Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2011/02/01
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
someone else is claiming copyright Joseph Alexander Mcmath (talk) 08:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted also no permission. -- Deadstar (msg) 16:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
SVG Export in open office did not work properly. Text is missing. I'm sorry. Braini4c (talk) 12:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
deleted -- Deadstar (msg) 16:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
no source, ridiculous license, etc Evalowyn (talk) 13:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyvio from [1]. Lupo 15:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
duplicate of File:Memorial to Ofra Haza in Tel Aviv.jpg. the other file has been released into the public domain. Kw0 (talk) 07:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Exact or scaled-down duplicate: File:Memorial to Ofra Haza in Tel Aviv.jpg -- Common Good (talk) 18:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
duplicate of File:Shepherd David Playing the Harp.jpg. the other file has been released into the public domain. Kw0 (talk) 07:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Exact or scaled-down duplicate: File:Shepherd David Playing the Harp.jpg -- Common Good (talk) 18:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- including: File:Month 2.svg. Béria Lima msg 12:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Ambiguous Source (See DR content) Esby (talk) 11:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
The image was created in 2006, probably after a jpg image hosted on this site.
The disclaimer of this site at this time had this mention:
"In addition, certain material on the 4Parents.gov website is not government material and may not be copyrighted by private entities. Specifically, anatomic graphics on the 4Parents.gov website are copyrighted by the National Physicians Center for Family Resources, Inc."
The file was tagged as no source, so I am tranforming this to a Deletion Request to avoid the file being deleted because of an invalid source.
Imo, here I think the source was the reference documentation that was used for creating the svg. It does not seem to be a copyvio to my eyes, as biological information in itself is not copyrightable. I opened the DR because there are derivated works based on this svg.
Keep Esby (talk) 11:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)- Keep I agree with Esby. Béria Lima msg 12:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Comment This was already solved Commons:Deletion requests/Images based on 4parents four years ago. Miraceti (talk) 19:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)- Comment This appeared apparently after [2] (translation needed?) and [3]. Miraceti (talk) 19:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
![[3]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:2007_IIHF_WC_ticket.JPG&oldid=48951158){kind=link}
Kept. as per above. Yann (talk) 19:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
has a copyright mark waterstamped Evalowyn (talk) 13:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- PCCOE Campus Photo taken at Location Nigadi Pradhikaran,Pune-44 . The Water mark is for the Proper catching of location. own work, editing with Paint.NET on Personal Computer by Mirror420. 14:06, 1 February 2011 user:Mirror420
- @Mirror420: Can you upload the un-edited version of your file please. It is more useful for others that way. Thank you. -- Deadstar (msg) 16:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Duplicate of File:Pccoe.jpg which also has the watermark. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:56, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I get no matches on tineye, however there is no explanation for the source of this image. It seems likely to have either been scanned from a publication or copied from a website due to size and quality. More information is needed to ensure this is not a flickrwashing case. Fæ (talk) 13:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Image could even be a screenshot. -- Deadstar (msg) 16:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. The author is 100% wrong, the source claim is 100% wrong, moreove the "source" is only an flickrwashing account setted up by the uploader. Given this disrespect on copyrights I nuked images from this flickr laundering by this uploader. --Martin H. (talk) 17:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
no source, ridiculous license, etc Evalowyn (talk) 13:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted -- Deadstar (msg) 16:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
unrotated:rotated duplicate exists at File:Yeltsin-monument-Yekaterinburg 1 february opening 1.JPG ssr (talk) 14:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Common Good (talk) 18:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
File doesn't display for me (not after purge etc.) Can someone check it's not broken? -- Deadstar (msg) 15:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Works for me and on nl:Geert van Istendael. --Foroa (talk) 18:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Ik zou niet weten wat er mis is met dat beeld. Ik heb de foto zelf gemaakt en ik heb hem eigenhandig geplaatst. Als het beeld weg moet zou ik toch graag een duidelijke motivatie krijgen. De foto is geenszins schokkend en verscheen zonder problemen in verschillende publicatie. Waarom dan niet hier? Met groet, Michiel Hendryckx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 15:22, 19 February 2011 (talk • contribs) Michiel Hendryckx (UTC)
Closed thanks -- Deadstar (msg) 23:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- This problem is reported under bug 27635. If you encounter more of them tag them as {{NegativeBug}} instead of nominating them. Thanks, –Krinkletalk 18:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Because the Sponsoring of "Freiberger" finished in 2010. Now it's "EnergieVerbund". SBB Dresden (talk) 12:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC) Pehraps we can use that instead: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:EnergieVerbund_Arena.jpg
Keep Irrelevant reason for deletion request. If anything the file may be renamed. But it may as well remain unchanged as the designation was correct when the file name was chosen. Later changes of ownership may be recorded in the image description. --Iotatau (talk) 12:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Keep No need to delete the old picture, that's part of the history of this building. Picture was already exchanged in the German Wikipedia article, so I guess you got what you wanted? --X-Weinzar (talk) 16:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Keep was ist denn das für eine Begründung? *Kopfschüttel* - und gleich mal eine neue Nomination für QI entdeckt :-) --Ralf Roletschek (talk) 20:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Keep No need to delete just because the name has changed. Per Iotatau. Makele-90 (talk) 23:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept, because no valid reason for deletion was mentioned. --32X (talk) 12:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
