Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2011/06/05
 |
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}
.jpg){kind=link}
.gif){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
,_vista_des_del_camí_vell_de_montargull.jpg){kind=link}
copyrightsproblem
Deleted Copyvio. Yann (talk) 22:04, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
File lacks a clear use or purpose; also, it is not the role of Wikimedia to describe Rand as "eminent". TallNapoleon (talk) 20:07, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep: I'm using it on my user page. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 20:10, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
To clarify: Commons:Project scope#File in use on Commons only seems to suggest to me that a user having one or two "personal" files for use on his or her user page is fine. As a user in good standing here at Commons, I think this is fine. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:16, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- Nom withdrawn. Someone just posted a link to it on w:Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Objectivism, and I was utterly confused as to why it even existed. Sorry for the inconvenience. TallNapoleon (talk) 22:28, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Nominator withdrew Killiondude (talk) 08:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Not a simple logo. Please upload to Wikipedia. Also poss copyvio Good twins (talk) 22:39, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio -mattbuck (Talk) 10:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Too small to be of any use Good twins (talk) 22:45, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:53, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Again yep it's a wall paper one can down load, don't think that permisson is given to be up loaded here Good twins (talk) 22:46, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio, but why would anyone WANT that as their desktop? -mattbuck (Talk) 10:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
=== File:Paul_Revere_warning_colonists_via_bell_according_to_Sarah_Palin.jpg ===
No encyclopedic purpose CutOffTies (talk) 16:38, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep switching to Delete. My old reasons for keeping: Sarah Palin is a national politician of highest importance; she was a vice presidential candidate in 2008 and a former governor of the state of Alaska. Palin said about Revere's famous midnight ride: "He who warned, uh, the British that they weren’t gonna be takin’ away our arms, uh, by ringing those bells, and um, makin' sure as he’s riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that we were going to be sure and we were going to be free, and we were going to be armed." -- Sarah Palin, June 3, 2011. There are numerous sources that this comment was, in fact, made, such as New York Magazine and Los Angeles Times and even a YouTube video. It was clearly a major gaffe, but it's important since this person may someday be president of the United States. But Palin didn't say HOW or WHICH BELLS were rung on Paul Revere's ride -- this picture attempts a possible theory, since church bells are clearly too heavy to carry on horseback, while bicycle bells are much lighter. Problem is: bicycles weren't invented yet, and bicycle bells may have scared the horse, possibly throwing Revere to the ground. To not discuss this gaffe may show signs of siding with either Republicans or Democrats, depending on one's views about bells and their weight and history.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC) My reasons for deleting now -- I'm tired of this; it was fun while it lasted for a day or so and Wikipedians are entitled to some of this, aren't we? time for me to move on to other stuff; I am nonpartisan politically but when the absurdity of the political sphere gets too much I have to do stuff like react to it in this fashion to keep sane. I am entitled to change my mind from keep to delete. Feel free to nix this stupid cartoon!--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: Above comments are from user who created this photoshopped image --CutOffTies (talk) 18:16, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- Comment "this picture attempts a possible theory". I doubt you believe this. It attempts to poke fun. It does not attempt a possible theory. A possible theory would not include a bicycle bell. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 14:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, per author request. Rehman 11:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
error by creation! the idea was to build a page -Furchenstein- Furchenstein (talk) 01:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: (not by me) Jcb (talk) 23:44, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This is DVD cover and it's copyrighted. Same image can be found on sr.wiki mickit 07:39, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- speedy NVO (talk) 13:02, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete -- Copyrighted...looks like an old poster with expired copyright, what is the age of this..??--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 06:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
- 1977 mickit 06:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 22:03, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
It is tagged {{PD-old}} by the uploader: but the composer was still living in the 1950s (according to his enwp article) so this cannot apply. But the composition was first published 1926 in the US → {{PD-1923}} cannot apply. For the recording probably this would apply: {{PD-US-record}}. We could only keep this file if the requirements of {{PD-US-not renewed}} or {{PD-US-no notice}} would be fulfilled. Saibo (Δ) 02:56, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Uploaded by mistake instead of replacing pre-existing file Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:13, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
very bad quality, no description, not used -> no educational value Avron (talk) 05:46, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 09:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
very bad quality, no description, not used -> no educational value Avron (talk) 05:47, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 09:32, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
no credible source nor author Avron (talk) 06:05, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Missing of essential source information High Contrast (talk) 09:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Eliding anti-counterfeiting restrictions, the legal restrictions cited by this tag state:
- "The MAS has granted any person permission (1) to use any photograph of or any drawing or design resembling any currency note or coin or part thereof in any advertisement; and (2) to import, manufacture, sell, circulate or otherwise distribute any specified merchandise or product containing any photograph of or any drawing or design resembling any currency note or coin or part thereof, provided the following conditions are complied with:
- The use of the reproduction of any currency note or coin shall maintain, and not detract from, the dignity, integrity and image of the currency note or coin [...] The reproduction of any currency note or coin shall not distort images of the President of Singapore or any national symbol, [and] shall not show the currency note or coin in a manner that is offensive or against public interest [...]"
I have no particular concern about part (1), and I think we should accept images of advertisements featuring Singapore currency, which the MAS apparently allows without restriction. However, I think the restrictions imposed in part (2) extend beyond moral rights and personality rights to defense of "national symbols" and "public interest". This is not a non-copyright restriction, because this is not part of a statute - it is part of a licensing statement by MAS. Currently, Commons:Currency#Singapore merely states that Singapore currency is not okay until its design falls out of the public domain (which none of them have yet), and no images use this tag. Dcoetzee (talk) 06:39, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete: I created the template, then discovered it does not deal with the fact that the designs of Singapore coins and notes is copyrighted. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 16:32, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom and user request Ezarateesteban 13:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned vanity photo, low quality, out of scope, no foreseeable use. FASTILY (TALK) 06:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 09:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned vanity photo, low quality, out of scope, no foreseeable use. Uploaded by a banned user on en.wikipedia, and used in a now deleted article on en.wikipedia. FASTILY (TALK) 06:52, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 09:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned vanity photo, low quality, out of scope, no foreseeable use. Uploaded by a banned user on en.wikipedia, and used in a now deleted article on en.wikipedia. FASTILY (TALK) 06:52, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 09:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned vanity photo, low quality, out of scope, no foreseeable use. Uploaded by a banned user on en.wikipedia, and used in a now deleted article on en.wikipedia. FASTILY (TALK) 06:52, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 09:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 09:20, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 09:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
promotional image - taken from a website - copy violation Cholo Aleman (talk) 09:23, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 09:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
british musician - taken from a website - copright violation Cholo Aleman (talk) 09:24, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 09:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 09:38, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 09:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 09:41, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 09:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Private picture of unknown guy. Not used. Out of scope. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 21:29, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 09:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Private picture of unknown woman. Not used. Out of scope. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 21:31, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 09:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
no evidence of when photo taken or who photo is of, source weblink not there Hold and wave (talk) 21:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 09:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Promotional picture of a not notable boy band. Self promotion. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 21:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 09:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Personal picture of a not notable person. Out of scope. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 21:37, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Florent Pécassou (talk) 12:34, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 09:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Low resolution personal picture of a not notable person. Not used. Out of scope. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 21:38, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Florent Pécassou (talk) 12:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 09:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
File:Of.jpg Out of scope - no educational value INeverCry 03:01, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- Delete – Unused personal photograph.—Bill william comptonTalk 17:06, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Low resolution picture of a group of people. No apparent educational purpose. Not used. Out of scope. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 21:39, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Florent Pécassou (talk) 12:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 09:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Private picture of a not notable person. Not used. Out of scope. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 21:41, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 10:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Low resolution personal picture of a not notable person. Not used. Out of scope. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 21:42, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 10:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Private picture of a nice girl, actually, but out of scope. Not used, it looks even like an insult to her. A broken heart, may be? Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 21:47, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 10:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Private picture of a nice girl but, evidently, not enough to be notable for showbiz. Not used. Out of scope. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 21:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 10:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Low resolution picture of the same girl. This time she is trying to look more latino but she remains not a notable person. Not used. Out of scope. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 21:52, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 10:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Low quality picture of a couple of guys. Pretty unknown both. Not used. Out of scope. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 21:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 10:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Promotional picture of a not notable scandinavian band. But I don't know anything about scandinavian music apart googling their name and not finding substantial information to avoid the deletion request. So, self promotion, for me. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 21:56, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope High Contrast (talk) 10:04, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Personal picture of unknown man. Not used. Out of scope. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 21:57, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 10:04, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Promotional picture of a not notable russian band. Self promotion. Out of scope. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 21:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 10:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Low quality, now superseded by File:10 Hygeia symbol alternate.svg, unlinked and unused. --ZooFari 23:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Demmo (talk) 07:21, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 10:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
I doubt own work. RE rillke questions? 23:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Own work highly doubtful High Contrast (talk) 10:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Formula that was taken as an image for inclusion at WS. Formula has now been TEX'd and image is now superfluous — billinghurst sDrewth 07:36, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
