Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2011/06/10
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
personal image, out of scope as it isn't used anywhere Broc (talk) 22:01, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Private image EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
A joke image, formerly used on user page, now not used anywhere. Out of scope. Broc (talk) 22:10, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. Béria Lima msg 15:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
A joke image, formerly used on user page, now not used anywhere. Out of scope. Broc (talk) 22:10, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. Béria Lima msg 15:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
A joke image, formerly used on user page, now not used anywhere. Out of scope. Broc (talk) 22:10, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. Béria Lima msg 15:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Incorrect geometry per dispute-tag (2 H on CH2 should be forward&backward not in plane of ring). File:Cycloheptatriene-3D-spacefill.png is equivalent level of detail and format with correct geometry DMacks (talk) 13:20, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Delete Per nom. --Yikrazuul (talk) 13:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)- Delete. File:Cycloheptatriene-3D-spacefill.png is correct one, see also Category:Cycloheptatriene. Materialscientist (talk) 06:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Ed (Edgar181) 00:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
low-quality (resolution and jagginess) unused, with text-labels that interfere with reuse; replaceable by File:Cycloheptatriene-Norcaradiene Rearrangement perspective.png DMacks (talk) 13:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. --Yikrazuul (talk) 13:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Keep. Used on pt.wiki without end-substitution. Portuguese captions in the image are a nuisance, but the old image version is w/o captions. One way around is to overwrite this file with a properly drawn one, like File:Cycloheptatriene-Norcaradiene Rearrangement perspective.png (captions could be added in the article). Materialscientist (talk) 06:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- Oops, somehow missed saving that one (captcha typo?--that's annoying!); pt.wiki use now replaced with the replacement image. DMacks (talk) 07:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Now unused, with replacement available. Ed (Edgar181) 00:38, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
broken image (looks blank to me both as various-sized rendered image and as svg rendered by browser) DMacks (talk) 02:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete It appears to be corrupted or damaged so that it doesn't display. ChemNerd (talk)
- Delete. I've tried it on Japanese PC and it doesn't display either. The code seems not "corrupted", but just way too short, as if a blank draft was saved. Materialscientist (talk) 07:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Blank. Yann (talk) 10:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused, can't see anything educational here. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 02:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete He could be the Matthew F. Hale, creator of a white separatist movement called Creativity, there is a wiki entry about him [1]. The others uploads of the user seem to confirm that. Anyway the picture is unusable for its size, moreover it's probably a copyviol. No exif.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 18:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 10:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused, too blurry to see anything educational here. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 02:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 10:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
unused private image - nice people , but out of scope of the commons Cholo Aleman (talk) 03:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 10:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 03:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 10:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 03:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 10:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Main subject of image is a copyrighted advertisement; not protected by COM:DM. Dream out loud (talk) 04:45, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. This is not simply an image of copyrighted material. It is a street scene in which the poster is incidental, albeit central. If the nominator's assertion was implemented, then every Commons photo that includes any kind of logo would have to be removed. Perhaps we can start by deleting images such as [2] as it contains a copyrighted design and company logo? WWGB (talk) 05:22, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. Per nomination. Obvious. -- Asclepias (talk) 05:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. obvious case. --Ben.MQ (talk) 01:41, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Derivative work. Yann (talk) 10:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
The name of the image makes me think it is taken from Facebook; copyright belongs to Facebook then, even if the photograph was originally taken by the uploader. Broc (talk) 07:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Facebook image. Yann (talk) 10:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
The name of the image makes me think it is taken from Facebook; copyright belongs to Facebook then, even if the photograph was originally taken by the uploader. Broc (talk) 07:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Facebook image. Yann (talk) 10:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
The name of the image makes me think it is taken from Facebook; copyright belongs to Facebook then, even if the photograph was originally taken by the uploader. Broc (talk) 07:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Facebook image. Yann (talk) 10:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
The name of the image makes me think it is taken from Facebook; copyright belongs to Facebook then, even if the photograph was originally taken by the uploader. Broc (talk) 07:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Facebook image. Yann (talk) 10:13, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
The name of the image makes me think it is taken from Facebook; copyright belongs to Facebook then, even if the photograph was originally taken by the uploader. Broc (talk) 07:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Facebook image. Yann (talk) 10:13, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
The name of the image makes me think it is taken from Facebook; copyright belongs to Facebook then, even if the photograph was originally taken by the uploader. Broc (talk) 07:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. --Hold and wave (talk) 22:28, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Facebook image. Yann (talk) 10:13, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
The name of the image makes me think it is taken from Facebook; copyright belongs to Facebook then, even if the photograph was originally taken by the uploader. Broc (talk) 07:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Facebook image. Yann (talk) 10:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
The name of the image makes me think it is taken from Facebook; copyright belongs to Facebook then, even if the photograph was originally taken by the uploader. Broc (talk) 07:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Facebook image. Yann (talk) 10:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
The name of the image makes me think it is taken from Facebook; copyright belongs to Facebook then, even if the photograph was originally taken by the uploader. Broc (talk) 07:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Facebook image. Yann (talk) 10:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Not realistically useful for an educational purpose. I99pema (talk) 08:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete it please, it is my own work. --Bin im Garten (talk) 13:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: In use on sv-wiki Lymantria (talk) 14:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Not realistically useful for an educational purpose. There are already much better quality pictures of the building I99pema (talk) 08:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- Agree. /Urbourbo (talk) 09:19, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - it's a good quality photo, it just happens to be tilted. Also, when saying we have better photos of the same thing, please give a link to those photos - are they from the same location, the same time of year, the same weather? -mattbuck (Talk) 09:45, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- I corrected the quality and the tilt of my original picture. So you should keep it. Hotel Diplomat is also on the following pictures: File:Strandvagen 5.JPG, File:Hotel Diplomat 2008a.jpg in Category:Strandvägen 7 - they are different, but are they really so much better? --Bin im Garten (talk) 13:51, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep good quality photo, the only other picture I can find that shows this same part of the building from a similar (but not identical) angle is File:Strandvägen 7 2010.JPG and it is not markedly (if at all) better. MKFI (talk) 20:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: No valid reason for deletion. Yann (talk) 10:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Not realistically useful for an educational purpose. There are already much better quality pictures of the building I99pema (talk) 08:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- Agree. /Urbourbo (talk) 09:20, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - it's a good quality photo, it just happens to be tilted. Also, when saying we have better photos of the same thing, please give a link to those photos - are they from the same location, the same time of year, the same weather? -mattbuck (Talk) 09:45, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- I corrected the quality and the tilt of my original picture. So you should keep it. Hotel Diplomat is also on the following pictures: File:Strandvagen 5.JPG, File:Hotel Diplomat 2008a.jpg in Category:Strandvägen 7- they are different, but are they really so much better? --Bin im Garten (talk) 13:51, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep good quality picture, and I can find no other pictures at all that would show a close-up of this same part (right wing) of the building from a similar angle (the other images are of the left wing File:Strandvägen 7 2010.JPG, from a different angle File:Hotel Diplomat 2008a.jpg or general shots of the building). MKFI (talk) 20:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC) 20:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: No valid reason for deletion. Yann (talk) 10:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Not realistically useful for an educational purpose. There are already much better quality pictures of the building I99pema (talk) 08:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- Agree. /Urbourbo (talk) 09:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - it's a good quality photo, it just happens to be tilted. Also, when saying we have better photos of the same thing, please give a link to those photos - are they from the same location, the same time of year, the same weather? -mattbuck (Talk) 09:45, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- I corrected the quality and the tilt of my original picture. So you should keep it. --Bin im Garten (talk) 13:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep after a quick check I found only a couple of other images of this building (File:Stockholm 2009 PD 174.JPG and File:Strandvagen 5.JPG), and neither of those are close-ups of this particular structure. Additionally this image is the only closeup of the midships and stack of Category:Stockholm (ship, 1931). MKFI (talk) 20:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: No valid reason for deletion. Yann (talk) 10:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Reuploaded with a new name for use on fr.wikisource.org. This one should be deleted. Sourinux (talk) 08:37, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Duplicate. Yann (talk) 10:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Claimed to be copyright William Willers Tony Wills (talk) 10:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC) This note posted to the help desk:
"Copyright problem with the image of the Centaur skeleton in Wiki Commons, posted by Sklmsta as public domain and copyright free, attributed to Skulls Unlimited. This photograph and the Centaur skeleton belong to the artist William Willers, who hired Skulls Unlimited to make this art object according to his specifications. It is not in the public domain. William Willers holds the copyright, not Sklmsta or Skulls Unlimited. Please remove this photo from Wiki Commons." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sufiji (talk • contribs)
I have submitted this as a deletion request, rather than a simple copyright-violation because I am not sure of the copyright status, and even copyrightability of this object. The idea of a Centaur is ancient myth/legend/folklore, it would appear that this object was assembled from two existing skeletons [3] at the direction of emeritus professor of biology Bill Willers. So where is the original creative component that attracts copyright? The idea of presenting a centaur as a skeleton? The idea of exactly how they connect two skeletons? The arrangement of the bones to look as though it is running? Is this just a classic case of {{Folklore}}?:
 |
The work depicted in this file may be considered "folklore" – or a traditional work of art. According to the copyright law of many countries, folkloric works are not protected by copyright, since they are neither works of fine art nor scientific works. The object shown therefore enjoys no copyright protection. Nevertheless, the photograph of this item may be copyrighted, and so this tag alone is not sufficient.
