Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2011/01/22
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
Out of project scope, used for vandalism on enwiki Acroterion (talk) 04:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted definetely abf «Cabale!» 06:58, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Out of project scope, personal snapshot used for non-notble page creations on enwiki Acroterion (talk) 04:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted speedyed as an Attackimage and copyviol abf «Cabale!» 06:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
no indication that the webpage implies CC3-licensing Seb az86556 (talk) 01:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. By User: Infrogmation: Exact or scaled-down duplicate: orphan dupe of File:Govnathandealga.jpgGeagea (talk) 00:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
This file copyright violation. Since the covers of drawings animated or program are not allowed on commons. Elberth 00001939 (talk) 01:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean "the covers of drawings animated or program". Can you elaborate, please? Thanks! 01:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mowilynne (talk • contribs)
Comment I'm not sure what the "Since the covers" phrase refers to either. I am sure this poster is a copyrighted work. Uploader claims permssion from copyright holder to release under a free license; I have notified them they must provide confirmation of this claim per Commons:OTRS. Unless confirmation of free license from copyright holder is recieved, file will be deleted. Infrogmation (talk) 02:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. By User: ABF: Fair use material is not allowed on Commons: poster. --Geagea (talk) 00:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
rhdjnxndxhbxzbzxhnxbcbc vytufjghnfhfvhfvhcgcgv ghhhfghn fjncvbcvcvgbd fgfgfggf 89.229.151.86 09:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
hnbhcvjkfjfujfjgjfjdhbcbv gchncb bb bn bc fghxgxsbhftttgyyg ghhnfhf 89.229.151.86 09:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
bvbvvgbgvcgbnvgcvhvvb gfbdgxsvbdgfd 89.229.151.86 09:08, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
gvbdchndchgf tgfrfhbdfvbdx gtfgdgdxgd 89.229.151.86 09:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Speedy kept, apparent nonsense/vandalism listing. -- Infrogmation (talk) 21:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
"source: My Computer" no licence after 7 days. likely a copy vio aswell Evalowyn (talk) 13:08, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 17:12, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
"source: My Computer" no licence after 7 days. likely a copy vio aswell Evalowyn (talk) 13:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 17:16, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
matches http://www.chileactores.cl/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/articles-83775_foto_portada.jpg from http://www.chileactores.cl/ Teofilo (talk) 17:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 01:23, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
uploader is not reliable enough when he asserts own work. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Francisco Melo.jpg. Matches the picture on http://www.rpc.com.py/calle7/participantes/matias.html Teofilo (talk) 17:40, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyvio from http://www.rpc.com.py/calle7/participantes/matias.html. --Martin H. (talk) 01:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
uploader is not reliable enough when he asserts own work. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Francisco Melo.jpg. Matches http://dueledecirlo.paraguay.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Alfre-y-Ariel.jpg from http://dueledecirlo.paraguay.com Teofilo (talk) 17:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 01:23, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
"source: My Computer" no licence after 7 days. likely a copy vio aswell Evalowyn (talk) 13:10, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted but not by -- Deadstar (msg) 14:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Entry is screwed Need to upload a correct version Belaro (talk) 13:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Did you re-upload the file? -- Deadstar (msg) 14:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- Not yet. The software wont let me Belaro (talk) 16:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted {{Nld}} for more than 7 days abf «Cabale!» 14:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Entry is screwed Need to upload a correct version Belaro (talk) 13:16, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Did you re-upload the file? -- Deadstar (msg) 14:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- Not yet. The software wont let me Belaro (talk) 16:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted {{Nld}} for more than 7 days abf «Cabale!» 14:45, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
It should be moved to en.wikipedia, as it is a fair use image, not the property of the uploader Floydian (talk) 17:58, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- Don't this qualify {{PD-shape}}? Rehman 07:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- I agree. This is too simple to be eligible for copyright. Imzadi 1979 → 09:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- That works as well... Can we say the same of some of the other route logos at en:List of Ontario Tourist Routes? - Floydian (talk) 23:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
- IMO some of those fit the criteria: 1, 2, 3, 4. But I'm not really sure. Although, if anyone does transfer them here, maybe it would be better convert those to SVG before transferring... Rehman 00:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- Not sure about the Terry Fox logo. Its simple, but insanely recognizable. I would make svg versions as well and delete the poor quality jpgs after that. - Floydian (talk) 16:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- IMO some of those fit the criteria: 1, 2, 3, 4. But I'm not really sure. Although, if anyone does transfer them here, maybe it would be better convert those to SVG before transferring... Rehman 00:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- That works as well... Can we say the same of some of the other route logos at en:List of Ontario Tourist Routes? - Floydian (talk) 23:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep BluewaterTrail, as it's plainly too simple for copyright. No opinion on the others. Nyttend (talk) 02:14, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept, quite clear that there are no issues with the current file being discussed. Rehman 07:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
out of scope, violating personal rights, no description 4028mdk09 (talk) 06:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, useless, and no license either. Nyttend (talk) 23:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete --Theda (talk) 23:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 09:09, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
out of scope, violating personal rights 4028mdk09 (talk) 06:08, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 09:09, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
out of scope, wrong licence, bad quality 4028mdk09 (talk) 06:11, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Delete Per nom. --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)- Delete Oh my. Out of scope. --Theda (talk) 23:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 09:08, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
out of our project scope abf «Cabale!» 06:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete . Unused, out of scope.--Theda (talk) 23:33, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 09:10, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I mistakenly uploaded it DrShay (talk) 12:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. per Uploader request, also very poor quality George Chernilevsky talk 09:14, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I mistakenly uploaded it DrShay (talk) 12:49, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. per Uploader request, also out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 09:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I mistakenly uploaded it DrShay (talk) 12:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. per Uploader request, also out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 09:13, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE : self made art by uploader Teofilo (talk) 16:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 09:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
out of COM:SCOPE self created artwork without obvious educational purpose Teofilo (talk) 16:44, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 09:15, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
out of COM:SCOPE artwork without obvious educational purpose Teofilo (talk) 17:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 09:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Quality too low for use. --ZooFari 19:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. too poor George Chernilevsky talk 09:25, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Unused personal photograph, out of project scope. Karppinen (talk) 21:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 09:25, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Wrong structure (look here, author missing, low quality Yikrazuul (talk) 21:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Have correct structure in same and other formats, don't need unused incorrect one. DMacks (talk) 22:32, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- OK with me; the other version seems like a clear improvement. (I'm the author.) – gpvos (talk) 22:05, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. NEURO ⇌ 11:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
poor quality, plenty of alternatives Yikrazuul (talk) 22:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. --Leyo 23:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 09:26, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