a private own photo was added in the history by myself. chixoy chixoy (talk) 19:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted historical incorrect version. Uploaded in error. -- Deadstar (msg) 10:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Uploader failed to explain why this is licensed as cc-by-sa Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep The uploader ("submitter") stated that they took the photograph, and described when and where, and they placed a cc-by-sa tag on it with the original upload. What further explanation is necessary? Thparkth (talk) 01:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- I think I misunderstood "submitter" as submitter to something else. I'm sorry, I must be dense putting these images up for deletion :( Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept -- Deadstar (msg) 10:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Not a crop of the original file but a different picture that was uploaded under the same file name. DrKiernan (talk) 14:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Don't see the problem? It has an incorrect template on it (referring to File:Maria II Stuart.JPG) but that's about it? -- Deadstar (msg) 16:10, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yes. The license isn't a problem, but the source is unknown; I've amended the file accordingly. DrKiernan (talk) 17:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Ah I see. I had a little browse on the web, and This page has a larger image and more information on the painting. Still doesn't give us the original source for this crop, but as the license is OK, I don't see a pressing reason to delete. (I don't think Commons actually has the original?) -- Deadstar (msg) 09:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- I agree. DrKiernan (talk) 19:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Ah I see. I had a little browse on the web, and This page has a larger image and more information on the painting. Still doesn't give us the original source for this crop, but as the license is OK, I don't see a pressing reason to delete. (I don't think Commons actually has the original?) -- Deadstar (msg) 09:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yes. The license isn't a problem, but the source is unknown; I've amended the file accordingly. DrKiernan (talk) 17:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I uploaded it by mistake. The proper one is File:Escut de Lladorre THV-ES.svg ESCJosep 19:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Exact or scaled-down duplicate: File:Escut de Lladorre THV-ES.svg -- Common Good (talk) 18:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
copyright violation Ricjac (talk) 14:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, definitely, for nominator's reason. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 16:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 02:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
almost certainly chemically incorrect (Cu on N not O); article deleted en:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Copper L-aspartate (now-deleted comments note that refs contradict even the Cu oxidataion state) DMacks (talk) 17:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom, strange PubChem drawing. --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Leyo 09:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
badly chemically incorrect (would be ammonium-cation/sulfate-anion or something, not free-base/H2SO4; says 2KCl but only has one, and KCl is ionic not covalent) DMacks (talk) 17:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Too small, per nom. --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Leyo 09:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
unused and incorrect (an amine acid complex is not "free-amine with protonated-acid next to it") DMacks (talk) 17:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Leyo 09:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
unused and incorrect (an amine hydrochloride is not "amine with HCl next to it") DMacks (talk) 17:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Ed (Edgar181) 16:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
No evidence for PD-old license. Trycatch (talk) 07:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete: Photograph of a three-dimensional artwork taken from a book published in 1991. Even if the subject of the image is in the public domain, the photograph most likely is not. Someone with access to the site should take a fresh photograph and upload it to the Commons under a free licence. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 15:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 06:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Unused personal low-quality photo, out of COM:SCOPE Ianezz (talk) 09:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Deadstar (msg) 16:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope, per nom. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 11:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 06:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
nome file errato Elenagm (talk) 09:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep As of now there is no duplicate photo with the correct name ("nome file errato" means "wrong file name"), and the photo is of good quality, well within COM:SCOPE, and with a proper license. --Ianezz (talk) 11:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Will {{Rename}} to File:Isola di Cirella.jpg Captain-tucker (talk) 10:20, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Нарушение авторских прав. Взято с http://images.yandex.ru/yandsearch?rpt=simage&ed=1&text=%D0%B1%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B5%D1%82%20%D0%B7%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%83%D1%88%D0%BA%D0%B0&img_url=biletleader.ru%2Fdb.img%2Fgallery%2Fcind4lap06.jpg&p=4 Torin (talk) 09:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- delete. The file is marked with (c) Vadim Lapin (photo) source gallery. NVO (talk) 10:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 10:29, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Datei wird nicht korrekt angezeigt. Ukomm-REGIOCAST (talk) 12:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete description states: Logo darf nicht ohne Freigabe von REGIOCAST verwendet werden. Possible copyvio. -- Deadstar (msg) 16:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 07:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Unused personal logo -- Deadstar (msg) 12:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete: no idea if the logo is "personal" (seems to be the logo of a car wash company), but it is unused and, in my view, outside the scope of this project. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 16:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Unused logo, possibly personal, so out of scope. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 11:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 07:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Unused low-quality personal user photo, out of COM:SCOPE Ianezz (talk) 12:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete for nominator's reason. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 16:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Basically out of scope. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 11:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 07:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