This tag does not indicate the copyright status of the attached work. A normal copyright tag is still required. See Commons:Licensing.
|
- Hmmm, I see Commons:Image_casebook#Folklore_and_Tradition is currently listed as only relevant to Germany, probably why I hadn't heard of it before ... in fact that section only just added anyway (no references), have I fallen for a hoax bigger than the Centaur Skeleton ;-) --Tony Wills (talk) 11:05, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- I appear to be talking to myself. I would like to know what the copyright status of reconstructions of 'real' animals and their skeletons is (probably documented somewhere).
Unfortunately I think this discussion is to be cut short by an obvious problem with this particular photograph - it appears to have been taken from a website skullsunlimited.com, and very unlikely to be uploaders own work, therefore I vote:-) --Tony Wills (talk) 11:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC) Delete
- Too fast for "talking to myself"... the subject definitely needs more attention. I asked the same question myself - if, according to "consensus", lifesize dinosaur puppets are "copyrighted" and deleted, then what about dinosaur skeletons? Some are reconstructed based on just a bunch of bones, others were more or less complete skeletons - but assembling them still involved "creative decisions": too many unknowns, too much uncertainty. "Don't tell a model builder that models aren't creative..." [4]. If a model of a peasant hut that stands across the street is "copyrighted" [5] ... then the same (at least!) should apply to reconstruction of something that no human ever saw in real life. It's a can of worms: were to draw the line between copyrighted Mickey Mouse, on one side, and a non-copyrighted frame of a living human recorded on X-ray film?
- One thing clear to me is that it is not folklore. NVO (talk) 12:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- Works of folklore (poetry, dance, costumes and so on) are usually not protected by law (on the basis that there are usually no identified authors, and the works are very old) ; explicit protection exists mostly in developing countries. However the issue isn't relevant here, as *representations* of centaurs are undoubtedly copyrighted if they're original. The problem here IMO is that it's conceptual art, which isn't very well protected by copyright law. Yet this very interesting debate will remain theoretical as, as you mention, the picture is lifted from a website.
Unless Sklmsta provides permission,. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 12:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC) Delete
- As the person who took the photo of the project that Skulls Unlimited was commissioned to build, I do not see how my image violates any copyright. I took this photo of the centaur skeleton at Skulls Unlimited. The way I understand it, the skeleton was commissioned by Willers and Skulls Unlimited provided the bones and built it. However, Willers wants to take the entire credit for its creation...despite centaurs being a popular fantasy character for hundreds of years. Even skeletal centaurs have been created in the form of toys and fantasy gaming miniatures. I really don't see how a photo, that I personally took, is a copyright violation. Would a photo of the Eiffel tower be a copyright violation? Even if he didn't actually construct it, at least Eiffel designed the tower from his own original idea. I'm not questioning ownership of the skeletal creation. Willers paid for it to be built and now owns the specimen. If I have a Jeep, pay a custom shop to do a custom paint job, add some detail work, etc. Does Chrysler no longer have the rights of it's design? Would I hold exclusive copyrights as the vehicles creator? Personally, I don't care if my photo is deleted. But I think this is more of an ego issue than a copyright violation issue. I will leave the decision of deletion or non-deletion of the image in the hands of the Wiki administrators.Sklmsta
- Thanks for the clarification about the status of your picture. Can you confirm that the work involved here was ‘only’ the assembling to preexisting skeletons? Jastrow (Λέγετε) 14:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- Sklmsta, in fact photos of the Eiffel Tower taken at night are copyvios, because its nighttime illumination is considered a separately copyrightable work on its own. See w:Eiffel Tower#Image copyright claims for details. (The original copyright on the tower has expired because Gustave Eiffel has been dead more than 70 years.) In this case, the centaur skeleton is in effect a sculpture by a still-living artist. A photograph of a sculpture is considered a derivative work of that sculpture and may be restricted by the sculpture's own copyright. In countries with freedom of panorama (like the countries of the EU), a photograph of a sculpture that's a permanent installation in a public place is not restricted by the sculptor's own copyright, so this photo of a permanently installed modern sculpture in Germany is acceptable. However, sculptures that are not permanently installed, or are in place that is not freely open to the public (basically, if it's indoors or on non-freely accessible private property) are not subject to freedom of panorama, so photographs of them are restricted by the sculpture's own copyright. In the U.S., there is no freedom of panorama, so photos of sculptures are restricted by the sculpture's own copyright, regardless of whether the sculpture is indoors or outdoors or installed permanently or temporarily. This skeleton appears to have been photographed indoors, so I don't think freedom of panorama is going to apply regardless of which country the photo was taken in. The only way the photo can be free of the sculpture's own copyright is if we decide that conjoining a partial human skeleton and a partial horse skeleton is not creative enough to meet the threshold of originality required for copyright protection. But I don't think we at Commons (not even those of us who are admins) can do that - it's a legal question and would probably have to be decided by a court in whatever jurisdiction the photo was taken in. To be on the safe side, I'm afraid I'm going to have to go with Delete, as it's possible the centaur skeleton is creative enough to be copyright-protected. —Angr 17:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- Angr, admins decide routinely in Deletion Requests whether objects pass the threshold of originality or not. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 18:47, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, but we routinely decide that for much more clear-cut cases than this one. IANAL, but I suspect even a judge would have to deliberate a lot evidence for a long time before deciding whether or not this item is a copyrightable piece of art. (And my entirely non-lawyer gut feeling is that an American judge would probably decide it is.) —Angr 09:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- My knowledge of the subject concerns French courts. I know they are reluctant to grant copyright protection to pieces of conceptual art. Take for instance Duchamp's famous Fountain: a standard, off-the-shelf urinal, simply put upside-down. It's widely recognised as an artwork and exhibited in a museum as such, yet it's not copyrighted. Artworks and original works of authorship are not necessarily the same in contemporary art. I don't know whether US courts follow that line of reasoning, but it seems rather sound. What we have to decide here is whether this centaur is a readymade or not. I agree the issue is complicated, and we will probably have to err on the side of caution. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 09:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, but we routinely decide that for much more clear-cut cases than this one. IANAL, but I suspect even a judge would have to deliberate a lot evidence for a long time before deciding whether or not this item is a copyrightable piece of art. (And my entirely non-lawyer gut feeling is that an American judge would probably decide it is.) —Angr 09:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- Angr, admins decide routinely in Deletion Requests whether objects pass the threshold of originality or not. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 18:47, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. Derivative of an original copyrighted unfree work. We need not concern us with the question of wether the original was a work for hire or not, and who of Willers or Skulls owns the copyright on it, because anyway it is owned by one or the other. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - The concept of joining a horse and man skeletons to make a centaur skeleton is most probably centuries old (I seem to recall to have seen something like that in renaissance paintings), and it's done all the time. Here a 2001 example, here is another in a museum, here is another someone did just for fun. The concept of joining the two skeletons is undoubtedly not copyrightable. About the particular bone arrangement, they represent normal movements of the body of both horse and man, and I doubt very much that a copyright could be granted on such things, since they are not original. Nothing there is original, IMO. The skill used by teh scientist who mounted the bones is not copyrightable as well, it's a technical thing. -- Darwin Ahoy! 22:36, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- Practice does not follow this logic. Usually, declaring something "a work of art" weighs far more than any logic constructs. Abstract art is just blobs of paint, and yet it is protected along with Mickey, Donald and Escher. And have you seen the Duchamp Fountain? Yes, it's just a urinal. But some prankster called it sculpture. So it is protected sculpture (the file is kept on commons owing to a fortunate coincidence of events, see its talk page). NVO (talk) 15:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- Maybe I have to thank my Hun ancestors for some of my tastes in art, but there are some things that I completely fail to understand how they have enough creative merit to deserve a copyright. There is an installation in the Gulbenkian museum of contemporaneous art in Lisbon featuring a dinning room with chairs, table and tableware in the exact style you find in every IKEA and furniture store, yet it is deemed a "work of art". I don't know how such a completely uncreative structure can be granted a copyright. Anyway, to the point: I agree that this particular case is not a simple one, since the bones arrangement has certainly some creativity. The point is that it is no more creative than taxidermied animal exhibitions, for instance. The angry otter of Bhubaneswar is as much creative as any bone arrangement.-- Darwin Ahoy! 16:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- NVO, I would like to see some case law about that, cf. my reply to Angr above. Copyright is about works; a readymade (or the centaur's sculpture in our case) is an idea. What you say is that artists have the power to grant copyright to anything as long as they call it art; I find it highly dubious. In comparison, the inventor must prove originality when they seek to file a patent. I have only small experience about US courts, but a quick research on the Web shows that, in the words of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, ‘not all conceptual art may be copyrighted’ (Chapman Kelley vs. Chicago Park District). Under French law, readymades are not protected by copyright, and there is a court decision about Duchamp's Fountain denying it protection (TGI Tarascon 20 November 1998). To my knowledge, UK law does not grant copyright to conceptual art either. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 17:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- Jastrow: You are precisely right that in real life the line between "any art is copyrighted" (statutory law) and "urinals aren't" (common sense) is drawn in courts, case by case. Some jurisdictions will then recognize court cases as lasting precedents, others will not. My point is, Commons discussions cannot substitute real-life legal practice and should not decide "is this art or not". If there are specific, uncontroversial laws or court precedents on the subject (thanks for digging the fountain ruling) then they trump anything said here. If not, precautionary principle prevails. NVO (talk) 06:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- My point is not to say we need decide what is art or not. My point is that art and copyrighted works are orthogonal concepts: most artworks are protected, but some are not; conversely works may be copyrighted that are not artworks. For instance not all photographs are protected by copyright, cf. our PD-Art policy. The US Copyright Act grants copyright protection to ‘original works of authorship’. How is a urinal you buy off the shelf an original work of authorship? In the court case I mentioned, the 7th Circuit didn't say the garden wasn't art. They stated that certain works of art stand outside of copyright protection. I agree we will probably have to apply the precautionary principle though Jastrow (Λέγετε) 18:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- Jastrow: You are precisely right that in real life the line between "any art is copyrighted" (statutory law) and "urinals aren't" (common sense) is drawn in courts, case by case. Some jurisdictions will then recognize court cases as lasting precedents, others will not. My point is, Commons discussions cannot substitute real-life legal practice and should not decide "is this art or not". If there are specific, uncontroversial laws or court precedents on the subject (thanks for digging the fountain ruling) then they trump anything said here. If not, precautionary principle prevails. NVO (talk) 06:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- Practice does not follow this logic. Usually, declaring something "a work of art" weighs far more than any logic constructs. Abstract art is just blobs of paint, and yet it is protected along with Mickey, Donald and Escher. And have you seen the Duchamp Fountain? Yes, it's just a urinal. But some prankster called it sculpture. So it is protected sculpture (the file is kept on commons owing to a fortunate coincidence of events, see its talk page). NVO (talk) 15:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Jastrow, Yes, the project required Skulls Unlimited to join two existing skeletons...that of a human torso and that of a zebra (had to be smaller than a horse). The specimen was then antiqued and made to look old.Sklmsta
- So we're saying basically a work of craftsmanship rather than a work of art. --Tony Wills (talk) 10:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: as per Sklmsta. Skeletons are not work of art. The idea of centaur cannot be copyrighted. Yann (talk) 10:25, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
This "Centaur of Tymfi" seen in the photo is part of a "history" that I began in 1984 with the "Centaur of Volos", a skeletal installation ( "archeological excavation" ) that ultimately was purchased by the University of Tennessee. You can find it by googling "University of Tennessee Centaur". I have photos of it in various stages of completion. At that time I drew an upright centaur skeleton in an action pose as a plan for a future piece. Having taught anatomy and learned that many people experience a subliminal "fleshing out" process, I thought that a centaur skeleton would make the creature "real" in a viewer's mind, at least momentarily. Incidentally, the Centaur of Volos showed in several states before going to UT, and was always presented as bona fide, as it is presented with an elaborate story line.
In 2008 I continued the story line with another centaur (Same fictional Greek archeological group). While I had been able to place bone within the "gravesite" of the Centaur of Volos, I thought the upright running skeleton would require the experience of a taxidermist to mount the bones based on the drawing. I supplied the human skeleton (from a biological supply house), and Skulls Unlimited supplied the skeleton of a zebra. Mounting was done as "work for hire", and when it was done, I hired a case maker as "work for hire" to make a museum case for it. Neither the taxidermist nor the case maker can claim to be "author", which would signify creator of the concept, as this the Centaur, although a physical object, would certainly qualify as "conceptual art". Note: When you see a bronze by, say, Picasso, it was made at a foundry by technicians from a wax or clay original. Nobody at the foundry can claim "authorship". While bone itself cannot, of course, be copyrighted, the story line or "history" is copyrighted (No. VAu 1-003-210, effective date July 23, 2010), and the skeleton is a part of the physical expression of the story.
When I found that Skulls Unlimited had posted the photo of the skeleton on their Skulls web page, I asked them to take it down, because finding an appropriate venue might take a long time, and I did not want it to have had earlier exposure. They took it down. Recently, though, I was informed of its having long since been added on Wiki's centaur page with linking to the Skulls website and to the page with a large photo shown as "public domain" and "author" as "Sklmsta".
I paid Skulls Unlimited with the understanding this was to be part of an installation artwork not to be publicized prematurely, which would undercut my efforts to find a show, but they have used it as a marketing tool. Recently, when I protested to Skulls about these postings on Wiki, I received this reply: "We have done what we can to get the thing off Wikipedia but it keeps coming back. Maybe if you complain that you own it that will convince them to take it down."
