Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2011/01/17
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
_on_top_of_my_TV.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
![106 File:Lilo_&_Stitch's_Big_Panic_"Find_Stitch!".jpg](#File:Lilo_&_Stitch's_Big_Panic_"Find_Stitch!".jpg){kind=link}
![134 File:Banda_de_Música_"Alcalde_Zoilo_Ruiz_Mateos".jpg](#File:Banda_de_Música_"Alcalde_Zoilo_Ruiz_Mateos".jpg){kind=link}
Drawing appears to be a pencil copy of the second picture found on this site [1], which is itself from the video game Romance of the Three Kingdoms. I am not familiar with copyright law to know if this change (in medium) is enough to make the work a new, separate piece of intellectual property, but I thought it best to raise the concern and let experts decide. Furthermore, it may be that the file could be re-uploaded under fair use, but, again, I request expert input. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Delete Tracings are derivative works. It's possible it could be uploaded to Wikipedia under fair use, but it would better just to upload the original, wouldn't it? In any case, Commons does not do fair use.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Derivative copyviol. Infrogmation (talk) 04:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
out of scope, bad quality, not used or categorized 4028mdk09 (talk) 19:12, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, low res blurry own penis photo. -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
I have forgotten Category" (but now I have created it), so in the moment we need this site any more Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 08:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted -- Deadstar (msg) 08:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
This file is completely pointless. It was uploaded by a vandal to use in an attack page. it is currently unused, and can serve no useful purpose. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Out of scope. -- Deadstar (msg) 08:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
2011-01-15 at 12.35.jpg Mikelsong (talk) 16:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
deleted Out of scope. -- Deadstar (msg) 08:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Combines the non-free Wikipedia logo with a CC-BY-SA logo in the lower-right corner. Because it is not possible to license this work under CC-BY-SA without the permission of the Foundation, there is no way to comply with the license requirements of the CC-BY-SA logo. Also File:Poster Wikipedia10 Culleredo.svg. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- This a derivative work from File:Plakat-munich2-mitbeschnitt.pdf, I don't know if there is a special permission from Foundation for Wikipedia 10 years events. I'll ask it in ten.wikipedia and then I'll give you a response. Bye, --Elisardojm (talk) 09:12, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Note: I've solicited additional opinions regarding cases like these at Commons talk:Licensing. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Per Commons_talk:Licensing#Works_combining_WMF_logos_and_CC-BY-SA_works, when the unmodified logo is merely placed beside other elements, it is possible to characterize the result as a collective work rather than a derivative work.
Combines non-free Wikipedia logo with a CC-BY-SA photograph of a book. Since it is not possible to license this work under CC-BY-SA without the permission of the Foundation, there is no way to comply with the license of the book photo. See also File:2001 A Knowledge Odyssey Rosseta.png, File:2001 A Knowledge Odyssey Rosseta2.png, File:2001 A Knowledge Odyssey.png. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Category:Wikipedia screenshots - logo + free content. Przykuta → [edit] 08:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Nominating some of those as well. Dcoetzee (talk) 09:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Some, why not all with Wikipedia logos? File:NewPagePatroller.JPG and hundreds (thousands?) used on help-pages, meta-pages etc. etc. Przykuta → [edit] 09:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Okay I reviewed them and I think the Wikipedia screenshots are okay because the logo is not integrated with the page content into a single work, they're placed side-by-side and are separable (otherwise the web page itself would be a copyvio). In the past we've regarded copyleft images as not forcing us to release article in which they are used under the same license, and this is the same kind of deal. The banner image on the other hand incorporates both into a single graphic. I'd like to get someone else to look at this though because it seems ambiguous. Dcoetzee (talk) 09:47, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- "logo is not integrated with the page content", yes, but we talk about images, not about pages. Screenshots = Images. Look - logo with other images. Screen will be copyvio. Or not? What about this image: File:WikimediaMosaicCapture.png? You are probably right, but we have a lot works like these banners. Przykuta → [edit] 13:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- P.S. WMF stuff know about them... but authors of free images, used by me, don't know... I want to solve this problem. Commons:How to use Wikimedia logos in images? Przykuta → [edit] 13:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- "logo is not integrated with the page content", yes, but we talk about images, not about pages. Screenshots = Images. Look - logo with other images. Screen will be copyvio. Or not? What about this image: File:WikimediaMosaicCapture.png? You are probably right, but we have a lot works like these banners. Przykuta → [edit] 13:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Okay I reviewed them and I think the Wikipedia screenshots are okay because the logo is not integrated with the page content into a single work, they're placed side-by-side and are separable (otherwise the web page itself would be a copyvio). In the past we've regarded copyleft images as not forcing us to release article in which they are used under the same license, and this is the same kind of deal. The banner image on the other hand incorporates both into a single graphic. I'd like to get someone else to look at this though because it seems ambiguous. Dcoetzee (talk) 09:47, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Some, why not all with Wikipedia logos? File:NewPagePatroller.JPG and hundreds (thousands?) used on help-pages, meta-pages etc. etc. Przykuta → [edit] 09:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Nominating some of those as well. Dcoetzee (talk) 09:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Keep {{CopyrightByWikimedia}} is properly used and this template was designed to inform that certain parts of an image can be copyrighted (here by WMF). This image (or parts of it) is copyrighted by the Wikimedia Foundation. It is (or includes) one of the official logos or designs used by the Wikimedia Foundation . And it doesn't matter whether we deal with Wikipedia article screenshot, an interface screenshot, a banner or any other work containing WMF trademarks. Moreover, while establishing this template nothing was said about an integrity or separability of this or another part of image (e.g. logo). Like logically - what is a difference between logo being included in a banner or logo being a part of a screenshot? Masur (talk) 14:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- These are good questions I don't really know the answer to and I've solicited additional opinions at Commons talk:Licensing. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Per Commons_talk:Licensing#Works_combining_WMF_logos_and_CC-BY-SA_works, when the unmodified logo is merely placed beside other elements, it is possible to characterize the result as a collective work rather than a derivative work. Dcoetzee (talk) 02:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
User claims own work. I don't believe it. Reasons:
- User's history of copyvio uploads.
