Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2011/01/23
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
Without a description. Unused and uncategorized since September 2009. UrLunkwill (talk) 21:27, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, copyviol as well. Infrogmation (talk) 00:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
While 20minutos says the foto is from their "Archivo" the image EXIF confirms that it is an agency photo from KORPA. Apparently they forgot where they bought it from and invalidly licensed it under CC against their own licensing policy http://www.20minutos.es/especial/corporativo/creative-commons/. Martin H. (talk) 19:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Trycatch (talk) 03:22, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
no permission from the artist Mdupont (talk) 12:47, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Delete FOP does not apply as it is not "dauerhaft" (durable). Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 22:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Masur (talk) 07:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused and uncategorized since September 2009. UrLunkwill (talk) 21:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. --ZooFari 01:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope. No description, unused uncategorized. UrLunkwill (talk) 21:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. --ZooFari 01:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Author request MikeAllen (talk) 03:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- I cancelled the deletion request but I see it went through anyway. This should be Speedy deleted. MikeAllen (talk) 03:33, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted * (show/hide) 08:02, 23 January 2011 Tiptoety (talk | contribs | block) deleted "File:MikeAllen Christmas pic.jpg" (Uploader request) (view/restore) (global usage; delinker log) abf «Cabale!» 18:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Logo of a company. FunkMonk (talk) 20:05, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
This is not a text logo Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused and uncategorized since September 2009. UrLunkwill (talk) 21:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 16:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope. No decription. Unused and uncategorized. UrLunkwill (talk) 21:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 16:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused and uncategorized. UrLunkwill (talk) 21:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 16:57, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
not a free image 79.116.192.114 21:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 18:38, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused and uncategorized since September 2009. UrLunkwill (talk) 21:47, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 16:58, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately, there is not enough source information provided to make me comfortable saying that this is definitely a NASA image as claimed. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:49, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- OK, I found it here. Yarl ✉ 13:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Source was founded by Yarl. Podzemnik (talk) 09:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
blędny link HQmark (talk) 15:58, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Closing DR, file was previously Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to by own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
This is my original photograph, however I reserve the right not to submit the photo with original resolution.
This photograph was taken with my camera. I reduced the file size in Photoshop, which explains why it contains no other data. I purposely did not want to upload my original photograph in full resolution, which is my right. I do not know under what grounds you can claim that this is not my own work, since this is a private photograph of mine. ... Kokhava (talk) 11:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
AGF Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to by own work: resolution is typical for photo services like Flickr. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:20, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Not sure how this slicked through, as all the other images of the uploader from the same Baluran series have been deleted (mostly speedy, one via request). User's contributions on the English Wikipedia were also copyvios from the National park website. Since the uploads the user never returned to reply to any message. --ELEKHHT 22:42, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete PD-old license for a photo less than a year old can not be correct. MKFI (talk) 20:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
and other uploads by DaHe86 (talk · contribs). Advertisement or text documents out of Commons:Project scope. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to by own work: small resolution. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Delete request by uploader. Possibly non free image. Gamweb (talk) 18:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - in the lower left corner it seems to say "all rights reserved". /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
and File:OlgaVipotnik druzinskiARHIV.pdf. Unlikely to by own work. May be PD but relevant information should be provided. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:48, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
and File:Maleconchapala.jpg. Unlikely to by own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Apparently a screenshot from a non-free video [1], unlikely to be uploader's own work. Claimed OTRS unanswered since November. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:59, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
No reason to believe northseafish.net released this as public domain; the archive of the site says nothing about copyrights. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Clearly a copyrighted image lifted from ABC's own website. Esrever (klaT) 17:37, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work of copyrighted New Jersey Turnpike toll ticket. No evidence that this is free for the purposes of inclusion. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:55, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
At least a file copied from http://www.diaadia.pr.gov.br/tvpendrive/modules/mylinks/viewcat.php?cid=8&min=130&orderby=dateA&show=10 Ednei amaral (talk) 19:38, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Collages must have attribution and license for for each image. Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