Of course this does not explain why it was posted in the first place. Actually, I don't know the legal details of such a situation. Also, a legal action would be beyond my financial ability at present. On the other hand I do understand ethics, and Skulls Unlimited/Sklmsta has, in my view, acted in bad faith, and I would prefer that the photo be removed of the five (or more?) Wiki pages where it is now seen. Bill Willers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willers1938 (talk • contribs)
- As the deletion request is closed, I will reply on your talk page: User_talk:Willers1938 --Tony Wills (talk) 01:16, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Unused seems to be a copyvio of a book Good twins (talk) 11:03, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. Not as much vio of a book, but of two commercial animated characters and their "stuffed" incarnations. NVO (talk) 12:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Derivative work. Yann (talk) 10:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
106.134.197.9 13:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep; In use, no deletion reason given.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:16, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: No valid reason for deletion. Yann (talk) 10:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
In don't think that the copyrighted photograph is de minimis here. Leyo 14:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: DW - copyvio Lymantria (talk) 14:04, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:46, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 10:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Information is missing, seems stolen from egemen.kz ... photo not yet in PD Otourly (talk) 17:42, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: by Martin H. Yann (talk) 10:33, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
its duplicate Gilbertana (talk) 18:04, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: by Fastily. Yann (talk) 10:33, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
probable copyvio Broc (talk) 21:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Definitvely a copyviol. Look at the encircled C at the bottom of the main page of the source. Missing permission, at least.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 00:08, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. Yann (talk) 10:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
small picture, not realistically useful Broc (talk) 22:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep It's in use on 8 Wikis. It obviously is realistically useful, since it's being realistically used. Please don't nominate pictures for deletion as unuseful if they're actually being used.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:10, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: In use Yann (talk) 10:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
False license - author is unknown, picture was taken in 1950. --Ds02006 (talk) 10:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- Update uncorrect nomination. Art-top (talk) 22:33, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Comment Invalid source, either.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 23:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. Yann (talk) 10:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Small size, low quality picture of an unknown asian guy. Not in use. Out of scope. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 23:01, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 10:42, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Private picture of unknown japanese girl. Invalid source given. Not in use. Unique contrib of the user. Out of scope. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 23:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. Yann (talk) 10:42, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Private picture of unknown thai woman. Not in use. Out of scope. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 23:20, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 10:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Private shot of a thai family. Not in use. Out of scope. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 23:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 10:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Headshot of unknwon thai boy. Not in use. Out of scope. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 23:22, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 10:44, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
private picture of unknown thai woman. Not in use. Out of scope. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 23:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 10:44, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Private picture of a thai boy with a big smile. Not in use. Out of scope. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 23:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 10:44, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
unused image of an unknown band - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 03:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per COM:SCOPE. --ZooFari 21:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
self promotional. Not realistically useful, it's just a table. Broc (talk) 10:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted --ZooFari 22:22, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
self promotional. Not realistically useful, it's just a table. Broc (talk) 10:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted --ZooFari 22:22, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
self promotional and without educational content Broc (talk) 10:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted --ZooFari 22:22, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
self promotional and without educational content Broc (talk) 10:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted --ZooFari 22:22, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
self promotional and without educational content Broc (talk) 10:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted --ZooFari 22:22, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
self promotional and without educational content Broc (talk) 10:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted --ZooFari 22:22, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
self promotional and without educational content Broc (talk) 10:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted --ZooFari 22:22, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
self promotional and without educational content Broc (talk) 10:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted --ZooFari 22:22, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
self promotional and without educational content Broc (talk) 10:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted --ZooFari 22:22, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
self promotional and without educational content Broc (talk) 10:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted --ZooFari 22:22, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
self promotional and without educational content Broc (talk) 10:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted --ZooFari 22:22, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
self promotional and without educational content Broc (talk) 10:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted --ZooFari 22:23, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Unused personal artwork Good twins (talk) 11:01, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. --ZooFari 22:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Small unused logo Good twins (talk) 11:02, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted --ZooFari 22:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Unused logo Good twins (talk) 11:03, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No evidence of permission. --ZooFari 21:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Unused logo/poster Good twins (talk) 11:04, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope. --ZooFari 21:55, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Unused logo Good twins (talk) 11:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope, no permission. --ZooFari 22:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Unused logo Good twins (talk) 11:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. --ZooFari 22:13, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I will upload new version under better licence (most free licence) 95.223.53.72 12:19, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep You can change the license on this one, or upload a new image without deleting this one.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:16, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Now located here: File:Htc7proqwertz.jpg --ZooFari 22:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
unused logo Good twins (talk) 12:20, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Unused logo of unknown (presumably non-notable) organization. --ZooFari 21:45, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Unused logo Good twins (talk) 12:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Logo of non-notable website and no permission. --ZooFari 21:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
another identical file with name "1000 triangles...." instead of "thousand triangles... exists Lsalgo (talk) 12:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Duplicate of File:1000 triangles packed in rectangle.pdf --ZooFari 21:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Neither Japan nor the US have a suitable FOP exception for 2D works. 84.62.193.111 12:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- Why do we need FOP here, the main object in this image is the aircraft, not the Pokemons ?!? --Denniss (talk) 14:03, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- I have to agree; the plane itself is what has been photographed. It is not an illustration of Pikachu, but a plane with his likeness on the side. Scapler (talk) 15:39, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- I also agree, the image is the airplane, not the Pokemon even though they are objects of interest. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 17:03, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- I have to agree; the plane itself is what has been photographed. It is not an illustration of Pikachu, but a plane with his likeness on the side. Scapler (talk) 15:39, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- Just a small comment regarding licensing issues: images of the aircraft as a whole are fine, derivative works focussing on the Pokemons not. --Denniss (talk) 00:34, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: per above comments Jcb (talk) 15:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Pokemon can't be de minimis here. Yann (talk) 09:27, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep, INUSE, there is already a COM:DM tag on the page, and (quote) we can't find a court case of a similar photo in fact being ruled derivative -- we do have rulings where it was not(unquote). –Be..anyone 💩 17:19, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep: As explained in the previous deletion nomination discussion, the photo is of the aircraft in general and does not focus on individual Pokemon illustrations, so the de minimis exemption applies here. --DAJF (talk) 23:20, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, per discussion. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:24, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Smells like a copyvio to me - low res, strange angle, no metadata... -mattbuck (Talk) 12:51, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Is this even him? The guy in the pic looks Asian
Deleted: per reasonable suspicion. --ZooFari 21:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
my finger slipped and the file uploaded before I had typed a real file name Marrante (talk) 13:01, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Now located here: File:Clementine Hunter mural at African House - Wedding.jpg --ZooFari 21:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Doubtful authorship. Professional photos are uploaded in a fairly low resolution, without exif. These photos - the only user's contribution. Art-top (talk) 21:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per reasonable suspicion. --ZooFari 22:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
There is not description, not used, no idea what the image represents Traumrune (talk) 22:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete According to the title it should be a waterpipe. But I don't see how. It looks like a jest. Unless someone will explain us the subject of this pic. This way, it's, for me, unusable. --Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 23:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 15:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
The picture is in use on arabic Wiki and, in the description, is claimed as own work. But there are no exif and the picture is watermarked with an arabic site address. I don't speak arabic so everything get more difficult but, to me, it looks like a copyviol. Unless I miss something. Very probably, indeed. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 22:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No OTRS permission as required by source. --ZooFari 22:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Self shot picture of unknown asian guy. Not in use. Out of scope. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 22:59, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. The file is also uploaded here. Seem to be the founder of that website (can't really read japanese). However doesn't seem to return many results when I searched his name --Ben.MQ (talk) 01:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: non-notable subject. --ZooFari 22:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Same unknown asian guy dresses as Mario Bros brother. Not in use. Out of scope. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 23:00, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted --ZooFari 21:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
it is a scan of a legal document i meant to upload only for temporary Daniel Christensen (talk) 23:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per uploader's request. --ZooFari 22:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Self promotional logo of a thai company. Their edit on thai wikipedia was deleted. Not in use. Self promotion. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 23:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted --ZooFari 21:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Pomotional banner of that thai company wich edit was deleted on thai wiki. Not in use. Self promotion. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 23:20, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted --ZooFari 21:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Low resolution picture of a group of thai guys. A couple of them with a kalashnikov gun. Not in use. No apparent illustrative or educational purpose. Out of scope. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 23:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. --ZooFari 22:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Private picture of a thai guy. I guess a geologist from the company mentioned above. Lorw resolution. No educational or illustrative purpose in sight. Not in use. Out of scope. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 23:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nominator. --ZooFari 22:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
The name of the image makes me think it is taken from Facebook; copyright belongs to Facebook then, even if the photograph was originally taken by the uploader. Broc (talk) 07:54, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Already deleted (not by me). 99of9 (talk) 11:49, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
and File:RaymondCounciler.jpg. Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: it looks like the user has decided they are not notable [6] 99of9 (talk) 12:32, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
performance of a local band, bad picture, not realistically useful. Broc (talk) 07:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 15:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to by own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No source, no permission. Yann (talk) 14:16, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to by own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No source, no permission. Yann (talk) 14:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
and File:Edgar Tekere Youth.jpg. Unlikely to by own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:47, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No source, no permission. Yann (talk) 14:16, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
- File:Ветерок и Уголёк1.png
- File:Ветерок и Уголек2.png - with watermark
- File:Ветерок и Уголек3.jpg
- File:Ветерок и Уголек4.png
- File:Ветерок и Уголёк5.png
- File:Ветерок и Уголёк6.png - with watermark
Doubtful authorship. Historical photos (soviet dog-astronauts, flight in 1966) uploaded in low resolution. All can be found through Google. Art-top (talk) 07:33, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 22:03, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
bad image, not realistically useful Broc (talk) 22:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Unused, bad quality, and we have plenty of alternatives. --Yikrazuul (talk) 14:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - this is pretty good in thumbnail, just low res is an issue. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep High quality images like this will rise reputation of commons to unforeseen levels! A must-have for every site which wants to be taken seriously! -- smial (talk) 22:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- What exactly do you refer to "high quality"? --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete I think it's low quality even in thumbnail. Unlikely to find an educational use. --99of9 (talk) 12:30, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
- We don't have anything else quite like it though. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom--Hold and wave (talk) 10:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Tough one. I can't decide... --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 09:02, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Jcb (talk) 22:06, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Lowest quality penis image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 12:17, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- Delete --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 15:08, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted. INeverCry 01:51, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Low quality COM:PENIS Dronebogus (talk) 18:15, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 18:02, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Commons:Nudity#New uploads of penis photo, not special enough to be educationally useful A1Cafel (talk) 05:00, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; out of focus penis selfie. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:43, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
The deletion request was accidental, the picture should not be deleted, only the duplicate copies! - And now I do not know how to remove the deletion request. I uploaded the picture. Later, when trying to enter a caption and category I accidentally requested deletion of the file in order to reload with corrections. While trying to correct that mistake, I must have caused even one more copy to appear. The picture is OK, as it was meant to be and as it now appears in the article with the same name. But when doubleclicking to see the picture full size, the red frame announcing "deletion requested" appears and three identical versions of the picuture are shown. I should appreciate some help in achieving the necessary correction so that the picture remains, but the copies and these remarks can be removed.Yngvar)¨¨¨¨
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:36, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
This appears to be a photoshopping of the real logo of the EUFA Champions League, to make some fictional logo of some kind. Copyright violation, and not in scope. Courcelles (talk) 21:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, it's the photoshopping of the real logo, but it's a essential part of the article where is included. If this file is pernicious to Commons, it's Ok, delete it. But if it's not, I will very pleased if you don't. Thank you.--Rockercat29 (talk) 03:23, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but you can't take someone else's work, that is copyrighted, modify it slightly, and then release it under a free licence- the EUFA still holds the copyright over this image. Courcelles (talk) 01:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: obvious copyvio Trycatch (talk) 15:43, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to be work of the author; maybe it is a scanned picture... Broc (talk) 09:57, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Also deleting File:Tracy emblem.jpg, File:ALathamStaplesESF.jpg, and File:ALathamStaples.jpg for similar reasons. Pretty apparent that uploader is just grabbing pics wherever s/he can find them. Wknight94 talk 15:31, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
No COM:FOP#Japan. The sculpture was made in 1959, the sculptor Ando Takeshi (ja:安藤士) is alive, so still in copyright. --Vantey (talk) 00:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know that a copyright subsisted in this statue. Please delete it immediately if I infringe a copyright.--Reggaeman (talk) 11:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:19, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
This is a painting by Etienne Sandorfi. There is no evidence that permission was obtained by the uploader (the file was uploaded after Sandorfi's death) NotFromUtrecht (talk) 09:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Also the following may need to be deleted for the same reason:
- File:Etienne Sandorfi.jpg
- File:Copie de Sans titre - 7.jpg
- File:Nature Morte au coton tige.jpg
- File:Safi.jpg
- Delete all. Author passed away in 2007, also permission shown. Ben.MQ (talk) 01:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
It is mentioned in the description that this file is for "For non-commercial and educational purposes only. Furthermore this is a DW, because Paul Meltsner died in 1966. Lymantria (talk) 17:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. I wrote that in there and can delete that part of the description. The use on Wikimedia Commons is consistent with the permission granted by the copyright policies of the source (NPG).314editor (talk) 17:41, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- Well, IMHO NPG tells another story. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 15:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: NPG has had differing views of PD-art than Commons, but even by Commons' policies, this art is not yet in the public domain (less than 70 years since author's death). – Adrignola talk 18:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to by own work: small resolution. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. – Adrignola talk 21:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Such low resolution makes me suspect a copyright violation. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 12:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to by own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:47, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. – Adrignola talk 17:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to by own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. – Adrignola talk 17:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
and other uploads by Grendel93 (talk · contribs). Unlikely to by own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:51, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. – Adrignola talk 18:07, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
and other uploads by Mtellioglu (talk · contribs). Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:51, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. – Adrignola talk 18:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Uploader requests deletion. Used on 2 projects. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete in my opinion, it's a reasonable request. Trycatch (talk) 02:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: File size makes it doubtable that it's the uploader's work. Even so, it's only used on a user page and in a general image gallery at simple.wp, therefore we can honor this request. – Adrignola talk 18:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