- User date is September 2010. Image appeared on web before that.
- Studio portrait of very important person. Unlikely done by our user.
- EXIF does not reflect use of a camera.
Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete as copyvio, this image is in use across multiple websites predating the local upload. We also have a contributor copyvio investigation for this user on en.wiki which has uncovered a lot. SpacemanSpiff (talk) 08:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Comment Not to detract from my comments and SpacemanSpiff's above, but to ensure that we don't run into flack for deleting for the wrong reason, we should note that the image cited by SpacemanSpiff and other images on the web are of significantly lower quality than this -- this image is 847 × 1,166 pixels and it is not simply a resample of any of the smaller web images. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:07, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- It is the official image from the Indian Army website (Indian governmental publications are copyrighted), although that one's of lower resolution too. SpacemanSpiff (talk) 06:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. Copyvio from this blog from September 2010. as the uploaders claim. Geagea (talk) 00:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- It is the official image from the Indian Army website (Indian governmental publications are copyrighted), although that one's of lower resolution too. SpacemanSpiff (talk) 06:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Closed early, clear copyvio, thanks to Geagea. Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:57, 22 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)
all rights reserved (c) 2009, pic from http://www.firststop.es/ --Aner77 (talk) 20:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC) Correct malformed DR Captain-tucker (talk) 06:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. also the uploader didn't provide a license. --Màñü飆¹5 talk 03:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
no evidence of permission Cindamuse (talk) 21:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- We received something at OTRS. It's not yet OK, but please don't close this DR too fast, to give it some time to get resolved. Jcb (talk) 00:17, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. - OTRS now OK - Jcb (talk) 20:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Protected symbol of the World Organization of the Scout Movement; see the Brand Manual; no longer in use as the enwiki uses were reverted where the editor attempted to use the WOSM emblem to inappropriately represent all Scouting. Gadget850 (talk) 00:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Already deleted by EugeneZelenko. --Màñü飆¹5 talk 04:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope, I don't see the use of this image. — Tanvir • 06:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Used in in one wikipedia but it has been deleted, so not needed, delete--Motopark (talk) 06:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope, article was deleted too George Chernilevsky talk 10:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Self-uploaded photo with no credible link to clinical insanity. It is hard to see how this photo could be of any use given the quality of the image, the image content as well as its description. --Meco (talk · contribs) Correct malformed DR. Captain-tucker (talk) 10:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope. -- Deadstar (msg) 16:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 10:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
unused personal foto Reinhardhauke (talk) 13:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Deadstar (msg) 08:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 10:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 13:09, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Orphan, uncat since Aug 2009. -- Infrogmation (talk) 18:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 10:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
useless without correct description Reinhardhauke (talk) 13:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. User not active since Aug 2009, unlikely to get identification. Infrogmation (talk) 18:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 10:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 13:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom Infrogmation (talk) 04:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 10:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 13:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Infrogmation (talk) 18:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 10:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
unused personal foto Reinhardhauke (talk) 13:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom; also questionable copyright, sourced to blogspot page. -- Infrogmation (talk) 18:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 10:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Image with SVG bug. Not used anywhere/replaced by File:Gadoteric acid.png. Leyo 17:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. NEURO ⇌ 06:14, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
No didactic purpose. Not used. BrightRaven (talk) 18:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Apparent vanity work; orphan, uncat and inadiquately described since 2007. No more recent contributions by uploader. Infrogmation (talk) 18:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. far out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 10:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Spam page/non-notable; A page with the exact same content was just deleted on en-wiki GfoleyFour 02:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted " * (show/hide) 08:25, 17 January 2011 Túrelio (talk | contribs | block) deleted "Thegrousers" (attempt to write an encyclopedia article/advert. Out of scope) (view/restore)" abf «Cabale!» 18:20, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Part of an irrelevant Article 134.2.3.102 08:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Part of an irrelevant article. 134.2.3.102 08:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete no in scope usefulness evident. Infrogmation (talk) 19:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 18:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Looks like a PR pic, uploader claims an "own work" 92.229.217.88 16:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC) Correct malformed DR Captain-tucker (talk) 10:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Deadstar (msg) 08:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted heavy... erm... heavily deleted :D abf «Cabale!» 18:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 13:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 18:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 13:06, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- More relevant might be the possible copyright violation. The original paintinsg are credited to "Viviana Pera", whereas the name of the uploader is given with Gauchi. --Túrelio (talk) 13:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 18:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 13:09, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted {{{Logo}} abf «Cabale!» 18:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 13:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted promotional, likely fails COM:L abf «Cabale!» 18:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 13:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted promotional, likely fails COM:L abf «Cabale!» 18:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 13:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted promotional, likely fails COM:L abf «Cabale!» 18:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
copywright not clear Reinhardhauke (talk) 13:16, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted TinEye gave a lot of hits abf «Cabale!» 18:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
without permission Reinhardhauke (talk) 13:16, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted well... you know {{Npd}}? abf «Cabale!» 18:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 13:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 13:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 18:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 13:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 13:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 13:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 18:35, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 13:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 18:35, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept Sorry for being late. Matt Forté is clearly in scope. -- Common Good (talk) 19:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