no source, ridiculous license, etc please take a look at uploaders other contibs aswell Evalowyn (talk) 13:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Most now nuked (speedy nominations by user:Lupo), two still remaining: File:Severianodescobertas.JPG and File:Severianocobertas.JPG which without more information are also out of scope. -- Deadstar (msg) 16:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete: no proper licence or description. Unusable for any project. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 16:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- The original image is deleted, remaining contributions do not seem to be useful. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 11:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted " (show/hide) 17:12, 1 February 2011 Deadstar (talk | contribs | block) deleted "File:Paju.jpg" (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Paju.jpg: no source, ridiculous license, etc please take a look at uploaders other contibs aswell + Copyright violation: Looks like a blown-up version of the image at http://www.correiodopovo-al.com.br/v3/espor) (view/restore) (global usage; delinker log)" abf «Cabale!» 07:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Source="google", unknown whether this coa qualifies for pd-us-100 -- Deadstar (msg) 14:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete for nominator's reason. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 16:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 07:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Missing evidence for permission by the copyright holder 84user (talk) 14:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete: image is high quality and has EXIF, but unless uploader is able to provide OTRS confirmation, it should be deleted. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 16:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 07:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Collection of chocolates - logos etc: derivative work. Once deleted, please protect filename. -- Deadstar (msg) 15:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete for nominator's reason. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 16:23, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 07:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Uncategorized, essentially unused (the one link doesn't count IMHO since it is just a list of uncategorized pictures). I really tried to see how this could be educationally useful and came up with nothing. Rsberzerker (talk) 17:39, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, as out of scope, very low resolution photo of a generic office space. No practical way we could obtain further information about the photo to make the illustration more specific. Blurpeace 05:22, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
as per [4] --~ Fernrohr (talk) 16:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Just railway infrastructure, no architecture. -- Herby (Vienna) (talk) 20:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to by own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. There are also several TinEye matches (see here for one) --Ianezz (talk) 16:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 07:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to by own work: small resolution. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 07:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Bad quality for own work, lakely screenshots from copyrighted video. Bad date of images. 79.173.80.253 18:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- And also:
- File:Peter_Hyams_2.jpg
- File:Peter_Hyams_3.jpg
- File:Peter_Hyams_4.jpg
- --79.173.80.253 18:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Deadstar (msg) 09:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 07:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Non free logo Kiran Gopi (talk) 18:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 07:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Photo of a photo, no source for the original and no indication that the real copyright holder released it under a free license. Martin H. (talk) 18:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Deadstar (msg) 10:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 07:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Photo of a photo or photo of a magazine, not free. Martin H. (talk) 18:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Deadstar (msg) 10:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 07:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Photo of a photo, uploader cant release someone else work under a free license this way. Martin H. (talk) 18:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Deadstar (msg) 10:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 07:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Photo of a photo or photo of a magazine, no source for the original Martin H. (talk) 18:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Deadstar (msg) 10:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 07:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Photo of a photo or magazine, no source for the original. Martin H. (talk) 18:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Deadstar (msg) 10:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 07:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
No permission http://talisman.sochi2014.com/gallery/3739/ -- Common Good (talk) 18:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 07:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
According to Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Tango_B-396_Model.JPG, submarine models aren't useful articles and must be deleted. NVO (talk) 20:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Isn't this just simply a case of a derivative work? -- Deadstar (msg) 10:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- A derivative of a derivative ... let it dive. NVO (talk) 16:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 07:10, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Not usable file: Unused collage that refelcts a personal opinion. Because of this a encyclopedic use is not thinkable. Commons is no place for promotong personal points of view. 80.187.106.27 20:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted fails to reach COM:PS abf «Cabale!» 07:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Cover of a book released in 2008, ISBN 978-5-386-00620-4. NVO (talk) 21:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Deadstar (msg) 10:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 07:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope unknown children. not other contribution by this uploader Oxam Hartog 23:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Deadstar (msg) 10:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 07:13, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
very bad quality not used on others wiki Oxam Hartog 23:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted not usable for educational purpose abf «Cabale!» 07:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
cover of a book, possibly copyvio, no permission for such licensing Postoronniy-13 (talk) 23:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Deadstar (msg) 10:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 07:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Serves no educational purpose Reywas92 (talk) 19:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep We have some pictures from him here.It's nice to have a picture of himself also here. --Fg68at de:Disk 03:28, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep A certain number of user images is allowed. I see no problem here. --High Contrast (talk) 07:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Unencyclopedic image not used anywhere Reywas92 (talk) 19:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept. in use = in scope. -- Common Good (talk) 19:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
No authorship information of depicted 3D artwork. Kelly (talk) 23:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep According to en:Pania this statue is located in New Zealand. According to COM:FOP#New_Zealand there is FOP. --MGA73 (talk) 19:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep per COM:FOP#New_Zealand. Jujutacular talk 01:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
I cannot tell from the description whether it was situated on premises open to the public, which is how we tell that freedom of panorama applies. It seems to be a private school [5], so my best guess is that its building is not open to the public. The carver died in 1970, so none of the criteria at COM:LICENSING#Ordinary_copyright seem to fit.--Chaser (talk) 00:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
The Altar Cross is in a school in Bath. I really wanted to include this on my wikipedia article of Alan Durst but as FOP does not seem to apply then I guess I am going to lose this one. Is there no way around this?
Weglinde (talk) 07:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- en:Alan Durst is already overloaded with photos - perhaps, five times more than needed, - and many are suspicious, too. What makes this image worth keeping in an encyclopedia article (rather than an album of works)? Arguably, a file may be uploaded on en-wiki under fair use policy, - if it is critical to subject matter, and is itself discussed inside the article. Discussed, not mentioned in a list, not just illustrated. The rood-screen is discussed in the article, the school cross is not. On a side note, the article has too many other issues - you need to recruit help there, on en-wiki (and accept a lot of ruthless surgery to your text - but then, you've been already warned about it). NVO (talk) 08:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep: I don't see a problem with FOP applying to this image. An artwork does not have to be in a public place accessible by all and sundry. It is sufficient if a segment of the public (staff and students of the school) have access to the location. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 15:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Jack. I strongly suspect that if I walked into the school office and asked politely to see the cross because I was interested in Durst's work, I would be allowed to see it. The rule is "premises open to the public", and that would qualify. Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Source website might be licensed with a CC-BY license, but the image is from Getty images: http://www.gettyimages.ie/detail/BU001665. Copyvio. -- Deadstar (msg) 10:10, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Check http://www.gettyimages.ie/detail/BU001665: Licence type: Royalty-free. Terms here:
- http://blog.fotolia.com/us/faq/main/license.html Please, don't bother me no more about licenses and remove the label.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dirk74 5 February 2011 04:07 CET - Delete Royalty-free only gives purchasers the right to employ the image, but this is non-transferable. Thus it doesn't equate to a free license. - Bilby (talk) 21:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- And what if the Mises Institute bought the image? I have sent Judy Thommesen from the Institute an email on this. So please don't delete now. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dirk74 21:33, 8 februari 2011 (CET)
- That doesn't change anything. Getty Images haven't given up their copyright to the image (or the copyright claim of the photographer, as the case may be). What they've done is allowed the purchaser to use the image multiple times with the one purchase, but the license restricts further distribution of the image. - Bilby (talk) 11:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- I have a reply from the Mises Institute. I'll forward it to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org tonight
- http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dirk74 19:25, 8 februari 2011 (CET)
- I'm afraid that, as far as I can tell, the Mises Institute can't give permission to use the image. It belongs to Getty Images, and they allowed the Mises Institute to use it subject to a licensing agreement. Part of that agreement was: "Licensee may not: (i) make the Licensed Material available (separate from the Licensee Work) in any medium accessible by persons other than authorised Users; or (ii) make the Licensee Work available in any medium or manner intended to allow or invite a third party to download, extract or access the Licensed Material as a standalone file, such as for a screensaver."[6] Thus I'm not sure how an email from the Mises Institute can help, unless they own the original image and Getty has been selling it on, or they are connected with the original photographer. - Bilby (talk) 22:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- The Mises Institute responded with:
<quote> - This picture is royalty-free and we paid for the initial image giving us the right to use it again. Since you are reproducing the same book, in tact, I don't see that there should be a problem.
- From Getty's website:
- Royalty-free images
- Royalty-free pricing is based solely on the size of the product you need, not the specific use. You don't have to pay any additional royalties on a use-by-use basis. Once you purchase a royalty-free product, you may use it multiple times for multiple projects without paying additional fees.
</quote> - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dirk74 09:42, 9 februari 2011 (CET)
- That's pretty much what I expected to be the case - the Mises Institute have purchased the right to use the work in their projects, however they have not purchased the copyright to the work, and therefore it cannot be released under a free license. Copyright is a separate issue to royalty-free use. Thus including it here is, I'm afraid, a copyright violation, and is against the licensing agreement Getty provides for their royalty-free images. The only person who could allow it to be released under a free license and used here is the copyright owner, which is likely to be either Getty Images or the original photographer. - Bilby (talk) 11:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- The Mises Institute responded with:
- I'm afraid that, as far as I can tell, the Mises Institute can't give permission to use the image. It belongs to Getty Images, and they allowed the Mises Institute to use it subject to a licensing agreement. Part of that agreement was: "Licensee may not: (i) make the Licensed Material available (separate from the Licensee Work) in any medium accessible by persons other than authorised Users; or (ii) make the Licensee Work available in any medium or manner intended to allow or invite a third party to download, extract or access the Licensed Material as a standalone file, such as for a screensaver."[6] Thus I'm not sure how an email from the Mises Institute can help, unless they own the original image and Getty has been selling it on, or they are connected with the original photographer. - Bilby (talk) 22:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- I have a reply from the Mises Institute. I'll forward it to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org tonight
- That doesn't change anything. Getty Images haven't given up their copyright to the image (or the copyright claim of the photographer, as the case may be). What they've done is allowed the purchaser to use the image multiple times with the one purchase, but the license restricts further distribution of the image. - Bilby (talk) 11:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- And what if the Mises Institute bought the image? I have sent Judy Thommesen from the Institute an email on this. So please don't delete now. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dirk74 21:33, 8 februari 2011 (CET)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Adolf Bock, Finnish, born 1890 died 1968 but license claims it is PD because author died over 70 years ago, clearly contradicting itself; is there a way Commons can keep this? Nominating for discussion as it would be shame to lose it, but if the artist died in 1968, we would need a clear license from the heirs 84user (talk) 11:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete: Agree. If the author was Bock and the file description page correctly states he died in 1968, and assuming the image was first published in the European Union, then it is still copyrighted. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 16:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per above, no credible evidence that this is PD. Jujutacular talk 23:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I uploaded this image myself; however it is no longer needed as there is a better alternative image at File:Mountain_Dew_Throwback_2010.jpg Jeff Bedford (talk) 14:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Possibly derivative works, and copyrighted. -- Deadstar (msg) 16:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete both images as unauthorized derivatives of copyrighted works. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 16:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Copyvio per COM:DW. Jujutacular talk 00:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Author=Gemeentevoorlichting Spijkenisse, which does not mean uploader can release this with a PD-self license. -- Deadstar (msg) 14:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
According to the IndiaFM/bollywoodhungama license tag, screenshots are not covered. The image was nominated for speedydeletion, I was about to review it and I come to the conclusion that the speedy nomination is valid, in the meantime the copyvio tag was removed by the nominator. Pages like http://www.yusrablog.com/actors/bollywood-actor-ashmit-patel-in-big-boss-4/attachment/salman-khan-and-ashmit-patel-in-big-boss-4-show/ confirm that this is a screenshot. Even the bollywoodhungama source titles this image as a "Still" - a still from the television show Big Boss 4. Screenshot, non-free content. --Martin H. (talk) 17:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Image is not owned by BollywoodHungama as claimed in the license.--Managerarc (talk) 14:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
{{PD-Finland50}} applies only to photographs, this is not a photograph. A333 (talk) 15:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
This is is another poster with the same license issue. --Kolli (talk) 22:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:42, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
as per [7] --~ Fernrohr (talk) 15:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:42, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
as per [8] -- Fernrohr (talk) 15:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
as per [9] --~ Fernrohr (talk) 15:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
as per [10] --~ Fernrohr (talk) 15:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
as per [11] --~ Fernrohr (talk) 15:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Author=F.G. Cornelis yet licensed with "pd-self". Username does not resemble FG Cornelis. -- Deadstar (msg) 15:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
as per [12] --~ Fernrohr (talk) 15:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Image was deleted before: No freedom of panorama in the source country: Copyright violation: This is a 3D work of art that was on display in MGM back lot. Within the United States, there is no freedom of panorama for 3D works of art, including models such as this. -- Deadstar (msg) 15:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
as per [13] --~ Fernrohr (talk) 15:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
as per [14] --~ Fernrohr (talk) 15:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
as per [15] --~ Fernrohr (talk) 15:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
as per [16] --~ Fernrohr (talk) 15:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
as per [17] --~ Fernrohr (talk) 15:56, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
as per [18] --~ Fernrohr (talk) 15:56, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
as per [19] --~ Fernrohr (talk) 15:56, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
as per [20] --~ Fernrohr (talk) 16:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
as per [21] --~ Fernrohr (talk) 16:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
as per [22] --~ Fernrohr (talk) 16:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
as per [23] --~ Fernrohr (talk) 16:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
sourced to company's website, which has blanket explicit copyright restriction http://www.abound.com/legal/Abound_Solar_Legal_Notice.html with no evidence of uploader's claimed permissive licensing. Could be fair-use on specific wikiprojects, but that's out-of-scope for commons. DMacks (talk) 17:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but there is no FoP in South Africa. Dura lex, sed lex. 84.61.177.49 19:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep: FoP does not apply in this case. The stadium it's only part of an image that includes an overview of a city, is not the main purpose of it. --Goldorak (talk) 19:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
According to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tango B-396 Model.JPG, submarine models are not useful articles and their images are not compatible with "their" definition of freeness. NVO (talk) 20:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Derivative of non-free Cookie Monster character design. I am uncertain whether freedom of panorama in Chile applies to works such as parade floats which are ephemeral and in constant motion. Dcoetzee (talk) 20:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete: Freedom of panorama does not apply to non-permanent works. Furthermore, it is not known if these reproductions have been authorized by Henson Associates or Childrens' Television Workshop. This image is also listed at Commons:Deletion requests/Derivative works of Sesame Street puppets. Jappalang (talk) 02:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Jujutacular talk 01:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Violates Cartoon Network's copyright. Copyrighted images do not belong on Commons. JJ98 (talk) 00:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep: Hmmm. I'm going to vote "keep" because the title card consists only of words, and I think the coloured splotches in the background are insignificant enough for the de minimis principle to apply. {{PD-textlogo}} is an appropriate tag here. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 15:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. image is made by author, so you may ask to apply for a form at CN headquartesr, call their PR office, and do the talking with`em stiff officer chumps. Is this segregation of Cartoon Network employs ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Special+Utilizator+$ (talk • contribs) 04:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept (non-admin closure). Jujutacular talk 00:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
I note this image was discussed in 2011, however we have no evidence that the background is not a work of art that attracts copyright in its own right. The rationale of TOO or PD-textlogo are insufficient to support the conclusion that the background is ineligible for copyright. Fæ (talk) 09:31, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. PD-textlogo doesn't fit for this logo. --Krd 11:31, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
According to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tango B-396 Model.JPG, submarine models are not useful articles and their images are not compatible with "their" definition of freeness. NVO (talk) 20:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted by User:Jameslwoodward (non-admin closure). Jujutacular talk 19:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Grafikide
[edit]- File:Logo-grafikide-horizontal-highres.jpg
- File:Logo-grafikideideasforlife-for-web.jpg
- File:PortfolioGrafikide1.jpg
- File:PortfolioGrafikide2.jpg
Advertisement, out of scope. Jafeluv (talk) 09:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete for nominator's reason. The English Wikipedia article "Grafikide" on which some of these images were used has been deleted as spam. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 15:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted out of COM:PS, likely to fail COM:L abf «Cabale!» 06:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Files of User:Shakeemguzman
