Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2011/02/13
 |
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}
I doubt that this image is the own work by the uploader: low image resolution, no EXIF data, strange framing 79.237.174.144 11:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- Speedy delete Copyvio of this page. De728631 (talk) 16:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Blatant copyright violation. --High Contrast (talk) 18:29, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
I doubt that this image is the own work by the uploader: low image resolution, no EXIF data 79.237.174.144 11:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- Speedy delete, copyvio (mind the identical cars). De728631 (talk) 16:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Blatant copyright violation. --High Contrast (talk) 18:27, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
out of scope -zu viel Feld! Reinhardhauke (talk) 16:13, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, not out of scope. Picture should not show the church, but the impression someone walking towards Heinsberg get of the church. In German: Bildintention war nicht die Kirche als solche. Dargestellt werden sollten die wellige Landschaft in Heinsberg westlich des Klosterhofes, in der ein Wanderer langsam von der die Gegend weit überragenden Kirche - trägt im Volksmund deshalb den Beinamen "Selfkantdom" - bekommen kann. --Alupus (talk) 17:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
en: It's in Category:Heinsberg and not in Category:Churches in Heinsberg, so the intention wasn't to show the church's details. I feel the image was uploaded with regard to w:de:Heinsberg, maybe to be inserted into the paragraph w:de:Heinsberg#Geologie? Or in some paragraph about the local morphology still to be created? – I would suggest that the uploader gives a more extended description, focussing the point to be shown, relevance could then be judged against that.
de: Da da Bild in Category:Heinsberg liegt und nicht in Category:Churches in Heinsberg, ging's wohl wirklich nicht um die Einzelheiten der Kirche. Ich denke, das Bild wurde eingestellt im Hinblick auf Verwendung in w:de:Heinsberg, vielleicht im Abschnitt w:de:Heinsberg#Geologie? Oder in einem Abschnitt über die lokale Morphologie, der noch entstehen soll? – Mein Vorschlag ist, dass der Einsteller die Beschreibung etwas ausbaut und darin hervorhebt, was dadurch illustriert werden sollte, dann sieht man, ob das Bild dafür taugt. -- 79.217.164.12 19:05, 13 February 2011 (UTC) (w:de:Benutzer:Silvicola)
Kept. definitely not out of Commons' scope --:bdk: 19:07, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Misunderstanding of Prof Galindo-Deshays' attribution: upon clarification this photo fits more like an CC-BY-NC-ND attribution, so not for Wikimedia at this time. Bobjgalindo (talk) 16:33, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
I need to change the name of the file Treteen (talk) 11:16, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
I need to change the name of the file
Deleted. File moved by User:Túrelio -- Common Good (talk) 20:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I improved the picture and uploaded "Fioravanti styling drawing 2.jpg" to replace this picture LarryStevens (talk) 09:15, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. File:Fioravanti styling drawing 2.jpg -- Common Good (talk) 20:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
The uploader (me) no longer wants the file to be searchable for privacy reasons. Mwltruffaut (talk) 19:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Common Good (talk) 19:44, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Request of uploader; meant to upload in png. Please just delete and don't tell me jpg's are good too; they aren't. Floydian (talk) 02:50, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted / --Fanghong (talk) 01:19, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
It is a duplicate of File:Crab-eating Fox (Cerdocyon thous).jpg and appears to be described as the wrong species. WolfmanSF (talk) 03:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- I am a bit confused about the identification of this fox. I expect you are correct, but can you explain it in more detail. Snowmanradio (talk) 14:22, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted / --Fanghong (talk) 01:22, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Unused and outside of Commons' project scope. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:41, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted / --Fanghong (talk) 01:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
bad quality, can not be used 4028mdk09 (talk) 11:15, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted / --Fanghong (talk) 01:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Outside of Commons' project scope. Apparently only uploaded for use in fr:Rémy La Tona, which has since been deleted. This also applies to File:Remylatona2.jpg. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:29, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted / --Fanghong (talk) 01:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Its replaced by (original) SVG. JPG is only for photografics (also looks not like the original). Perhelion (talk) 11:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- Deleted by User:Túrelio as a duplicate.--KTo288 (talk) 00:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
There is no "Tinocorticosteroid", and does not match to any of those, wrong background. Yikrazuul (talk) 12:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Delete per nom for unused and with formatting problems. DMacks (talk) 15:09, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 13:29, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Missing stereo, superceded, not used, bad quality. Yikrazuul (talk) 12:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. DMacks (talk) 15:09, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 13:31, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Poor quality, not used, far better alternative (1, 2) exist. Yikrazuul (talk) 13:01, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. DMacks (talk) 15:09, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 13:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Missing stereo, bad qualtiy, unused, far better alternatives (1, 2) exist. Yikrazuul (talk) 13:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. DMacks (talk) 15:10, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 13:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Poor quality, unused, far more alternatives exist. Yikrazuul (talk) 13:23, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. DMacks (talk) 15:10, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 13:33, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Poor qual, unused, far better alternatives exist. Yikrazuul (talk) 13:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. DMacks (talk) 15:10, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 13:35, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Poor quality, unused, far better alternative exist. Yikrazuul (talk) 13:34, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. DMacks (talk) 15:10, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 13:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