useless Reinhardhauke (talk) 13:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted COM:L + COM:PS abf «Cabale!» 18:35, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
useless Reinhardhauke (talk) 13:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 13:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 18:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
joke - see description Reinhardhauke (talk) 13:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 18:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 13:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 18:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 13:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
unused personal foto Reinhardhauke (talk) 13:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 18:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
unused personal foto Reinhardhauke (talk) 13:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Image shows a length piece of text which could be original enough to be copyrightable NotFromUtrecht (talk) 13:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted definetely abf «Cabale!» 18:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
useless Reinhardhauke (talk) 13:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted COM:PS + COM:L abf «Cabale!» 18:39, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Self-created artwork without obvious educational use יוסאריאן (talk) 13:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- It was my request, under my Other username, I uploaded the file, and I request to delete it. It si not being used, and has no educational value. Thanks, Yosarian (talk) 13:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted user requested abf «Cabale!» 18:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
unknown group Reinhardhauke (talk) 13:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 19:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 13:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted {{Logo}} + COM:PS abf «Cabale!» 18:42, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 13:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 18:42, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
- Selbstdarsteller, löschen. --Ralf Roletschek (talk) 01:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete As per nom.....Captain......Tälk tö me.. 08:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted abf «Cabale!» 17:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
unused personal foto Reinhardhauke (talk) 13:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
unused personal foto Reinhardhauke (talk) 13:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 18:51, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 13:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 18:51, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
unknown music band Reinhardhauke (talk) 13:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
unused personal foto Reinhardhauke (talk) 13:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted + personallity rights abf «Cabale!» 18:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
unused personal foto Reinhardhauke (talk) 13:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 18:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
unused personal foto Reinhardhauke (talk) 13:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 18:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 13:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 18:58, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 13:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 18:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 13:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 18:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 13:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted + {{Logo}} abf «Cabale!» 18:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 13:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 19:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 14:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 19:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 14:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 19:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 14:01, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 14:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 19:02, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 14:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 19:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
This is a derivative work of copyrighted logo of Windows 7. Karppinen (talk) 14:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 19:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
This image looks like a television screenshot. The uploader could be the person in the image, but I don't think that gives her the right to release screenshots of television programs, even if she is in it. -- Deadstar (msg) 16:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 19:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted for copyvio reason Deletion Log ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 17:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted # (show/hide) 05:34, 23 January 2011 ZooFari (talk | contribs | block) deleted "File:Yuri Shanghai 2010-04-17.jpg" (Reuploaded non-free content) (view/restore) (global usage; delinker log) abf «Cabale!» 19:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
probable copy violation as all pages at www.bu.ac.th are with copyright BU hdamm (talk) 17:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 19:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Copyrighted LOGO, contain artistic work other than simple design & fonts ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 18:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. I think those human figures pass the threshold of originality. Powers (talk) 18:16, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 19:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
out of scope 92.225.224.228 21:25, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 19:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Maps are not compatible with Commons:Freedom of panorama#Sweden. Kemikungen (talk) 10:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- Is it time to delete this image soon, or are we waiting for something? /Kemikungen (talk) 11:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
We're waiting for an Admin to have the time to go through this day's log and do the work. If you want to help, you could submit an RfA. Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Also:
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
This appears to be flickrwashing and copyright PBS: cf. w:File:SnowflakeGorilla.jpg. I cannot locate the original on pbs.com, but the pbs page appears to have been created in 2005, before the image was uploaded to flickr. Magog the Ogre (talk) 10:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete The Telegraph publishes a higher resolution version and credits it AP. Sorry for uploading it without checking further. Probably it should be deleted also File:Floquet de Neu (19426179).jpg from the same flickr user. --V.Riullop (talk) 20:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Maybe someone can add this flickr user to the blacklists: Commons:Questionable Flickr images, User:FlickreviewR/bad-authors. 68.232.119.30 09:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment This author also has File:West Oakland BART.jpg, File:Miss Van Fillmore St.jpg, File:Tramvia Barcelona.jpg (up for deletion), and File:The view from our section.jpg on commons. Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:37, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:44, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Photograph of a 2005 work of art by swiss artist. no indication of where image is taken. -- Deadstar (msg) 16:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Also 2002's File:Sentimento-ossola.jpg by the same painter. -- Deadstar (msg) 16:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Pic taken in Holland
Pls indicate what (maybe better: where I need to enter any additional info. I made the 2 Ossola pics myself with the Sony in the Netherlands. They have been made in the current owner's house. I'm not sure if I should indicate the current location? Please help me a step ahaed... Wezkoh (talk) 17:01, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- The photo of the painting is a Derivative work. Because the work is recent, the copyright lies with the painter of the image, regardless of who owns the painting.