According to Template talk:PD-USGov-DOE, the Oak Ridge National Laboratory produces non-free works Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Only noncommercial use permitted by Oak Ridge. – Adrignola talk 15:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
unliely to be own work Broc (talk) 10:54, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. – Adrignola talk 21:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
One of the persons in the photo ask me to do it. Kippelboy (talk) 11:52, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- If the requester is User:Multichill, I would be interested to see a comment on this. If I'm not mistaken, he has been fairly vocal on Commons *not* requiring the consent of the subject. (And this image appears to be a public event, so it does not currently meet the criteria in COM:PEOPLE.) --99of9 (talk) 12:15, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
- No, the requester is the other person, from the organisation of the event.--Kippelboy (talk) 07:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks for answering. Personally, I favour Delete when it's a non-notable person, they don't consent to publication, and the image is not in use. --99of9 (talk) 09:21, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks for answering. Personally, I favour
Deleted. – Adrignola talk 16:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
One of the persons that appear in the photo asked me to do it. Kippelboy (talk) 11:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- Comment If the requester is User:Multichill, I would be interested to see a comment on this. If I'm not mistaken, he has been fairly vocal on Commons *not* requiring the consent of the subject. (And this image appears to be a public event, so it does not currently meet the criteria in COM:PEOPLE.) --99of9 (talk) 12:15, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
- No, the requester is the other person, from the organisation of the event.--Kippelboy (talk) 07:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks for answering. Personally, I favour Delete when it's a non-notable person, they don't consent to publication, and the image is not in use. --99of9 (talk) 09:22, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks for answering. Personally, I favour
- No, the requester is the other person, from the organisation of the event.--Kippelboy (talk) 07:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. – Adrignola talk 16:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
no evidence of permission. Is it PD-text? or does the negative space text g not qualify? Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Could be text logo with geometric shape, but uploaded only for the purposes of advertising. – Adrignola talk 16:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
no evidence of permission at www.chahal.com Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. – Adrignola talk 16:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- Doubtful authorship. Part of images from official site of vodka. Art-top (talk) 21:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- File:Ikonvodka.jpg - copyvio
- File:Russian vodka bottle.jpg - low resolution for own work
- File:Russianvodkad.jpg - copyvio (click to "Gallery")
- File:Ikon3shota.jpg - uncropped version (link form this page)
Deleted. – Adrignola talk 17:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
No proof given that this picture is in public domain. The uploader, as source, gives his own website. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 19:41, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Unclear provenance. – Adrignola talk 19:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Stupidly small. No source seems to be a copy vio thing Good twins (talk) 11:00, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- Too simple, thus ineligible for copyright protection. NVO (talk) 12:13, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete I do agree that it is too small and lacking use and info for too long. Missvain (talk) 04:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Unusable, out of project scope. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 13:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Low quality for own work, looks like a picture from internet. In description indicated this author: А. В. Гедымин (A. V. Gedymin). Art-top (talk) 07:45, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- delete. If Gedymin was the sole author, then: Gedymin was born in 1908 and most active in 1940s-1950s (I cannot locate the year of his death right now). Not PD. If there were others involved: author unknown - Not PD either. NVO (talk) 11:53, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- leave. Image scanned from a book. Гедымин - compiler maps, and found and scanned from the book of his I. Титов Алексей
Deleted. Ben.MQ (talk) 13:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Taro and Jiro statues
[edit]No COM:FOP#Japan. The sculpture was made in 1985, still in copyright. --Vantey (talk) 00:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:19, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
The reproduction on flickr was created March 2006... The photo is from the early 1990s or even late 1980s, somewhere around the Honey, I Shrunk the Kids time. Just compare his appearance February 2006, 2004 and 2002. Photo of a magazine or similar content, derivative of someone else work. Martin H. (talk) 02:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- I link here these opinions. --RanZag (talk) 09:36, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 16:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Found at higherresolution at https://imgur.com/gallery/yyNTSN8, unlikely to have been shot in 2006 Patrick Rogel (talk) 12:45, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Patrick Rogel: no, the resolution of that image is not higher than the Flickr image. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:46, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
- Lauren Brown claims she took this photo. The photo before it says "Did you just see Rick Moranis?, suggesting she attended some event or performance with Rick? Lauren appears to have been quite young in 2006. So if this photo is considered to have been taken in the early 90s, Lauren couldn't have taken it. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:58, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
- Comment The photo of the youth at the second photo is not stated to be a selfie nor photo of the Flickr user; doesn't look much like the profile photo to me. Anything else specifically to say she was too young to have taken photos in the 1990s? Thanks. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:02, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Infrogmation: Indeed, Lauren Brown may be the mother of one of the young girls pictured. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 18:40, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
- Comment, okay looking at photos of Rick Moranis, this clearly shows him younger than he was in 2006. I suspect this may be a derivative work (photo of a photo) by the Flickr photographer; I have asked them for clarification on Flickr both on the photo page and Flickr message, however the Flickr user appears to have been inactive for several years. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:15, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
- Agree with @Infrogmation: Moranis seems to be very young. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 19:48, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
- Delete I note that this is the same photo from the same source previously deleted. Likely derivative work. (If I hear back anything convincing from the Flickr user I can propose undeletion, but that seems unlikely.) -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:20, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: i seriously doubt this was taken in 2006, and it clearly doesn't match style and look of other uploads by the Flickr user. Likely COM:LL. P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:33, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[2]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Obama_Steelers.jpg){kind=link}
![[4]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3ADeletion_requests%2FFile%3ADornier_Do_X_-_Modell.JPG&action=historysubmit&diff=50158371&oldid=49347583){kind=link}
![[5]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Gorki-izba-3028.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Oct_2010.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
does not meet project scope, see also com:people smial (talk) 23:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete Wichsvorlage, kein enzyklopädischer Hintergrund erkennbar. --ST ○ 00:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - Work by notable artist so in scope. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete kein enzyklopädischer Hintergrund erkennbar. --Ra Boe (talk) 01:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete As the artist got relevance on WP as painter this photo, like his others, is - prooved also by the non-professional setting and technique - his hobbyist photos. Or shall we now illustrate prominent persons with their dogs and paintings? --Martina Nolte (talk) 02:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment COM:PEOPLE has nothing to do with it, as that applies only to images of identifiable people. This is not identifiable. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete No educational or encyclopedic value --KS aus F (talk) 14:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Work by notable photographer so seems likely to have an educational value and as a photographer I would expect anyone who poses for him to not have any expectation of privacy so I don't consider this image to be an unreasonable intrusion. It doesn't appear that the individual is identifiable anyway. Adambro (talk) 14:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep not identifiable. & work by artist (who is also a photographer) + illustration of female genitalia + a sexual pratice (ice stimulation) therefore in the scope. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 17:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep As for as I can tell COM:PEOPLE is about identifiable people. Can anyone please tell me where you can see an identifiable person on this picture??? Because I can't.--Lamilli (talk) 22:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete No encyclopedic or historic value. Just because it's the work of a "known" artist doesn't mean it has value to society in this image archive. Raeky (talk) 19:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Kept 2 times before (see hereand no new or valid reasons given for deletion. So it has to be kept again. Author is notable artist, so it is in scope. ChristianBier (talk) 21:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Nude photo 203.17.70.161 03:00, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Speedy Keep; nominator gives no reason to delete this file.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:05, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- not any censorship: Keep dontworry (talk) 05:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Speedy kept - not a valid reason for deletion. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:42, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Seems to be just plain porno and completely outside the project scope. You can rub your genitals with anything; how is this special? 68.173.113.106 19:16, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Kept as per every time before - like him or not, Klashorst is a notable artist, and thus his photos are within scope. Not saying they're special, but they are within scope. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:33, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Low quality for own work, looks like a picture from internet. Art-top (talk) 07:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Note
[edit]
This image was scanned from a book Титов Алексей
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 22:03, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Aizhanka_aaa (talk · contribs)
[edit]The uploader claims to be the author and copyright holder of all their uploads. This seems highly unlikely.