I have no objection to the deletion. The TeX looks definitely better.Ineuw talk page on en.ws 08:28, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Demmo (talk) 07:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Unused text formula, could be replaced with TeX if needed George Chernilevsky talk 15:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
unused web-design element? not in scope Avron (talk) 08:57, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 15:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
unused web-design element? not in scope Avron (talk) 08:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 15:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
scope? Amada44 talk to me 09:09, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 15:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 09:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 15:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
unused private image - funny but out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 10:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 15:32, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Personal picture of unknown, or not so easy to recognize, man. Not notable, I guess. Out of scope. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 13:12, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 15:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Personal picture of not notable person. Out of scope. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 13:15, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 15:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Personal picture of not a notable person. He is not so legendary, evidently, as stated in the description. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 13:19, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 15:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Picture of a not notable band. Self promotion. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 13:21, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 15:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Private picture of unknown person. Out of scope. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 13:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 15:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Private picture of a not notable person trying to look scary and misterious. Facebook look-how-cool-I-am effect? Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 13:27, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 15:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Private picture of a kid. No educational purpose. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 13:29, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 15:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Private picture of the same kid playing as goalkeeper in a kid team. No educational purpose. Have his parents uploaded it? Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 13:31, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 15:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Private picture of a kid football team. Out of scope. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 13:32, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 15:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Private picture of a not notable person. Self promotion. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 13:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 15:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Private picture of a not notable band. Self promotion. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 13:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 15:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
unused logo of a dutch online marketing company [1], related article was deleted here nl:Modation for advertising, no notability - no foreseeable use, out of scope Santosga (talk) 13:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 15:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Private picture of an asian classroom with a western teacher. May be english students. No educational purpose. Out of scope. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 13:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 15:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Private picture of not notable andalusian writer. Self promotion. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 13:43, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 15:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Blurred image of a not notable sort of rapper. Self promotion. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 13:45, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 17:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Private picture of a not a not notable person. Unused. Out of scope. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 13:47, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 17:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Promotional picture of not a notable band, yet. No educational purpose but just self promotion, apparently. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 13:54, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 17:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Promotional picture of the same not notable band. Backstreet-Boys-like this time. Self promotion. Where have you gone Vivaldi? Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 13:56, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 17:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
80's picture of a not notable band. If they didn't get notable in 30 years ... But, perhaps, I'm just a big ignorant about modern music. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 13:59, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 17:32, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
.gif&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.gif&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Promotional picture of a not notable band. Self promotion. No comment on the shot in particular. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 14:09, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
.gif){kind=link}
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 17:32, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
.gif){kind=link}
Picture of a not notable singer. Out of scope. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 14:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 17:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Picture of a not notable musician. But, may be, it's just me. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 14:12, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 17:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Private picture of not a notable person. Unused. Out of scope. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 14:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 17:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Promotional picture of a not notable boy band. Self promotion. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 14:15, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 17:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Account blocked indefinitely. Infaming. FAP (talk) 14:31, 5 June 2011 (UTC) 83.159.84.158 14:48, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- Speedy
Keep; we don't delete talk pages without very good reasons, which aren't given here.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:38, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Kept George Chernilevsky talk 17:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Even we have an OTRS release, this looks for me like an unused private image. Out of scope. JuTa (talk) 14:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 17:37, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: unused chart. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:02, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 17:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Unused, image was used for fake and vandalic article at eswiki here --Jcaraballo (talk) 16:28, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Demmo (talk) 07:11, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Far out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 17:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Personal picture unused, out of scope Good twins (talk) 18:13, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 17:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
image is being used for spam/vandalism on Wikipedia. BMRR (talk) 18:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Vandalism. Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 17:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
out of scope: which company is this logo from? Seems to be a self made logo out of boredom according to image content and file desc fields Saibo (Δ) 19:10, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 17:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
unused private image - out of scope (speedy deletion perhaps more appropriate) Cholo Aleman (talk) 19:52, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 17:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 19:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 17:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Non educational purpose – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 20:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 17:54, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Flag of Brazil.svg is existing SVG, this file will never be used. Fry1989 (talk) 20:24, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Demmo (talk) 07:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Unused duplicate George Chernilevsky talk 17:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
unused private image, insult - out of scope several times Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:36, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 17:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Personal picture of a not notable person. Not used. Out of scope. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 21:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 17:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Obsolete, the file has been replaced by a better version. User:Id4abel
- Delete per nom. Replacement: File:VforVoluntary_normal.svg. Demmo (talk) 07:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Poor duplicate George Chernilevsky talk 17:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
copyvio (copyright violation), URV, Carl Moll died 1945, look w:de:Carl Moll A. Wagner (talk) 17:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted as a copyright violation, restoration will follow in early 2016. The only usage was in ru.wikipedia. --32X (talk) 08:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
unused logo of a Brazilian Catholic organization with no notability or article in pt or any other wiki project, related article was deleted here pt:Santa Liga das Senhoras Católicas back in 2008 - no foreseeable use, out of scope Santosga (talk) 16:04, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: for being lower res duplicate, an identical DR about the larger version is still open Jcb (talk) 15:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
possible copyright violation, Image with Logo of school, no x data Jayanta Nath (talk) 19:28, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Seems to be taken from the website of the school in question. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Its not from the school website, you can check the site, there is no such picture there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vibhijain (talk • contribs) 09:45, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: The image is look like picture of picture. So original copyright holder may not this uploader. I would request to uploader please shot your school standing in front your school. I am guessing you still studying in this school. Jayanta Nath (talk) 09:53, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, I have left this school now. I can recognize the principle (that means that this is a offical video, not one make by a student, as the Principle formally speaks in this video). This is a video for the Alumni Meet, and it must be made by the school itself. So that means that the school itself has published the logo to YouTube. Vibhijain (talk) 10:50, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
- So contrary to what you claimed, this file is not actually your own work, and you are not actually the copyright holder? Elsewhere, you stated that the address of the video is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7s1YwAPZAE. I can't see it because "This video contains content from SME, who has blocked it in your country on copyright grounds. Sorry about that." Is there any sign that the video has been released under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 license, as you claimed? —LX (talk, contribs) 11:38, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete I can't access the video as well. Asked a friend with American IP to check the license. It is Standard YouTube License. --Ben.MQ (talk) 12:07, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
- I have made some changes now on the picture, which makes it a retouched picture. Its not a copyright violation now. So I think its okay to be on Commons. Vibhijain (talk) 12:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
- A retouched image is a derivative work. --Ben.MQ (talk) 12:08, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: I am sorry, the new images is also a DW Ezarateesteban 12:45, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:08, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: http://www.flickr.com/photos/40142799@N04/5758610930/ explains it: The uploader is the person in the photo, but not the photographer and therefore unlikely the owner of copyrights. Martin H. (talk) 19:10, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Source/ copyright status unknown - Google Search is not a vailid Source Hold and wave (talk) 16:55, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- Clearly an FBI image. Scroll through photos to find it. > http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Jeffrey+Goldberg/photos --Ted87 (talk) 16:39, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: I found the image at the linked source, where it was named as FBI image Jcb (talk) 23:06, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
copyright wrong 92.227.13.194 05:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with the copyright for the use of this portrait. It has been copied from a publically available website about the Murison family and the owners of this site have been given ample opportunity to object to its use. The chances are that the original owner of the portrait is long dead and the whereabouts of the portrait may well be unknown. (Ajsinclair (talk) 12:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC))
Hi AJSinclair, can you please contact the owner of murison.net again but please this time leave your e-mail address. This is the reason that you have had no reply.
