Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2011/02/20
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
_in_1961.jpg){kind=link}
,_San_Juan_Argentina.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
Some personal informatiopn must not be there.thx Dr.ranyahasan (talk) 05:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
i do not want to isuue this file. Dr.ranyahasan (talk) 06:29, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted-out of scope personal file.--KTo288 (talk) 21:22, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Some personal informatiopn must not be there.thx Dr.ranyahasan (talk) 05:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
i do not want to isuue this file. Dr.ranyahasan (talk) 06:29, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted-out of scope personal file.--KTo288 (talk) 21:22, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Copyrighted 158.36.235.61 16:34, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Speedy delete, blatant {{Copyvio}} by serial copyright violator. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted by Jafeluv: Copyright violation. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:13, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Unused low-image-quality composite of mostly text plus one image, all easily doable in wikimarkup plus any of the higher-quality images from Category:Acetic acid DMacks (talk) 16:43, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom, also should per TeX. --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:10, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Ed (Edgar181) 22:08, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Low-quality unused, superceded by numerous possibilities at Category:Acetic acid DMacks (talk) 16:45, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:11, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Ed (Edgar181) 22:09, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Low-quality (compression artifacts?), superceded by numerous possibilities at Category:Acetic acid. Used only in talk-space DMacks (talk) 16:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:11, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Ed (Edgar181) 22:09, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
unused dup of Image:Acetic-acid-2D-skeletal.svg (same format, both appear to have same use of <text> vs stroke of text, just different default raster/preview-size) DMacks (talk) 17:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, duplicate. --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:11, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Ed (Edgar181) 22:10, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
_in_1961.jpg){kind=link}
_in_1961.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
The reason given for PD is nonsense and it does not look like this image is free in any way. Prince Kassad (talk) 00:43, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
_in_1961.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Copyrighted, see COM:L#People's Republic of China --Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 11:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
_in_1961.jpg){kind=link}
Not clear if the uloader is realy the author of this image; permission is "Další použití POUZE se svolením autora fotografie" ("Other use is possible ONLY with permission of the author of the photography" ...doesn't sound as a free license) Pan BMP (talk) 02:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: According to the quote the photographer did not really license the file with the claimed licenses. Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 11:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Source website indicates license is {{Cc-by-nc-sa}} Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Lukasz Lukomski (talk) 03:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted --Màñü飆¹5 talk 03:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
unused logo of an unknown indian band- out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 03:50, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted --Màñü飆¹5 talk 03:51, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
copyrighted image - copyright violation. taken from the net. unclear value for the commons - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 04:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
- DeleteThere's the article es:Daniel Ponne, and he has a fair number of ghits (I was looking for the source of this image) and as the acting mayor of Venezuela's second city, I guess he's notable enough to be in scope. I haven't been able to find the source image in the municipal website given as source, but if it is from there and this is a copyvio it should be deleted as such.--KTo288 (talk) 21:43, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Unknown source, dubious license as there is no source for the claimed license. Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 11:40, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
unused personal image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 04:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted --Màñü飆¹5 talk 03:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
unused image, taken from the web, has a watermark, copy violation Cholo Aleman (talk) 04:16, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: I couldn't find the exact image (they have too much) but found a lot alike that, and the whole site is under all right reserved --Màñü飆¹5 talk 04:03, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope (should be a politician from france, page deleted in french wp), out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 04:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Unused private photo, for the policy see project scope. Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 11:42, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 04:20, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
- Idem, out of scope - seems to be a minor mountainbiker from Picardie, France. Article deleted on fr. Traumrune (talk) 22:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted --Màñü飆¹5 talk 04:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 04:22, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted --Màñü飆¹5 talk 04:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
unused private art - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 04:34, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Delete, out of scope. Traumrune (talk) 21:52, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted --Màñü飆¹5 talk 04:06, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Promotional studio image of some sort. Used in a now deleted out of scope page. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 05:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted --Màñü飆¹5 talk 04:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