- Location (country) would come into it if you want to claim it was free under the Freedom of Panorama rule, although not much of the surroundings of the image are visible. (I guess it does not apply here anyway.) I don't see how this can be licensed freely unless an email from the painter is received giving permission. -- Deadstar (msg) 16:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Clear
I will make new pictures with more panorama details and mention the name where the picture was made. In the Netherlands that would be enough I guess. I believe the paintings help describing the painter and that was the whole issue of course. Thanks for the info. I will make pictures asap, please leave the current ones for some days. Wezkoh (talk) 22:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for understanding. -- Deadstar (msg) 08:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Photographs of recent 2D works of art are a problem for us in almost every country as they infringe on the artist's copyright. The Dutch law says (in translation)
- "It is not an infringement of copyright to reproduce and publish pictures of a work ... which are made to be permanently located in public places, as long as the work is depicted as it is located in the public space"
I read that to mean that work must be on permanent display and you must show the context -- a whole wall of paintings, for example, not just one or two.
Alternately, photographs of artists' work for articles on the artists can be uploaded as "fair use" on many Wikipedias, but not on Commons. Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
http://www.escan.com/en/Terms_and_conditions doesn't state anything along the lines of the "Attribution" license given here. This could be a case for PD-Textlogo. -- Deadstar (msg) 16:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:36, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
This photo is a derivative work of the topiary sculpture pictured. There is no evidence that the sculpture is free, so the derivative work cannot be assumed to be free. Powers (talk) 16:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:36, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work of pictured animatronic. I believe animatronics are copyrightable as they are not purely utilitarian objects. See precedent at Commons:Deletion requests/File:TrixieBear.jpg. Powers (talk) 16:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:37, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work of the pictured sculpture; the sculpture is likely to be copyrighted without further evidence. Powers (talk) 16:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:37, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work of pictured animatronic. I believe animatronics are copyrightable as they are not purely utilitarian objects. See precedent at Commons:Deletion requests/File:TrixieBear.jpg. Powers (talk) 16:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:37, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work of pictured animatronic. I believe animatronics are copyrightable as they are not purely utilitarian objects. See precedent at Commons:Deletion requests/File:TrixieBear.jpg. Powers (talk) 16:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:37, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, there's FOP in Bolivia, but the drawing pictured is itself derivative of the Disney character. That makes the whole thing a derivative work and a copyright violation. Powers (talk) 16:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- I disagree. Article 22 of the Decision 351 of the Andean Community of Nations clearly states that "it will be legal to realize, without authorization from the author and without the payment of any remuneration, the following acts: [...] h) Realizing the reproduction, emitting by radio diffusion or public transmission by cable, of the image of [...] a work of fine arts [...], that is found situated in permanent form in a place open to the public" (cf. Commons:Freedom of panorama#Andean Community of Nations (Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru)). -- Toblu (talk) 17:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, but that's a moot point because the "work of fine arts" is already a copyright violation. I'm not claiming the artist's copyright is being infringed, but rather Disney's copyright by proxy. You can't make a copyvio legal just by putting it up in a public place in a FOP country! Powers (talk) 18:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Damnit, I guess you have a point there... :-/ -- Toblu (talk) 23:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, but that's a moot point because the "work of fine arts" is already a copyright violation. I'm not claiming the artist's copyright is being infringed, but rather Disney's copyright by proxy. You can't make a copyvio legal just by putting it up in a public place in a FOP country! Powers (talk) 18:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I believe parade floats are copyrightable, and there is no evidence that Disney has released this one under a free license. Powers (talk) 16:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I believe parade floats are copyrightable, and there is no evidence that Disney has released this one under a free license. Powers (talk) 17:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
_on_top_of_my_TV.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_on_top_of_my_TV.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Derivative work; no evidence that the original sculpture is free. Powers (talk) 17:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
_on_top_of_my_TV.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
_on_top_of_my_TV.jpg){kind=link}
Derivative work of the sand sculpture. No evidence that the photographer was also the sculptor, as the photographer's Flickr stream has a number of photos of other sculptures at the same contest. Powers (talk) 17:06, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
derivative work of pictured sculptures. FOP does not apply because they are not permanently located; they are mere objects temporarily displayed. Powers (talk) 17:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