Kept: PD-old – Adrignola talk 12:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
The previous DR and the OTRS message does not cover the important question -- who is the painter and when did he die? The subject died in 1934 and appears to be an old man in this painting -- it is very likely that the painter was alive in 1941. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Please see the mass DR Commons:Deletion requests/Uploads of User:Ajsinclair. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. No author is known to know if {{PD-old}} applies. See mass DR for the ticket number of the OTRS ticket that specified this fact by the uploader. – Adrignola talk 23:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:DR.RAZDAN BOX.png. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:15, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Martin H. (talk) 18:14, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
unused promo material of an Argentinian rock band with no notability or article in any wiki project, related article deleted back in 2007 here es:Santa Esquina and here en:Santa Esquina - no foreseeable use, out of scope Santosga (talk) 15:59, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Supporting nominator. Missvain (talk) 04:26, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Tiptoety talk 04:27, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
unused logo of a Brazilian Catholic organization with no notability or article in pt or any other wiki project, related article was deleted here pt:Santa Liga das Senhoras Católicas back in 2008 - no foreseeable use, out of scope Santosga (talk) 16:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Support nominator. Missvain (talk) 04:27, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Tiptoety talk 04:27, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Appears to be a professional image, set as part of a layout from some other website; she's an actress, so claimed work by/for govt is not credible and also not consistent with uploader's claim of own-work DMacks (talk) 09:46, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Invalid license. Wknight94 talk 13:27, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Cannot see where Jon Sullivan has given permisson and on the source page all rights are reserved....Copy vio I think Good twins (talk) 22:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 15:24, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Copyright violation. Poster does not have permission to post this file Randam (talk) 04:41, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- it was taken from a CC 3.0 licensed site, why is it copyright violation? you'll probably say that i had to take the picture myself or something like it. i won't bother though.--Infestor (talk) 16:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- delete - I am not seeing anything that appears to state commons compatible - note, its in turkish and I ussed google translate. If all the pics there are CC 3.0 licensed I would be shocked indeed. Off2riorob (talk) 22:13, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete I don't read Turkish, but some of the pages on the site have (c) on them, others have CC-NC, neither of which we can accept. The source page has neither. The image looks like it was scanned from a magazine, so even if the source site has an OK license, I wonder if the source site actually has the rights to it. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:20, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 01:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Private picture of a not notable person. Not used anywhere. Out of scope. mickit 07:42, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- This one was brought to featured pics contest, oh dear! delete per nom, and, yes, smoking is bad. NVO (talk) 13:00, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- That's your opinion, and your civil right is to elaborate it. Keep per everybody have their choice, and my choice is to storage pictures from my selection here. I can keep every single of my decent picture here, and this one is dear to me, and it deserves all respect here. Aleksa Lukic (talk) 16:15, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of COM:SCOPE. Wknight94 talk 01:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Private picture of a not notable person. Not used anywhere. Out of scope. mickit 07:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- I have a right to keep my private pictures here. Aleksa Lukic (talk) 16:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- Are you familiar with what Commons is and what is not: Commons is not your personal free web host. Although we do host media and images on Commons, all content must be within our project's scope, which requires, among other things, that all media must be realistically useful for an educational purpose. Unless your images are educationally useful and in the scope of this project, Commons is not a place to store your vacation photo collection. For the policy, see COM:PS#Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose. mickit 17:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
He is a common man is he not? I don't see how he is any less representative than Albert Einstein.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.174.43.198 (talk • contribs)
Deleted: Out of COM:SCOPE, notwithstanding uploader's silly attempt to add to en.wp. Wknight94 talk 01:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
wrong source - taken from a website - copy vio (?? !!) - Bakhmach (similar), Ukraine(?) Cholo Aleman (talk) 09:29, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- delete. In addition of sourcing issues, it was built in 1954 to a design by Moscow-based architect, Kulagin (I cannot find exact info on this person, but he obviously does not meet PD-70 rule) >> no FOP in both Russia and Ukraine >> Sorry. Duralex. NVO (talk) 13:07, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 02:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
promotional image - taken from a website - copyright violation without OTRS (as far as I understand) Cholo Aleman (talk) 09:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 02:51, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
selfpromotion - no further contributions - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 09:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: No point deleting a user talk page. Reverting is sufficient. Wknight94 talk 02:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Violation of wmf:Trademark policy#Things You Can Do, a Summary Waihorace (talk) 14:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Keep, so many pictures do the same thing in Category:Wikipedia logo variants and sub-cat. Also see wmf:Trademark policy#Things You Can Do, a Summary:"make t-shirts, desktop wallpaper, or baseball caps though only for yourself and your friends (and here we broadly define "friends" as people from whom you don't receive anything of value in return)".--苹果派.留言 15:08, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Keep, Such violation not found.Codename Protector (talk) 18:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Delete, as per HW.--Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 18:34, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Jcb (talk) 10:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
logo of a amateur footbal team, taken from the official website of the club. Very unlikely public domain Miho (talk) 14:42, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 10:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Stylized "P" might be too complex for PD-simple. Opinions? --ZooFari 01:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Neutral The enwp article draft on this uni festival says: "The Logo depicts the letter "P". Introduced in 2007 by the ,the then organizing team ."
Threshold_of_originality#United_States: The "Letter S" and the "Best Western" crown (W) are ineligible.
If it is just a handwriting P then it probably would be PD-ineligible. But: is it really a strongly stylized P? I am not sure.
In Germany it probably would be PD-inelig. - but this doesn't matter here. India's and US law apply. --Saibo (Δ) 01:48, 5 June 2011 (UTC)- Keep - {{PD-simple}} is OK for this. You could also see '21' in it instead of 'P' - Jcb (talk) 21:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 22:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
This map is a grose falsification of the map created by the university of belgrade's geography department. It is therefore a fake map that has violated the authors rights. We should not allow such things to remain here. The correct map was published by the university of belgrade and can be seen here, [2] - while this map is by the nationalistic srpska politika [3],[4] organization, and it is obvious that they have overrepresnted the serbs in parts of croatia, bosnia, and kosovo. End the biase. LAz17 (talk) 04:55, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- The population data as such look fine, but using virtually indistinguishable colours for Serbs and Montenegrins is, shall we say, not exactly state of the art. And what's up with that thick white line - the future Union of Serbia, Montenegro, Macedonia and Republika Srpska? No encyclopedic content -> delete. --20percent (talk) 18:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
This map should be deleted since it is an obvious falsification, as explained by LAz17.