it seems useless 62.98.171.64 06:06, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Keep in use. --Màñü飆¹5 talk 04:10, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept: In use. Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 11:45, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
This image is a derivative work of File:82nd_Academy_Awards,_Miley_Cyrus_-_army_mil-66456-2010-03-09-180301.jpg not the own work of the uploader. Moreover, it's not for educational purposes.--Hoangquan hientrang (talk) 10:28, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Not realistically useful for an educational purpose, see COM:PS for the policy. Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 12:14, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Derivative work from Copyrighted soundtrack. 虞海 (talk) 13:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep per previous deletion request: Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Helsinki Metro Station Announcement.ogg. MKFI (talk) 21:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- Why? FSHL's comment in Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Helsinki Metro Station Announcement.ogg was farfetched and failed to make sense. He didn't give any argument to his “no copyright infringement”. 虞海 (talk) 14:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Subject to related right for phonographic records. (Copyright Law of Finland, § 46) Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 12:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Unused file. Out of project scope: coat of arms of an imaginary country. BrightRaven (talk) 14:48, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep My mistake: this is the COA of a student club in Ghent, Belgium. BrightRaven (talk) 09:47, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Many similar images (Except wiki) are available on web, and the size and resolution of this image creates a web copyvio impression... ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 15:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Unknown copyright situation. Joku Janne(Fi) (Wikiwiki) 12:45, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
that is really not PD-ineligible. That is a photograph (de:Lichtbildwerk) which is always copyrighted in Germany. Saibo (Δ) 18:13, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted --Màñü飆¹5 talk 04:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
unused band promotion - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 19:44, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted --Màñü飆¹5 talk 04:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
unused, a bit strange drawing - out of scope, unusable Cholo Aleman (talk) 19:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted --Màñü飆¹5 talk 04:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 19:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted --Màñü飆¹5 talk 04:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
i put it up by mistake Johnnyf1nn (talk) 01:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: 01:25, 20 February 2011 by Túrelio, closed today by Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:11, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
2D artwork of some sort, used in a now deleted out of scope page. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 05:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:14, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
2D artwork of some sort, used in a now deleted out of scope page. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 05:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:14, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
2D artwork of some sort, used in a now deleted out of scope page. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 05:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:14, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
2D artwork of some sort, used in a now deleted out of scope page. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 05:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:14, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
2D artwork of some sort, used in a now deleted out of scope page. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 05:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:14, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
sorry, but this looks like a copy violation - I do not believe that user koroesu, the uploader is the Author (urheber) of this image. Looks like that the author is unknown Cholo Aleman (talk) 06:24, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Uploader provides no proof that the author of this image died 70 years ago, or even when this photo was taken (presumably, this photo would have been taken in Germany if 1940 is correct). Additionally, we cannot conclusively claim that the license belongs to the US Holocaust Museum now [1]: "opyright and other proprietary rights may be held by individuals and entities other than or in addition to the Museum", and even if we could the US Holocaust Museum claims images "available for limited non-commercial, educational, and personal use only." Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:24, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Sadly, it appears this program was never given a specific license [2]; as such, we must assume this is non-free Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:34, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
our clear Commons policy is that models are covered by copyright. Don't tell a model maker that models are not creative -- you are constantly making choices about how to make small things and what you can omit. 80.187.102.172 14:35, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
- First a general comment. I'm not sure it is that clear that models are covered by copyright, take models of planes, trains and automobiles for example. Yes creativity is needed to make them look right some details cannot be directly scaled, however the modelists art and intention in this case is to attempt to replicate an existing object. I contend that in such cases that the Threshold of originality is not reached and in such cases the copyright resides with the designers of the utilitarian objects being modelled with all that implys. Now what if the object being modelled is not a utilitarian object but a lion or an angel say. I contend that if such models are small and mass produced Commons policy with regards to toys apply (Toys are art) and if large and unique to be in fact no different from sculptures. What is a sculpture? That it is carved in stone, that it be cast in bronze or aluminium or modelled in clay. Does it stop being a sculpture if it is modelled in latex? Commons policy with regards to what sculptures can be hosted is driven by Freedom of panorama concerns.