poor quality, plenty of alternatives Yikrazuul (talk) 22:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. --Leyo 23:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 09:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Unused and out of COM:SCOPE. Uploader's only remaining contribution. Wknight94 talk 23:16, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 09:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
no indication that this is a free picture. sourceSeb az86556 (talk) 01:11, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- need OTRS-permission, so delete--Motopark (talk) 01:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted * (show/hide) 19:24, 29 January 2011 ZooFari (talk | contribs | block) deleted "File:Janbrewer.jpg" (No license since 22 January 2011) (view/restore) (global usage; delinker log) abf «Cabale!» 18:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
File:Afbeelding_van_Mao_Dun_en_Atatürk_met_in_de_achtergrond_de_embleem_van_de_turkse_landmacht.jpg
[edit]Source for image is a google search; searcher claims to be holder of copyright. That's highly unlikely. Richardw (talk) 07:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- delete all, quite obvious vio. These cases would be better handled through a single AFD page. NVO (talk) 15:42, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted all abf «Cabale!» 18:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Suspicious file, source is listed as Wikipedia, date is listed as 2008, even though it looks like it was taken in the 80s when Gemayel was president (description also labels him as preident). FunkMonk (talk) 08:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, no proper source is provided: I can't find the image anywhere at Wikipedia, and I suspect that Paul Munhoven wasn't the Wikipedia uploader — as a result, if it were an own work by the Wikipedia uploader, it's still likely a copyvio. Your point is strong, but the lack of Wikipedia upload data makes the status of this image even more problematic. Nyttend (talk) 00:10, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete No source but may have come from here [1], possible copy-bio.--Theda (talk) 23:38, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Even if it's suspicions for having a free licensing, it still needed for the article wherein it's being used. Userpd (talk) 21:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- Then it should be uploaded with a fair use rationale on Wikipedia, that is no argument for keeping it here. FunkMonk (talk) 01:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- FunkMonk is right. Wikimedia Commons accepts only free content which means non-free content cannot be accepted even if needed. --Theda (talk) 03:22, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 18:18, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Finding an image through google doesn't give you copyright Richardw (talk) 08:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 18:18, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Finding an image through google doesn't give you copyright Richardw (talk) 08:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 18:18, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Finding an image through google doesn't give you copyright Richardw (talk) 08:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 18:18, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Error Davidpar (disc.) 11:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted uploader request abf «Cabale!» 18:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Nur05018.jpg Teemeah (talk) 13:53, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted * (show/hide) 19:29, 29 January 2011 ZooFari (talk | contribs | block) deleted "File:Párnaláva.jpg" (Per Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Párnaláva.jpg) (view/restore) (global usage; delinker log) abf «Cabale!» 18:25, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
advertising -.- Evalowyn (talk) 16:52, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm the uploader of this image. The quality of the image is really bad and the band doesn't exist anymore in this formation. -Mmemichi (talk) 19:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Personal image. Delete per user request. -- Deadstar (msg) 15:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 18:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Apple logo copyvio P. S. Burton (talk) 19:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted " * (show/hide) 20:27, 22 January 2011 Str4nd (talk | contribs | block) deleted "File:Anti-apple-logo2.jpg" (Copyright violation: Copyright Apple) (view/restore) (global usage; delinker log)" abf «Cabale!» 18:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
copyvio windows logo P. S. Burton (talk) 19:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted " * (show/hide) 20:26, 22 January 2011 Str4nd (talk | contribs | block) deleted "File:Windows 7 Bild.jpg" (Copyright violation: Copyright Microsoft Corporation) (view/restore) (global usage; delinker log)" abf «Cabale!» 18:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Photo of a newspaper or another photo, but not a self-created photograph. Martin H. (talk) 19:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Looks like scanned from a newspaper. Moumou82 (talk) 11:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per Moumou Rastrojo (D•ES) 13:16, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted " * (show/hide) 14:07, 24 January 2011 Rastrojo (talk | contribs | block) deleted "File:Tunisienne Révolution capital.JPG" (Per Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Tunisienne_Révolution_capital.JPG) (view/restore) (global usage; delinker log)" abf «Cabale!» 18:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
image was either scanned-in or captured from TV Denniss (talk) 21:58, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted " * (show/hide) 23:42, 22 January 2011 Túrelio (talk | contribs | block) deleted "File:Villacampa.jpg" (Copyright violation: http://baloncestoestadisticadelosmejores.blogspot.com/2009/10/jordi-villacampa-el-corazon-verdinegro.html) (view/restore) (global usage; delinker log)" abf «Cabale!» 18:28, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
wrong file title LaSo (talk) 23:30, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted uploader's request abf «Cabale!» 18:29, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Photograph of a painting, and the uploader doesn't own the copyright of the painting. Lack of proof the painting is in the public domain or has been released under a free license. PhilKnight (talk) 01:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
*Keep I have updated the description and the source: [2] Victor falk (talk) 07:39, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Better to delete. I'll re-upload. Victor falk (talk) 16:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
no indication that the webpage implies CC3-licensing Seb az86556 (talk) 01:17, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
The website clearly state that this picture can be replicated! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesusfreak01 (talk • contribs)
- It states you are free to print it for private use; it does not imply commercial use , and does not imply conforming with the CC3-license of Commons. Seb az86556 (talk) 01:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete unless we get some confirmation from the actual copyright holder/creator they release it under a free license. Infrogmation (talk) 02:12, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
no indication that the webpage implies CC3-licensing Seb az86556 (talk) 01:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom Infrogmation (talk) 02:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
All files uploaded to Wikipedia by the original uploader were deleted after it was determined he was passing on the work of others as his own, including several unambigious copyvios that contained the original creator's watermark. Kralizec! (talk) 03:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, the original uploader's talk page demonstrates that we can't assume good faith on his/her part. Nyttend (talk) 23:44, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
There is a better version of the image here. We probably don't need both of them. Rockfang (talk) 04:44, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep, no reason to get rid of a decent archival version, especially since the better version is a derivative work of this one. Nyttend (talk) 23:40, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- 'Keep - I agree. --108.18.194.162 22:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Better image.--Theda (talk) 23:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
File:Afbeelding_van_Ataturk_en_Mao_Dun_met_in_de_achtergrond_de_embleem_van_de_turkse_landmacht.jpg
[edit]contents and name image do not match. source of file is an external website. uploader claims to hold copyright. that's unlikely. Richardw (talk) 08:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Closing previously deleted file. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Unclear author/source information: Are both images by the uploader? Or is it a collage of images of different origin. Then the licensing/source/authorship must be clearly stated 91.57.68.204 08:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. The German text states that the author (Peterwuttke) created the images. I have provided an English translation. --Bermicourt (talk) 14:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
The image got a wrong file name, it should be "Tunavallen, Luleå (2005)". But I can't upload the file with the new namn unless this one is deleted. Skizzik (talk) 10:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. File was moved to new suggested name. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Lifetime of author plus 70 years means its author died before 1941. As author is anonymous, this assumption should not be made. Madcynic (talk) 11:12, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- PD-Anonymous-EU, then? If so, then keep. (And as a bonus, it's just outside the URAA's potential reach.) (Btw, the source website of the National Museums appears very well documented, so if they concluded that the image is anonymous, that should be safe.)
- Looks good then. I'll change the template. Madcynic (talk) 11:49, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:10, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Architectural model in Ukraine. No evidence of permission from architect. Derivative work : see COM:DW Teofilo (talk) 11:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Sculpture in Lithuania : COM:FOP#Lithuania. The figure on the side of the sculpture reads 2004 (or 2994, it is hard to say) and means probably it was built in 2004. I don't speak Lithuanian and can't read what is written on the sculpture. Teofilo (talk) 12:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- Well, that Khatchkar is made at 2004 but as it is more folk art monument rather than individual, original art monument you should keep it. There are thousands of crosses, wayside shrines, scultptures of the saints made by local artists in Lithuania and their photos are widely distributed at the internet. In fact, nobody cares about that law in Lithuania it maybe only applies to very modern, original monuments or museum exhibitions. Hugo.arg (talk) 20:16, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, many users here care about deleting stuff, and the house rule on Lithuania is quite simple: "Not OK". Commons doesn't care if it's a piece of "modern art", a thousand-year-old khachkar, or a pile of bricks. Commons had once deleted a photo of a plain grey column because it belonged to a Corbusian building. Move to wikipedias (if it's of any use there), delete here. NVO (talk) 09:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
German 1930 map with two authors : Lange and Dierke. Dierke died in 1913 : http://www.diercke.de/ueber_diercke/atlasfaq.xtp#name but the death year of Lange is not provided and unknown to me. Teofilo (talk) 12:14, 22 January 2011 (UTC) withdrawn Teofilo (talk) 12:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Although I nominate only one, all media in Category:Lange-Diercke Sachsen have the same problem. I don't know if they are all from the same uploader. Teofilo (talk) 12:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- Henry Lange died in 1893, see [3] (sorry, no english article). Both, Lange and Dierke are not the authors of this atlas. Lange and Dierke are (of course) the authors of some previous atlases of this type. Lange-Diercke is only some type of a trademark the publisher uses for its atlases. Westermann is today still publishing atlases with the label Diercke. The authors of the atlas discussed here are anonymous, thats why the copyright stops 70 years after publiction. The atlas does not name a publication date, but a note within the atlas dates from 1935. As of discussions within family I know that the atlas is from between 1930 to 1934. --Bananenfalter (talk) 12:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- All media in this category is from me. --Bananenfalter (talk) 12:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- OK request withdrawn. But please write |author=anonymous instead of writing |author=Bananenfalter : that makes things easier to understand. Teofilo (talk) 12:32, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, I will change that for all images. Do you think I should add any note to the Permission-Tag, that explains the situation? (Suggestions welcome!) --Bananenfalter (talk) 12:46, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- OK request withdrawn. But please write |author=anonymous instead of writing |author=Bananenfalter : that makes things easier to understand. Teofilo (talk) 12:32, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- You could use {{Anonymous-EU}} instead of {{PD-old}}. You might use or inspire yourself from {{Book}} (example), which has additional fields such as | Editor =
| Translator = | Illustrator = | Title = | Subtitle = | Series title = | Volume = | Edition = | Publisher = | Printer = | Date = | City = Teofilo (talk) 13:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
ESA is All Rights Reserved, and NLR disallows commercial usage; neither is compatible with Wikimedia licensing Magog the Ogre (talk) 13:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
1926 French photograph. No evidence that photographer died more than 70 years ago. At least the uploader should assert that he checked every page of the book and found no photographer name in the book. If the uploader owns the copyright he should say why : is he an heir of the photographer ? and confirm this by COM:OTRS Teofilo (talk) 13:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Sign in Germany with text and picture, meant to stay there only until the completion of the works. Merely laid on the floor without foundation. Therefore not permanently located. Teofilo (talk) 13:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
a fair use justification is provided, but fair use is not allowed on Commons Teofilo (talk) 13:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
1985 US Statue (SIRIS). The uploader does not provide evidence for the {{PD-US-1978-89}} requirements. Teofilo (talk) 14:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC) Teofilo (talk) 14:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- Hi there. I don't know much about copyright law, so I'm sorry if I uploaded something that's not acceptable here without realizing it. I saw these sculptures: ([4][5][6][7][8]) in the UCSD category and assumed that if they were here, mine could be too, but maybe they just haven't been noticed yet. Just so you know, if this is indeed inappropriate for Commons, it's likely that some of the other photos I recently uploaded (see top of page) aren't either. Again, sorry for any trouble this may have caused. —tktktk 18:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Fundamentally, sculptors and other artists have a copyright in their work. In some countries, but not the USA, there is an exemption for work permanently on display in public. Therefore, these all infringe on the artist's copyright and must be deleted. If you,tk, could determine when each of the works you have pictured was created, it would help a great deal. Basically, anything after 1989 is not OK, before that is complicated, but may be OK. Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I doubt the copyright ownership statement. I expect copyright owners to know photographers' names. Teofilo (talk) 14:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
The photographed person was my own mother; she gave me this picture taken by organisers of a fair with old handicrafts (here, spinning) she attended graciously, who gave her a (bad) copy.
--Lucyin (talk) 16:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but clearly the copyright is owned by the photographer. 1980 is too recent for there to be any possibility this is PD for many years. Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
not older than 2008 source and no Freedom of panorama for bidimensional works in the United States Teofilo (talk) 14:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- Hi there. I don't know much about copyright law, so I'm sorry if I uploaded something that's not acceptable here without realizing it. I saw these sculptures: ([9][10][11][12][13]) in the UCSD category and assumed that if they were here, mine could be too, but maybe they just haven't been noticed yet. Just so you know, if this is indeed inappropriate for Commons, it's likely that some of the other photos I recently uploaded (see top of page) aren't either. Again, sorry for any trouble this may have caused. —tktktk 18:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Terms of use at the bottom of http://www.presidencia.gov.ar/ are NC non commercial. The OTRS ticket does not apply to contents created after its date (April 2007 ? ticket number begins with 200704, during the presidency of Nestor Kirchner that ended in December 2007 ?) Teofilo (talk) 14:44, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Insufficient evidence that the image is properly licensed. On the Flickr page from which this image was obtained, the Flickr user wrote: "I did photoshop it out of a few other pictures: the bull from Dan Kozan: www.kozan.sk.ca/~daniel/bull.html" (the link is no longer working). — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 14:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Terms of use at the bottom of http://www.casarosada.gov.ar are NC non commercial. OTRS ticket does not apply to contents created after its date. Teofilo (talk) 14:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
There are two potential problems with this image, each of which is individually sufficient for deletion. It's likely to be the official logo of a school, in which case there's no evidence of permission to release this into the public domain. If it's not, and if it's an own work of the uploader, it's useless, as there's no educational value to supposed logos created by people unaffiliated with the organisation whose logos they supposedly are. Nyttend (talk) 14:58, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
COM:FOP#Denmark is buildings only. This is a painting, not a building. Teofilo (talk) 15:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
igirce 109.93.252.243 15:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- Er, was this a mistake? What's the reason for this nomination? Thanks. Fred Hsu (talk) 04:08, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep - no reason for deletion given.--ELEKHHT 11:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
"make sure you put copyright" sounds different from "public domain" Teofilo (talk) 16:34, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
No evidence that copyright holder Steve Zhang released the image per "Person Called Steve Zhang took this photo and gaveit to me to upload, but feel free to use it" user has had images removed on en wikipedia for copyright issues. MilborneOne (talk) 16:42, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
The Kibbutz archive does not have evidence of permission to license this "c. 1970" photo with unknown author. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
screenshot from books.google.com (copyrighted text) Dinamik (talk) 20:14, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Artist died in 2002 : http://www.artnet.fr/artist/668830/francisco-riba-rovira.html Teofilo (talk) 15:11, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
MDR for additional uploads of this artist's work by the same uploader here. BrokenSphere (Talk) 16:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Bapti ✉ 21:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Files of User:Lützelburg91
[edit]These files seem to be tv screenshots. --Sdrtirs (talk) 07:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
These weren't tv screenshots. I tooked this photographs myself. Why are you juging about photographs you don't know anything?! -- Lützelburg91
the image is a compilation of images whose source and licence information is not given --Vanjagenije (talk) 02:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- The images are all made through images of the public domain I dont see what the problem is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Photosofturks (talk • contribs) Kam Solusar (talk) 18:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC) (UTC)
- I've found most of them in the linked WP articles. But the copyright status of a few of those photos is unclear:
- File:Sabihagokcen.JPG - no information about author or source
- File:Mehmet Akif Ersoy.jpg - no information about author or source
- File:Leyla Gencer.jpg - no information about author or original source, obviously not GFDL as claimed
- en:File:NazimHikmetRan.jpg - only fair use on en.WP
- --Kam Solusar (talk) 18:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- I've found most of them in the linked WP articles. But the copyright status of a few of those photos is unclear:
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Downloading an image from the internet doesn't give you copyright Richardw (talk) 08:40, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Closed, file deleted previously by ABF. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Because the Author wants the file deleted from Wikipedia! Valternet (talk) 22:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, good image, in use in multiple projects, no reason for deletion offered. Infrogmation (talk)
Yes it's a good image but I don't like it Free for everyone! I want it with "All Rights reserved"... So I want it removed from Wikipedia as soon as possible!
Why this File was not removed yet??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valternet (talk • contribs)
- Because you haven't provided any reason why it should be other that you've changed your mind long after you released it under a free license. -- Infrogmation (talk) 14:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. In use. Commons licensing non-revocable. George Chernilevsky talk 07:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Because this file is now "All Rights Reserved". Valternet (talk) 10:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep, the author already released the copy here on Commons under a non revokable free license; kept per recent deletion discussion. Infrogmation (talk) 21:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Creative Commons licenses are non-revocable. Nominator is urged to cease this disruptive behavior. Dcoetzee (talk) 11:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Because the Author wants the file deleted from Wikipedia! Valternet (talk) 22:44, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Commons licensing non-revocable. George Chernilevsky talk 07:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Because it's not used by anyone! And the Author want it with "All Rights Reserved" Valternet (talk) 11:07, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep, as you were told three weeks ago, it's not possible to make this all-rights-reserved. Moreover, our scope doesn't require that files be in use; it only requires that files be useful. It's a good photo of an identified location, so it's definitely useful. Nyttend (talk) 00:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Creative Commons licenses are non-revocable. Nominator is urged to cease this disruptive behavior. Dcoetzee (talk) 10:56, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Because the author wants it deleted from wikipedia! Valternet (talk) 10:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Creative Commons licenses are non-revocable. Dcoetzee (talk) 10:56, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Lifetime of author plus 70 years means its author died before 1941. As author is anonymous, this assumption should not be made. Madcynic (talk) 11:12, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- If the author is anonymous, then protection is 70 years from publication date, which is 1925, and hence Public Domain. -- Orionist ★ talk 01:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep, change license to {{Anonymous-EU}}. MKFI (talk) 22:39, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jcb (talk) 11:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Because the Author wants the file deleted from Wikipedia! Valternet (talk) 22:46, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Commons licensing non-revocable. George Chernilevsky talk 07:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Because There are no pages that link to this file. The Author wants this file Removed. Valternet (talk) 11:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- Speedy keep per previous listing. Infrogmation (talk) 21:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Creative Commons licenses are non-revocable. Nominator is urged to cease this disruptive behavior. Dcoetzee (talk) 10:56, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
not self created; wripped from en:File:Tayyarlogoarabic.png Magog the Ogre (talk) 12:53, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept: PD-textlogo: a 'V', a line and some Arabic words Jcb (talk) 11:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Εὐθυμένης as Logo. However, it already underwent discussion above and was kept.
Personally, I think this is worth another discussion. I am not convinced this is PD-textlogo.
