Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2011/03/22
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
-0001.png){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.PNG){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
low quality - better files exists Reinhardhauke (talk) 07:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Speedy kept. In use. (non-admin closure) –Tryphon☂ 09:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
low quality - better file exists Reinhardhauke (talk) 07:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Keep The file is not high quality, but I can't see any other file of that view of the church. So we will delete as soon as we get one. --Sailko (talk) 07:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Speedy kept. In use. (non-admin closure) –Tryphon☂ 09:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
low quality - better files exists Reinhardhauke (talk) 07:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Speedy kept. In use. Low quality is not a reason for deletion. (non-admin closure) –Tryphon☂ 08:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
low quality - better files exists Reinhardhauke (talk) 07:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep I cannot see an equal file. Do you? --Sailko (talk) 07:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- BTW, the user is uploading his new files of the subject and in order to get "monopole" il trying to delete all the others, even if they are from different views, lightining, cropping... IMHO, this is not a very collaborative behaviour. --Sailko (talk) 07:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Speedy kept. Low quality is not a reason for deletion (and this image isn't even low quality). (non-admin closure) –Tryphon☂ 08:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
low quality - better files exists Reinhardhauke (talk) 07:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Speedy kept. In use. (non-admin closure) –Tryphon☂ 08:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
low quality - better files exists Reinhardhauke (talk) 08:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Speedy kept. Low quality is not a reason for deletion. (non-admin closure) –Tryphon☂ 08:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
low quality - better files exists Reinhardhauke (talk) 08:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Speedy kept. In use. (non-admin closure) –Tryphon☂ 08:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I am not seeing the given license on the web site. I also don't see it in the Wayback Machine. Wknight94 talk 01:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- The file has a by-sa/3.0/ license, see here:
http://mushroomobserver.org/image/show_image/25790?obs=12785&q=1Ba7 --Josef Papi (talk) 11:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Withdrawn. I will change the source link on the image. Thanks, Josef Papi. Wknight94 talk 13:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Flag of Libya.svg Fry1989 (talk) 19:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. According to the notes "This is a duplication of File:Flag of Libya.svg by Zscout370 (myself), anticipating that because of the ongoing civil war, the filename "Flag of Libya" will not be unambiguous in the near future. An unambiguous description of this flag is that it is the flag of the Libyan Jamahiriya introduced in 1977." Given now that there are two competing governments of Libya, I think we can wait until we figure out what is going on before we nuke it for exact duplication. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 04:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- That makes sense. Keep then. Fry1989 (talk) 05:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Request withdrawn. — [ Tanvir | Talk ] 16:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Source is "?" and OTRS process has been going on almost a year now. Last update was three months ago. I am cleaning up old OTRS received and this is now one of the oldest. Wknight94 talk 02:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Info OTRS permission received in ticket:2010022510058057 - released into the public domain. Clear license statement arrived 2 days ago. --Dferg (talk) 21:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Withdrawn per Dferg/OTRS. Thank you. Wknight94 talk 21:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Permission for a free use is needed by the creator 'Sabine Schmithals'. A free release must be authorized by the copyright holder 80.187.107.136 17:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- A new user made this mistake. Now you find the correct author and OTRS pending. Wikiwal (talk) 20:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- received permission from ticket #2011032510003101--Mys 721tx (talk) 11:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: valid OTRS-permission has been received High Contrast (talk) 14:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thanx for your fast support! That was very helpful! Wikiwal (talk) 19:46, 25 March 2011 (UTC)This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Tagged for factual inaccuracy (I concur), unused (replaced by correct File:Vinyloxirane.png) DMacks (talk) 08:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Delete It is chemically incorrect and unused. Ed (Edgar181) 15:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)- Delete Per Ed. --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per above. Leyo 13:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Tagged for factual inaccuracy (I concur). Unused--no current alternative, but one could trivially be drawn if needed DMacks (talk) 08:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete It is chemically incorrect and unused. Ed (Edgar181) 15:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per Ed. --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per above. Leyo 17:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
no usable quality, not used Avron (talk) 13:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with that. I don't think this is usable anymore. Delete. みんな空の下 (トーク) 14:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: by Túrelio -- Common Good (talk) 18:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
author request, inaccurate depiction (this was not nominated by myself; this is a corrected request for User:ArthurWeasley). – Adrignola talk 00:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
author request, inaccurate reconstruction (this was not nominated by myself; this is a corrected request for User:ArthurWeasley). – Adrignola talk 00:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
author request, inaccurate reconstruction (this was not nominated by myself; this is a corrected request for User:ArthurWeasley). – Adrignola talk 00:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- comment. Too many uncertainties, too many unknowns involved - just what makes the "better" image better? The difference in each pair of "good" and "bad" pics seems marginal. NVO (talk) 04:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
author request, inaccurate reconstruction (this was not nominated by myself; this is a corrected request for User:ArthurWeasley). – Adrignola talk 00:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
author request, inaccurate depiction (this was not nominated by myself; this is a corrected request for User:ArthurWeasley). – Adrignola talk 00:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Copyright is suspect. "Anonymous" person? -- MSJapan
Keep Given that the photo is of the use by the photographer of an illegal drug I can understand why they wanted to be anonymous. --Simonxag (talk) 01:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Anonymous must send a permission to OTRS Ezarateesteban 11:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Possible violation of author's law -- Olaf
Delete It's a modern logo. The artwork is fairly simple, but still a drawing of a person and so not just copyright ineligible simple lines. --Simonxag (talk) 01:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Ezarateesteban 11:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Bad quality. This picture is not used. I'm going to upload pictures from this place with a better quality. -- Agamitsudo
Kept: This should be kept even if you do add more. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
-0001.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
-0001.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This image file doesn't function, and another version that does work is available here. -- Dovi
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
-0001.png){kind=link}