- Now to address this individual nomination, no FOP in France hence Delete--KTo288 (talk) 22:38, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Comment I agree with KTo288 what was said about photographs of (scale) models. But there has beeen a DR that was recently closed: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dornier Do X - Modell.JPG. The result was delete. In addition: the nominator of this DR has started another DR about models: Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Models. --High Contrast (talk) 08:26, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- Désolé, mon anglais est très mauvais, si je comprends le sens de cette requête, TOUTES les photos de maquettes de dinosaures sont à supprimer de Commons, ce qui représente au bas mot plusieurs centaines de suppressions. Que cette image soit conserver ou supprimer, peu m'importe même si je préférerai qu'elle soit conservée. Toutefois, en cas de suppression, merci d'appliquer cette règle à toutes les images entrant dans ce cas de figure et j'en vois déjà 6 sur cette page et je me trompe, merci de me l'expliquer, je ne suis pas juriste. bon courage à vous. Bonne fin de journée.--Thesupermat (talk) 15:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: If this were a recent sculpture of a lion or a man, there would be no question of keeping it -- why is the sculpture of a dinosaur different? Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
This is a derivative work of the underlying 3D object. France doesn't have public domain for government created works. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
unused private logo - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 19:58, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
unused text, description of some mexican tradition - out of scope, misunderstanding of the commons Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
,_San_Juan_Argentina.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_San_Juan_Argentina.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No working source link and no evidence that the author approved the stated license. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
,_San_Juan_Argentina.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:23, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
,_San_Juan_Argentina.jpg){kind=link}
No valid source (the supposed source is a completely different image) and no evidence that the author approved the stated license. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:20, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:24, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
identified as fair use on en.wp, not a free file Sphilbrick (talk) 21:33, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:24, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Logo of a russian enterprise [3], delete. Traumrune (talk) 21:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope, promotional George Chernilevsky talk 10:11, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Used in a now deleted out of scope page. No foreseeable use. FASTILY (TALK) 22:17, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. Text formula only George Chernilevsky talk 10:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Non-free logo, not simple enough to be PD-ineligible as claimed by uploader. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:48, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete too complex to qualify for PD-ineligible. MKFI (talk) 18:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. Amada44 talk to me 17:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I dont see why a 2008 album is tagged as "published in the U.S. between 1923 and 1977 without a notice". At least the copyright tag is not explained by any source. Martin H. (talk) 23:36, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete The image is a CD cover. I can find no evidence suggesting that the music label, 1969records freely licenses their CD covers and music labels rarely do so. MorganKevinJ(talk) 00:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: 16:09, 22 February 2011 by EugeneZelenko, closed today Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:57, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I think the logo is not free [www.macfe.com.ar], under copyright Traumrune (talk) 21:42, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: {{Logo}} + COM:PS abf «Cabale!» 10:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
It is highly doubtful that this perfect animation was made by the uploader: I assume copyright violation. 80.187.103.89 01:27, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 08:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
This file has no source that could prove that this image was published under a PD-Army-license 80.187.103.89 01:28, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
- Note that Commons requires a primary source that is considered to be a valid source. This is not given by now with this image. --80.187.103.89 01:29, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Keep deleted page is not a reason for not having a source--Sanandros (talk) 12:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jcb (talk) 08:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm not certain this file is actually public domain. The three bullet points listed in the license currently displayed do not appear to apply. There is an OTRS ticket for this image. The ticket was initiated by an email from a live.co.uk email address. If it was a *@*.gov.uk email address I'd be more inclined that the ticket creator had the right to release the image as PD. The source site does not appear to mention any free license. Also, it is a city website, not a country government website. I'm not sure if it is the same in the UK, but in the US, state and city government works are not automatically pd by default. I see no reason to believe this file is PD-UKGov. Rockfang (talk) 02:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: OTRS didn't come from copyright holder, but pointed to the copyright situation of another website Jcb (talk) 17:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I hate to do this, but this image appears to be a copyvio. There are several points here and I'm going to try to make my nomination more readable by splitting them up:
- Background - The image was originally uploaded to :en at en:File:Trs80_2.jpg. The original uploader (en:User:Gbeeker) said, "Photo has no copyright - source http://www.1000bit.net/lista/dati/tandy/m1/mod108.jpg.". Someone came behind them and added the old :en template NoRightsReserved.