Tresnjevo (talk) 02:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: in use, making content related arguments irrelevant Jcb (talk) 22:20, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
This file is in use, however it violated copyright. See previous deletion request. The Admin overlooked it. It is clear that that the image produced by the belgrade university has been edited. We must not allow this plagarism and copyright violation. A similar case has been seen here, [5] , hence there is presedent to delete this. LAz17 (talk) 19:32, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
![[5]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Greater_Serbia_claims_early_93.png){kind=link}
Deleted: No evidence of permission for underlying work. Powers (talk) 17:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Vector version of exactly same content available Kxx (talk) 04:55, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Attribution preserved. Demmo (talk) 07:06, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
All IAU materials respect this copyright http://www.iau.org/copyright/ 13:08, 9 June 2011 (CEST)
Kept: 'duplicate' is a vector file Jcb (talk) 22:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Press photo from a photo gallery on the Persian edition of Voice of America, tagged PD-USGov-VOA, but most images from that part of VOA are known not to be the agency's own work but syndicated from other agencies. Was originally uploaded on enwiki by a sock of banned Amir.Hossein, a persistent copyvio sockpuppeter. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:36, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: this image has no credit at source Jcb (talk) 22:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Private picture of a not notable person. Not used anywhere. Out of scope. mickit 07:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- The person you're talking about is notable as well as she's a fotomodel. It is a high-quality picture, so it's place of staying is definitely here. Aleksa Lukic (talk) 16:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- So what if she is a photomodel? That doesn't mean she is automatically notable. High quality picture and it's only 667 pixels wide. Yeah, sure :) mickit 21:01, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- Plus: this is one of my best pictures. Only resolution is low side. That's not enough, buddy. Aleksa Lukic (talk) 13:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- As I said you before, Commons is not your personal free web host: Although we do host media and images on Commons, all content must be within our project's scope, which requires, among other things, that all media must be realistically useful for an educational purpose. mickit 15:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- Plus: this is one of my best pictures. Only resolution is low side. That's not enough, buddy. Aleksa Lukic (talk) 13:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- So what if she is a photomodel? That doesn't mean she is automatically notable. High quality picture and it's only 667 pixels wide. Yeah, sure :) mickit 21:01, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - {{Userpageimage}} would be possible, too. But this image has another scope - just see the categories. --Saibo (Δ) 20:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: per Saibo Jcb (talk) 22:29, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
copyright problem - questionable license. Image license claims that The copyright to this work was owned by the federal authorities of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, but image was created in 1993, after Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia ceased to exist. Uploader actually modified original image which he took from here: http://www.srpskapolitika.com/usd/karte/etnicka.jpg (description in that map say that it was published in 1993 by dr Dragan Rodić and dr Bratislav Atanacković. Despite the fact that Wikimedia image uploader modified original image size, that description about image origin could be seen on image that we have in Wikimedia Commons as well. PANONIAN (talk) 07:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - Panonian is wrong - the source of the map is not sprska mreza. He instead usurped rastko - the original map is here, [6]. You can see that the image size is exactly the same. You can even the see the same folds. Therefore, it is proven that this map is harming copyright status. Please delete this. (LAz17 (talk) 17:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)).
![[6]](http://www.rastko.rs/istorija/srbi-balkan/img/fry4b.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 22:32, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Private picture of a not notable person. Not used anywhere. Out of scope. mickit 07:55, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- It is a picture of me. You don't know will I become a notable person, so it may be useful. For second - I have a right to keep pictures of me on the Commons, and therefore you cannot subtract that civilian right from me. Aleksa Lukic (talk) 16:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep than. I have added {{Userpageimage}} to the page. It would even be possible to make a crop of the cat being held in human's hands. --Saibo (Δ) 20:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: not in use as user page image - more important: restriction in 'permissions' field is incompatible with the PD license Jcb (talk) 22:37, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure about this image. I believe it's out of scope. Not used anywhere. mickit 08:00, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Comment It is a picture from film in production of Konstantin Kole Krbacevic. And film's name is "Zini da ti kazem". Aleksa Lukic (talk) 16:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC)- Comment Do you want to say that this is a screenshot? mickit 16:08, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- Comment No. It is a picture captured by camera (without montage) during film was recording. Person who directed that short film has allowed me to share the picture on Commons. --Aleksa Lukic (talk) 17:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- Alex, did you take the photograph by yourself? Then Keep - I actually think this perspective is interesting. The quality could be better, of course. --Saibo (Δ) 20:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- Alex, did you take the photograph by yourself? Then
Deleted: unclear copyright situation Jcb (talk) 22:39, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
This is a fantasy creature, some kind of artwork. The creator of the original artwork has rights to any reproductions and derivative work. (per COM:L) High Contrast (talk) 10:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Comment Freedom of panorama does not apply because this object is not placed permanently in a public place. --High Contrast (talk) 10:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 22:46, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
The PD-because rational (althuogh not public domain/free of copyrights but rather Template:Copyrighted free use) sounds free. But on second look the restrictions in the terms of use "We reserve the right to change this agreement at any time with or without notice, with immediate and/or retroactive effect" is unfree and not acceptable. A free license grant must be irrevocable. Martin H. (talk) 10:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- I don't completely understand you but if it said on the official Minecraft site that all pictures may be used than that's clear to me. I have read the whole license and saw nothing that could lead to something "illegal". Kippenvlees1 (talk) 16:41, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- Simple: Commons:Project_scope#Required licensing terms is not fullfilled, the granted permission is not irrevocable. --Martin H. (talk) 21:04, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 22:50, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- A permission to use the logo on certain wikipedia article cannot be regarded as free license. Blacklake (talk) 12:32, 5 June 2011 (UTC).
- Ye, you're right. I've asked Hickey to release this file under one of free licenses. I'll post his decision here when he will reply --PL Przemek DYSKUSJA 11:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC).
- I've get response that logo is a trademark and it's not important right now for he to take care of licensing it, which I understand. I have made a image that does not meet the threshold of originality. I uploaded it already, so I commented¹ box with info that it is proposed to be deleted --PL Przemek DYSKUSJA 12:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC).
commented¹:<!-- (...) -->
- Are you sure that image is really trivial enough? It doesn't seem to be so for me rubin16 (talk) 13:08, 21 June 2011 (UTC).
- Okay, I'll simplify it a little more, but give me time to tommorow (23th of June) --PL Przemek DYSKUSJA 11:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC).
- What about now? --PL Przemek DYSKUSJA 04:30, 24 June 2011 (UTC).
- Are you sure that image is really trivial enough? It doesn't seem to be so for me rubin16 (talk) 13:08, 21 June 2011 (UTC).
Kept: PD-ineligible is OK for this Jcb (talk) 22:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
This file looks so much like a postcard scan (especially the version before my level adjust), that I have my doubts about it being the original uploader own work. As this is an old upload to wiki-en and the uploader don't seem to be active for a long time, I'm opening a DR on it. Darwin Ahoy! 12:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- See also:
- 23:01, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- It's the same file, an exact duplicate, but without the curves correction I've applied recently on this one. The other is completely useless, independently of this DR.-- Darwin Ahoy! 23:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 22:53, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Personal picture of not notable french local politician. Self promotion. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 13:09, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Bien sûr que si, je suis un candidat local. Voici mon blog: http://remy-morand-fn.over-blog.com/
Reponse "in french please"
- Seems to be credible. --Túrelio (talk) 20:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Tendence to keep it - if he can be identified an he is a public person in France (I cannot judge that) Cholo Aleman (talk) 10:43, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio Jcb (talk) 22:56, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Promotional picture of a not notable band. Self promotion. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 13:24, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 22:56, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
no permission Kafuffle (talk) 13:36, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 23:03, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't think this qualifies fpr PD-simple. Delete and upload to en:wp? Amada44 talk to me 13:45, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Too complex for -simple. MacMed (talk) 19:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: although this may be borderline Jcb (talk) 23:10, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
also:
- File:Tourpol1.jpg
- File:Avmer1.jpg. Found this image here: http://www.serm-montpellier.fr/fr/contenu/images/rea_nouv_mer1.jpg
Own work seems very unlikely to me. Amada44 talk to me 13:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 23:14, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Even we have an OTRS release, this looks like an unused private image for me. Out of scope. JuTa (talk) 14:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 23:17, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, may be historical photo. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:04, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 23:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
and other uploads by Gislason93 (talk · contribs). Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.No evidence of permissions. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:12, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- I was supposed to write about the club, I haven't had time yet. Im in the picture, the picture was taken by my trainer....
Kept: I checked some of them, for which I couldn't find duplicates Jcb (talk) 00:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Freedom of panorama (i.e taking pictures of buildings or anything which is protected by copyright) is not allowed in Philippines, FOP is allowed only for incidental inclusions (Not primary subject/de minimis) For more information see Current FOP situation. If the up-loader want's to challenge the existing interpretation available to commons, please raise a request at talk page of FOP section. ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 15:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep, The law in the Philippines is not clear on this matter. Magalhães (talk) 15:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- Comment I don't know where Commons got its interpretation of Philippine copyright law, but I don't think there's anything in the law which neither allows nor prohibits derivative works of existing structures built on public spaces being produced. It's still a very vague gray area which is not addressed by the Intellectual Property Code. If ever, this can be treated as a derivative work covered by a new copyright, or that the building itself is in the public domain given that the Met's plans were drawn up in the 1920s and Juan M. Arellano died over 50 years ago. --Sky Harbor (talk) 22:42, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep The copyright law is clear about this. The building is over 25 years old thus the architect no longer has the copyright of it.
