Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2011/01/26
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
It is an illegal picture of a person uploaded without his consent. Shrukain (talk) 19:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Common Good (talk) 18:50, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
flickrvio - flickrstream credits it to facebook. elsewhere i've seen it credited to a news agency. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- Source please? -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 17:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, the Flickr page marked as the source on this image credits the image to this Facebook page. News agency credits make it even more of a problem, but the Facebook issue is sufficient by itself to call this a copyvio. Nyttend (talk) 17:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Keep I think the problem is fixed. What do you think? -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 00:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. No doubt that Frame Maker on Flickr is a collector of this photo on Flickr and not the author, therefore flickrvio. You now changed the source to "extracted from File:NYC Rally for Egyptian Democracy Protestors, 29 January 2011 015.jpg". Thats a photograph of a leaflet (see flickr), photographing the leaflet is a derivative work and it is not de minimis, cropping this image from the leaflet will not make the photo free (furthermore the whole photo of the leaflet must go). --Martin H. (talk) 09:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
low quality Reinhardhauke (talk) 22:42, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- ok (uploader) --Harmonia Amanda (talk) 05:16, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Common Good (talk) 18:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
1982 record album cover. COM:DW Teofilo (talk) 01:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Delete per nom. -- Deadstar (msg) 10:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Album cover, derivative work. Podzemnik (talk) 08:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Derivative work of photograph. Permission from photographer is required. See COM:DW Teofilo (talk) 01:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Derivative work. Podzemnik (talk) 08:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Probably not famous enough to meet COM:SCOPE requirements. Teofilo (talk) 02:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Band is not notable enough, so it is out of the project scope. Podzemnik (talk) 08:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Non-commercial use only (see disclamer underneath Permission field. -- Deadstar (msg) 09:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Per nom. Podzemnik (talk) 08:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
http://www.donitas.nl/foto/view/9736 has the same image. Website is copyrighted, although uploader name is listed here as part of the organisation) -- Deadstar (msg) 09:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- File:Donitas impressie.JPG likely compiled from [1].
- File:Overdracht.jpg from [2]
- And uncategorised & dare I say fairly unusable File:PubliekDonitas.jpg possibly also taken from there. -- Deadstar (msg) 10:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- File:PassTotti.jpg also likely taken from above website. -- Deadstar (msg) 14:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- And File:Tikbal.jpg. -- Deadstar (msg) 12:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. OTRS permission is needed. Podzemnik (talk) 12:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned, Low Quality, used in a now deleted test page, no foreseeable use. FASTILY (TALK) 10:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Per nom. Podzemnik (talk) 08:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
myself requests deletion Mark85296341 (talk) 13:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Túrelio deleted the image a few days ago. Podzemnik (talk) 08:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 14:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Unused personal image, very low quality. Podzemnik (talk) 08:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
unused personal foto Reinhardhauke (talk) 14:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Unused personal image, out of the project scope. Podzemnik (talk) 08:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 14:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Unused personal image. Podzemnik (talk) 12:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 14:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Podzemnik (talk) 08:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
unused personal foto Reinhardhauke (talk) 14:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Unused personal image. Podzemnik (talk) 08:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 14:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Podzemnik (talk) 08:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
unknown musical group Reinhardhauke (talk) 14:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Keep Not unknown. From the description: The Cab. -- Common Good (talk) 18:48, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. I created new category for the band. Podzemnik (talk) 12:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 14:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Useless. Podzemnik (talk) 12:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Duplicate of en:File:Screen shot 2011-01-23 at 17.04.22.png which is apparently a screenshot. Even if not a screenshot, I don't believe the uploader owns this photo as he has uploaded other images to English Wikipedia that he clearly does not own. Plus the source is listed as IMDb. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 15:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. deleted the image a few days ago. Podzemnik (talk) 09:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
This is quite obviously a recent photo, not PD-old. The original uploader is responsible for many copyright violations on Italian Wikipedia. Jaqen (talk) 16:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Per nom. Podzemnik (talk) 09:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to by own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. Toys may be copyrighted. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Podzemnik (talk) 09:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
"a friend sent me this" - incorrectly licensed. If anything, OTRS needed. -- Deadstar (msg) 16:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Podzemnik (talk) 12:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to by own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:42, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Per nom. Podzemnik (talk) 12:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely uploader is copyright holder of the logo of this students' association. -- Deadstar (msg) 16:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Per nom. Podzemnik (talk) 12:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Sculptor Floriano Bodini (1933-2005) died in 2005. Unfree. Source http://www.duesecolidiscultura.it/monumento-a-stradivari-%E2%80%93-floriano-bodini/ Teofilo (talk) 17:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Túrelio deleted the image. Podzemnik (talk) 09:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
nonsense, COM:PS, ... abf «Cabale!» 17:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Useless. Podzemnik (talk) 09:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
unused, uncroped, near duplicate version of File:Brasão Brasilândia MS2.jpg - no foreseeable use, COA should always be cropped from the background Santosga (talk) 18:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Podzemnik (talk) 09:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
A foto mostra a evolução do TG 06 - 023.