- The CURRENT copyright notice from the source website - http://www.1000bit.it - says "NO Copyright © 1998-2010 The material (manuals, brochures, etc.) is NOT to be used for any purpose other than private study, scholarship, or research." Obviously, the latter portion is incompatible with our needs, however ...
- ... from archive.org, at the time this image was uploaded, the copyright notice only said, "NO Copyright © 1998-2006". So a question is, do we consider this to be legally sufficient for our needs? Can we really infer from that message that the website's intent was to release the image into the public domain? I don't think we can, since clearly his updated message says that he wants to place restrictions on its use. (In other words, whatever he thinks "NO Copyright" means, it's not the same as what we need it to mean.)
- From looking at their list of computer photos, a lot of them are obviously scans from magazines, so even if we accept the "NO COPYRIGHT", we can't just assume that this website holds the copyrights to begin with.
--UserB (talk) 16:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: only for the last reason. Release is not revocable, one can't add restrictions later Jcb (talk) 17:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Delete this category and all images that are contained by this category and all subcategorie. Reason: our clear Commons policy is that models are covered by copyright. Don't tell a model maker that models are not creative -- you are constantly making choices about how to make small things and what you can omit --80.187.102.172 14:36, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
- Comment I'm not sure it is that clear that all models are covered by copyright, and I therefore would object to and reject a blanket deleteion of this category and its content. Take scale models of planes, trains and automobiles, of machines in general. For example take the file File:Ariane 5 (mock-up).jpg this is a scale model of an Ariane 5 rocket, in this case the scale is 1:1. Would keeping this file on Commons be very different from keeping a file of a real Ariane 5. I say not. Now how about file File:Ariane-5-model.jpg. This is of course what we usually understand to be a scale model, but the intention is exactly the same: yes creativity is needed to make them look right some details cannot be directly scaled, however the modelists art and intention is to attempt to replicate an existing object. I contend therefore that in this case and cases like it that the Threshold of originality is not reached and in such cases the copyright resides with the designers of the utilitarian object being modelled with all that implys.
.jpg){kind=link}
- Now what if the object being modelled is not of a utilitarian object but a lion or an angel say. I contend that if such models are small and mass produced Commons policy with regards to toys apply (Toys are art) and if large and unique to be in fact no different from sculptures. What is a sculpture? Does it matter that it is carved in stone, that it be cast in bronze or aluminium or modelled in clay. Does it stop being a sculpture if it is modelled in latex or glass fibre? If it is accepted that such models are infact sculptures then Commons policy with regards to sculptures applys, and what can and cannot be kept will therefore be decided by our Freedom of panorama policies and what FOP laws apply in the country the model was photographed in.--KTo288 (talk) 14:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. Even aside from obscure questions of copyright, models such as File:POW ship model.jpg are some 200 years old and are going to be public domain in any case. Also, modelmakers priding themselves on accuracy are not going to be putting their hands up and telling everybody that they exercised so much creativity that the model deserves its own copyright - not good for professional reputation. :-) People should feel free to nominate particular model images that seem dubious, however. Stan Shebs (talk) 16:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. Same opinion than Stan Shebs. --Civa (talk) 18:18, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. Same opinion than Stan Shebs. Wouter (talk) 13:01, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep categories, delete images through normal channels. Some models are too old to be protected anywhere. Others can burn in hell. Yes, commons is idiocy and lunacy, but local immortals say "no models ye peasants" - see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tango B-396 Model.JPG. I wouldn't be worried about mass deletion though. Even active deletionist trolls never pick all relevant images. They delete one, you upload a hundred. It's the plan of this game. I wish the owners of the site cared about their reputations as much as modelmakers do... ;) 04:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: per above keep comments Jcb (talk) 23:08, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
No source provided, impossible to check license status Artem Korzhimanov (talk) 17:38, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept: PD-textlogo Jcb (talk) 23:09, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't think that this is PD-textlogo: it is a British logo! The decorations of the letter E were found copyrightable in a British court (see Commons:Deletion requests/Two British logos) and the S in the circle looks more complex than the E decorations in the Edge logo. The NASA copyright statement looks wrong: the website of the organisation states that all content on the web site is available as CC-BY-NC-SA 2.5, which is less free than the standard PD-USGov. Besides, the organisation is in the UK whereas NASA mainly operates within the US. Stefan4 (talk) 23:15, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
- See also COM:TOO#UK. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per threshold in Commons:Deletion requests/Two British logos (just closed as Delete). Already on en.wiki.