- 171.10. A "work of applied art" is an artistic creation with
- utilitarian functions or incorporated in a useful article, whether
- made by hand or produced on an industrial scale;
- 213.4. In case of works of applied art, the protection shall
- be for a period of twenty-five (25) years from the date of making.
- (Sec. 24(B), P.D. No. 49a)
- SEC. 221. Points of Attachment for Works under Sections
- 172 and 173. – 221.1. The protection afforded by this Act to
- copyrightable works under Sections 172 and 173 shall apply to:
- (c) Works of architecture erected in the Philippines or other
- artistic works incorporated in a building or other structure located
- in the Philippines;
- Moray An Par (talk) 23:31, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- Provide a link to this updated law, so that it can be addressed well...--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 03:40, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- There is no updated law since it's from the same law. --Sky Harbor (talk) 04:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- You can raise it on talk page of FOP, so that it will be discussed deeply and current situation can be changed.....Captain......Tälk tö me.. 08:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- The issue has been raised. Moray An Par (talk) 12:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- You can raise it on talk page of FOP, so that it will be discussed deeply and current situation can be changed.....Captain......Tälk tö me.. 08:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- There is no updated law since it's from the same law. --Sky Harbor (talk) 04:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- Provide a link to this updated law, so that it can be addressed well...--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 03:40, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per Carl Lindberg here Jcb (talk) 00:12, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- Can somebody please revert the removal of this photograph. This specific architect en:Juan Marcos Arellano died 51 years ago (in 1960). Therefor the copyright is no longer there (>50 years). The discussion on the page linked by User:jcb is about where or not architecture is a form of applied art and if so, the copyright is only protected for 25 years. Apparently User:Captainofhope thinks architecture is not applied arts. But is this specific case it doesn't matter, because the copyright owner died over 50 years ago. Magalhães (talk) 14:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- Could you please use COM:UNDEL instead of proposing a wheelwar? Jcb (talk) 15:02, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- Can somebody please revert the removal of this photograph. This specific architect en:Juan Marcos Arellano died 51 years ago (in 1960). Therefor the copyright is no longer there (>50 years). The discussion on the page linked by User:jcb is about where or not architecture is a form of applied art and if so, the copyright is only protected for 25 years. Apparently User:Captainofhope thinks architecture is not applied arts. But is this specific case it doesn't matter, because the copyright owner died over 50 years ago. Magalhães (talk) 14:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Freedom of panorama (i.e taking pictures of buildings or anything which is protected by copyright) is not allowed in Philippines, FOP is allowed only for incidental inclusions (Not primary subject/de minimis) For more information see Current FOP situation. If the up-loader want's to challenge the existing interpretation available to commons, please raise a request at talk page of FOP section. ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 15:15, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: - nothing eligible for copyright visible that isn't DM - Jcb (talk) 00:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Freedom of panorama (i.e taking pictures of buildings or anything which is protected by copyright) is not allowed in Philippines, FOP is allowed only for incidental inclusions (Not primary subject/de minimis) For more information see Current FOP situation. If the up-loader want's to challenge the existing interpretation available to commons, please raise a request at talk page of FOP section. ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 15:16, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 00:14, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Redirect should be deleted to give way for a deleted file on the same name (as a contingency measure in case FOP is now introduced here). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:30, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- update: Last instance of use of this redirect, at "User:OgreBot/Uploads by new users/2015 May 28 06:00#TRAPICHON (49 edits)", has been fixed ("File:UP.jpg" ➡️ "File:UP nature.jpg"). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:39, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:55, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Freedom of panorama (i.e taking pictures of buildings or anything which is protected by copyright) is not allowed in Philippines, FOP is allowed only for incidental inclusions (Not primary subject/de minimis) For more information see Current FOP situation. If the up-loader want's to challenge the existing interpretation available to commons, please raise a request at talk page of FOP section. ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 15:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: the FOP issue is borderline, but the picture has been grabbed from the web Jcb (talk) 00:16, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
I suppose it's fake licese. Commercial logo ShinePhantom (talk) 20:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 23:19, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Not a simple logo. Please upload this directly to wikipedia Good twins (talk) 22:38, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: (not by me) Jcb (talk) 20:06, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
No year of publication has been given or the original source of this image, which based on the Flickr description is likely to have been scanned from a recent publication. Fæ (talk) 13:42, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Source: Khaksar Tehrik album, "India" 1931 please visit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/allamamashriqi/5363701722/ http://www.allamamashraqi.com/
- Keep - 1931 publication, {{PD-India}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, this seems unclear. The photograph may have been part of an album put together in 1931 but this does not mean it was published in 1931. If this photograph were published at a much later date, then copyright would be from the date of publication. --Fæ (talk) 20:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- "Publication" does not require an isbn number or anything like that; this photo was certainly circulated in several copies. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- Is there a pre-existing statement somewhere, I could not see this anywhere obvious? --Fæ (talk) 21:10, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- In current UK law, section 18 in effect defines issuing to the public as putting copies into circulation for the first time. Basically all relevant photographs were published in the sense of the copyright act when prints were made and changed hands. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, the point I was making was that from the website linked and claims made on Flickr it is not clear that this was published until much later than 1931. The album may well have been collected but not circulated before. As no particular publication is named or any explanation of how the image was obtained or created, the image has unverifiable sourcing and licensing. --Fæ (talk) 09:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- It is a group portrait of eight men, and the photo has all the looks of having been commissioned by the sitters. Probably they all paid for prints. A copy was found in an album, so there is solid evidence that at least one copy was transferred from the photographer to someone else. This constitutes publication of this image in the sense of the copyright act. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, the point I was making was that from the website linked and claims made on Flickr it is not clear that this was published until much later than 1931. The album may well have been collected but not circulated before. As no particular publication is named or any explanation of how the image was obtained or created, the image has unverifiable sourcing and licensing. --Fæ (talk) 09:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- In current UK law, section 18 in effect defines issuing to the public as putting copies into circulation for the first time. Basically all relevant photographs were published in the sense of the copyright act when prints were made and changed hands. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- Is there a pre-existing statement somewhere, I could not see this anywhere obvious? --Fæ (talk) 21:10, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- "Publication" does not require an isbn number or anything like that; this photo was certainly circulated in several copies. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, this seems unclear. The photograph may have been part of an album put together in 1931 but this does not mean it was published in 1931. If this photograph were published at a much later date, then copyright would be from the date of publication. --Fæ (talk) 20:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: per Pieter Kuiper, those days people were not yet taking pictures around with there mobile phones, it's that improbable that it wasn't published that you should at least provide some evidence for your claim about the possibility that it may not have been published those days Jcb (talk) 23:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- I do not understand this position. This is a old photograph. The vast majority of old photographs in existence are unpublished and there is absolutely no evidence here that the photograph has not been scanned from an original publication many decades after the photograph was first taken. The negative argument that Commons should keep photographs were nobody can prove that copyright applies runs counter to all the policies and consensus relating to enforcing copyright. --Fæ (talk) 04:15, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Iraqi currency
[edit]According to recent discussion at Commons talk:Licensing#Commons:Currency.23Iraq (permanent link), banknotes and coins are not covered by any known exception from copyright protection under Iraqi law.
As far as I can see, there have been two previous batch deletion requests concerning Iraqi currency: Commons:Deletion requests/Iraqi Money and Commons:Deletion requests/Money of Iraq (2007-03-25). The first request (from 2006) resulted in deletion. The second incorrectly resulted in the nominated files being kept. The incorrect arguments presented there were:
- "None of this is copyrighted, this is just ridiculous."
- Actually, claiming that some recent creative work is not protected by copyright without explaining why it would be exempt from copyright protection is ridiculous. Iraqi copyright protection includes engravings and does not require a copyright notice; all creative works are protected by default.
- "I think the whole copyright thing on currency is silly. If I copy the images of currencies 1000 times, does that hurt whoever the engravers/designers are? NO! The state paid them already and that's it."
- Iraqi copyright law does not make exceptions for things someone thinks would be silly to protect. The rest of the argument is essentially saying "so what if it's not actually free? We can get away with it!" Commons is not a repository of media you can get away with copying.
- "Copyright of money exists (if it even does) to prevent forgery. This is old money that has images of Saddam Hussein on it, is it even legal tender any more?"
- No, counterfeiting laws exist to prevent forgery. Copyright exists to protect the rights of authors to control things like whether people can make derivative works based on their works. They are entirely separate areas of law, but currency is typically subject to both counterfeiting laws and copyright laws. Whether or not it is legal tender is irrelevant to the copyright matter.
- File:Swiss Dinar reverse.jpg – incorrectly tagged as {{PD-Iraq}} after Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Swiss Dinar reverse.jpg. Since this is a 1986 work, that tag would only apply if this were a photo or an audiovisual work.
- File:1000 Iraqi Dinar front.jpg – incorrectly tagged as {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}
- File:10000 Iraqi Dinar back.jpg – incorrectly tagged as {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-3.0}}
- File:1000back.jpg – incorrectly tagged as {{PD-self}}
- File:1000front.jpg – incorrectly tagged as {{PD-self}}
- File:100Dinars-AH1411-1991-donatedpm b.jpg – tagged as {{PD-Iraq}} without any indication of first publication as required by that tag
- File:100Dinars-AH1414-1994 b.jpg – tagged as {{PD-Iraq}} without any indication of first publication as required by that tag
- File:100Dinars-AH1414-1994 f.jpg – tagged as {{PD-Iraq}} without any indication of first publication as required by that tag
- File:20 Iraqi Dinars.jpg – incorrectly tagged as {{Cc-by-2.0}}
- File:25 Iraqi dinars back .jpg – tagged as {{PD-Iraq}} without any indication of first publication as required by that tag
- File:25 Iraqi Dinars front.jpg – tagged as {{PD-Iraq}} without any indication of first publication as required by that tag
- File:250 Iraqi dinar back.jpg – incorrectly tagged as {{Cc-by-3.0}}
- File:250 Iraqi dinar front.jpg – incorrectly tagged as {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}
- File:25000 Iraqi dinar front.jpg – incorrectly tagged as {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}
- File:250back.jpg – incorrectly tagged as {{PD-self}}
- File:250front.jpg – incorrectly tagged as {{PD-self}}
- File:25Kbill.jpg – incorrectly tagged as {{Cc-by-sa-2.0}}. As noted by OTRS volunteer Pill, M&S Investment GmbH is not actually the author of this banknote, as incorrectly claimed on this and several other files.
- File:50 Iraqi dinar back.jpg – incorrectly tagged as {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}
- File:50 Iraqi dinar front.jpg – incorrectly tagged as {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}
- File:500 Iraqi Dinar back.jpg – incorrectly tagged as {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}
- File:500 Iraqi Dinar front.jpg – incorrectly tagged as {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}
- File:5000 Iraqi dinar back.jpg – incorrectly tagged as {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}
- File:5000 Iraqi dinar front.jpg – incorrectly tagged as {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}
- File:500back.jpg – incorrectly tagged as {{PD-self}}
- File:500bill.jpg – incorrectly tagged as {{Cc-by-sa-2.0}}
- File:500front.jpg – incorrectly tagged as {{PD-self}}
- File:50back.jpg – incorrectly tagged as {{PD-self}}
- File:50bill.jpg – incorrectly tagged as {{Cc-by-sa-2.0}}
- File:50front.jpg – incorrectly tagged as {{PD-self}}
- File:5Kbill.jpg – incorrectly tagged as {{Cc-by-sa-2.0}}
- File:Ibn haithem.jpg – incorrectly tagged with the peculiar combination of {{PD-Iraq}} (which simply does not apply to works from 2003) and {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}}
- File:Iraq 5 dinars Awers.JPG – incorrectly tagged as {{PD-self}}
- File:Iraq 5 dinars Rewers.JPG – incorrectly tagged as {{PD-self}}
- File:Iraq 50 dinars Awers.JPG – incorrectly tagged as {{PD-Iraq}}. Since this is a 1991 work, that tag would only apply if this were a photo or an audiovisual work.
- File:Iraq 50 dinars Rewers.JPG – incorrectly tagged with the peculiar combination of {{PD-self}} and {{PD-Iraq}} without any indication of first publication as required by the latter
- File:Iraq Dinar 25000 back.jpg – incorrectly tagged as {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}
- File:Iraq dinar back.jpg – tagged as {{PD-Iraq}} after Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Iraq dinar back.jpg, but without any indication of first publication as required by that tag
- File:Iraq dinar front.jpg – incorrectly tagged as {{PD-Iraq}} (which simply does not apply to works from 2003) after Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Iraq dinar front.jpg
- File:Iraq-10Dinars-1994-b.jpg – tagged as {{PD-Iraq}} without any indication of first publication as required by that tag
- File:Iraq-10Dinars-1994-f.jpg – tagged as {{PD-Iraq}} without any indication of first publication as required by that tag
- File:Iraq-50Dinars-1994-a.jpg – incorrectly tagged as {{PD-Iraq}}. Since this is a 1994 work, that tag would only apply if this were a photo or an audiovisual work.
- File:Iraq-50Dinars-1994-b.jpg – tagged as {{PD-Iraq}} without any indication of first publication as required by that tag
- File:IraqP79-1Dinar-1992 b.jpg – tagged as {{PD-Iraq}} without any indication of first publication as required by that tag
- File:IraqP85-250Dinars-AH1415-1995 a.jpg – tagged as {{PD-Iraq}} without any indication of first publication as required by that tag
- File:IraqP85-250Dinars-AH1415-1995 b.jpg – tagged as {{PD-Iraq}} without any indication of first publication as required by that tag
- File:IraqPNew-100Dinars-2002-donatedmr b.jpg – tagged as {{PD-Iraq}} without any indication of first publication as required by that tag
- File:IraqPNew-100Dinars-2002-donatedmr f.jpg – tagged as {{PD-Iraq}} without any indication of first publication as required by that tag
- File:IraqPNew-250Dinars-2002-b.jpg – tagged as {{PD-Iraq}} without any indication of first publication as required by that tag
- File:IraqPNew-250Dinars-2002-f.jpg – tagged as {{PD-Iraq}} without any indication of first publication as required by that tag
- File:Old 10000 dinar back.jpg – tagged as {{PD-Iraq}} without any indication of first publication as required by that tag
- File:Old 10000 dinar front.jpg – tagged as {{PD-Iraq}} without any indication of first publication as required by that tag
- File:Saddam bill.jpg – incorrectly tagged as {{Self|GFDL|Cc-by-sa-3.0-migrated}}
- File:SP10Kbill.jpg – no license tag, but a textual {{Cc-by-sa-2.0}} claim and an OTRS tag. However, as noted on File:25Kbill.jpg, the OTRS tag is meaningless, because M&S Investment GmbH is not actually the author.
- File:SP1Kbill.jpg – no license tag, but a textual {{Cc-by-sa-2.0}} claim and an OTRS tag. However, as noted on File:25Kbill.jpg, the OTRS tag is meaningless, because M&S Investment GmbH is not actually the author.
- File:SP250bill.jpg – no license tag, but a textual {{Cc-by-sa-2.0}} claim and an OTRS tag. However, as noted on File:25Kbill.jpg, the OTRS tag is meaningless, because M&S Investment GmbH is not actually the author.
