Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2011/05/12
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Everyone is using this image without proper credits on ther sites. I would like to take down all my images to stop this. Magyarfutball (talk) 12:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Keep Releasing under free licence is irrevocable. I think that deletion requests may be in special justified cases accepted, but the practice, when someone want to delete all files just because he changed his mind, can not accepted. We also do not delete Wikipedia articles or part of articles because somebody who wrote them changed his mind. --Dezidor (talk) 12:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept: - speedy kept - clearly unacceptable deletion reason, license is irrevocable - Jcb (talk) 15:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Everyone is using this image without proper credits on ther sites. I would like to take down all my images to stop this. Magyarfutball (talk) 12:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Releasing under free licence is irrevocable. I think that deletion requests may be in special justified cases accepted, but the practice, when someone want to delete all files just because he changed his mind, can not accepted. We also do not delete Wikipedia articles or part of articles because somebody who wrote them changed his mind. --Dezidor (talk) 12:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept: - speedy kept - clearly unacceptable deletion reason, license is irrevocable - Jcb (talk) 15:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Everyone is using this image without proper credits on ther sites. I would like to take down all my images to stop this. Magyarfutball (talk) 12:05, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Releasing under free licence is irrevocable. I think that deletion requests may be in special justified cases accepted, but the practice, when someone want to delete all files just because he changed his mind, can not accepted. We also do not delete Wikipedia articles or part of articles because somebody who wrote them changed his mind. --Dezidor (talk) 12:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept: - speedy kept - clearly unacceptable deletion reason, license is irrevocable - Jcb (talk) 15:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Everyone is using this image without proper credits on ther sites. I would like to take down all my images to stop this. Magyarfutball (talk) 12:05, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept: - speedy kept - clearly unacceptable deletion reason, license is irrevocable - Jcb (talk) 15:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Everyone is using this image without proper credits on ther sites. I would like to take down all my images to stop this. Magyarfutball (talk) 12:05, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept: - speedy kept - clearly unacceptable deletion reason, license is irrevocable - Jcb (talk) 15:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Everyone is using this image without proper credits on ther sites. I would like to take down all my images to stop this. Magyarfutball (talk) 12:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept: - speedy kept - clearly unacceptable deletion reason, license is irrevocable - Jcb (talk) 15:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Everyone is using this image without proper credits on ther sites. I would like to take down all my images to stop this. Magyarfutball (talk) 12:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept: - speedy kept - clearly unacceptable deletion reason, license is irrevocable - Jcb (talk) 15:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Everyone is using this image without proper credits on ther sites. I would like to take down all my images to stop this. Magyarfutball (talk) 12:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept: - speedy kept - clearly unacceptable deletion reason, license is irrevocable - Jcb (talk) 15:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Everyone is using this image without proper credits on ther sites. I would like to take down all my images to stop this. Magyarfutball (talk) 12:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept: - speedy kept - clearly unacceptable deletion reason, license is irrevocable - Jcb (talk) 15:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Everyone is using this image without proper credits on ther sites. I would like to take down all my images to stop this. Magyarfutball (talk) 12:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept: - speedy kept - clearly unacceptable deletion reason, license is irrevocable - Jcb (talk) 15:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Everyone is using this image without proper credits on ther sites. I would like to take down all my images to stop this. Magyarfutball (talk) 12:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept: - speedy kept - clearly unacceptable deletion reason, license is irrevocable - Jcb (talk) 15:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Everyone is using this image without proper credits on ther sites. I would like to take down all my images to stop this. Magyarfutball (talk) 12:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept: - speedy kept - clearly unacceptable deletion reason, license is irrevocable - Jcb (talk) 15:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Everyone is using this image without proper credits on ther sites. I would like to take down all my images to stop this. Magyarfutball (talk) 12:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept: - speedy kept - clearly unacceptable deletion reason, license is irrevocable - Jcb (talk) 15:26, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Everyone is using this image without proper credits on ther sites. I would like to take down all my images to stop this. Magyarfutball (talk) 12:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept: - speedy kept - clearly unacceptable deletion reason, license is irrevocable - Jcb (talk) 15:26, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Everyone is using this image without proper credits on ther sites. I would like to take down all my images to stop this. Magyarfutball (talk) 12:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept: - speedy kept - clearly unacceptable deletion reason, license is irrevocable - Jcb (talk) 15:26, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Everyone is using this image without proper credits on ther sites. I would like to take down all my images to stop this. Magyarfutball (talk) 12:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept: - speedy kept - clearly unacceptable deletion reason, license is irrevocable - Jcb (talk) 15:26, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Everyone is using this image without proper credits on ther sites. I would like to take down all my images to stop this. Magyarfutball (talk) 12:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept: - speedy kept - clearly unacceptable deletion reason, license is irrevocable - Jcb (talk) 15:26, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Everyone is using this image without proper credits on ther sites. I would like to take down all my images to stop this. Magyarfutball (talk) 12:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept: - speedy kept - clearly unacceptable deletion reason, license is irrevocable - Jcb (talk) 15:26, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Everyone is using this image without proper credits on ther sites. I would like to take down all my images to stop this. Magyarfutball (talk) 12:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept: - speedy kept - clearly unacceptable deletion reason, license is irrevocable - Jcb (talk) 15:26, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Everyone is using this image without proper credits on ther sites. I would like to take down all my images to stop this. Magyarfutball (talk) 12:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept: - speedy kept - clearly unacceptable deletion reason, license is irrevocable - Jcb (talk) 15:26, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Everyone is using this image without proper credits on ther sites. I would like to take down all my images to stop this. Magyarfutball (talk) 12:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept: - speedy kept - clearly unacceptable deletion reason, license is irrevocable - Jcb (talk) 15:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Everyone is using this image without proper credits on ther sites. I would like to take down all my images to stop this. Magyarfutball (talk) 12:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Releasing under free licence is irrevocable. I think that deletion requests may be in special justified cases accepted, but the practice, when someone want to delete all files just because he changed his mind, can not accepted. We also do not delete Wikipedia articles or part of articles because somebody who wrote them changed his mind. --Dezidor (talk) 12:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept: - speedy kept - clearly unacceptable deletion reason, license is irrevocable - Jcb (talk) 15:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Everyone is using this image without proper credits on ther sites. I would like to take down all my images to stop this. Magyarfutball (talk) 12:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept: - speedy kept - clearly unacceptable deletion reason, license is irrevocable - Jcb (talk) 15:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Everyone is using this image without proper credits on ther sites. I would like to take down all my images to stop this. Magyarfutball (talk) 12:12, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept: - speedy kept - clearly unacceptable deletion reason, license is irrevocable - Jcb (talk) 15:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Everyone is using this image without proper credits on ther sites. I would like to take down all my images to stop this. Magyarfutball (talk) 12:12, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept: - speedy kept - clearly unacceptable deletion reason, license is irrevocable - Jcb (talk) 15:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Everyone is using this image without proper credits on ther sites. I would like to take down all my images to stop this. Magyarfutball (talk) 12:12, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept: - speedy kept - clearly unacceptable deletion reason, license is irrevocable - Jcb (talk) 15:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Permission is still missing.--Magyarfutball (talk) 12:40, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Everyone is using this image without proper credits on ther sites. I would like to take down all my images to stop this. Magyarfutball (talk) 12:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Releasing under free licence is irrevocable. I think that deletion requests may be in special justified cases accepted, but the practice, when someone want to delete all files just because he changed his mind, can not accepted. We also do not delete Wikipedia articles or part of articles because somebody who wrote them changed his mind. --Dezidor (talk) 12:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept: - speedy kept - clearly unacceptable deletion reason, license is irrevocable - Jcb (talk) 15:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
copyright violation (see link) Bdc43 (talk) 07:05, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Common Good (talk) 18:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Contains the copyrighted Atomium. 84.61.132.230 18:17, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete: This image already once failed a deletion request (see here) and was previously deleted because of it (see File:€2 Commemorative Coin Belgium 2006.png). This file's already been marked for speedy deletion as a copyright violation. There's no need to sustain this DR, just delete the file. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, Florent Pécassou (talk) 20:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Commons is not an amateur porn site Pablo huertas (talk) 19:55, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete I would rather say that we donna need a blurry dick with so many alternatives given. --Yikrazuul (talk) 19:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep COM:PORN does not apply. Might be educationally usefull. Frenulum breve is in scope. Where do you see so many alternatives? Category:Frenulum breve is far from being overcrowded. Only five images of two different penises. -- Common Good (talk) 20:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
- As you have mentioned it: all other pictures in that category clearly show the Frenulum breve, but not this picture (too blurry). --Yikrazuul (talk) 20:42, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete There are already enough images of frenulum breve in the category:Frenulum of the human penis. And they are close views. --Civa (talk) 07:20, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per above, there are others alternatives --Màñü飆¹5 talk 22:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
- Maybe I'm missing something here, but the file does not appear to have been deleted. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 20:05, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Dark picture, low quality, and we have better alternatives. FAP (talk) 19:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Same type of picture than Frenulum_breve.JPG
Deleted, Florent Pécassou (talk) 20:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
out of scope (damaged flag of the czech republic) Slfi (talk) 19:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, Florent Pécassou (talk) 20:17, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Obviously a fake. XenonX3 (talk) 20:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per Xenon Mbdortmund (talk) 20:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
This logo is obviously under copyright as can be seen on the official website of the club. One can read under the logo that copyright belongs to frédéric cools. It might be the same person who uploaded the file Fredericcools (talk · contribs). But there is no denitive proof that they are the same person. To be sure that there is no copyright problem, the user should contact the OTRS to certify it. Otherwise, the file must be deleted to avoid any potential problem. I sent an email to the uploader so that he can contact OTRS people. Udufruduhu (talk) 13:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Logo réimporté en fair use sur Wikipédia Bapti ✉ 19:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
is integrated in common.js and not necessary any more Hellerhoff (talk) 17:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Common Good (talk) 18:15, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
is integrated in common.js and not necessary any more Hellerhoff (talk) 17:52, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Common Good (talk) 18:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
moved to general use. not necessary any more Hellerhoff (talk) 17:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Common Good (talk) 18:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Blurry picture, low quality, and we do have better alternatives. Yikrazuul (talk) 18:36, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - low quality Florent Pécassou (talk) 15:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. George Chernilevsky talk 06:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
The license is not valid. Uppladdaren (undertecknad) har inte korrekta rättigheter till bilden. 83.227.188.69 14:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Sounds like: Delete per own request, because of Copyvio? -- Lavallen (talk) 06:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- The user who uploaded the image has himself replaced it by the one previously used so it does sound like a misstaken upload =( /Lokal_Profil 10:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted per uploader request/Copyvio Lokal_Profil 16:25, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
out of scope, damaged jpeg Slfi (talk) 19:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Jujutacular talk 19:41, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: File:Japielogo.gif -- Common Good (talk) 19:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Slfi (talk) 16:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Jujutacular talk 19:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
screenshot from some online game - missing permission, probably out of scope Slfi (talk) 16:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio and not in scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Slfi (talk) 16:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, not usefull for educational purposes. --Martin H. (talk) 17:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 08:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Slfi (talk) 16:26, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope. Jujutacular talk 19:31, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 08:35, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Slfi (talk) 16:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 08:35, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
cdcover, non-free use. --苹果派.留言 16:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Jujutacular talk 19:35, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: copyright violation George Chernilevsky talk 08:38, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
personal image, out of project scope Broc (talk) 17:52, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 08:39, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
personal image, no educational content Broc (talk) 17:59, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 08:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Very low quality -- Common Good (talk) 18:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete Too blurry, nothing special. --Yikrazuul (talk) 12:28, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. George Chernilevsky talk 08:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
blurry unidentified roses (as there are lots of sharp rose pictures and there isn't any additional information, there is little value in this picture) Anna reg (talk) 18:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - {{Out of scope}} --Sreejith K (talk) 18:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 08:43, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Slfi (talk) 19:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete No foreseeable use. Jujutacular talk 19:37, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 08:43, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Slfi (talk) 19:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 08:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
We have an updated version of this diagram Conty (talk) 19:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete replaced by File:Paleontological temporal paradox diagram 02.jpg. I should note that it would have been simpler to simply upload a new version of the original file instead of a completely new one. Also, this kind of chart suffers from being saved jpg format; a png or vector would be more suitable. MKFI (talk) 11:17, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 10:25, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Low quality, and we do have better alternatives. FAP (talk) 19:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Just another quick shot of the one penis, dispensable. --Yikrazuul (talk) 12:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 08:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Slfi (talk) 19:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete; per nom, orphan, uncategorized since 2009. Infrogmation (talk) 00:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 08:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Slfi (talk) 19:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 08:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Self-made picture, low quality, and we have better alternatives. FAP (talk) 19:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Nothing special, just exhibitionism and per nom. --Yikrazuul (talk) 12:26, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. George Chernilevsky talk 08:47, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Blurry picture, low quality, and we do have better alternatives. FAP (talk) 19:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Too blurry to be of any use. --Yikrazuul (talk) 12:26, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. George Chernilevsky talk 08:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Obvious self made picture, low quality, and we do have better alternatives. FAP (talk) 19:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom, dispensable. --Yikrazuul (talk) 12:14, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. George Chernilevsky talk 08:50, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Obvious self made picture, low quality, and we have better alternatives. FAP (talk) 19:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom, useless. --Yikrazuul (talk) 12:14, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. George Chernilevsky talk 08:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
private photo, out of scope Slfi (talk) 19:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 08:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
No FOP in Saudi Arabia. 84.61.132.230 19:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- weak Keep Agreed on the FOP issues, but any particular structure here is de minimis to the entire image. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete While a reasonable person might think any individual building is De Minimis (though I don't think so), the entire complex is one work, the Abraj Al Bait Towers, and so qualifies for copyright as a whole. The central focus of this photo is undeniably the Abraj Al Bait Towers. Buddy431 (talk) 21:11, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept: all possible FOP issues are DM Jcb (talk) 10:25, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
No FOP in the UAE. The buildings do not qualify under de minimis - they are, as a group, the main focus of the photo, and subject to copyright. Buddy431 (talk) 04:46, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - per our common practice to keep pictures of unfinished buildings - Jcb (talk) 10:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - this doesn't look like de minimis at all. Powers (talk) 17:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - This building is in Saudi Arabia, not in UAE. --El Chapulin Colorado (talk) 22:24, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted - I don't think these buildings can reasonably qualify as de minimis, so due to FOP laws I believe this to be a copyright violation, albeit an unintentional one. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:13, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
No FOP in Saudi Arabia. 84.61.132.230 19:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept: all possible FOP issues are DM Jcb (talk) 10:25, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
No Freedom of Panorama in Saudi Arabia. The Makkah Royal Clock Tower Hotel is copyrighted by Dar Al-Handasah. Ras67 (talk) 23:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Not de minimis. Previous decision to keep was wrong. Taivo (talk) 18:58, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sreejith K (talk) 20:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
private photo, out of scope Slfi (talk) 19:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 08:59, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Unused image of an inactive user. GeorgHH • talk 20:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 08:59, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned personal photo, out of project scope Martin H. (talk) 21:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 09:00, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned personal photo, out of scope. Martin H. (talk) 21:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 09:00, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Wrong license, inaccurate source (please provide the full URL of the html page which contains the image), no permission from photographer. Saibo (Δ) 03:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Common Good (talk) 18:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
copy right water mark by user Jayanta Nath (talk) 06:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep watermarks are discouraged, but not forbidden. If necessary the image can be simply cropped to remove the watermark. MKFI (talk) 18:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept: no need to delete. -- Common Good (talk) 18:47, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
looks like screenshot from TV, so probably copyvio Slfi (talk) 16:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Jujutacular talk 19:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Common Good (talk) 18:39, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
no evidence that this is a work of the United states federal government Movieevery (talk) 02:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Jujutacular talk 03:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 07:14, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
I doubt that the uploader is the photographer of the four men, too. Looks like a derivative work to me. Leyo 10:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Seems clear to me. --ALE! ¿…? 12:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Infrogmation (talk) 00:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 07:14, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
no evidence of original work, looks scanned in from magazine Hold and wave (talk) 15:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep I took that photo! The camera metadata is included in the file and displayed on the image page. The "look" is because it was a dark concert, and they'd asked for no flash.-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 22:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Doesn't look scanned in to me, and the metadata is all there.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
private photo, out of scope Slfi (talk) 16:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Mbdortmund (talk) 19:50, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
private photo, out of scope Slfi (talk) 16:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Mbdortmund (talk) 19:50, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
private photo, out of scope Slfi (talk) 16:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Mbdortmund (talk) 19:50, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
replaced by PNG version File:632d Combat Support Group.png Bwmoll3 (talk) 02:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ColorIURIS_License_Agreements DustyComputer (talk) 03:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: source is explicitly (c) Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ColorIURIS_License_Agreements DustyComputer (talk) 03:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: source is explicitly (c) Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Created in 1986 by the Government of Singapore (see "Lion head symbol of Singapore"), which thus owns the copyright in it. Unfortunately, in Singapore there is no rule that works by the Government are in the public domain: see "Commons:Licensing#Government works". The work will enter the public domain 70 years after the end of the calendar year in which the work was made, i.e., 1 January 2057. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 07:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep, derivative of Singaporean Air Force roundel. See Deletion_requests/File:RSAF Roundel 1990-present.svg for further comment. Fry1989 (talk) 08:05, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
The lion head symbol was created in 1986 by the Government of Singapore (see "Lion head symbol of Singapore"), which thus owns the copyright in it. Unfortunately, in Singapore there is no rule that works by the Government are in the public domain: see "Commons:Licensing#Government works". The work will enter the public domain 70 years after the end of the calendar year in which the work was made, i.e., 1 January 2057. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 07:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep, derivative of Singaporean Air Force roundel. See Deletion_requests/File:RSAF Roundel 1990-present.svg for further comment. Fry1989 (talk) 08:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep It should stay Jetijones (talk) 19:47, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete (as nominator): please see the detailed reasons for why this is a copyright violation at "Commons:Deletion requests/File:RSAF Roundel 1990-present.svg". I would suggest that further discussion take place there, to keep it in one place. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 19:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:44, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
The lion head symbol was created in 1986 by the Government of Singapore (see "Lion head symbol of Singapore"), which thus owns the copyright in it. Unfortunately, in Singapore there is no rule that works by the Government are in the public domain: see "Commons:Licensing#Government works". The work will enter the public domain 70 years after the end of the calendar year in which the work was made, i.e., 1 January 2057. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 07:59, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:44, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
The lion head symbol was created in 1986 by the Government of Singapore (see "Lion head symbol of Singapore"), which thus owns the copyright in it. Unfortunately, in Singapore there is no rule that works by the Government are in the public domain: see "Commons:Licensing#Government works". The work will enter the public domain 70 years after the end of the calendar year in which the work was made, i.e., 1 January 2057. I have transferred it back to the English Wikipedia as "File:RSAF Roundel (1990–present).svg". — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 08:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
- Keep. First, this file is used EXTENSIVELY on all Wikipedias. Second, I doubt the copyright extends to the roundel. Third, according to the Guidelines for Use, the symbol is available for public use, and while under conditions, it is not explicitly reserved by the Government. Lastly, if the file IS a vio, it can be altered (see previous versions as example), deletion is not neccesary. Fry1989 (talk) 08:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Comment:
- Extensive use is, regrettably, irrelevant to the issue. If a file is a copyright violation, then it has to be deleted even if it is in use in every single Wikipedia project. Also, the extensive use appears to be because the file is used in templates.
- Section 197(4) of the Copyright Act of Singapore is clear: an artistic work (other than an engraving or a photograph) made made by or under the direction or control of the Government is in the public domain only if 70 years have passed since the end of the calendar year in which the work was made. There is no legal requirement for the Government to specifically state, "I claim copyright over this work".
- Since the lion head symbol was created in 1986, I do not think its use in the RSAF roundel in 1990 gives the Government fresh copyright over the symbol. If I am wrong and it does, this extends the period of copyright to 70 years after 31 December 1990, i.e., 1 January 2061.
- The Government's guidelines on the use of the lion head symbol state:
- "An individual, organisation or company can use the Lion Head symbol for purposes of identifying with the nation.
- "While Singapore companies may use the Lion Head symbol as a means of identifying themselves with Singapore, it should not be assumed or taken to indicate any kind of official endorsement of the companies' products.
- "The Lion Head symbol should be used in good taste. Its design should not be modified in any way nor have any words or graphics superimposed over it. However, it may be depicted in outline form, be embossed, or portrayed as a watermark."
- Unfortunately, this does not amount to a statement that the symbol is not copyrighted, nor that people may freely modify it or use it for commercial purposes. Thus, it cannot be uploaded to the Commons.
- Any altered version would have to be substantially different from the current version, otherwise it would still amount to an unauthorized derivative work. In any case, whether or not an altered version is successfully created, this current image still has to be deleted as a copyright violation.
- It would be great if we could retain the symbol in the Commons, but as the law stands I do not see any way this can be done. Sorry about that. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 08:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep I can't imagine this being such a major vio issue, but if push comes to shove then we'll just upload it in Wikipedia. And skip out on commons all together. Jetijones (talk) 19:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Already done, as mentioned above ("File:RSAF Roundel (1990–present).svg", and see also "File:RSAF Roundel (1990–present, low visibility).svg"). If it's a copyright violation, it's a copyright violation. As they say, there's no such thing as being a little bit pregnant. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 19:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Deleted: JackLee is expert on Singapore law -- hard to disagree with him. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Seems to meet the threshold of originality. (And obviously "google" is not the author.) —LX (talk, contribs) 10:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Image is a potential copyviolation. Image appears at DailyMail Online (scroll down) and turns up in TinEye results. No actual proof of ownership (or uncropped version) – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 11:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- In addition, user's other upload was a copyvio image also taken from a copyrighted website, if this helps the case any. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 23:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Looks like picture lifted from random website - similar images pop up if a Google image search is done for this actress Tabercil (talk) 12:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Derivative of http://classiques.uqac.ca/collection_methodologie/bernstein_basil/bernstein_basil_photo/bernstein_basil.jpg ALE! ¿…? 12:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
PD-AR-Photo not applicable. ALE! ¿…? 12:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
PD-AR-Photo not applicable. ALE! ¿…? 12:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
PD-AR-Photo not applicable. Reason: Not a photo. ALE! ¿…? 12:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
PD-AR-Photo not applicable. Reason: Not a photo. ALE! ¿…? 12:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
person of no notability Andrei Romanenko (talk) 12:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Nominator deleted the article about the subject today after a DR on Russian wikipedia [1]. Uploader of the file and author of the this article also uploaded a bunch of photos, book covers, website screenshots etc. related to this lady, and all of them are missing permission, description, wrong license etc. Perhaps nuke all? NVO (talk) 20:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
The subject file was deleted 13:01, 16 May 2011 by Matanya. As suggested by NVO, I have nuked the rest. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Scanned ad image from a magazine 丁 (talk) 13:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
This seems to be a modern version of the old reprsentation. It is doubtful this image was created before 1900. The source given is a journal who have used the image, not created it.--Chesdovi (talk) 14:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Seems to have been copied from a website without permission given: [2] --Chesdovi (talk) 14:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
![[2]](http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.mishnetorah.com/files/images/s__mada.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.mishnetorah.com/the-elucidated-version/mm-mada.htm&usg=__UvJmqx3z-TR20Y3qIUWU1NBihV4=&h=336&w=336&sz=699&hl=en&start=0&zoom=1&tbnid=nJSSxab8L3OG3M:&tbnh=132&tbnw=119&ei=ofDLTeWBHMyxhAf1hIyqAg&prev=/search%3Fq%3D%25D7%25A1%25D7%25A4%25D7%25A8%2B%25D7%2594%25D7%259E%25D7%2593%25D7%25A2%2B%25D7%25A8%25D7%259E%25D7%2591%2527%25D7%259D%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26biw%3D1003%26bih%3D545%26tbm%3Disch&um=1&itbs=1&iact=rc&dur=171&page=1&ndsp=17&ved=1t:429,r:13,s:0&tx=84&ty=80){kind=link}
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to by own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Probably PD-OLD could be applied. I guess the picture is from around 1930. --Florentyna (talk) 09:08, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: 1930 isn't close to PD-old in most countries. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
and other uploads by Jeissong23 (talk · contribs). Out of Commons:Project scope: text documents. Images in one of the is unlikely to be own work because of thumbnail size. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:00, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: 01:20, 18 May 2011 by Fastily, closed by Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to by own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
and File:Fagot+koroviev.jpg. No Commons:Freedom of panorama in Russia. Modern sculptures. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:01, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to by own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:01, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
no permission, wrong licence Slfi (talk) 16:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Private photo, out of scope Slfi (talk) 16:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Comment In use: su:Stasion Shinjuku. Jujutacular talk 19:24, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- I think that is not relevant use - article is about underground station.Slfi (talk) 22:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- I have removed the image, let's see if it sticks. Jujutacular talk 03:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- I think that is not relevant use - article is about underground station.Slfi (talk) 22:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:03, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Nice, but out of scope. Yikrazuul (talk) 16:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Project Scope isn't the same on Commons as it is on Wikipedia. Keep Fry1989 (talk) 03:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- ??? Wrong, commons is not a free database for pictures without any educational purpose. --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:45, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- NOT wrong. We have plenty of images that people would consider "out of scope" by Wikipedia standards. Scope does not apply here. Fry1989 (talk) 22:03, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- Commons does have a specific scope, so the media therein follow a specific scope or educational purpose. As long you cannot prove that the edcuational purpose is irrelvant, your opinion remains irrelvant for me. --Yikrazuul (talk) 19:42, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- NOT wrong. We have plenty of images that people would consider "out of scope" by Wikipedia standards. Scope does not apply here. Fry1989 (talk) 22:03, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- I don't CARE what you think., The fact is that scope does no apply on here, and everybody knows it but you apparently. I have seen deletion nominations in the past, nominated under the same false reasoning, and they are often denied because the fact scope is not the same here as it is on Wikipedia. If you want the file deleted, you need a better reasoning than trying to use one from Wikipedia, when Commons is different. Fry1989 (talk) 21:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- Fry1989, perhaps you could explain how this does meet project scope as a benefit for those who might not understand it instead of just saying that Yikrazuul's interpretation of scope is wrong? As a reminder to all, Commons:Project scope is the policy statement on commons. The file isn't currently in use on any project. That seems to leave the discussion here turning on "Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose". DMacks (talk) 01:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- We have plenty of files on here, either that would not be considered "in scope", OR are not curently being used. They are not open for deletion for many different reasons. We don't delete people's files because of a Wikipedia policy. I am not making statement on the use of this file, I am making statement on that Yikrazul's reason for nomination is invalid. Fry1989 (talk) 01:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- Which part of Commons:Project scope haven't you understood? Your other assumptions (they are not open for deletion for many different reasons) are neither logical, nor useful for that deletion discussion. I suggest you get familiar with commons, if you need help just ask. Cheers, --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:08, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- ??? Wrong, commons is not a free database for pictures without any educational purpose. --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:45, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- I have been on Commons for over 2 years, I know it very well, and I have seen countless files nominated under YOUR reasoning, and denied because, according to the Admins who oversee this process, Wikipedia reasoning does not apply here. You can disagree, but I am only repeating what admins HAVE and WILL say again. Fry1989 (talk) 19:51, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- Project Scope isn't the same on Commons as it is on Wikipedia. Keep Fry1989 (talk) 03:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete as unused image for which I cannot conceive of an educational purpose. Not even funny enough for CafePress or ThinkGeek I don't think. DMacks (talk) 16:59, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep valid example of satiric or marketing drawing.--Pierpao.lo (listening) 03:24, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- "Marketing drawing"??? Satric? That image isn't even used. --Yikrazuul (talk) 19:42, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. Out of project scope -- George Chernilevsky talk 08:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept: I can easily see it being used in an office -- remember that WP is only a part of the use of our files. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Photographer is over 70 years old, but that's irrelevant. No author given and "believe" that the photographer died within 10 years after this shot isn't enough to hold this picture here. Quedel (talk) 17:47, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Not sure where the date of the photographer's death was ever mentioned, I stated the photograph was over 70 years old. At any rate I will remove this photograph, that came from the Billy Rose Theatre Collection at the New York Public Library, since I'm unclear about its copyright status.
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
A frame of a video is copyrighted, even if it is showed in a public place, isn't it? Broc (talk) 18:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
A frame of a video is copyrighted, even if it is showed in a public place, isn't it? Broc (talk) 18:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Probably an artwork not made by the author himself. Broc (talk) 18:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't think it's own work of the author, but maybe a scan of a religious image. Broc (talk) 18:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
The tail is too short, and so is the head. The legs should not have knee caps. The forelimbs are to thin, and the 4th digit should not have claws. Conty (talk) 18:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Image is in use. Do we have an accurate replacement image of this species? -- Infrogmation (talk) 00:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Slfi (talk) 19:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Might as well add
- File:Stumpyscan44.JPG
- File:Stumpyscan4.tif
- File:Stumpyscan1.tif
and they probably need an OTRS message as the author is likely [3](strike that, different style) --Tony Wills (talk) 10:47, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
The source site says "Text is ©-free", but nothing about images (that are most likely simply copyright violations). Damiens.rf 20:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- There is no copyright violations here ! This image must not be nominated for deletion !
- Delete obvious copyright violation, image is widely published on the net, most likely the source just took it from elsewhere. The file is neither licensed under the FAL (as claimed) nor freely licensed or public domain. --Martin H. (talk) 23:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Nobody(in Sri Satya Sai Central trust) claims the copyright for this image. The trust gives permission for free use of this image, hence, copyright is never violated.
Souravmohanty2005 (talk) 05:58, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- Doesnt matter. There is a copyright for the photographic work automtically, and Commons is not concerned about whether copyright holders care. --Martin H. (talk) 10:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: source site has explicit copyright for all except text. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:13, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
This is a copyright violation. Copyright is held by Patrick McMullen. See here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Delete. Seems open and shut. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- I seems less than clearly open and shut to me; see below. Infrogmation (talk) 23:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep The image has been on the NIH website since 2005 as PD-US-Gov ("reproducible without permission"), and the page does not credit McMullen. It seems strange that a US Gov website could have been making a gross copyright violation for 6 years without complaint. Ah, looking in more detail at the two photos, they seem to be very similar, but not identical-- most clearly seen in the figures at the far right, to the right of Herrera. I suggest that the NIH photographer and McMullen were both taking photographs of the event, and both photographed the 4 people posing together within a few seconds of each other, quite possibly the two photographers standing next to each other. Infrogmation (talk) 23:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Per Infrogmation.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
"Comment I just wanted to point out that the appearance of this article on an NIH publication's website does not negate the copyright of the photo. For all we know, NIH purchased rights to the photo from the photographer. It apparently remains copyrighted. This is not the work of an employee of the US government. I think that it would be a serious mistake not to delete this photo. ScottyBerg (talk) 05:03, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- It's a staged photo-op; of course the pictures are going to look similar. But they aren't identical, so there's no evidence it's from Patrick McMullen.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:12, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- There are two similar images on the linked page. Perhaps you were looking at the wrong one. Please take a close look at this one and compare it to the file under discussion. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:45, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- That's correct. I also wanted to point out that the image description page is incorrect. The author is not "Uncredited photographer for National Institute of Health." It's Patrick McMullan, who is not an NIH employee, and he has a copyright on the photo. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- I believe Andrew H Walker is the actual photographer, but Patrick McMullan (Agency) is the copyright holder. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:09, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- That's correct. I also wanted to point out that the image description page is incorrect. The author is not "Uncredited photographer for National Institute of Health." It's Patrick McMullan, who is not an NIH employee, and he has a copyright on the photo. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: The McMullen image cited by DC appears to be identical to the subject -- there is a face in the backround between the two central women that would not be there if the two were not taken with the same camera Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Derivative of copyright violating image. See nomination of original image. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for raising this issue. I agree. Delete. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Comment The copyright situation of this photo and the work from which it is cropped, File:Hearttruth03.jpg, is identical; please discuss at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hearttruth03.jpg. This image should be kept or deleted according to the decision on that image. Infrogmation (talk) 23:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Screenshot of unfree content. Please have a look also at the other uploads by the uploader. Especially:
- File:Solsma and Bailey 2.png
- File:Bruce Weber after Iowa win 2010.jpg
- File:Crean after loss to Iowa 2010.jpg
- File:Barclay Radebaugh.jpg
- File:Brooks Thompson.jpg
- File:Ron Everhart.jpg
- File:Raftery interviews Lickliter.jpg
--Martin H. (talk) 21:17, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Photo of a newspaper, possible copyvio "© Guardian Newspapers Ltd." Ronhjones (Talk) 22:52, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Nominating for discussion, since no one was going to read the file talk page anyway. I'm reiterating the concerns I brought up in the talk page. This is a discussion, not fingerpointing and saying that this is definitely a copyvio. I know this image was uploaded a long time ago. But was it ever verified that permission was received for the image? It's clearly a promotional image and the photographer listed does have an article on Wikipedia. However, did the original uploader provide any evidence that they were the author? I'm only questioning because I found an autographed version of the file with higher resolution [4] and no yellow saturation. A request for confirmation of identity was ignored in 2007. [5] The user uploaded an unused picture of a Mark Sweets in 2009 and listed the author as themself instead of Tom Caltabiano. Further obscuring their identity. It looks very likely that they do not own the image and are not Caltabiano at all. Fixer23 (talk) 23:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
![[4]](http://www.movieeye.com/celebrity_addresses/upl_images/scans/141015/Ray_Romano-r308643.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete - You convinced me (I'm the second hand uploader). Gridge (talk) 23:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC).
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Contains unfree images, must be created again with free images. Martin H. (talk) 23:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
No more under deletion request.
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
=== File:Powell_UN_Iraq_presentation,_alleged_Terrorist_Network.jpg ===
The individual photographs used in this derivative have no source and there is no evidence they are a work of the U.S government Movieevery (talk) 02:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep: This image is from page 5 of the Deptartment Of State presentation that accompanied Colin Powell's famous UN speech - archived copy is here. The presentation uses the Department of State seal, and was available from State's website. The image was taken from State's web version of this PDF presentation, and archive of which is here. Rwendland (talk) 10:12, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept, MacMed (talk) 20:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
No source of the FIRST publication is given. But this data is necessary for the usage of PD-AR-Photo. ALE! ¿…? 12:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No definitive source showing date of first publication. – Adrignola talk 20:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
No evidence of work of the United States Federal Government, looks scanned in Hold and wave (talk) 11:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 21:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Probable copyvio - this is a scanned image. License cannot be "self". (UK passport is on en-Wiki as Fair Use Only - this should be the same) Ronhjones (Talk) 22:05, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Keep My initial reaction is that this is an infringement of Crown Copyright, but I think not. We have several versions of the coat of arms, see File:Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom (Variant 1).svg for example. While the rule is that individual representations of a coat of arms have copyright, this one has been in use since Queen Elizabeth's coronation in 1952, which passes the Crown Copyright period of fifty years.
.svg){kind=link}
Ronhjones is, of course, correct, that this is not "own work", but is PD-Jersey, for which we do not have a specific template. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep-bad faith mass deletion bombing. Passports don't have copyright. The design is a standard of an international organization, and the illustration is a national coat of arms. It's a document, not a book.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 16:27, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- Reply to User:Kintetsubuffalo - Was not bad faith - I asked the question first - Commons_talk:Licensing#Passport_Covers, and was told that it was a case by case check needed. I left File:Abkhazian passport.jpg, File:Reisepass at.svg, File:Passaportebrasileironovo2006.jpg and File:Bulgarian eu passport.jpg as they show a reasonable claim of PD due to non copyright by the government. I only sought out those with an obviously totally incorrect license. I stopped at the end of the "B"s, as I thought it best to see how the first batch progressed. If I wanted to do a mass deletion bombing I would have gone through all of them Ronhjones (Talk) 18:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- P.S. The regular UK one is here - en:File:Ukpassport-cover.jpg and states "Crown Copyright" under "Fair Use" Ronhjones (Talk) 18:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- I think the same argument applies to the UK passport as the Jersey -- the coat of arms has been in use since 1952, so the Crown Copyright has expired. Note, please, that just because WP:EN says something is under copyright doesn't make it so. I'd like to think that we understand the subtleties much better here.
- As for the bad faith, passports do have copyrights in many places -- Britain, for example. Ronhjones is certainly correct that these are not correctly tagged -- they are not "own work" -- and therefore need fixing. Unfortunately, a DR is the best way to push the uploader into fixing them. I might have done the same.
- As for the rest, C-Z, in cases like Jersey, Ronhjones might make it clearer that the issue is not actually the copyright, but the incorrect license. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:27, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the info Jim. I will work slowly though them on and off, and I will adjust my comments to suit, so that editors don't think the worse. I think I have done most of the ones on en-wiki (that are wrong! - but I'm only up to "T" in my image checking), they seem to be getting either fixed or deleted (although I can do the deletion myself - I don't - it never hurts to have a second opinion). Ron Ronhjones (Talk) 18:39, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- P.S. The regular UK one is here - en:File:Ukpassport-cover.jpg and states "Crown Copyright" under "Fair Use" Ronhjones (Talk) 18:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- Reply to User:Kintetsubuffalo - Was not bad faith - I asked the question first - Commons_talk:Licensing#Passport_Covers, and was told that it was a case by case check needed. I left File:Abkhazian passport.jpg, File:Reisepass at.svg, File:Passaportebrasileironovo2006.jpg and File:Bulgarian eu passport.jpg as they show a reasonable claim of PD due to non copyright by the government. I only sought out those with an obviously totally incorrect license. I stopped at the end of the "B"s, as I thought it best to see how the first batch progressed. If I wanted to do a mass deletion bombing I would have gone through all of them Ronhjones (Talk) 18:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept: The discussion showed passport graphical elements are public domain. Dereckson (talk) 19:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
This is a photo of a book (passport). Probable CopyVio. License calims "self" - not appropriate, uploader may have taken the picture, but not the copyright Ronhjones (Talk) 22:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC) This was a scan I made of the cover of my own passport. Other are mine too but "anonymized"
- Keep-bad faith mass deletion bombing. Passports don't have copyright. The design is a standard of an international organization, and the illustration is a national coat of arms. It's a document, not a book.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 16:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Belgian copyright law provides official acts and documents aren't copyrighted. Dereckson (talk) 19:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
It is strongly suspected that this image is not a portrait of Yasukowa Matsuoka but that of Takashi Hara. The content of the image cannot be determined. --Akira Kouchiyama 
02:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
In addition, one Japanese Wikipedia user says File:Takashi Hara.jpg and File:Takashi Hara cropped.jpg are portraits of Yasukowa Matsuoka (cf. ja:WP:HD#別人と思われる画像を削除したい). But I am not sure about them. --Akira Kouchiyama 18:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep This is not a reason to delete this file. The question should be stated clearly in the description and left to WP editors and other potential users to decide what to do. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep per Jim. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:01, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept, MacMed (talk) 22:18, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
The photo is more about the person in the front then about the car Alfvanbeem (talk) 08:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep not the best photo, but it's in use in 3 wikis. Trycatch (talk) 13:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept, MacMed (talk) 22:21, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
This is a scanned image. Probable CopyVio. License claims "self" - not appropiate. Ronhjones (Talk) 22:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Keep Ronhjones is correct that it is not "own work", but it is {{PD-Afghanistan}}. It is better if the uploader changes it, but if necessary, the closing Admin could. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep-bad faith mass deletion bombing. Passports don't have copyright. The design is a standard of an international organization, and the illustration is a national coat of arms. It's a document, not a book.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 16:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept, per this discussion. MacMed (talk) 22:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
This is a photo of two books (passports). Probable CopyVio. License calims "self" - not appropiate, uploader may have taken the picture, but not the copyright. . Ronhjones (Talk) 22:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep-bad faith mass deletion bombing. Passports don't have copyright. The design is a standard of an international organization, and the illustration is a national coat of arms. It's a document, not a book.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 16:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept, per this discussion. MacMed (talk) 22:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
This is a photo of a book (passport). Probable CopyVio. License calims "self" - not appropiate, uploader may have taken the picture, but not the copyright. Ronhjones (Talk) 22:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep-bad faith mass deletion bombing. Passports don't have copyright. The design is a standard of an international organization, and the illustration is a national coat of arms. It's a document, not a book.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 16:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept, per this discussion. MacMed (talk) 22:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Invalid closure. The person who closed the deletion request kept the file because a completely different passport cover image was published more than 50 years ago. However, no information has been provided about the publication date of this passport cover, or that the copyright term is 50 years from publication. Stefan4 (talk) 17:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: more information about the copyright status of Angolan passports required. --JuTa 18:55, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
This is a photo of a book (passport). Probable CopyVio. License calims "self" - not appropriate, uploader may have taken the picture, but not the copyright Ronhjones (Talk) 22:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Keep Ronhjones is correct that it is not "own work". {{PD-UKGov}} applies to this, as the coat of arms has been in use since 1952 and Anguilla is a UK dependency. It would be better if the uploader changed the tag, but, if necessary, the closing Admin could do it. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep-bad faith mass deletion bombing. Passports don't have copyright. The design is a standard of an international organization, and the illustration is a national coat of arms. It's a document, not a book.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 16:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
KEPT per this discussion. MacMed (talk) 22:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)}}
Nominating this as a test case (there are many similar files in Category:Passports_of_the_United_Kingdom). The license tag is clearly inappropriate, as we have no date information concerning when this passport was designed or issued. Unless the crest depicted on the front is a reproduction of a public domain design, this is not in the public domain. It may later become okay after the upcoming changes to Crown Copyright. Dcoetzee (talk) 05:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Didn't see the old nomination. Dcoetzee (talk) 05:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
This is a photo of a book (passport). Probable CopyVio. License calims "self" - not appropriate, uploader may have taken the picture, but not the copyright Ronhjones (Talk) 22:12, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep-bad faith mass deletion bombing. Passports don't have copyright. The design is a standard of an international organization, and the illustration is a national coat of arms. It's a document, not a book.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 16:31, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept, per this discussion. MacMed (talk) 22:31, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
In the previous discussion, this was kept because the cover of the passport of a different country apparently was published more than 50 years ago. However, that doesn't say anything about the publication date of the cover illustration of this passport. Stefan4 (talk) 14:40, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
- It's very hard to imagine that the cover of the other passport File:Jersey passport.jpg was published more than 50 years ago as there were no biometric passports 50 years ago. So the same rationale still stands.--Twofortnights (talk) 18:39, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
- Why do you think so? The only reason that the other cover was kept was because someone stated that the specific representation of the coat of arms had been published more than 50 years ago, which also happens to be the term for British government works. However, the other deletion request provides no information about the publication history of this passport, so no conclusions about this image can be drawn from that other deletion request. --Stefan4 (talk) 12:53, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: As per Stefan Natuur12 (talk) 16:39, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
This is a photo of a book (passport). Probable CopyVio. License calims "self" - not appropriate, uploader may have taken the picture, but not the copyright Ronhjones (Talk) 22:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Passports doesn't have copyright. The design is a standard of an international organization (MERCOSUR), and the illustration is a national coat of arms. Its a document, not a book. Pmt7ar (talk) 23:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep per Pmt7ar--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept, per this discussion. MacMed (talk) 22:31, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
This is a photo of a book (passport). Probable CopyVio. License claims "PD-self" - not appropriate, uploader may have taken the picture, but not the copyright Ronhjones (Talk) 22:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep-bad faith mass deletion bombing. Passports don't have copyright. The design is a standard of an international organization, and the illustration is a national coat of arms. It's a document, not a book.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 16:31, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept, per this discussion. MacMed (talk) 22:31, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
This is a photo of a book (passport). Probable CopyVio. License calims "self" - not appropriate, uploader may have taken the picture, but not the copyright Ronhjones (Talk) 22:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep-bad faith mass deletion bombing. Passports don't have copyright. The design is a standard of an international organization, and the illustration is a national coat of arms. Its a document, not a book.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 16:20, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept, per this discussion. MacMed (talk) 22:31, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
This is a photo of a book (passport). Probable CopyVio. License calims "self" - not appropriate, uploader may have taken the picture, but not the copyright Ronhjones (Talk) 22:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep-bad faith mass deletion bombing. Passports don't have copyright. The design is a standard of an international organization, and the illustration is a national coat of arms. Its a document, not a book.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 16:21, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept, per this discussion. MacMed (talk) 22:32, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
This is a photo of a book (passport). Probable CopyVio. License calims "PD-self" - not appropriate, uploader may have taken the picture, but not the copyright Ronhjones (Talk) 22:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep-bad faith mass deletion bombing. Passports don't have copyright. The design is a standard of an international organization, and the illustration is a national coat of arms. It's a document, not a book.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 16:21, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept, per this discussion. MacMed (talk) 22:33, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
In the previous discussion, this was kept because the cover of the passport of a different country apparently was published more than 50 years ago. However, that doesn't say anything about the publication date of the cover illustration of this passport. Stefan4 (talk) 14:41, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. The design cover is nothing more than words written on the document in addition to the Coat of Arms.
Deleted: As per Stefan Natuur12 (talk) 16:40, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
This is a photo of a book (passport). Probable CopyVio. License calims "self" - not appropriate, uploader may have taken the picture, but not the copyright Ronhjones (Talk) 22:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Keep Ronhjones is correct that this cannot be "own work". It is, however, PD-Belarus. Belarus copyright law:
- "Article 8. Works that are not Objects of Copyright
- 1. Shall not be objects of copyright:
- formal documents (laws, judgements, other texts of legal, administrative and judicial nature), and also their official translations;" as referenced from Commons:Licensing#Belarus.
Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep-bad faith mass deletion bombing. Passports don't have copyright. The design is a standard of an international organization, and the illustration is a national coat of arms. It's a document, not a book.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 16:22, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- My reply is at Commons:Deletion_requests/2011/05/12#File:Jersey_passport.jpg, if the license is changed then that will be fine. Ronhjones (Talk) 18:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept, per this discussion. MacMed (talk) 22:33, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
This is a photo of a book (passport). Probable CopyVio. License calims "self" - not appropriate, uploader may have taken the picture, but not the copyright Ronhjones (Talk) 22:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep-bad faith mass deletion bombing. Passports don't have copyright. The design is a standard of an international organization, and the illustration is a national coat of arms. It's a document, not a book.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 16:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept, per this discussion. MacMed (talk) 22:33, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
This is a photo of a book (passport). Probable CopyVio. License calims "self" - not appropriate, uploader may have taken the picture, but not the copyright - should be Crown Copyright Ronhjones (Talk) 22:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep-bad faith mass deletion bombing. Passports don't have copyright. The design is a standard of an international organization, and the illustration is a national coat of arms. It's a document, not a book.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 16:24, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept, per this discussion. MacMed (talk) 22:33, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
This is a photo of a book (passport). Probable CopyVio. License calims "self" - not appropriate, uploader may have taken the picture, but not the copyright Ronhjones (Talk) 22:26, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep-bad faith mass deletion bombing. Passports don't have copyright. The design is a standard of an international organization, and the illustration is a national coat of arms. It's a document, not a book.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 16:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept, per this discussion. MacMed (talk) 22:34, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
This is a photo of a book (passport). Probable CopyVio. License calims "PD-self" - not appropriate, uploader may have taken the picture, but not the copyright Ronhjones (Talk) 22:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep-bad faith mass deletion bombing. Passports don't have copyright. The design is a standard of an international organization, and the illustration is a national coat of arms. It's a document, not a book.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 16:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept, per this discussion. MacMed (talk) 22:34, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
This is a photo of a book (passport). Probable CopyVio. License calims "self" - not appropriate, uploader may have taken the picture, but not the copyright Ronhjones (Talk) 22:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep-bad faith mass deletion bombing. Passports don't have copyright. The design is a standard of an international organization, and the illustration is a national coat of arms. It's a document, not a book.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 16:26, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept, per this discussion. MacMed (talk) 22:34, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Unreliable source, the given source (http://www.italiamia.com/cinema_fellini.php) tells us that an article is released under the GNU license, because it was taken (partly) from Wikipedia. I don't believe that statement was made regarding this photograph and, therefore, this file lacks permission. Mathonius (talk) 00:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep No matter the source, it's a non-artistic photo taken in Italy before 1990 and was in PD in the USA before 1996 thus it is in Public Domain. -- Blackcat (talk) 20:12, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- delete. Calling it "non-artistic" is a far, far stretch. Mug shots, perhaps, but not this pic. NVO (talk) 20:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- No more artistic than this, for example. Italian law is rather loose about what to be considered "non-artistic", NVO. For example even a footballer pictured during an action is considered "non artistic" because according the law the photo "pictures an aspect of life". An artistic photo is considered i.e. a model in a certain pose, or more generally an event conceived just for being taken by the photograph (a model would have no reason to pose if there were no photograph), not an event that would take place anyway no matter whether the photograph was there to take a shot (hope the concept is clear, if not please tell me, I'll try to explain in simpler words, English is not my native language). -- Blackcat (talk) 16:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept: with PD-Italy Jcb (talk) 21:15, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
no evidence of federal booking - looks scanned in from newspaper Hold and wave (talk) 07:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Bad resolution, not sure about the source. --Andrea (talk) 03:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 21:15, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
IMHO this is not a photo but a drawing. So the current template is not applicable. ALE! ¿…? 12:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Very unlikely "own work" as he claim. --Andrea (talk) 03:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 21:15, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
https://www.passports.gov.au/Web/Copyright.aspx - says non-commercial use Ronhjones (Talk) 22:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep which this is.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 16:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- Since when have non-commercial use been allowed on commons? Something like CC-BY-NC-SA has always been swiftly removed. Ronhjones (Talk) 18:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. --Andrea (talk) 03:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- Since when have non-commercial use been allowed on commons? Something like CC-BY-NC-SA has always been swiftly removed. Ronhjones (Talk) 18:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 21:17, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