Deleted - COM:TOO#UK --Sreejith K (talk) 18:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm converting the {{subst:npd}} request into a standard deletion request, as this case looks a bit more iffy. I suppose this is non-photographic, but it's quite possible this very logo has been around for 50 years, and its author is corporate, which would make this public domain. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:07, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, no date of first publication, no author, no way to determine whether this is {{PD-Libya}}. Kameraad Pjotr 20:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Supposedly published under the terms of the GFDL and the CC-by-sa licenses, which is probably about as true as the uploader's claims that this file had been OTRS verified (that is: not true). It's quite possibly a candidate for {{PD-AR-Photo}}, though, but we need the date and source of publication for that. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:45, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted, no date and source of first publication. Kameraad Pjotr 19:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
The uploader claimed to be the author and copyright holder of this logo, which is clearly not the case. Ilyaroz blanked out the {{Copyvio}} tag and added {{PD-Philippines}} (while keeping the uploader's authorship claims, assertion of being the copyright holder and bogus licenses intact). There is no evidence that the work has been released to the public domain by the copyright holder or that the copyright has expired. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:17, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
- My mistake, but this could be used to keep it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ph_seal_quezon_lucena.png --Ilyaroz (talk) 19:26, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, that was also the version used on en:Lucena, Philippines until Mervynbunique decided to replace the locally hosted fair use graphic with a Commons copyvio. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
- ...and now en:File:Ph seal quezon lucena.png has been deleted because it was unused. Sigh. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: copyright situation unclear Jcb (talk) 23:03, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Supposedly published under the terms of the GFDL and the CC-by-sa licenses, which is probably about as true as the uploader's claims that this file had been OTRS verified (not true at all, that is). It might be a candidate for {{PD-AR-Photo}}, but we need the date and source of publication for that. The source states that the photo was "provided by Rufino Palomas," so it may also have been unpublished until recently. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 23:05, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Images of User:Dores Of
[edit]Doubtful own work claims. Combine remaining contributions with deleted and you get a wide variety of styles and resolutions and even file names. Only a few have EXIFs. Several have watermarks and time marks but none have the same watermark. Many were marked with {{OTRS pending}} but that may have been a mistake - none have confirmed OTRS. Wknight94 talk 17:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
- File:Cachoeira de Carrancas.jpg
- File:Matriz de dc.jpg
- File:Vista parcial de Resende Costa.jpg
- File:Igreja Matriz de Nossa Senhora da Penha de França (Resende Costa).jpg
- File:Acadêmicos do Samba.JPG
- File:Centro de Dores C..jpg
- File:Figueira de Dores de Campos.jpg
- File:Vista parcial de Prados.jpg
- File:Igreja de Nossa Senhora da Conceição.jpg
- File:Matriz de Nossa Senhora da Conceição.jpg
- File:200px.Bandeira.Prados-MG.jpg
- File:Interior Matriz de Prados-MG.jpg
- File:Prados.jpg
- File:Dona Eva Rainha da 3ª Idade.JPG
- File:Rocambole1504200616.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
- All deleted, thank you. odder (talk) 21:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/Bandeira_itatira.jpg Valberto Silva (talk) 19:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
O arquivo está com o nome errado, além de esta duplicado. Valberto Silva (talk) 19:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: (not by me) Jcb (talk) 10:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/Bandeira_itatira.jpg Valberto Silva (talk) 19:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
O arquivo está com o nome errado, além de esta duplicado. Valberto Silva (talk) 19:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: (not by me) Jcb (talk) 10:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Photos of Michael Lüth
[edit]USDA NRCS plant photos by Michael Lüth are clearly marked as non-commercial and needing notification.[4][5] Wknight94 talk 20:17, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
![[4]](https://plants.usda.gov/java/usageGuidelines?imageID=hysp70_001_ahp.jpg){kind=link}
![[5]](https://plants.usda.gov/java/usageGuidelines?imageID=dibe4_001_ahp.jpg){kind=link}
- File:Bartamia halleriana 1.jpg
- File:Hylocomium splendes.jpg
- File:Dicranum undulatum2.jpg
- File:Dicranum undulatum1.jpg