- File:1 Iraqi Dinar - obverse.jpg – incorrectly tagged as {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}}
- File:1 Iraqi dinar - reverse.jpg – incorrectly tagged as {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}}
- File:1981 50 Iraqi fils.jpg – incorrectly tagged as {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}}
- File:250 Iraqi fils.jpg – incorrectly tagged as {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}}
- File:5 Iraqi fils.jpg – incorrectly tagged as {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}}
- File:500 Iraqi fils.jpg – incorrectly tagged as {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}}
- File:Unknown origin coin3.JPG – incorrectly tagged with the peculiar combination of {{PD-Iraq}} and {{PD-self}} without any indication of first publication as required by the former
- File:100Dinars-AH1411-1991-donatedpm f.jpg – incorrectly tagged as {{PD-Iraq}}. Since this is a 1994 work, that tag would only apply if this were a photo or an audiovisual work.
- File:Swiss Dinar front.jpg – incorrectly tagged as {{PD-Iraq}}. Since this is a 1994 work, that tag would only apply if this were a photo or an audiovisual work.
—LX (talk, contribs) 15:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Thanks to LX for the considerable work required to document these. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:10, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:19, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: undefined Jcb (talk) 09:02, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Freedom of panorama (i.e taking pictures of buildings or anything which is protected by copyright) is not allowed in Qatar, FOP is allowed only for incidental inclusions (Not primary subject/de minimis) For more information see Current FOP situation. If the up-loader want's to challenge the existing interpretation available to commons, please raise a request at talk page of FOP section. ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 15:20, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: several buildings in this picture, the two in the middle also under construction Jcb (talk) 09:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Freedom of panorama (i.e taking pictures of buildings or anything which is protected by copyright) is not allowed in Qatar, FOP is allowed only for incidental inclusions (Not primary subject/de minimis) For more information see Current FOP situation. If the up-loader want's to challenge the existing interpretation available to commons, please raise a request at talk page of FOP section. ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 15:21, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: ordinary building, nothing copyrightable Jcb (talk) 09:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Freedom of panorama (i.e taking pictures of buildings or anything which is protected by copyright) is not allowed in Qatar, FOP is allowed only for incidental inclusions (Not primary subject/de minimis) For more information see Current FOP situation. If the up-loader want's to challenge the existing interpretation available to commons, please raise a request at talk page of FOP section. ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 15:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: although this may be borderline Jcb (talk) 09:08, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Freedom of panorama (i.e taking pictures of buildings or anything which is protected by copyright) is not allowed in Qatar, FOP is allowed only for incidental inclusions (Not primary subject/de minimis) For more information see Current FOP situation. If the up-loader want's to challenge the existing interpretation available to commons, please raise a request at talk page of FOP section. ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 15:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: undefined Jcb (talk) 09:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Freedom of panorama (i.e taking pictures of buildings or anything which is protected by copyright) is not allowed in Qatar, FOP is allowed only for incidental inclusions (Not primary subject/de minimis) For more information see Current FOP situation. If the up-loader want's to challenge the existing interpretation available to commons, please raise a request at talk page of FOP section. ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 15:23, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: several buildings, although this might be borderline regarding the most prominent two buildings Jcb (talk) 09:11, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Source seems to be a thumb version of http://fr.sims.wikia.com/wiki/Fichier:Logo_Les_Sims_3_Animaux_%26_Cie.jpg but that file is fair use at wikia, not art libre licens. /Ö 15:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC) Ö 15:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: undefined Jcb (talk) 09:11, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Freedom of panorama (i.e taking pictures of buildings or anything which is protected by copyright) is not allowed in Qatar, FOP is allowed only for incidental inclusions (Not primary subject/de minimis) For more information see Current FOP situation. If the up-loader want's to challenge the existing interpretation available to commons, please raise a request at talk page of FOP section. ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 15:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: the FOP issue results in a weak keep, but combined with the lacking author information and the unclear combination of templates the total results in delete Jcb (talk) 09:15, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Freedom of panorama (i.e taking pictures of buildings or anything which is protected by copyright) is not allowed in Qatar, FOP is allowed only for incidental inclusions (Not primary subject/de minimis) For more information see Current FOP situation. If the up-loader want's to challenge the existing interpretation available to commons, please raise a request at talk page of FOP section. ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 15:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete No FOP in Qatar for modern buildings or art. --Leoboudv (talk) 01:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: although this might be borderline Jcb (talk) 09:17, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Freedom of panorama (i.e taking pictures of buildings or anything which is protected by copyright) is not allowed in Qatar, FOP is allowed only for incidental inclusions (Not primary subject/de minimis) For more information see Current FOP situation. If the up-loader want's to challenge the existing interpretation available to commons, please raise a request at talk page of FOP section. ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 15:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: all possible FOP issues are DM Jcb (talk) 09:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Freedom of panorama (i.e taking pictures of buildings or anything which is protected by copyright) is not allowed in Qatar, FOP is allowed only for incidental inclusions (Not primary subject/de minimis) For more information see Current FOP situation. If the up-loader want's to challenge the existing interpretation available to commons, please raise a request at talk page of FOP section. ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 15:27, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: the FOP issue may be borderline, but the picture itself has a copyright problem - I completely disagree with the careless way the OTRS ticket was processed Jcb (talk) 09:22, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Freedom of panorama (i.e taking pictures of buildings or anything which is protected by copyright) is not allowed in Qatar, FOP is allowed only for incidental inclusions (Not primary subject/de minimis) For more information see Current FOP situation. If the up-loader want's to challenge the existing interpretation available to commons, please raise a request at talk page of FOP section. ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 15:28, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: undefined Jcb (talk) 09:23, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Freedom of panorama (i.e taking pictures of buildings or anything which is protected by copyright) is not allowed in Qatar, FOP is allowed only for incidental inclusions (Not primary subject/de minimis) For more information see Current FOP situation. If the up-loader want's to challenge the existing interpretation available to commons, please raise a request at talk page of FOP section. ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 15:28, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: this image shows not sufficient of the originality of the building for FOP to be an issue, but that same argument makes this picture useless so out of scope Jcb (talk) 09:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Freedom of panorama (i.e taking pictures of buildings or anything which is protected by copyright) is not allowed in Qatar, FOP is allowed only for incidental inclusions (Not primary subject/de minimis) For more information see Current FOP situation. If the up-loader want's to challenge the existing interpretation available to commons, please raise a request at talk page of FOP section. ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 15:28, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep per de minimis. Image of skyline at night, not of any particular architecture. File should be renamed to "Doha skyline" to be more descriptive of the image (Sheraton is less than 5% of the image, and is only one of 6 larger buildings). --ELEKHHT 09:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- But the 6 building also copyrighted, If we cut six building from the picture, nothing will remain and its not de minimis...--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 04:05, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- With that logic nothing would be de minimis. However so far the consensus here has been that the image is judged as it is (no imaginary crops). --ELEKHHT 04:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- But the 6 building also copyrighted, If we cut six building from the picture, nothing will remain and its not de minimis...--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 04:05, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: per Elekhh Jcb (talk) 09:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Freedom of panorama (i.e taking pictures of buildings or anything which is protected by copyright) is not allowed in Qatar, FOP is allowed only for incidental inclusions (Not primary subject/de minimis) For more information see Current FOP situation. If the up-loader want's to challenge the existing interpretation available to commons, please raise a request at talk page of FOP section. ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 15:30, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: undefined Jcb (talk) 09:35, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Freedom of panorama (i.e taking pictures of buildings or anything which is protected by copyright) is not allowed in Qatar, FOP is allowed only for incidental inclusions (Not primary subject/de minimis) For more information see Current FOP situation. If the up-loader want's to challenge the existing interpretation available to commons, please raise a request at talk page of FOP section. ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 15:30, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: undefined Jcb (talk) 09:37, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
,_vista_des_del_cam%C3%AD_vell_de_montargull.jpg){kind=link}
,_vista_des_del_cam%C3%AD_vell_de_montargull.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Wrong filename. Redundant Netol (talk) 16:27, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep redundant of what? Checking Category:Santa Coloma de Queralt I see no alternative pictures. Netol, you can request renaming with {{Rename}}. MKFI (talk) 19:14, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: per MKFI Jcb (talk) 09:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
I dont know why "Douglife" claims copyright on this image and providing his own(?) website with an article created on day before the upload here as a reference. The image was not created by Douglife. It is photo and copyright by Chris Hatcher / PR Photos. See http://www.starpulse.com/Actors/Armstrong,_Curtis/gallery/CSH-011759/ and likely you will find the photo on PRP's website http://www.prphotos.com/ searching for CSH-011759 or simply Curtis Armstrong.