[edit]- File:Shakeem guzman.jpg
- File:Shakeem guzman and leslie bonner.jpg
- File:SHAKEEM GUZMAN 1.JPG
- File:Shakeem Guzman looking into the mirror of his life.JPG
- File:Shakeem guzman at work.jpg
Personal, low-quality unused photos, out of COM:SCOPE. --Ianezz (talk) 09:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete for nominator's reason. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 15:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 11:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per COM:NOT#Commons is not your personal free web host abf «Cabale!» 06:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Copryrights! 78.49.113.53 15:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Copyrights 92.228.175.231 01:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Irrevocable free license; in use. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep, same IP made Commons:Deletion requests/File:ObiWolf Lesbian foreplay.jpg yesterday about the same file. Max Rebo Band"almost suspiciously excellent" 21:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep per Max Rebo Band. — Jeff G. ツ 04:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept, Speedy close, as no evidence given that the images are not properly licensed. Additionally, I suspect this is part of series of bad faith nominations we've been seeing of porn stars. Tabercil (talk) 17:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
I´m the photographer of this work. The models and I badly want to delete this pictures out the web. Thank you. 78.48.76.157 14:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep If you didn't want it on the web, you shouldn't have released it under a free license permitting anyone else to use it. In scope. Dcoetzee (talk) 17:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete If this photograph was published without the explicit consent of the models, this would be a violation of COM:PEOPLE. --AFBorchert (talk) 19:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- I do not think that is the problem, because the photo is still available at http://www.obiwolf.com/#hotel /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept, Speedy close, as no evidence given that the images are not properly licensed. Additionally, I suspect this is part of series of bad faith nominations we've been seeing of porn stars.[24] (as per above). — Jeff G. ツ 00:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
![[24]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:ObiWolf_Lesbians_in_Bed.jpg&diff=48621756&oldid=48515966){kind=link}
I´m the photographer of this work. The models and I badly want to delete this pictures out the web. Thank you. 92.228.136.0 00:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept, see above--DieBuche (talk) 07:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
author requested delete (see above). Out of scope, potientially pornographic content. Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 13:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- How about if author contact through COM:OTRS? --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 13:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Speedy kept per repeat decisions above. "Potentially pornographic"? The women are covered up much more modestly than is seen at the average public beach, and any eroticism is implied rather than explicit. As mentioned, if the author wishes to contact Commons they may do so through Commons:OTRS. Infrogmation (talk) 13:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
I object to the above speedy, as per COM:PEOPLE, if the author/subject has not explictely given consent for the upload of the image, it shouldn't be used/uploaded to Commons. The author has explicetly asked to have the img taken down Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 16:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep per previous discussions. Infrogmation (talk) 17:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep An individual claiming to be the photographer has been requesting a courtesy deletion for six months. Our OTRS procedure, where they could establish their bona fides, has been explained to them on multiple occasions. Yet they have made no attempt to allow us to verify their identity. I think it would be a good idea for someone authorized to perform a checkuser do so, and see whether the IP address range used by the individual claiming to be the original photographer is one used by an established user. FWIW, if the individual claiming to be the uploader does initiate an OTRS ticket I request the member of the OTRS team who reviews the bona fide be thorough. Apparently some OTRS tickets show that some OTRS volunteers are willing to accept an email from joe.blow@gmail.org or joe.blow@yahoo.com as sufficient to confirm a request is actually from joe blow. Geo Swan (talk) 16:47, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
- Comment there is an existing OTRS ticket from the alleged author https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketID=2011022410009118. Could someone take a look at it and summerize what it says here? --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 03:39, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
- I wrote to another contributor, who had been in contact with the flickr user. They told me they communicated with the flickr user via flickrmail, and that they had initiated an OTRS ticket. While they can initiate the OTRS ticket it really requires the active cooperation of that flickr person to confirm their real world identity. I think we need to assume the flickr person hasn't cooperated. Today I sent a flickr mail to the flickr person, which I will copy to this discussion's talk page. Geo Swan (talk) 22:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
- If I'm reading that OTRS ticket right in that the first 8 digits represent a date, then I can guess what's part of it. As Geo Swan indicated, someone had written to the Flickr account back when. Well, I was that someone... but the date on the is February 24th and that's about two weeks after I forwarded my conversation to OTRS. That's a little long for it to have been sitting in a queue waiting to be read so I'm guessing there was some additional follow-up done on it which I wasn't privy to... long statement short, as a result of my part of the exchange I'm in favour of removing the images. Tabercil (talk) 00:14, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
- A delay of weeks is regrettably long. Unfortunately, if I recall correctly, the OTRS team was backlogged by weeks earlier this year.
I wrote my own flickrmail to the flickr-id in question, a couple of days ago. I copied that flickrmail to this discussion's talk page. No response yet. I think it is important, in principle, to only accept outside requests at face value if the outside requester's real world identity is confirmed via OTRS. The individual who has requested deletion is requesting a courtesy deletion. They are asking for special measures. In return, goldarnit, that individual should follow our procedures, and contact the OTRS team. The individual behind that flickr-id could send me a flickrmail, and I could write repeat their reasons for requesting a courtesy deletion here. But that is not our procedure. According to our procedure members of the OTRS team are the only people authorized to confirm requests from outsiders. I think we should stick to that. Geo Swan (talk) 02:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- A delay of weeks is regrettably long. Unfortunately, if I recall correctly, the OTRS team was backlogged by weeks earlier this year.
