Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2011/02/25
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
The doubtful file (no higher resolution) with the doubtful license from the doubtful user (User:Vidboy10 was blocked on en.wikipedia). Kobac (talk) 11:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
I've changed my ways, sure its not in high resolution but its the best photo i can find. Vidboy10 (talk) 18:43, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
- DeleteBecause of Vidboy10's own statement above. best photo i can find. does not equal own work. And own work in such instances mean that you have to be standing there on the street taking the photograph not copying it off the net.KTo288 (talk) 22:26, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Smaller version of File:Cnred.jpg MilborneOne (talk) 18:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, This, that and the other (talk) 01:55, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
No context. Description unclear. Not useful for an encyclopedic purpose. Uploader appears to have left. DrKiernan (talk) 15:17, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Keep Pterygium. Category fixed. Might be usefull. -- Common Good (talk) 19:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. I've copied the description from a published version of the image in Ophthalmology Times vol. 28, no. 18, p. 2 [1] September 15, 2003. DrKiernan (talk) 09:06, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
The doubtful file (no higher resolution) with the doubtful license from the doubtful user (User:Vidboy10 was blocked on en.wikipedia). Kobac (talk) 11:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
I've changed my ways, sure its not in high resolution but its the best photo i can find. Vidboy10 (talk) 18:42, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
- DeleteBecause of Vidboy10's own statement above. best photo i can find. does not equal own work. And own work in such instances mean that you have to be standing there on the street taking the photograph not copying it off the net. Kobac (talk) 10:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Blatant copyright violation, false claim(s) of own work. Martin H. (talk) 07:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
I have strong doubts, that map background and 'population density map' are copyleft or cc-by-sa compatible Abiyoyo (talk) 14:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
The map itself is under creative commons. Vidboy10 (talk) 16:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep If the original is under license, and attribution remains for the original, then so is any changed image made from it. Unless I am in error, I think this is true. Bearian (talk) 16:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
- Do not keep Its neutrality could be disputed since the areas outside of Gaddafi's control are labeled as "liberated." Not to mention the JPEG quality and general messiness. As the creator said, it was made in 15 minutes. I believe a picture with such importance needs to be redone in a higher quality (SVG) and content. Mohamed Abdel Mageed (talk) 17:17, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
- This deletion request is not about neutrality but about possible violation of copyright. --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 19:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
- Comment I am working on a vectorized version of the image. Plus, it has been modified to replace "Liberated" to a more neutral phrase. --Jjupiter100 (talk) 04:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- KeepI think it's legit for it to be used here and now. --RobNS (talk) 17:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
keep it:because for educational purposes Update It:- If someone can update the file with current information update it; it was created on 23rd-it is history now, today is 25th. If it can not be updated- Keep it.
- Keep - No violation of licenses to be found. --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 19:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
I must say that even if the general picture is correct the liberated tag must replaced by protesters control in order to be generally objective. (who? - please sign!)
- Do not keep The tag "liberated" for areas controlled by protesters clearly violates NPOV. A reformatting of the map with a more neutral tag seems appropriate, assuming it's under license. 68.13.80.113 19:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
- Do not keep The situation is changing so rapidly that it is always out of date, there does not seem to be any publicly available data to confirm if the data was accurate at the time of uploading and the word liberated clearly implies an opinion by the author. Mtpaley (talk) 19:26, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Well couldn't that be fixed by editing, it dosen't have to be deleted.--J intela (talk) 19:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
- Comment OK I agree that the image is fixable, the liberated tag could easily be changed but what about the fact that nobody actually knows what is going on in Libya? I think a simple map of Libya showing the location of places mentioned in the text would work better. Mtpaley (talk) 21:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Well couldn't that be fixed by editing, it dosen't have to be deleted.--J intela (talk) 19:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
- Comment While the term "liberated" may fall under dispute isn't that true? Otherwise, edit it to say something like "Anti-Gaddafi control" or something similar. 207.177.213.110 20:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep conforms with maps i"ve seen in leading newspapers. edit it to improve. 75.138.219.6 22:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Those who have problems with the term "liberated" don't seem to realize that the term "under Gaddafi Control" is also a term that could be challenged. Gaddafi claims that he is only a "symbolic" leader, like the queen of England, and the government is actually under constitutional control. So, by claiming that Gaddafi is in control, and thus is directly responsible for the atrocities committed by the government(s) (including "local" police), is in itself taking a stand on this issue. So, I don't think there really is a serious quibble here with "liberated" The nature of a currents event page is more journalistic than academic, and some flexibility is needed. Additionally, there are a hosts of inaccuracies inherent in "protester control" when many areas just have a lack of government presence, and are being watched over by the equivalant of "neighborhood watches" and other volunteer efforts, and some areas are not actively "under control" of anyone but people going about their daily business.
- Keep (at least for now) Its good enough while the situation is in flux, as long as its CC-SA, GFDL, or some sort of license like that. However, when all is said and done, a uniform SVG map, like most of the other maps on Wikipedia/Commons will be needed. 97.101.143.169
Comment The map, if I'm not mistaken, is from here. --Jjupiter100 (talk) 04:52, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep for now Someone will come along with an SVG more accurate version of this same map. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 07:38, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: User:Vidboy10 was blocked on en.wikipedia. Kobac (talk) 10:18, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep for now The situation is rapidly updating. - Gilgameshkun (talk) 14:04, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- Do not keep The map clearly violates NPOV, featuring items such as "liberated" and "recent Gaddafi attacks". Out with this biased map. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 20:52, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation. Martin H. (talk) 07:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Want to use a differrent file for this. Thank you. Serband (talk) 12:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept: add {{Rename}} to the file and a Filemover will move it. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Would like to stop using this picture for wikimedia. Serband (talk) 10:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept. The license which you gave may not be revoked. It is a good photo and I see no reason why we should delete it. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Please remove this picture! Serband (talk) 20:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Closed early for reasons above. Once is fine, twice is OK, third time is close to vandalism. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Unidentified person on roller blades? Out of scope? Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep in use - in scope -- Common Good (talk) 19:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Closed earlier -- withdrawn, sorry I missed it. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
The info-template of the file says it all. "Source: From a web page", "Author: We created it", "Permission: Got permission from him". This particular photograph is a very common promotional shot, which can be found in multiple sources right now. Since we keep deleting his biography on tr.wiki due to recurring copyright violations, it's natural to assume that we also have no permission for the image. Not to mention that I fail to see anyone citing an OTRS ticket. I am an agent myself, and I'd be happy to handle this, if Mr. Müftüoğlu could send us permission.--~ Vito Genovese 02:58, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, unless OTRS information is forthcoming. Jujutacular talk 18:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom abf «Cabale!» 22:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
created without subject's permission 67.171.227.69 06:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete as out of scope (unused personal image). Note: permission is most likely not required if this is a public place. Jujutacular talk 18:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope abf «Cabale!» 22:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Image is being used for advertisment in article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luna_Encanta_Residential_Community Staffwaterboy (talk) 06:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
- delete, need OTRS-permission--Motopark (talk) 17:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: no permission abf «Cabale!» 22:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
mage is being used for advertisment in article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luna_Encanta_Residential_Community Staffwaterboy (talk) 06:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope abf «Cabale!» 22:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
i want it off Dilaraeozen (talk) 06:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: uploader requested deletion of unused file, out of scope abf «Cabale!» 22:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
An crudely-made animated GIF which appears to be a test (the description is "Hi"). No use whatsoever to anybody. This, that and the other (talk) 06:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, unlikely to be useful. Jafeluv (talk) 08:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope abf «Cabale!» 22:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Advertisement, out of scope. Jafeluv (talk) 07:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom abf «Cabale!» 22:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Advertisement, out of scope. Jafeluv (talk) 07:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom abf «Cabale!» 22:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Advertisement, out of scope. Jafeluv (talk) 08:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom abf «Cabale!» 22:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Advertisement, out of scope. Jafeluv (talk) 08:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom abf «Cabale!» 22:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Freedom of panorama does not apply to 3D artworks still in copyright in the United States. DrKiernan (talk) 09:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete--I agree, mea culpa.--KTo288 (talk) 09:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: questionable copyright, author agreed on deletion abf «Cabale!» 22:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Out of project scope.Unused since 2008 private promotional logo. Uploader alone contribution George Chernilevsky talk 11:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom abf «Cabale!» 22:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Out of project scope. Unused and uncategorized logo since 2008 George Chernilevsky talk 11:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom abf «Cabale!» 22:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Out of project scope text table. Unused and uncategorized since 2008 George Chernilevsky talk 11:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom abf «Cabale!» 22:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Out of project scope text table. Without description, unused and uncategorized since 2007 George Chernilevsky talk 11:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom abf «Cabale!» 22:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Out of project scope advertisement. Unused and uncategorized since 2008 George Chernilevsky talk 11:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom abf «Cabale!» 22:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Out of project scope. Without a description, unused and uncategorized since 2007 George Chernilevsky talk 11:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination abf «Cabale!» 22:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Out of project scope poor quality private logo. Unused and uncategorized since 2007 George Chernilevsky talk 11:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom abf «Cabale!» 22:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Out of project scope. Poor quality, unused and uncategorized since 2007 George Chernilevsky talk 11:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom abf «Cabale!» 22:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Out of project scope text logo. Unused and uncategorized since 2008 George Chernilevsky talk 11:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom abf «Cabale!» 22:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Out of project scope text table. Unused and uncategorized since 2007 George Chernilevsky talk 11:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom abf «Cabale!» 22:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Out of project scope private advertisement logo. Unused and uncategorized since 2008 George Chernilevsky talk 11:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom abf «Cabale!» 22:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Out of project scope private dwawing. Unused and uncategorized since 2006 George Chernilevsky talk 11:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom abf «Cabale!» 22:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Out of project scope. Unused and uncategorized since 2007 George Chernilevsky talk 11:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom abf «Cabale!» 22:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Duplicate of 
. My fault -- forgot to give the file a proper filename. Sorry. Ernie (talk) 13:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: and a "wow!!" for the photo! abf «Cabale!» 22:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to by own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:18, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: could be out of scope as well abf «Cabale!» 22:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Personal photo not in use by any project. Out of scope. – Adrignola talk 16:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom abf «Cabale!» 22:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Family photo not in use by any project. Using Commons as a private image gallery is out of scope. – Adrignola talk 17:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom abf «Cabale!» 22:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope, not in use, possibly self promotional Esteban (talk) 19:18, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: well... I wouldn't call that "promotoion" though :D abf «Cabale!» 22:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Source-Website says image is copyrighted. Avron (talk) 19:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, was deleted before already. --Martin H. (talk) 19:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Copyvio --Kiran Gopi (talk) 04:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom abf «Cabale!» 22:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Outside of project scope: not in use and not going into use anytime soon. Blurpeace 20:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom abf «Cabale!» 22:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Image meet threshold of originality, because it contain more than just simple geometric shapes and/or text. Armbrust (talk) 22:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
- DeleteContain some art --Kiran Gopi (talk) 04:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: definetely not just a "textlogo" abf «Cabale!» 22:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
The portion of the original photo on Flickr, which has been cropped to become the main event, is of unknown copyright status. We don't know the author, the license, etc. Chaser (talk) 04:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Maybe copyvio: page, image Art-top (talk) 07:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Freedom of panorama does not apply to artworks, see Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#United_States. DrKiernan (talk) 09:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
No context. Description, source, location and date unclear. Not useful. Uploader appears to have left. DrKiernan (talk) 09:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Out of project scope drawing. Unused and uncategorized since 2007 George Chernilevsky talk 11:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete questionable copyright as well abf «Cabale!» 22:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Out of project scope promotion of non-notable band. Source site not exist. Unused and uncategorized since 2008 George Chernilevsky talk 11:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Notablility is OK, but this is fan art, unused and not likely to be used. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Magazine Cover. Copyright violation Vssun (talk) 11:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Non-free book cover, source is mentioned as photograph of Mathrubhumi weekly's front cover. Copyvio --Kiran Gopi (talk) 15:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
No copyright information on the 2D work of art featured in the image. Freedom of panorama does not apply in the US to 2D artworks. DrKiernan (talk) 12:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
MRAV.NET Dinamik (talk) 13:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Appears on commcerial websites and appears to be copyrighted. Basket of Puppies (talk) 14:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
This image does not appear on commercial websites b/c this picture was taken by my brother-in-law in the hospital when my nephew was born. This image does not appear on commercial websites and is not copyrighted. I have expressed consent and permission from my sister to use use this picture. If you want my nephews full name and other information/details, then you will have to contact me privately. --Doobins (talk) 18:02, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- Domain owned and operated by myself, Scott Godar of St. Charles, Missouri - aka Doobins. --Doobins (talk) 22:05, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- You don't need to bold everything. That's easy; we just need you to send a message from the email address listed on that page to OTRS, saying it's your photograph and you release it under that license.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry for the bold. Gets me a little agitated that I'm new and try to contribute and get jumped on by users like Basket of Puppies who upload tons and tons of pictures. Am I taking business away from someone by contributing? I can understand the confusion with the domain that I own and hosted the image on. I'm not linking you to my Online Photo Albums!! Lol! The subdomains are HTML (which is what I like to work with), the TLD is PHP/Blog Platform (don't like PHP). --Doobins (talk) 22:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- You don't need to bold everything. That's easy; we just need you to send a message from the email address listed on that page to OTRS, saying it's your photograph and you release it under that license.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- It's stored on a subdomain, so I will create a new email address to send the email. Sorry for the bold, I just don't understand the issue. I had an image rightfully deleted before. But just b/c this one looks like a photographer took it (my brother-in-law actually is an amateur photographer) doesn't mean this photograph is anywhere else... Except the family album. That's why I edited and cropped out certain elements from the photo you see. --Doobins (talk) 22:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- Email sent. --Doobins (talk) 22:32, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Your OTRS email does not state the license under which you are releasing it. So please reply to that email following the instructions in the email. If you can use the standard email template, that would be great.--Sreejith K (talk) 07:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep a clear license was given at upload. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep OTRS approved now. The email came from Scott Godar and it did not show any relation to the user name Doobins until I saw the user page. Approved the request now.--Sreejith K (talk) 04:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
its slanderous and i didnt make it 204.69.119.56 14:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept: I'm not sure what is going on here, but the User page is empty and obviously the IP nominator didn't make it. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Unclear authorship: it's claimed as an own work, but the author is given as "Cincinnatian", not Juju668, the uploader. As well, the permissions template is PD-ineligible — if this were clearly a self-created work, I wouldn't complain, but given the problematic nature of this image's sourcing, that tag only makes this image more suspect. Nyttend (talk) 16:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Self-portrait for a user not in use by the user. Only contained in a user gallery created by another user several years after the image was uploaded. Not in scope. – Adrignola talk 17:18, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Badly retouched version of http://www.explorachiapas.com/images/explaventa1.jpg (context), not entirely own work but copyright violation. Besides some good photos - some of the possibly self-created photos are also retouched with ugly colors the same way - the uploads of HAKEBRY1 (talk · contribs) contain a whole lot of possible copyright violations copy&pasted from various websites. Martin H. (talk) 17:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Photo grabbed from http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=19267499&postcount=56 and retouched, regretably a usual upload pattern by HAKEBRY1 (talk · contribs) whos uploads contain a whole lot of such copyright violations. Martin H. (talk) 17:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Image stolen from http://img.fotocommunity.com/Paisajes/Ros-y-cascadas/Lacantun-a18540829.jpg (context) and retouched with ugly collors. Regretably this seems to be a usual upload pattern by HAKEBRY1 (talk · contribs) who uploaded a whole lot of copyright violations such as this one. Martin H. (talk) 17:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work of the Tux doll. –Tryphon☂ 17:58, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
- This is somehow strange. The Tux doll has been used for years in lots of logos and images of free software projects, as it has a permissive license: [3].--El Pantera (talk) 10:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
![[3]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tux.png){kind=link}
thumb|right|[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tux.png Tux mascot]
![thumb|right|[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tux.png Tux mascot]](/wiki/File:Tux.png){kind=link}
- The permission is for the logo. This object has a different author, who owns copyright on it. –Tryphon☂ 10:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Stolen from http://www.guadalajara2011.org.mx/esp/03_deportes/infraestructura_view_galerias.asp?id_inst=12, colors retouched. Regretably HAKEBRY1 (talk · contribs) uploads contain many such copyright violations. Martin H. (talk) 18:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Appears to be an official image as used on the subjects web page at http://www.nolansisters.com/coleennolan.htm so really needs evidence of permission MilborneOne (talk) 18:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
- The uploader has explained on en page en:Talk:Coleen_Nolan that they have uploaded the image on behalf of the subject Coleen Nolan. Clear the uploader is not the copyright holder so it really needs evidence of permission. MilborneOne (talk) 18:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. The requested proof will not be forthcoming as the uploader has gone off in a huff. See this edit on the English Wikipedia. It makes me doubt very much that the uploader was ever acting for Nolan in any authorised capacity. Professional PR people don't go on like that. It also shows that they regard obeying the rules as nothing more "petty bureacracy" (sic). I would hope that somebody who really acted for Nolan would understand that it is her copyrights we are trying to protect, as well as the Wikimedia projects' integrity. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:04, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Taken from http://www.guadalajara2011.org.mx/ESP/03_deportes/infraestructura_view_galerias.asp?id_inst=8, retouched a little bit with colors and voila, "own work". Regretably not the only upload from this uploader. Martin H. (talk) 19:36, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Computer animation, most likely not the uploaders "own work" but grabbed from a website such as http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=763642 and manipulated a little bit with the colors. Martin H. (talk) 19:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
as with all other uploads by the person who uploaded this: Stolen from a website such as http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=59621837&postcount=131, downscaled, colors retouched and own work claimed. Copyright violation. Martin H. (talk) 19:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No date of photo, no photographer but a website as copyright-holder. I doubt we can trust the license. Avron (talk) 19:45, 25 February 2011 (UTC) La imagen fue tomada hace más de 70 años, por lo que no tiene licencia y está libre para su reproducción.--Alonso de Mendoza (talk) 18:09, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
This notice is not sufficient for a formal release. I've nominated the image pending deletion, unless someone wants to contact Mr. McCarthy in the meantime. Blurpeace 20:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:37, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Non-free content criteria (This is not "PD-textlogo") — Preceding unsigned comment added by Idh0854 (talk • contribs) 2011-02-15T08:23:25 (UTC)
- Keep The grey is just chinese letters and the blue thing is maybe an H. Simple shape. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 21:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep I agree. --MGA73 (talk) 21:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Per above --Kiran Gopi (talk) 04:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Improbable authorship claims given the English Wikipedia uploader's history. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Probably cropt of a old screenshot of www.sovserv.ru. website claimed as source Oxam Hartog 21:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
This picture is claimed to be in Public Domain in Ukraine. It is not proved. In order to be in PD this photograph should be published before 1946; it was exactly created before this date (as the sitter had been murdered in 1945) but there is no evidence that it was published immediately. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 22:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Was for speedy deletion with the given reason: Thumbnail function does not work with this file despite optimized svg format. Perhelion (talk) 22:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
- Speedy keep. Nominator did not provide a true reason. I don't see any obvious problem with this image.--Perhelion (talk) 23:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
A Russian image with an Argentinian licence? Not likely. Could somebody who speaks Russian check it out, please. Cecil (talk) 23:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete There has been a lot of abuse of {{PD-AR-Photo}}, and I see no reason to believe it here.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- The commissars of 1931 registering their copyright in Argentina? BS. Delete. NVO (talk) 21:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Low resolution for own work, MTV logo. Art-top (talk) 06:45, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Why this page has been deleted (or is under inspection) ? I have been waiting for new about this guy for a long time ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.64.93.1 (talk • contribs) 13:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Martin H. (talk) 23:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
logo from an organisation; most likely copyrighted Maniago (talk) 12:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep too simple for copyright. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Yes it is too simple, but is it in scope? Not used. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- Definitely in scope - the nl:Vereniging voor Vreemdelingenverkeer is a major organization. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to by own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Wknight94 talk 01:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
This violates the copyright as described in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eiffel_Tower#Image_copyright_claims . In fact, the image is used to illustrate the very same copyright law that it is a violation of! See also http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing#Works_of_arts.2C_including_architecture.2C_exhibited_in_public_spaces ; it is legal to have a photograph of a ublic area that incidentally includes the Eiffel Tower, but an image that is mainly of the tower is a violation of copyright. Note also that this image was used to replace another Eiffel Tower image that was also a violation of copyright; see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Eiffel_tower_and_the_seine_at_night.jpg . I suggest carefully watching this--for some reason the idea of illustrating a copyright claim by using a violation of that copyright appeals to people. Ken Arromdee (talk) 19:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: Well, it is a claim. Some people are not convinced that the copyright that was recognized to LMEI's special 1989 light show can be used as a basis for a claim that any form of lighting could be copyrighted by SETE. (Especially under US copyright law, since this photo was published in the US). Although I suppose that the precautionary principle can be invoked as soon as someone makes some claim. -- Asclepias (talk) 04:37, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- US copyright law isn't enough. The requirements according to Commons:Licensing are "When uploading material from a country outside the U.S., the copyright laws of that country and the U.S. normally apply." So it has to be okay by the laws of France and the laws of the US.
- And if you're going to claim that the picture is okay even by the laws of France, that means that Commons:Licensing's France architecture section is inaccurate. Ken Arromdee (talk) 22:09, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- The section to which your last sentence refers correctly points that SETE's claim is just that, a claim. However, that section may indeed look somewhat inaccurate by its use of the wording "this extends to...", thus perhaps being unclear on the point that SETE is not claiming a copyright of an architectural work. (If the matter were about architecture, this image would be clearly acceptable and there would be no doubt about it, firstly because the US law allows free photographic reproduction even of copyrighted architectural works and secondly because the particular architectural work that is the object of this photograph is out of copyright anyway). Instead, by making a (disputed) comparison with a portion of LMEI's special sound and light show of 1989 that was considered a visual work, what is retroactively claimed by SETE is that the permanent lights (installed in 1985) would also amount to the creation of an artistic visual work (not an architectural work). So, because U.S. law does not allow free photographic reproduction of copyrighted non-architectural works, that is why U.S. law is relevant about a claim that such a lighting installation would constitute (or not) a copyrighted non-architectural visual work. For the sentence quoted in your first paragraph ("When uploading material from a country outside the U.S., ..."), it can be read in two different ways. It can mean that the material is from a country outside the U.S. In other words, that the uploaded material was first published in a country outside the U.S., or that it was taken from a website outside the U.S. This is not the case of this photograph, because this uploaded photograph was first published in the U.S. (on Commons), and it was not taken from another website. Another possible meaning of the sentence would be that the user is present in a country outside the U.S. at the moment when he is performing the action of uploading. If so, this condition would be inapplicable and unverifiable (and quite unreasonable). The users of Commons are not required to publicize their location. We will not do an enquiry or an IP address verification about the location of each user for each upload. And if a condition is inapplicable, it is meaningless. That being said, note that my comment was not a suggestion to keep or to delete this file. The deletion request is understandable, given that some other files have been deleted. It's more that in the event that it is decided to delete this file, I think it is good to keep in mind that it would be merely as a precaution. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
- The user has a page on fr.wikipedia.org. He claims to be from Europe and have a native language of French. I suppose he could be from Belgium or such, or from France but uploaded the image while on vacation to the US, but it is highly likely that he uploaded the image from France; we're not supposed to do a "wink wink nudge nudge" to copyright violations on the grounds that there is not absolute proof. Ken Arromdee (talk) 18:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- The section to which your last sentence refers correctly points that SETE's claim is just that, a claim. However, that section may indeed look somewhat inaccurate by its use of the wording "this extends to...", thus perhaps being unclear on the point that SETE is not claiming a copyright of an architectural work. (If the matter were about architecture, this image would be clearly acceptable and there would be no doubt about it, firstly because the US law allows free photographic reproduction even of copyrighted architectural works and secondly because the particular architectural work that is the object of this photograph is out of copyright anyway). Instead, by making a (disputed) comparison with a portion of LMEI's special sound and light show of 1989 that was considered a visual work, what is retroactively claimed by SETE is that the permanent lights (installed in 1985) would also amount to the creation of an artistic visual work (not an architectural work). So, because U.S. law does not allow free photographic reproduction of copyrighted non-architectural works, that is why U.S. law is relevant about a claim that such a lighting installation would constitute (or not) a copyrighted non-architectural visual work. For the sentence quoted in your first paragraph ("When uploading material from a country outside the U.S., ..."), it can be read in two different ways. It can mean that the material is from a country outside the U.S. In other words, that the uploaded material was first published in a country outside the U.S., or that it was taken from a website outside the U.S. This is not the case of this photograph, because this uploaded photograph was first published in the U.S. (on Commons), and it was not taken from another website. Another possible meaning of the sentence would be that the user is present in a country outside the U.S. at the moment when he is performing the action of uploading. If so, this condition would be inapplicable and unverifiable (and quite unreasonable). The users of Commons are not required to publicize their location. We will not do an enquiry or an IP address verification about the location of each user for each upload. And if a condition is inapplicable, it is meaningless. That being said, note that my comment was not a suggestion to keep or to delete this file. The deletion request is understandable, given that some other files have been deleted. It's more that in the event that it is decided to delete this file, I think it is good to keep in mind that it would be merely as a precaution. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Restored. No copyright on ordinary light. Yann (talk) 16:04, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but there is no FoP in the UAE. Dura lex, sed lex. 84.61.155.241 15:26, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
- That goes for finished architecture. This one is still under construction. --Nepenthes (talk) 11:49, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept: FoP in the UAE only applies to finished architecture. James F. (talk) 09:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
no FoP in Abu Dhabi 109.45.52.176 20:26, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Deleted. INeverCry 01:06, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
It is wrong. I've uploaded File:Maekawas Theorem.svg to illustrate the principle properly. The number of valley and mountain folds at a point should differ by two. Dmcq (talk) 15:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Unused, wrong format and replaced by an SVG, and apparently wrong anyway (will take Dmcq's word for it!) James F. (talk) 09:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
copied from http://www.olt.djc.ro/ObiectiveDetalii.aspx?ID=279 Ionutzmovie (talk) 22:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
- I just moved it from ro:Fișier:SucidavaCastru.jpg where it seems to have a license. Thoughts?! --Codrin.B (talk) 15:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Usage on rowiki indicates that it is Fair Use. James F. (talk) 09:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
삭제하기 위해. K.H.YOO (talk) 02:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Comment Are you claiming you uploaded a picture that wasn't yours, that you didn't have the rights to? "To delete" is not at all a useful DR opener.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Maybe he realized it's a copyright violation. I would believe it. Wknight94 talk 01:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 16:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Compilation page just backlinks to source images, licensing conditions actually require naming the authors of all source files. Denniss (talk) 23:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
- All the pictures used in the compilation are listed in the page. I found it's not necessary to cite all the authors since they are already listed in the respective files. Auréola (talk) 09:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- DeleteSixteen images in collage. Fourteen images are listed. Two are missing. If we are going to keep this, all sources must be listed. Also, it says:
- "I created this work entirely by myself."
- which is obviously not true -- the sixteen images were not created by the person who made the collage.
- Finally, our general rule is that attributions must be one click away from the image. These are two clicks away only if you can guess which name goes with each image, otherwise even more. The attributions should be on the collage's description and should be keyed to their position in the collage. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. While I do not think the attributions should be keyed to their position in the collage, they should be complete, and they aren't. For two images the sources are missing, and thus the image has been deleted. (The licence 'cc-by-sa-2.0' seems valid though, at least for the 14 images). Kameraad Pjotr 19:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
because 72.251.53.245 20:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- Speedy keep. Nominator did not provide a reason. I don't see any obvious problem with this image. Dcoetzee (talk) 20:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Speedy closed as kept, per Dcoetzee; pass by anon deletion request with no reason for deletion offered. Infrogmation (talk) 23:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Flickr account no longer exists, so the required record keeping chain is broken. That also raises the likelihood that it's a flickrwashing copyvio. Also no statement of consent of both parties to publish (which in my view is an important principle). 99of9 (talk) 10:42, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep I'd assume you know better. This is exactly why we have the {{flickrreview|Cirt|2010-06-14}} templates. --DieBuche (talk) 12:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
- Comment That means the file was originally marked with a free license. It doesn't mean that the US pornography record keeping has been checked or passed on to Cirt. There used to be a document trackback path, but that no longer exists. And I gave two other reasons. --99of9 (talk) 12:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep recordkeeping: so what? So we can keep flickrimages here only as long as the image is up on flickr? Crazy idea for our repository. Fwashing:
I guess you will not bring up this concern on all images which are from deleted flickr accounts. So: why for this one?I do not see a special reason why exactly this picture should be a Fwashing image just be cause it is from a deleted account. Last concern: The image is pretty anon. Probably they were it who published it on flickr. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 13:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC) altered --Saibo (Δ) 13:08, 26 February 2011 (UTC)- Comment No, not all images should disappear when they disappear from Flickr. But those in a category with special legal additional record keeping requirements need to be thought through properly. If we claim that we are not secondary publishers (and are therefore exempt from keeping the records ourselves), we at least need to be able to point to who IS the publisher (who can show the records). That is now no longer possible. --99of9 (talk) 11:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- Then keeping here images with recordkeeping need is useless and a waste of time if they automatically have to be deleted when they vanish from flickr. That is not our aim to be a flickr mirror. But I have a question: who says we need to be able to point to a record keeper? Where is it written? Btw: we should move our servers out of the US. Their laws are not useful. --Saibo (Δ) 13:08, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- CommentFwashing: Play the ball, not the man, please don't attack my integrity if your evidence is based on a guess. Deleted accounts always raise the suspicion level in my mind. However, to be honest I don't see them that often. Occasionally, they are deleted after I notice them as likely copyvios Commons:Deletion requests/File:Elizabeth - 29yearold Nudist.jpg. In other cases my good faith assumptions about deleted streams turn out to be over generous, and they are once again blatant copyviolators Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sexy Sam.jpg. 99of9 (talk) 11:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- I changed my comment above - that was what I meant. Sorry for the wrong words. If you had any hint that this is a copyvio then I will be among the first to vote for deletion. --Saibo (Δ) 13:08, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- CommentAnonymity. I agree that so far this image is fairly anonymous. But it's possible that any anonymous image is cropped from an identifiable image, which could ultimately be used to expose the identities and cause major problems if it has already been widely used by our project and reusers. Therefore consent to freely publish should have been obtained, and should be asserted. --99of9 (talk) 11:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- And how should the consent be asserted in your view? The image was put on flickr and it is up to the uploader here to check that consent could be assumed. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 13:08, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep We had consent to freely publish on Flikr.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- Comment I'm on the fence. License laundering is a concern here, and without access to the source account, there's no way to check for it. I've started noting on image talk pages when I review an image for laundering, just in case, but there's no systematic scheme set up for this right now, and I'm not sure we have the manpower for it. It's a troubling issue. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yep - it is an issue. Maybe we need another parameter in the flickr template
|launderingcheckX=--~~~~|launderingcheckXconfidence=50So flickr reviewers can put their name and confidence in. But who, which scale, and so on... And: AFAIK we also cannot check all files uploaded here. So... sad - but the reality. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 22:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yep - it is an issue. Maybe we need another parameter in the flickr template
- Delete Now it becomes more and more evident that FlickR is not anymore a very good and reliable source. If even the corresponding FlickR account has "disappeared" then we cannot assume "good faith". --Yikrazuul (talk) 19:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. - copyright is not the main concern, deletions of the Flickr-account doesn't automatically cause deletion at Commons, but now we have no way to check other things, this is a high risk file - Jcb (talk) 16:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Undeleted. - Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2011-05#File:Coital_Play.png 18 May 2011. --Saibo (Δ) 20:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