Uploading files to your own website or reusing them there is - if you not bought a license from PR photos - copyright violation or at best fair use although a credit for the copyright holder is missing. Uploading a photo to your own website does not make the photo yours, your work or gives you any rights on the photo, especially not the right to license the image to third parties for free reuse!
Same applies to the following files laundered via the same website:
- File:Citrus-county-cooter-festival.jpg, unfree logo with copyright by the organization
- File:Michael Rappaport.jpg, most likely taken from elsewhere on the internet
--Martin H. (talk) 17:16, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: undefined Jcb (talk) 09:43, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Logo of amateur football team. Taken from official website. Unlikely that it is "own work" and no copyright Miho (talk) 17:54, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: PD-ineligible Jcb (talk) 09:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
File:Instrumental Temperature Record.png has more updated data and is much better quality. Currently, no pages link to the file requested for deletion. Alquery (talk) 17:57, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: the 'better' version covers a shorter time span Jcb (talk) 09:46, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
http://www.hotfrog.co.uk/Companies/Gliese-IT seems to be a dead company (click the link there) and this logo was used for spam en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Josiefoxx76/Archive Saibo (Δ) 19:23, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Jcb (talk) 09:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that this is PD-ineligible. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:26, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- Threshold of originality is there ? The text is it not. And the Sign is very simple. --Fg68at de:Disk 19:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- A square is simple, the anti bit may be simple, and the characters may be individually fairly simple, but put together the sign is not at all simple. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: simple, although this might be borderline Jcb (talk) 09:49, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Registered_editor_badge_with_tildes.jpg move from here but not not credited to origilan uploader, Please delete it so we can moves to commons with commonshelper. Jayanta Nath (talk) 19:46, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: why don't you just fix the credits? Deletion is desturbing, because the usage will be deleted by CommonsDelinker in the meantime Jcb (talk) 09:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
image taken from a film - copyright violation without OTRS Cholo Aleman (talk) 19:48, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Jcb (talk) 09:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
bad puzzle. no educational content. Broc (talk) 19:55, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
This picture is not an educational content, this is a personal art work. It show an assembly of three famous kabylian. Thank you to reconsider your decision.--Mmistmurt (talk) 21:23, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- Please close. User image used on his page. --Broc (talk) 09:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: canceled by nominator Jcb (talk) 09:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
distorted map of India, and source is not defined Jayanta Nath (talk) 19:56, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 15:08, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
bad/distorted png version of File:2010-2011 Middle East and North Africa protests.svg Jayanta Nath (talk) 20:10, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Demmo (talk) 07:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 15:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
uploaded for testing purposes. AUKQ8 (talk) 21:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
uploaded for testing puposes AUKQ8 (talk) 21:10, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Incorrect, see dispute template. Correct alternatives available in Category:Celecoxib. Leyo 21:41, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete The chemical structure is incorrect. Ed (Edgar181) 11:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Yikrazuul (talk) 20:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
The pyrazole ring is likely aromatic, hence no distinct "double bond" positions (as in File:Celecoxib-3D-balls.png). There may be a "preferred" way (based on greatest electron densities). DMacks (talk) 20:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)But one nitrogen would have to be positively charged, the other negatively. IMHO the structure does not make much sense. --Leyo 21:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)Very good point. Yup, other pi-bond positions gives zero formal charge, which is certainly nice. DMacks (talk) 23:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)- To clarify, I withdraw my concern with the concerns, and now think Delete per nom. DMacks (talk) 18:19, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 15:10, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
highly likely not own work but work from and owned by the manufacturer, see also this link and this link Yann (talk) 22:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 15:11, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
2D work of art. Possibly copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. Unlikely uploader is author. FASTILY (TALK) 22:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
This photo is not of the Museum of Nature & Science in Dallas, but instead of something in Florida.
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 15:11, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Not the users own work, Therefore wrong license could be a PD simple though Good twins (talk) 22:47, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- Comment If the goal is to simply get the tag changed, I would have thought that a note to the uploader would have been preferable to a deletion nomination (with the latter approach to be used only if the former doesn't work). Having said that, it is perhaps not as simple as adding a {{PD-simple}} tag. These logos were discussed at Commons talk:Licensing/Archive 33#Pan Am Games 2015, and the discussion was inconclusive. Arguably the logos are copyrighted. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 10:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- I have change the tag. Intoronto1125 (talk) 14:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: tag has been fixed Jcb (talk) 15:16, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
While the conclusion of the last deletion discussion may or may not be correct, it would be helpful to have a discussion close that addresses the issues raised in the Commons talk:Licensing discussion and that doesn't suggest that a mistaken tag was the only problem. The closing admin is offline for a few weeks, so I am nominating again so we can have another look at this one (and its sister file File:2015parapanlogo.jpg). Skeezix1000 (talk) 23:22, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. The cited discussion ended up on the delete side, based on the relatively low threshold of the Candadian law. For the record, I think these would have copyright in the USA as well. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Not the users own work. So incorrect license. Could qualify for simple PD license though Good twins (talk) 22:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- I have commented at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Toronto2015.png, since the same issues are involved. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 11:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- I Have changed the tag. Intoronto1125 (talk) 14:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 15:17, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
While the conclusion of the last deletion discussion may or may not be correct, it would be helpful to have a discussion close that addresses the issues raised in the Commons talk:Licensing discussion and that doesn't suggest that a mistaken tag was the only problem. The closing admin is offline for a few weeks, so I am nominating again so we can have another look at this one (and its sister file File:Toronto2015.png). Skeezix1000 (talk) 23:23, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
not PD-old but copyvio from here Yann (talk) 22:52, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 15:22, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Spam/suspect flickr user. Due to the big logo on this Good twins (talk) 23:00, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep There is no spam, file has this logo or something which I don't know how to remove. Also, does it even matter if it has this logo, as this picture is of a notable person and in Creative Commons 2.0. It might be useful in many ways, like someone if make an article on Made in Hollywood then this file can show that Ashton Kutcher was interviewed in this show. Bill william comptonTalk 02:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- Note although flickr have the right license it does not mean that it is appropiate on here. There are many people who will copy things and upload with correct license on flickr, and that could be the issue here. Good twins (talk) 09:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: flickrwashing Jcb (talk) 15:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Wrong license. There is no text linked stating the logos can be used under FAL-license. We can discuss whether this is {{PD-textlogo}}.
RE rillke questions? 23:07, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: not pd-trivial, no permission rubin16 (talk) 11:23, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:29, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Files were deleted. INeverCry 00:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Sanggeunchoi (talk · contribs)
[edit]I doubt own work. We can discuss PD, if you want to.
RE rillke questions? 23:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete It has to be deleted immediately and also File:LG Optimus Black G Key.jpg--Sabri76 15:27, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: all uploads by this user. Wknight94 talk 15:52, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Images of Adriano Batista
[edit]- File:1072433.jpg
- File:621810.jpg
- File:670018.jpg
- File:710788.jpg
- File:Adriano Batista - Madame Bijou et Margot Coeur Gros.jpg
- File:Tutu 053f.jpg
- File:991694.jpg
These files, which are all in Category:Adriano Batista, have been uploaded by the same user. The uploader used "Adriano Batista" as author, so OTRS permission is required from this artist to host the images. ----ZooFari 23:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom, and besides I miss the project scope (commons is not a private gallary). --Yikrazuul (talk) 20:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:12, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
I doubt own work. The photo e.g. is published here http://www.flickr.com/photos/curiouslee/4307951004/ . But I don't think the flickr user is actually the author (looks like blanked the screen and cut off some other stuff - there is a frame). RE rillke questions? 23:52, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 15:28, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Useless, unused. Out of scope? --ZooFari 23:56, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- There are several related images to this one. None are in use. Bender2k14 (talk) 19:53, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom, even lacking cats Jcb (talk) 15:29, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
