Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2011/01/12
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
From speedy. Original rationale by User:Jappalang: "the figure of the horse and its rider is taken from the cover of this book (1974), which is copyrighted for 95 years since publishing per http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm." I think, Jappalang is right, but the picture is very heavily in use, and the copyrighted horse can be easily replaced by something. Trycatch (talk) 17:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 22:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I've restored this file per its high usage. I agree is ok 
Delete but first a replacement must be found. Also I'm including its other version to this DR:
- File:P history-lightblue.png
- File:P history grea.png
- File:P history-green.png
- File:P history.gif
- File:P history-blue.png
Some of these are high used too. --Màñü飆¹5 talk 09:32, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Comment the book is not free, but what about the picture ? (maybe/probably the picture was made before and by someone else). Cdlt, VIGNERON * discut. 11:32, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Likely is not free as well, but anyway Commons is always on the safe side, so we should have a proof that this work is in the PD. Trycatch (talk) 11:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- I know we must be on the "safe" side but it doesn’t mean that we haven’t to search a little what we delete. In this case, I think useful to find who takes this picture of Alexander and Bucephalus sculpture and if it was published before (cos' this bronz sculpture is in itself PD come from the National Etruscan Museum, villa Giulia, Roma but we dont have any picture of it). Cdlt, VIGNERON * discut. 17:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Generally it's nearly impossible to find such information from easily accessible sources (i.e. Internet). Note that "In all cases, the burden of proof lies on the uploader or other person arguing for the file to be retained..." (COM:EVID) Trycatch (talk) 20:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- For example this book (published in 1907) has a similar photograph of this sculpture (or a replica of it). But the photograph is not signed, so it's hard to determine if the author is dead for at least 70 years. It can't be uploaded to Commons. Trycatch (talk) 21:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- I know we must be on the "safe" side but it doesn’t mean that we haven’t to search a little what we delete. In this case, I think useful to find who takes this picture of Alexander and Bucephalus sculpture and if it was published before (cos' this bronz sculpture is in itself PD come from the National Etruscan Museum, villa Giulia, Roma but we dont have any picture of it). Cdlt, VIGNERON * discut. 17:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Likely is not free as well, but anyway Commons is always on the safe side, so we should have a proof that this work is in the PD. Trycatch (talk) 11:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment As a temporary solution, I've replaced this horseman with a similar person on a horse. Trycatch (talk) 11:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Why? Was there any emergency? Know you just put the mess in the historic and there is now no more reason to delete the file... Cdlt, VIGNERON * discut. 17:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Huh, emergency? It's a 3 month old DR. There was a lot of time to find a free replacement for this icon. Trycatch (talk) 20:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Why? Was there any emergency? Know you just put the mess in the historic and there is now no more reason to delete the file... Cdlt, VIGNERON * discut. 17:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- The old version can still be deleted and the new one stay in place. Hekerui (talk) 08:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment I think, User:CommonsDelinker can replace these files with File:P history violet.png. Best regards, -- JCIV (talk) 11:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Question even if the first file version is copyrighted and has to be deleted Trycatch has uploaded a new file version (similar to the orig one) derived from another photo (see 11:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC) above). So why was Delinker ordered to replace the file with a another file with totally different background color?! Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 03:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- Because some people disagreed with the modifications Trycatch made, and I was unable to find a version of this new file with the correct background. Kameraad Pjotr 19:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- Hmm - who does disagree? Just look at de:Wikipedia:Neue_Hauptseite - the image is part of a series. You cannot use one with a different background. Which, essentially, you have done now. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 19:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- I have no idea, why File:P history grea.png (green) and File:P history.gif (orange) have been deleted and universally replaced with File:P history violet.png with completely different background color (example). Trycatch (talk) 00:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Also a good one... Well - sure - at some date the files need to be deleted. But these replacements were wrong. How can they be reverted? Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 01:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Just to make things clear, I asked for the universal replacement, but I have not deleted the replaced files. Kameraad Pjotr 20:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- ordering a bot to do a task is the same as if you had done it and consequently no excuse if it was intended as one. Delinker just does what you tell him. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 00:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Just to make things clear, I asked for the universal replacement, but I have not deleted the replaced files. Kameraad Pjotr 20:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Also a good one... Well - sure - at some date the files need to be deleted. But these replacements were wrong. How can they be reverted? Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 01:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept/restored, after there are new versions. To remain transparent, I’ve only hidden the old images. The gif was not reworked, but it was already replaced with File:P history.png. --32X (talk) 14:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Not really under the gpl Kafuffle (talk) 10:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyvio from [1]. Podzemnik (talk) 18:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Released for non-commercial use only (see http://www.forestryimages.org/browse/detail.cfm?imgnum=1178051). Lymantria (talk) 19:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'll delete it - I'm hoping the license didn't change since the time of upload, in which case we're going to need a review process for Bugwood Network images. Dcoetzee (talk) 04:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- It might be overlooked by the uploader as well, but I agree with your concerns. Lymantria (talk) 06:19, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Noncommercial license. Dcoetzee (talk) 04:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for error; uploaded file with incorrect name. A duplicate file (File:Encyclopedie volume 5-229.jpg) has been uploaded with the correct name. Robert.Allen (talk) 19:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Speedy deleted per your request, but Template:badname may be used for faster request.--Jusjih (talk) 06:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
non-free source, no evidence of free license DMacks (talk) 14:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. copyright violation Polarlys (talk) 22:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
taken from http://www.silambam.in/bylaws.htm, which asserts copyright and is older than upload-date DMacks (talk) 14:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Polarlys (talk) 22:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Copyvio : the author is different from the uploader. I've just "clicked" on « Nominate for deletion », but perhaps there was another and better way of doing ? Wikinade (talk) 09:32, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- J'ai demandé à l'auteur d'envoyer son autorisation, la procédure est en cours.--Ph. Lipcare (talk) 15:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Merci, vraiment, de votre compréhension. Je ne cliquerai plus sur cet outil infernal. Il faudrait maintenant pouvoir transformer cette proposition de suppression en un message qui expliquerait que l'on est en attente d'autorisation, mais comment faire ? Je préfère m'abstenir… Cordialement, --Wikinade (talk) 18:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Permission via OTRS Bapti ✉ 10:26, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
useless Reinhardhauke (talk) 17:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Keep, silly argument for removing of de:Karl Hans Strobl's work. --ŠJů (talk) 00:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Trycatch (talk) 09:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Not encyclopedic matter; not used in personal pages Ciaurlec (talk) 21:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- delete--Motopark (talk) 00:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Rastrojo (D•ES) 22:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
.jpg)
