Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2011/01/15
 |
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}
Duplicate. An unusual eye (talk) 03:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, per uploader request. Replacement at File:1971 Datsun 240Z Series I.jpg. Rehman 03:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
copyright violation Od1n (talk) 13:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Blatant copyright violation. --High Contrast (talk) 16:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Неизвестен means Unknown accordning to google translate, source author and date is "Неизвестен". Other uploads from the user should be checked aswell. Evalowyn (talk) 17:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Speedy actually to me Herby talk thyme 17:52, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Copyright violation: Whoever put this up on Flickr copied it from http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=113894745299243&set=a.113893601966024.11987.112515332103851&pid=154723&id=112515332103851. The copy on Wikipedia was deleted on January 12, 2011by Kww. Diannaa (talk) 18:34, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. http://www.flickr.com/photos/58374433@N06/ is a flickr washing account by uploader User:Thamerr (although the images at that flickr account are not free licensed, its still a collection of photos collected from the web and upload to flickr in violation of the flickr terms of use). --Martin H. (talk) 18:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned, used in a now deleted advert on Commons, out of scope, no foreseeable use. FASTILY (TALK) 19:59, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 20:45, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Recent historical photo of some sort. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 20:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 20:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
This is a manipulated photograph and not "own work". Hekerui (talk) 20:59, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Obviously it is. Deleted before it gets more spreaded in Wikipedias (and outside reusers). --Martin H. (talk) 00:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work of http://www.terrepolitique.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/ben-ali.jpg on http://www.terrepolitique.com/2007/11/25/tunisie-la-dictature-au-dessus-de-tout/ Hekerui (talk) 21:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. derivative work, 'artwork' based in parts or entirely on someone else photo. --Martin H. (talk) 00:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
No evidence that the Library of Congress is the photographer. The image appears on various sources, but all information leads to private, not government publications. http://www.cover-island.com/cover-NDE0OTM5-mississippi_john_hurt_d_c_blues_the_library_of_congress_recordings_vol_02.html contains the cover and booklet of the album (U.S. Government is not stated as an author), the photo comes from an recording at the LoC (http://jasobrecht.com/mississippi-john-hurt-life-music/), but I didnt found it at LoC Prints and photographs or LoC music division. The information that it was taken in connection with the LoC does not make it a work by the LoC. Martin H. (talk) 16:48, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- I lean towards keep. The issued records are specifically called "The Library of Congress Recordings". Reproductions of the uncropped photo say it is of Hurt recording at the Library of Congress, and that where it looks to be. We unfortunately don't seem to have specific photographer information at present, but circumstantial evidence seems to strongly suggest it was taken as part of the LOC sponsored recording session. -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:56, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- I know that this photo comes from the Library of Congress because it is credited to it in the photo credits of D.C. Blues, The Library of Congress Recordings, Vol. 1, by Fuel 2000 Records. Both the entire version of the photo is used, in the linear notes, as well as the cover photo, which a crop very closely resembling the crop I made. Both are credited to the Library of Congress, but no photographer is given. BootleggerWill (talk) 01:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- Here the American Folklife Center credits the photo as "Library of Congress photo". (They also identify the people and date the photo.) Lupo 15:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- Full
Keep now. I think the info Lupo found settles it. Additional info and link added to image description page. -- Infrogmation (talk) 21:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- Full
Withdrawn. Thx, Lupo. --Martin H. (talk) 11:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
pic is here with a claim it is courtesy of AP - http://news.bigmir.net/world/296621/ Off2riorob (talk) 13:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Rastrojo (D•ES) 16:17, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Proszę zablokować użytkownika Wiolin96 to ta sama zablokowana osoba co Energyboy2009 i mbmariobiel Wiolin96 (talk) 12:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
bla bla bla — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiolin96 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
argumentów sie zachcialo, wykasowac zablokowac — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiolin96 (talk • contribs) 17:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Login Wiolin96 to login spamera dostępny na szkolnym komputerze, proszę o blokade tego urzytkownika, oraz jego adresu publicznego ip, by nie doszło do tworzenia kont przez tą osobę. Wiolin96 (talk) 14:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Wiolin96 must stop uploading new versions on this file name. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Looks like a job for a protection of the file, not a deletion. // Liftarn (talk)
Kept, nothing to delete. Cleaned history and increased protection level for a week. Rehman 08:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
File:Boilersuit2.jpg dodano nowszą wersje, starą prosze usunąć Klaraa (talk) 14:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
File:Boilersuit2.jpg Dodana nowsza wersja Klaraa (talk) 14:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- See above. // Liftarn (talk) 21:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
File:Boilersuit2.jpg dodana nowsza wersja Klaraa (talk) 14:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- Again? // Liftarn (talk) 21:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: No valid reason for deletion, will remove copyvio versions and protect file. Rosenzweig δ 22:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
bad image Glasshouse 03:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- Nevermind, file has been fixed Fry1989 (talk) 00:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Vanity photo, used in an out of scope vanity article on commons. No foreseeable use. FASTILY (TALK) 05:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom Infrogmation (talk) 05:35, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Our of scopeCaptain-tucker (talk) 02:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
wrong Castro Angelo Gaetano (talk) 09:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 02:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
inexact duplicate of File:Kinderbeuern-Hl.Drei Könige814.JPG, which would seem to be a superior photograph — billinghurst sDrewth 13:45, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Could argue the other way around, crop on File:Kinderbeuern-Hl.Drei Könige814.JPG too tight on right side. No reason to delete. Captain-tucker (talk) 02:46, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Unused personal photograph, out of project scope. Karppinen (talk) 20:21, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. out of scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Unused personal photograph, out of project scope. Karppinen (talk) 20:21, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. out of scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I really doubt the player images are PD to begin with. I do believe the creator put the stuff together, but I do not think he made all the photos - which means the license "PD" is doubtful. Guandalug 21:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 15:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Advertising WOSlinker (talk) 17:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 17:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Source not clear. Permission should be approved through OTRS Vssun (talk) 08:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. — Jeff G. ツ 05:35, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 09:33, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
copyright violation Od1n (talk) 18:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted * (show/hide) 23:23, 15 January 2011 Túrelio (talk | contribs | block) deleted "File:La mort est mon métier.jpg" (Copyright violation: book cover) (view/restore) (global usage; delinker log) abf «Cabale!» 09:34, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Copyright infringement © ABACA [1] -Thestreamer (talk) 21:56, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- Fair Use License. Free non-commercial use granted by ABACA Press Agency (see ABACA Press Agency official website), photo also used globally by every major news websites because granted as free non-commercial license (ABACA website, Google Search) -StacyOb (talk) 01:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Sorry, but fair use is not allowed on Commons, see COM:FAIRUSE. Non-commercial licenses are not allowed on Commons as well, see Commons:Licensing. Trycatch (talk) 06:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
possible copyvio, compare to http://www.annemie.eu/ Athenchen (talk) 23:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per nom. -- Deadstar (msg) 11:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Artwork of this cropped version not de minimis Kungfuman (talk) 11:14, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- and so is the original File:Video games (1970's).png. NVO (talk) 23:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
- Hello! Can you explain me the problem of my image, so I will not make this error next time? The problem is the presence of the box/case containing the console? If so, can I remove the box/case from the image and resubmit the image to resolve the problem? Thank you, --Arosio Stefano (talk) 21:09, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, please, the box "art" is the problem. NVO (talk) 21:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- I have modified and replaced the image removing the box/case. Can you check if the new image is ok and in this case remove the deletion request ? --Arosio Stefano (talk) 22:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- Now this image is OK. I removed the deletion request. I think File:Video games (1970's).png is de minimis enough. But it's also a picture in a museum which might be a problem too. Must the old version be removed so that no one can revert this image? --Kungfuman (talk) 09:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Rastrojo (D•ES) 15:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Rather unlikely that the uploader really was the author of the image. More likely that this is a derivative work of a copyrighted image, c.f. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nasser Nouraie,Iran National Football Team.jpg for a related deleted file by the same uploader. Nsk92 (talk) 16:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Rastrojo (D•ES) 15:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely that 20minutos.es/ has bought the copyright of this image 93.196.35.92 17:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Rastrojo (D•ES) 15:27, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
No authorship information on depicted 3D work of art. Kelly (talk) 20:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep according to en:Karl Bitter the statue was erected in 1915, and the artist died on the same year, therefore PD. MKFI (talk) 08:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Rastrojo (D•ES) 15:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
No authorship/publication information on depicted 3D work of art. Kelly (talk) 01:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep re-nominating two days after the last deletion request? Please provide some information on why you think the previous keep was incorrect. MKFI (talk) 09:13, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- Oops! Please close this, I nominated it by mistake. Kelly (talk) 14:25, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. --Podzemnik (talk) 21:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
derivative work of http://www.france5.fr/c-a-dire/IMG/arton1251.jpg on http://www.france5.fr/c-a-dire/index-fr.php?page=biographie&id_article=1251 Hekerui (talk) 21:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Rastrojo (D•ES) 15:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
author is Jeong Hwa Choi, alive, no freedom in panorama in France Frédéric (talk) 21:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
L'arbre à fleurs est une sculpture de l'artiste coréen Jeong Hwa Choi. User:staedt (talk) 11:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Cet artiste est vivant, donc on ne peut pas mettre de photographie de ses oeuvres visibles en France sur Commons. Frédéric (talk) 12:09, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Rastrojo (D•ES) 15:33, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
This low-resolution photograph comes from absent uploader and has no metadata. Likely a copyright violation. Karppinen (talk) 20:34, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:04, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Low quality picture. It has two picture equals to this. It's just delete. Eduardo P (talk) 21:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Low quality picture. It has two picture equals to this. It's just delete. Eduardo P (talk) 21:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:02, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Likely copyvio, file is identical to this one. Upload to Commons is old, but I think it was copied from european-paratrooper.de and not vice versa, because that site contains a lot of similar pictures (same resolution and so on). Trycatch (talk) 00:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
+other files originally uploaded by w:User:Flyboy03:
- File:Medal of Valor Medal.JPG -- low resolution, no EXIF, copied from [2]
- File:Schützenschnur.JPG -- low resolution, no EXIF
Trycatch (talk) 00:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Wrong Size Bigwayne45 (talk) 04:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Comment It is not clear what size has to do with anything and why that would be a reason for deletion. Image is credited as work by a photographer other than the uploader; request for confirmation of permission added. -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:42, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
bacause i have two pages on same pages Prabhat Rathore (talk) 08:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand this -- the only thing on the User page is the DR, so there's nothing to delete and no reason to do it. Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Web resolution. Possible fair use image. Sreejith K (talk) 10:52, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. I'm the photographer in question, and have released the image to public domain. --Soman (talk) 15:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- New version uploaded now. --Soman (talk) 21:27, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Previous one is better than new one.
Reverting. I think these images are taken through a mobile cam. Better resolution may not be possible.--Vssun (talk) 00:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC) - Comment No mobile camera can produce this size of photos...837×1,203. This is a cropped part of the big image, exif cannot be seen in the picture, Earlier and recent versions are showing different pictures....Now i have a doubt that the uploaded user is the photographer or not..--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 08:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment For some reason, I saved the original picture (which was cropped from a larger photograph) in png format. In order to replace it, I uploaded the second one as well in png format. I can upload it again in jpg format if that helps. If you compare the two version, you see that table and background is the same, and that both were taken on the same occasion. --Soman (talk) 02:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - The image seems to be original now. --Sreejith K (talk) 05:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Now its okay......Captain......Tälk tö me.. 05:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I will upload this file under new filename (1KreuzMenden.jpg) because of sorting in the category Mendener Kreuzweg (1...jpg; 2...jpg, 3.....jpg) on the beginning. That are the stations of the Way of Crosses in Menden sorted from 1st to last. Thanks. Rudko (talk) 15:13, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep I added sorting to category diff. Rudko, if you still wish to rename the file you can use {{Rename}}. MKFI (talk) 17:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
This is the logo of a college musical group and there is no evidence that the uploader is the author or authorized to release the image under a free license GrapedApe (talk) 15:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
An improved version of this file already exists at File:Mapa Australia.es.V3.png. Dalton2 (talk) 16:14, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Same photo on Panoramio (http://www.panoramio.com/photo/35408170), no evidence that the uploader is the same person Ianezz (talk) 16:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I am the same person (Robin Pollard) and the photo is an original taken by me. I am new to uploading photos to Wikipedia.
Is there a way that I can show that I am the same person, or is there a problem for me to use the same photo that I have uploaded to Panoramio?
--Offalyred (talk) 16:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment You could change the license on Panoramio for that image to a free license that is acceptable on Commons (I'm no Panoramio expert, but I believe it should be possible to do that). In general, photos previously published elsewhere with a non-free license (it's currently an "All rights reserved" on Panoramio) can be uploaded by indicating where it has been previously published (i.e. the URL on Panoramio), putting {{OTRS pending}} in the Permission field and then emailing an authorization to the address specified in COM:OTRS. Sorry for the inconvenience. --Ianezz (talk) 17:13, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your help. I have changed the licence settings in Panoramio. --Offalyred (talk) 18:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep I retire the deletion request. --Ianezz (talk) 21:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
The Union for the Mediterranean doesn't seem to have a flag at all. There is no source anywhere that describes this flag, except on Wikipedia and blogs quoting Wikipedia. According to internal sources, there never was a Union for the Mediterranean flag. Manuel Menal (talk) 16:45, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
That may be, but it is in use in many places. You can add {{Disputed diagram}} to it with the explanation above if you wish. Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:10, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
After talking to Jameslwoodward and the previous deletion request, I re-open this DR because:
- this file is a fake flag, invented in the purpose on having Wikipedia containing false information, thus out of SCOPE
- this file is not used any more in the main namespace of any wikimedia projects. Coyau (talk) 16:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope, no more used on main: ~Pyb (talk) 16:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Reopened per comment on User talk:~Pyb.13:10, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
We have a clear keep policy on fictional and fake flags. Just so we are clear:
- Fictional -- flags of fictional places -- File:Flag of Gondor.svg
- Fake -- flags of real places or organizations that do not have a flag or did not have a flag at the time specified.
This may be a fake flag. Our policy is to allow flags that some users believe are fake, because the question is often political or ethnic and deciding whether to keep or delete often puts Commons editors in the middle of bitter disputes.
In these cases we extend "scope" a great deal, because it is very easy for a nominator, with a political point of view, to delete a disputed image from all places where it is in use and then tag it for deletion as out of scope and unused. That may have happened here -- as I noted above, it was in use in many places.
At the moment we have 55 flags in Category:Fake flags and many others whose existence is disputed. We keep them because it is better to keep an image than to delete it when someone tells us it is fake. Often we have no easy way to check this. We encourage those who object to a flag to put {{Disputed diagram}} on it, but we do not delete it.
So, again, the deletion of this flag is contrary to policy. Until the start of this DR it was in use in many places. It is up to editors of the various WPs to choose whether to use it or not, not Commons editors. But, more important, Commons editors and Admins should not be in the middle of political and factual discussions. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:10, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. If the file is finally kept, it should be renamed to be sure that nobody will believe that this flag is the flag of the Union of the Mediterranean. It is just a mistake of a contributor or an act of vandalism to criticize the veracity of Wikipedia. ~Pyb (talk) 13:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. Keeping disputed flags (where the flag is claimed by some and refused by others) or proposed flags is one thing: there are sources outside of Wikimedia of such flags, even if they're not official. Keeping entirely fake flags that have never been used outside of Wikimedia and have even been created for Wikimedia is a completely different thing. It's not an educational content at all, thus it's out of scope. Just because such a flag was present in Commons, many Wikipedia articles used this as the official flag of the Union for the Mediterranean. I can't see why Commons should keep something that adds no additional value, is out of scope and might cause erroneous information to be added in Wikimedia projects. Manuel Menal (talk) 00:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete as previously stated. Btw, there has been a duscussion in enwp about this flag. --Coyau (talk) 02:01, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No official source proving this flag is used by UfM: out of scope. Pymouss Let’s talk - 19:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Inadequate source info. Nsk92 (talk) 16:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
duplicate file Pormásfilms (talk) 17:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Unless verification of permission is given, the image can be speedy deleted 15 days after this template was added and the uploader was notified: (14 December 2010). +15 days have passed, so... Ricvelozo (talk) 17:37, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Unless verification of permission is given, the image can be speedy deleted 15 days after this template was added and the uploader was notified: (14 December 2010). +15 days have passed, so... Ricvelozo (talk) 17:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- delete--Motopark (talk) 17:48, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:33, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
New version at File:Karel-capek.jpg GoogleMe (talk) 19:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Логотип защищён авторским правом. фрашкард (talk) 19:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:39, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
This is a derivative work as it is a picture of a large screen, not of the subject directly. Karppinen (talk) 19:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:40, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
This is a derivative work of http://www.journalism.co.uk/agile_assets/97/julian-assange.jpg_resized_300_.jpeg. Karppinen (talk) 19:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Also a DW of the poster itself. Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
from "H Yda Photo Studio" on flickr, see Profile at http://www.flickr.com/people/56007315@N08/. The image on flickr is private, the upload was done by The Wifechaser (talk · contribs)
from "Hs Yda Photo Studio" on flickr, see Profile at http://www.flickr.com/people/37584127@N06/. Uploaded by The Wifechaser (talk · contribs)
The last image in question has some terrible JPG artefacts at the lower right corner. It also appears at http://ohotgirl.com/view/nozomi-sasaki-leather-outfit-mind-controlnow-in-3d/1738/nozomisasakileather03.jpg-7 without this JPG artefacts but with a watermark..... The conclusion is simple: This is some evil sort of flickr washing. Stealing images from the web, removing copyright notices, uploading them to invented flickr accounts with some fraud on identities, washing them to Commons. --Martin H. (talk) 16:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - I marked the first image as a copyvio.[3] But someone said "rm SD, per comparison of this one's date with the MC one's date; the MC one has obviously been modified; MyCom Journal only mentions it's text contents (journal.mycom.co.jp), seemingly outsourced" and took off the tag.[4] We know Japanese people live in their time zone: UTC+09:00. Both texts and images are copyrighted by Mainichi Communications Inc. See here. "記事・画像" or "掲載記事および画像" means "both texts and images". --Since2011 (talk) 22:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
![[3]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Nozomi_Sasaki_in_October_2009.jpg&oldid=47661591){kind=link}
![[4]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3ANozomi_Sasaki_in_October_2009.jpg&action=historysubmit&diff=47668786&oldid=47661591){kind=link}
- Keep, as seeming [only] currently regit. As I, the one-time reviewer the above person mentions, can find all the pictueres on many websites including Ascii Web, but all of that websites are displaying 文章およびレイアウトに係るコンテンツは本サイトに帰属します。 ... 係る画像コンテンツ等のライセンスは各著作権者に帰属します。, implying their pictures ["画像コンテンツ等"] are licensed to outer individuals. MC's licensing policy page[5] says "マイコミジャーナルに掲載された記事・画像などコンテンツの著作権は、(株)毎日コミュニケーションズまたはコンテンツ提供元に属します。". There are countless English websites / blogs showing the pictures, similar pictures, and, of course, I don't mention them. Grenade J (talk) 22:52, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- Bloddy sockpuppeter! The image is stolen, see the removed watermark. It does matter who the real copyright owner is, the only important fact is that that flickr account is constructed, that that flickr account is not the copyright holder and that here obviously some image stealing is going on with someone pulling out all the stops: Copyright infringements, abusing multiple accounts on Commons and Wikipedia, abuse of flickr, identity fraud on flickr. Damn, its some stupid images of some person! Dont make yourself unhappy with following such illegal activities to push images to Commons with fraud attribution and faked licensing. Especially in the light that sooner or later someone will take a photograph, for the encyclopedia it is unimportant if this will hapen tomorow or in 20 years. Think about but stop this behaviour imidiatly! --Martin H. (talk) 00:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:55, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
COM:DW of unknown source. Flickr account apparently photographed a book or such. See caption at the bottom of the same user's http://www.flickr.com/photos/alq666/86606653/. Wknight94 talk 20:13, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- Firstly: I'm not the original uploader, I improved the images' poor contrast a few weeks ago. Hope you notified the original uploader as well. About the deletion request: The image description does mention a source as it should (http://www.flickr.com/photos/42139601@N00/86607332/). I can't find any indication that this is a derivative work (photograph from a book) and not an original image. I don't see the relevance of your link to another picture on the same flickr account. I see no reason for deletion. Also note that many articles on many projects use this file. I don't feel very attached to this picture, but I object to this deletion proposal for lack of a good reason. Jaho (talk) 22:37, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- Short answer: how can this photograph from before 1962 come from a camera model that debuted in 2005? Long answer: the Flickr account has several recent color ground-level photographs from the same camera. But a few of them - including this one and the other I linked - are from the same camera, but are aerial and black and white photographs, apparently from the more distant past. The other one I linked is clearly from a book, and I figure this one is too. Maybe this example will appease you: the caption is "This is picture of a picture" and his response to someone below the picture is "I don't have, unfortunately, the original credit of the pictures." He (she?) is admitting that his Flickr upload is a derivative work, and also admitting he doesn't know the original source. I submit that this photograph is the same - unsourced derivative. Also, I will notify the original uploader here but it won't accomplish much - how would s/he know the actual source if the Flickr user doesn't even know? Wknight94 talk 23:25, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- Commons has many picture of before 1962, all digitized later by modern equipment. That does not make them derivative works - a reproduction of a two-dimensional work of art is never a derivative work. This is an original work of art, the rights remain with the original (unknown) photographer; the way it was digitized is irrelevant and the COM:DW you cite does not apply.
- Most of what you write is about other pictures digitized with the same camera in a comparable way. That's irrelevant by definition. Even if some of them are copyright violations (taken from a book, as you describe it), that can never be a reason to delete this picture.
- You state that this is taken from a book, but that is not at all sure. Obviously it is digitized from some form of print, in an amateuristic way with a photo camera. It's certainly not a beauty, but that's irrelevant too. You have no title/publisher of a book, it's not self-evident that there ever was a book, so we must assume the rights are still with the original photographer.
- The only problem with this picture is that (at this moment) the photographer is unknown. Commons has many historic pictures of unknown photographers, but we're not going to delete them all. I'll add unknown photographer to the image description now, and try find out what the proper way is to tag them here on commons later.
- The picture is used in many articles on different language wikipedias, and was visible on the English wikipedia front page on or around 14 December 2010, which means it has value. It may be difficult or impossible to replace. It should not be deleted, unless it becomes clear that it is a rights violation.
- The picture may be wrongly tagged here on commons (I'll see if I can fix that soon), but I strongly object deletion of this picture.
- Jaho (talk) 09:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- Adding to that:
- Uploader claims he/she is the author of the work on the image description page. I changed that to "unknown photographer", but then reverted my edit, as I can't be sure that claim is false.
- Uploader claims to be from New York, USA, but has a Vietnamese looking name. It's perfectly plausible that he/she digitized his/her own earlier work (or is the owner of the work in another way).
- Without a reason to believe that this authorship claim is false, there's basically nothing wrong with this picture.
- Jaho (talk) 10:26, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- You are conceding that there is no known original source. That is a reason to delete. The fact that it is used in many places is not a reason to keep. Your best hope now is to make a claim that {{PD-Vietnam}} or {{Anonymous work}} might apply, but both are a challenge when we don't know the original source, and we don't know when it was really taken or published. Wknight94 talk 14:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Comment The flickr user Alexis Lê-Quôc appears to be quite young, under 40 easily: [6] and [7]. This makes it difficult to see how he could be the original author, but he may have inherited the photograph I suppose. -84user (talk) 20:26, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
The rule in Vietnam is fifty years pma. Since we don't know when the photographer died, we can't keep a work that is approximately fifty years old. Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:09, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Google Image Search shows this image is published elsewhere. Ytoyoda (talk) 19:35, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 00:55, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Derivative work of http://desourcesure.com/uploadv3/valeriehollanderoyal.jpg on http://desourcesure.com/politiqueaffaires/2007/06/la_maitresse_de_hollande_menac.php Hekerui (talk) 21:09, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I looks like a official band photo so I think we need a permission. MGA73 (talk) 21:37, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
derivative work of a famous photo from 1939 taken by a man named Marcel Bernard, no evidence that copyright has expired, see http://www.fondationresistance.org/pages/rech_doc/jean-moulin-face-ennemi_photo5.htm Hekerui (talk) 21:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:15, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
author is Jeong Hwa Choi, alive, no freedom in panorama in France Frédéric (talk) 21:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:15, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to be the "own work" of the uploader, looks like a newspaper scan. C.f. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nasser Nouraie,Iran National Football Team.jpg for a related deleted image. Nsk92 (talk) 16:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
KeepSurely, if it has published, it published more than 30 years ago, from age of players I guess it is about 40 years ago. So I change the copyright template. مانفی (talk) 14:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
After re visiting the photo I changed my idea, The uploader is one of players and the photo is obviously in personal album and not printed in a magazine. (but even if it is published, it is in public domain now) مانفی (talk) 14:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Delete You can not have it both ways.
- If it has been in somebody's personal album, then it has never been published, and the copyright period begins only with publication.
- If it was published, then we need to know where and when, as the rule in most countries gives a much longer time than Iran.
- The first of these is a certain delete. The second is a possible keep but only if you can prove where and when.
- Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:34, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
- If it has not published (after seeing the picture in large scale I realized it is in a personal album not magazine) it probably belongs to uploder, if it has published before, surely it is before it is more than 30 years. It is obvious from the quality of picture and there is no reason to keep this picture and then publish it after 10 years!مانفی (talk) 15:26, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- If the uploader is in the photograph, then he does not own the copyright -- it belongs to the photographer. And, in any case "probably" does not work here. It is the job of the uploader to prove that the image is acceptable according to our rules. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- I remember at the time some players had their own camera and just pass it to photographers, asking to take a photo by their own. I think in this case, the owner of camera, who is the only person that have this photo, is the owner of photo.مانفی (talk) 04:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- If the uploader is in the photograph, then he does not own the copyright -- it belongs to the photographer. And, in any case "probably" does not work here. It is the job of the uploader to prove that the image is acceptable according to our rules. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- Strictly speaking, under those circumstances, the actual photographer, not the owner of the camera, owns the copyright. While we have ignored that in limited cases for photographs used on editor's user pages, particularly if the photographer was a family member, I would be disinclined to ignore it in cases such as this one. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Wrong author, no source, too many "if"s here. --Martin H. (talk) 13:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Unlikely to be the uploader's "own work", looks like a newspaper scan. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nasser Nouraie,Iran National Football Team.jpg for a related deleted image by the same uploader. Nsk92 (talk) 16:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Iran National Team-Nasser Nouraei.jpg. --Martin H. (talk) 13:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Unlikely to be the "own work" of the uploader, looks like a newspaper scan. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nasser Nouraie,Iran National Football Team.jpg for a related deleted image by the same uploader. Nsk92 (talk) 16:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Iran National Team-Nasser Nouraei.jpg. --Martin H. (talk) 13:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to be uploader's "own work". Looks like a newspaper or an official photo scan. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nasser Nouraie,Iran National Football Team.jpg for a related deleted image by the same uploader. Nsk92 (talk) 16:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Iran National Team-Nasser Nouraei.jpg. --Martin H. (talk) 13:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Copyright violation. Fry1989 eh? 17:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted. INeverCry 00:44, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Neither the en-wiki page no the sajed.ir page given as sources for the image actually exist. Nsk92 (talk) 14:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Both the en-wiki page and the sajed.ir page actually existed. The en:Wikipedia was deleted because it was redundant once the image was moved to Commons. Internet archive Wayback confirms sajed.ir page with GFDL license. No reason to delete. -- Infrogmation (talk) 05:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- Could you provide a link to the Wayback archive page that shows this image? Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 10:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. - sajed.ir is under GFDL - Jcb (talk) 10:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
This image has no source (the webpage listed 404's because it doesn't exist), and no author. I have read the former deletion discussion. The site "sajed.ir" has no indication that it has the rights to the photographs that are subsequently licensed by it. If indeed this image could be found at that site, we could discuss its possible provenance, however as it appears to have appeared out of thin air, it's not possible to do so. COM:COPYVIO. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:02, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
deleted. INeverCry 02:59, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
imagem sob copyright; imagem duplicada da wiki-pt, sob URC/fair use Ricvelozo (talk) 16:37, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- need OTRS-permission, without it delete--Motopark (talk) 17:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. - although this is borderline for not being PD-textlogo - Jcb (talk) 10:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
OTRS ticket from Gedenkstätte deutscher Widerstand. The don’t name an author but on their website they tell us that they are not the copyright owner of this image. Please see https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/w/index.php?title=Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard&oldid=48302583#Ticket_No_2007010810012314 (talk) 17:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 10:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I have concerns with work "The books city" which is shown behind the artist, for which the artist is the obvious owner of copyright Muhandes (talk) 18:37, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep I'd say it is de miminis at this size, with it a little out of focus. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:34, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
- Withdrawn I have no problem with this assessment, I mainly wanted a second pair of eyes having a look. --Muhandes (talk) 16:16, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The author of the photograph is not specified -Nard 05:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Kept. In this special way no Author Name is necessary. ChristianBier 18:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Renominating. The kept rationale of the previous closure appears mistaken. This a recent photo of a 3D object. A valid source, an author credit, and a license are necessary for such a photo. This upload has none of that for the photo. (Besides, an original work (a Vatican coin national side design) seen on the photo, and from which the photo is therefore a derivative work, is itself not free.) -- Asclepias (talk) 12:59, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
There is no source on the link for Banja Luka, Derventa 217.23.199.224 20:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. - deletion reason unclear - Jcb (talk) 11:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
derivative work of a picture that does not appear free of rights, cf. this tineye search. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 02:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - Very cool image! But clearly derivative of unfree work. -Seidenstud (talk) 23:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep if User:Rama/Personalities drawings can be kept, then certainly this one can. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Mbdortmund (talk) 13:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
derivative work of http://24.img.v4.skyrock.net/246/plusbellelavie0/pics/134754016_1.jpg (work by France 3 to promote their television series "Plus belle la vie") (U.S. law applies on Commons and has a very low bar for originality) Hekerui (talk) 21:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- The painting is not a simple derivat of the photograph. It seems to be normal that it bear resemblance to the person. --Mbdortmund (talk) 22:06, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- It may be a computer-generated derivative of the photo. I am not familiar with the capabilities of en:Paint.NET, but I now doubt that this is a watercolor painted by the uploader. I am inclined to change my mind about this one. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:00, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- Ce fichier est mon travail Il n'est pas protégé par copyright.--Jeandefoix (talk) 11:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- Est le fichier une reproduction technique d'une photo? --Mbdortmund (talk) 15:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Simply doing a mirror image (as the user also did above) is not enough to avoid it being a DW. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
1. Map mixes population data with Council of Europe membership; 2. in an ugly way (font, some colours gone wrong (Malta, Greenland); 3. with mapping errors (Morocco dropping of); 4. with a useless list of countries on the left-hand side. 5. With no SVG available to make changes. Classical geographer (talk) 15:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. Contains wrong information. --Kolja21 (talk) 04:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- what's that? an anti-EU propaganda poster? with the russians and french written in large fonts and the poor uk in small fonts... seems good for deletion. Cliché Online (talk) 20:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. Seems poorly designed to me, particularly the mixing of population figures and CoE membership. Probably not too difficult to come up with a SVG version to just show CoE membership, and which doesn't have the mapping errors. TBH, it is probably not even necessary to place the country names on the map when simple outlines and colours would suffice. Astronaut (talk) 20:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- Note: I don't think this request was ever logged. See Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2009/12/03. Astronaut (talk) 01:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep It's in use. That trumps ugly.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep the passed criticism on the map is right but I think we should keep it until it is replaced --Mbdortmund (talk) 08:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I don't understand some of the nom's comments --
- what is wrong with Malta? It is a member and is shown in blue, as it should be.
- The question of whether Greenland is part of Denmark is complicated and certainly shouldn't be a reason to delete this.
- Therefore,
- it is certainly ugly
- it certainly should be SVG
- all the country names should be the same size
- all the country names should be in a color that shows up well against both land and sea
- but, it does not contain wrong information. (I ignore the omission of Morocco to the left of the caption box as Morocco is not relevant to the map.)
- And there are several other CoE maps (see File:Council of europe map.svg that show all the members and observers in SVG, but three articles use this one. It's not up to us to delete it. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- Good point: we should keep it until it's been replaced. I'll have a go one of these days. As for Malta and Greenland: it's the font that is the trouble: unreadable yellow on the light sea background for the former, unreadable black on the dark land background for the latter. Classical geographer (talk) 11:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Although I don't usually close DRs on which I have voted, in this case the nom has suggested that we keep it until he/she improves it. So be it. And, my apologies for misunderstanding the comment on Malta and Greenland. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Clotted, sometimes unreadable map; suitable alternative available. Classical geographer (talk) 22:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- I reopen the request for deletion, since I now found a perfect alternative at File:Carte du Conseil de l'Europe.png, even apart from the world map version referred to above. Classical geographer (talk) 22:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep It's being used. Go talk to the people who are using it, not us. It is our job to keep it as long as it's being used.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- That was easily fixed. Sorry, I thought other wikis got notified automatically. Classical geographer (talk) 10:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:01, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Ugly and unreadable map; no longer used. Classical geographer (talk) 22:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- I am reopening the request for deletion, since it seems to be no longer used on any project (that was the only resaon for it surviving the two previous nominations, right?) Astronaut (talk) 22:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Kept: upgly or not is a question of taste, but the quality isn't realy worse. As there is no license problem or similar.... --JuTa 21:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
File was uploaded on enwiki as en:File:DgwbluepiccopyOct10.jpg as own work by another user. MGA73 (talk) 21:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello, The picture 'DgwbluepiccopyOct10.jpg' should be retained and not deleted. I am with the record company which has produced this product and I am the owner of the picture. please retain this picture within the article on 'David G Walker'. Many thanks. G.Frenzy
- @MGA73, could you provide some more details? I'm unable to determine a valid deletion reason from this. Jcb (talk) 11:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept: no deletion reason provided Jcb (talk) 21:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Possible copyvio? Found here. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:31, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, the wayback machine shows it's a crop of a picture they already had in 2009, see here. Jcb (talk) 21:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted - Jcb (talk) 21:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC)