Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2011/05/31
 |
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}
Aside from too much white space, this is out of scope. PDFs are not allowed for most purposes and in any case, this should be typeset, not an image. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader also requested deletion on enwiki Ed (Edgar181) 15:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
converted to DR by me from several speedies by IP 71.196.75.198 for "User request" and "copyvio: This image was uploaded with the wrong name and is a copyright violation. The photographer does not wish to give permission to user: "johnnie1o1" to upload this image to wikicommons and has requested the user: "johnnie1o1" to delete this image immediately. This is username: "johnnie1o1" I was requested by the person who holds copyright to this image to "please delete it immediately." I approve its speedy deletion." --Túrelio (talk) 13:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Comment. Even in case the IP is identical to original uploader en:User:Johnnie1o1, this request seems a bit strange considering the image was uploaded already on 2007-08-16 11:34 to :en by Johnnie1o1. It is currently in use on about 200 pages on :en, likely because it is used in a userbox. --Túrelio (talk) 13:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Comment.
Hi Túrelio! This is username: "johnnie1o1." I uploaded this image on 2007-08-16 11:34 without the individuals consent. The individual who took the photo and has made it (substantially) clear that he does not grant me permission to share it on wikicommons. I am genuinely sorry for uploading copyrighted material and I hope it will not deter from sharing on wikipedia in the future! I've requested it's deletion before the copyright holder as for good measure, legally. I approve its deletion from wikipedia and google images.
- What I don't understand is, what you mean by "share it on wikicommons". It is used exclusively on :en. Does the photographer consent to the image's use on :en wikipedia, where the image had been hosted for 3 years? In other words, would moving it to :en am acceptable solution? --Túrelio (talk) 14:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Comment. He's rejected me permission to use it entirely. He's asked me to request it's deletion from Wikiepdia immediately which is what I'm doing. I thought images were stored in wikicommons, my mistake. Please don't terminate my account for this, I want to be able share things in the future and I will DEFINITELY ask for permission before I upload ANYTHING.
- O.k., now I understand. One does not get blocked for 1 copyvio. However, as a little "recompensation" you could search on Commons for a similar image that could replace this one in the userbox template on :en. --Túrelio (talk) 14:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- I replaced the userbox image. This can be speedily deleted. Hekerui (talk) 14:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- O.k., now I understand. One does not get blocked for 1 copyvio. However, as a little "recompensation" you could search on Commons for a similar image that could replace this one in the userbox template on :en. --Túrelio (talk) 14:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Hey Túrelio! Wow, thanks for getting back to me so quickly. I managed to find "File:Animal print T.jpg" I've never done this before, how do I replace he userbox?
Oh I just read your comment Hekerui! Thanks so much you guys for working with me so quickly, haha, I can finally take a breather. Have a good day! :D
Deleted: Speedied after original uploader claimed that he is not the photographer and does currently not get permission, and after the userbox use had been substituted. Túrelio (talk) 15:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
converted to DR by me from several speedies by IP 71.196.75.198 for "User request" and "copyvio: This image was uploaded with the wrong name and is a copyright violation. The photographer does not wish to give permission to user: "johnnie1o1" to upload this image to wikicommons and has requested the user: "johnnie1o1" to delete this image immediately. This is username: "johnnie1o1" I was requested by the person who holds copyright to this image to "please delete it immediately." I approve its speedy deletion." --Túrelio (talk) 13:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Comment. Even in case the IP is identical to original uploader en:User:Johnnie1o1, this request seems a bit strange considering the image was uploaded already on 2007-08-16 11:34 to :en by Johnnie1o1. It is currently in use on about 200 pages on :en, likely because it is used in a userbox. --Túrelio (talk) 13:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Comment.
Hi Túrelio! This is username: "johnnie1o1." I uploaded this image on 2007-08-16 11:34 without the individuals consent. The individual who took the photo and has made it (substantially) clear that he does not grant me permission to share it on wikicommons. I am genuinely sorry for uploading copyrighted material and I hope it will not deter from sharing on wikipedia in the future! I've requested it's deletion before the copyright holder as for good measure, legally. I approve its deletion from wikipedia and google images.
- What I don't understand is, what you mean by "share it on wikicommons". It is used exclusively on :en. Does the photographer consent to the image's use on :en wikipedia, where the image had been hosted for 3 years? In other words, would moving it to :en am acceptable solution? --Túrelio (talk) 14:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Comment. He's rejected me permission to use it entirely. He's asked me to request it's deletion from Wikiepdia immediately which is what I'm doing. I thought images were stored in wikicommons, my mistake. Please don't terminate my account for this, I want to be able share things in the future and I will DEFINITELY ask for permission before I upload ANYTHING.
- O.k., now I understand. One does not get blocked for 1 copyvio. However, as a little "recompensation" you could search on Commons for a similar image that could replace this one in the userbox template on :en. --Túrelio (talk) 14:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- I replaced the userbox image. This can be speedily deleted. Hekerui (talk) 14:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- O.k., now I understand. One does not get blocked for 1 copyvio. However, as a little "recompensation" you could search on Commons for a similar image that could replace this one in the userbox template on :en. --Túrelio (talk) 14:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Hey Túrelio! Wow, thanks for getting back to me so quickly. I managed to find "File:Animal print T.jpg" I've never done this before, how do I replace he userbox?
Oh I just read your comment Hekerui! Thanks so much you guys for working with me so quickly, haha, I can finally take a breather. Have a good day! :D
Deleted: Speedied after original uploader claimed that he is not the photographer and does currently not get permission, and after the userbox use had been substituted. Túrelio (talk) 15:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Out of Scope: No educational use MorganKevinJ(talk) 21:27, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: Used on user page Bulwersator (talk) 21:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Nomination Withdrawn per Bulwersator. MorganKevinJ(talk) 01:24, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Unused low quality image with wrong file format, stereo also not clear. Yikrazuul (talk) 17:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Info The structural formula is a vector graphics. Hence, it could be converted into SVG. --Leyo 17:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Which I have done. --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Now
Delete --Leyo 18:03, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Now
- Which I have done. --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom Demmo (talk) 06:36, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Ed (Edgar181) 13:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Unused low quality image with wrong file format, stereo also not clear, respectively correct and finally replaced. Yikrazuul (talk) 17:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom Demmo (talk) 06:36, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Ed (Edgar181) 12:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in France Lymantria (talk) 22:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 22:14, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in France Lymantria (talk) 22:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 22:14, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in France Lymantria (talk) 22:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 22:14, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in France Lymantria (talk) 22:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 22:14, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in France Lymantria (talk) 22:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 22:14, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in France Lymantria (talk) 22:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 22:14, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in France Lymantria (talk) 22:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 22:14, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in France Lymantria (talk) 22:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 22:14, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in France Lymantria (talk) 22:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 22:14, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in France Lymantria (talk) 22:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 22:14, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Photograph of likely copywrited painting Billhpike (talk) 00:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Neutral- Delete Obviously not the uploader's own work as noted. The work shown in the photograph is not a photograph or movie, so Razghandi is incorrect. There is not enough data to call it public domain. theMONO 20:33, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Mono is correct here. The work shown in the photograph is a painting. A painting published in Iran for the first time is in public domain only if 30 years had been passed after copyright holder's death. --Razghandi (talk) 23:22, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. Yann (talk) 12:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
no exif data; possible copyvio of http://hronlineph.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/221750_143842209022967_143493635724491_282575_4718768_n.jpg?w=300&h=400 Moray An Par (talk) 03:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. Yann (talk) 12:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Unused corporate logo. Claim of self-pub is also not credible. GrapedApe (talk) 03:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. Copyvio and out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Web resolution, corporate image. Claim of self-pub is not credible. GrapedApe (talk) 03:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. Yann (talk) 12:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Claims of "own work" are not credible. Should be non-free at en.wiki GrapedApe (talk) 03:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree. Logos do not belong on Wikimedia Commons. --Biker Biker (talk) 09:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Non-free content, no permission. Yann (talk) 12:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Watermark on the bottom right indicates this image is taken from the web. Ytoyoda (talk) 06:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Poor quality and blantent copy vio Good twins (talk) 12:58, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Yann (talk) 12:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
bad shot, not useful Mattes (talk) 06:46, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
- Delete I agree.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 10:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Marked as free, but moved from a flagged Flickr account (by accident). ▫ JohnnyMrNinja (talk / en) 07:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Non-free content, no permission. Yann (talk) 12:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
It is our Logo which we can not publish via CC license. We are going to upload this file on german wikipedia. Austrianarts (talk) 07:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept: PD-textlogo Jcb (talk) 13:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
rrttyy 79.180.118.242 08:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Keep No valid reason. Good twins (talk) 12:58, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep per Good twins. I see no reason to delete. Jujutacular talk 04:22, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: No valid reason for deletion. Yann (talk) 12:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope. Aside from far too much white space, this text should be typeset, not a pdf. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, replaced in en:Extranatural transformation. File:Extranaturality in C.pdf should be deleted for same reason. Demmo (talk) 06:58, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 08:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope, promotional material Tabercil (talk) 12:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 08:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
only conceivable use of image is if you are named MND Khan, are a doctor at Hinchingbroke Hospital, and are giving a presentation on the applicability of the Ottawa Ankle Rules to children DS (talk) 12:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope: promotional. Yann (talk) 13:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
some student using Commons as an imagehost for their homework assignment DS (talk) 02:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
spam image DS (talk) 12:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Delete as per nom Good twins (talk) 12:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Far out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 08:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
spam image DS (talk) 12:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Far out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 08:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
I think, it's infringement of copyright: http://www.tineye.com/search/b4f00cdd0943c6cbe289f96b29e74cc3180aaae3/ I doubt that this photo is own work of user Дима Яковенко VAP+VYK (talk) 14:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Non-free content, no permission. Yann (talk) 13:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope. Unused table which could be replaced with wiki-markup. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:18, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 08:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Not a simple shape/text logo. it needs permission from http://www.riskrewardlimited.com/ ■ MMXX talk 15:46, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Non-free content, no permission. Yann (talk) 13:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
obvious violation of copyright Razghandi (talk) 18:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. Yann (talk) 13:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Probably NOT own work (similar to File:Golden cup of Hasanlu.jpg) Razghandi (talk) 18:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. Yann (talk) 13:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Probably NOT own work (low resolution- NO metadata) Razghandi (talk) 19:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. Yann (talk) 13:47, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
The Oklahoma State Senate is not a part of the U.S. federal government as claimed on the file description page. Martin H. (talk) 19:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Trycatch (talk) 11:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
personal photo, out of scope Slfi (talk) 19:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope. Unused private photo George Chernilevsky talk 08:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Slfi (talk) 19:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
source image from google earth Slfi (talk) 19:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Trycatch (talk) 11:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Google images is given as the source and no tickets metioning this file cna be found in the permissions queue. MorganKevinJ(talk) 20:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. Yann (talk) 13:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Google images is given as the source and no tickets metioning this file can be found in the permissions queue. MorganKevinJ(talk) 20:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. Yann (talk) 13:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
It's a copy from facebook (different photographer and uploader) Giro720 (talk) 21:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- (Missclick... it should be tagged as {{Copyvio}}). Giro720 (talk) 21:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. Yann (talk) 13:49, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- Couldn't this be a case of de minimis? However, if it isn't, I can take the screenshot again using a different website. --Una giornata uggiosa '94 · So, what do you want to talk about? 11:27, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Please do, because non-free stuff like Flickr, Google and Wikipedia's logo make more than half of meaningful content of this screenshot (even without counting the thumbnails). Examples of free sites: LibriVox, some Mozilla sites (except for many logos). --AVRS (talk) 08:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- So, I guess the same goes for this? For me it's OK to delete these two files, and then I'll upload the new ones. --Una giornata uggiosa '94 · So, what do you want to talk about? 09:22, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- Well, maybe Google’s page is OK (Category:Google logos), though I am not sure about the icon (and File:Google favicon.png). --AVRS (talk) 12:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- OK, I'm waiting for an admin to delete Firefox Mobile 4.0 RC1 - left panel.png. --Una giornata uggiosa '94 · So, what do you want to talk about? 13:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted by User:AVRS (non-admin closure). Jujutacular talk 00:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Mauro David died on 6 January 2007, more than a month before User:Mauro David uploaded this image. Death date confirmed by [1]. Unless that user represents his heirs, they are not entitled to release the work under a free license. Dcoetzee (talk) 12:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Well, it's quite bad that an image without permission was candidated first as featured picture and then as picture of the year. Anyway, it seems that the image was copied from here http://www.documentabout.it/ING/fruttiera%20con%20meloni.jpg (this is the page of the site), as the resolution of the two images is the same: 1988x1412. It's true that the author died before the image was uploaded, so it's unlikely that he wanted his painting to be uploaded on Wikimedia Commons. Anyway, no OTRS permission means deletion, even if the image is candidated as POTY 2010. --Broc (talk) 13:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- P.S.: the users who voted for that image on POTY should be given a second chance to vote. I think that if the image will be deleted, all the users who voted for it should receive a message to inform them that they can vote for another picture. --Broc (talk) 13:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - If it is important to make sure users have a chance to vote for another image, this issue should probably be expedited. Else it could be deleted with just hours to go before the voting ends, leaving people without time or notice to submit a new vote. At any rate, Theo10011 told me on IRC that he had notified the POTY committee of the issue, so the matter is in their hands. Tim Pierce (talk) 19:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - when I visit http://www.documentabout.it/RID/fruttiera%20con%20meloni.htm, Google Chrome warns me that it's a site which hosts malware. I would prefer to find a more reputable source. Tim Pierce (talk) 20:45, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with Saibo's view here that the site itself is probably not malicious, so I don't believe this is relevant to the licensing status of the image. --Avenue (talk) 03:48, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- To make this clear: I do suggest NOT to VISIT the source page - it could infect your computer. I just mean that it is probably not the site owner's intention to host malware. Btw: did you want to link this section --Saibo (Δ) 04:32, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, the link to the section is more informative than the diff I gave. --Avenue (talk) 04:49, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- To make this clear: I do suggest NOT to VISIT the source page - it could infect your computer. I just mean that it is probably not the site owner's intention to host malware. Btw: did you want to link this section --Saibo (Δ) 04:32, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with Saibo's view here that the site itself is probably not malicious, so I don't believe this is relevant to the licensing status of the image. --Avenue (talk) 03:48, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - be careful with this link, KIS2011 warned me: "The requested object at the URL: http://www.documentabout.it/ing/fruttiera%20con%20meloni.htm Threat detected: object is infected by HEUR:Trojan.Script.Iframer". RedAndr (talk) 03:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- This archived copy of the linked page scans as clean of malware.[2] I've added it to the image description page. --Avenue (talk) 04:29, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- No, it still has the same warning. RedAndr (talk) 13:53, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
- This archived copy of the linked page scans as clean of malware.[2] I've added it to the image description page. --Avenue (talk) 04:29, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- I have just sent e-mail with OTRS permission request (in english only, i do not speak italian) to the mail on www.maurodavid.com site. --Jklamo (talk) 16:03, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
I followed up in Italian.--Chaser (talk) 21:39, 31 May 2011 (UTC)- My email bounced.--Chaser (talk) 22:46, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- My as well. --Jklamo (talk) 17:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- The e-mail address on the domain registration is info@maurodavid.com. Can we try that address? I don't normally do OTRS requests, so I'd prefer that someone with more experience make the contact. Tim Pierce (talk) 14:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- My as well. --Jklamo (talk) 17:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- My email bounced.--Chaser (talk) 22:46, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - really, we let this last 4 years? -mattbuck (Talk) 17:34, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Not just 4 years, but it could have become the Picture of the Year 2010 :) --Broc (talk) 18:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Bah, ok, there goes my dream of destroying POTY one image at a time. Keep -mattbuck (Talk) 12:28, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- Comment. Note that I can't take credit for discovering this problem - User:Twp noticed the issue and asked me on IRC to address it. I've seen this image before and overlooked it myself. :-) Dcoetzee (talk) 19:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - mostly I was checking to see if I was overlooking something, because I couldn't quite believe this went unnoticed for four years either. :-) Tim Pierce (talk) 19:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - I didn't see an announcement, but the picture has apparently been disqualified and no longer appears at Commons:Picture of the Year/2010/Finalists/Large. Tim Pierce (talk) 15:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete 99of9 (talk) 04:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, per Lx's link, I don't know. Is that his official site? --99of9 (talk) 06:03, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- It's not entirely clear, from what I can see, but I think so. The documentabout.it site looks very similar to maurodavid.com at first glance, but also hosts larger images than any I've found on the latter site. Access to high resolution images of his many artworks seems suggestive but not conclusive. (The main page at maurodavid.com doesn't seem to have changed much since archive.org first crawled it in early 2004.[3]) According to whois, the maurodavid.com site was registered with Tucows Inc by "David Mauro" from Napoli, with the whois record created on 19 Oct 2001.[4] The documentabout.it site was registered by "David Armando" from Napoli on 9 Sep 2003.[5] The first four edits to this image page here, all on 25 Feb 2007, were by User:Mauro David and User:Armando David. While I don't see a perfect paper trail here, I'd be surprised if the documentabout.it site wasn't legit. --Avenue (talk) 11:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- I agree that it's strongly possible that the image was uploaded by the artist's heirs, but "I'd be surprised if it wasn't legit" isn't the standard of proof required on Commons as I understand it. Commons:Permission seems to be very clear on this point: when a user declares a free license for a work that they did not make, OTRS clearance is required. In this case, we know with near-certainty that the author did not upload this image, so explicit permission is necessary. I really don't see any wiggle room on this front. Tim Pierce (talk) 14:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- re: documentabout.it / seems to be image-hosting better-quality pics of mauro's works, as stated above. http://www.documentabout.it/
- I agree that it's strongly possible that the image was uploaded by the artist's heirs, but "I'd be surprised if it wasn't legit" isn't the standard of proof required on Commons as I understand it. Commons:Permission seems to be very clear on this point: when a user declares a free license for a work that they did not make, OTRS clearance is required. In this case, we know with near-certainty that the author did not upload this image, so explicit permission is necessary. I really don't see any wiggle room on this front. Tim Pierce (talk) 14:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- it is also worth noting that (as far as i could tell from a quick, non-comprehensive, check) the ONLY painting-photo @ documentabout.it which is cc licensed, is the one under discussion here. it is also in-use @ several wikips, mostly as an example of "hyperrealism"; & there was apparently an article abt the artist @ wikip/eng (not sure abt other wikips), which was deleted, see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Mauro i don't have the admin access to check it, but i assume it's abt the same person; the name order "david mauro" is the same as on the artist's biopage here: http://www.maurodavid.com/Note_biografiche.htm
- having read all the artist's site's info, via google translate, it appears that the website's author worked closely with the artist (& his family) to create that site. it seems pretty clear that at some point they (with either the artist, or the artist's family/estate) decided to create a presence for mauro @ wikip as well. given the close association of the site creator with the painter (not to mention the fact that the site is still being hosted/maintained 4 years after the artist's death!) i would expect the image rights to be "in order"
- I agree that that's a reasonable conclusion to draw from what we can see, but again, my understanding of Commons permission requirements is that we require a higher degree of certainty than "it looks like the image was probably uploaded by the artist's heirs or at least somebody who worked closely with him." Tim Pierce (talk) 21:11, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- fair enough, but the cc-licensing of the image-file @ the source image hosting site (which is pretty clearly associated with the artist's official site), and ONLY that one image, which was to be used @ wikip, is the CLINCHER Lx 121 (talk) 22:28, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- That's not "the clincher" of anything except the knowledge that someone who probably worked with Mauro David at one time put his images up there under a CC license. Commons:Permission has a good example of how this can go wrong. I don't doubt that there's a strong likelihood that the upload is legitimate, but "the clincher" here is still OTRS confirmation. Tim Pierce (talk) 01:03, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- No, "the clincher" here is the explicit CC-BY license on an almost certainly official website. We accept files from Flickr and from pseudonymous Commons users (me included) with much less certainty about copyright ownership, and we have a better paper trail for this image than for the vast majority of our images. This is nothing like the example on Commons:Permission, and OTRS confirmation is unnecessary here. The only things we really need to change are the source link and the {{Self}} component of the license tag on the image description page. I'll do that now. --Avenue (talk) 03:16, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- It should also have been a CC-BY-2.5 license tag, not CC-BY-SA. Now fixed. --Avenue (talk) 04:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- You're assuming that documentabout.it is an "almost certainly official website." I don't agree, and I don't think Commons licensing procedure permits making that assumption. Tim Pierce (talk) 11:52, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- I don't believe I'm assuming anything about the website. I have concluded, based on various facts detailed above, that the image's source page is almost certainly part of an official website established in conjunction with the painter and that the license shown on the source page is most likely valid. These facts include the similarity of the two sites, the nature of their content, the domain registrants' shared surname, and the dates of their registrations (years before the image was uploaded here). If you have considered all of these facts and still disagree with my conclusion, so be it. Let's move on to policy.
- As far as I can see, the only (proposed) policy page you've mentioned is Commons:Permission, and nothing there applies to an image that is available under a free license according to its source webpage. The most applicable policy I'm aware of is Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle, which says that "where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file it should be deleted". I appreciate that the evidence we have for the validity of the license (and hence the freedom of this file) isn't absolutely conclusive, but I wouldn't describe any remaining doubts as significant. --Avenue (talk) 14:15, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep: STRONG KEEP! image appears to have been provided by the artist's website creator (evident if one reads through the artist's website info) who would reasonably be expected to have the rights to do so. the image is not simply a "rip" from the site; filesize is significantly larger. we should probably try & pursue an otrs on this, but the default assumption is that the upload was authorized. Lx 121 (talk) 05:26, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- i stand corrected abt the file source, BUT the file appears to be cc licensed see here: [[6]] therefore KEEP & restore to the r2 poty vote asap! Lx 121 (talk) 05:30, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- I have no reason to believe the artist's website creator has the right to license to work. Typically, an artist would license the website creator to display the works, not assign copyright. Dcoetzee (talk) 05:30, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- technical point, not carping, but just to clarify; no one is talking about "assigning copyright". a cc-license IS just a license. Lx 121 (talk) 18:49, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep What I've found out about the site displaying the CC license (see my response to 99of9 above) strongly suggests to me that it's legitimate. In the absence of any real evidence to the contrary, I think we should keep the image. --Avenue (talk) 11:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete as nominator, just to be clear. Tim Pierce (talk) 11:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep tentatively, I think. We do not require OTRS if the file is licensed at its source, under the rationale that the person with access to first publish it should be the same one with the ability to license it. There appears to be no other source for the high-resolution version than that documentabout.it site, so that would appear to be the original source, and it is plainly licensed there. The server date for the image is May 21, 2006, predating the upload here -- so, the local upload could not be trusted, but the license on the source page on the other hand is enough. If there is another, earlier source for the high-resolution image (without a licensing statement) then things would change, but given the current info it seems OK. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:20, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep per license 2.5 as provided on the internet for years now, with no reason to doubt it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:45, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep unless significant evidence is provided to discredit the source of the image EvilHom3r (talk) 22:05, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep The newly uncovered source information resolves concerns about licensing of this image. Dcoetzee (talk) 06:55, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep per Carl Lindberg. I can still translate an email into Italian if someone can provide me suggested English text and the email address I should send it to.--Chaser (talk) 17:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- ok, so if we tentatively assume that this is a keep, then that leaves the question:
- WHAT ABOUT POTY2011?
- the images was a poty finalist & R2 voting is (still) underway, this image was disqualified over the licensing/rights issue; now if we've agreed that it's legit, then what about: a) returning it to the competition? & b) how to deal with the harm done, in removing it from the voting list for MOST of the R2 scheduled polling time?
- It's too late to simply restore it to the competition, at least if you are concerned with it having a fair chance. Most of the votes were received in the first few days, especially 30 and 31 May. Personally I think people were too quick to remove it from the competition, but there's no point carping about that now. Short of restarting the final round of POTY voting (which seems excessive), I think the only way for POTY to be fair to this image is to let it be entered into next year's competition (assuming there will be one next year). Perhaps it should even be entered directly into the second round. This is probably not the right forum to discuss this, though. --Avenue (talk) 00:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep there is good reason to believe that the CC license holds. --torusJKL (talk) 20:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep The source site has had the CC license for a long time; also, the website says, (translated by Google) "Urged by friends and relatives, this site has been created, despite some initial reluctance and suspicion, with the active collaboration of the artist who personally oversaw the photos, the choice of his favorite paintings and simple setup General." It seems he approved all this before he died. ←fetchcomms 00:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept (non-admin closure). Jujutacular talk 00:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
No OTRS. Copyright violation. 82.120.39.145 13:29, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- Have you read the previous deletion request above? The reason we think it's ok is that it was clearly marked with a free license on the (official looking) source site. --99of9 (talk) 14:06, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Apparently free per source site. -FASTILY 08:34, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Screenshot of Google in NOT free Razghandi (talk) 18:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Screenshot of Google in not free Razghandi (talk) 18:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
This is a picture of a picture that is likely copywrited. Billhpike (talk) 00:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Neutral exactly similar to File:Pahlavi prince reza painting.jpg. Razghandi (talk) 09:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
no exif info Moray An Par (talk) 04:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Image is in several places on web, only upload of this editor. Small size, no exif. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
no educational value; WP article is for speedy; possible copyvio Moray An Par (talk) 05:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
no educational value; WP article is for speedy; possible copyvio Moray An Par (talk) 05:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
no exif data; most probably a copyvio Moray An Par (talk) 09:00, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
And other files from Category:Joseph Alexander Mcmath. Children drawings of wiki user. Commons isnt' a photo-hosting. Out of SCOPE. Used only in his userpage en:User:Joseph Alexander Mcmath. See also deletion page in en-wiki about same subject - en:Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 October 9. -- Shakko (talk) 11:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- File:Arielle's room- Joseph Alexander Mcmath.jpg
- File:Flyin' ryan thy crow- Joseph Alexander Mcmath.jpg
- File:Joseph mcmath.jpg
- File:Leonardo di ser Piero da Vinci's madonna on the rocks women one perspective two-Joseph Alexander Mcmath.JPG
- File:Olive trees and oleander- joseph alexander mcmath.jpg
- File:Sally in Colorado- Joseph Alexander Mcmath.jpg
- File:St maria maddalena- joseph alexander mcmath.jpg
- File:The pigeons stole all my calories-joseph alexander mcmath.jpg
- File:The unskillful architect strikes in london- joseph alexander mcmath.jpg
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
While the uploader may own this copy of the photograph, it is very unlikely that he owns the copyright. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
This picture from my autograph collection. I scanned and upload and write the original photo artist name: László Petrovits. The original photo source place: [7]
Dencey (talk) 09:45, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: @Dencey You can't acquire copyright simply scanning a photo, if you have a photographic print, it doesn't mean you have the copyright on it. Trycatch (talk) 16:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
The source and author information is incorrect, and is not suitably licenced. Miyagawa (talk) 12:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Adding further note. The image is found on page 31 of Sheepdogs: My Faithful Friends, published in 1985. Miyagawa (talk) 12:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Subject picture died in 1901.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Ansel Adams - National Archives 79-AA-K01.jpg Binksternet (talk) 16:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
bad shot, not really useful Mattes (talk) 16:34, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
- Keep not that bad, I have tagged the image for rotation. MKFI (talk) 19:18, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept: per MKFI Trycatch (talk) 16:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Duplicate of File:Saratoga Gas, Electric Light and Power Company substation building.jpg DanielPenfield (talk) 16:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
I guess that this file is a Flickr washing (see also all contributions by F1fans Special:ListFiles/F1fans. Rastrojo (D•ES) 23:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Indeed, it seems to be a license laundering. Strange, looks like F1fans is a good user. Trycatch (talk) 12:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
The subject of this picture is a copywrited work of art. Billhpike (talk) 00:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Definitely it violates copyright. According to the Iranian copyright law, Article 2 Paintings, pictures, drawings, designs, decorative writings, geographical maps or any decorative and imaginative work produced in any simple or complex manner are copyrighted and according to Article 12 The financial rights of the author, the subject of this law, are transferred to his heirs, or by covenant, for a period of thirty years after his death. In the absence of such heirs or a transfer by covenant, the Ministry of Culture and Arts will hold the rights for public use for the same period of time.
The uploader must prove the death of copyright holder and also must prove that it has past 30 years after his/her death to avoid deleting. Razghandi (talk) 09:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
#REDIRECT syntax doesn't normally work with CSS/JS files, I don't think. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 04:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
This is a user subpage and appears to be benign -- I'm not inclined to delete it without a request from the user -- or am I missing something? Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:19, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Converted to PNG File:417th Weapons Squadron - Emblem.png Bwmoll3 (talk) 02:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:20, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Author unknown: Hence, unsure if author died 70+ years ago. Leyo 14:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
This file is a wrong picture, pls delete it 文子言木 (talk) 16:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Rename the file if it is wrong Good twins (talk) 13:00, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Copyright violation. See File talk page and Uploader's talk page Apdency (talk) 17:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Why? Polozooza (talk) 18:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- I sent a mail which might make everything clear. Apdency (talk) 19:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:36, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Copyright violation. See uploader's talk page and File talk:Col. Karremans.jpg Apdency (talk) 17:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:36, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
User:High Contrast, a sysop, has asked me to take this to a deletion discussion rather than placing a simple revert. As such, I am bringing this to discussion. I place my argument simply based on the fact that the uploader tagged the image on en.wp as {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} on English Wikipedia. I am firmly opposed to the idea that "self" is not a source, as the wording on the upload tag clearly indicates this, as did likely the upload screen in late 2007 when this was uploaded. I can see a valid argument that the uploader was pretty bad at deciding what was legitimately self-created: cf. w:File:Bizanticaves.jpg, w:File:Shefamr.jpg, and the suspiciously professional w:File:Shfpanorama.jpg, but the uploader has at least one picture that appears valid: w:File:Shf.jpg. As such, I am Neutral. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete I agree with you that a -self license tag sometimes is enough as an authorship claim, but giving that 1) the uploader didn't understand the licensing policies and uploaded number of pictures with clearly bogus copyright tags 2) the lack of high resolution and EXIF, I believe in this case we need a stronger assertion of own work. Trycatch (talk) 12:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Delete basic requirements are missing; as per COM:L: there is no evidence that User:Golfgti of en:wiki is the author of this image. We only know that he had uploaded this file on en:wiki which does not prove that he is the person that can release this file under a free licence. Moreover User:Golfgti of en:wiki had some problems with file licencing on en:wiki. Because of this and because of the lack of EXIF information I assume that this file is not the uploader's own work and/or the uploader had no permission for a "free" release. --High Contrast (talk) 17:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:37, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Image does not accurately reflect the sources provided. In particular, I don't know why the west coast of India or the northwest coast of Australia are marked as "hotbeds of piracy", and some of the other areas such as the south Philippine Sea or the whole of the Red Sea seem equally questionable. Carnildo (talk) 23:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Delete I'd be a lot happier with this map if it was more precise: i.e. instead of block colouring areas "red" and "white", it used some gradual shading. Comparing it to the source maps (which are clearer), the density of attacks off Somalia is far greater than those ones or twos elsewhere, yet this map simply shows as "Arrr" and "Nay". There's also an issue with geographical inaccuracy - I don't believe that pirate attacks are occuring so far offshore as shown here.
- This is too crudely drawn, when it could easily be much better, to justify its retention here. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Keep
I agree with Andy's stance on that the precision indeed lacks a bit (some margin of error can't be avoided, since areas shift depending on the year). Personally, I like the map to be simple, so I rather have blocks drawn out where things may be simplified, and make it more accurate where this is applicable. Can you thus simply state how you like it altered (I still have some other things to do but I would like to make the map better where possible).
Options are:
- I can use orange for south American regions and the furthest part of the Asian region (the long block for example seems to be a recent hotbed, and activity has been mostly attempted attacks, not actual ones).
- Tell me where I simplified matters too greatly and where the regions need to be reduced in size
- as for the pirate attacks occuring so far from shore; this is accurate, see the initial maps; the reason is that pirates here also have baseships to operate from (using skiffs from these baseships); you can search the media in this (I think they called them "motherships")
KVDP (talk) 13:06, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- I updated the map; I think it adresses the concerns sufficiently
KVDP (talk) 05:41, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- Well - No.
- Why is this ? Why is it that whenever you "improve" one of your images, you actually make it worse? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:41, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Keep No valid reason for deletion, just tag it as a disputed/inaccurate map {{Inaccurate-map-disputed}}, or fix the problem. --Tony Wills (talk) 03:42, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Another KVDP work that shows a lack of understanding of the subject and of how to present it. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:40, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
My personal information was stolen and the criminal uploaded this picture without my concent. Please remove this picture as soon as possible as it was never meant to be in the public domain. Thank you. Greenovergrey (talk) 01:51, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Personal picture. Oh well. Good twins (talk) 12:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, but that's against policy because we cannot know who is the honest player here, particularly where both have only edits related to this image. Please send an e-mail from greenovergray.com, using the procedure at Commons:OTRS and it will be removed promptly. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:22, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
copyvio of http://vicspotting.blogspot.com/2009/09/my-father-judge.html Moray An Par (talk) 05:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
At 14:07, 6 June 2011, User:Viclr33 blanked this page and then added the following unsigned comment:
- "File is not in violation for it has sufficient attribution and permission from owners."
Note for User:Viclr33: Whatever the facts are here, it is a serious violation of our rules to blank another user's comments, especially on a DR page. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Delete This appears to be a smaller version of the image at the web site named above. User:Viclr33 claimed it as "own work" when he or she uploaded it, but does not claim that above. I am inclined to delete it. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:34, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello, forgive the blanking it was unintentional, I did not know how to properly edit, but I'm getting the hang of it now. The photo belongs to me. Once again, I beg the indulgences of wiki for my mistake in deleting whatever text, I did not know I did that or did not know such were the rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.108.238.55 (talk • contribs) 08:32, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
(viclr33)- I cannot seem to get this to be signed by my log-in viclr33 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viclr33 (talk • contribs) 08:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
I believe the link above attributes ownership of the photo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viclr33 (talk • contribs) 08:43, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- Please explain, then the fact that image has a dark gray border on the top and bottom and a white bar four pixels in from the edge on the right, while the left side bleeds naturally. All of these indicate that the image has been manipulated and suggest that the image has been cropped from something larger.
- I also note that it appears to be a posed, professional portrait, with multiple lights and a commercial portraitist's background. While that could, of course, be you, it seems unlikely in view of the fact that you have made only two contributions to Commons.
- Before responding here, please read the note I left on your talk page about signing your posts. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:24, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
It is a scan from a film photo of him taken during a formal social gathering. If you have a private email I'd gladly send you the origin of its commission, but do keep it between us as the event is irrelevant to the topic. I don't believe Contributing to wiki should be a basis for the possible ownership of a photo, and, regardless of whoever took the photo, I can guarantee that under local IP laws (which support international IP law), its commission or production has vested ownership of the photo over to me. Thank you for teaching me how to sign. Vic Viclr33 (talk) 14:57, 2 July 2011 (UTC)viclr33
To close the story on this photo, here is a link of the scanned full version of the photo in my possession.
Possession, in American and most jurisdictions creates at the very least a presumption of ownership, so that should at least be in my favour. If you notice, the crop was made to remove the discolouration from the mold that has started to form on the bottom of the photo. What you call bleed, is, well, most likely the frame it was in or the colour literally bleeding through the years or could be just a bad save process or editing. I guess you can say the wikicommons version of this photo is a practical transformation of the photo from its original form, to a colour corrected and semi-edited version to recreate its original colours. Sui generis on its own separate from the photo linked. However, still done by the owner.
Thank you again for taking the time to properly assess the situation Jim.
Best Regards, Vic Viclr33 (talk) 16:17, 2 July 2011 (UTC)viclr33
- Sorry, but ownership of a physical copy of a photo does not say anything about ownership of the copyright. Keep in mind that if you own a book, you would not think that you owned the copyright to the book -- a photo is the same. The copyright belongs to the photographer or his or her heirs. In most countries, transfer of copyright requires formal registration of the copyright and a formal, recorded transfer, so in almost all cases, a copyright is licensed, not transferred. In order to keep this image, we will require a license from the photographer, using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:13, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
So must I show the negatives and the set up I used? What I was saying was I own the photograph, the copyright to it as well. Ok I will look throught he procedure. Viclr33 (talk) 05:26, 3 July 2011 (UTC)viclr33
and oh, when you buy a book, you don't commission the author to write it for you and give you all rights over it. Commissioning a photographer to take a picture and then to grant all rights to a photo is totally different. What more if the photographer and commissioner is in the same person. Viclr33 (talk) 05:40, 3 July 2011 (UTC)viclr33 The basis of this whole talkboard stems from the link from the blog vicspotting. Hence, permission should stem from the author there logically right?
http://vicspotting.blogspot.com/2011/07/grant-to-wiki-commons.html
That being said, I really don't know how else this photo can be validated than the source of the conflict itself. Viclr33 (talk) 05:40, 3 July 2011 (UTC)viclr33
Vote to Keep. The source of conflict has itself allowed the use, logically, the conflict has been resolved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viclr33 (talk • contribs) 16:19, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted as just owning a photograph or its negative is different from actually having the copyright. It is still claimed to be "own work" which is obviously not correct. Until now the photographer is not even named. --AFBorchert (talk) 05:57, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
No dates given for photographer or photograph, therefore we have no way of way of knowing whether it is PD or not. Source site is not helpful. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- [copied from the file's talk page] This image licenc is public domain and the uploader information is correct Dencey (talk) 13:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: I couldn't verify the dates at the source website Jcb (talk) 00:37, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Compgeo.98 (talk · contribs)
[edit]I doubt own work. We can talk about PD in some cases. If it is own work, please send a permission to COM:OTRS. Thank you.
RE rillke questions? 14:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Non-free content, no permission. Yann (talk) 13:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Images by User:Personalizeddiaper
[edit]- File:Reusable-diapers.jpg
- File:Coach-diaper-bags.jpg
- File:Bum-genius-diapers.JPG
- File:Petunia-pickle-bottom-diaper-bags.jpg
- File:Diaper-rash-treatment.jpg
- File:Personalized-diaper-bags.jpg
- File:Skip-hop-diaper-bag.jpg
- File:Backpack-diaper-bags.jpg
- File:Kate-spade-diaper-bags.jpg
- File:Yeast-diaper-rash.jpg
It is not clear whether uploader and personalizeddiaper.com are author of these works, many of works (now deleted) had different original source and TinEye search shows* some similar images in Getty Images. ■ MMXX talk 16:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Non-free content, no permission. Yann (talk) 13:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Files of User:Alborzagros
[edit]- File:Graffiti tehran-026.jpg
- File:Graffiti tehran-019.jpg
- File:Graffiti tehran-015.jpg
- File:Graffiti tehran-014.jpg
- File:Graffiti tehran-013.jpg
- File:Graffiti tehran-012.jpg
- File:Graffiti tehran-011.jpg
- File:Graffiti tehran-010.jpg
- File:Graffiti tehran-010.jpg
- File:Graffiti tehran-009.jpg
- File:Graffiti tehran-008.jpg
- File:Graffiti tehran-007.jpg
- File:Graffiti tehran-006.jpg
- File:Graffiti tehran-005.jpg
- File:Graffiti tehran-002a.tif
- File:Graffiti tehran-001.tif
I'm sure NONE of them are his own work. some obvious violation of copyrights are [8] and [9]. All of them are low resolution and there is metadate at all! --Razghandi (talk) 17:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
NO Logo on Commons! Razghandi (talk) 19:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep: This file is in public domain, so it doesn't matter that whether it is a logo, emblem, etc.Bill william comptonTalk 21:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- How can you prove your claim that this file is in public domain? Are you familiar with Iranian copyright law? Razghandi (talk) 01:30, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- File has licensing of {{PD-Iran}}.Bill william comptonTalk 14:36, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- Just because it has a {{PD-Iran}} tag doesn't mean that it is old enough to be in public domain! Raed {{PD-Iran}} tag another time CAREFULLY. Just copyright in photographs and movies lasts 30 years from the date of publication or presentation, but other works (including DESIGNS) are out of copyright 30 year after death of copyright holder. --Razghandi (talk)
- File dates back to 1974 (more than 30 years), and I don't know who was the creator, so neither I nor you can judge that whether the creator is alive or not; here I'm assuming that uploader had good faith and he/she was aware of the copyright holder of this file as he/she used the PD tag. Unless you prove that file is still copyrighted, until then I don't think we should doubt the intentions of uploader. Bill william comptonTalk 09:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Just because it has a {{PD-Iran}} tag doesn't mean that it is old enough to be in public domain! Raed {{PD-Iran}} tag another time CAREFULLY. Just copyright in photographs and movies lasts 30 years from the date of publication or presentation, but other works (including DESIGNS) are out of copyright 30 year after death of copyright holder. --Razghandi (talk)
- File has licensing of {{PD-Iran}}.Bill william comptonTalk 14:36, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- How can you prove your claim that this file is in public domain? Are you familiar with Iranian copyright law? Razghandi (talk) 01:30, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Here the biggest problem is that uploader is not taking part in this deletion request. I'm just trying to be rational as the file is more than 30 years old, so one part of the PD claim is clear and for another we need some proof which either only uploader knows or someone who might reach to Iranian Olympic Committee. As claim made for its PD status fulfills one criteria then we should try to search for another as there is very much possibility that file actually is in public domain.Bill william comptonTalk 10:15, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: In the following cases images fall into public domain after 30 from the date of publication or public presentation: In cases where the work belongs to a legal personality or rights are transferred to a legal personality. Jcb (talk) 00:40, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Iran Banknotes uploaded by user:Alborzagros
[edit]- File:5000-RIAL-REV-JADID-IRI.jpg
- File:5000-RIAL-OBV-JADID-IRI.jpg
- File:5000-RIAL-REV-IRI.JPG
- File:5000-RIAL-OBV-IRI.JPG
- File:2000-RIAL-OBV-GHADIMi-IRI.jpg
- File:2000-RIAL-REV-IRI.JPG
- File:2000-RIAL-OBV-IRI.JPG
- File:2000-RIAL-REV-GHADIM-IRI.jpg
- File:2000-RIAL-OBV-GHADIM-IRI.jpg
- File:1000-RIAL-REV-IRI.JPG
- File:1000-RIAL-OBV-IRI.JPG
- File:500-RIAL-REV-IRI.JPG
- File:500-RIAL-OBV-IRI.JPG
- File:200-RIAL-REV-IRI.JPG
- File:200-RIAL-OBV-IRI.jpg
I had a look at Commons:currency. but Iran was not listed there, So I referred to the Iranian copyright law. According to Article 2, Paintings, pictures, drawings, designs, decorative writings, geographical maps or any decorative and imaginative work produced in any simple or complex manner are copyrighted. If we assume that the copyright holder of these banknotes is a person of legal position (e.g. Central Bank of I.R.Iran), so the author's rights will be valid for a period of 30 years from the date of publication or public presentation. The date of publication or public presentation of all of the above banknotes is after 1982. The conclusion is that all of them ARE STILL COPYRIGHTED and NOT ELIGIBLE to be hosted on commons. --Razghandi (talk) 19:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete This is correct, also Iran laws does not mention any freedom to use works created by Iran government. therefor, all of these images, plus some images in Category:Money of Iran should be deleted. ■ MMXX talk 15:04, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Banknotes of Iran are copyrighted, see Commons:Currency#Iran ■ MMXX talk 15:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC)