chrome's official license explanation to prove this screenshot can stay on Commons, is actually Chromium's. Chromium is a FLOSS under BSD, MIT and some other free licenses. Although the BSD'ed V8 engine, BSD'ed and LGPL'ed WebKit and some other part of Google Chrome are FLOSS, the whole Google Chrome itself is not. Google Chrome is "open sourced" by letting users know the code of the similar Chromium, but in fact, among Chromium's code, no one knows exactly which are used by Google Chrome, which are not, and which are modified. Google Chrome is source closed and non-free, legally and actually. These screenshots thus not allowed on Commons, they must be transfered to Wikipedia projects.
(btw, the reason for deletion here is different to the previous one of File:Google Chrome.png, the previous deletion request where window borders are considered copyrightable was too pointy, and in that discussion no one pointed out the real issue: Google Chrome is non-free.)
All the images in Category:Screenshots of Google Chrome are listed above. If they are deleted, the category should be deleted also. On Commons we have such categories only for free browsers like Google Chromium and Mozilla Firefox.
If you want a screenshot of a web page but not the broswer, use Chromium or Firefox, or cut off the Chrome looks. If you really need to show what Google Chrome looks like in a Wikipedia article, you can still upload the screenshot of Google Chrome to Wikipedia project as a fair use.
--Tomchen1989 (talk) 03:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- Hmm... I am neutral. Because the screenshot of Google Chrome takes only a small part of the whole picture... But I don't really understand their copyright policy, so it might be copyrighted... Hydriz (talk) 08:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
| “ | These Terms of Service apply to the executable code version of Google Chrome. Source code for Google Chrome is available free of charge under open source software license agreements at http://code.google.com/chromium/terms.html. | ” |
Comment: Don't Chrome and Chromium look absolutely the same? --AVRS (talk) 19:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)- Comment: Ĉu Chrome kaj Chromium ne aspektas tute same? --AVRS (talk) 19:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep per Sasha Krotov. — Jeff G. ツ 03:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep google chrome is a version of chromium + proprietary + patented technologies like the chrome logo and h.264 respectably however the UI is under BSD license per above. Delete only if it has chrome logo.--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 04:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep by making these screenshots you do not "copy, modify, create a derivative work of, reverse engineer, decompile or otherwise attempt to extract the source code of the Software or any part thereof" - Pahles (talk) 19:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep All parts of the ui are part of chromium and released under BSD license --Chris Ssk (talk) 18:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
@ Tomchen1989: Could you please be so kind to discuss such a problem on the basis of one example next time? --Mbdortmund (talk) 23:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep --Olli (talk) 15:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 14:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Should be replaced with a duplicate cropped from the original, but saved as a much smaller JPG file, File:Cropped Butt Nolan vs Middlesbrough by nyaa birdies perch (flickr).jpg. Ytoyoda (talk) 04:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
Kept. - the quality of the second seems worse - Jcb (talk) 17:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Obsolete WA maps
[edit]- File:Map-WA-10.svg > File:Washington State Route 10.svg
- File:Map-WA-102.svg > File:Washington State Route 102.svg
- File:Map-WA-104.svg > File:Washington State Route 104.svg
- File:Map-WA-105 Spur.svg
- File:Map-WA-105.svg > File:Washington State Route 105.svg
- File:Map-WA-106.svg > File:Washington State Route 106.svg
- File:Map-WA-108.svg > File:Washington State Route 108.svg
- File:Map-WA-11.svg > File:Washington State Route 11.svg
- File:Map-WA-112.svg > File:Washington State Route 112.svg
- File:Map-WA-113.svg > File:Washington State Route 113.svg
- File:Map-WA-14.svg > File:Washington State Route 14.svg
- File:Map-WA-16.svg > File:Washington State Route 16.svg
- File:Map-WA-18.svg > File:Washington State Route 18.svg
- File:Map-WA-19.svg > File:Washington State Route 19.svg
- File:Map-WA-20 Spur.svg
- File:Map-WA-20.svg > File:Washington State Route 20.svg
- File:Map-WA-202.svg > File:Washington State Route 202.svg
- File:Map-WA-21.svg > File:Washington State Route 21.svg
- File:Map-WA-22.svg > File:Washington State Route 22.svg
- File:Map-WA-23.svg > File:Washington State Route 23.svg
- File:Map-WA-24.svg > File:Washington State Route 24.svg
- File:Map-WA-25.svg > File:Washington State Route 25.svg
- File:Map-WA-26.svg > File:Washington State Route 26.svg
- File:Map-WA-28.svg > File:Washington State Route 28.svg
- File:Map-WA-3.svg > File:Washington State Route 3.svg
- File:Map-WA-302.svg > File:Washington State Route 302.svg
- File:Map-WA-31.svg > File:Washington State Route 31.svg
- File:Map-WA-339.svg > File:Washington State Route 339.svg
- File:Map-WA-4.svg > File:Washington State Route 4.svg
- File:Map-WA-401.svg > File:Washington State Route 401.svg
- File:Map-WA-405.svg > File:Washington Interstate 405.svg
- File:Map-WA-41.svg > File:Idaho Highway 41 map.png
- File:Map-WA-410.svg > File:Washington State Route 410.svg
- File:Map-WA-520.svg > File:Washington State Route 520.svg
- File:Map-WA-522.svg > File:Washington State Route 522.svg
- File:Map-WA-524 Spur.svg
- File:Map-WA-524.svg > File:Washington State Route 524.svg
- File:Map-WA-525 Spur.svg
- File:Map-WA-525.svg > File:Washington State Route 525.svg
- File:Map-WA-526.svg > File:Washington State Route 526.svg
- File:Map-WA-599.svg > File:Washington State Route 599.svg
- File:Map-WA-6.svg > File:Washington State Route 6.svg
- File:Map-WA-7.svg > File:Washington State Route 7.svg
- File:Map-WA-704.svg > File:Washington State Route 704.svg
- File:Map-WA-705.svg > File:Washington Interstate 705.svg
- File:Map-WA-8.svg > File:Washington State Route 8.svg
- File:Map-WA-9.svg > File:Washington State Route 9.svg
- File:Map-WA-908.svg > File:Washington State Route 908.svg
- File:Map-WA-970.svg > File:Washington State Route 970.svg
- File:Map-WA-99.svg > File:Washington State Route 99.svg
All files in the left column are obsoleted by entries in the right column. Spur routes do not have their own article and do not need a map, thus their lack of replacement. --Admrboltz (talk) 05:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- Support as standards have been upgraded since the originals were created. Imzadi 1979 → 06:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete The quality of the newer maps (right column) far surpasses that of the old ones. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 06:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 23:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Clearly, {{PD-US-unpublished}} does not apply; can one tag this as PD-self instead? Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 17:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
according to [16] Fernrohr (talk) 09:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- You mean, that ALL the photos of lenin's mausoleum maden in Russia must be deleted?? Only because the architect of it died in 1949? Did I clearly understand?Sergius (talk) 19:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- That way, you must delete all the photos of Moscow Kremlin after 1937 year, because authors of the Kremlin Stars died much later, then author of mausoleum.Sergius (talk) 16:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 22:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
The file has been uploaded by the Uploader to be used in a Thai Wikipedia article lacking of significance and promoting oneself. The artcile has now been deleted. Aristitleism (talk) 09:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 23:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
May be out of scope, I fail to see how this picture can illustrate anything. Eusebius (talk) 15:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Used on it.wp. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
out of scope. image was only used, because uploader systematically tried to spread his images throughout the project.talk to me 09:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Out of scope --Captain-tucker (talk) 15:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
according to [17] Fernrohr (talk) 10:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep As per the permission letter from the Press Secretary for the President of the Russian Federation (Kremlin authorisation) linked on the image description page. I assume that any legal issues have been thought about and cleared in advance by the Kremlin administration. --Iotatau (talk) 11:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- The press secretary can grant permission on any rights the administration might have as publisher of the photo. But he is not entitled to decide on rights of the architect of the depicted building. --Fernrohr (talk) 13:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- How do you know that there has been no prior agreement with the copyright holder which has not been mentioned publicly? I give the Kremlin the benefit of the doubt that a legally clean permission has been granted. With your position you imply that the Kremlin is acting illegally or does not know the laws of its own country. --Iotatau (talk) 22:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Both last statements are correct. However, since custody of copyright rests with the FSO, the whole discussion is moot. NVO (talk) 08:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- How do you know that there has been no prior agreement with the copyright holder which has not been mentioned publicly? I give the Kremlin the benefit of the doubt that a legally clean permission has been granted. With your position you imply that the Kremlin is acting illegally or does not know the laws of its own country. --Iotatau (talk) 22:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- The press secretary can grant permission on any rights the administration might have as publisher of the photo. But he is not entitled to decide on rights of the architect of the depicted building. --Fernrohr (talk) 13:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. - no copyrightable architecture in the picture - Jcb (talk) 23:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
according to [18] Fernrohr (talk) 10:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, much better pics already in place. NVO (talk) 13:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep, what better pics are in place ? Gérard (talk) 18:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Some time ago, when this fop craze broke loose, contributors moved their pics out to wikipedia. That's why you might see "permission" disclaimers like this. NVO (talk) 19:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. - insufficient information in DR to judge this - Jcb (talk) 23:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
There are no freedom of panorama exemptions in Russia, which means that architectural work cannot be photographed freely for anything other than personal use. Architect was Mikhail Vasil'yevich Posokhin (1910-1989). Undelete in 2060. Bob247 (talk) 05:33, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
according to [19] Fernrohr (talk) 10:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- keep, no good reason for deletion Gérard (talk) 18:19, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- OMG, copyvio is a GOOD reason to delete. --Fernrohr (talk) 18:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. - per Gérard, insufficient information in DR to judge this - Jcb (talk) 23:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
No FOP in Russia. Architect's rights violated. 91.76.4.67 20:11, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
- Why singular ("Architect" - two men were credited as lead desighers) and why are their rights violated? (architect's exclusive right expires with death). Ah, never mind, delete for the sake of Allesmuller-wannabees. NVO (talk) 23:42, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Restored per UnDR -- Russian FoP law has changed. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:52, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
according to [20] Fernrohr (talk) 10:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. - insufficient information in DR to judge this - Jcb (talk) 23:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
according to [21] Fernrohr (talk) 10:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
![[21]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Moscow_City_16.05.2008_%281%29.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep Situation is not so clear. --Jklamo (talk) 05:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. - insufficient information in DR to judge this - Jcb (talk) 23:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
No FOP in Russia. 84.61.186.139 20:39, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
according to [22] Fernrohr (talk) 10:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. - insufficient information in DR to judge this - Jcb (talk) 23:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
No FOP in Russia. 84.61.186.139 09:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Is FOP the reason it is a free image? Simply because there is no FOP in Russia doesn't tell us enough information. -- Ned Scott (talk) 02:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
As a general rule, images of recent buildings infringe the architect's copyright and are not allowed on Commons. In some countries, there is an exception to the general rule which we call freedom of panorama which allows such pictures. However, there is no FOP exception in Russia, so this cannot be kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
according to [23] Fernrohr (talk) 10:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, relevant file has been already moved to wikipedia, no need to keep similar files elsewhere. NVO (talk) 09:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. - insufficient information in DR to judge this - Jcb (talk) 23:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
COM:FOP#Russia. 84.61.139.62 13:03, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Has already been deleted --Denniss (talk) 15:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
according to [24] Fernrohr (talk) 10:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. - insufficient information in DR to judge this - Jcb (talk) 23:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
according to [25] Fernrohr (talk) 10:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, relevant file has been already moved to wikipedia, no need to keep similar files elsewhere. NVO (talk) 09:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. - insufficient information in DR to judge this - Jcb (talk) 23:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Russia. Several pics of same subject already deleted Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
File was deleted.
according to [26] Fernrohr (talk) 10:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, relevant file has been already moved to wikipedia, no need to keep similar files elsewhere. NVO (talk) 09:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. - insufficient information in DR to judge this - Jcb (talk) 23:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Russia. Several other images of the same subject were already deleted Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:18, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
according to [27] Fernrohr (talk) 10:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. Relevant file already moved to wikipedia, no need to keep a similar one here. NVO (talk) 09:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. - insufficient information in DR to judge this - Jcb (talk) 23:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Russia Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
according to [28] Fernrohr (talk) 11:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Situation is not so clear. --Jklamo (talk) 09:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. Relevant file already moved to wikipedia, no need to keep a similar file here. NVO (talk) 09:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. - insufficient information in DR to judge this - Jcb (talk) 23:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Please delete (this Category was none; for we have a wright one) Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 11:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- Nonsense action of Bernd Schwabe in Hannover reverted. --Rabanus Flavus (talk) 16:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- Bitte beide um eine bessere Erklärung ihres Anliegens. mfg --Mbdortmund (talk) 23:16, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 23:19, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
EXIF reads "Karel Tomei / Flying Camera", user's name is Bert de Boer. Not self made, so incorrectly licensed. -- Deadstar (msg) 14:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 23:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
"Own work Birgit Berg" means uploader is not owner (and cannot release it into PD). The description speaks of the writer in the third person ("one of her puppies") in Dutch so unlikely solene is Brigit Berg. -- Deadstar (msg) 14:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. - also probably out of scope - Jcb (talk) 23:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Not own work, so cannot be licensed as such. -- Deadstar (msg) 14:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 23:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Not self made - Tineye gives 33 results. Cannot be released under license given. -- Deadstar (msg) 14:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 23:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Photograph was taken at the United Nations, evidence is missing that it was first published in Iran. Martin H. (talk) 12:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom. Note that the uploader is a prolific cross-wiki sockpuppeteer with a long jistory of uploading images, both here and at en-wiki, with false copyright info. Nsk92 (talk) 06:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 02:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Inadequate source info. The uploader is a serial sockpuppeteer with a long history of copyright violations, see en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Amir.Hossein.7055. Nsk92 (talk) 14:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Closed early. This must be taken up at Commons:Undeletion requests, not by reloading the file. Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
unencyclopidiac not in projrct scope Jayanta Nath (talk) 16:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete No educational value. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 08:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 23:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
unencyclopidiac not in projrct scope Jayanta Nath (talk) 16:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete No educational value. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 08:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 23:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
is a logo, without any source and/or permission Trijnstel (talk) 17:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 23:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Poster, derivative works shizhao (talk) 18:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Kept. - nothing copyrightable in the image - Jcb (talk) 23:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
author is en:Chang Dai-chien, Not PD. copyvio shizhao (talk) 18:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
In fact, author en:Chang Dai-chien and author en:Zhang Daqian is the same person in different English name called in Taiwan and China respectively.OrionHsu (talk) 13:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 23:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
author is en:Chang Dai-chien, Not PD. copyvio shizhao (talk) 18:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
In fact, author en:Chang Dai-chien and author en:Zhang Daqian is the same person in different English name called in Taiwan and China respectively.OrionHsu (talk) 13:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 23:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
author is en:Chang Dai-chien, Not PD. copyvio shizhao (talk) 18:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
In fact, author en:Chang Dai-chien and author en:Zhang Daqian is the same person in different English name called in Taiwan and China respectively.OrionHsu (talk) 13:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 23:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
author is en:Chang Dai-chien, Not PD. copyvio shizhao (talk) 18:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
In fact, author en:Chang Dai-chien and author en:Zhang Daqian is the same person in different English name called in Taiwan and China respectively.OrionHsu (talk) 13:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 23:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
author is en:Chang Dai-chien, Not PD. copyvio shizhao (talk) 18:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
In fact, author en:Chang Dai-chien and author en:Zhang Daqian is the same person in different English name called in Taiwan and China respectively.OrionHsu (talk) 13:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 23:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
TV screenshot shizhao (talk) 18:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 23:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
logo, without source and/or permission, originally from this website - don't know for sure if it can be deleted though Trijnstel (talk) 19:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. - PD-textlogo - Jcb (talk) 23:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
This photo's purpose is to reproduce the poster. So the photo is a derivative work of the poster, which is copyrighted. Chaser (talk) 19:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- it's really not about copying the poster, but about the event... MADe (talk) 20:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- I don't see how we can apply this as a valid keep reason. Jcb (talk) 23:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 23:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
personal image, out of scope Yann (talk) 19:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
This picture was created so that Ben Norton, a campus ambassador at the University of Kentucky, may upload this photo to his entry at the campus ambassador Wiki page. It was part of an assignment he received (i.e., "Upload an image of yourself to Wikimedia Commons. During the training, you will add this photo to the Campus Ambassador page, so please choose a clearly recognizable head shot. ").
The above was written by the uploader 99of9 (talk) 09:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep A small number of images of users for userpage space are acceptable. I've edited the description to make clear that the subject is the uploader. --99of9 (talk) 09:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 23:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
I, Starvinsky, uploaded this image in 2011 for the profile picture for my profile as a Wikipedia campus ambassador. I am no longer an ambassador and would no longer like this image on Wikimedia Commons. I, as original owner of the image, reserve the right to remove it. Starvinsky (talk) 23:39, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- Delete No longer has an educational purpose. (However, note to User:Starvinsky - when you licensed it with a free license, you relinquished the "right" to remove it.) --99of9 (talk) 23:54, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: User request. Yann (talk) 05:41, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
probably not own work, bogus license, as well as other files by the same user Yann (talk) 20:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 00:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
i need new file Sarkisov123 (talk) 21:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. - ununderstandable deletion reason - Jcb (talk) 00:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
w:Laurence Housman died in 19491959, so it's not free. The source is likely wrong -- Housman was too young in 1878, The Sensitive Plant with Housman's illustrations was published in 1898 per [29]. Trycatch (talk) 23:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- Publications in the US are PD 1923. It doesn't matter if he died in 1949. Even you reference to the Britannica dates it before 1900. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- This is a copy of the book refered to above but it lacks the "caption" and was not the edition used. I'm trying to find out the exact google books copy of the image - it was uploaded for this purpose but the source does not match one of the ones with text added, so it wasn't confusing one with another but may have been a copy failure (i.e. a 7 instead in a 9). Ottava Rima (talk) 02:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- (EC) If I may, the licensing on the file says it's in the public domain because the copyright has expired due to "life of author plus 70 years". According to the article linked by Trycatch (talk · contribs), M. Housman died in 1959 (not '49), making the 70-year copyright expiration in 2029. However, I think you're arguing it's in the public domain due to other licensing circumstances; I cannot vet the accuracy of these claims, but if they warrant a pertinent change in file licensing, it may explain the proper copyright status. — Fourthords | =/\= | 02:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- Fourthords, it seems that the template names are being confused. Regardless, changed to PD-US. I also have this verifying that it was published in the US before 1923 and it has been modified as such. I am still searching for the original source used. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- Any work first published in the US before 1923 is PD; the date of the author's death is immaterial. {{PD-old-70}} is not for works first published in the US. Dcoetzee (talk) 02:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- I noticed that the problem with the tag is their proximity in the drop down menu. It has been fixed on the page. The drop down menu has the one used as "Reproduction of a painting that is in the public domain because of its age". It could be confused as PD-US/1923 with that wording. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yes... we should probably modify the download form to somehow discourage use of {{PD-old}} for US images (none of which are currently PD for that reason). Renaming the relevant tags wouldn't hurt either. They've produced an awful lot of confusion. Dcoetzee (talk) 03:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- I noticed that the problem with the tag is their proximity in the drop down menu. It has been fixed on the page. The drop down menu has the one used as "Reproduction of a painting that is in the public domain because of its age". It could be confused as PD-US/1923 with that wording. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete The Speaker, Volume 18, page 786 for December 24th, 1898 lists this as an English volume. The Independent, Volume 53, page 219 mentions an American publication, but that was January 24, 1901. So I think it pretty clear this is first published as a British work, and therefore by Commons rules treated under UK law. Worldcat has two editions for 1898 (and none for 1899-1903): this one that has no publishing location, but is listed under British National Bibliography, and this one listed as published in London.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- It doesn't have to be -first- published as an English volume. It has to be first published before 1923 in America. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- Furthermore, all WMF projects are under US law. Where do you get these crazy claims from? Ottava Rima (talk) 05:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- Works first published in the UK are required by Commons:Licensing to be public domain in the UK (as the source country). Dcoetzee (talk) 05:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- No, that only applies if the UK work is in the US. This was a US version of the work with a different publisher and registered under a different copyright. The US version is PD just. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- "Exception: Faithful reproductions of two-dimensional works of art, such as paintings, which are in the public domain are an exception to this rule. " What the policy says. You've used the rule many times. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- As I explained at my talk page: we consider faithful reproductions of a work to be copies of the work, and so carry the same copyright status as the original. If the original work was first published in the UK (which appears to be the case here?) then it must be PD in both the UK and US. If on the other hand the UK print was just a republishing of a work already published in the US at some earlier point, then it is fine. Dcoetzee (talk) 05:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- I pointed out on your talk page some of the logical inconsistencies and how the law that is the reason for saying the UK laws should be respected, the URAA, does not apply since it only grants copyrights to non-copyrighted works and does not extend those with US copyrights of US editions of works. After all, US law directly would state pre-1923 as PD. US law would not directly state that another country's copyright does not exist regardless of the terms under the URAA. The URAA was never shot down by the Supreme Court, mind you. So, your portraits, copyrighted indefinitely in the UK, would indefinitely be copyrighted in the US. The law can be seen here. So, if your images would be UK copyrighted and not US because they would fall within one half of the PD side, then mine that clearly were US copyrighted should be allowed to become PD within the other half. It is not a "pick one, keep only one" thing. Both PDs apply. If you read the law, you will notice that of all the reasons why a work would be re-copyrighted though previously in PD, being before 1923 is not one listed for a good reason. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- This is not about US law; this is Commons policy, created because some Wikipedias only host images that are PD in their most common nation of their language. So Commons hosts only files that are PD in the US and in their nation of origin, which makes them free in any country that has the rule of the shorter term.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- I pointed out on your talk page some of the logical inconsistencies and how the law that is the reason for saying the UK laws should be respected, the URAA, does not apply since it only grants copyrights to non-copyrighted works and does not extend those with US copyrights of US editions of works. After all, US law directly would state pre-1923 as PD. US law would not directly state that another country's copyright does not exist regardless of the terms under the URAA. The URAA was never shot down by the Supreme Court, mind you. So, your portraits, copyrighted indefinitely in the UK, would indefinitely be copyrighted in the US. The law can be seen here. So, if your images would be UK copyrighted and not US because they would fall within one half of the PD side, then mine that clearly were US copyrighted should be allowed to become PD within the other half. It is not a "pick one, keep only one" thing. Both PDs apply. If you read the law, you will notice that of all the reasons why a work would be re-copyrighted though previously in PD, being before 1923 is not one listed for a good reason. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- As I explained at my talk page: we consider faithful reproductions of a work to be copies of the work, and so carry the same copyright status as the original. If the original work was first published in the UK (which appears to be the case here?) then it must be PD in both the UK and US. If on the other hand the UK print was just a republishing of a work already published in the US at some earlier point, then it is fine. Dcoetzee (talk) 05:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- Works first published in the UK are required by Commons:Licensing to be public domain in the UK (as the source country). Dcoetzee (talk) 05:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep no legitimate delete rational. Policy is clear: "Exception: Faithful reproductions of two-dimensional works of art, such as paintings, which are in the public domain are an exception to this rule." To put it bluntly - in the US, the copyrighted expired because the US copyright was 1923. It is PD in the US. According to the Commons vote, since it is art, it is legitimate on Commons. Tag with a warning, but the claims by uses ignoring this very well known standard is depressing to say the least. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- The 2D thing is about copyright by the photographer, not about copyright to the original work (the intent is clear, although the wording perhaps is not). So if the source country is UK, then the work has to be PD in UK. WMF could ignore UK laws, but by policy we do not. --LPfi (talk) 08:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- The original illustration was photographed/scanned. It is PD in the US but not UK. National Portrait Gallery images are PD US and not UK. There is no actual difference. All works published in the US or registered in the US (which means published elsewhere then registered for copyright) is PD in the US. The "registered" part verifies this. The WMF policy is that we do ignore UK laws when it comes to Art that is PD in the US. It does not ignore other laws dealing with other types of images. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- The 2D thing is about copyright by the photographer, not about copyright to the original work (the intent is clear, although the wording perhaps is not). So if the source country is UK, then the work has to be PD in UK. WMF could ignore UK laws, but by policy we do not. --LPfi (talk) 08:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. Within the United Kingdom, this is not public domain. Within the US, it is. The problem is complicated by the fact that commons policy requires public domain status in the source country, but clarified and resolved when one considers that this constitutes a faithful reproduction of a two-dimensional work of art which, in the United States, would be public domain. The original physical work may not be PD, but the scanned-in and uploaded image certainly is. Yours, Ironholds (talk) 05:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- So the PD in country of origin does not affect any 2D things? If an image is to be deleted because it is not PD overseas you just print it out (legal as you are in USA), take a photo of the print and upload this faithful reproduction. In fact this works fine for photos of 3D objects too, as the photo is a 2D thing. --LPfi (talk) 21:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- As an American company, the WMF took a stand against abusive copyright of other countries, which meant their attempts to prevent the uses of images that were clearly PD - Death + 70 and pre-1923 are the US rules for that. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:09, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- You're misinterpreting policy and the Foundation's statement. There is a reason en:Template:PD-US-1923-abroad exists and says not to move the image to Commons. We don't allow any and all PD-US images here. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:56, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- Not even close. The language and the intent behind the WMF statement was clear - images that are PD in the US because of Author + 70 and PD 1923 were acceptable. Any other PD reason was not. You never even heard of the URAA before so you didn't have the information behind why - because the other PD reasons aren't legitimate reasons in the US. The WMF did not make that template nor does it have true consensus or WMF authority. January 2008, predating the Commons discussion by 5 months, all information you knew about. I would like an apology, Dcoetzee, and for you to stop pushing blatantly wrong statements that result in the destruction of PD images without any rightful cause. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- P.S., what the text of the template says: "Also note that this image may not be in the public domain in the 9th Circuit if it was published after July 1, 1909, unless the author is known to have died in 1940 or earlier (more than 70 years ago)" This image was created in 1895, 14 years after this image was originally created. This is information that you also knew before making claims about that template. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- It says "also note". The template is not intended solely for those cases, but for any case where the image is in the public domain in the US but not in the source country. The burden here is on you to show that either: 1. the original work was first published in the US or 2. the original work is in the public domain in the UK. That's all. Dcoetzee (talk) 05:37, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- You used the template as proof. It came out before the WMF decision and says opposite. It doesn't matter if it says "also note" or not. It contradicts every single claim you have made so far. There is no such thing as part 1 as "registered" is part of the PD law, and, by definition, registered does not mean "first published". This has been pointed out many times and even pointed out by a user familiar with UK law. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- It says "also note". The template is not intended solely for those cases, but for any case where the image is in the public domain in the US but not in the source country. The burden here is on you to show that either: 1. the original work was first published in the US or 2. the original work is in the public domain in the UK. That's all. Dcoetzee (talk) 05:37, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- P.S., what the text of the template says: "Also note that this image may not be in the public domain in the 9th Circuit if it was published after July 1, 1909, unless the author is known to have died in 1940 or earlier (more than 70 years ago)" This image was created in 1895, 14 years after this image was originally created. This is information that you also knew before making claims about that template. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- Not even close. The language and the intent behind the WMF statement was clear - images that are PD in the US because of Author + 70 and PD 1923 were acceptable. Any other PD reason was not. You never even heard of the URAA before so you didn't have the information behind why - because the other PD reasons aren't legitimate reasons in the US. The WMF did not make that template nor does it have true consensus or WMF authority. January 2008, predating the Commons discussion by 5 months, all information you knew about. I would like an apology, Dcoetzee, and for you to stop pushing blatantly wrong statements that result in the destruction of PD images without any rightful cause. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- You're misinterpreting policy and the Foundation's statement. There is a reason en:Template:PD-US-1923-abroad exists and says not to move the image to Commons. We don't allow any and all PD-US images here. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:56, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - still protected by copyright in the country of origin. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- Not on Commons - this is part of the WMF exception as pointed out. Please find a legitimate deletion rational before voting. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. - clear case, still protected in country of origin and first publication - Jcb (talk) 00:10, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
This template is used by some uploaders in the Date field of {{Information}}. This field specifically indicates the creation date. There's no need for a language-dependant "Taken on" prefix. A date is a date and {{Information}} internally passes it to {{ISOdate}} for translation of the date itself. –Krinkletalk 23:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment If this template is used in other contexts as well it's ofcourse perfectly fine to keep this template but remove or discourage it's further usage in the Date-field. –Krinkletalk 23:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep The Date field of {{Information}} insufficiently distinguishes what exactly the date means. If the file is a cropped or modified image, the date means the last modification, or creation of the source version? If the file is a photo or reproduction of another work, the date means creation of the depicted (reproduced, scanned etc.) work or when the reproduction was taken? If the file is a non-photographic work, the date can mean when it was really created as well as when it was firstly published (the real date of creation is less relevant in such cases). Etc. As long as Information template have not specific fields or parameters for every meaning of the date, it's advisable to mention it (through appropriate template preferably). --ŠJů (talk) 02:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment ŠJů said pretty much why I created this template. The date field in {{Information}} does not say anything what the date actually says. A painting by Leonardo da Vinci with the date field {{ISOdate|2011-01-22}} does not mean that the painting is really made in 2011. The same goes for photos made by eg. the US Armed Forces. An image was taken somewhen but published years after it was taken. A person who does not know anything about the image can't tell if it's the date when it was published or when it was taken. If you modify a picture which date is the 'real' one? The date when it was taken? The date when it was modified? {{Taken on}} is actually a small part of what I wanted to crete but never had the clue how to do it. I wanted to create a template which ads in as many languages as possible the right bit of a sentence with the right gramma. {{taken on|2011-03}} should become "Taken in March 2011". I also wanted to include a possibility to make multiple date entries. When the image was created (like a painting), when it was published (important for many PD laws), when a scan or photo was taken (of a painting or book) and when it got uploaded to some other project by Wikimedia. The last thing is important for deletion requests. If the image is spread out without any licence notice before it got uploaded to Wikipedia it's more than likely that's it's a copyvio. If the image was uploaded to let's say en.wikipedia long before some newspaper article got published it's likely that the image is usable under a free licence.
If all these options would be inclouded in {{Information}} it would be OK for me that this template would be removed. But so far this template is the only option to specify when a photo was taken. --D-Kuru (talk) 13:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. - heavily in use, please discuss this in the village pump first - Jcb (talk) 00:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
I consider this file to be possibly not useful, since it depicts male genitalia which we hold many pictures of. In my opinion, adds nothing significant or different from similar material already held on the subject. BarkingFish (talk) 23:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 00:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
better version exist Dark Eagle (talk) 12:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- Could somebody with knowledge of this please verify if this image is nowhere in use? If it's directly linked in the mediawiki-code, it will not show up in the usage list. Jcb (talk) 23:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept: per no answer to my question, without an answer it's risky to delete it Jcb (talk) 23:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