unusual layout, poor file-format, author watermark, unused (superceded by File:Piperidin.svg, would be trivial to draw a non-vector format if needed) DMacks (talk) 13:37, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Strongly per nom. --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 13:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
missing stereochemistry, poor file-format, unused (superceded by File:Estrone.png) DMacks (talk) 13:42, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Strongly per nom. --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 13:38, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
unusual layout, poor file-format, unused (superceded by many other options and formats) DMacks (talk) 13:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Strongly per nom. --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 13:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
unusual layout, poor file-format, unused (superceded by File:Gluconic acid.svg, would be trivial to draw a non-vector format if needed) DMacks (talk) 13:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Strongly per nom. --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:09, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 13:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
unusual layout, poor file-format, unused (superceded by File:Dehydroepiandrosteron.svg, would be trivial to draw a non-vector format if needed DMacks (talk) 13:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Strongly per nom. --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:08, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 13:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
unusual layout, poor file-format, unused (superceded by File:Androstanolone.svg, would be trivial to draw a non-vector format if needed DMacks (talk) 13:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Strongly per nom. --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:08, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 13:40, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
unusual layout, poor file-format, unused (superceded by many other options and formats) DMacks (talk) 13:53, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Strongly per nom. --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:08, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 13:41, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
unusual layout, poor file-format, unused (superceded by File:Glutathion.svg, would be trivial to draw a non-vector format if needed) DMacks (talk) 14:09, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Strongly per nom. --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:08, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 13:43, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
poor file-format, unused (superceded by File:Hydroxyl-group.png, could redo with color-coding if needed for some specific context) DMacks (talk) 14:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Strongly per nom. --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:08, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 13:43, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
unused, structurally incorrect for its apparent intended chemical (have lots of correct alternatives in Category:Histidine) DMacks (talk) 14:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Strongly per nom. --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:07, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Ed (Edgar181) 13:56, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
unusual layout, poor file-format, unused (superceded by many other options and formats) DMacks (talk) 14:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Strongly per nom. --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:07, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 13:45, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
unused, unusual format, missing useful stereochemical details; superceded by File:Progesterone.png DMacks (talk) 14:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Strongly per nom. --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:07, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 13:45, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
unused poor format with artifacts, superceded by File:11-Deoxycorticosterone.svg (would be trivial to redo in non-vector format if needed) DMacks (talk) 14:41, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Strongly per nom. --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:07, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 13:46, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Should be TeX (as table), no sources => original research. Yikrazuul (talk) 21:42, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Tabulation of unsourced data. Not used in any project and I can't find any page that uploader edited that sounds like an obvious topic to begin to figure it out. DMacks (talk) 05:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- Usually I uploaded this for the creation of a new improved Plasmalogen article (Plasmalogens were my PhD thesis) but I still didnt have the time. Can be deleted, data and table will then be rewritten. BTW I edited a lot of pages ...--Phaeton1 (talk) 08:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Ed (Edgar181) 13:58, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
structure is wrong (two missing methygroups), not used anymore. Yikrazuul (talk) 22:13, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete I think it's missing two methylene groups (CH2), one in each chain to the carboxyl group at ring position 6 and 7 (I added notes into the image to clarify), but it's still deletable as incorrect and unused regardless. DMacks (talk) 05:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 13:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
GIF format - deprecated, not needed (= used nowhere on Wiki) - also considering the existence of U+2124.svg kashmiri (talk) 23:44, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. poor scaled-down duplicate George Chernilevsky talk 13:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
No longer used across wikis -> SVG version available kashmiri (talk) 23:53, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. poor scaled-down duplicate George Chernilevsky talk 13:48, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
No longer used across wikis -> SVG version available kashmiri (talk) 23:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 13:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
No longer used across wikis -> has been replaced by a SVG version kashmiri (talk) 23:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. George Chernilevsky talk 13:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
No Freedom of panorama in Ukraine Lymantria (talk) 09:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Comment How old is this church? Should be old enough for public domain already. -- Herby (Vienna) (talk) 09:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Keep. According to this site the church was built in 1912, its architect is Нагірний Василь Степанович (died 1921) — NickK (talk) 12:28, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. I am convinced now. As Ukraine has a life+70 years expiration time for copyrights, the church' copyright is expired. But as apparently NVO still thinks the file should be deleted I will not close the request I started. Lymantria (talk) 15:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- delete. If the sysop says it must go, it will go. Duralex, as they say - the policy is lunacy, but it's the law, and anyway who cares about Ukrainians? NVO (talk) 15:23, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- According to the law of Ukraine the building is not protected by copyright anymore. Or do you have any other arguments? — NickK (talk) 17:23, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- Real-world laws don't work here - what matters is the house rule, aptly called "a help page", and it does not give a break to old buildings. Even the Golden Gate or the Scythian kurgans aren't really safe here - sysops are probing for an all-out mass deletion (see an example - Ukraine isn't much different, it's just underrepresented on commons so Ukrainian deletions are uncommon). NVO (talk) 12:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- In my opinion your statements here seem to get close to COM:POINT. Lymantria (talk) 16:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps even past it. You and your fellow sysops and your duralex lap dogs already made the point very clearly. NVO (talk) 17:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- In my opinion your statements here seem to get close to COM:POINT. Lymantria (talk) 16:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- Real-world laws don't work here - what matters is the house rule, aptly called "a help page", and it does not give a break to old buildings. Even the Golden Gate or the Scythian kurgans aren't really safe here - sysops are probing for an all-out mass deletion (see an example - Ukraine isn't much different, it's just underrepresented on commons so Ukrainian deletions are uncommon). NVO (talk) 12:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- According to the law of Ukraine the building is not protected by copyright anymore. Or do you have any other arguments? — NickK (talk) 17:23, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep architect dead for more than 70 years, building in public domain. Building completed in 1912, so {{PD-RusEmpire}} in any case. Please do not use deletion requests for policy discussions, it needlessly involves other editors who have not taken part in them (and if the image uploader is a new editor, might not even be aware of policies). Also it does not seem that anyone in this deletion discussion is actually an admin, so do not complain about admin behaviour. NVO and Lymantria are the only ones with any special privileges (patroller and image reviewer respectively), while the others - my self included - are ordinary editors. MKFI (talk) 22:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Copyright expired DieBuche (talk) 10:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- Did you mean Kept? :) — NickK (talk) 12:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yep ;)--DieBuche (talk) 13:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Apparently JPEGs aren't welcome. Thanks Andy Dingley (talk) 12:56, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- What's wrong with .JPEGS? There's millions of JPEGs on Commons now. Converting file formats won't add any information to the image and is pointless busy work that consumes excess amounts of editor time. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:09, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- Per tags on the image and my talk, my book scans are it seems, "the worst imaginable". Fine by me, if Commons doesn't want them, then delete away. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- Is there really a technical issue here, or is this just more Wiki file-format bigotry run amuck? Anytime someone starts quoting CCITT standards at me, I suspect a snow job. --69.46.127.7 19:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- Per tags on the image and my talk, my book scans are it seems, "the worst imaginable". Fine by me, if Commons doesn't want them, then delete away. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep in this case I believe the {{BadJPEG}} template is incorrect for this image. The image is a scan of a complex machine diagram, and jpeg format seems proper. Perhaps a png version could be useful (especially with transparent background) but it is certainly not required. {{BadJPEG}} template is more often used in cases where a photoshop (or similar) drawing of a coat-of-arms or other logo-like graphic has been saved in jpeg format causing visible compression artifacts. Sure, an svg vector version of this image would be nice but it is a perfectly good image as it is. MKFI (talk) 13:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept: It's not the sharpest scan, but the informative value is still there DieBuche (talk) 11:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Duplicate (non-exact) of File:Wilhelm I+.jpg — billinghurst sDrewth 13:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep in use. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:27, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept: It's not even better & we should always keep the originals DieBuche (talk) 11:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
I took this photo which is a poster photo from someone else, I am not the author Dinkum (talk) 14:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
{{Delete
|reason=I took this photo which is a poster photo from someone else, I am not the author
|subpage=File:Papillon_sur_un_pissenlit.JPG
|day=13
|month=February
|year=2011
}}
Deleted DieBuche (talk) 10:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
wrong written Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 12:56, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Speedily deleted by User:Otourly. Jujutacular talk 22:18, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
It is not good quality Dinkum (talk) 15:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep could still be useful; I did not find anything better either from Mekong river category. MKFI (talk) 19:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Entirely promotional. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 18:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. Used on Wikipedia solely by editor now blocked for spamming, solely for promotional purposes. On WP, this would be a Speedy G11, "Unambiguous advertising or promotion." Here, it should still be deleted: "The file is not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Examples of files that are not realistically useful include: ... Advertising or self-promotion." TJRC (talk) 22:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Common Good (talk) 19:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Sculptor died in 1959 so work still copyright. On display in a concert hall in the Netherlands which does not qualify as a public place under that country's FOP rules. See Commons:Freedom of panorama#The Netherlands Simonxag (talk) 00:56, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
As this is photographed, and especially as it is cropped, this is not just a picture of a can of Spam: it is a picture of the artwork and there is no permission to copy the artwork. Simonxag (talk) 01:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Does not satisfy de minimis. Jujutacular talk 04:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete derivative work--KTo288 (talk) 22:56, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Clearly not a picture of a tub of cheese, but of the clever artwork on the front for which there is no permission. Simonxag (talk) 02:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, it is a picture of a tub of cheese. It's the main kind of cheese that was available under communism in Hungary, so it's significant in that regard. I realize, however, that I shouldn't have placed it in the "Droste Effect" category, which relates to the copyrighted art, not to the cheese. I'll gladly remove that category if it makes a difference. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:37, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - Category doesn't matter. The copyrighted art is the primary subject of the photo, hence this is a derivative work. Jujutacular talk 22:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- What? The package of cheese is the primary subject of the photo, not the artwork. I'm not sure why this is a problem but Category:Pepsi bottles is not. Please explain before deleting. - Themightyquill (talk) 02:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: This is an area where we have many images that should be deleted. See Commons:Image_casebook#Product_packaging. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Derivartive of a copyrighted book (published in the US in 1975, author still alive in the US). User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 04:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Oppose A state or national flag is not a derivative just because it is shown in a book. Gryffindor (talk) 06:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- The image was scanned directly from that book, so it is not the work of the uploader. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 13:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- Plus, you stated that the license was PD because the author has died over 70 years ago. Dr. Smith is still alive, so the 70 years has not started. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 13:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- The flag is a national flag. Dr. Smith is not the drawer of the flag or the author of it, even if it is shown in his book. You also deleted the flag of the president of Kenya without a discussion[1], please restore it and then put in request. Gryffindor (talk) 15:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- But who created that specific image? That is what I am getting at. It was scanned from a 1974 book, copyrighted in the US, so it is a derivative work. As for the Kenya flag, no. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- User:Zscout370 you are overstepping your rights as sysop by deleting images as you please without a prior discussion. Gryffindor (talk) 04:18, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- But who created that specific image? That is what I am getting at. It was scanned from a 1974 book, copyrighted in the US, so it is a derivative work. As for the Kenya flag, no. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- The flag is a national flag. Dr. Smith is not the drawer of the flag or the author of it, even if it is shown in his book. You also deleted the flag of the president of Kenya without a discussion[1], please restore it and then put in request. Gryffindor (talk) 15:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- Plus, you stated that the license was PD because the author has died over 70 years ago. Dr. Smith is still alive, so the 70 years has not started. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 13:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Standard_of_the_President_of_Kenya.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
- I have been thinking some more about this. PD-art apply for 2D work. Tecnically we could say that this a photo of a 3D work because of the structure of the work and therefor the the photo in the book is copyrighted. But if you look closer at a painting this also 3D but still we say it is 2D. Thinking of this again I think we should consider this a 2D work and therefore PD-art would apply. However we need to find a solution to the problem that author died more than 70 years ago. How old is the flag? Who created it? --MGA73 (talk) 08:53, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- The presidential flag was created in 1966, along with the national flag. Both were established by legal code in 1966. So it has not been 70 years yet since creation. The depiction in this book was from 1974, and the author of that book has not died yet. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 20:20, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
- I have been thinking some more about this. PD-art apply for 2D work. Tecnically we could say that this a photo of a 3D work because of the structure of the work and therefor the the photo in the book is copyrighted. But if you look closer at a painting this also 3D but still we say it is 2D. Thinking of this again I think we should consider this a 2D work and therefore PD-art would apply. However we need to find a solution to the problem that author died more than 70 years ago. How old is the flag? Who created it? --MGA73 (talk) 08:53, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Our policy on flags is clear -- each represenation has a copyright, so this is a clear copyvio of the book. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
No source information provided SBC-YPR (talk) 07:45, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Info - Source tag is in place......Captain......Tälk tö me.. 08:41, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
copyvio 173.192.86.143 07:50, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I think this should be considered a derivative work Lymantria (talk) 09:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- I don't see why it should to be honest. What about all the images in [Category:Products of Nike, Inc.] for example.--User:Turco85 pp--KTo288 (talk) 22:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
- Difficult one for me, but this would be Keep. Clothing is considered to be utilitarian in the US, whilst to us Europeans it is not, Common policy on this however leans towards the US view on this.--KTo288 (talk) 22:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Although made by a dress designer, it's not acutally a dress, but a sculpture of sorts, consistent with his habit of showing one or more such pieces every year. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
"No copyrights were reatined, so they can be reproduced by specifying their source" isn't a valid permission for an image shot in 1989. --Túrelio (talk) 10:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Concerns:
Camille Claudel died in 1943 - will be public domain on 2014-01-01 Esby (talk) 12:41, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
(content was Deleted by Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) on 15:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC) )
It was Undeleted on 2014-01-01 - since the original works passed into Public Domain. Esby (talk) 14:13, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Photograph is attributed to Dora Kallmus (1881-1963) and Arthur Benda (1885-1969), not public domain. Martin H. (talk) 13:42, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Photograph is attributed to Dora Kallmus (1881-1963) and Arthur Benda (1885-1969), not public domain. Martin H. (talk) 13:42, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Photograph is attributed to Dora Kallmus (1881-1963) and Arthur Benda (1885-1969), D'Ora-Benda, not public domain. Martin H. (talk) 13:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
outdated table as per author's comment, only usage was in de:Rasseliste back in 2005, has been replaced by an updatable table in wiki code; no foreseeable use - out of scope Santosga (talk) 14:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
unused outdated image, only usage was in de:Rasseliste back in 2006, has been replaced by an updatable table in wiki code; no foreseeable use - out of scope Santosga (talk) 14:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
~1900 work by Hermann Clemens Kosel (1867-1945), not public domain. Martin H. (talk) 14:30, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete copyvio, undelete in 2016. MKFI (talk) 18:26, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Work by Hermann Clemens Kosel (1867-1945), not public domain. Martin H. (talk) 14:41, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
1917 photograph by Atelier Benda d'Ora, Dora Kallmus (1881-1963) and Arthur Benda (1885-1969). Not public domain. Martin H. (talk) 14:53, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Misunderstanding of Prof Galindo-Deshays' attribution: upon clarification this photo fits more like an CC-BY-NC-ND attribution, so not for Wikimedia at this time. Bobjgalindo (talk) 15:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
- Also nominating:
Was originally uploaded by en:User:Mic of orion sourced to a web forum with a "permission for use on Wikipedia" claim; changed to PD-self claim only later, obviously falsely. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Also there are some more to check, I count 6 different cameras. I think File:Croatian Goulash.JPG (Olympus SP565UZ) and File:Punjena Paprika.JPG (Fujifilm FinePix S3000) are own work, but
- en:File:Ivecohvxz7.jpg (Samsung)
- File:SAKO TRG 42.jpg (Sony Ericsson K770i)
- File:800px-Croatian Army RBS 15 SSM.jpg (=a rescued thumbnail of Croatian Army RBS 15 SSM.jpg, clear copyvio, same pattern you describe above)
- en:File:Mblcnm.jpg (Sony SC-W55)
- File:Sako.jpg (Sony Ericsson K770i)
- en:File:15830b9.jpg (no camera)
- File:Bell 206 and RBS 15 mobile Launcher.jpg (no camera)
- Are or are most likey copyvios. --Martin H. (talk) 16:28, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:31, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Extremely low quality, better images available. Kyknos (talk) 15:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- Some history of this image:
- The original is de:Datei:Neonfische.jpg (now on Commons, correctly transfered).
- It was cropped to en:File:Paracheirodon innesi 2.jpg.
- What we now have on Commons is File:800px-Paracheirodon innesi 2.jpg, a wrong interwiki of the cropped en.wp image with false author.
- Can we delete this image? Yes. It is of bad quality, we still have the original File:Neonfische.jpg, someone will (correctly) transfer en:File:Paracheirodon innesi 2.jpg to Commons, we have better images of the same species in Category:Paracheirodon innesi. Delete to get rid of this bad transwiki. --Martin H. (talk) 15:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and Martin H. MKFI (talk) 19:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:33, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
in the src pdf (a powerpoint persentation) the image is clearly subtitled "m-dot corp". According to this this photo is no government work. → permission / license missing. Saibo (Δ) 15:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Do not delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.170.232.7 (talk • contribs) 2011-02-23T03:14:20 (UTC)
- And why? Where is the permission? Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 10:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Reinhardhauke (talk) 16:10, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- This file converted from a similar in Ru-Wiki[2] Wisky (talk) 17:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep barnstars are in scope; the original ru:Файл:Barnstar Deleter 2.jpg is in use, could be replaced with this commons version. MKFI (talk) 19:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
![[2]](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A4%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BB%3ABarnstar_Deleter_2.jpg){kind=link}
Kept: In use, therefore in scope. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Information panel with photograph and text in France. COM:FOP#France is not OK. Teofilo (talk) 16:11, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Uploader said on my talk page he/she needs a few days to show the picture to somebody for their talk on Wikipedia. Teofilo (talk) 17:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- I've seen this file, it can be deleted, thanks. Symac (talk) 17:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I think the illustration pictures of the book are not old enough to be in the public domain. COM:DW Teofilo (talk) 16:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
This game is from 2010. I have requested permission from the authors/editors to publish a photograph of the game under a copyleft license and I am awaiting for their response.--Diacritica (talk) 16:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
As of today (22.04 13 of February of 2011) I received an email from "Aventuras en La Marca del Este"'s author and publisher Pedro Gil stating that "No te preocupes, puedes publicar las fotos sin problemas" (English translation: "You should not worry at all, you may publish your photographs without problems"). Therefore, I request that "La Marca del Este juego de rol.jpg" is delisted from the Deletion requests. --85.48.160.38 21:11, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- Forward the email to OTRS. --Túrelio (talk) 21:15, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- Done. --Diacritica (talk) 22:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- Any news on this? I forwarded the email so you can verify the identity of Pedro Gil and its OK to the publishing of my photograph.--Diacritica (talk) 17:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- Request for removing detete tag on File:La_Marca_del_Este_juego_de_rol.jpg. The permission for use of this work has been verified and archived in the Wikimedia OTRS system. Could anyone please remove the delete tag?
- It is OK now. Request withdrawn. Teofilo (talk) 11:35, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I would think this is a derative work. Or is just me who is mistaking? --|EPO| da: 16:50, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete I agree. Primary subject is copyrighted. This is a derivative work. Jujutacular talk 22:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
No source or other evidence to support the claim that this is a work of the US Federal Government. Appears to be a screenshot of Occult, which is non-free software. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:01, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
If "around 1950", we need more exact date and correct author information as well as a source for verification to determine the correct copyright status. --ZooFari 19:34, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
The new bridge has been opened at November 16.th 1964. Therefore the photographer can't be died since 70 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.23.227.88 (talk • contribs)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
No Freedom of panorama in Ukraine MorganKevinJ(talk) 03:50, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- One big problem. I have no idea neither whom is this monument dedicated nor when it was built. Of course, the author of this monument is unknown as well. The sources for this monument are not available as well. It would be interesting to know if the author of this monument (which may have been built in 1920s or 1930s) is at least known or if there are any sources proving that it was built before {{PD-Ukraine}} limits. I would be really interested in any information about this monument — NickK (talk) 12:29, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- Update: I have found the only available source about the monument: the photo gallery by local blogger, which shows that the monument was already there in 1950s (as Stalin monument still existed then, and most of monuments to Stalin were demolished by the end of 1950s). Therefore it may fall under {{PD-Ukraine}} as it is anonymous work (sculptor's name is not indicated) which was probably built in 1940s — NickK (talk) 13:28, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- Most likely late 40s - early 50s - part of "Russia the birthplace of elephants" propaganda. Check authorship, though - it may be from centrally-made stock rather than Ukrainian foundries. NVO (talk) 15:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with approximate dates, but no information about authorship is available. The only source states the monument was already there in early 1950s, and the building of the polyclinics was built in 1920s-1930s. Probably the only available source of information is local council, but I have no possibility to contact them. However I would like to know whose copyright I have violated by uploading this photo — NickK (talk) 17:20, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- Most likely late 40s - early 50s - part of "Russia the birthplace of elephants" propaganda. Check authorship, though - it may be from centrally-made stock rather than Ukrainian foundries. NVO (talk) 15:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept: PD-Ukraine Jcb (talk) 09:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
own work. Wrong map, wrong coordinates Das steinerne Herz (talk) 20:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- Comment File is in use. Alpertron (talk) 21:41, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- No need to delete. I reupload the correct version. Thanks! --Das steinerne Herz (talk) 16:57, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: File has been corrected. FunkMonk (talk) 07:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Files of User:Virginia43
[edit]- File:Istana Nural Iman122.png
- File:Istana Nural Iman bathroom 2.png
- File:Istana Nural Iman 102.png
- File:Istana Nural Iman Chief Justice Swearing-in Ceremony.jpg
These images were all uploaded by me: User:Virginia43. I believe they should be deleted because I've yet to receive the email proof (of use permission from the authors) necessary to comply with Wikimedia Commons policy regarding licensing. I believed such evidence was forthcoming at time of the post, but six days have now past without the needed proof. I will repost these images once the authors send me the necessary email. Virginia43 (talk) 00:25, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Delete per uploader's request --Simonxag (talk) 01:10, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted / --Fanghong (talk) 01:14, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Ziad Zaydany paintings
[edit]- File:Daher el-Omar portrait.jpg
- File:Daher el-Omar portrait 1.jpg
- File:Daher el-Omar 001.JPG
- File:Daher el-Omar 005.JPG
painted by Ziad Zaydany in the 1990s. Derivative works. --78.55.58.247 06:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- I got these pictures from Ziad Zaydany himself to upload them to Wikipedia. These pictures are related to the family of the painter. He was very happy that the pictures Are in Wikipedia. This is not a copyright violation Hanay (talk) 10:28, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- The images are of a resolution that can only be obtained through direct access to the artworks, so the above statement is very credible. The subject is a historic figure that we have no images of, and we're grateful that such artworks are released to us under a free license. I just want to point out to Hanay that we need a permission e-mail from Mr. Zaydany himself, so we can document it and avoid any future issues. The permission should include the names of the above images and any other images by him that you uploaded. You can find the details and sample text of such an e-mail at Commons:OTRS. Regards, -- Orionist ★ talk 13:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- I will ask Ziad Zaydany to send me permission for the 3 pictures. I only ask you to be patient. Thanks Hanay (talk) 16:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Don't worry, just get the permission and make sure it follows the OTRS guidlines. Even if the images get deleted, we can un-delete them once we have the permission. Regards, -- Orionist ★ talk 18:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- I got the permission and I sent it to permissions-commons-he@wikimedia.org Hanay (talk) 19:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- Don't worry, just get the permission and make sure it follows the OTRS guidlines. Even if the images get deleted, we can un-delete them once we have the permission. Regards, -- Orionist ★ talk 18:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- I will ask Ziad Zaydany to send me permission for the 3 pictures. I only ask you to be patient. Thanks Hanay (talk) 16:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- The images are of a resolution that can only be obtained through direct access to the artworks, so the above statement is very credible. The subject is a historic figure that we have no images of, and we're grateful that such artworks are released to us under a free license. I just want to point out to Hanay that we need a permission e-mail from Mr. Zaydany himself, so we can document it and avoid any future issues. The permission should include the names of the above images and any other images by him that you uploaded. You can find the details and sample text of such an e-mail at Commons:OTRS. Regards, -- Orionist ★ talk 13:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- added permissionOTRS to all of them. Keep. matanya • talk 19:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
per matanya -- Common Good (talk) 20:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Bad background, poor quality, unused, better alternatives exist. Yikrazuul (talk) 12:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. DMacks (talk) 12:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
unused poor format unusual layout, typo in embedded captioning (superceded by File:Cyclic-adenosine-monophosphate-2D-skeletal.png and File:CAMP.svg) DMacks (talk) 21:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted / --Fanghong (talk) 01:41, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Misunderstanding of Prof Galindo-Deshays' attribution: upon clarification this photo fits more like an CC-BY-NC-ND attribution, so not for Wikimedia at this time. Bobjgalindo (talk) 15:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept: release is not revocable Jcb (talk) 22:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Misunderstanding of Prof Galindo-Deshays' attribution: upon clarification this photo fits more like an CC-BY-NC-ND attribution, so not for Wikimedia at this time. Bobjgalindo (talk) 15:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept: release is not revocable Jcb (talk) 22:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
1924 photograph by Atelier Benda d'Ora, Dora Kallmus (1881-1963) and Arthur Benda (1885-1969). Not public domain. Martin H. (talk) 16:05, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Keep; No proof of the allegation that the photograph had been taken by Kallmus and Benda has yet been provided. Bogorm (talk) 13:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
- So, would not the lack of proof read as "delete" ? Why keep ?
Delete unless uploader finishes Comments on picture to complete Comments, or change picture to display him amongst familly members.Special+Utilizator+$ (talk) 03:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 22:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
and other uploads by Skaeth (talk · contribs). Unlikely to by own work: inconsistent small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:11, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 22:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
and other uploads by Tiburon95968 (talk · contribs). Unlikely to by own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Picture have been taken by my own while I was watching the match between Barcelona SC vs Millonarios, a friendly match which I was taking photographs of the team players.
Thank you for understanding, Tiburon95968
and other uploads by Tiburon95968 (talk · contribs). Unlikely to by own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. Tiburon95968 (talk) 05:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 22:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
and File:Sede Las Torres.jpg. Unlikely to by own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 22:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
and other uploads by Dam000 (talk · contribs). Unlikely to by own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:53, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 22:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to by own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 22:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
The template states that "image only consists of simple geometric shapes and/or text", but that's not exactly true. I think it does meet the threshold of originality. deerstop. 12:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Hrm, if you can hardly read it, there may be some individuality.--141.84.69.20 20:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept. - fonts are not copyrightable, unimportant how artistic they may be - Jcb (talk) 12:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Saying that this consits only of "simple geometric shapes and/or text" is a bit of a stretch. Quibik (talk) 18:09, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Pattern went beyond the threshold of originality for sure. File doesn't consist only simple geometric shapes. JDavid (talk) 12:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Copyrighted logo. --Alpertron (talk) 21:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
It originally came from enwiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Undelete/File:Titan_1_complex.jpg) where it was deleted as " (WP:CSD Image #4 - "Images in category "Images with unknown source" or "Images with unknown copyright status" which have been on the site for more than 7 days, regardless of when uploaded.")" MGA73 (talk) 19:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept: It came from IT.wiki and has a valid PD reason Jcb (talk) 23:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but there is no FoP in the UAE. Dura lex, sed lex. 84.61.155.241 20:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept: all possible FOP issues are DM Jcb (talk) 23:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Its not De Minimis all the building are the primary focus. No FOP is not ruled out by showing De minimis to all the possible FOP violations ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 08:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - obvious case of DM - Jcb (talk) 17:35, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. De Minimis my ass. Those buildings are the main focus of the photo, and are under copyright. 130.126.213.229 03:31, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
- Any opinion you could have, mister anonymous IP, you could be more courteous. I don't feel that comments like "my ass" are very opportune nor very useful in that debate. Thanks. Jeriby (talk) 15:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
- I'm the IP, logged in now. I'll rephrase my comment: Those buildings are clearly the main focus in the photograph, and are thus not subject to de minimis. They are also new enough to be under copyright. There is no Freedom of Panorama in Dubai. Therefore, this photo is a gross violation of the architect's copyright, and must be deleted. If this is an "obvious case of DM", then I would like to assert that I am obviously Prince Charles, because that would be a conclusion just as reasonably drawn from this photo. Buddy431 (talk) 02:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete I agree with the IP. The image features a small number of skyscrapers, each with a sophisticated copyrightable design. I speculate that in claiming de minimis Jcb was speaking in analogy to e.g. a photo of a bookshelf at an oblique angle, which illustrates a bookshelf and not the copyrighted art on the book bindings. The number of buildings here (only a few) and the amount of them shown (1-2 sides in their entirety) effectively distinguish them from this case. I don't believe de minimis can possibly apply here, particularly as the photo features nothing else of interest. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Image prominently features skyscrapers. As they all look alike, it might even be the case, that they are part of only one work of art (i.e. their arrangement in itself might be copyrighted). Even if this is not the case, an image featuring only copyrighted skyscrapers, can not claim DM for these skyscrapers. This is clearly a shot of exactly those copyrighted works, not of some random skyscrapers. -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 22:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)