This image is tagged on the Malay Wikipedia, its source Wikipedia, as having no license: ms:Fail:MalaysiaPulauPinang.jpg. —Bkell (talk) 19:50, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Copyrighte toys FunkMonk (talk) 20:10, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- Utterly ridiculous deletion request. Ardfern (talk) 20:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- Not at all, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tango B-396 Model.JPG. These days claims of "copyright" need no evidence; just scream "copyrighted" (where? by whom?) and that's it. Watch it, all rubber ducks must go down the drain. And take it easy: it's only a cat-and-mouse game. NVO (talk) 20:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- Not if you have the slightest idea of what "copyright" means, as well as the criteria for inclusion of images on Commons. It could also be deleted on grounds of it being out of scope. And for NVO, toys are designed, not magically materialised from soil, thus there is intellectual property involved. FunkMonk (talk) 20:48, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- Then what category:Toys is doing here? How many of them satisfy the "copyright" scrutiny and how many qualify COM:PS (never mind answering, it's a rhetoric question. It's not the idiocy of house rules, but the inconsistency in their application that pisses me off. I have no stake in these Chinese lollypops, they're all yours.) NVO (talk) 22:23, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- If such a photo is taken in a public place in a country with freedom of panorama, or if the toy is very old, or maybe made by the same person who took the picture, then there's no problem. Your argument with the category doesn't hold water, we have a category for art too, that doesn't mean we should include copyrighted modern paintings. FunkMonk (talk) 22:50, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- That's a good idea - leave the category, leave exactly three subcategories outlined in your post, delete the rest. Consistency above all. NVO (talk) 22:57, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- Consistency would be keeping the category, since, as already mentioned, there is a general category called "art". FunkMonk (talk) 23:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- That's a good idea - leave the category, leave exactly three subcategories outlined in your post, delete the rest. Consistency above all. NVO (talk) 22:57, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- If such a photo is taken in a public place in a country with freedom of panorama, or if the toy is very old, or maybe made by the same person who took the picture, then there's no problem. Your argument with the category doesn't hold water, we have a category for art too, that doesn't mean we should include copyrighted modern paintings. FunkMonk (talk) 22:50, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- Then what category:Toys is doing here? How many of them satisfy the "copyright" scrutiny and how many qualify COM:PS (never mind answering, it's a rhetoric question. It's not the idiocy of house rules, but the inconsistency in their application that pisses me off. I have no stake in these Chinese lollypops, they're all yours.) NVO (talk) 22:23, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- Not if you have the slightest idea of what "copyright" means, as well as the criteria for inclusion of images on Commons. It could also be deleted on grounds of it being out of scope. And for NVO, toys are designed, not magically materialised from soil, thus there is intellectual property involved. FunkMonk (talk) 20:48, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- Not at all, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tango B-396 Model.JPG. These days claims of "copyright" need no evidence; just scream "copyrighted" (where? by whom?) and that's it. Watch it, all rubber ducks must go down the drain. And take it easy: it's only a cat-and-mouse game. NVO (talk) 20:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- Ironically, I found this image in a category called "Dinosaurs in art", which Ardfern himself had placed it in. So if you yourself believe it qualifies as art, what's up with the complaints? Unless you had taken the picture in a public place with freedom of panorama (which of course doesn't apply to a privately owned shop), only the "artist" can release even pictures of their "artwork" under whatever licenses. FunkMonk (talk) 20:55, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Barney is a copyrighted character. FunkMonk (talk) 20:10, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I can't trace the original source of this image, but everything about it screams "not own work" IMHO. Possible that it's intended as an OTRS-style release, but again, no details are given and, either way, it should be deleted. Jarry1250 (talk) 20:44, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
By Juozas Kamarauskas, died 1946: under 70 years ago. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:33, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- As far as I remember, I was taking it for granted, that the photography of the painting (from 1899) was more than 70 years old, but I can't remember why or find any proof right now, sorry, Ajnem (talk) 08:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
no freedom of panorama for artwork in United States; this statue was created around 2006 75.211.183.116 22:56, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- Agree, photo is derivative of recent work of art, not out of copyright nor covered by FOP, so not for Commons. Suggest photo be moved to en:W, as it is being used there to illustrate the article on the artist and thus the derivative aspect should fall under fair use for en:W. -- Infrogmation (talk) 00:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
copyright violation, see original image File:Wasgauwaldbahn Fahrplan.jpg Andibrunt (talk) 23:34, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- (changed the link to the log directly as the commons red links currently are unusable (directly to upload form. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 00:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC))
- Delete - doubtfully completely own work. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 00:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
- there are more Reworked version of Image:Wasgauwaldbahn_Fahrplan.jpg look please at File:Wasgauwaldbahn Fahrplan-3.jpg and File:Wasgauwaldbahn Fahrplan-MJ.jpg Regards --LutzBruno (talk) 00:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Creator blanked, and I am not certain whether that qualifies as speedy delete here. (It does on enwiki.) Reaper Eternal (talk) 04:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Captain-tucker (talk) 13:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Uploader is not author, no formal agreement from author --MGuf (d) 09:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyvio, ARR on http://www.fairtrade.net/about_this_website.0.html#c5356 Captain-tucker (talk) 14:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Uploader is not the author, no formal agreement from the author --MGuf (d) 09:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyvio, ARR on [http://www.fairtrade.net/about_this_website.0.html#c5356 Captain-tucker (talk) 14:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
missing permission from MIT Lincoln Laboratory 78.55.169.16 09:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyvio, needs OTRS permission. Captain-tucker (talk) 14:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