no educational purpose, pornography TünnesUndSchäl (talk) 23:27, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep, pornography is not a valid deletion reason and this is in use on several Wikimedia projects.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:23, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Kept: In use so therefore has educational use. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:59, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Images of Copyrighted BBC Characters
[edit]
These appear to be photos taken on-location during filming of the BBC show Doctor Who. Not sure if these would be considered COM:DW or an outright copyvio, but photos of copyrighted characters are not free images per COM:L unless permission was obtained from the BBC. --Daburow (talk) 20:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Commons:Fan art is complex; but it says "There is no copyright in an individual’s likeness, e.g. in his or her natural facial features, and if the fan art drawing is a wholly new creative representation showing the actor’s natural likeness plus some non-creative allusion to the original work, it can be accepted." and "A photo of a boy with black hair and glasses, with a zig-zag scar on his forehead, in a wizard hat and robes, parts of which came in a Halloween licensed costume labeled “Harry Potter”. Allowed, as pictures of people in costumes of copyrighted and/or trademarked characters, In general, are understood as lawful." Since there doesn't seem to be anything copied from the film, just these people dressed up in costumes, I don't think they violate the copyright here.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:47, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep In addition to the excellent points in the comments by Prosfilaes, the licensing on the image pages are wholly appropriate, the photos are in use on other projects and satisfy inclusion criteria, and the permissions have been confirmed by COM:OTRS. -- Cirt (talk) 02:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Files by Agaeanseaman
[edit]Related to files uploaded by Purespiritphotography (talk · contribs) and Agaeanseaman (talk · contribs)
Agaeanseaman recently uploaded File:Loretta hoffman zen garden.jpg, that image was uploaded under abuse of flickr for license laundering from http://www.flickr.com/photos/58756620@N08/5473799957/ - account id: 58756620@N08. The uploader captioned it with "USA model Loretta Hoffman in water". Searching the image on the web brings up, that it is stolen from some Japanese erotic/porn websites, comparing the image with other uploads by Agaeanseama (talk · contribs) (all related to this model Loretta Hoffman) it is quite obvious that the description is a fraud. Searching the image on the web further shows, that there is some wired history: On americanshaft.tumblr.com someone defends themself against the description that this photo ("zen garden" in the following) shows herself, «LORETTA - Asheville». On http://www.tattoos-gallery.net/asheville-nude we have flickrlinks to a flickr author 55112549@N04 called «Loretta In Asheville» which are delete. The uploaders other photos are from a flickr ID 42912615@N03, account is also deleted. I have the following questions:
- What about File:Loretta hoffman zen garden.jpg, what about the fraudulent description, what about the attempt of license laundering.
- Why are this flickr accounts deleted.
- What about http://www.tattoos-gallery.net/asheville-nude: The gallery contains the image "zen garden" and is declared to show Loretta and was created by someone called Loretta In Asheville, one step further someone called Loretta defends herself against the idea that the zen garden image shows her. If the person does not want to be identified like this the claim that she posted the image to flickr (and later too the tattoos-galery.net website) must be wrong, the flickr uploader of the images posted in http://www.tattoos-gallery.net/asheville-nude cant be "Loretta In Asheville". Therefore the flickr account who upload this is already an impersonator account and can only be an assault against this Loretta. So what is this about.
If this can not be explained all uploads should be deleted. File:Loretta hoffman zen garden.jpg must be deleted in any case, it is a blatant copyright infringement, uploaded in abuse of flickr. The other uploads are most likely uploaded here under abuse of flickr too, hence the closure of that flickr account. --Martin H. (talk) 19:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
- File:Peek.jpg
- File:Ankle Art.jpg
- File:Lace.jpg
- File:Sunning.jpg
- File:Smiling Beauty.jpg
- File:Woman with tattoo on her breast.jpg
- File:LorettaSleepingAngelDesktop.jpg
- File:LorettaDreamingAngelDesktop.jpg
- File:LorettaHoffman03.jpg
- File:LorettaHoffman01.jpg
- File:LorettaHoffman05.jpg
- File:Loretta hoffman zen garden.jpg
- Category:Loretta Hoffman
- Delete Per nom, nice work Martin. --Yikrazuul (talk) 20:00, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per Martin H. thorough investigation Wknight94 talk 01:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Files by HAKEBRY1
[edit]HAKEBRY1 (talk · contribs) uploaded a lot of stolen files related to Chiapas, Izamal, 2011 Pan American Games and Guadalajara, Tlacotalpan, La Constancia.
After starting a few deletion requests on his uploads the pattern becomes clear: He takes a file from a random website, retouches it, uploads it. His list of uploads is an epic example of copyright infringements. I come to the conclusion that the following files are not own work. Some very obvious - even realy stupid - examples are included such as files stolen via Skyscrapercity from various authors who uploaded their works to tinypic and other imagehosts. I excluded a group of uploads for the moment, but I must admire that im not convivend by this user in anyway, so I'd not protest against a removal of all this guys uploads. Following list sorted by date, newest upload is 1 (if I not made a mistakes with the ~150 tabs I have open for this in my browser at the moment). Feel free to add comments to the table. --Martin H. (talk) 20:51, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Nancyheavy
[edit]- File:Rafainter.jpg
- File:RafaDdrum.jpg
- File:Rafabatery.jpg
- File:Metalway.jpg
- File:Metalw.jpg
- File:Rafa drumm.jpg
- File:Angeles del infierno.jpg
- File:Rafadelgado.jpg
Improbable authorship and licensing claims. The uploader refuses to address concerns with their existing uploads and instead charges ahead with uploading new low-resolution files without EXIF data, probably nicked from some random website, as was the case with File:Rafaelplay.jpg. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)