Courtesy ping Jcb. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:27, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 08:16, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
I doubt that the uploader is the photographer. If Graham Lee owns copyright, he should be requested to send an E-mail to COM:OTRS Teofilo (talk) 12:59, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Re: Me, Ben Brekelmans, uploader, was requested by copyright-owner Graham Lee. It is uploaded with his courtesy. The uploader is the regular Dutch stand in-bassplayer of the Scorpions. This is the same picture as is to be seen on the Scorpions-website: www.thescorpionsuk.nl — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben Brekelmans (talk • contribs) 18:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- Hello. Thanks for your reply. Do you think you could get in touch with Graham Lee again and ask him to write a permission E-mail according to the template at COM:OTRS#Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiries ? Teofilo (talk) 19:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
- By the way, it would be good to know the date (and possibly the place) where the picture was taken. Is it in 2010 as the website implies ? The photographer's name, if known, should be provided. Teofilo (talk) 19:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: nothing found in OTRS Jcb (talk) 11:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
No COM:FOP#France. Wknight94 talk 14:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Ok. --Berthold Werner (talk) 14:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept: all possible FoP issues are DM, it's mainly just a straight building Jcb (talk) 11:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
No COM:FOP#France. It is not allowed to publish pictures of a creation until 70 years after the death of its architect. This building has been revamped and achieved in 2011. Commons:De minimis doesnt appy here, because the tower is the main subject of the photo (see the name of the file). It should be necessary to upload the image with low definition as fair use onto en wikipedia and fr wikipedia. Civa 15:46, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep I tend to agree with Jcb in the previous deletion procedure. Is DM -- Blackcat 16:30, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Question Can you explain to me why DM applies here. I dont understand. The building is the only and main subject of the photo. It is even included in the name of the file. Thanks --Civa (talk) 12:57, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
'Deleted. De minimis doesn't apply, as the building is the main subject of the picture. We now have to see if the building is or not protected by copyright. French droit d'auteur jurisprudence has a very low threshold of originality required for architecture work and just a straight building seems to qualify as a protected architectural work. --Dereckson (talk) 14:32, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
No COM:FOP#France Wknight94 talk 14:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- COM:FOP#France says that buildings must have a "definite artistic character". Does this one? Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'm assuming the architects would say so. Wknight94 talk 15:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- The question is if the courts would say so :-) Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- Hm, if I'm reading fr:Droits d'auteurs sur les œuvres architecturales en France correctly, the architects actually did bring a lawsuit over a postcard of the building many years ago... it apparently was dismissed, but only on the grounds the photo was a secondary part of the postcard. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- The question is if the courts would say so :-) Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'm assuming the architects would say so. Wknight94 talk 15:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept: nothing special to see here Jcb (talk) 11:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Constructed from 1969 to 1972, France has no Commons:Freedom of Panorama, no evidence of license from architects or their heirs, and this looks too big for the Commons:De minimis exception]] 84user (talk) 00:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Nominator comment I did not see the earlier deletion nomination before nominating this just now. Nevertheless, I cannot understand how this can be treated as de minimis. I picked this image while looking through Category:Buildings in France by year of completion for images of buildings without evident permissions and picked the most prominent one. -84user (talk) 00:19, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
More nominator commentary This page 5 from number 48 of Revue Auvergne Architectures linked from [14] refers to the 1980 court case. AA : Quelles sont les exceptions aux droits de l’architecte ? refers to the court of appeal and that the application was rejected au motif que cette reproduction intégrait l’œuvre des architectes sans la distinguer du reste du paysage urbain. I still do not understand this - without distinction? Could this mean that the appeal by the phototgrapher was rejected? The answer to the section just above, AA : Comment se répartissent les droits d’auteur de l’architecte et ceux du photographe ? seems clearer and says that the photographer must obtain the architect's permission to make commercial use of the image: Le photographe doit obtenir son autorisation ou celle de ses ayant-droits pour prendre des clichés dès lors qu’il veut en faire un usage commercial. -84user (talk) 01:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Yet more? Guide pratique du droit d'auteur: utiliser en toute légalité : textes, photos, films, musiques, Internet + protéger ses créations by Anne-Laure Stérin, ISBN 9782840014058, page 196 refers to a 27 November 1990 appeal which decided a postcard seller did not require the architect's permission because the tower was not photographed in isolation mais dans son cadre matériel qui ne fait l'objet d'aucune protection. So, if a photograph of a work includes its surroundings it is Ok? A kind of de minimis for France? Page 194 of the same book gives examples of cases lost when using images without the architect's permission (Géode and Arche de la Défense). The next paragraph starts Tout cliché du stade de France, then lists several well-known structures and ends with "ne peut être utlisé qu'après accord de l'architecte." -84user (talk) 01:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Delete The image was kept last time because the building is "nothing special", but I doubt if a French court would dismiss an architect-designed building in this way. The building is clearly the main (and only) subject of the photo. --Simonxag (talk) 02:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC
Delete An iconic landmark of the 14e, this has a definite artistic character, and photos of it do fall under France's FoP rules. Courcelles (talk) 11:13, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: original building, no FOP in France, De minimis non applicable. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 18:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
No COM:FOP#France Wknight94 talk 14:44, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept: all possible FoP issues are DM Jcb (talk) 16:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
There is no freedom of panorama in France. Image shows interior architecture, and I doubt it is de minimis. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:18, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Jcb: You were arguing DM, can I know what's your opinion here, at least before you next kept decision? I'm not sure what is the main focus of this image. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:51, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellywa (talk) 09:47, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
No COM:FOP#France Wknight94 talk 14:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept: all possible FoP issues are DM Jcb (talk) 16:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
No COM:FOP#France Wknight94 talk 14:46, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept: all possible FoP issues are DM Jcb (talk) 16:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I can't understand the previous DR closure. De minimis? How so? The only object in the picture is the tower. –Tryphon☂ 11:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- FOP for France says "a definite artistic character" (« un caractère artistique certain ») --Wladyslaw (talk) 11:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- Sure, but this has nothing to do with de minimis. And as far as artistic character is concerned, I don't think a French court would consider the Tour Montparnasse to be just another office building. It is quite emblematic and distinctive. –Tryphon☂ 13:28, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete In my opinion, the building has a definite artistic character. Jujutacular talk 18:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and Jujutacular. — Jeff G. ツ 22:27, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete An iconic landmark of the 14th arr, this has a definite artistic character, and photos of it do fall under France's FoP rules. Courcelles (talk) 11:11, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
No COM:FOP#France Wknight94 talk 14:46, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept: all possible FoP issues are DM Jcb (talk) 16:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
France does not have Freedom of Panorama. See COM:FOP#France. It is not allowed to publish pictures of a building until 70 years after the death of its architect. The tour Montparnasse was achieved in 1973. Commons:De minimis doesnt appy here, because the tour Montparnasse is the main subject of the photo (see the name of the file). Civa (talk) 20:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per COM:FOP#France De minimis does not apply. --Grcampbell (talk) 05:48, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
No COM:FOP#France Wknight94 talk 14:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept: all possible FoP issues are DM Jcb (talk) 16:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
=== File:MontparnasseTower01.jpg ===
Constructed from 1969 to 1972, France has no Commons:Freedom of Panorama, no evidence of license from architects or their heirs, and this looks too big for the Commons:De minimis exception (as argued in the previous discussion about deletion) Civa (talk) 11:51, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Not DM, a major landmark of the 14th arr is sufficient to fall under French laws that establish there is no FoP for this image, which clearly has the Tour Montparnasse as it's subject. Courcelles (talk) 09:33, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- Comment if that's "DM", that acronym should better expand to de maximis ... —Pill (talk) 18:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted no DM apply here Ezarateesteban 23:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
No COM:FOP#France Wknight94 talk 14:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept: all possible FoP issues are DM Jcb (talk) 16:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Constructed from 1969 to 1972, France has no Commons:Freedom of Panorama, no evidence of license from architects or their heirs, and this looks too big for the Commons:De minimis exception]] (as argued in the previous discussion about deletion) Civa (talk) 11:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Not DM, a major landmark of the 14th arr is sufficient to fall under French laws that establish there is no FoP for this image, which clearly has the Tour Montparnasse as it's subject. Courcelles (talk) 09:33, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted no DM apply here Ezarateesteban 23:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
No COM:FOP#France Wknight94 talk 14:49, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept: all possible FoP issues are DM Jcb (talk) 16:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Constructed from 1969 to 1972, France has no Commons:Freedom of Panorama, no evidence of license from architects or their heirs, and this looks too big for the Commons:De minimis exception]] (as argued in the previous discussion about deletion) Civa (talk) 11:54, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Not DM, a major landmark of the 14th arr is sufficient to fall under French laws that establish there is no FoP for this image, which clearly has the Tour Montparnasse as it's subject. Courcelles (talk) 09:33, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted no DM apply here Ezarateesteban 23:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
I dont think that malayalasangeetham.com is the copyright holder. The watermark is rather a copyfraud. The image can be declared to belong to manoramaonline.com (6 of 19) the same way - at least they have two images from the same shooting (7 of 19). Taking other samples from their server this website malayalasangeetham.com appears not to be a source for any free image, maybe free text or collected data but not freely licensed media files. Martin H. (talk) 15:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 16:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
uploader name and author name are different. I doubt the copyright ownership claimed by the uploader. Teofilo (talk) 15:16, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 16:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Author= "Carlofabio Photo by Carlo Mirabasso (carlofabio), Paintings by Carlo Mirabasso" is a bit difficult to understand. Who is the painter ? Do we have a permission from painter ? . Unless we have clear answers to these questions, and a permission E-mail sent to COM:OTRS, it is better to delete the picture. Teofilo (talk) 15:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi Teofilo, I'm Carlo Mirabasso(carlofabio), and I'm the painter and Autor of paintings and the photo. I'm the autor of the photo of Giclée prints. All rights of this photo and of the paintings is mine, no problem for you or Wikipedia. For any questions please contact me on my personal email: carlomirabasso@gmail.com
Thank you
Best Regards
Carlo Mirabasso
Thank you for your reply. Please send modello di dichiarazione di pubblicazione di un'opera con una licenza libera. Teofilo (talk) 20:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept: AGF Jcb (talk) 16:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
No assertion that it was first published before 1946, the subject was born in Russia so PD-Ukraine does not apply. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:49, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 22:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
This is a US painting, and the policy at commons is that the picture should be PD in home country and in the US. Being PD in Europe is no help. Teofilo (talk) 17:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- I "rescued" it to de.wikipedia. Delete, if you must. --FA2010 (talk) 20:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- Could {{PD-old-70}} be a solution? --Quedel (talk) 02:10, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- PD-old-70 doesn't apply, because it's not PD in the country of origin. Jcb (talk) 22:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
- Could {{PD-old-70}} be a solution? --Quedel (talk) 02:10, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 22:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I am the uploader of this image and I think it's not worth anymore to be on Wikimedia (also because of it's bad quality) -Mmemichi (talk) 19:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 22:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Threshold of originality has been contested, see page history. --ZooFari 19:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep ho indicato sia la fonte che l'Azienda detentrice del copyright ed ho inserito i template di licenza uguali alla maggioranza dei loghi aziendali presenti su commons, se qualcuno mi può aiutare a categorizzare meglio la licenza è il benvenuto --Delehaye (talk) 20:28, 22 January 2011 (UTC) Translation: I have indicated both the source and the copyright holder of the work.The licence templates are the ones that used in the majority of trademarks in Commons. Any help with the license is welcome. --Jaqen (talk) 09:47, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment I marked it as a copyright violation because there was no license. There was no threshold of originality argument to contest. --Jaqen (talk) 09:47, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Is clearly an original trademark, uneligible for Commons' purposes. -- Blackcat (talk) 16:00, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment why detete this file .jpg and not delete
for exemple? or all trade mark with the same license? --Delehaye (talk) 21:01, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delehaye, you have already been told on it.wiki that a trademark which DOES NOT TRESPASS a threshold of originality CANNOT be eligible for copyright; the trademark you posted is way beyond the threshold of originality and therefore cannot be considered a FREE image, Yamaha logo is a simple word with no originality. Can you get the difference? -- Blackcat (talk) 10:11, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3ABuddhist_hell.jpg&action=historysubmit&diff=48645386&oldid=48543133){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
_p_0267.jpg){kind=link}
![[4]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bear,_UCSD,1.jpg){kind=link}
![[5]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bear,_UCSD.jpg){kind=link}
![[6]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Calit2,_UCSD.jpg){kind=link}
![[7]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dr._Suess_and_the_Cat_in_the_Hat,_Sculpture,_UCSD.jpg){kind=link}
![[8]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:UCSD_Powell_Laboratory.JPG){kind=link}
- Strong Keep This logo actually uses the font Mata Bold without a single modification. If you have doubts, type "Vyrus" in the "Sample text" field and see what happens. There's almost never an original text logo in existence, commercial fonts are abound in every imaginable form. Regards, -- Orionist ★ talk 13:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept: obvious case of PD-textlogo Jcb (talk) 22:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep the image is really used in one of Wikimedia projects - in two relevant categories of Commons - and is usefull there. The skyline is distinctly visible. No other photo of this skyline from identic or similar eagle on Commons. The visilibity is adequate to the distance and usual weather. --ŠJů (talk) 06:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept: within scope Jcb (talk) 22:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Appears to be flickr washing - a derivative of http://www.panoramio.com/photo/33869050. A timeline of events goes as follows:
- en:User:Sina1979 uploaded the above image to English Wikipedia.
- The image was deleted as a blatant copyvio [15].
- Sina1979 was blocked for continuous copyright infringemeent
- A few days later, an account was created on Flickr with the username Daryan Rezazad (will come into play shortly). This file was then uploaded to Flickr on this account.
- A few days later again, Sina1979 then uploaded this image, but at a higher resolution than the one on Flickr. Sina1979 clearly then did not get the image from Flickr. Evidence points that Sina1979 was Flickrwashing.
![[15]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=File:Pgacontroltower.jpg){kind=link}
The same pattern exists with:
- File:Persiangulfairportterminal.jpg - higher res version than on Flickr, and at one point deleted as a copyvio
- File:Pgddeparturehall.jpg - higher res version than on Flickr, and deleted as copyvio of http://www.panoramio.com/photo/3187824. I do note that the Panoramio has the same username as the Flickr user, but I believe this is part of the deception. I might assume good faith but for the fact that the image listed above (Airport Control Tower) is listed to another Panoramio user.
As a note, I have blocked Sina1979 on en.wp for Flickr washing. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:58, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete delete per Freedom_of_panorama#Iran. Flickr washing is likely another problem. Royalbroil 13:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 22:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I uploaded it before receiving permission from the photograph owner. Boliviahugh (talk) 21:10, 22 January 2011 (UTC) {{PermissionOTRS|id=2011012410000941}}
Kept Jcb (talk) 22:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
hopelessly vague source and no evidence of free license (but presumed nonfree based on source) DMacks (talk) 21:17, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: 'google' is no valid source Jcb (talk) 22:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
probably not captured by User:C.thoenelt. → permission is missing.
It was a official picture on the Bundestag website: http://webarchiv.bundestag.de/archive/2010/0427/bundestag/abgeordnete17/biografien/B/brehmer_heike.html "© Heike Brehmer / Wolfgang Koglin". The simliar pic File:BT-2005-47-Neues_Bild-16-Wp.jpg was on the official site too with: "Jochen-Konrad Fromme © DBT".
See also: Commons:Deletion_requests/File:BT-2005-47-Neues_Bild-16-Wp.jpg Saibo (Δ) 21:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Blacklake (talk) 11:59, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Apparently a TV capture. Is newlookmedia the TV station?! Does the linked CC license statement at their site also apply to the images? Sorry I do not understand russian but I really doubt the tv station released this pic. Saibo (Δ) 21:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Same applies for File:Oleg Kalugin.png. --Saibo (Δ) 21:59, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: no evidence that the CC license applies to the images or even that the site owner holds the copyright of the pictures Jcb (talk) 22:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
License is clearly false. The uploader could not publish this into PD. Miraceti (talk) 21:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Probably PD-old Lion - see Category:Coats of arms of Bohemia. Rest is a text logo. → changed license. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 20:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep per Saibo, -jkb- (talk) 00:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jcb (talk) 22:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
is newlookmedia owning FHM? if yes, please clearly state so. if not → permission needed from FHM publisher. Saibo (Δ) 22:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- NewLookMedia does NOT own FHM, but this company owns MP newspaper (which is stated on its site). And FHM publisher does NOT own the newspaper so newspaper hardly needs FHM's permission... --FHMRUSSIA (talk) 09:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- Just in case: this is not FHM's PDF – see credits in lower corner, this is newspaper's page... And the article is about FHM, that's it. --FHMRUSSIA (talk) 10:50, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- Ah, okay. Thanks. But the photos are from FHM, aren't they? Do you have the link to the source? On the page which is given as source I cannot find the article. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 14:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- I assume those are not exact pics from the mag but they'd provided for the publication promoting the famous issue (May 2008) with FHM Russia's employees including Editor of Russian Edition (in the lower left corner, named Анна Перова). Again, according to the text, the girls are not models at all, they are FHM Russia's journalists and such. This is the link to the actual article in the newspaper. I've sent them e-mail (they are my former colleagues). As soon as I get the reply I guess I'll come up with smth. --FHMRUSSIA (talk) 20:38, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- Got it. PDF taken for Wikipedia is from here. --FHMRUSSIA (talk) 20:44, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- Ah - if I activate JavaScript I see the pictures on the pages. Without (standard) I saw only text. However, I cannot find a "pdf". Only images - but does not matter.
- So you think NLM owns the relevant rights for the photos and NLM puts all content it produces under a CC license? Well, then for me it's okay since I cannot read by myself how the situation is. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 21:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- Actually I see no reason for NLM to mention about CC (fine print upon lower border of the page) for all their Archive if they don't mean it. Anyway I'd presumed that fact while uploading the files. But it's up to you to decide, I'm not experienced (erfahren, routiniert) enough... --FHMRUSSIA (talk) 09:45, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks - I have not a good feeling about it. Maybe someone who can read russian could comment here? Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 15:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
- This Publishing Company allows everyone to use pictures, photos and pages' pdfs under CC. No doubt about it – the disclaimer declares it clear and sharp - --Alexwikii (talk) 19:26, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks - I have not a good feeling about it. Maybe someone who can read russian could comment here? Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 15:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
- Actually I see no reason for NLM to mention about CC (fine print upon lower border of the page) for all their Archive if they don't mean it. Anyway I'd presumed that fact while uploading the files. But it's up to you to decide, I'm not experienced (erfahren, routiniert) enough... --FHMRUSSIA (talk) 09:45, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
- Got it. PDF taken for Wikipedia is from here. --FHMRUSSIA (talk) 20:44, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- I assume those are not exact pics from the mag but they'd provided for the publication promoting the famous issue (May 2008) with FHM Russia's employees including Editor of Russian Edition (in the lower left corner, named Анна Перова). Again, according to the text, the girls are not models at all, they are FHM Russia's journalists and such. This is the link to the actual article in the newspaper. I've sent them e-mail (they are my former colleagues). As soon as I get the reply I guess I'll come up with smth. --FHMRUSSIA (talk) 20:38, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- Ah, okay. Thanks. But the photos are from FHM, aren't they? Do you have the link to the source? On the page which is given as source I cannot find the article. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 14:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- Just in case: this is not FHM's PDF – see credits in lower corner, this is newspaper's page... And the article is about FHM, that's it. --FHMRUSSIA (talk) 10:50, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: from Google Translate at least becomes clear that the FHMRUSSIA and Alexwikii statements about the meaning of the Russian text are not true Jcb (talk) 22:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
is newlookmedia owning CEKPET? if yes, please clearly state so. if not → permission needed from CEKPET publisher. Saibo (Δ) 22:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Same for (just for a probably follwing DR as these files are not marked for deletion):
- File:SecretMagazine.jpg
- File:SecretMagazine 1997.jpg
- File:SecretMagazine.jpg
- File:Crime-Russian version.jpg
- File:Processes.jpg
- File:The Lawlessness.jpg
- File:The Pyramid.jpg
- File:Their Kremlin.jpg
I would not wonder if all uploads by this user are copyvios. ... he apparently has about eight (some high class) cameras ;-) Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 22:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- http://www.newlookmedia.ru/IDNV/Sekret.html: It does NOT own CEKPET (since the magazine is shut down in 1997) but yet NLM keeps the rights as the owner is the same. --FHMRUSSIA (talk) 09:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- As for the books (above), they are published by NLM (NewLookMedia). --FHMRUSSIA (talk) 09:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- Found about Their Kremlin so far. --FHMRUSSIA (talk) 10:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for your research. Could you please write on each of the files' pages why NLM has the rights (I am sorry - I do not understand Russian) and where to find the required license for these files? Otherwise it is not clear that the holder of the rights really has release these photos/covers/pages under a free license. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 14:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- Well... But there are info in description (incl Sourse and Permission). --FHMRUSSIA (talk) 20:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- In the page you gave as source. There is no statement of a CC license. And in the totally unrelated (except domain name) page you linked in source there is just written "Content is available under the terms of CC....". It is not clear which content they mean - because I really doubt they release all their magazins under CC. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 22:46, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- This Publishing Company allows everyone to use pictures, photos and pages' pdfs under CC. No doubt about it – the disclaimer declares it clear and sharp - --Alexwikii (talk) 19:28, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
- In the page you gave as source. There is no statement of a CC license. And in the totally unrelated (except domain name) page you linked in source there is just written "Content is available under the terms of CC....". It is not clear which content they mean - because I really doubt they release all their magazins under CC. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 22:46, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- Well... But there are info in description (incl Sourse and Permission). --FHMRUSSIA (talk) 20:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for your research. Could you please write on each of the files' pages why NLM has the rights (I am sorry - I do not understand Russian) and where to find the required license for these files? Otherwise it is not clear that the holder of the rights really has release these photos/covers/pages under a free license. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 14:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- Found about Their Kremlin so far. --FHMRUSSIA (talk) 10:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- As for the books (above), they are published by NLM (NewLookMedia). --FHMRUSSIA (talk) 09:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: no evidence has been provided about the CC license Jcb (talk) 22:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
- What d'you mean by "no evidence"? There IS the evidence – just written CONTENT AVAILABLE BY CREATIVE COMMONS ATTRIBUTION/SHARE-ALIKE!!! Simple and plain. --FHMRUSSIA (talk) 18:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Inaccurate, better image exists (File:Archaeoindris fontoynonti.jpg). Smokeybjb (talk) 15:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Still in use on several sister projects. Eusebius (talk) 15:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Out of scope (see this section specifically[16]), artist replaced this image because it was anatomically inaccurate and thus useless on Commons. That it is used on sister projects is no excuse for keeping, since those usages should be replaced with the accurate image (and it seems like they have been already). Accurate version can be found here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Archaeoindris_fontoynonti.jpg FunkMonk (talk) 23:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, the uploader's attempt to replace this image with the other one you cite is powerful evidence that this isn't useful. Because its only use is on a discussion page, it's not really in use the way the scope page talks about. Nyttend (talk) 02:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. - Jcb (talk) 23:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
"c. 2002" photo, author is listed as unknown, the requested attribution is "Photo by Rami", no evidence for the CC license. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - the Pikiwiki has problems interacting with Commons in a normal way. Instead of commenting here at the DR, the Pikiwiki account (who is this person?) removed the DR tag and added a speedy tag. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- It may be a bot. Netanel h (talk) 20:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Image was contributed by an organziation from Rahat, I believe it owns the image. Netanel h (talk) 18:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- I asked the contact person of the project to comment on this DR. Let's wait a reasonable time for response. Jcb (talk) 22:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
- I will check and let you'all know. Deror avi (talk) 21:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: nothing happened in the meantime Jcb (talk) 01:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Recent structure and referred to COM:FOP#United_Arab_Emirates KALARICKAN | My Interactions 08:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 14:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
No Freedom of Panorama in UAE, All the architectures are copyrighted to the creator of the work..for more information please see this Commons FoP - UAE ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 16:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator. The primary subject of the images is clearly the building(s) which do show copyrighted architecture, and since there is no FoP in the UAE, this image sadly should go. CT Cooper · talk 17:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
No FOP in UAE (Discussion continues on talk page of the file) KALARICKAN | My Interactions 05:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- More discussion can be found at File talk:Dubai 051.JPG--KALARICKAN | My Interactions 05:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. - 'architecture' is not the same as 'a building' - Jcb (talk) 14:08, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
No Freedom of Panorama in UAE, All the architectures are copyrighted to the creator of the work..for more information please see this Commons FoP - UAE ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 16:58, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - Possibly only a weak delete as the picture doesn't show that much beyond simple walls and a clock, though my guess is it is probably still complex enough as a whole to be copyrighted, and hence should be deleted as there is no FoP in the UAE. CT Cooper · talk 17:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - I don't see how this simple square tower with a clock meets the threshold of originality - Jcb (talk) 16:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
- Everything is simple, but its overruled by architecture, thus it creates its own copyright..?? ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 06:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
- The threshold of originality also applies to architecture. Jcb (talk) 10:33, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
- Everything is simple, but its overruled by architecture, thus it creates its own copyright..?? ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 06:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Jcb is right. A simple square tower with a clock does Not meets the threshold of originality. What is so special about this design? Its not like the Gugenheim in Spain. If this was a unique design, then it should be deleted but its a very bland design...with zero originality. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 03:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - This image meets threshold of originality as the structure is clearly visible & prime focus, so it will attract copyright, or else a free image similar to this need to be shown to prove that this is a derivative of that, and does not bear any independent idea of the architect... copyright can be claimed for parts of the structures......Captain......Tälk tö me.. 09:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't know the local case law, but this would surely have a copyright in the USA and most other places, therefore it is deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:30, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
No FoP in the UAE. 84.61.131.141 19:31, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Keep, there was already a debate on Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Burj Khalifa and this file was kept. Then I don't know why to re-open this debate. Jeriby (talk) 21:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Keep - 3D is not included on the UAE copyright Law --Common-Man | My Interactions 21:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Keep - As per the previous deletion request. Moreover, this video has to originate in the UAE for UAE laws to apply. -- Orionist ★ talk 18:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- Where did it originate? If that's France, then you're no better off.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:42, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Delete I don't think as per the previous deletion request is relevant; that had a lot of things to discuss, and this was a marginal one--one user even said "ZooFari suggested below that we open another DR, I'm OK with that." One of the rights of the architectural works--basically the sole one in the US--is to protect the work from other architects. The hearts and the guts of an architectural work are just as key as the flashy exterior--in fact, COM:FOP#France cites a court making basically this point, when "the court excluded that the owner of a hotel, who had made extensive repairs and enhancements to the buildings at high costs, could claim exclusive rights to the image of that hotel".--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:42, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Keep there is no good reason for deletion Gérard Janot (talk) 15:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. - no FoP is a nonsense reason, for this is not panorama - Jcb (talk) 23:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Architectural copyright protects the heart and soul of a building. Especially as copyright in FOP nations show, it's there to protect the building architecturally as much as photography. This reproduces the building much as a blueprint or a non-virtual building would. Prosfilaes (talk) 19:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC) (The question in the last DR about what the country of origin is is interesting; but France offers as much protection as Dubai, and if I had to argue the case, I'd say this is a derivative work even in nations with FOP.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep, there was a 1st debate on Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Burj Khalifa and this file was kept. Then it was kept a 2nd time here. It's not usual to re-open 3 times a deletion debate, then I will maintain my "keep" vote. Thanks. Jeriby (talk) 21:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- Which is the same non-argument you used on the first debate on this file, the one above The debate on all the images was clearly broad enough that it's irrelevant; the points of law surrounding this video are distinct from the images surrounding a photograph.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per COM:DW Teofilo (talk) 10:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - simple geometric shapes are used, this animation doesn't contain sufficient details to be a copyright infringement - Jcb (talk) 22:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep FOP not relevant here, no textures just a 3D simple work. Why does everyone wanna delete this so much!--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 07:55, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- FOP is not relevant here, which is why I didn't use it here. A texture wouldn't matter in the case of a statue, why should it matter in the case of a building.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:47, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- Question..Is 3D works copyrighted if its COM:DW ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 08:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept.--Anatoliy (talk) 11:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)