- File:Богра Хан.jpg
- File:Богдо-ола жотасы.jpg
- File:Бобслей.jpg
- File:Летучая мышь.jpg
- File:Блюминг.jpg
- File:Блюм.jpg
- File:Блок Александр Александрович.jpg
- File:Блиндаж.jpg
- File:Бияшев Ғақаш Закиұлы.jpg
- File:Перчатки.jpg
- File:Высота в музыке.jpg
- File:Высота для геогрфии2.jpg
- File:Высота астаномии.jpg
- File:Высота куба.jpg
- File:Горы казахстана.jpg
- File:Биікжал.jpg
- File:Бишімбаев Уәлихан Қозыкеұлы.jpg
- File:Бишік.jpg
- File:БИШІ.jpg
- File:Бишофит.jpg
- File:Бичурин Никита Яковлевич.jpg
- File:Бихар.jpg
- File:Одежда разная.jpg
- File:Биссектриса.jpg
- File:Бискай шағанағы.jpg
- File:Бисенов Қылышбай.jpg
- File:Бисен.jpg
- File:Бирюза.jpg
- File:Биржа.jpg
- File:Био.jpg
- File:Биоэнергетика.jpg
- File:Атомы и молекулы.jpg
- File:Биоценология.jpg
- File:Биоциноз.jpg
—LX (talk, contribs) 10:19, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Note that instead of participating in this discussion, the uploader proceeded to upload additional files with unlikely authorship claims:
- File:Больной актимикозом.jpg
- File:История казахстана.jpg
- File:Боден Жан.jpg
- File:БОДУЭН ДЕ КУРТЕНЭ.jpg
- File:Боев Сергей.jpg
- File:Боза сусын.jpg
—LX (talk, contribs) 11:40, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Same case as in Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Ekontai, with the only difference that Aizhanka_aaa creates articles in kk.wp in alphabetical order starting at BI (=БИ) and BO and the other case was MO. You can not just copy images from random sources and upload them here. If you want to illustrate your (if it is even your) new article you must look out for public domain or freely licensed images, you must provide the source of the file and the files author, thats the photographer or painter or illustrator. Closed here and uploader blocked to stop this. Martin H. (talk) 12:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Collages of Jgb.jaime
[edit]- File:Escudo Simancas.png
- File:Escudo Mudarra.png
- File:Escudo MRioseco.png
- File:Escudo MMarqués.png
- File:Escudo Iscar.png
- File:Escudo Ciguñuela.png
- File:Escudo Cigales.png
- File:Escudo Cabezón.png
- File:Escudo Boecillo.png
- File:Escudo Bercero.png
- File:Escudo Aldeamayor.png
Reasons for deletion request:
They are collages including the main part of a coat of arms copied from http://www.vexilologia.es/valladol/va_e_01.htm. --LMLM (talk) 10:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept by Jim, I guess because the drawing at the linked page is different - Jcb (talk) 16:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Collages of Jgb.jaime
[edit]- File:Escudo Simancas.png - from http://www.vexilologia.es/valladol/escudosp/simancas.gif
- File:Escudo Mudarra.png - from http://www.vexilologia.es/valladol/escudosp/mudarra.gif
- File:Escudo MRioseco.png - from http://www.vexilologia.es/valladol/escudosp/medinari.gif
- File:Escudo MMarqués.png - from http://www.vexilologia.es/valladol/escudosp/motamarq.gif
- File:Escudo Iscar.png - from http://www.vexilologia.es/valladol/escudosp/iscar.gif
- File:Escudo Ciguñuela.png - from http://www.vexilologia.es/valladol/escudosp/ciguenye.gif
- File:Escudo Cigales.png - from http://www.vexilologia.es/valladol/escudosp/cigales.gif
- File:Escudo Cabezón.png - from http://www.vexilologia.es/valladol/escudosp/cabezon.gif
- File:Escudo Boecillo.png - from http://www.vexilologia.es/valladol/escudosp/boecillo.gif
- File:Escudo Bercero.png - from http://www.vexilologia.es/valladol/escudosp/bercero.gif
- File:Escudo Aldeamayor.png - from http://www.vexilologia.es/valladol/escudosp/aldeamay.gif
Can't understand why those files were kept, as no real explanation was given for the decision. They look like simple cases of copies. Clearly copied from the works of http://www.vexilologia.es. The fact that someone pasted another image on top of those images doesn't change that. Also, the uploader apparently felt some remorse since the last DR, because he changed the source information to "Google images" instead of "own" [7]. Someone tagged the files for speedy deletion but they've been sitting there for some time. Perhaps that's because of the existence of the previous DR. So, if that's the reason and we're just waiting for someone to open another DR, then here it is, although I agree that those files can be speedy deleted. -- Asclepias (talk) 03:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
![[7]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Escudo_Simancas.png&diff=66520803&oldid=56742089){kind=link}
Deleted I can't find any reason why I kept these last July, particularly without closing the DR, but I agree that they look like {{Speedy}} so I am doing now what I should have done then. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
This map is very similar to maps included in Jean Sellier, Atlas des peuples d'Asie méridionale et orientale, La Découverte, Paris, 2008, ISBN 978-2-7071-5425-5. I have the 2008 edition and the maps in this book are very similar, but not exactly the same. I suspect this image is maybe a scan from an older edition (2001 or 2004). Moreover, the uploader wrote "Spiridon Manoliu d'après Anne Le Fur". Anne Le Fur is the cartographer of the above-mentioned book. Hence the uploader acknowledge this is, if not a simple scan, at least a derivative work of copyrighted material. BrightRaven (talk) 15:59, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- Sure is similar : I worked before 2000 for La Découverte. I scan my old first essays & maquettes. But this map are no present in any edition of this Atlas, you can verify. Anne le Fur knows my uploads.--Spiridon MANOLIU (talk) 18:05, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- You are not credited in my edition of the book. (Spiridon Ion Cepleanu seems to be your real name.) The cartographers credited are: Bertrand de Brun, Anne Le Fur and AFDEC. On the website of AFDEC, Bertrand de Brun et Anne Le Fur are mentioned, but you are not mentioned either. There are two problems:
- Who is the author of this map? Is it you alone? Anne Le Fur alone? Both? If Anne Le Fur is author or co-author, you have to get her authorization via OTRS.
- You claimed that you worked for La Découverte. If this is the case, you signed an edition contract. Please note art. L. 132-8 of the French code of intellectual property ("code de la propriété intellectuelle") : "L'auteur doit garantir à l'éditeur l'exercice paisible et, sauf convention contraire, exclusif du droit. Il est tenu de faire respecter ce droit et de le défendre contre toutes atteintes qui lui seraient portées." Consequently, unless your contract (and/or Anne Le Fur's) states otherwise, you do not have the right to publish derivative works of the illustration published by La Découverte according to the French law. BrightRaven (talk) 10:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- You are not credited in my edition of the book. (Spiridon Ion Cepleanu seems to be your real name.) The cartographers credited are: Bertrand de Brun, Anne Le Fur and AFDEC. On the website of AFDEC, Bertrand de Brun et Anne Le Fur are mentioned, but you are not mentioned either. There are two problems:
- Yes I'm not credited for the published maps. I can use (and upload) only NOT published maps. I was a "nègre" for this (and other) teams (not for a person, as Anne Le Fur or Bertrand de Brun). My "brouillons" are only a part of the work. Final versions (published) separe these countries and are worked with other informatic applications.--Spiridon MANOLIU (talk) 17:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: copyright situation remained unclear Jcb (talk) 16:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
This map is very similar to maps included in Jean Sellier, Atlas des peuples d'Asie méridionale et orientale, La Découverte, Paris, 2008, ISBN 978-2-7071-5425-5. I have the 2008 edition and the maps in this book are very similar, but not exactly the same. I suspect this image is maybe a scan from an older edition (2001 or 2004). BrightRaven (talk) 16:04, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- Sure is similar : I worked before 2000 for La Découverte. I scan my old first essays & maquettes. But this map is not present in any edition of this Atlas, you can verify. Anne le Fur knows my uploads.--Spiridon MANOLIU (talk) 18:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- You are not credited in my edition of the book. (Spiridon Ion Cepleanu seems to be your real name.) The cartographers credited are: Bertrand de Brun, Anne Le Fur and AFDEC. On the website of AFDEC, Bertrand de Brun et Anne Le Fur are mentioned, but you are not mentioned either. There are two problems:
- Who is the author of this map? Is it you alone? Anne Le Fur alone? Both? If Anne Le Fur is author or co-author, you have to get her authorization via OTRS.