derivative work of the TV broadcast, which is itself derivative of the float. Powers (talk) 17:09, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment If the uploader physically took this photograph themself, keep. If this is a photo of a tv screen/broadcast/tape, delete as copyright violation. Details of source & circumstances from uploader, please? -- Infrogmation (talk) 18:28, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- It's a moot point; even if the uploader physically took the photograph (unlikely given the television-like artifacts visible in the image), it's still a derivative work of the float. Powers (talk) 18:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- I do not concede that photographs of floats in parades are of necessity copyright violations. -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:16, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'm curious where you find an exception for floats in copyright law. There is no Freedom of Panorama in the U.S., and they are not purely functional items whose aesthetic value is inseparable from their function. What else is there that might allow such an exception? Powers (talk) 20:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'll no doubt bring up this argument again; some of the points include some 150 years of practice including recent works of photographs of US parade floats labeled as "no known restrictions" by the Library of Congress, the USA's copyright repository. However I think details are best gone into elsewhere (since I've already voted for deletion regarding this particular image due to a different point). In turn I'll ask what sort of derivative copyright of a float you think is being violated in this particular photo -- it looks to me that the float design is a simple representation of the USA flag, which is public domain. -- Infrogmation (talk) 01:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- But this is far more than a slavish reproduction of that flag; there were numerous creative choices made in deciding the placement of the flag sculptures, the specific ripple of the 'fabric', and the selection of flowers and plants to create the proper colors and texture. You do make a good point about the PD nature of the flag, though. =) Powers (talk) 13:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'll no doubt bring up this argument again; some of the points include some 150 years of practice including recent works of photographs of US parade floats labeled as "no known restrictions" by the Library of Congress, the USA's copyright repository. However I think details are best gone into elsewhere (since I've already voted for deletion regarding this particular image due to a different point). In turn I'll ask what sort of derivative copyright of a float you think is being violated in this particular photo -- it looks to me that the float design is a simple representation of the USA flag, which is public domain. -- Infrogmation (talk) 01:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'm curious where you find an exception for floats in copyright law. There is no Freedom of Panorama in the U.S., and they are not purely functional items whose aesthetic value is inseparable from their function. What else is there that might allow such an exception? Powers (talk) 20:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- I do not concede that photographs of floats in parades are of necessity copyright violations. -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:16, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- On second thought, Delete. Uploader has not been active here since 2006 so it seems unlikely we will get clarification from them; some of the uploader's other since deleted uploads indicate other problems with derivative works. -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:16, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- It's a moot point; even if the uploader physically took the photograph (unlikely given the television-like artifacts visible in the image), it's still a derivative work of the float. Powers (talk) 18:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Copyvio of TV broadcast, DW of float, DW of Mickey MOuse, 3 ways banned. Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:42, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work of the pictured sculpture, as well as of the drawings on the tank. Note that the Earful Tower is not a functional water tower, so it does not count as a functional item. Powers (talk) 17:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Comment Are you sure it's not a functional water tower? — Loadmaster (talk) 04:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Okay, yeah, it's not. See here. — Loadmaster (talk) 04:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:43, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I believe parade floats are copyrightable, and there is no evidence that Disney has released this one under a free license. FOP does not apply because the work is not permanently situated. Powers (talk) 17:12, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- I had no idea float images are copyvio. This means there are thousands of images on the commons in violation - Amog |Talk 17:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- That wouldn't surprise me. It does depend on the country in question, though most countries provide FOP exceptions only for permanently installed works; a parade float is not permanently installed, by definition. Powers (talk) 18:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Well, if you are certain this image is a violation, go ahead and delete it. I have no objections - Amog |Talk 20:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- That wouldn't surprise me. It does depend on the country in question, though most countries provide FOP exceptions only for permanently installed works; a parade float is not permanently installed, by definition. Powers (talk) 18:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:44, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Severe Tropical Cyclone Rona eventually reformed into Frank, new track map is at File:Rona-Frank 1999 track.png — Iune(talk) 17:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep The storms are distinct events, as there is a significant time frame between dissipation of Rona and formation of Frank. However, more importantly both individual maps are factually accurate and still have value as a result. Replacement by a quite different image is not a valid deletion reason.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- That is true but Rona and Frank were the same system as per the Australian Bureau of Meteorology. — Iune(talk) 15:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- Whether Rona and Frank are the same system or not (which is debatable) is not relevant to whether the files should be kept or deleted. There is value in each of the individual tracks (and there is in the composite too), this is easy to demonstrate. The Australians (who consider them to be the same system) use a version of the Rona-only track in their report on report on Rona, why? Because that image is more useful to illustrate that report than the larger image would be. The same is true for WP, the Rona-only track is more useful to illustrate a section specifically about Rona for instance. To repeat: Deletion policy does not cover the situation and therefore these files should be kept. --Nilfanion (talk) 16:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:45, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Severe Tropical Cyclone Rona eventually reformed into Frank, new track map is at File:Rona-Frank 1999 track.png — Iune(talk) 17:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep The storms are distinct events, as there is a significant time frame between dissipation of Rona and formation of Frank. However, more importantly both individual maps are factually accurate and still have value as a result. Replacement by a quite different image is not a valid deletion reason.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- That is true but Rona and Frank were the same system as per the Australian Bureau of Meteorology. — Iune(talk) 15:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- Whether Rona and Frank are the same system or not (which is debatable) is not relevant to whether the files should be kept or deleted. There is value in each of the individual tracks (and there is in the composite too), this is easy to demonstrate. The Australians (who consider them to be the same system) use a version of the Rona-only track in their report on report on Rona, why? Because that image is more useful to illustrate that report than the larger image would be. The same is true for WP, the Rona-only track is more useful to illustrate a section specifically about Rona for instance. To repeat: Deletion policy does not cover the situation and therefore these files should be kept. --Nilfanion (talk) 16:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:46, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
No evidence uploader is copyright holder. User with talk page history of copyright problems at en Wikipedia. Kelly (talk) 17:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC) Also the following other files. Kelly (talk) 17:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- File:IZA and BB.jpg
- File:NW-Gul-IZA.jpg
- File:Zardari and Iqbal Z. Ahmed.png
- File:Iqbal Z. Ahmed, Shaukat Aziz, Khalid Maqbool.png
- File:IZA and Zia.jpg
- File:PM Soomro, Walters, IZA.png
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work. Powers (talk) 17:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:01, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work Powers (talk) 18:01, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:01, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work of the pictured sculpture. Powers (talk) 18:01, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:01, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
All Rights Reserved on Flickr. Not that I think the Flickr user has any right to this photo, either. Powers (talk) 18:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Flickr rights now set to "Attribution." What would make you believe the Flickr user has no right to the photo? Is someone else claiming ownership? Beteille (talk) 17 January 2011
- The photo was taken in 1934, not "February 8, 2009 using an HP psc1600" as claimed on the Flickr page. That alone is enough to call the authorship into question. Considering the age of the photo, in fact, I think we need positive evidence that the uploader has rights to it, rather than assuming such. Powers (talk) 18:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- According to the description below the Flickr image, the photograph was taken Thursday, November 29, 1934. (The date is supported by historical accounts from Macy's, The Walt Disney Co., Time Magazine and others.) It's safe to assume the photograph was captured by a camera that could not create digital EXIF data, so the automated Flickr EXIF data ("Taken on February 8, 2009") is unreliable for dating the image and does not call the authorship into question. The "HP psc1600" included in Flickr's data refers to a common digital printer-scanner, and likely reflects the means of digitizing the original 1934 image. (Also note the "posted to Flickr" date is some 5 months before the "taken on" date, casting even further doubt on the reliability of Flickr's automated EXIF data.) Regardless, the Flickr image has an acceptable license, so this deletion request should be denied. --Beteille (talk) 19:37, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- For additional clarification and accuracy, image author summary changed from "Beteille" to "William J. Crawford via Beteille"
First, it's straightforward Flickrwashing -- There is no evidence that the Flickr user had any rights to this image.
Second, the image is a derivative work of the copyright on Mickey Mouse.
So, it's doubly not acceptable here.
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:06, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
The pictured drawings are derivative works of the copyrighted Disney characters. Powers (talk) 18:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:07, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I believe parade floats are copyrightable, and there is no evidence that Disney has released this one under a free license. Powers (talk) 18:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:07, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
derivative work (photograph) of drawing owned by Wall Street Journal 75.211.133.65 18:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Drawing is no longer owned by the Wall Street Journal. The original work artwork was purchased by the poster (Mslsil) directly from the Wall Street Journal in an auction on Ebay several years prior to 25 September 2010 (the time it was posted on Wikipedia).
--Mslsil (talk) 00:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Purchasing a work of art very rarely transfers the copyright. If that were true, then we would have no problem with images of privately held works of living artists. Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:11, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I believe parade floats are copyrightable, and there is no evidence that Disney has released this one under a free license. Powers (talk) 18:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
![18:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2011/01/17#c-LtPowers-2011-01-17T18:10:00.000Z-File:Lilo_&_Stitch's_Big_Panic_"Find_Stitch!".jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
![13:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2011/01/17#c-Jameslwoodward-2011-01-29T13:38:00.000Z-File:Lilo_&_Stitch's_Big_Panic_"Find_Stitch!".jpg){kind=link}
Derivative work of the pictured animation. Powers (talk) 18:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in France. Powers (talk) 18:12, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
FOP in Hong Kong applies only to architecture and works of artistic craftsmanship. This appears to be a graphic work, which is not subject to FOP permissions. Powers (talk) 18:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
FOP in Finland for buildings only, sculptor fi:Alvar Gullichsen still living so not in Public Domain yet. A333 (talk) 19:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work of Finnish sculptor Alvar Gullichsen (Wikidata:Q5776370), born 1961, living. Sculpture Posankka (Wikidata:Q2578422) in Turku unveiled in 1999. No Freedom of Panorama for sculptures in Finland, not in PD. Htm (talk) 17:24, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: Same image as previous deletion. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:06, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
inappropriate license. The author of the website certainly doesn't own copyright to this photograph and it cannot be licensed under the terms of creative commons license. According to the Images from the History of Medicine the photograph was taken in 1948 and may be under copyright protection [2]. Filip em (talk) 20:28, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work of copyrighted comics character A333 (talk) 20:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
It is not traslated in Romanian, witch was the main goal. Ilcaragiale2 (talk) 21:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per uploader. Uploaded in error. -- Deadstar (msg) 09:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I think that the logotype is a property of Croatia Records d.d. - the owner of all Jugoton's property after privatization of this ex-YU label in 1990. Kobac (talk) 21:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter; a logo such as this is not copyrightable and should be tagged with {{PD-textlogo}}. {{Trademark}} can be used in addition to indicate trademark status. Powers (talk) 22:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Probably flickrwashing. The tramway 66 Sarrià-Paral·lel of Barcelona was closed between 1966-1968. It is not believable that the flickr user could take the photo himself. V.Riullop (talk) 22:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete see also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Floquet de Neu.jpg. Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:37, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:45, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to by own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. --Dferg (talk · meta) 03:08, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Converted to LaTeX (was used only here) --Marozols (talk) 05:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Converted to LaTeX (was used only here) --Marozols (talk) 05:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
uploader has not explained how they hold the copyright to a hundred-year old poem Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 06:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Changed template to {{PD-Japan}} and kept. The creator died in 1932. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
This image is from honeybell.com. I found no evidence that images from there are 'free to use'. If the image should be deleted, it can be replaced by this image: File:Minneola fruit 3.jpg. They say, that use of images is prohibited here. Amada44 talk to me 08:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 13:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 13:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Coat of arms San Miguel. In scope. -- Common Good (talk) 18:51, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
In use, therefore in scope. Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Lacking source information (WIkipedia is not a source). Broken licensing info. Damiens.rf 14:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Note - the following files seems to be from the same source. Kelly (talk) 16:40, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
from http://www.stern-muziek.nl/discografie (gallery - second image in). Uploader's only contribution, it could be a case of the band's selfpromotion (in which case we would need OTRS permission). -- Deadstar (msg) 14:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Source is (C), therefore Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:17, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Uploader claims copyright, but this is an historical image of which there is no date and no clear source. Copyrights could still apply. (If closed/kept - please rename to Poncelet Cyrano.jpg or similar as obviously filename isn't very descriptive...) -- Deadstar (msg) 15:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Logo for a Dutch broadcaster cannot be released into the PD by uploader. However, there might be a case for PD-text logo as it's circles and letters, but I'm not convinced. Marking this for deletion as copyvio. -- Deadstar (msg) 16:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
useless Reinhardhauke (talk) 13:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Keezen. Not useless. -- Common Good (talk) 18:54, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep game board. Perfectly useful, and well within scope. MKFI (talk) 22:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 13:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Tiptoety talk 03:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 13:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Tiptoety talk 03:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 13:40, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Tiptoety talk 03:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 13:40, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Tiptoety talk 03:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Too low of resolution to confirm that it is actually her. 117Avenue (talk) 03:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep in use, better alternative not exist --George Chernilevsky talk 10:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
- Correct, but it may not be her. 117Avenue (talk) 22:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. - no indication was provided that it would not be her - Jcb (talk) 13:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
uncorrect author Reinhardhauke (talk) 13:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
![13:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2011/01/17#c-Reinhardhauke-2011-01-17T13:07:00.000Z-File:Banda_de_Música_"Alcalde_Zoilo_Ruiz_Mateos".jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 13:35, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
![13:35, 17 February 2011 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2011/01/17#c-Jcb-2011-02-17T13:35:00.000Z-File:Banda_de_Música_"Alcalde_Zoilo_Ruiz_Mateos".jpg){kind=link}
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 13:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 13:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
wrong file name Kristian Bertel (talk) 13:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Did you upload it again (if yes, where?) or will we just rename the image? -- Deadstar (msg) 16:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 13:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Eu me confundi. O ficheiro não é de uma Rua, e sim de uma Avenida. Eduardo P (talk) 22:59, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Kept. - utiliza {{Rename}} - Jcb (talk) 20:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Picture with wrong title. The right is Avenida (avenue) Nossa Senhora do Porto da Eterna Salvação 2. Is a my error. Eduardo P (talk) 14:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
file renamed to File:Avenida Nossa Senhora do Porto da Eterna Salvação 2.jpg Esby (talk) 14:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
No reason to believe this image is PD on the U.S. Damiens.rf 14:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - The image has a plain {{PD-US}} tag from my earlier days of uploading, when it ought to have been {{PD-1996}}. I've fixed the tag. Image is public domain in Canada, and as a matter of practice we are not deleting images on Commons that were public domain in their source country prior to the URAA date (in fact, we are not even deleting images that became public domain in their source country after the URAA date, as {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} attests to). --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 13:38, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't think uploader has the rights to release the logo of this Dutch cheese company. -- Deadstar (msg) 15:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
COM:FOP#Saudi_Arabia - No FoP allowed ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 17:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- On his own Russavia deleted File:Saudi Arabian Airline HQ Fixed.jpeg - I would like to have a copy of this file e-mailed to be so I can upload it to the Commons.
- When considering whether having no FoP allowed affects the picture, consider whether the building has an "original" design. Precedent seems to be that non-distinct buildings in any country, regardless of FoP status, are kept because their designs aren't copyrightable.
- WhisperToMe (talk) 00:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- I put the derivative over this version. --Martin H. (talk) 00:27, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you! If this is deleted, I will re-upload this as a fair use image on EN and AR. WhisperToMe (talk) 12:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yes! its more better to rescue.....Captain......Tälk tö me.. 13:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you! If this is deleted, I will re-upload this as a fair use image on EN and AR. WhisperToMe (talk) 12:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- I put the derivative over this version. --Martin H. (talk) 00:27, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 13:40, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Freedom of panorama is not available in KSA, please see this Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Saudi_Arabia ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 17:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- If the building does violate the FOP of Saudi Arabia, please arrange to have the image moved to the English and Arabic Wikipedias. WhisperToMe (talk) 12:33, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- You can do it, by uploading it over there..under fair use ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 03:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 13:43, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Freedom of panorama is not available in KSA, please see this Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Saudi_Arabia ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 17:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- If the building does violate the FOP of Saudi Arabia, please arrange to have the image moved to the English and Arabic Wikipedias. (English Wikipedia has an article on the Jeddah Hilton) WhisperToMe (talk) 12:34, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept. - all possible FoP issues are DM - Jcb (talk) 13:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
70% of the picture is being covered by the hotel structure. De minimis cannot be applied, Freedom of panorama is not available in KSA, please see this Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Saudi_Arabia ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 13:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - Most of the surface is covered by simple elements, like square windows, that cannot be copyrighted. Please specify which *original* architectural element is that prominent that it cannot be DM - Jcb (talk) 14:01, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- Comment its not necessary to show a new kind of style on those buildings to have a copyright, even-though its simple (simple window...simple frame...simple paint...etc) the original architect deserves the copyright of that unless its not a derivative of similar kind......Captain......Tälk tö me.. 19:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- I would be inclined to say that the principle of copyright ineligibility does not normally apply to architecture. The components of this building were all specifically chosen by the architect: the spacing of the windows, the materials of the wall, etc. At the very least I would like to see that there is precedent for applying copyright ineligibility to architecture for this to be kept, especially for a photo of an entire wall of a building like this. As it stands, I would recommend Delete per COM:PRP. Jujutacular talk 22:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Buildings are subject to copyright, as discussed at Commons:Freedom of panorama#Buildings and sculptures as works of art. Pruneautalk 14:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, no freedom of panorama in Saudi Arabia. Kameraad Pjotr 20:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Minnie Mouse parade floats
[edit]
I believe parade floats are copyrightable, and there is no evidence that Disney has released this one under a free license. --Powers (talk) 18:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
No FOP for architectural works in France. The Grande Arche is very prominent in this image. 67.80.214.27 22:25, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 13:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Russian FOP case. Architect Lev Rudnev died in 1956. Fernrohr (talk) 07:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 21:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Architecturial work of Lev Rudnev, who died in 1956 ([3]). There is no FOP in Russia ([4]), and Russian law is applied retroactively to Soviet works ([5]). Should be in category "Undelete in 2027/31". -- Fernrohr (talk) 09:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - 'architecture' is not the same as 'a building' - Jcb (talk) 18:47, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- This building is obviously a highly unique architecturial work... --Fernrohr (talk) 13:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete: It's pretty well established here that buildings are indeed subject to copyright, and without Freedom of Panorama in Russia, we can't keep this. Buddy431 (talk) 20:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Freedom of Panorama protects the copyright of this building until 2027. Pruneautalk 07:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Russian FOP case. Architect Lev Rudnev died in 1956. Fernrohr (talk) 07:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 21:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Architecturial work of Lev Rudnev, who died in 1956 ([6]). There is no FOP in Russia ([7]), and Russian law is applied retroactively to Soviet works ([8]). Should be in category "Undelete in 2027/31". -- Fernrohr (talk) 09:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - 'architecture' is not the same as 'a building' - Jcb (talk) 18:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- This building is obviously a highly unique architecturial work... --Fernrohr (talk) 13:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. On commons, buildings are considered subject to copyright: the threshold of originality is quite low in the U.S., where the servers are located. Buddy431 (talk) 20:27, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Freedom of Panorama protects the copyright of this building until 2027. Pruneautalk 07:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)