Very low quality image with lots of superior alternatives on Commons. Kyknos (talk) 11:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Not "very low quality" (the photographed subject is clearly distinguishable on the photo). No other image of such color variation of this fish. Commons is not based on Single-elimination tournament but on collection of wide variety of images. Removing of files is not the right way how to choose quality images. Needless remove discussion about such images is counterproductive.--ŠJů (talk) 16:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- It is simply not true. The fish is of exactly the same color variety as on many other images (eg much better image in the thumb) - Red Tiger Oscar. If the colors look different, it is because the colors are off - it is misleading, uneducative and unencyclopedic). --Kyknos (talk) 16:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- I suppose, you would consider this fish as "misleading, uneducative and unencyclopedic" even if you would seen it alive :-) --ŠJů (talk) 07:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- It is simply not true. The fish is of exactly the same color variety as on many other images (eg much better image in the thumb) - Red Tiger Oscar. If the colors look different, it is because the colors are off - it is misleading, uneducative and unencyclopedic). --Kyknos (talk) 16:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Misleading image (see Kyknos) --Tlusťa (talk) 17:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- week keep It is low quality image but still usable. It can be cropped or/and edited. --Dezidor (talk) 17:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Edit it, if you think it is worthy. The discussion is about the current version. I am afraid that the RAW file (digital negative) is needed to fix this sort of color shift. --Kyknos (talk) 17:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Very poor quality, blurred, bad exposition → useless. There are much more better pictures of the same kind of the fish. --Daniel Baránek (talk) 08:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. low quality, wrong color balance, not encyclopedic, unusable for education. George Chernilevsky talk 10:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
No encyclopedic value because of artificial colors, we have better alternatives. Kyknos (talk) 12:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Unused and out of COM:SCOPE. I'm not convinced uploader is copyright holder anyway, esp. given lack of info. Wknight94 talk 13:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 10:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Misleading fake image, compare File:Black_neon_tetra.jpg, no encyclopedic value Kyknos (talk) 12:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete It appears to be unrealistic modification of another image, with no encyklopedic value, bad description and copyright violation. --ŠJů (talk) 16:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete I agree with ŠJů, it looks like joke and copyfraud. --Dezidor (talk) 17:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 10:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
unused personal image Reinhardhauke (talk) 16:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 11:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
unused personal foto Reinhardhauke (talk) 17:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 11:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
out of COM:SCOPE Reinhardhauke (talk) 17:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, I agree with nom --Kyknos (talk) 17:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 11:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
......... Mdupont (talk) 22:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment No valid reason for deletion stated. --ŠJů (talk) 00:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. per uploader request, very poor quality George Chernilevsky talk 11:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, out of scope ŠJů (talk) 23:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 11:07, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
wrong picture uploaded. Ellenmeijer (talk) 20:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. --Dferg (talk · meta) 18:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
converted by me to DR from a speedy by Downtowngal for "Copyright status of picture unclear." --Túrelio (talk) 07:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
This image is NOT a single image but is rather a copyrighted, composite image constructed by Michael White from his sources for his film "Azorian: the Raising of the K-129", and also is printed in the Polmar/White book "Project Azorian: The CIA and the Raising of the K-129". The image appears in the above cited book, and Naval Institute Press has been notified of the violation.
The above is correct. The image in question was assembled by Michael White for the book "Project Azorian" and has not been released into the public domain. The copyright holder has requested that it be removed as soon as possible. This is not a public U.S. Navy photo but a composite assembled by Michael White. Copyright holder did not release this image into the public domain. No one was authorized to upload this picture to Wikimedia.
I represent Michael White in this request for immediate deletion, and he has specifically stated that he does NOT release his copyright on this photo and that publication on the internet of this photo is a violation of his IP rights. Mr. White can be contacted at michael@white.at or in Vienna, Austria at telephone +43 (0) 699 108 12 413; his website is http://www.projectjennifer.at/. You may contact me, his US representative: Lee Mathers 630 499-8127 (Chicago area) or at gwyncann@gmail.com. Thank you in advance for a speedy removal of this offending image. Jan 18, 2011 LJM
Edit: Merged this request with the above request to hopefully save time. Will also file a Speedy Delete request as this image is a copyright violation.
- This is a speedy delete. Please refer to OTRS#2011012010015076. It should never have been downgraded. Asav (talk) 19:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Per Asav/OTRS. Wknight94 talk 23:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Source very doubtful Hellerhoff (talk) 17:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 17:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Source website specifies non-commercial usage only. J Milburn (talk) 01:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- How is inclusion in Wikipedia / Wikimedia Commons commercial usage? I was not aware of this. Raymccoy (talk) 12:28, 12 January 2011 (GMT+1)
- Inclusion here is not commercial usage, but people should be able to take it from here and use it commercially if they want to. So if this file is not for commercial re-use, it cannot be included on Commons. Hope that clarifies it. -- Deadstar (msg) 15:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 09:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.delo.si/clanek/133858 KrakatoaKatie 04:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted " * (show/hide) 08:23, 12 January 2011 Túrelio (talk | contribs | block) deleted "File:Leonardofarkasklein.jpg" (Copyright violation: http://www.delo.si/clanek/133858 - uploader is single purpose account at en polishing Farkas article, and persistently uploads copyvio images at en and here) (view/restore) (global usage; delinker log)" abf «Cabale!» 09:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
unambiguous copyright infringement of www.farkas2010.com - uploader's logs should be examined, as he persists in adding copyvio images to en and to Commons KrakatoaKatie 04:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted " * (show/hide) 08:12, 12 January 2011 Túrelio (talk | contribs | block) deleted "File:Farkas101.jpg" (Copyright violation: http://www.farkas2010.com - uploader is single purpose account at en polishing Farkas article, and persistently uploads copyvio images at en and here) (view/restore) (global usage; delinker log)" abf «Cabale!» 09:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
unambiguous copyright infringement of www.farkas2010.com - uploader is a single-purpose account to polish Farkas bio on en, has uploaded several copyvio images and tagged them as his own work KrakatoaKatie 04:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete But you should have tagged them as {{Copyvio}}s ;) There's another one in Superpolo's contribs. Diego Grez return fire 15:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 09:55, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
File was uploaded with incorrect name, and a duplicate file with the correct name was uploaded to replace it. (Thanks!) Robert.Allen (talk) 07:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted * (show/hide) 08:54, 12 January 2011 Túrelio (talk | contribs | block) deleted "File:5-283 MINERALOGIE77.jpg" (Exact or scaled-down duplicate: File:Encyclopedie volume 5-283.jpg ) (view/restore) (global usage; delinker log) abf «Cabale!» 09:56, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
low quality - better files exists Reinhardhauke (talk) 09:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- ok (uploader) --Harmonia Amanda (talk) 12:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Painfully blurry. Don't worry, I take plenty of photos like this - I just don't upload them. :) Wknight94 talk 13:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Not linked the file which should be of better quality and identic view. --ŠJů (talk) 17:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Blurred, useless. --Daniel Baránek (talk) 08:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted uploader agreed abf «Cabale!» 09:57, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
low quality - better files exists Reinhardhauke (talk) 09:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- ok (uploader) --Harmonia Amanda (talk) 12:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Painfully blurry. Wknight94 talk 13:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Painfully blurry. Useless. --Kyknos (talk) 17:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Not linked the file which should be of better quality and identic view. --ŠJů (talk) 17:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Blurred, useless. --Daniel Baránek (talk) 08:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 09:57, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
no longer desired and used Luxusfrosch (talk) 13:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted uploader request abf «Cabale!» 09:58, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Out of project scope, text article. Martin H. (talk) 14:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 09:59, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
OL Land is a vast economic project. This picture only shows a part of it: the stadium. La viz (talk) 15:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- La viz - are you "Populous"? Otherwise the source website states (http://www.grandstadeol.com/mentions-legales/) that images from there are copyrighted (you have not added a license to the image anyway). Delete based on no license. -- Deadstar (msg) 15:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted * (show/hide) 17:36, 20 January 2011 EugeneZelenko (talk | contribs | block) deleted "File:4adde7b14109f,vueinterieure.jpg" (Missing essential information: source and/or license: since January 12, 2011) (view/restore) (global usage; delinker log) abf «Cabale!» 09:59, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
no longer want it Old Broken Window Poetry 15:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 10:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
spam Reinhardhauke (talk) 16:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- "spam" is not a valid reason for deletion. --ŠJů (talk) 17:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete --Kyknos (talk) 18:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Some reason? --Dezidor (talk) 18:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Useless spam. --Kyknos (talk) 01:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Some reason? --Dezidor (talk) 18:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per COM:PS abf «Cabale!» 10:06, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
out of COM:SCOPE Reinhardhauke (talk) 17:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 10:06, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
unknown person Reinhardhauke (talk) 17:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted useless, COM:PS abf «Cabale!» 10:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
unused personal foto Reinhardhauke (talk) 17:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per COM:PS abf «Cabale!» 10:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
out of COM:SCOPE Reinhardhauke (talk) 17:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 10:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
out of COM:SCOPE Reinhardhauke (talk) 17:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 10:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
out of COM:SCOPE Reinhardhauke (talk) 17:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 10:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
wrong version Rahul b91 (talk) 17:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted " * (show/hide) 17:42, 21 January 2011 EugeneZelenko (talk | contribs | block) deleted "File:Jodie Wiki.jpg" (Copyright violation: Promo photo) (view/restore) (global usage; delinker log)" abf «Cabale!» 10:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
EXIF states Thierry Matheus as creator of this image. Unlikely to be own work. -- Deadstar (msg) 10:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Professional photo created using Hasselblad H3D-39, no evidence of permission. Trycatch (talk) 01:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
useless Reinhardhauke (talk) 17:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep, real and described photo of real farm landscape. --ŠJů (talk) 00:31, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
unknown person Reinhardhauke (talk) 17:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Rachael Stewart is the most successful Young Star winner in terms of votes. -- Common Good (talk) 18:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
not encyclopedic; not used in personal pages; offensive Ciaurlec (talk) 21:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Common Good (talk) 19:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
We made a mistake this logo is not for public domain Californiadreamweek (talk) 18:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Speedy delete. Uploader invokes honest mistake and immediately notified it and requested deletion. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Agree with comment Herby talk thyme 14:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
low quality - better files exists Reinhardhauke (talk) 09:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- I recognize that this photography has low quality, but it is the only one of this stained glass. --Harmonia Amanda (talk) 12:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Quality is fine and per Harmonia Amanda. Wknight94 talk 13:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep, not low quality. --ŠJů (talk) 17:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
low quality - better files exists Reinhardhauke (talk) 09:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Quality is fine, composition may be interesting to some. Wknight94 talk 13:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Not linked the file which should be of better quality and identic view. --ŠJů (talk) 17:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. per Wknight94 -- Common Good (talk) 18:57, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
low quality - better files exists Reinhardhauke (talk) 09:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Quality isn't that bad, and I don't see an identical photo to replace it. Wknight94 talk 13:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Even such shots can be useful even if they do not qualify to be included in an Wikipedia article or elsewhere in the projects. This is particularly true if a photograph shows a perspective otherwise not found or documents the state of a monument at a time that isn't documented by other photographs. Even blurred photographs can help to improve the descriptions of other photographs. Quite often good pictures have been uploaded that show some details (stained glass windows, statues etc) but without giving any details regarding their exact location. In such cases it can be helpful to have a set of photographs from various perspectives to locate such a detailed photograph. A deletion does not save disk space – it just takes things out of the public view. Hence we should delete low quality images in case of architecture photographs only if they are entirely useless. We have various processes (COM:FPC, COM:QIC, COM:VIC) to select high-quality photographs out of our collections and I think that this the prefered approach to make the better photographs more easily accessible. --AFBorchert (talk) 15:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep No better photo from identical point of view. --ŠJů (talk) 17:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
out of COM:SCOPE Reinhardhauke (talk) 16:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Dont think so. You may help to describe it.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 17:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep A photo of technical detail has undoubtedly en encyclopedic value. --ŠJů (talk) 17:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep A photo of technical detail has undoubtedly an encyclopedic value. --Dezidor (talk) 17:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
out of COM:SCOPE Reinhardhauke (talk) 16:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Dont think so. You may help to describe it.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 17:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep A photo of technical detail has undoubtedly en encyclopedic value. --ŠJů (talk) 17:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep A photo of technical detail has undoubtedly an encyclopedic value. --Dezidor (talk) 17:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
low quality - better files exists Reinhardhauke (talk) 09:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- ok (uploader) --Harmonia Amanda (talk) 12
- 08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Not as blurry as others, but the obstruction renders this pretty useless. Wknight94 talk 13:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment not linked the file which should be of identic view and better. --ŠJů (talk) 17:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Blurred, bad exposition and composition. --Daniel Baránek (talk) 08:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Masur (talk) 14:52, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't think uploader owns the rights to the logo of this volleyball club. -- Deadstar (msg) 14:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Masur (talk) 14:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
out of COM:SCOPE Reinhardhauke (talk) 17:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Oppose Surely not out of scope. But copyright status should be checked. --ŠJů (talk) 00:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Masur (talk) 14:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
por equivocación Benjamín Preciado (talk) 19:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
No era lo que quería subir Benjamín Preciado (talk) 19:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Error Benjamín Preciado (talk) 19:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
see watermarking - out of COM:SCOPE Reinhardhauke (talk) 16:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Not out of scope (described real landscape), but it can be a copyright violation. --ŠJů (talk) 17:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. This and version with watermark removed, File:Playas del Coco bahía.png. No indication of free use at given web site. Wknight94 talk 13:24, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
unknown music group Reinhardhauke (talk) 17:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 13:16, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
unfree company logo; unused (replaced in ru-wiki to local fairuse file) -- Kaganer (talk) 01:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. - PD-textlogo (fair-use not needed) - Jcb (talk) 23:10, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
no FOP in the US Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep, Should not be deleted. As stated, I took this photo in Carolina, Puerto Rico and uploaded it. Tony the Marine (talk) 14:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- I do not see how that addresses the deletion reason I presented. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- The statue was commissioned and paid for by the Government of Puerto Rico, for public use, with public funds, so therefore it may be reproduced freely. No artist has any rights over such works, having sold the statue and rights appurtenant to their work to the people of Puerto Rico. 74.202.196.178 19:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not aware of a public domain statute for Puerto Rico that explicitly places all government works in the public domain. The closest I can find is en:Template:PD-PRGov-OfficialPortraits, en:Template:PD-PRGov-PRSHP, and en:Template:PD-PRGov-IPC, but nothing for the territorial or any municipal governments as a whole. Mind you I hope that such a thing exists; I just don't know of it. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:26, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- The statue was commissioned and paid for by the Government of Puerto Rico, for public use, with public funds, so therefore it may be reproduced freely. No artist has any rights over such works, having sold the statue and rights appurtenant to their work to the people of Puerto Rico. 74.202.196.178 19:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- Since we are discussing the image of this particular statue, José Buscaglia Guillermety was commissioned by the Government of Puerto Rico to make the monument in the likeness of the late governor Jesus T. Piñero.[1] and paid for by the Government of Puerto Rico, for public use, with public funds, therefore as stated above, the artist has no rights over such works. Tony the Marine
_near_Washington_DC.jpg)
- The Marine Corps War Memorial Monument is a similar example of a post 1940 statue commissioned by the US government whose images can be used by the public. What I want to point out with this example is that when an artist is given permission to display his art in public property, the artist retains the copyrights to his work, however when an artist is commissoned by the government and paid with public funds he relinguishes his copyrights to the public (in this case the people of Puerto Rico) who funded his work. Tony the Marine
Deleted. - no evidence about transfer of copyright - Jcb (talk) 23:23, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
we simply do not know enough about this image to state that it is public domain. We do not know the original photographer, when it was published, and if the copyright was renewed. Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep, Images published with notice but copyright was not renewed from 1923 through 1963 are public domain due to copyright expiration. This image which was originally published in "El Imparcial" which went out of service 35 years ago, could not have renewed it's copyright which expired. Therefore, since Puerto Rico fell under US copyright in 1950 as well as today, this would make the US Troops in Jayuya image public domain. The image was cresited to the US Army, of which the Puerto Rican National Guard belongs to. Tony the Marine (talk) 15:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- That is in fact a legitimate reason to keep. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 23:26, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
low quality - better files exists Reinhardhauke (talk) 09:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- I recognize that this photography has low quality, but it is the only one of this stained glass. --Harmonia Amanda (talk) 12:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep per Harmonia Amanda, but this one is bordering on painful blurriness. Wknight94 talk 13:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Not linked the file which should be of better quality and identic view. --ŠJů (talk) 17:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Blurred, really bad quality. --Daniel Baránek (talk) 08:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 23:28, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
low quality - better files exists Reinhardhauke (talk) 09:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Is that really a valid argument for deletion? // Liftarn (talk)
- Keep To answer Liftarn, that is only a valid argument if the photo's quality is so low that it is unidentifiable or distracting or otherwise useless. That is not the case in this example so keep. Wknight94 talk 12:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, useless because of the poor quality. --Kyknos (talk) 13:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep, not low quality, not stated another photo which should be en exact duplicate. --ŠJů (talk) 17:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- File:Cathédrale Notre-Dame de Paris 011.JPG looks pretty darn close. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 23:29, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
this composition prominantly displays a logo that is copyrighted Snowmanradio (talk) 10:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Moreover, now this image is unaccessible in flickr for some reason Template:-(
- Are we talking about Singapore Park logo? If it is so - how is it copyrighted and why it cannot be used by someone's handmade page?
- Regards, KirNata (talk) 13:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Logos are generally copyrighted. I think that the image includes a photograph of a huge logo at the zoo. The trouble is that the logo is the main feature in the image and not incidental, and so I think that it can not be shown commons. Snowmanradio (talk) 18:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- My question remains: how this park's logo has been copyrighted? I've tried to find any copyright information around Singapore Park, but haven't succeed. And still The logo takes very less part of image, IMHO less than 20% of page's overall size. I'm not sure, that this image is subject of copyright violation. So at this moment my vote is Keep, but if additional copyright information arised, I'll think again about my decision. KirNata (talk) 18:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- The people in the image are partly behind the image, so the image is in the foreground. The logo is in the middle of the image and is the most prominent feature of the image. I think that the logo's copyright would prevent this image being shown on commons. Snowmanradio (talk) 19:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Still this page remains as hand-made one, and position of logo actually doesn't mean the subject of copyright restriction, m? For example, if I during my tour in Amsterdam make a photo of Cisco System building (with HUGE letters on the roof and of course with it's logo) and then share this picture as common - I don't think it will be a violation inspite of all Cisco trademarks and limitations. The same situation IMHO we have with this Singapore park's logo (or it is better to say commersial?) - it is fully accessible by public, so anybody can take a picture with himself near this logo and then share this photo as common without any violation. At least I can't find official resource with information that this logo is prohibited for use in any kind of "memory prints". Can you? KirNata (talk) 05:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- The letters on a building are incidental in the photograph. In the image for deletion the logo is the main part of the image. Snowmanradio (talk)
- My question remains: can you find an official position of this Singapore Park administration, which says smth like
- The letters on a building are incidental in the photograph. In the image for deletion the logo is the main part of the image. Snowmanradio (talk)
- Still this page remains as hand-made one, and position of logo actually doesn't mean the subject of copyright restriction, m? For example, if I during my tour in Amsterdam make a photo of Cisco System building (with HUGE letters on the roof and of course with it's logo) and then share this picture as common - I don't think it will be a violation inspite of all Cisco trademarks and limitations. The same situation IMHO we have with this Singapore park's logo (or it is better to say commersial?) - it is fully accessible by public, so anybody can take a picture with himself near this logo and then share this photo as common without any violation. At least I can't find official resource with information that this logo is prohibited for use in any kind of "memory prints". Can you? KirNata (talk) 05:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- The people in the image are partly behind the image, so the image is in the foreground. The logo is in the middle of the image and is the most prominent feature of the image. I think that the logo's copyright would prevent this image being shown on commons. Snowmanradio (talk) 19:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- My question remains: how this park's logo has been copyrighted? I've tried to find any copyright information around Singapore Park, but haven't succeed. And still The logo takes very less part of image, IMHO less than 20% of page's overall size. I'm not sure, that this image is subject of copyright violation. So at this moment my vote is
- Logos are generally copyrighted. I think that the image includes a photograph of a huge logo at the zoo. The trouble is that the logo is the main feature in the image and not incidental, and so I think that it can not be shown commons. Snowmanradio (talk) 18:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Any kind of use of our commersials, including photo slides, is prohibited for commons
- ? I failed during my search attempts and so don't see the reason for this image to be deleted. KirNata (talk) 10:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- By the way, have a look on this picture. CISCO logo on the MOST part of the screen, can be easilly searched - and it is common licenced, with appropriate use for Wiki. One more image - the same situation. So IMHO if there is no DIRECT restriction for use of some specific images from vendor of the subject of this image - it doesn't violate rules of Wikipedia. KirNata (talk) 12:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- I would guess the CISCO logo from Flickr containing only letters and lines is probably not sufficiently artistic to merit a copyright, but I might be wrong. Incidentally, occasionally people upload copyrighted material to Flickr. Snowmanradio (talk) 13:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- Generally several reviewers offer opinions, so perhaps others might comment soon. Snowmanradio (talk) 13:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. - lots of logos are ineligible for copyright, but not this - Jcb (talk) 23:32, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Low quality, badly composed image with many better alternatives on Commons. Kyknos (talk) 11:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Neutral I wouldn't say it's particularly bad quality, but I'm not sure what the point is. It's apparently just a dog of no particular breed? Without some purpose or usage, I'd say this is a bit out of COM:SCOPE. Wknight94 talk 13:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)- Keep No valid reason for deletion, no exact duplicate/alternative for this mixed-breed dog. --Dezidor (talk) 16:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep No relevant reason to delete. The composition can be corrected (removing the human legs, or creating a cropped version). Wide variety of mixed-breed dog images can have encyclopedic value. --ŠJů (talk) 16:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Composition corrected by cropping. The picture is still not of high quality, but I can imagine, that somebody could use it. --Daniel Baránek (talk) 08:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Derivative works such as substantial crop should be uploaded under a new name (and crosslinked with the original). See discussion Commons:Avoid overwriting existing files. A detail of the dog is a different image than a dog with context (legs of cozing owners, retrieved stick). The original file is usable if whatever usable derivative work can be created from it, not only if it is presentable itself. --ŠJů (talk) 10:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment It's not needed to "imagine" that somebody will use the image. The image is used still. A placing an image into the appropriate category is also a kind of its usage, as well as a placing into a gallery or into an article. --ŠJů (talk) 10:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 23:35, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
This image has no encyclopedic value at all. Kyknos (talk) 11:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Out of COM:SCOPE. Even the one current use is apparently in some test sandbox area. Wknight94 talk 13:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - Used at ta.wiki [2]. --Dezidor (talk) 23:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 23:37, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
If neither author or date is known, we can't be sure it's PD old. FunkMonk (talk) 11:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 23:39, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Advertising for a commercial book project. Not meant for a wiki-project. --Mjchael (talk · contribs) 22:27, 7 January 2011 (UTC) Correct malformed DR Captain-tucker (talk) 11:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 23:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Hans Zatzka died in 1945, his works are still protected by copyright 85.110.1.170 11:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- As correctly stated, it’s a pic postcard from around 1890 that’s been scanned, not the work of art itself. The artefact as such, a mural, is, inside the local kursaal, open to the public.
- —Earnest B (talk) 22:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)—
Keep For the painting, the quite liberal Austrian freedom of panorama applies (inside a publicly accessible building). The anonymous postcard should be quite safely in the PD by age, 120 after its publication. --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 12:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep the postcard is no infringement per COM:FOP#Austria. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:03, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 23:42, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
See talk page. 86.130.28.245 12:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. At the talk page is only told that the name is mistaken and the station is unidentified. This fact is not reason for deletion but reason to categorize it as unidentified. A realistic photo of a real station has encyclopedic value. --ŠJů (talk) 17:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep We have system of categories for unidentified photos. No reason for deletion. --Dezidor (talk) 17:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 23:43, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Toen ik deze uploadde, beweerde ik dat ik hem zelf gemaakt had. Ik had hem echter op internet gevonden en er zit dus waarschijnlijk copyright op. Ischa1 (talk · contribs) Correct malformed DR Captain-tucker (talk) 12:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per request (has uploader changed usernames?) -- Deadstar (msg) 15:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. - it seems to have been transfered by somebody else, without mentioning the original uploader - Jcb (talk) 23:46, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Couldn't find the original source, but this picture is a clear copyvio. Here is a copy of the picture in much higher resolution [3] Fixer23 (talk) 12:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Derivatives [4] [5] Fixer23 (talk) 12:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 23:48, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Poor quality black and white scan of colour image File:Johan Pasch.jpg — billinghurst sDrewth 12:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Problem is that the color photo is probably protected by Swedish copyright. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 23:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
smaller, though not exact, duplicate of File:Hanna Pauli-Vänner.jpg, of lesser quality, and not used. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep as I find that this image shows a different side to this painting (far brighter than the somewhat gloomy looking larger version). -- Deadstar (msg) 16:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 23:50, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
the author of the image (see discussion) is not the creator of the panel, unfortunately there is not freedom of panorama in France. If this image has to be deleted the extracted image is affected, too. Rbrausse (talk) 12:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 23:54, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Duplicate, not exact, of File:Lucas Cranach d. Ä. 013.jpg, of less quality. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 23:54, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
copy from 飞扬军事 www.fyjs.cn see the watermark 太刻薄 (talk) 13:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 23:54, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
no longer desired and used Luxusfrosch (talk) 13:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 23:55, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
no longer desired and used Luxusfrosch (talk) 13:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 23:55, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
no longer desired and used Luxusfrosch (talk) 13:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 23:55, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
no longer desired and used Luxusfrosch (talk) 13:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 23:55, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
no longer desired and used Luxusfrosch (talk) 13:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 23:55, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
no longer desired and used Luxusfrosch (talk) 13:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 23:55, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
no longer desired and used Luxusfrosch (talk) 13:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 23:55, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
no longer desired and used Luxusfrosch (talk) 13:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 23:55, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
no longer desired and used Luxusfrosch (talk) 13:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 23:55, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
no longer desired and used Luxusfrosch (talk) 13:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 23:56, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
no longer desired and used Luxusfrosch (talk) 13:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 23:56, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Poor quality, badly composed, better images are available for both species. Kyknos (talk) 13:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Commons is not based on Single-elimination tournament but on collection of wide variety of images. Removing of files is not the right way how to choose quality images. Needless remove discussion about such images is counterproductive. The composition is not so bad. Category:Neolamprologus brichardi contains only 4 images, it's very few. (Pelvicachromis pulcher is almost not visible on the image.)--ŠJů (talk) 17:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- There is absolutely no use for such a blury image if there are better available. And the identity of the species cannot be confirmed from such image, so it should not be in the category anyway. --Kyknos (talk) 17:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Really blurred, useless. --Daniel Baránek (talk) 08:53, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 23:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
no longer desired and used Luxusfrosch (talk) 13:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 23:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
no longer desired and used Luxusfrosch (talk) 13:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 23:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
no longer desired and used Luxusfrosch (talk) 13:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 23:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
no longer desired and used Luxusfrosch (talk) 13:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 23:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
no longer desired and used Luxusfrosch (talk) 13:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 23:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
no longer desired and used Luxusfrosch (talk) 13:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 23:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
no longer desired and used Luxusfrosch (talk) 13:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 23:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
no longer desired and used Luxusfrosch (talk) 13:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 00:01, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
no longer desired and used Luxusfrosch (talk) 13:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 00:01, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
no longer desired and used Luxusfrosch (talk) 13:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 00:01, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
no longer desired and used Luxusfrosch (talk) 13:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 00:01, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
no longer desired and used Luxusfrosch (talk) 13:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 00:01, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
It is unlikely uploader owns the rights to the logo of this sportsclub. -- Deadstar (msg) 14:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- I would've been of the same opinion wasn't it for the huge resolution of the image, as it is highly unlikely for anyone to get such resolutions of logos without having the original files. The uploader's only other contributions are at the club's article at nl:wp, so it could well be a club member. Regards, -- Orionist ★ talk 09:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept. - PD-textlogo - Jcb (talk) 00:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
http://maresajacobse.nl/ states "You can use these images for free for your book project" (loosely translated) - this does not mean it is licensed with a PD license by the author. I could not find any other license on the site. -- Deadstar (msg) 14:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 00:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
no longer desired and used Luxusfrosch (talk) 15:32, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 00:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
no longer desired and used Luxusfrosch (talk) 15:32, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 00:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
no longer desired and used Luxusfrosch (talk) 15:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 00:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
no longer desired and used Luxusfrosch (talk) 15:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 00:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Unfree fairuse photo (1960s). Are re-uploaded to ru-wiki. -- Kaganer (talk) 16:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 00:07, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
out of COM:SCOPE Reinhardhauke (talk) 16:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep A photo of such instruction has encyclopedic value. --ŠJů (talk) 17:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Here is commons not wikipedia! delete--Reinhardhauke (talk) 17:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yes. Wikipedia can contain articles about processes, Commons should contain photos of real signs, instruction boards, posters, action etc. --ŠJů (talk) 17:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. - this "instruction" is about how to develop pictures and includes the boil time for potatoes ?!? - Jcb (talk) 00:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
out of COM:SCOPE Reinhardhauke (talk) 17:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 15:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
out of COM:SCOPE Reinhardhauke (talk) 17:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. License tag was removed by uploader too. Wknight94 talk 15:56, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
useless, see description Reinhardhauke (talk) 17:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Web resolution, most likely a copyvio. -- Orionist ★ talk 09:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 15:54, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
out of COM:SCOPE Reinhardhauke (talk) 17:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 15:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
unknown person Reinhardhauke (talk) 17:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 15:44, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
out of COM:SCOPE Reinhardhauke (talk) 17:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 16:01, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
unused personal foto Reinhardhauke (talk) 17:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete along with this File:Raven_cinello_photo_3444.JPG. -- Orionist ★ talk 10:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 16:00, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
out of COM:SCOPE Reinhardhauke (talk) 17:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Looks like a copyrighted promotional photo of some kind too. Wknight94 talk 15:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
We made a mistake. This picture is not for public domain. Californiadreamweek (talk) 19:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Speedy delete. Uploader invokes honest mistake and immediately notified it and requested deletion. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 16:05, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
spam Reinhardhauke (talk) 17:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment "Spam" is not a valid reason for deletion. --ŠJů (talk) 00:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Photo credited to someone who is not the uploader so COM:OTRS permission would be needed. Wknight94 talk 16:06, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
out of COM:SCOPE Reinhardhauke (talk) 17:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 16:10, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Experimental page, not valid Gigillo83 (talk) 18:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Uploader request. Wknight94 talk 16:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
No source given Tbmaynard (talk) 21:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Uploader request too. Wknight94 talk 16:08, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
wrong name Pedro Felipe (talk) 21:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment proposed for speedy deletion. --ŠJů (talk) 00:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. ...by someone else Wknight94 talk 16:11, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
wrong name Pedro Felipe (talk) 21:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment proposed for speedy deletion. --ŠJů (talk) 00:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. ...by someone else Wknight94 talk 16:11, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
fuzzy Mdupont (talk) 22:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep No valid reason for deletion stated, no better photo of those buildings linked. --ŠJů (talk) 00:07, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
3D works from Web Gallery of Art
[edit]Mattis (talk · contribs) has undertaken a mass-upload from the Web Gallery of Art web site (http://www.wga.hu). Unfortunately, s/he included numerous photographs of three-dimensional works, for which the photographer(s) can claim copyright (per COM:DW#Casebook under "Photographs of three-dimensional objects"). Since the web site does not mention a free license, permission would be needed. A few of the uploads mention permission was given but also says "for Wikipedia". Even if we take Mattis's word, a license "for Wikipedia" is not sufficient.
BTW, I tried to include the more obvious cases. If people feel some of the following are dissimilar and need a separate DR, feel free to strike them out. Wknight94 talk 03:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
File:Rome Palazzo Farnese ceiling Carracci frescos 04.jpg- File:Rome Palazzo Farnese ceiling frescos 03.jpg
- File:Rome Palazzo Farnese ceiling frescos 02.jpg
- File:Rome Palazzo Farnese ceiling frescos 01.jpg
- File:Peruzzi Rome, Villa Farnesina, Loggia di Galatea 01.jpg
- File:Peruzzi Sala delle Prospettive, Villa Farnesina, Rome 05.jpg
- File:Peruzzi Sala delle Prospettive, Villa Farnesina, Rome 03.jpg
- File:Peruzzi Sala delle Prospettive, Villa Farnesina, Rome 02.jpg
- File:Peruzzi Sala delle Prospettive, Villa Farnesina, Rome 01.jpg
- File:Niccolò Circignani Frescos at Santo Stefano Rotondo, rome 01.jpg
- File:Raffael, Loggia di Psiche, Villa Farnesina, Rome 01.jpg
- File:Raffael, Loggia di Psiche, Villa Farnesina, Rome 02.jpg
- File:Nebbia Cesare, Christ Crowned with Thorns, Oratorio del Gonfalone, Rome 01.jpg
- File:Mitelli frescos Galleria Palatina 01.jpg
- File:Mitelli frescos Galleria Palatina 02.jpg
- File:Giovanni da San Giovanni View of the Room of Giovanni da San Giovanni 01.jpg
- File:Giovanni da San Giovanni Allegory of the Marriage of Vittoria della Rovere with Ferdinando II de' Medici 01.jpg
- File:Castagnoli, Galleria Palatina 02.jpg
- File:Castagnoli, Galleria Palatina 01.jpg
- File:Ademollo, Galleria Palatina 02.jpg
- File:Ademollo, Galleria Palatina 01.jpg
- File:Zucchi, frescos Palazzo Ruspoli Pace 01.jpg
- File:Raphael Sibyls and Prophets frescos s Maria della Pace 02.jpg
- File:Raphael Sibyls and Prophets frescos s Maria della Pace 01.jpg
- File:Pozzo Allegory of the Jesuits Missionary Work 05.jpg
- File:Cortona, Galleria Palatina, Palazzo Pitti, Florence 01.jpg
- File:Cortona, Galleria Palatina, Palazzo Pitti, Florence 06.jpg
- File:Cortona, Galleria Palatina, Palazzo Pitti, Florence 07.jpg
- File:Cortona, Galleria Palatina, Palazzo Pitti, Florence 08.jpg
- File:Cortona, Galleria Palatina, Palazzo Pitti, Florence 09.jpg
- File:Cortona, Galleria Palatina, Palazzo Pitti, Florence 10.jpg
- File:Pietro Lorenzetti, south transept Lower Basilica in Assis 01.jpg
- File:Giotto, Lower Church Assisi 04.jpg
- File:Giotto, Lower Church Assisi 03.jpg
- File:Giotto, Lower Church Assisi 01.jpg
- File:Giotto, Lower Church Assisi 00.jpg
- File:Baglione San Secondo, Rocca dei Rossi, Sala dei Gesta Rossiana 01.jpg
- File:Beccafumi Oratory of San Bernardino 01.jpg
- File:Bronzino Palazzo Vecchio Cappella di Eleonora 01.jpg
- File:Campi, Ascension of Christ, San Sigismondo, Cremona 01.jpg
- File:Alessandro Algardi Donna Olimpia Maidalchini.jpg
- File:Alessandro Algardi Saint Philip Neri.jpg
- File:Alessandro Algardi Laudivio Zacchia.jpg
- File:Alessandro Algardi Ulpiano Volpi.jpg
- File:Alessandro Algardi Antonio Cerri.jpg
- File:Alessandro Algardi Heracles and the Hydra.jpg
- File:Alessandro Algardi Pope Leo XI.jpg
- File:Alessandro Algardi Mary Magdalene.jpg
- File:Giovanni Maria Falconetto, Mantua, Palazzo d'Arco, Sala dello Zodiaco, Sign of Libra.jpg
- File:Giovanni Maria Falconetto, Mantua, Palazzo d'Arco, Sala dello Zodiaco.jpg
- File:Dosso Dossi, Pesaro, Villa Imperiale, Camera dei Semibusti.jpg
- File:Benedetto Bembo, Torrechiara, Madonna and Saints.jpg
- File:Andrea del Sarto, Florence, san salvi, cloister.jpg
- File:Benedetto Bembo, Castello di Torrechiara, Golden Room 01.jpg
- File:Perugino, Collegio del Cambio, Sala di Udienza, general 01.jpg
- File:Perugino, Collegio del Cambio, Sala di Udienza, general 02.jpg
- File:Andrea del Sarto, Florence, San SalviLast Supper, the Last Supper 01.jpg
- File:Perugino, Collegio del Cambio, Sala di Udienza, ceiling 01.jpg
- File:Perugino, Collegio del Cambio, Sala di Udienza, ceiling, Mercury.jpg
- File:Perugino, Collegio del Cambio, Sala di Udienza, ceiling, Venus.jpg
- File:Perugino, Collegio del Cambio, Sala di Udienza, ceiling, Mars.jpg
- File:Perugino, Collegio del Cambio, Sala di Udienza, ceiling, Jupiter.jpg
File:Memling Triptych, 1485.jpgFile:Memling Triptych of Adriaan Reins.jpgFile:Memling Triptych of Family Moreel.jpg- File:Filippo Della Valle, St Therese of Avila.jpg
- File:Filippo Della Valle, Temperance.jpg
- File:Filippo Della Valle, Bust of Pope Clement XII.jpg
- File:Filippo Della Valle, Annunciation.jpg
- File:Ugolino di Vieri Orvieto Reliquary of the Santo Corporale 01.jpg
- File:Ugolino di Vieri Orvieto Reliquary of the Santo Corporale 02.jpg
- File:Juan de Valdés Leal , Ascension of Elijah 01.jpg
- File:Alessandro Algardi John the Evangelist.jpg
- File:Alessandro Algardi John the Evangelist 02.jpg
- File:Alessandro Algardi Mary Magdalene 02.jpg
Don't have time for a file-by-file review, here's a summary proposal give current permission level:
-
Keep triptichs as 2D PD-Art. The 3D element (frame) is insignificant; it's the three flat panels that matter.
,-Die-Quellnymphe.jpg){kind=link}
,-Die-Quellnymphe.jpg){kind=link}
,-Die-Quellnymphe.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
,-Die-Quellnymphe.jpg){kind=link}
,-Die-Quellnymphe.jpg){kind=link}
,-Die-Quellnymphe.jpg){kind=link}
![[4]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cheryl_Cole.jpg){kind=link}
![[5]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cheryl_Cole2.jpg){kind=link}
NVO (talk) 08:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I was doubtful about the triptychs too. I've struck those out above. Wknight94 talk 12:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep File:Rome Palazzo Farnese ceiling Carracci frescos 04.jpg, this file shows very little 3D structure and is a photo of a single fresco directly from below. Delete rest. MKFI (talk) 22:20, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, I struck that one too. Wknight94 talk 15:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 23:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
taken from http://foto.nielsriekert.nl/?p=fotogalerij&album_id=40#74 which has the image watermarked (as in File:TIM.jpg), and no specific license is mentioned. Not self made & incorrectly licensed. -- Deadstar (msg) 10:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 23:34, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
out of COM:SCOPE Reinhardhauke (talk) 17:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Why? Seems to be a real photo of en:Antonio Francisco Xavier Alvares. But I'm not sure about copyright and authorship. --ŠJů (talk) 00:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Apparently derived from File:Juliusthirumeni.jpg. Since the subject died in 1923, I assume this is an old work and PD due to age. Wknight94 talk 13:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 13:07, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
spam Reinhardhauke (talk) 17:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment "Spam" is not a valid reason for deletion. --ŠJů (talk) 00:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Rythme FM is in scope. License: {{PD-textlogo}} + {{Trademark}} ? -- Common Good (talk) 18:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Yep, it's definitely PD-textlogo, and in-scope since it's used in a relevant article. -- Orionist ★ talk 09:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 13:08, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
unused personal foto Reinhardhauke (talk) 17:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete He's apparently a Mexican TV producer (here's his TV series article on es:wp), his photos dominate Google Search but still no article on en:wp or es:wp. It's probably a copyvio, but if he is really the uploader (he could be) he should send us an OTRS permission. -- Orionist ★ talk 10:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 13:09, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
unknown person Reinhardhauke (talk) 17:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- [Note: I transferred the following three comments from this page, which was apparently created by mistake by the IP 95.157.190.156. -- Asclepias (talk) 01:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)]
- I don't see the reasons for the deletion of Roger Rousseau.jpg. Can somebody explain this unfair decision? It seams that someone is going against the freedom of expression, and I hope the team of wikimedia will not delete roger rousseau.jpg. Thanks for your understanding. —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 95.157.190.156 (talk) 20:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- As this image is used nowhere, the question is: who is Roger Rousseau? Is he notable? Did he agree to the publication of his photo? --Túrelio (talk) 20:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Apparently, it would be that Wikipédia user. -- Asclepias (talk) 00:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. However, it's strange that the usage check does not show this use. Anyway, I've tagged it as userpageimage. --Túrelio (talk) 07:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- The usage check doesn't show it because, to answer as clearly as possible the question about who the person was, I linked directly to an old version of the user's page where the photo was used, although the user doesn't use it on the current version of this page. But apparently he or someone else (whoever the IP above is) wants to keep it, possibly for future reuse. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. However, it's strange that the usage check does not show this use. Anyway, I've tagged it as userpageimage. --Túrelio (talk) 07:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Apparently, it would be that Wikipédia user. -- Asclepias (talk) 00:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- As this image is used nowhere, the question is: who is Roger Rousseau? Is he notable? Did he agree to the publication of his photo? --Túrelio (talk) 20:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 13:10, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
out of COM:SCOPE Reinhardhauke (talk) 17:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep, no relevant reason stated, the photo is described. --ŠJů (talk) 00:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 13:11, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Unfree photo (1940s). Are re-uploaded in ru-wiki as fairuse. -- Kaganer (talk) 17:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 13:11, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
unknown grave, small size (no valued details), unused. -- Kaganer (talk) 17:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 15:10, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Authorship unclear: Is it a self-portrait? Leyo 17:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I worked on OTRS Ticket 2011011310010487 for this picture. The author is unkown and the picture was taken around 1890. The uploader belongs to the family. It is not known if it was ever published. The picture can stay in the german Wikipedia using the 100-year rule. But I think this is not applicable for commons. -- Neozoon (talk) 23:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. - author unknown and ages more than 70 years, so PD - Jcb (talk) 15:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
derivated-miss understand Amrtariq (talk) 17:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 15:13, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
not encyclopedic; not used in personal pages; offensive Ciaurlec (talk) 21:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 15:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
not encyclopedic; not used in personal pages; offensive Ciaurlec (talk) 21:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep It can be a good ilustration of stereotypes about homosexuals. --ŠJů (talk) 00:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 15:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Possibly the photo is old, but it is from a 2008 magazine. It is claimed that the image was published anonymous.
(1) What reasonable evidence do we have that the image was published anonymous or under a pseudonyme? The magazine is very recent, was the primary source (the magazine publisher) asked if the author is anonymous? Maybe there is a source chain to the original, its most reasonable to follow this chain as far as possible.
(2) If the anonymous claim is based only on that single 2008 publication, this would mean that this is the only publication of this photo. If this was first published in 2008 then there can be a protection for 25 years according to §71 UrhG regardless if the copyright has been expired or not. The copyright status claim "was published more than 70 years ago" is not confirmed by a publication of that age.
--Martin H. (talk) 22:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Sitter was born 1868, this photo is safely more than 70 years old; Förderkreis Ohlsdorfer Friedhof makes no claims of publication right. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 15:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
COM:PEOPLE -Soica2001 (talk) 22:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep This bath seems not to be a private place, people are not in detail and not in delicate situation, the photo depicts good a charecter of this bathplace and winter bathing. --ŠJů (talk) 00:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- While I can understand the concern regarding identifiable people in this image, I decided to post it after determining (in my opinion) that the few individual faces that were visible were both far enough back and not the main focus of the picture. It could be further argued that a outdoor, mixed-bathing, hot spring bath in Japan isn't a place where most people would expect privacy. The purpose of such a location is to take a bath in the nude surrounded by complete strangers.
That said, I certainly don't wish to offend, and will happily comply with both the rules of Wikimedia Commons and the decision of its members on the issue of this file. I can, if needed resubmit the image with faces blurred out. Markmark28 (talk) 00:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete The public bath is a private space. People staying there are not things supposed to be photographed. I think it reasonable to deleted once. Then, I hope to submit the image with faces blurred out.--Soica2001 (talk) 14:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment While I don't completely agree with the idea of outdoor onsen being private, (there are onsen magazines abound in Japan with pictures published of patrons photographed from a distance enjoying a bath; myself included) I am willing to have this file deleted. I'm also happy to provide an alternate photo where the faces have been blurred out. The picture in question, whether edited or not I believe is an important one, as most onsen pictures only show the facilities, and not how they are enjoyed by individuals. Please find the edited photo here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tsurunoyu_onsen_rotenburo2.JPG
I will make the appropriate switch of photos on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onsen page. Markmark28 (talk) 12:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. - no need to blur out faces in this case - Jcb (talk) 15:22, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
I uploaded working jpeg version: file:Mattheus Seuter, Ducatus Teschenensis.jpg, png was not working D T G (talk) 00:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 15:23, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