- You claimed that you worked for La Découverte. If this is the case, you signed an edition contract. Please note art. L. 132-8 of the French code of intellectual property ("code de la propriété intellectuelle") : "L'auteur doit garantir à l'éditeur l'exercice paisible et, sauf convention contraire, exclusif du droit. Il est tenu de faire respecter ce droit et de le défendre contre toutes atteintes qui lui seraient portées." Consequently, unless your contract (and/or Anne Le Fur's) states otherwise, you do not have the right to publish derivative works of the illustration published by La Découverte according to the French law. BrightRaven (talk) 10:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- You are not credited in my edition of the book. (Spiridon Ion Cepleanu seems to be your real name.) The cartographers credited are: Bertrand de Brun, Anne Le Fur and AFDEC. On the website of AFDEC, Bertrand de Brun et Anne Le Fur are mentioned, but you are not mentioned either. There are two problems:
- Yes I'm not credited for the published maps. I can use (and upload) only NOT published maps. I was a "nègre" for this (and other) teams (not for a person, as Anne Le Fur or Bertrand de Brun). My "brouillons" are only a part of the work. Final versions (published) separe these countries and are worked with other informatic applications.--Spiridon MANOLIU (talk) 17:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: copyright situation remained unclear Jcb (talk) 16:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
This map is very similar to maps included in Jean Sellier, Atlas des peuples d'Asie méridionale et orientale, La Découverte, Paris, 2008, ISBN 978-2-7071-5425-5, p. 62. I have the 2008 edition and the maps in this book are very similar, but not exactly the same. I suspect this image is maybe a scan from an older edition (2001 or 2004). Moreover, the uploader wrote "Spiridon Manoliu d'après Anne Le Fur". Anne Le Fur is the cartographer of the above-mentioned book. Hence the uploader acknowledge this is, if not a simple scan, at least a derivative work of copyrighted material. BrightRaven (talk) 16:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- Sure is similar : I worked before 2000 for La Découverte. I scan my old first essays & maquettes. But this map is not present in any edition of this Atlas, you can verify. Anne le Fur knows my uploads.--Spiridon MANOLIU (talk) 18:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- You are not credited in my edition of the book. (Spiridon Ion Cepleanu seems to be your real name.) The cartographers credited are: Bertrand de Brun, Anne Le Fur and AFDEC. On the website of AFDEC, Bertrand de Brun et Anne Le Fur are mentioned, but you are not mentioned either. There are two problems:
- Who is the author of this map? Is it you alone? Anne Le Fur alone? Both? If Anne Le Fur is author or co-author, you have to get her authorization via OTRS.
- You claimed that you worked for La Découverte. If this is the case, you signed an edition contract. Please note art. L. 132-8 of the French code of intellectual property ("code de la propriété intellectuelle") : "L'auteur doit garantir à l'éditeur l'exercice paisible et, sauf convention contraire, exclusif du droit. Il est tenu de faire respecter ce droit et de le défendre contre toutes atteintes qui lui seraient portées." Consequently, unless your contract (and/or Anne Le Fur's) states otherwise, you do not have the right to publish derivative works of the illustration published by La Découverte according to the French law. BrightRaven (talk) 10:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- You are not credited in my edition of the book. (Spiridon Ion Cepleanu seems to be your real name.) The cartographers credited are: Bertrand de Brun, Anne Le Fur and AFDEC. On the website of AFDEC, Bertrand de Brun et Anne Le Fur are mentioned, but you are not mentioned either. There are two problems:
- Yes I'm not credited for the published maps. I can use (and upload) only NOT published maps. I was a "nègre" for this (and other) teams (not for a person, as Anne Le Fur or Bertrand de Brun). My "brouillons" are only a part of the work. Final versions (published) separe these countries and are worked with other informatic applications.--Spiridon MANOLIU (talk) 17:01, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: copyright situation remained unclear Jcb (talk) 16:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
This map is identical to a map included in Jean Sellier, Atlas des peuples d'Asie méridionale et orientale, La Découverte, Paris, 2008, ISBN 978-2-7071-5425-5, p. 169. Moreover, the uploader wrote "d'après Anne Le Fur et S. Manoliou". Anne Le Fur is the cartographer of the above-mentioned book. BrightRaven (talk) 16:12, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- It's not identical: verify please. It's only similar : I worked before 2000 for La Découverte. I scan my old first essays & maquettes. But this map are no present in any edition of this Atlas, you can verify. Anne le Fur knows my uploads.--Spiridon MANOLIU (talk) 18:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- I acknowledge there are minor differences between the map in the book and this one (for example, Tadjiks are not mentioned in the book), but in my mind these differences are so slight, that the maps can be considered as identical. You are not credited in my edition of the book. (Spiridon Ion Cepleanu seems to be your real name.) The cartographers credited are: Bertrand de Brun, Anne Le Fur and AFDEC. On the website of AFDEC, Bertrand de Brun et Anne Le Fur are mentioned, but you are not mentioned either. There are two problems:
- Who is the author of this map? Is it you alone? Anne Le Fur alone? Both? If Anne Le Fur is author or co-author, you have to get her authorization via OTRS.
- You claimed that you worked for La Découverte. If this is the case, you signed an edition contract. Please note art. L. 132-8 of the French code of intellectual property ("code de la propriété intellectuelle") : "L'auteur doit garantir à l'éditeur l'exercice paisible et, sauf convention contraire, exclusif du droit. Il est tenu de faire respecter ce droit et de le défendre contre toutes atteintes qui lui seraient portées." Consequently, unless your contract (and/or Anne Le Fur's) states otherwise, you do not have the right to publish derivative works of the illustration published by La Découverte according to the French law. BrightRaven (talk) 10:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- I acknowledge there are minor differences between the map in the book and this one (for example, Tadjiks are not mentioned in the book), but in my mind these differences are so slight, that the maps can be considered as identical. You are not credited in my edition of the book. (Spiridon Ion Cepleanu seems to be your real name.) The cartographers credited are: Bertrand de Brun, Anne Le Fur and AFDEC. On the website of AFDEC, Bertrand de Brun et Anne Le Fur are mentioned, but you are not mentioned either. There are two problems:
- Yes I'm not credited for the published maps. I can use (and upload) only NOT published maps. I was a "nègre" for this (and other) teams (not for a person, as Anne Le Fur or Bertrand de Brun). My "brouillons" are only a part of the work. Final versions (published) separe these countries and are worked with other informatic applications.--Spiridon MANOLIU (talk) 17:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: copyright situation remained unclear Jcb (talk) 16:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
DW, no PD-old (Paul Meltsner died 1966) Lymantria (talk) 17:37, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I may have used the wrong category or setting. This file is a publically taken photo of a public mural. Thanks! 314editor (talk) 17:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep It does not matter when he died; I see no copyright mark. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:14, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Meltser created this mural under the emplyment of the Department of the Treasury's Section of Painting and Sculpture. Works created by artists under the employment of WPA programs are not subject to copyright. 314editor (talk) 20:44, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 16:58, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Copyright violation, this professional picture is too recent to be copyright-free Narayan (talk) 20:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
This picture was allready nominated and deleted in march 2011, see this link. This is a copyrighted picture! Narayan (talk) 19:13, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
(deleted and closed 10:36, 17 June 2011 by Yann) Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:48, 18 June 2011 (UTC)