Duplicate of China Emblem PLA.svg Fry1989 (talk) 00:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- I the author of this file concur. Did not know a same type file existed (Please delete) Jetijones (talk) 04:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Not only is this a duplication of the National Flag of Canada (which the fin flash consists of), but it is also in the wrong ratio. Existing file is Flag of Canada.svg Fry1989 (talk) 00:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Duplication of Fin flash of Canada low visibility.svg but also in the wrong ratio. The flash is the same as the national flag 1:2 ratio Fry1989 (talk) 00:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Duplicate of Portugal Air force fin flash.svg Fry1989 (talk) 00:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Artist Jan Theuninck is very much alive. There is no permission or indication who uploader "Gray Moon Gallery" might be. No indication of where the artwork is so no FOP can be inferred. Simonxag (talk) 00:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Not even a claim that User:Benaissa is artist Jan Theuninck. So "own work" can only be taken to refer to the photo. Derivative work with no permission. Simonxag (talk) 00:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- I seem to remember that User:Benaissa is wife or family of Jan Theuninck, but that's long time ago. --Foroa (talk) 07:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Quite possibly true, but not even claimed on user page or image page and not in itself enough to indicate permission. --Simonxag (talk) 12:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Right. I warned the uploader, but coming with such problems 4 years after upload by a sporadic uploader seems a bit late. Maybe by deletion of one of his works (this one for example), the concerned party will wake up. --Foroa (talk) 13:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- User:Benaissa has only one other upload - a photo of Jan Theuninck at web resolution and without EXIF data. If TinEye showed more than it does (a crop of that photo) I'd nominate that for deletion too. --Simonxag (talk) 17:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Quite possibly true, but not even claimed on user page or image page and not in itself enough to indicate permission. --Simonxag (talk) 12:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I suggest to keep this image, this restaurant menu is primarily a utilitarian article, that contains no original creative elements that are capable of existing independently of its utilitarian aspects.Rolfmueller (talk)
- Delete There is a photograph in it. --Dodo (talk) 19:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep The photograph is a generic landscape shot used as an ornament.--Rolfmueller (talk) 01:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Comment Can we see which copyright law excludes "generic landscape" shots? Thanks. --Dodo (talk) 07:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)- Comment The point here is how to weigh the utilitarian function of the object and the creative element, i.e., the photo. It should be decided if this menu page is primarily a utilitarian object with a decoration or is primarily a creative work of art with an additional utilitarian function. - Because the photo is not particularly creative and used as a decoration, I would say that this is a decorated utilitarian object.--Rolfmueller (talk) 13:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete The menu may be a utilitarian object but the photo is clearly of the printing on it and the artwork is hardly de minimis. --Simonxag (talk) 01:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: There is no question that a restaurant menu goes far beyond the threshold of copyright, even without the photograph -- a cookbook is utilitarian, but has a copyright. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I suggest to keep this image, this restaurant menu is primarily a utilitarian article, that contains no original creative elements that are capable of existing independently of its utilitarian aspects. The photos of the dishes shown are utilitarian in nature and don't constitute art by themselves.Rolfmueller (talk)
- Delete There are two photographs in it. --Dodo (talk) 19:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep The photographs are only utilitarian depictions of the products. --Rolfmueller (talk) 01:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Can we see which copyright law excludes "utilitarian depictions of products"? Thanks. --Dodo (talk) 07:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment The point here is how to weigh the utilitarian function of the object and the creative element, i.e., the photo of the dish. It should be decided if this menu page is primarily a utilitarian object with a decoration or is primarily a creative work of art with an additional utilitarian function. - Because the photo is not particularly creative and serves a utilitarian function, I would say that this is a decorated utilitarian object.--Rolfmueller (talk) 13:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete obvious copyvio - the photo is of the printed surface of a sheet, mostly of copyrighted artworks. You could claim a page in a book was a utilitarian object, but would you try to argue that in court? --Simonxag (talk) 01:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I suggest to keep this image, this restaurant menu is primarily a utilitarian article, that contains no original creative elements that are capable of existing independently of its utilitarian aspects. The photo of the dish shown is utilitarian in nature and doesn't constitute art by itself. Rolfmueller (talk)
- Delete There is a photograph in it. --Dodo (talk) 19:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep The photograph is only a utilitarian depiction of the product advertised in the menu. --Rolfmueller (talk) 01:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Can we see which copyright law excludes "utilitarian depictions of products"? Thanks. --Dodo (talk) 07:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment The point here is how to weigh the utilitarian function of the object and the creative element, i.e., the photo of the dish. It should be decided if this menu page is primarily a utilitarian object with a decoration or is primarily a creative work of art with an additional utilitarian function. - Because the photo is not particularly creative and serves a utilitarian function, I would say that this is a decorated utilitarian object.--Rolfmueller (talk) 13:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete pretty obvious copyvio - this is a photo of a printed page mostly covered by a copyrighted artwork. --Simonxag (talk) 01:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Rather creative photo is center of the picture.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
No FOP in Belgium. No permission from the artist (or any indication who the uploader might be). Unless someone can show this isn't an artwork, then the photo is a derivative work without permission. Simonxag (talk) 00:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Source web site gives non-commercial license. Wknight94 talk 01:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Source web site gives non-commercial license. Wknight94 talk 01:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Source web site gives non-commercial license. Wknight94 talk 01:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Source web page gives non-commercial license. Wknight94 talk 01:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Source web page gives non-commercial license. Wknight94 talk 01:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Looks like a scan of a photograph that was likely not taken by the uploader. If they took it, there'd be no reason to upload anything other than a quality original rather than a low-quality scan. ←fetchcomms 02:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I can't read French but I assume the photos on the site are not free. The copyright note at the bottom presumably refers to the software used to create the site. Wknight94 talk 03:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: Yes, the note at the bottom must be about the software. As for the photos themselves, they are categorized into two categories as to the possibility of reusing them: one presumably not free, and one more free, "libre de droit". This particular photo is in the category "libre de droit". The upload was likely made in good faith on the basis of that notice. However, we generally consider the expression "libre de droit" unclear when, as here, the context does not provide more precise information about its meaning and extent. So, yes, delete, unless someone obtains a more explicit declaration from the copyright owner. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I can't read French but I assume the photos on the site are not free. The copyright note at the bottom presumably refers to the software used to create the site. Wknight94 talk 03:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: Yes, the note at the bottom must be about the software. As for the photos themselves, they are categorized into two categories as to the possibility of reusing them: one presumably not free, and one more free, "libre de droit". This particular photo is in the category "libre de droit". The upload was likely made in good faith on the basis of that notice. However, we generally consider the expression "libre de droit" unclear when, as here, the context does not provide more precise information about its meaning and extent. So, yes, delete, unless someone obtains a more explicit declaration from the copyright owner. -- Asclepias (talk) 04:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
(Source site is probably http://duteurtre.free.fr). I can't read French but I assume the photos on the site are not free. The copyright note at the bottom presumably refers to the software used to create the site. Wknight94 talk 03:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: Yes, the note at the bottom must be about the software. As for the photos themselves, they are categorized into two categories as to the possibility of reusing them: one presumably not free, and one more free, "libre de droit". This particular photo is in the category "libre de droit". The upload was likely made in good faith on the basis of that notice. However, we generally consider the expression "libre de droit" unclear when, as here, the context does not provide more precise information about its meaning and extent. So, yes, delete, unless someone obtains a more explicit declaration from the copyright owner. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
No longer needed. TenPoundHammer (talk) 03:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Not a reason to delete. Besides, it is in use. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
COM:DW 92.227.115.191 06:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:25, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Appears to be a test upload. Uploader was trying to write a biography [1], one which offers false claims of a nobel prize (as such, it was probably vandalism). Interestingly, the same image was uploaded to English Wikipedia two years prior with an edit summary indicating vandalism [2]. Given the uploader's poor grasp of how the image process works, and demonstrated bad faith, I submit we cannot trust the uploader's assertion that this is a self-created image and, even if it was, that s/he knew what s/he was choosing when releasing the image under this license. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Ernestino_Robles_Diaz.jpg&oldid=31370517){kind=link}
![[2]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=File%3AToco+Toucan.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: It is a beautiful image, but appears 891 times on TinEye, so unlikely belongs to this uploader, certainly not with this name and history. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
JIMMY JACOBS © Tony Knox Herostratus (talk) 08:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Em, why? Could I have a reason please? The image was licensed for use by the photographer on Flickr. I see no reason or justification for this nomination. NiciVampireHeart 17:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: The Flickr user, Tony Knox, claims copyright but licenses it CC-BY, all of which is OK here. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Incorrect title (it's a reaction of vinylcyclopropane), unused, and incorrect (article about the reaction discusses how the given mechanism is not correct) DMacks (talk) 08:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment. As I understand it, this was the original mechanism proposed for this reaction, so I can see this image being useful for illustrating the historical study of this reaction. A plausible discussion such as "reaction mechanism X was originally proposed, but reaction mechanism Y is now known to be true" could use this image as an illustration of reaction mechanism X. File:Vinylcyclopropane.png, if kept, should be clearly labeled in the image description as a discredited, but historically important, proposed reaction mechanism. An example of how an "incorrect" image can be useful, the image File:Ferrocene kealy.svg (an incorrect depiction of ferrocene) is used in several articles because it was once believed to be the true chemical structure. Ed (Edgar181) 13:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Certainly seems reasonable. Could rename it to File:Vinylcyclopropane rearrangement concerted.png or something similar to clarify what the actual content of this file is. DMacks (talk) 14:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- I would prefer that name too. Ed (Edgar181) 15:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Certainly seems reasonable. Could rename it to File:Vinylcyclopropane rearrangement concerted.png or something similar to clarify what the actual content of this file is. DMacks (talk) 14:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Moved as proposed and kept Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Copyvio Theklan (talk) 08:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: 15:24, 26 March 2011 by EugeneZelenko, closed by Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- also:
- File:Yoga.jpg
- File:Prema.jpg
- File:Gyana.jpg
- File:Premikagurunigamananda.jpg
- File:Yogigurunigamananda.jpg
- File:Gyanigurunigamananda.jpg
- File:Tranrikgurunigamananda.jpg
- File:Brahama.jpg
No source, no plausible copyright status. These are historic photographs from the first half of the 20th century. They may or may not be PD, but they can't possibly be {self|GFDL} as claimed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- These looks like photographs of paintings which could be in PD. So I guess the author has the rights to release these derivative images in his own license provided that he also mentions that the original images are in PD. I would wait to see what the uploader replies here. --Sreejith K (talk) 09:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- I don't see any indication that these four are paintings, they just look like photographs. And I don't think we can accept a mere assertion by the uploader in such a case. Even if he created a derived painting or something from them, there's no way he could validly release that unless he can clearly document when and by whom these were taken and, more importantly, when and where they were first published. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- I meant photographs, but wrote paintings. My mistake. Other than that, I will actually wait to see what the uploader replies because I am unable to come to a conclusion about the age of the photographs. If he does not reply, then its a Delete from me. --Sreejith K (talk) 10:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- I meant photographs, but wrote paintings. My mistake. Other than that, I will actually wait to see what the uploader replies because I am unable to come to a conclusion about the age of the photographs. If he does not reply, then its a
- Delete unless some plausible evidence is offered that the uploader is the rightsholder or these images are PD (in which latter case, fix the tags). --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
historic photograph from 1915. No source. Depending on its publishing history it may or may not be PD, but it's certainly not {self|cc-by} as claimed by uploader. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
This image is of 19th Century. This is not my own work. Kindly help to change the permission accordingly. Dcmpuri (talk) 13:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- It can hardly be from the 19th century if the event it shows took place in 1915. We need to know when the image was first published (not just when it was taken). The current version is evidently scanned from a book or something, so you'll need to find at least that book. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi
I collected this image from a site http://www.swaminigamananda.com/ later on this site has been closed. This image is very important to be here. Pls guide me how I get the licence for this image from wiki.
Dcmpuri (talk) 04:17, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Unfortunately, no matter how important the image, without information on first publication, you cannot simply grab an image from the Internet and keep it here. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Old photograph, unlikely to be uploader's own work, unknown copyright status. Same as with other images from same uploader. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
This image is of 19th Century. This is not my own work. Kindly help to change the permission accordingly. Dcmpuri (talk) 13:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- It can't be from the 19th century. It shows an institution which, according to your own article, was founded in 1912. The photograph could have been taken at any time after that. You need to find out when it was taken and when and where it was first published. It appears to be scanned from some book. So you'll just need to find the book before we can determine if it's free. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi
- Sorry it is from 20th centurty. This ashram has been installed by Swam Nigamananda in 1912 and photo has been taken after that. This photo collected from a site http://absmath.org
Pls guide how i can use this image as licence one.
Dcmpuri (talk) 13:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi
I am waiting for your reply
Dcmpuri (talk) 04:18, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- The link you gave is dead, so I can't check anything. What does that website say about the provenance of the images? Does it say anything about them at all? Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:43, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Kindly check again. This link is active, or you can check in below provided link
http://absmath.org/en/ABSM/Mathpicgallery.htm
Thanks
Dcmpuri (talk) 14:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- No, that site still doesn't open for me. Why don't you just tell us what the site says about the provenance of the pictures? Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:50, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Unfortunately, no matter how important the image, without information on first publication, you cannot simply grab an image from the Internet and keep it here. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- And also: File:Slav-VII-VIII-obrez.png
Bad source: low quality for own work, "(c) Коряков(?) Ю. Б., 2007" in bottom. Art-top (talk) 08:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope. –Tryphon☂ 09:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Delete unused, unusable --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 09:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
There's no proof that this is indeed an anonymous work. The source website is surely not the original source of publication. -- Kam Solusar (talk) 10:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Looks to me as if this isn't a photo at all but a film still from a newsreel. Compare e.g. here@39sec, here@2:01min, or here@45sec. Lupo 11:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- also derived work:
Painting or drawing after a historic photograph, which must be from the early 20th century and may or may not be in the public domain. No source declaration, "own work" claim implausible. OTRS ticket apparently just contains an assertion of ownership but doesn't substantiate it further [3] Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete unless some actual information about the origin of this image is provided. (I've reviewed the OTRS ticket.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
This is image is from 19th century. Could you help me to change the permission ? Awaiting from reply Dcmpuri (talk) 13:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Early 20th, not 19th. And we can't help you as long as you can't tell where and when and by whom the picture was created. Sorry about that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi
- Actual this photo is collected from http://absmath.org/en/nigamananda/Gallery1.htm
and formated in photostudio and uploaded. Pls guide me how I can retain ? If you delete this then how again I can uploade same. Pls guide and help me.
Dcmpuri (talk) 13:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Kindly reply !!!
Dcmpuri (talk) 04:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- You may not be able to upload them here at all. As Fut.Perf. notes above, we need to know where, when and by whom pictures were created to determine copyright status. It may be possible to upload an image of the person on individual Wikipedia projects (not Commons) to use in specific articles under the local exemption doctrine. For example, on the English language Wikipedia, read en:Wikipedia:Non-free content. Rules vary from project to project. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Unfortunately, no matter how important the image, without information on first publication, you cannot simply grab an image from the Internet and keep it here. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:45, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
according to exif data the image originates from Australian military sources and is copyrighted. Permission only for nonprofit use Denniss (talk) 11:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per exif data and nomination russavia (talk) 10:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
according to exif data the image originates from Australian military sources and is copyrighted. Permission only for nonprofit use Denniss (talk) 11:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, same as File:RAAF F-18 Super Hornet leaving Melbourne behind.jpg, flickrvio. This two guys on flickr, mashleymorgan and jooseph require some attention. Their uplaods are all cc-by-sa, but the photos they upload are either grabbed from U.S. military sources and PD, in that case we dont want this flickr copy&pasters as source but simply the original source, or their uploads are grabbed from various other source and unfree. --Martin H. (talk) 12:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete This is an Australian Department of Defence photo, and is not PD. Nick-D (talk) 05:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per exif data and nomination russavia (talk) 10:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
according to exif data the image originates from Australian military sources and is copyrighted. Permission only for nonprofit use Denniss (talk) 11:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, Flickr user is not the photographer. Per Deniss, see EXIF. --Martin H. (talk) 12:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per exif data and nomination russavia (talk) 10:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
The flickr user mashleymorgan is not a creator but only reposting images he found on the internet. I corrected this for File:USS Philippine Sea (CG 58).jpg File:Aircraft Fighter Plane P-47 Thunderbolt, P-51 Mustang, F-4 Phantom, F-15 Strike Eagle.jpg where people not carefully reviewed if the flickr user is the copyright holder. That files are easy to fix because the came from USGov sources and the filename on flickr, the VIRIN, was preserved in the title. In this case however the image is grabbed from an unfree source [4] as the preserved filename 1963_Ford_Built_M151_A1_Army_Jeep_Rt_Frt_Qtr shows. Martin H. (talk) 12:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Flickr uploader is a copy&paster, not a creator. See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ford Jeep M151A1.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:RAAF F-18 Super Hornet overflies Melbourne towards Avalon.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:RAAF FA-18 Hornet 20th anniversary.jpg, all recent requests related to mashleymorgan on flickr. Martin H. (talk) 12:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
personal artwork, not used, not in scope Avron (talk) 12:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
There is a Disney logo and other pictures that may be copyright of Disney Company Ezarateesteban 12:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
But the main purpose is describing Nicole Anderson, not those pictures. You can compare with other picture like File:ChelseaStaubJun10 3.jpg and File:ChelseaStaubJun10 2.jpg--Hoangquan hientrang (talk) 16:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: They also infringe and now have DRs Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
It has a water market. All the images of the uploader are copyvios Ezarateesteban 12:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. No source to verify the licensing claims. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work of copyrighted calendar and postcards. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 13:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Looks like a promotional image to me - no metadata, low res. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
self promotion, not used, not in scope Avron (talk) 13:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
self created artwork, not used, not in scope Avron (talk) 14:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
low resolution, license not known Caiguanhao (talk) 14:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: 21:55, 23 March 2011 by Fastily, closed by Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
low quality, scanned image, wrong license Caiguanhao (talk) 14:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
copy from http://www.nabt.com.tw/?p=zshow&id=2919 Caiguanhao (talk) 14:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
copy from http://www.gold-armor.com/cn/improve-cn.html Caiguanhao (talk) 14:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
copy from http://www.gold-armor.com/cn/improve-cn.html Caiguanhao (talk) 15:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
More recently taken from w:File:Petroglyphs.jpg, where it was marked PD-art (the pd-self/pd-ineligible templates are incorrect). However, PD-art only applies to 2D art, and with good reason; this is 3D art, and the photo is taken in such a way that it exhibits creativity. Magog the Ogre (talk) 15:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Purely derivative image. Nothing about it suggests that it passes the necessary threshold of creativity to attract copyright protection; it's a faithful photographic copy of a petroglyph. There is nothing here that could give rise to originality, such as choice of viewpoints and lighting arrangements (shadowing, etc.). It's a straight-on photo of a rock surface. As for 2D vs. 3D, this is no more 3D than the raised brushstrokes on a painting like the Mona Lisa render that a 3D piece. A good rule of thumb is that anything that could cast a shadow is 3D. That's not the case here.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - Same reasons as above. --Sreejith K (talk) 08:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - Same reasons as above. Teemeah (talk) 13:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Info - See these google images' results to understand how the original looks like. I would have preferred to kindly ask for permission regardless of copyright status, though I'm not sure who the original author was. I'd say to convince fellow wikimedians around to make photos would be the best... Per the original question I agree that I wouldn't consider this a 3D object. --grin ✎ 21:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- Info at any rate, it should be renamed to Peterborough-i sziklafigura --Tgr (talk) 18:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: A petroglyph is, by definition, a rock carving. Therefore it is 3D, just as a coin is 3D. Certainly the choice of lighting direction will change the image -- flat lighting will de-emphasize the depth, lighting from the side will emphasize it.
Skeezix1000 correctly says, above:
- " A good rule of thumb is that anything that could cast a shadow is 3D."
This work, if lighted from the side, will cast a shadow into itself and is, by that definition, 3D.
Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Bad quality. Out of focus. Category:Zygoptera is well represented. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to by own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to by own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
derivated work from deleted picture, no formal authorisation from author, need to regularise by OTRS --MGuf (d) 16:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
No FOP in French Polynesia. 84.61.170.180 16:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
self promotion, not used, not in scope Avron (talk) 16:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No FOP in French Polynesia. 84.61.170.180 16:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
- English: This is a plaque, not an artistic work. No copyright for that, so no FOP clause.
- Français : C'est une plaque commémorative, pas un travail d'artiste. Il n'y a pas de droits d'auteurs ici, et pas de problème de "liberté de panorama".
- Keep. Sémhur (talk) 16:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Commentaire: Ce serait comme dire que le fait de publier des photocopies des pages d'un livre n'est pas une contravention au droit d'auteur sur le texte du livre, parce qu'un livre n'est pas un travail d'artiste mais que c'est des feuilles de papier et donc que l'auteur du livre n'a pas de droit d'auteur. La question est plutôt de savoir si le texte est original, peu importe le support sur lequel il est publié. Si le texte ne comportait que des informations non originales comme le nom, des dates, il ne serait peut-être pas protégé. Mais le texte est plus complexe et original, donc sa reproduction sans une autorisation de son auteur n'est pas évidente. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Because we deal primarily in images, many Commons editors forget that all text has a copyright -- you would not claim that you could copy a book freely, would you? Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
No FOP in French Polynesia. 84.61.170.180 16:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- English: ??? Strange request. This is a plaque, not an artistic work. No copyright for that, so no FOP clause.
- Français : ??? Drôle de demande. C'est une plaque commémorative, pas un travail d'artiste. Il n'y a pas de droits d'auteurs ici, et pas de problème de "liberté de panorama".
- Keep. Sémhur (talk) 16:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep as previously said, just a plaque... Otherwise, "next step: minerals"? Jeriby (talk) 22:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Because we deal primarily in images, many Commons editors forget that all text has a copyright -- you would not claim that you could copy a book freely, would you? Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Photo of a magazine or photo of a monitor or just a badly retouched image. See http://loft1.weltfussball.de/sid/263505.jpg which is created and (C) by SID IMAGES / Mika Volkmann. Contrary to the uploaders claim: Not own work, at least not entirely own work. Martin H. (talk) 16:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
unused non-free 195.112.229.82 17:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- delete both, article deleted for good, so there's no need to request OTRS or otherwise salvage it. NVO (talk) 12:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
unused non-free 195.112.229.82 17:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
unused photo of Italian band with no notability as per it:Wikipedia:Pagine da cancellare/Yumiko - out of scope Santosga (talk) 18:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
unused personal image - out of scope Santosga (talk) 18:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Appears to be a TV still. No indication that uploader is the copyright holder. Storkk (talk) 11:05, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted. INeverCry 00:42, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 22:05, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 09:52, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
This file is not the uploader's own work. It can be found at http://www.ahaf.org/alzheimers/about/understanding/medical_illustrations.html ChemNerd (talk) 18:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- This duplicate image too: File:Alzheimer Disease.jpg. ChemNerd (talk) 19:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
not convenient. Serpro (talk) 19:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: 04:32, 24 March 2011 by Billinghurst, closed by Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
not convenient. Serpro (talk) 19:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: 15:39, 23 March 2011 by Shizhao, closed by Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
not convenient. Serpro (talk) 19:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: 15:39, 23 March 2011 by Shizhao , closed by Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Bogus license: an architect's rendering of a real building (recently completed) is not "an idea, concept, principle..." in the sense of cited law. NVO (talk) 19:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:45, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
This nomination includes File:Arduino Icon.svg. Per Ticket:2011031910009411, the organisation claims that while their software itself is CC-BY-SA, they have retained all copyrights to their logo, and it has never been released under the license claimed. Courcelles (talk) 19:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- File:Arduino-logo.svg and File:Arduino-0017-512x512px.png ? NVO (talk) 19:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Good question. The ticket didn't mention those- I presume because they were not used on the English Wikipedia. I'll ask. Courcelles (talk) 19:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
JPEG is lossy. 84.61.170.180 20:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Not a valid reason for me. Jeriby (talk) 22:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
JPEG is lossy. 84.61.170.180 20:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Not a valid reason for me. Jeriby (talk) 22:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
blanc svg, not used Avron (talk) 20:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This image is an exact duplicate or scaled-down version of: File:Regia Nave Fiume1.JPG Just Angelus (talk) 21:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: 01:27, 23 March 2011 by Rehman, closed by Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Is this a notable person? Looks like selfpromotion. GeorgHH • talk 21:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
The diagram is missing the hydrogen atoms. A space-filling chemical diagram such as this is misleading and useless if it does not show the space filled by all the atoms. ChemNerd (talk) 21:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. --Leyo 09:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. DMacks (talk) 14:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
This diagram is missing the hydrogen atoms ChemNerd (talk) 21:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. --Leyo 15:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned personal photo, out of project scope. Note: The only usage of this file on a user talkpage comes from a previous upload of a file under the same name. Martin H. (talk) 21:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Image from official sites of Křesín (with copyright notice there - see source) -> Probably copyvio. Pan BMP (talk) 21:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- ...it is the same problem as File:Uvod.JPG, File:Vesnice 017.jpg, File:Vesnice 002.jpg, File:Kresin.JPG, File:Mlyn-Kresin.jpg, File:Mistni-cast-levousy.jpg
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Filed for IP 82.36.149.11, claiming to represent PB Radio, for "Could this logo please be deleted, the logo has now be changed and shouldnt be online anymore." --Túrelio (talk) 21:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Not a reason to delete. We often keep historical logos. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
The logos are copyright, these are paste. Egon Eagle (talk) 22:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Although the uploader the uploader claims that this image is his own work, I highly doubt this. Because I found this photo in a Oto Melara publication where it was tagged as a Oto Melara image I do not think that this is the uploader's own work. Besides the image resolution is quite low - mayne this image was scanned from somewhere or it was taken from the web. 80.187.106.201 22:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Что-то с ним не то. -- Luu
Deleted: corrupt file George Chernilevsky talk 08:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Not used anymore, better alternatives exist. Yikrazuul (talk) 18:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Low resolution, missing essential stereochemistry, unused. Ed (Edgar181) 11:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Vector image containing copyrighted font. According to COM:L#Fonts, only raster renderings of fonts are allowed. 84.61.170.180 16:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: PD-ineligible Jcb (talk) 10:23, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Copyrighted flag. 84.61.170.180 17:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- This nomination should be consolidated with Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of South America (Proposal).PNG. Do you have any evidence that the flag design is not by the uploader? AnonMoos (talk) 17:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
.PNG){kind=link}
Kept: per mentioned DR Jcb (talk) 10:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
.PNG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.PNG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Copyrighted flag. 84.61.170.180 17:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
.PNG){kind=link}
- This nomination should be consolidated with Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bandera sudamericana.png. Do you have any evidence that the flag design is not by the uploader? AnonMoos (talk) 17:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- This flag is not a copyrighted flag. The Author is Pruxo (talk) and the derivative work is Julius C (talk) 22:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: per above Jcb (talk) 10:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
.PNG){kind=link}
The source is fake/non verifiable therefore the permission is not valid - Hold and wave (talk) 11:01, 20 March 2011
Comment The source seems to be a page of "Gangland News" that is now pay-to-view. I can't now verify if the photo is from the FBI, because I don't want to take out a subscription, but I can't tell the source is fake. --Simonxag (talk) 01:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Comment It doesn't really look like an FBI photo either. --Hold and wave (talk) 08:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: See http://web.archive.org/web/20080108115852/http://www.ganglandnews.com/column32.htm Nothing suggests it's a photo from FBI. Trycatch (talk) 00:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Thomas_Bopp_wrong_person_in_image Gamaliel (talk) 17:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Picture is a false scam - speedy delete. Off2riorob (talk) 20:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: See [5] -- it wasn't a scam, it was just a misinterpretation of the Flickr picture description (there is a picture of the real Thomas Bopp in the same photostream: [6]). All usages were replaced to File:Bopp.jpg, this file was deleted. Trycatch (talk) 01:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Irrtümlich hochgeladen -- Riessdo (talk) 10:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Although we usually do not delete at the request of the uploader, this was a very quick request, so I think it is OK. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Bad SVG rendering, a better PNG version uploaded. -- Gap
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
This is not an anonymous work. The source does not provide any information about the author or original source, so I tagged it with {{No source}}, which User:Peter Kuiper kept removing because he thought a random webpage is enough to declare it an anonymous work. Luckily I checked the Hoffman collection at the Bavarian State Library. Unfortunately, their site is a navigation nightmare and doesn't let you link to a specific image: Go to [7], click on "Bildarchiv" near the bottom of the site. You can click on the english flag in the upper right corner to get an english version of the search form. Just search for "FH B 744" and then click on the thumbnail on the results page. It's a photo by en:Heinrich Hoffmann who died in 1957, so it's still copyrighted until 2028 in Germany. -- Kam Solusar (talk) 10:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Actually, that is no proof that it was published with Hoffman's name; {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} may still apply. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- May, or may not. That's grasping at straws. In any case there's the additional requirement that the author's identity did not become known while the "anonymous" copyright was still running. The Bavarian State Archive acquired the Hoffmann archive in 1993, so we may assume that the photographer was known at least since then. Hence: copyright in Germany runs until 70 years after Hoffmann's death. Delete Lupo 11:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- That would not be enough; the requirement is that the author's name was published (or that it was listed in a special public register of copyrights). And this photo which may have been made at the same occasion is listed by Bundesarchiv as anonymous. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Please see de:Anonymes Werk#Frühere Rechtslage in Deutschland / Übergangsrecht regarding the requirements for works created before July 1, 1995. For such works, the version of paragraph 66 as it was before July 1, 1995 is applied, and that just required that the identity became known. ("... oder der Urheber auf andere Weise als Schöpfer des Werkes bekannt wird"). And whether there are other, similar images for which the Bundesarchiv doesn't list an author is rather irrelevant for this image, for which we do have an author. Lupo 13:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Those provisions are not to be applied to images, the law says. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Where does it say that? AFAIK, the old law said only that paragraph 66 was not applied to "Werke der bildenden Künste" ("works of the fine arts") in §66(4). "Lichtbildwerke" are a separate category of works, see article 2, both in the pre-1995 UrhG and in the current one. Lupo 14:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Those provisions are not to be applied to images, the law says. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Please see de:Anonymes Werk#Frühere Rechtslage in Deutschland / Übergangsrecht regarding the requirements for works created before July 1, 1995. For such works, the version of paragraph 66 as it was before July 1, 1995 is applied, and that just required that the identity became known. ("... oder der Urheber auf andere Weise als Schöpfer des Werkes bekannt wird"). And whether there are other, similar images for which the Bundesarchiv doesn't list an author is rather irrelevant for this image, for which we do have an author. Lupo 13:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- That would not be enough; the requirement is that the author's name was published (or that it was listed in a special public register of copyrights). And this photo which may have been made at the same occasion is listed by Bundesarchiv as anonymous. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- May, or may not. That's grasping at straws. In any case there's the additional requirement that the author's identity did not become known while the "anonymous" copyright was still running. The Bavarian State Archive acquired the Hoffmann archive in 1993, so we may assume that the photographer was known at least since then. Hence: copyright in Germany runs until 70 years after Hoffmann's death.
The exception for "works of the fine arts" described in § 66 (4) of the previous version was removed as it interfered with 93/98/EWG (or 2006/ 116/EG, respecitvely). But that's not our concern anyway because, as Lupo pointed out, it's a different category of works. It's also right that (acc. to § 137 f (1)) works that would still enjoy protection under the old version of § 66 (2) but would no longer be protected under the new version are protected for the duration as specified by the old version. So it's highly critical to use the file. Aside from that, it would be quite hard anyway to argue that this is an anonymous work. We do know the author, remember? So, one should ask, how did the library find out who the author was? The fact that someone knows his name should make at least some alarm bells ring, and it in some way suggests that in fact it might not actually be a truly anonymous work (note that the author's name/initials do not necessarily have to be published along with the presentation of the work, rather, it would for instance be sufficient if they were to be found in the original [unpublished] version, an [unpublished] manucscript etc., implying a significant research burden for reusers, see, among others, Katzenberger in Schricker/Loewenheim, 4th ed., § 66, 10). Given that we even know the author's name, it'd certainly not be a good idea to just rely on a single source's statement that the work is anonymous. So if it is as stated in the DR and the author's name is indeed disclosed on the library's website (I didn't check), we should better Delete the file. —Pill (talk) 16:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC) (updated 16:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC) for clarification)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Photo shows track of Corvus corone not Rattus, my bad. Delete or rename it as you wish. Feneks (talk) 22:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Delete On the other hand, I don't think this one is usable. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
photo shows footprint of Corvus corone, my bad. As a result qualitiy is bad because not representative! Feneks (talk) 21:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Keep Since we do not have a track of Corvus corone, shouldn't we simply rename this as File:Track of Corvus corone in the snow.jpg and keep it? Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jcb (talk) 21:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
author request, inaccurate depiction (this was not nominated by myself; this is a corrected request for User:ArthurWeasley). – Adrignola talk 00:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- If you agree to it, I can lengthen the tail even more... FunkMonk (talk) 03:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- Is the tail the only problem? If so I suggest you improve the image and we Keep it. --Simonxag (talk) 01:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Is the tail the only problem? If so I suggest you improve the image and we
Kept Jcb (talk) 07:13, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Uploader provided no information about the author or original source, so there's no way of verifying its copyright status. There's no evidence that the conditions of {{PD-old}} or {{PD-Japan-oldphoto}} are met. Could have been taken by a foreign photographer (British, French, German, etc..) and published in any country. Impossible to tell without any information about where and when it was first published. -- Kam Solusar (talk) 10:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Sitter retired in 1918; this is old, and very Japanese. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jcb (talk) 07:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Author is unknown, so {{PD-old}} doesn't apply. Besides, the date of the work, provided by the uploader, is very recent. –Tryphon☂ 12:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Coats of arms of Russia are not copyrightable. See Template:PD-RU-exempt. BrightRaven (talk) 12:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- The general design is not copyrightable, but each representation can have it's own copyright. –Tryphon☂ 12:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Source ? BrightRaven (talk) 12:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Commons:Coats of Arms#Copyright on the representation. –Tryphon☂ 13:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- There is no external source in this page. BrightRaven (talk) 13:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- It links to en:Wikipedia:Copyright on emblems, which has plenty of external references. You keep asking me for sources and references, but you didn't provide any argument as to why this representation (or all representations) wouldn't be copyrightable. Your link to {{PD-RU-exempt}} only shows that the Russian government doesn't claim copyright on the definition of coats of arms; artists are still entitled to copyright on whatever they draw. –Tryphon☂ 13:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Let me quote the above-mentioned page: "But an emblazon drawn to imitate an emblazon containing non-geometric shapes is not copyrightable. If the goal of the author is to replicate a single preexisting work as precisely as possible, the result has no copyright beyond that of the original work." If this image was actually drawn by someone who died less than 70 years ago (still to be proved), this person just intended to replicate the old official COA of Russia as precisely as possible. And the original drawing is in the public domain because:
- Russian law excludes official coats of arms from copyright ("If an emblem is specified only by a blazon or similar imprecise description in a governmental publication, a particular emblazon of it may still be copyrightable. To avoid this, some countries explicitly exempt their national emblems from copyright. This can be seen for instance in the copyright laws of many eastern European countries, e.g. in the successor countries of the USSR.");
- The original drawer died more than 70 years ago. BrightRaven (talk) 14:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- If, as you say, this image is a faithful reproduction of an old CoA, we need to see the source to see if there really isn't any creativity involved. And to answer your other two points:
- I don't agree with the interpretation that this exception in the Russian copyright law extends to the emblazons; it seems to me that Article 8 just says the government doesn't claim copyright on the definitions of the various state symbols, or on the representations produced by the government itself (such as banknotes and post stamps);
- If you're right about 1., then this point doesn't matter. But if not, it seems that the author (that was previously said to be unknown) is Robert Malanichev, who died in 2006.
- –Tryphon☂ 11:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Let me quote the above-mentioned page: "But an emblazon drawn to imitate an emblazon containing non-geometric shapes is not copyrightable. If the goal of the author is to replicate a single preexisting work as precisely as possible, the result has no copyright beyond that of the original work." If this image was actually drawn by someone who died less than 70 years ago (still to be proved), this person just intended to replicate the old official COA of Russia as precisely as possible. And the original drawing is in the public domain because:
- It links to en:Wikipedia:Copyright on emblems, which has plenty of external references. You keep asking me for sources and references, but you didn't provide any argument as to why this representation (or all representations) wouldn't be copyrightable. Your link to {{PD-RU-exempt}} only shows that the Russian government doesn't claim copyright on the definition of coats of arms; artists are still entitled to copyright on whatever they draw. –Tryphon☂ 13:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- There is no external source in this page. BrightRaven (talk) 13:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Commons:Coats of Arms#Copyright on the representation. –Tryphon☂ 13:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Source ? BrightRaven (talk) 12:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- The general design is not copyrightable, but each representation can have it's own copyright. –Tryphon☂ 12:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Is not copyrightable. --Latitude (talk) 15:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Delete a file is not necessary - RUSSIAN lived with him for 20 years, thinking it was original. Now it's history. In a lot of mistakes, but this is our story.
On these two pages, published a letter from the Chief Heraldry Master of Russia. It is dated 2006. http://www.rus-deco.com/vp/JS-Lib/CustomerSites/Common/view_larger.htm?src=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rus-deco.com%2F510_500_csupload_20087015.jpg%3Fu%3D553230982
In this letter - this figure is criticized. It many gross mistakes. It was painted in 90 years of 20 century, Robert Ivanovich Malanitchev. At the present moment is initiated his replacement at the picture without a single mistake and the author's portrayal: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Greater_Coat_of_Arms_of_the_Russian_Empire_1700x1767_pix_Igor_Barbe_2006.jpg Earlier, the authors insisted on the presence of yellow in the figure dies with his name. For VIKI author has made an exception. However, the file with a yellow bg can remain - it has more resolution. References to it are optional for connoisseurs. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Greater_coat_of_arms_of_the_Russian_empire_IGOR_BARBE_1500x1650jpg.jpg All files are located here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Greater_Coat_of_Arms_of_the_Russian_EmpireБарбэ Игорь Igor Barbe (talk) 18:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete It seems that this image - ONE big mistake. It is necessary to completely stop using it.Барбэ Игорь Igor Barbe (talk) 20:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jcb (talk) 07:13, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Files of User:Eliseo258
[edit]- File:Karina-Con la misma moneda 2010.jpg
- File:El Polaco.jpg
- File:El polaco en vivo concierto 2008.jpg
- File:El Polaco En Concierto 2008.jpg
- File:El Polaco en Concierto 2008.jpg
Per concerns of OTRS abuse on Administrators' noticeboard. --MorganKevinJ(talk) 19:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Already Deleted All the files have already been deleted. MorganKevinJ(talk) 19:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Per the style likely a work of a contemporary artist, thereby still copyrighted. --Túrelio (talk) 22:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment per the church website the window was completed in 1901, but "restored in 1961" (Google translation). From the translation I was not able to figure out if the window was completely replaced in 1961 or if the restoration was a smaller change. MKFI (talk) 11:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- Further comment: the stained glass window was apparently manufactured by fr:Tournel frères (Category:Stained glass windows by Tournel frères), but I could not find when the different Tournels died. MKFI (talk) 12:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Delete I'm inclined to delete this, but not enough so to close the DR. The style looks to me to be much later than 1901, but "restauré" suggests only the usual periodic work on the leading, not a complete replacement, so I incline toward accepting the 1901 date. That could, of course, still leave us with a creator who died after 1940 and the rule is, "when in doubt, delete". Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- According to fr:Tournel frères, one of the brothers was active until the 1960s. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Je conseille de venir visiter l'église. Il y a, à gauche de l'entrée, des panneaux d'information sur les vitraux en français, en anglais, en italien, .... On peut y lire que ce vitrail a été réalisé en 1901 par les frères Destournel et il est d'ailleurs en cours de restauration en 2011. Les frères Destournels ont réalisé le vitrail d'après un carton de Pascal Blanchard (le maître verrier n'a fait le vitrail que d'après un carton). La date de 70 ans après la mort du créateur ne me pose donc pas de problème. Cordialement--JMO (talk) 20:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- Rough translation -- "a plaque on site says that the Tournel brothers made the window in 1901 from a drawing by Pascal Blanchard". (I assume the French "carton", which I have never seen before, is equivalent to the English "cartoon" in the sense of a drawing or sketch from which to create another work)
- That is good information, thank you. It leaves the question though, of when the brothers and Blanchard died. In order for us to keep it, all would have to have died by 1940. If one was 30 or even 40 years old in 1901, he could easily have lived past 1940.
- If Blanchard is Pascal Blanchard (peintre), he died in 1900, age 93. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:43, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment En suppoasant que l'atelier des frères Destournel soit celui des frères Tournel, leur père, Lionel Tournel, est encore vivant à l'époque de réalisation du vitrail. En 1900 il est le vice-président du jury international de l'Exposition universelle de 1900 pour la classe 67 "Vitraux". Il remet le rapport du jury sur les artistes exposés en 1901. Charles Tournel fait une pétition en 1898 pour que les vitraux soient admis dans la classe Beaux-Arts de l'exposition universelle ce que refuse les peintres et les sculpteurs. On constate que les vitraux peuvent aussi être signés non par des individus par des ateliers. Il est donc difficile de déterminer s'il y a un auteur du vitrail ou si c'est le travail de tout un atelier. La demande de suppression semble justifiée par une opinion. Cordialement --JMO (talk) 17:34, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 21:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- Je trouve honteuse l'attitude de celui qui a commandé la suppression d'une photo d'un vitrail datant de 1901 et de celui qui a exécuté cette suppression. J'espère que vous avez conscience de l'imbécilité de cet acte.--JMO (talk) 22:35, 22 April 2011 (UTC)