This is an unused blurry photo, No educational use observed with this image, as speeding bus pictures are available in commons in better quality (But this place is not available). An article's page will not be able to hold this image due to its quality problems.. ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 15:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Captain-tucker (talk) 16:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Likely copyright violation. The uploader claims to be the author, but this is likely not true. There is text across the top of the image that says "Vistas", and the source of the image is given as "Vistas". The same image was posted in the Skyscraper City forum on June 17, 2008, a year and a half before it was uploaded here. —Bkell (talk) 15:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- See also Commons:Deletion requests/Photos from Skyscraper City forum uploaded by User:AMaZinG SCZ. —Bkell (talk) 15:31, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 17:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work A333 (talk) 15:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete derivative work of several tabloids. MKFI (talk) 10:36, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Keep COM:DM. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:54, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: According to COM:DM#Finland the artwork may be included in a photograph, motion picture or television program, if the reproduction is of secondary importance to the photograph, motion picture or television program. Here the nespapers are the main object of the photo and therefore fail De minimiis clause. Blacklake (talk) 12:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Ерунда. Бессмысленное фото. Agent001 (talk) 01:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC) Nonsense! nomination for deletion is in violation of the commons rules. Closeup of the vintage army equipement что за идиотизм? есть другие изображения обмоток? или ты самый умный и тебе давить изображения очень надо? Найди себе дело удавитель ты хренов. 98.88.102.40 03:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept: invalid deletion reason Jcb (talk) 15:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Diagrams of speed limit signs of Canada
[edit]- File:Canadian Speed Limit 50 British Columbia.PNG
- File:Canadian Speed Limit 50 Ontario.PNG
- File:Canadian Speed Limit 50.PNG
Unused, unencyclopedic images created in MS Paint that are Orphaned and unneeded. --Admrboltz (talk) 02:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete the aren't even in the proper typeface for roadsigns. Imzadi 1979 → 02:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete inaccurate and misleading. - Floydian (talk) 05:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - Not even close to depicting actual road signs. --Sable232 (talk) 05:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - Those are really road signs? Dough4872 05:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. --ZooFari 01:29, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Files by User:Albianmoonlight
[edit]- File:27 border.JPG
- File:25 tolowadunes.JPG
- File:24 crescentcity.JPG
- File:23 redwoodstatepark.JPG
- File:22 southspit.JPG
- File:21 tablebluffcountypark.JPG
- File:20 sheltercover.JPG
- File:19 lostcoast.JPG
- File:18 lostcoast.JPG
- File:17 lostcoast.JPG
- File:16 10milebeach.JPG
- File:15 10milebeach.JPG
- File:14 beforemendocino.JPG
- File:13 vandamme.JPG
- File:12 albion.JPG
- File:11 duncanslanding.JPG
- File:10 sonomastatebeach.JPG
- File:9 drakesbeach.JPG
- File:8 bolinas.JPG
- File:7 seadrift.JPG
- File:6 marineheadlands.JPG
- File:5 sutrabaths2.JPG
- File:4 sutrabaths.JPG
- File:3 oceanbeach.JPG
- File:2 dalycity.JPG
- File:1 oakland.JPG
- File:Usalroad.JPG
- File:26 pelican.JPG
Files by User:Sfcamerawork
[edit]- File:19 lobos weston.JPG
- File:24 pig point.jpg
- File:20 pebble.JPG
- File:17milecypruspoint.jpg
- File:22 santa cruz.JPG
- File:23 davenport.JPG
- File:19 lobos cyprus.JPG
- File:18 bixby.JPG
- File:Pointsurfromroad.jpg
- File:Moonstonebeach.jpg
- File:Morro bay.JPG
- File:Pismopier.jpg
- File:Gaviotaview.JPG
- File:Guadalupedunes.JPG
- File:Elcapitan.jpg
- File:Santabarbaraview2.jpg
- File:Elsegundobeach.jpg
- File:Brucesbeach.jpg
- File:Terminalislandview.jpg
- File:Sanonofrestatebeach.jpg
- File:Southcarlsbadd.JPG
- File:Silverstrand.JPG
- File:Borderfieldbeach.JPG
Derivatives of the above
[edit]- File:Palosverdes-crop.jpg
- File:Loboscypress.jpg
- File:Pointlobos.jpg
- File:Southcarlsbad-crop.jpg
- File:17milecypruspoint-crop.jpg
- File:Sanonofre-crop.jpg
- File:Silverstrand-crop.jpg
- File:Pebblebeach.jpg
- File:Borderfieldbeach-crop.jpg
- File:Sunsetbeach.jpg
- File:Pigeonpoint.jpg
- File:Moonstonebeach-crop.jpg
- File:Guadalupedunes-crop.jpg
- File:Santabarbaraview2-crop.jpg
These files were all uploaded by User:Albianmoonlight. The user in question has been behind a series of sockpuppets and meatpuppets at the English Wikipedia and several other language projects where these images have been spammed to whatever relevant articles there are (such as at w:es:Soledad because there's one person in the photograph). A list of sockpuppets is here. During the discussion of one particular photograph, it was discovered that these photographs belong to an individual named David Horvitz (see this page). Each photograph (except Usalroad.JPG) features the same man, which certainly makes the photographs less useful in articles. It is not clear if Albianmoonlight is Mr. Horvitz, if he owns these photographs and has actually alowed them to be released into the public domain, or if the Commons should allow Mr. Horvitz to use the site as a free online art gallery where he has a permanent exhibition.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:45, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- Oh dear, I thought it was another w:Travelling gnome prank, and it's all down to an ordinary copyvio. You ruined my day. Delete unless identity is confirmed. NVO (talk) 20:50, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Does the same issue also apply to uploads by User:Sfcamerawork or is it just the second round of uploads that matters? If Sfcamerawork's uploads have the same issue, them the cropped versions I prepared of several of that user's uploads will also need to be deleted. In any case, I certainly support deletion if these can't be confirmed as actually released by the photographer. Gavia immer (talk) 00:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
- Considering both users were discovered to be one in the same, then it most certainly does include those other uploads.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the confirmation; I've added that user's uploads and some crops I prepared from them to the nomination. N.B., this was done after NVO's comment above. Gavia immer (talk) 00:42, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Looks like funny business to me. --75.108.199.245 22:14, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete unless there is a confirmation of identity (though that would still give us another problem). The whole thing reminds me of the Tourist Guy meme from about ten years ago, as well as the gnome prank. Obviously a calculated campaign to spam this guy's picture into as many wikis as possible. Antandrus (talk) 00:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC
- Delete Per above. --Yikrazuul (talk) 22:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Per nom. and commnets above. Podzemnik (talk) 09:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Image is the band logo and is copyrighted and cannot be released into the public domain. Keraunoscopia (talk) 04:28, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- Addendum: Uploader has a history of copyright vio images. Image should be speedily deleted. – Keraunoscopia (talk) 04:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- I would say its Keep with {{PD-textlogo}} (and {{Trademarked}}). Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 23:52, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- Oh really? But is the image just a simple font, or is it an actual design where someone specifically designed the "look" of the logo? Otherwise, that's fine. I think the image itself was being used incorrectly (within the infobox of the band's article), even if the image itself is not in violation of anything. But I still question the latter, simply because it doesn't look like a "font", there is a three dimensionality to it and a specific "look" to it. It's not like the "Nirvana" example used on Wikipedia infobox examples. But I'm new at this : ) – Keraunoscopia (talk) 01:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
- Well, it is not perfectly clear not copyrighted - but would strongly not say "Image should be speedily deleted".
- The image is similar to this. See also Threshold_of_originality. We have other logos which need to "go" (in the trash bin) far earlier than this one. If you know that the copyright law of Norway is very strict on logos/text shapes then let me know - I do not know it. The article about the threshold of originality in no.Wikipedia is very short. NOthing to read there... Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 02:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
- Oh really? But is the image just a simple font, or is it an actual design where someone specifically designed the "look" of the logo? Otherwise, that's fine. I think the image itself was being used incorrectly (within the infobox of the band's article), even if the image itself is not in violation of anything. But I still question the latter, simply because it doesn't look like a "font", there is a three dimensionality to it and a specific "look" to it. It's not like the "Nirvana" example used on Wikipedia infobox examples. But I'm new at this : ) – Keraunoscopia (talk) 01:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept: no font can be copyrighted, how artistic a font may be is unimportant Jcb (talk) 16:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
No COM:FOP for artwork in the USA, and this is a work of en:Ivan Meštrović, who died in 1962 (see also http://www.missionandshrine.org/fr_lopez.htm ) Ianezz (talk) 09:04, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 16:19, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
see w:Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2011 January 23#File:FortOntario.jpg Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:17, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. The file was uploaded to en.wp under the GFDL. The source was acknowledged as being the NYSOPRHP website. That website is "All rights reserved". Although apparently this image is not on that website anymore, it is unlikely that it would have been offered there under the GFDL. It seems more likely that the GFDL tag was added by an overenthuastic en.wp uploader who took too much to heart that "Be bold!" thing. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 16:20, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
according to Commons:Deletion requests/Images of KGB headquarters Fernrohr (talk) 09:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept: all possible FoP issues (maybe the part around the clock) are DM Jcb (talk) 16:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
No COM:FOP in Italy, and this is a 1994 work of sculptor Franco Alessandrini (http://www.francoalessandrini.net/id4.html) Ianezz (talk) 10:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Answer:
Thanks friend, these details have been corrected and updated.Wikieditor info (talk) 03:01, 23 January 2011
Gracias amigo, estos detalles han sido corregidos y actualizados. Wikieditor info (talk) 03:01, 23 January 2011
- Please do not modify others comments, especially when they say there's no COM:FOP in Italy. --Ianezz (talk) 08:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
@Wikieditor_info, you might ask the sculptor directly (alessandrinif@aol.com) for a written permission to publish this image under a free license. He is the only who can grant that. --Túrelio (talk) 07:01, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 16:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
statue by Thierry Delorme, alive, no FOP in France Frédéric (talk) 10:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. But for the reason that unauthorized photos of statues cannot be published in the US. Living artist and no evidence of permission. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:23, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 16:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
sculptor Gilbert Frizon, alive, no FOP in France Frédéric (talk) 10:21, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- je pense que vous exagéré l'idée de l'application de la loi... mais si c'est cette exagération qui prévaut, alors... --Jean-Louis Lascoux (talk) 00:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept: DM, though this is borderline Jcb (talk) 16:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I doubt this is de minimis (even by French standard): the image was intentional to include the statue (combined with the file name which indicates the main intent of this image). I doubt this is accessory. A work of art by a still-alive artist, and since France has no commercial FOP, COM:OTRS permission from Gilbert Frizon is required. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:33, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Missvain (talk) 20:16, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Logo of non-notable association, used only in a subpage of an en.wiki inactive user; out of scope Ianezz (talk) 10:39, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 16:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Logo of non-notable association, used only in a subpage of an en.wiki inactive user; out of scope Ianezz (talk) 10:39, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 16:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
dupe, bad filename WikedKentaur (talk) 14:40, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: next time please use {{Rename}} Jcb (talk) 22:37, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
dupe, bad filename WikedKentaur (talk) 14:42, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: next time please use {{Rename}} Jcb (talk) 22:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
copyvio [2][3]-58.176.42.242 14:59, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- The Wikicom one has much higher resolution and larger size. It can stay. It's also possible that the author spred his/her own work.(GgHHyipper (talk) 16:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC))
- Our picture does not have a higher resolution - it has only been enlarged. Notice the general fuzziness, and the distinct distortion around the back of the white truck. We can also note that our image was uploaded on the 14th, and the website is dated to the 10th. When compared to the website's photo, ours has been conveniently cropped where theirs shows credits.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 09:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- delete There seems to be a campaign to keep downloading pictures in the hopes that one will stay. English Wikipedia carefully considered whether non-free use was fair and it was decided to delete. Then people kept uploading other non-free pictures of the plane. There are line drawings of the plane and new drawings can be made. Quite a few private citizens took photo so they are out there, just have to ask for their permission. Atlantic 1919 (talk) 00:15, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 22:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Watermarked images uploaded by User:AMaZinG SCZ
[edit]The uploader claims to be the author, but these images have watermarks with three different names: the first says "Rubén Dario Azogue M.", the second says "Junikho Zam", and the third says something like "Byron Hustade". —Bkell (talk) 15:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 17:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Photos from Skyscraper City forum uploaded by User:AMaZinG SCZ
[edit]- File:Av Banzer.jpg — SONY DSC-S500
- File:Santa cruz skyline2.jpg — Adobe Photoshop 7.0
- File:Equipetrol san martin.jpg — no metadata
Likely copyright violations. These images were uploaded by User:AMaZinG SCZ, who claims to be the author, but all three photos were posted on the Skyscraper City forum on 17 June 2008, a year and a half before they were uploaded here. See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:3450g2u.jpg. Note that the photos do not have consistent metadata, which suggests they come from different sources. —Bkell (talk) 15:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyvio's Captain-tucker (talk) 17:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Remaining images uploaded by User:AMaZinG SCZ
[edit]- File:Santa cruz skyline1.jpg — Canon DIGITAL IXUS 50
- File:Parque Urbabo.jpg — Samsung L700
- File:Equipetrol edificio.JPG — BenQ DC C510
- File:Paisaje scz.jpg — no metadata
- File:Camba casa.jpg — Canon EOS 40D
- File:Noche-santa-cruz.jpg — no metadata
- File:Danzas-30.jpg — Adobe Photoshop 7.0
- File:15299 384583176819 659906819 4394953 2270535 n.jpg — no metadata obviously copy&paste from http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=4394953&id=659906819 --Martin H. (talk) 15:59, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- File:Zona sur.jpg — no metadata
All of these photos were uploaded by User:AMaZinG SCZ, who claims they are his or her own work. Note that no two of these images were taken with the same camera. See the following discussions for likely copyright violations uploaded by this user:
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:3450g2u.jpg
- Commons:Deletion requests/Watermarked images uploaded by User:AMaZinG SCZ
- Commons:Deletion requests/Photos from Skyscraper City forum uploaded by User:AMaZinG SCZ
The uploader's talk page, User talk:AMaZinG SCZ, is filled with notices about untagged images and copyright violations. In particular, the following images uploaded by this user have been specifically deleted as copyright violations in the past:
- File:Vista scz.jpg
- File:Reina hispanoamericana.jpg
- File:Aqualand.jpg
- File:Univ upsa.jpg
- File:UPSA.jpg
- File:Parque aqualand.jpg
- File:Catedral scz.jpg
- File:2 ANILLO.jpg
- File:DESIREE DURAN.jpg
- File:Marcelo Martins.jpg
- File:Gladys Moreno.jpg
- File:Hotel Yotau.jpg
- File:Clasico cruceño.jpg
- File:Barrio santa cruz.jpg
- File:Warnes.jpg
- File:Verano scz.jpg
- File:Reina del carnaval.jpg
- File:Mutualista.jpg
- File:Scz noche.jpg
- File:Primaveraf.jpg
- File:Fundacion scz.jpg
- File:Parque mangales.jpg
There may be others; I am not an administrator here, so I cannot see the full list of this user's deleted contributions. I see no reason to believe the claims of self-authorship for these remaining photos. —Bkell (talk) 15:49, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Delete, nuke all uploads, nothing but copyvios from this user. --Martin H. (talk) 16:04, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Delete Delete all. Everything indicates the user did not take the pictures. Traumrune (talk) 21:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyvio's Captain-tucker (talk) 17:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Source is Danny Wild at http://www.flickr.com/photos/dannywild/4374337041/in/photostream/ - All rights reserved. Although it mentions U.S. Miltary Academy, Wild also photographs for MLB.com. Not necessarily in the course of military duty. Wknight94 talk 15:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
This is not MLB content, and all rights to the images of an event at the United States Military Academy are under Federal control.Gostate1 (talk) 12:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- w:Copyright status of work by the U.S. government says "a work prepared by an officer or employee of the U.S. government as part of that person's official duties." Just because he was in the stadium watching a game does not necessarily mean it was part of his official duties. Wknight94 talk 14:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept: apparently the license at Flickr changed in the meantime, it now says CC-BY-SA Jcb (talk) 22:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
There is no Freedom of Panorama in Argentina for artwork. Rockfang (talk) 15:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete because, sadly, it's true. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- Is there a law in Argentina that says this is a copyright violation? If so, can the creator give up the panorama rights? --Timeshifter (talk) 21:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- If the creator of the artwork gives permission, then the photo can stay.--Rockfang (talk) 23:40, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- I still do not understand. Do people in Argentina take photos of the interesting buildings and public sculptures in their cities and towns? Then if they post them to Facebook, Flickr, etc. they are doing an illegal act? --Timeshifter (talk) 17:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
- If I went to Argentina and took a picture of a building, I would not be violating Argentinian copyright law. If I took a photo of a sculpture or statue that is not public domain, and I did not have express permission from the creator of the artwork, then I would most likely be violating Argentinian copyright law. So, to answer your question, possibly.--Rockfang (talk) 03:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- I left a note asking for help here: en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Argentina. See also:
- en:Memory Park. That page will be text only without the photos.
- If I went to Argentina and took a picture of a building, I would not be violating Argentinian copyright law. If I took a photo of a sculpture or statue that is not public domain, and I did not have express permission from the creator of the artwork, then I would most likely be violating Argentinian copyright law. So, to answer your question, possibly.--Rockfang (talk) 03:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- I still do not understand. Do people in Argentina take photos of the interesting buildings and public sculptures in their cities and towns? Then if they post them to Facebook, Flickr, etc. they are doing an illegal act? --Timeshifter (talk) 17:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
- If the creator of the artwork gives permission, then the photo can stay.--Rockfang (talk) 23:40, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- Is there a law in Argentina that says this is a copyright violation? If so, can the creator give up the panorama rights? --Timeshifter (talk) 21:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- See: Freedom of panorama#United States. Does that mean that the photos on this page, en:Vietnam Veterans Memorial, are also illegal? This is nutty law, especially concerning memorials. Memorials that have been "disappeared." If this is the case, then the Commons needs to expand to allow Fair Use images in certain cases. Otherwise, many copies of an image will be needed for all the different Wikipedias in many languages.
- fairuse.commons.wikimedia.org - would save many gigabytes of server space. --Timeshifter (talk) 05:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know if the Vietnam Memorial article's images are copyvios or not. I'm not concerned with that article at the moment. Also, I doubt Wikimedia Commons will ever host fair use images.--Rockfang (talk) 13:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- I don't see why not. The Commons itself did not exist until the need was seen. By the way why aren't you concerned about that article? I think many editors (such as yourself it seems) who concentrate on deletions, fair use image reductions, etc. don't think enough about additive wiki editing (in contrast to deletion). --Timeshifter (talk) 21:09, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know if the Vietnam Memorial article's images are copyvios or not. I'm not concerned with that article at the moment. Also, I doubt Wikimedia Commons will ever host fair use images.--Rockfang (talk) 13:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 22:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
This image is a copy of the original, made by an user with no history in Commons and anonymous in Wikipedia, who modified directly the JPG file. This person had done the same in two other versions, changing the scales of some maps. These versions have already been deleted. The author of the original work has already made the requested changes and created a new version of the original work, using the design tool. So, this file is no longer used and should be deleted like the others. Paolazaccardi (talk) 15:42, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 22:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
This image is a copy of the original, made by an user with no history in Commons and anonymous in Wikipedia, who modified directly the JPG file. This person had done the same in two other versions, changing the scales of some maps. These versions have already been deleted. The author of the original work has already made the requested changes and created a new version of the original work, using the design tool. So, this file is no longer used and should be deleted like the others. Paolazaccardi (talk) 15:44, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 22:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
This image is a copy of the original, made by an user with no history in Commons and anonymous in Wikipedia, who modified directly the JPG file. This person had done the same in two other versions, changing the scales of some maps. These versions have already been deleted. The author of the original work has already made the requested changes and created a new version of the original work, using the design tool. So, this file is no longer used and should be deleted like the others.7 Paolazaccardi (talk) 15:47, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 22:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
An infringement of the right of likeness, and not permitted to upload the files to Wikimedia Commons by the administrator(priest) of the church. And the Author Tsubasabbs permits it deleted from Wkimedia Commons. Kinno Angel (talk) 17:34, 23 January 2011 (UTC) His permission to delete is here.--Kinno Angel (talk) 17:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Delete 依頼者票 at my request --Tsubasabbs (talk) 21:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Additionaly, Tsubasabbs in his talk page [4] [5] declared his files must be used only in Wikipedia and non-profit purpose. He seems to reject our policy after several explanations.--Kinori (talk) 11:20, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep I see no reason to delete this. Although it is not in use, it is an interesting photograph and of good quality. There is no likeness to infringe -- you cannot recognize the priest, whose face is obscured by the cross. The image was correctly licensed when originally uploaded. The talk page comment is irrelevant -- he can say whatever he likes on his talk page without affecting the license on the images he uploaded. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep A Keep vote was cast. I agree to the opinion of this person.--Tsubasabbs (talk) 21:25, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jcb (talk) 22:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
In Japanese law, if one wants to put a picture to the public, permission of the persons who are taken in the picture is always necessary. And in Japanese law, it is neccssary to get permission of owner of the church when one wants to put photos to the public place. In Japan, Christians are very few(only 1% among state), so it is easy recognize persons. Not only infringement of the right of likeness, but also problem of PRIVACY. Tsubasabbs did not get the permission to put the pictures to worldwide public space as GFDL which can be used in also commercial usage. Kinno Angel (talk) 00:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Grave Japanese law problem. (First) It is necessary to get permission of the owner of the church (or any building, including public museum) when one wants to photo of inner place to the public. (Second) Infringement of the right of likeness. (Third) PRIVACY. In Japan, Christians are very few(1% among the state), and Orthodox Christians are most few(0.01%). (Permission NOT granted) Any permission to put the photo to worldwide public place is not granted to Tsubasabbs.--Kinno Angel (talk) 00:09, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
- Let's take these objections one at a time.
- The first, that it is necessary to get permission of the church is not our problem. Our explicit policy is that we ignore such rules, that any such rules are between the photographer and the institution.
- The second, infringement of right of likeness. There is nothing at Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people about Japan. Perhaps there should be, but the priest is not identifiable. Note that the test here is not "can his brother identify him", but "could a third party who doesn't know him pick his photograph out of a group."
- The third, privacy, is, I think, the same as the second.
- Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete User:Tsubasabbs says in talkpage@jawiki that he/she doesn't permit this picture for commercial usage ([6] in Japanese), and this statement has not been cancelled. So, GFDL & CC-BY-SA licenses seem to be untrue. I think that materials that cannot be used commecially has no room in commons.--Jkr2255 (talk) 05:58, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- Translation of "画像の件について申し上げますが、勝手に（本来の目的以外）に使用したり無断で改変したりすることは一切認めません！それゆえ著作権は放棄しませんが、ウィキペディア内においては皆様に自由に使って頂けるように設定しました。営利・商用目的または本来の目的以外に用いられることは一切認めませんが、人類の英知のために皆様の編集されたページにて資料として用いて頂けるのであれば喜びこの上ありません。" from Tsubasabbs's talk page (19 Jan. 2011 15:12, UTC) below.
- "I will say about the pictures here; I will never permit the pictures used freely without for rightful purpose, and never permit any change without notice! So I do not renounce copyright, but permit the pictures used freely in only wikipedia. I never permit the pictures used for commercials or any other purpose without rightful purpose, but I am very glad if the pictures used in pages which you edit for wisdom of human kind."
- See, Tsubasabbs does not understand any license of Commons. Some users have pointed out him about it several times, but he has not understood, and recently, he has not answered these pointing. It is a reason of doubt on his saying "got permission".--Kinno Angel (talk) 12:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- First, what Tsubasabbs may have said on his WP:JP talk page means absolutely nothing with respect to an image licensed properly by him on Commons.
- Second, even if it did have some relevance, he has clearly repudiated his WP:EN talk page statement in his two postings above.
- Third, even if he had not repudiated the statement, the fact that he has licensed this image for use on Commons is irrevocable. As I set forth above, no other permission is necessary for use here. It does not matter to us whether the priest or the church gave permission or not. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- Excuse me, but whose WP:EN talk page did you mean? There is no page as en:user talk:Tsubasabbs. --mizusumashi 14:28, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, I meant WP:JP -- I've corrected it above. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you! --mizusumashi 14:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, I meant WP:JP -- I've corrected it above. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- Excuse me, but whose WP:EN talk page did you mean? There is no page as en:user talk:Tsubasabbs. --mizusumashi 14:28, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- Excuse me, for my honour.
- "it was forced from Kinno-Angel in an discussion with him in my talk-page." That is not true. He requested me to delete quickly these files. Mizusumashi pointed out that it is inappropriate discredit to Kinno Angel, and recommended correction, but he rejected to correct. His behaviour brought on much criticism by not only me but also many users on jawp (ja:Wikipedia:コメント依頼/Tsubasabbs20110223, ja:利用者‐会話:Tsubasabbs).--Kinno Angel (talk) 10:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- Mizusumashi pointed out my misconception in jawp. He told that not many users but no users pointed out his behaviour on ja:Wikipedia:コメント依頼/Tsubasabbs20110223. I agreed and apologize to Tsubasabbs and Users of Commons. And Mizusumashi pointed out on ja:利用者‐会話:Tsubasabbs "not many" too, but on this point, I do not agree. Certainly, it was an ambiguous expression. Three users pointed out his behaviour on Tsubasabbs's talk page, and his abusive words about me have brought his block.--Kinno Angel (talk) 23:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete I cast a Keep vote once, but cancel it. There is the reason that you must delete by all means for Kinno-Angel. I lost his passion. I want to respect his opinion this time.--Tsubasabbs (talk) 12:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, We have a longstanding precedent that we allow the deletion of images if the uploader indicates that he or she was in error (either due to language issues or misunderstanding or at-the-time unknown non-copyright restrictions). Since the image was just uploaded in January and is not in use in any project, I think it best if we go ahead and delete it -- with the caution to Tsubasabbs to be more cautious in the future. Powers (talk) 20:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I made mistake.--Kinno Angel (talk) 17:38, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
An infringement of the right of likeness, and not permitted to upload the files to Wikimedia Commons by the administrator(priest) of the church. And the Author Tsubasabbs permits it deleted from Wkimedia Commons. Kinno Angel (talk) 17:39, 23 January 2011 (UTC)His permission to delete is here.--Kinno Angel (talk) 17:40, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete same reason with Commons:Deletion requests/File:Takasakiseikyoukai3.JPG. --Kinori (talk) 11:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept: insufficient reason to delete, correctly licensed, see also the other DR Jcb (talk) 22:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
An infringement of the right of likeness, and not permitted to upload the files to Wikimedia Commons by the administrator(priest) of the church. And the Author Tsubasabbs permits it deleted from Wkimedia Commons. His permission to delete is here. This photo includs the person who is not clergy. And the faces can be recognized. Kinno Angel (talk) 14:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - a church service is a public place (I reverted the other nomination, because you nominated the talk page instead of the image) - Jcb (talk) 16:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
- It's not a place where photography is traditionally permitted, though. There is a certain expectation of privacy during a church service there wouldn't be in a mall or any place not frequented only by a specific narrow group organized for a specific narrow purpose.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep for the reason given by Jcb. Tag the photograph with {{Personality}} if this has not yet been done. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 17:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
- DeleteIn Japan, Chritsians are extremely few(1% among the state). Some do not want to reveal their belief. Church service is not public place in Japan, and it is easy to recognize individual person as his belief in Japan. Tsubasabbs did not get their permission. Grave legal problem(infringement of the right of likeness, and PRIVACY), and in Japanese Wikipedia, its problem has been recognized as grave legal problem[7] [8].--Kinno Angel (talk) 23:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
- (comment)
- I argue against Kinno-Angel's opinion.
- 1) Japan has little population of the Christian, but the number of christian church members does not matter. A church service is a public place in country in the world of any place. Because, regardless of a denomination, the body of Christ is ONE anywhere in the world.
- 2) Tsubasabbs did not get their permission. I object to his opinion and without grounds. I took permission to this Priest and photographed it. A right of likeness and the privacy observe it for Japan Law. --Tsubasabbs (talk) 14:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
- I took permission to this Priest and photographed it.
- Is permission to put to the public granted? I asked it many times! You have not answered it yet. You agreed with deleting in jawp, but you did not do so here. You cheated community of jawp.--Kinno Angel (talk) 23:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Comment At first, in 1969 Japanese supreme court said "everyone have freedom from being unnecessary photographed" in streets as a constitutional right(最判S44.12.24 刑集23.12.1625). Even in definitional "public space", streets it is illegal to take a picture of a person without a valid reason. Therefore the "public space" theory is not enough reason to photograph a person in Japan.- Second, a chapel is not public space, I think. At least it is not as public as streets. And this picture is took at panikhida. I mean it is not just a sunday service, but a service for closed people.
- Third, the old man in right of this image isn't a priest. He is just a altar server. He may have a secular job, non Christian coworkers and customers. We have to be more careful with his privacy and reputation.--mizusumashi 21:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete I cast a Keep vote once, but cancel it. There is the reason that you must delete by all means for Kinno-Angel. I lost his passion. I want to respect his opinion this time. --Tsubasabbs (talk) 12:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete I've written my opinion above.--mizusumashi 15:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per COM:PEOPLE since there is no expectation of photography during this church's services, and apparently the author did not obtain permission to distribute this. The author now supports deletion. --99of9 (talk) 12:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Subject born 1925; I see no reason to believe this photo is 70 years old, let alone that the author died 70 years ago Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:27, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep This file was in the public domain in Russia according to Law No. 5351-I of Russia of July 9, 1993 (with revisions) on Copyrights and Neighbouring Rights as well as File:MayaPlisetskaya02.jpg. But I'm not sure which of {{PD-old}}, {{PD-Russia-2008}} and {{PD-RusEmpire}}, I should have chosen. --Akira Kouchiyama
19:49, 23 January 2011 (UTC), corrected URL --Akira Kouchiyama 20:31, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
,_October_2009.JPG){kind=link}
,_October_2009.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_October_2009.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
,_October_2009.JPG){kind=link}
,_October_2009.JPG){kind=link}
![[3]](http://himg2.huanqiu.com/attachment2010/110110/zip1294618360/1294618360_14.jpg){kind=link}
Kept Jcb (talk) 22:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
not a free image anymore 79.116.251.178 19:11, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept: it's impossible for an image to be "not free anymore". Once free = free forever Jcb (talk) 23:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
1971 != author died 50 years ago Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:47, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 23:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
low-quality mockup thumperward (talk) 23:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 23:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