copyviol Reinhardhauke (talk) 18:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Missing information about author or source. Podzemnik (talk) 09:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Vanity photo, Orphaned, obviously improperly licensed, no foreseeable use. FASTILY (TALK) 20:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Unused personal image. Podzemnik (talk) 09:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Item is copyright and should be on en.wiki as fair use, and should not be on this wiki. Diannaa (talk) 22:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Per nom., logo. Podzemnik (talk) 09:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Item is copyright and should be on en.wiki as fair use, and should not be on this wiki. Diannaa (talk) 22:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Per nom., logo. Podzemnik (talk) 09:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
copyvio from here Eddylandzaat (talk) 23:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyright violation. Podzemnik (talk) 09:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Are the Australian Aboriginal flags really de minimis? There is no FoP for 2D works in Australia. 84.61.177.189 07:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- Doesn't matter; the flag is ineligible for copyright. Powers (talk) 23:55, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep De minimis applies to this photograph as the flag isn't the primary focus on the photograph, when photographing something (event, thing, item ect), there is always something copyrighted that will unavoidable. Bidgee (talk) 07:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Copyright issues. Uploader (me) did not have permission to publish this work. Andywagner (talk) 08:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per uploader. -- Deadstar (msg) 10:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Don't know where i can find this function. Sorry.
Deleted. Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 01:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
"pressphoto" from "website". Cannot be released with PD-self license. Website (http://www.johnnyrosenberg.nl) doesn't seem to have any license on it. Not sure it is from there anyway. -- Deadstar (msg) 10:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 01:51, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
replace with updated one Nanda ramesh (talk) 13:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Moved. File:BAC event start diving shot.jpg -- Common Good (talk) 18:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 14:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep a notable person: w:Mike Sinterniklaas. Trycatch (talk) 20:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 14:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Podzemnik (talk) 18:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 14:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Podzemnik (talk) 18:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 14:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Per nom. Podzemnik (talk) 18:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 14:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Podzemnik (talk) 18:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
unused personal foto Reinhardhauke (talk) 14:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Per nom. Podzemnik (talk) 18:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 14:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope, possibly copyright violation. Podzemnik (talk) 18:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
better file exists: File:Chartres Saint-Aignan77.JPG Reinhardhauke (talk) 14:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Different image. (the upper part is missing) -- Common Good (talk) 18:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
useless Reinhardhauke (talk) 14:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. Podzemnik (talk) 18:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
unused personal foto Reinhardhauke (talk) 14:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Common Good (talk) 18:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
The girl retrated ask for deletion in http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contato/Fale_com_a_Wikip%C3%A9dia#Uso_indevido_de_imagem Jo Lorib (talk) 14:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- The fotographer give his permission but the model don´t give hers. She is asking for legal providences if we don´t delet the image.Sorry for my poor english. Jo Lorib (talk) 15:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Deadstar (msg) 16:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Podzemnik (talk) 18:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Picture matches http://i52.tinypic.com/2ef6xlg.jpg http://c2.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images02/90/l_7312473ebca64eb0aefe3a757436b45d.jpg on the band's my space. Permission E-mail is required. Teofilo (talk) 17:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. OTRS permission is required. Podzemnik (talk) 18:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Small size no exif looks like a derivative work of a poster. Kochi is a city in India. Teofilo (talk) 18:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Per nom. Podzemnik (talk) 18:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Same doubt as for Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kochi team.jpg by same uploader Teofilo (talk) 18:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Podzemnik (talk) 18:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
obviously someone didn't want to get pictured, no face visible, I even doubt possibility of encyclopedic use, unused Herzi Pinki (talk) 19:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Common Good (talk) 18:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Commercial photograph, no proof that it is own work Kafuffle (talk) 20:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Per nom, most probably copyvio. Podzemnik (talk) 18:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
not work of author http://www.tineye.com/search/4e0614af83fe042bba2e5301255fc5dec06e182d/ Kafuffle (talk) 20:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Podzemnik (talk) 18:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
commercial photograph, unlikely to be work of uploader Kafuffle (talk) 20:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Podzemnik (talk) 18:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
We need the unveiling date of the statue, the information on the presence of a copyright notice on the statue, and a written permission as mentioned at COM:OTRS because the picture is a copy of the one on http://www.phs.haywood.k12.nc.us/ where the contents are marked as copyrighed. Teofilo (talk) 01:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Per GA review of Orr on enwiki, it's a montage of copyright images, AKA a derivative work. -Wizardman 03:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose - This is a panorama of a public exhibition, held in Canada. The location of the exhibition, the Hockey Hall of Fame, does not prohibit the taking of pictures. This is not a derived work of any of the objects on display. This is not a close-up of any one copyrighted photograph or design. Any copyrighted works are small and mostly indistinguishable within the graphic image. Possibly a derived work of the exhibit itself, of which the Hockey Hall of Fame allows pictures of, however. Alaney2k (talk) 17:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
At least one, maybe more than one, of the photographs are not de minimis. The fact that the Hall of Fame is a public place and allows photographs is irrelevant. That is true at many museums where there is copyrighted work on display. Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Smaller version of File:Neptune.jpg -- ~ IdLoveOne (talk) 07:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete out of COM:SCOPE : was part of a fiction-like text now deleted at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siriusian Teofilo (talk) 17:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Same problem (out of scope) for other uploads by same uploader :
(they are too simple to be copyrighted, so only com:scope can provide a good reason to delete them) Teofilo (talk) 17:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Not self made, but grabbed from a website that watermarks its images with a little camera... 1970s photo - Copyvio. -- Deadstar (msg) 10:40, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Copyright issues. Uploader (me) did not have permission to publish this work. 217.244.10.19 10:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I made this request but was not logged in. Sorry for that. Andywagner
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
As Sur Club was founded in 1969, the PD-Oman/PD-old-50 tag is nonsensical. Magog the Ogre (talk) 13:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
"promo" - out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 14:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Quote, in Spanish, from the book Copia este libro by the lawyer David Bravo specialized in intellectual property rights:
Lobo (howl?) 17:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)La "Paloma Blanca", símbolo de la Paz, también tiene propietarios. Este dibujo de Picasso que el pueblo hizo suyo como estandarte del pacifismo no puede usarse libremente. Si lo hicieras, la entidad que gestiona los derechos del artista no tardaría en ponerse en contacto contigo para comunicarte el precio que tiene tu actividad ilegal. Y esto será así hasta el año 2023. Todas las páginas webs pacifistas que incluyen este símbolo están al margen de la ley. Es posible que "VEGAP", la entidad a la que pertenecen los herederos del pintor, no haga nada al respecto por lo escandaloso que resultaría, pero si decidiera hacerlo, la ley estaría de su parte. Bien sabe esto la Universidad de Málaga, que tal y como dicen sus estatutos, su escudo "ostenta una paloma blanca, reproducción de la imagen que aparece en la litografía del malagueño Pablo Ruiz Picasso". Los herederos del pintor comunicaron a la universidad a cuánto ascendía el uso de ese símbolo universal del que son propietarios. Fue por eso por lo que el 17 de Septiembre de 2004, la Universidad de Málaga anunció el cambio de su escudo.
- English translation: To sum up, the white dove is an original idea of Spanish painter Pablo Picasso, so it is copyrighted until 2023. Some institutions like the University of Málaga have had problems in the past with the use of this drawing. Rastrojo (D•ES) 17:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- I understand why Málaga University had a problem, they use the Paloma for their business, this is a mere reference of such image BUT law is law SO i decided to contact VEGAP to request a license for its use in wikipedia as a reference, lets see what happens, we can delete it for now.. --Mrbarletta (talk) 22:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Somewhere between "artistic craftmanship" and "flat works". But definitely not permanently located (a celebration event) see Template:FoP-Canada Teofilo (talk) 17:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- I see this was slated for deletion and I've restored it. I think 'folk art' -- and this is an example -- is quite important to preserve and to include in Wikipedia entries.
I've no vested interest in this piece and will not belabour the argument further, but I'd really hate to see Wikipedia become just a storehouse of corporate images (logos, building exteriors and the like for organizations). There has to be room for a wider aesthetic, I think.
Over to you!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kathleen5454 (talk • contribs) 00:20, 27 January 2011 on File_talk:YWCAofCalgarybanner.jpg (UTC) (copied here by Teofilo (talk) 12:25, 29 January 2011 (UTC))
We might like to keep it, but it is a copyrighted banner and there is no evidence of a license. Note that this image could probably be kept at WP:EN as fair use. Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
unless we have proof this was published before a certain year, it is not public domain. Regardless, it was definitely not created by the uploader (w:File:Besa-KavajEB.png). Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Studio style photo of an individual, used in a now deleted test page. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 20:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Vanity photo, Orphaned, obviously improperly licensed, no foreseeable use. FASTILY (TALK) 20:42, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned - was uploaded over a vanity photo, obviously improperly licensed, no foreseeable use. FASTILY (TALK) 20:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
low quality and no explication Reinhardhauke (talk) 22:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Bessere Auflösung gibt es nicht, da Ausschnitt und sehr alte Kamera. Neue Sitte, Bilder deswegen zu löschen? Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 09:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. It is true that the quality is low, but we have only this image of this particular window in the chapel. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Nominating two files for deletion:
The two files are slightly different versions of the same photo; both list the same source. There is no reason to believe this photo is a work either of the Library of Congress or of the U.S. Army. The source given certainly makes no such claim. —Angr 22:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- Just for clarification: I uploaded the second image, which is simply a cleaned-up and somewhat enlarged version of the original, which I made for the purpose of better visibiility in the en.Wiki article it was used in, which I was cleaning up at the time. All the information in my upload was copied verbatim from the original -- my participation was purely mechanical, relying in good faith on the information provided by the original uploader. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:13, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 14:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 18:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
and File:Nacional - Bogota.jpg, File:Sede-nacional.jpg. Unlikely to be own work: missing EXIF, resolutions typical for photo-services. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete I don't know where the second comes from, but File:Nacional - Bogota.jpg is the same as one on flickr which is under copyright and was uploaded there three years earlier. - Bilby (talk) 23:01, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Bridges are copyrighted in France as architecture. Teofilo (talk) 17:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Per GA review on enwiki, "The star is an artistic work, which can be copyrighted. Canada has freedom of panorama, which permits "free" photography of works of artistic craftsmanship that are permanently situated in the public. But this star might not be a work of artistic craftsmanship. It is more like an engraving or etching, which would make it a graphic work instead." Not positive one way or the other, but needs to be decided on nonetheless. -Wizardman 03:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose A panorama of a section of public sidewalk. Certainly a sidewalk is not a graphic work in any meaningful sense of the term. Alaney2k (talk) 17:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose The star is the logo of the Canada Walk of Fame, see http://www.canadaswalkoffame.com/ Their website makes no mention of copyrights while allowing downloads (via button) of pictures in their image libraries with many having the same star all over them. --DeVerm (talk) 02:06, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete If this were an image of just the logo, we would delete it immediately as it is a copyrighted symbol and the user has no permission. So why is this different. The fact that a site does not mention copyright is irrelevant -- everything has a copyright, we can use material only where the source says it is licensed appropriately. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- it's different because it is a section of public sidewalk. if you say that copyright exists everywhere, then we could not take -any pictures- as everything would be a derived work. everything. you cannot license a section of public sidewalk. you cannot be sued over taking a picture of a public sidewalk. Alaney2k (talk) 04:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Comment No, sorry, that is simply not true. A copyrighted work may not hosted here at Commons unless it is properly licensed. The fact that it is in public is usually irrelevant. There is an exception to that general rule, which we call freedom of panorama which applies to some works in some countries. The question here is whether Canada's limited FOP applies to this logo. I think not, as a logo is not "a sculpture or work of artistic craftsmanship". Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- Comment No. The block of sidewalk is a trophy, on permanent display, not a logo. It is more than a stylized star, there is the signature, the hockey sticks symbol and name, all not present in the organizational usage. This is exactly like a statue on public display. Alaney2k (talk) 20:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- Comment I don't think so. We haven't had a lot of discussion on the Canadian law here, so I can't say for sure, but the UK law is very similar and it is clear in the UK that 2D works are not allowed under the FOP exception. Even if it is not a logo, it is 2D and therefore not allowed by FOP. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:10, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Too simple to be copyrightable, though this may be borderline Jcb (talk) 00:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Files of User:FromEast
[edit]- File:2011 Japan Coach.JPG
- File:2011 Iran Coach.JPG
- File:Iran & DP Korea 2011.JPG
- File:2011 Japan & Jordan.jpg
- File:Asian Cup 2.JPG
- File:Asian Cup 1.jpg
- File:Asian Cup Oppening Ceremony.JPG
The uploader claims these images are "from my mobile". They are all images from privileged vantage points at this tournament, and at least one (2011 Japan & Jordan.jpg) is a copyvio from FIFA.com. Probably all copyvios, unlikely the uploader took any of them. --Gump Stump (talk) 19:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Most probably all copyvios. Podzemnik (talk) 12:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Unless I am mistaken, this as first published in the UK in 1909. The author is Pamela Coleman Smith, who died in 1951. This is public domain in the US only: w:File:RWS Tarot 07 Chariot.jpg. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 00:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