- If I'm reading that OTRS ticket right in that the first 8 digits represent a date, then I can guess what's part of it. As Geo Swan indicated, someone had written to the Flickr account back when. Well, I was that someone... but the date on the is February 24th and that's about two weeks after I forwarded my conversation to OTRS. That's a little long for it to have been sitting in a queue waiting to be read so I'm guessing there was some additional follow-up done on it which I wasn't privy to... long statement short, as a result of my part of the exchange I'm in favour of removing the images. Tabercil (talk) 00:14, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
- I wrote to another contributor, who had been in contact with the flickr user. They told me they communicated with the flickr user via flickrmail, and that they had initiated an OTRS ticket. While they can initiate the OTRS ticket it really requires the active cooperation of that flickr person to confirm their real world identity. I think we need to assume the flickr person hasn't cooperated. Today I sent a flickr mail to the flickr person, which I will copy to this discussion's talk page. Geo Swan (talk) 22:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
- Comment I think it would be more convient if we could merge the conversation with Commons:Deletion_requests/ObiWolf_Lesbian_Images as we are discussion the same photographs. That is sort of a "bulk" deal of all of obiwolf's pictures. --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 15:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept - previous 4 (!) DRs - if I see a sixth nomination, I will probably just revert it and protect the page - Jcb (talk) 14:59, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
The uploader has not sufficiently explained why we are using {{PD-Ukraine}} rather than {{PD-Russia-2008}}, which this image will not fit under until 2013. Magog the Ogre (talk) 14:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 21:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
and other uploads by Danceodissi (talk · contribs). Unlikely to by own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, attributed to different sources. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Mentioned image copyvio from http://masakoono.com/en/img/F01.jpg -- Deadstar (msg) 16:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Likely copyvio. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 13:27, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: [25] The images there, if not exactly the same, where from the same series as the ones here. They have different authors which the uploader named in most cases as source. -- Cecil (talk) 21:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
User:Erikcarriere is not the author of the image, so license {{PD-self}} is wrong; date 2009-01-04 is wrong (Richter died in 1981) --Gampe (talk) 16:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Deadstar (msg) 16:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, as above. Yarl ✉ 12:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Zły opis grafiki !!!. To nie jest dwór w Kijaszkowie. To jest budynek kościoła i klasztoru we wsi Trutowo, gmina Kikół, powiat Lipno Clerkus (talk) 16:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- CommentEnglish: I moved the file to give it a correct name. File description was already corrected. Otherwise file is OK.Polski: Zmienilem nazwe pliku. Opis Grafiki juz byl poprawiony. Poza tym plik jest poprawny.--Jarekt (talk) 20:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jarekt (talk) 20:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Insufficient information regarding permission of use of this logo. Mathonius (talk) 16:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Logo of my friend
[edit]
This is the logo of my friend's restaurant. What do I have to do, to keep it?
- I recommend your friend to contact an OTRS volunteer. Please read Commons:OTRS (or in Dutch) for more information. Yours sincerely, Mathonius (talk) 17:10, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted fails COM:PS and at the moment fails COM:L as well abf «Cabale!» 07:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Files of User:Ich bin
[edit]- File:Uzbekistan Embassy guesthouse.jpg
- File:Embassy of Uzbekistan to the Russian Fedaration.jpg
- File:Restoran posolstvaUZB.jpg
- File:RestoranUZB2.jpg
Delete From http://uzembassy.ru/guesthouse.htm. No permission. -- Common Good (talk) 18:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- delete. Permission or not, this marvelous edifice cannot stand the FOP test. How could Fernrohr miss it?! NVO (talk) 19:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. abf «Cabale!» 07:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Based on the source, it appears likely that this map was not created by the US Army Military History Institute, rather by the owners of the webpage or the "HyperWar Foundation" Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Definitely not. It is simply another version of File:Japanese Ichigo Plan - April 1944.jpg, which is offered here as made by the U.S. Army Center of Military History. --Prüm (talk) 20:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep per Prum. Jujutacular talk 01:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep per Prum. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 12:51, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept: per Prüm. -- Cecil (talk) 21:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Logo of the political party, license is possibly incorrect, such logos usually are copyrighted. --Postoronniy-13 (talk) 19:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- comment Without discussing this specific file - would a DIY visualisation of their blazon text [26] be as well "copyrighted" (by whom?) or not? Incidentally, the blazon leaves the impression of being too simple to be protected (three colour band of X colours and Y height, yellow lettering - they didn't even specify a font). NVO (talk) 20:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- PS. As I understand present-day legislation, the blazon never needed a "copyrighting" act - as part of the party's charter, it was registered by the Ministry of Justice (grin), last time in August 2009. NVO (talk) 20:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Comment Our rule is that a particular instance of heraldry is copyrighted by its creator, so that we cannot simply grab such things off the web. As NVO suggests, however, if one of our users creates a new version of the logo from the blazon, it would be free. Also, if the source of this, http://www.logofree.ru, is actually appropriately licensed (sorry, I can't read it), then this is a keep. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Keep Either drawn correct or incorrectly it`s not up to us to delete russian artwork. It`s not up to wikipedy species to express personal opinions such as "logos usually are copyrighted"Special+Utilizator+$ (talk) 05:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept: PD-simple Jcb (talk) 21:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Google shows that this image was used in a poster campaign for Ann Brusseel's political party. I don't believe that this is self made (although I can't seem to be able to find the original at the moment) -- Deadstar (msg) 12:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: it is clearly an official portrait, as a smaller version appears on the website of the Flemish Parliament. However, since this is a high-quality image with EXIF, it may be worth contacting the uploader to try and obtain OTRS confirmation. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 16:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- User hasn't edited in some time. Would be nice to keep if permission can be assured, but otherwise Delete. Jujutacular talk 23:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- Comment I am loth to suggest deleting full size images that have their EXIF data intact, as this is usually a fair indicator that it is an original photo rather than a found object on the internet. But I might make an exception in this case :-). There is a very similar image on the web [27] that was taken a minute after this one, and is again full size, with EXIF data intact, so this image under DR could have similarly been found. And a very suspious note is that the editors other uploads come from 3 seperate cameras. It is possible he has permission, but some explaination is needed. --Tony Wills (talk) 08:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Info On further investigation it appears that Evert Asselman has a close association with at least some of the subjects, and I have sent him an email requesting input from him about these images. So hold these deletions for a while yet. --Tony Wills (talk) 09:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Author has not personally made it public. There are two ways you may keep it:
- Author signs on your printed paper. No good because it's subject to faurgery
- A laweyer gives you the right, and you pass on a scan to wikipedia. Nice...
- you make a nice charcoal painting yourself
- Comments weather she agrees or a guy Google knows her posters and is going to trimm `em off are off topic.
I think she`s cute. Maybe I will print her afterall,is she married ?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Special+Utilizator+$ (talk • contribs) 04:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 01:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
This looks like a promotional image for this politician, and not self made. Uploader has uploaded a few images of politicians with a "self license", all of which seem to be taken from the web. -- Deadstar (msg) 12:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: Image is high resolution and has EXIF. It may be that the uploader was the photographer and thus holds the copyright to the image. I suggest that an attempt be made to contact him or her and request for OTRS confirmation. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 16:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Info It appears that Evert Asselman has a close association with at least some of the subjects, and I have sent him an email requesting input from him about these images. So hold these deletions for a while yet. --Tony Wills (talk) 09:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
DeletePhotograph device in user hands does not mean user publishes him
Special+Utilizator+$ (talk) 04:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 01:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Austrian stamps are not PD by default but public domain 70 years after their creators death. At least one of the authors of this stamp, Wilhelm Dachauer is by far not dead 70 years. --Martin H. (talk) 20:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- What about §7 UrhG? The topic of Austrian stamps was several times widely discussed by the copyright's expert in the de.wikipedia, but no final decision was taken. Stamps published before the partial privatization of the Austrian Post AG are nevertheless able to be considered as official publications according to §7 UrhG and therefor eligible for being public domain. Whether this legal situation has significantly changed since the partial privatization in 1999 or not, is still a matter of discussion. Also look here. --El bes (talk) 11:08, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Nach Österreichischem Recht geniesen "Gesetze, Verordnungen, amtliche Erlässe, Bekanntmachungen und Entscheidungen sowie ausschließlich oder vorwiegend zum amtlichen Gebrauch hergestellte amtliche Werke" keinen Schutz. Siehe auch de:de:Amtliches_Werk. Von Briefmarken ist dort keine Rede, auch sind Briefmarken keine amtlichen Werke auf die eine entsprechende Ausnahme vom Urheberrechtsschutz anzuwenden sein könnte. Ferner sagt die Post selber, sie habe die Nutzungsrechte um die Marken herauszugeben, die Rechte legen aber beim Urheber (§10 - macht auch Sinn bei Betrachtung von §23 Z.3). Weder gibt es einen Hinweis, noch einen Grund warum dem Urheber sein Recht von Gesetz wegen abgesprochen werden sollte, sprich warum der Urheber aus öffentlichem Interesse enteignet werden sollte. --Martin H. (talk) 18:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Das sagt die Post aber erst, seitdem sie kein Amt mehr ist! Vor der Privatisierung war die Post- und Telegraphenverwaltung ein Amt und ihre Postwertzeichen amtliche Werke. Bevor hier eine Massenlöschung gestartet wird (wie etwa gerade mit dem einzigen Bild vom ehemaligen Bundespräsidenten Wilhelm Miklas geschehen), sollte diese Frage noch einmal eingehend ergründet werden. Und dass ein Künstler im kontinentaleuropäischen Urheberrecht nur die Nutzungsrechte verkaufen kann, er aber immer der Urheber bleiben wird, wissen wir. Der letzte Kritikpunkt gilt also für sämtliche Bilder die dieseits des Ärmelkanals entstanden sind, nicht nur für österreichische Briefmarken. --El bes (talk) 06:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- Nach Österreichischem Recht geniesen "Gesetze, Verordnungen, amtliche Erlässe, Bekanntmachungen und Entscheidungen sowie ausschließlich oder vorwiegend zum amtlichen Gebrauch hergestellte amtliche Werke" keinen Schutz. Siehe auch de:de:Amtliches_Werk. Von Briefmarken ist dort keine Rede, auch sind Briefmarken keine amtlichen Werke auf die eine entsprechende Ausnahme vom Urheberrechtsschutz anzuwenden sein könnte. Ferner sagt die Post selber, sie habe die Nutzungsrechte um die Marken herauszugeben, die Rechte legen aber beim Urheber (§10 - macht auch Sinn bei Betrachtung von §23 Z.3). Weder gibt es einen Hinweis, noch einen Grund warum dem Urheber sein Recht von Gesetz wegen abgesprochen werden sollte, sprich warum der Urheber aus öffentlichem Interesse enteignet werden sollte. --Martin H. (talk) 18:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept. - per El bes, also incorrect DR, uploader of the second image has not been notified - Jcb (talk) 11:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Renomination. The last claim by El bas ("Vor der Privatisierung war die Post- und Telegraphenverwaltung ein Amt und ihre Postwertzeichen amtliche Werke") is lacking any source, it is written nowhere that a stamp was an official work, the postal service even says, that they only have the right to use the image on the stamp - thats all, its a limited, exclusive license they hold. A reference for El bes claim must be provided, see also previous deletion requests on Austrian stampse and see de:Wikipedia:Briefmarken. Also I want to mention, that this is not an "incorrect DR", I will NOT relist the second image again but in case this image will be deleted the second image (an extract of this) must be deleted too, no matter I list it here as a courtesy or not, and I have zero doubt that this image will be deleted, its simply unfree for the given reason. Regretably too often admins forget to check for derivative works, thats the reason why I listed the 2nd image above. --Martin H. (talk) 14:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, no evidence that this is an official work, and even if it was, there is no evidence that the Austrian postal service held all rights to the stamp. Kameraad Pjotr 20:30, 3 April 2011 (UTC)