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:23, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
FOP in Japan only covers buildings not artworks. Sculpture was made in 1948, sculptor Takeshi Ando may well still be alive and so sculpture is still in copyright. So this is a derivative work with no permission. Simonxag (talk) 21:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
The same applies to all the pictures in the category Category:Statue of Hachiko in Shibuya :-
- File:Hachiko-Shibuya 2.jpg
- File:Hachiko-Shibuya.jpg
- File:Hachiko1233.jpg
- File:Hachiko200505-1.jpg
- File:Hachiko200505-3.jpg
- File:Hachiko200505-4.jpg
- File:Socha-psa-Haciko.jpg
I've tagged all these files with this deletion request and notified the uploaders. --Simonxag (talk) 20:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
- As a note, the author of these images is deceased, so he will be unable to comment on this image. I will let the WikiProject Japan on EN know, and they will help investigate the issue. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:06, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
- KeepThis is not a derivative work. Here is the Copyright Law of Japan. See article 46. It's not a copyvio case. Oda Mari (talk) 05:51, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep per Oda Mari. These images clearly fall within the scope of Article 46 of the Copyright Law of Japan. ···日本穣Talk to Nihonjoe 17:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
- I hope you're right but fear you're not. Article 46 is the Japanese Freedom of Panorama provision. It allows copying (derivative works) of any architectural or artistic works permanently located in public places. But there are 4 exceptions where you can't copy. The 1st 3 are just standard "you can't copy the whole building" type rules, but no. 4 prohibits reproduction of an artistic work exclusively for the purpose of selling its copies and sale of such copies. So if the original work is artistic then there's a ban on (at least some, possibly all) commercial use of the photograph of it. And that means that the photo isn't free enough for the Commons. --Simonxag (talk) 21:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
- The question here is that our current reading of #46 prohibits photographs. Because of this discussion I have raised the question at Commons_talk:Freedom_of_panorama#Japan -- asking one of our Japanese speakers to take a look at #46 -- does taking a photograph of a sculpture fall within "reproduction of an artistic work exclusively for the purpose of selling its copies"? I tend to agree with the Keep above, but that is not our current policy.
- Note to my colleagues Let's hold this DR until we sort out the meaning of #46 at the FOP talk page. Thanks, Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:42, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- Re: "asking one of our Japanese speakers". That would be Oda Mari. ···日本穣Talk to Nihonjoe 17:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- We need to know what clause 4 of article 46 actually means. The current English wording that we have is rather odd, no matter what reading you try to give it. It would be most useful if we had some information about how Japanese courts actually interpret this. --Simonxag (talk) 20:05, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- Re: "asking one of our Japanese speakers". That would be Oda Mari. ···日本穣Talk to Nihonjoe 17:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- The question here is that our current reading of #46 prohibits photographs. Because of this discussion I have raised the question at Commons_talk:Freedom_of_panorama#Japan -- asking one of our Japanese speakers to take a look at #46 -- does taking a photograph of a sculpture fall within "reproduction of an artistic work exclusively for the purpose of selling its copies"? I tend to agree with the
- I hope you're right but fear you're not. Article 46 is the Japanese Freedom of Panorama provision. It allows copying (derivative works) of any architectural or artistic works permanently located in public places. But there are 4 exceptions where you can't copy. The 1st 3 are just standard "you can't copy the whole building" type rules, but no. 4 prohibits reproduction of an artistic work exclusively for the purpose of selling its copies and sale of such copies. So if the original work is artistic then there's a ban on (at least some, possibly all) commercial use of the photograph of it. And that means that the photo isn't free enough for the Commons. --Simonxag (talk) 21:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Again, the question is about this, which Oda Mari apparently believes is a correct translation:
- "(iv) reproduction of an artistic work exclusively for the purpose of selling its copies and sale of such copies."
As the translation stands, we must delete, because that is clearly a non-commercial use restriction -- the only question -- a subtlety which I had hoped to get a comment on -- is whether a photograph is a "copy" in the Japanese. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 23:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
