Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2011/06/12
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Oct_2010.jpg){kind=link}
,_and_Staff,_circa_1903.jpg){kind=link}
Wrong picture format Nairdeepajayan (talk) 00:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per user request Tabercil (talk) 01:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Copyright violation from http://cardboardmagazine.wordpress.com/2012/09/03/kb-hip-hops-indigenous-missionary/ Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted as above. Yann (talk) 12:38, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
This is PK, use the photos, credit P.K. Weis / SouthwestPhotoBank.Com
These photographs of Giffords were actually shot by a commercial photographer. There's nothing to indicate he or she is a federal employee, and a lot to indicate to the contrary. Both the New York Times and her Facebook page name the photographer as P.K. Weis [1] [2]. The latter associates him with Southwestphotobank.com, which also says nothing about him being a federal employee. Chaser (talk) 16:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- By "these" photographs I meant this one and another one at the same two links above, but the second one has not been uploaded to Commons.--Chaser (talk) 16:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. The photographer, PK Weis, has clearly marked the original with a copyright notice and described the provenance of the image. [3] While they have appeared on Giffords' Facebook page,[4] they have not yet appeared on her official congressional website. Jokestress (talk) 18:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. It was the work of a contractor for the government [5] which means it is "protected and restricted under U.S. copyright law" [6] Nonameplayer (talk) 18:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- Is there not a reason to contact PK Weis for permission? Also, if this was done directly under contract for government use, wouldn't it be likely that copyright is similar or was transferred to the Congress? -- Avanu (talk) 19:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- I sent an email to PK Weis to request permission for Wikipedia to use this. -- Avanu (talk) 19:50, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- I hope you said something akin to your email templates.--Chaser (talk) 19:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- (e/c) No to the first, just forward any response you get to OTRS. Professional photographers generally don't do that, but Weis may make an exception. As to the second, even if it was transferred, the government can still possess copyrighted and restrictively licensed works that were transferred to it. They don't become free by virtue of transfer to the government, only by creation by the government. Again, you'd need documentation of the transfer of ownership and that the new owner released the photo under a free license.--Chaser (talk) 19:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- I didn't know we had such a thing. I'll send another email and include the templated information. -- Avanu (talk) 21:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete OK, I just got an email back. I'll post the text here. Its pretty straightforward.
- do not use the gabbie giffords photos, please delete!
- Received from <the photographer's email address on his website> at 5:46pm
- I don't see much of a choice really. Seems like it must go. -- Avanu (talk) 21:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- I didn't know we had such a thing. I'll send another email and include the templated information. -- Avanu (talk) 21:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- I sent an email to PK Weis to request permission for Wikipedia to use this. -- Avanu (talk) 19:50, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- Is there not a reason to contact PK Weis for permission? Also, if this was done directly under contract for government use, wouldn't it be likely that copyright is similar or was transferred to the Congress? -- Avanu (talk) 19:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. The facebook page credit reads "Photo: P.K. Weis of SouthwestPhotoBank.com". Contrary to what the tag on the description page claims, there is no evidence that it would be a work of the U.S. federal government. -- Asclepias (talk) 23:08, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. Another copy found today (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gabbygiffordsnew.jpg) - add to filter, perhaps? NVO (talk) 17:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per OTRS-ticket 2011061310011968 Túrelio (talk) 19:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
File:OgAAADq8KRDPSNORQEZCIMhmu43cfOdp7w-B6jXLFT7XrGcbbiEeUl3Ea-IT1Bm3LN3hVf_y6R0ogypSg-FAjfynQL4Am1T1UCrd_tI4YqEjwrSHhkYxznXCmjzP.jpg
[edit]
because i want Nyuu (talk) 06:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted (not by me) 99of9 (talk) 14:00, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles placed on commons... ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 07:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted by Herbythyme-- 99of9 (talk) 14:00, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
this image comes from Google Earth Nummer 12 (talk) 13:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, may be done speedy. --Havang(nl) (talk) 06:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. ■ MMXX talk 15:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Copyright watermark is clear. No proof that uploader is the copyright owner. Hohum (talk) 01:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 13:27, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
I doubt all images in there are copyleft, I see for example in the bottom right corner a screenshot from the tv-series Criminal Minds Warddr (talk) 02:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Delete Looks like a clear flickrwash to me. --Leoboudv (talk) 06:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 13:28, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Claimed license is PD-70 but image is dated 2001 Billhpike (talk) 03:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 13:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Modern logo, unlikely to be PD-70 Billhpike (talk) 03:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: PD-textlogo Jcb (talk) 13:16, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope (unclear notability) Cholo Aleman (talk) 04:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 13:28, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 04:54, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 13:28, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 04:54, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 13:28, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
taken from a website - copy violation Cholo Aleman (talk) 05:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 13:28, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
unused private image- out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 05:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 13:28, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
unused blurred private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 05:06, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 13:28, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
no source , no author - copy violation - advertisement for a company - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 05:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 13:28, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 05:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 13:28, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 05:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 13:28, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Copyright by Scott Warren, not uploader. See http://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/regions/southamerica/brazil/newsroom/ ELEKHHT 05:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 13:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 05:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. The user uploaded 2 images on 3 November 2010, made a few edits on de.wiki (another image File:Blick von der Terrasse.JPG is used there) and gone. No edits since, no links to this file, no encyclopedic value. Materialscientist (talk) 06:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 13:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
description of a company of spain - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 05:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 13:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
no exif data - looks like taken from somewhere - copy violation Cholo Aleman (talk) 05:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 13:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
strange unused something - taken from somewhere (derivative image) - out of scope, copy vio Cholo Aleman (talk) 05:28, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 13:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope (self promotion, unclear notability) Cholo Aleman (talk) 05:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 13:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
unused private image- out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 05:37, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 13:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 05:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. Uploaded on 4 November 2010, no other edits from that user, no links, no encyclopedic value or personal use on wikis. Materialscientist (talk) 06:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 13:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
looks like taken from a book ?? !! - several similar files from this user, partly used in wikiversity - copy violation Cholo Aleman (talk) 05:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 13:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 05:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 13:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
should be a computer science diagram - but too small to be useful, unreadable and bad quality Cholo Aleman (talk) 05:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 13:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
and other uploads by Wafie Al-Aziz (talk · contribs). Unlikely to by own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Facebook-like picture. No illustrative or educational purpose. Out of scope.--Giorgiomonteforti Speak your mind 09:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: as above 99of9 (talk) 10:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Looks more like a screen cap taken from the broadcast of Good Day LA Tabercil (talk) 00:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
the source is just a google search query, and with that source I definately don't believe it's own work Warddr (talk) 02:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Not an article space ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 07:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: unused text page. Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 15:36, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Need to be in wikipedia... ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 07:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 15:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
unused private image - self promotion - out of scope (though the clothing can be interesting and typical ?!) Cholo Aleman (talk) 07:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 15:38, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
private sreenshot - out of scope, unusabel Cholo Aleman (talk) 07:32, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom George Chernilevsky talk 15:38, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 07:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 15:39, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned, will never be used, suggest salting of the name. Acather96 (talk) 08:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 15:40, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Nonsense text. Perhaps describes fictional creatures, but still out of scope on Commons. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:04, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. It relates to w:Zoids, which are toys. If it were useful it could be moved to another project, but I strongly suspect this is a copyvio of the product packaging. Jonathunder (talk) 14:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 15:40, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
without information from 2010 Ferbr1 (talk) 12:04, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope, small and poor quality George Chernilevsky talk 15:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
without information from 2010 Ferbr1 (talk) 12:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 15:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Freedom of panorama (i.e taking pictures of buildings or anything which is protected by copyright) is not allowed in U.A.E, FOP is allowed only for incidental inclusions (Not primary subject) For more information see Current FOP situation ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 14:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Freedom of panorama (i.e taking pictures of buildings or anything which is protected by copyright) is not allowed in U.A.E, FOP is allowed only for incidental inclusions (Not primary subject) For more information see Current FOP situation ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 14:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Freedom of panorama (i.e taking pictures of buildings or anything which is protected by copyright) is not allowed in U.A.E, FOP is allowed only for incidental inclusions (Not primary subject) For more information see Current FOP situation ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 14:04, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Commons:De minimis Ezarateesteban 22:03, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Freedom of panorama (i.e taking pictures of buildings or anything which is protected by copyright) is not allowed in U.A.E, FOP is allowed only for incidental inclusions (Not primary subject) For more information see Current FOP situation ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 14:04, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Freedom of panorama (i.e taking pictures of buildings or anything which is protected by copyright) is not allowed in U.A.E, FOP is allowed only for incidental inclusions (Not primary subject) For more information see Current FOP situation ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 14:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Freedom of panorama (i.e taking pictures of buildings or anything which is protected by copyright) is not allowed in U.A.E, FOP is allowed only for incidental inclusions (Not primary subject) For more information see Current FOP situation ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 14:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Freedom of panorama (i.e taking pictures of buildings or anything which is protected by copyright) is not allowed in U.A.E, FOP is allowed only for incidental inclusions (Not primary subject) For more information see Current FOP situation ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 14:06, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Freedom of panorama (i.e taking pictures of buildings or anything which is protected by copyright) is not allowed in U.A.E, FOP is allowed only for incidental inclusions (Not primary subject) For more information see Current FOP situation ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 14:06, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Freedom of panorama (i.e taking pictures of buildings or anything which is protected by copyright) is not allowed in U.A.E, FOP is allowed only for incidental inclusions (Not primary subject) For more information see Current FOP situation ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 14:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Freedom of panorama (i.e taking pictures of buildings or anything which is protected by copyright) is not allowed in U.A.E, FOP is allowed only for incidental inclusions (Not primary subject) For more information see Current FOP situation ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 14:08, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Freedom of panorama (i.e taking pictures of buildings or anything which is protected by copyright) is not allowed in U.A.E, FOP is allowed only for incidental inclusions (Not primary subject) For more information see Current FOP situation ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 14:08, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
unlikely to be work of the uploader; small resolution, no exif data, probable copyvio. Broc (talk) 14:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yes I confirm, the image is taken from this article of sky sports. It must be deleted. Udufruduhu (talk) 09:07, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 10:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
personal image not used anywhere Broc (talk) 14:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 13:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
private photo Slfi (talk) 14:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Delete per nom Cholo Aleman (talk) 04:50, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 13:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 13:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to by own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:20, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Facebook image: no source, no permission. Yann (talk) 13:47, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
and File:31096 401377982859 8447447859 4065660 5431643 n.jpg. Unlikely to by own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Facebook image: no source, no permission. Yann (talk) 13:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to by own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Facebook image: no source, no permission. Yann (talk) 13:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Picture in use on arabic wikipedia. No proof that this picture is in PD. No source, no author. Translation, of the given source and author, is the word "age". No exif. Probable source "Panoramio" [7]. No proof that the uploader is the author or copyright holder. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 16:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No source, no permission. Yann (talk) 13:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Low quality picture of unknown guy. Personal pic. Not in use. Out of scope. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 17:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 13:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Facebook picture of a guy with a bottle. Blurred. Not in use. Not illustrative or educational purpose. Out of scope. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 17:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 13:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Santosga (talk) 20:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 13:52, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
unused private image - self promotion (the other image of him is a user page image) Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 13:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
The exact source, author and licence information for every single image is missing. High Contrast (talk) 20:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No source. Yann (talk) 13:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
The exact source, author and licence information for every single image is missing High Contrast (talk) 20:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No source. Yann (talk) 13:54, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
This screenshot contains copyrighted aerial imagery from Microsoft in the background. The OpenStreetMap project has special permission to trace from these images, but the aerial imagery itself cannot be republished under the terms of a CC license. Tobias K. (talk) 12:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete replaced by File:Potlatch2.png. --Saibo (Δ) 19:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per above Trycatch (talk) 02:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Dubious "Own work" claim. Note that https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Staffan_Jacobson~commonswiki also exists and has more credible "Own work" claim for this author. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Potlatch2.jpg was unrelated discussion about deletion of OSM editor screenshot Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 17:48, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:38, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Copyright FrankyLeRoutier (talk) 15:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete: derived work of an action figure; was filed for speedy deletion and the tag was removed AFBorchert. (talk) 08:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete clearly infringing on Lego copyright. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:09, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per above Trycatch (talk) 02:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Screenshot of a browser-based game, http://www.heroeswm.ru. It's free to play but not free as in free license. Also nominating File:Карта Герои Войны и Денег.jpg - map screenshot from same game. NVO (talk) 21:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Trycatch (talk) 02:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Non-free logo of a TV show. ~ NVO (talk) 22:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Trycatch (talk) 02:40, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Image of a musician with no corresponding article on any project. Out of scope. Quibik (talk) 15:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope: not useful for educational purposes. Pruneautalk 14:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
bad name 7'o'7 (talk) 15:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: please use {{Rename}} instead Jcb (talk) 16:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Claimed as own work but missing exif that, another picture uploaded by the same user, has: [8]. There is a watermark even. Possible copyviol. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 17:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
![[8]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Zz1.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Invalid license too. Wknight94 talk 13:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
No PD yet. Author died in 1953. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 22:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per Jan Arkesteijn. -- Cecil (talk) 19:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Freedom of panorama (i.e taking pictures of buildings or anything which is protected by copyright) is not allowed in U.A.E, FOP is allowed only for incidental inclusions (Not primary subject) For more information see Current FOP situation ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 14:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Constructed in 2006. Widely used so it pains me to delete, but there is no freedom of panorama in the UAE. – Adrignola talk 20:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Freedom of panorama (i.e taking pictures of buildings or anything which is protected by copyright) is not allowed in U.A.E, FOP is allowed only for incidental inclusions (Not primary subject) For more information see Current FOP situation Copyrighted art work ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 14:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Derivative work of copyrighted map. – Adrignola talk 21:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to by own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:20, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. – Adrignola talk 19:54, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to by own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. – Adrignola talk 21:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private drawing album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- Feel free to delete. Would have deleted it myself were I able to. Ohnoitsjamie (talk) 20:01, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. – Adrignola talk 21:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
and other photos by Aparicioporras (talk · contribs). Unlikely to by own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. – Adrignola talk 21:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
sportsman - taken from somewhere - looks like a copy violation Cholo Aleman (talk) 19:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Scan of printed material, lacks source information and is not yet public domain even assuming the date is correct. – Adrignola talk 19:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Wrong licensing Askarmuk (talk) 21:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Non-free screenshot of copyrighted software by Blizzard Entertainment – Adrignola talk 20:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Wrong licensing Askarmuk (talk) 21:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: non-free screenshot of copyrighted software by Blizzard Entertainment – Adrignola talk 20:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Wrong licensing Askarmuk (talk) 21:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Non-free screenshot of copyrighted software by Blizzard Entertainment. – Adrignola talk 20:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Wrong licensing Askarmuk (talk) 21:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Non-free screenshot of copyrighted software by Blizzard Entertainment. – Adrignola talk 20:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Wrong licensing Askarmuk (talk) 21:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Non-free screenshot of copyrighted software by Blizzard Entertainment. – Adrignola talk 20:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Author died in 1953. Image was copied from English Wikipedia en:File:Kosovka devojka.jpg where a different PD template was used and a warning that the image should not be copied to Commons. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 22:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: The image is not in the public domain in the United States. mickit 16:39, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
unlikely to be work of the uploader; small resolution, no exif data; probable copyvio. Broc (talk) 14:32, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per copvyvio. Uploader on en.wiki states "Yeah it is I print screened a page with it on and cut it out on paint:)" after I asked him of the origins of the image. Don't know the deal here at Commons, but on en.wiki, this would be speedy delete for copyvio. Cheers all. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 12:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Freedom of panorama (i.e taking pictures of buildings or anything which is protected by copyright) is not allowed in U.A.E, FOP is allowed only for incidental inclusions (Not primary subject) For more information see Current FOP situation ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 14:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Another loss. – Adrignola talk 18:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Freedom of panorama (i.e taking pictures of buildings or anything which is protected by copyright) is not allowed in U.A.E, FOP is allowed only for incidental inclusions (Not primary subject) For more information see Current FOP situation ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 14:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Another loss. – Adrignola talk 18:26, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
not notable organisation Slfi (talk) 14:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploaded solely for advertising. – Adrignola talk 18:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- This file is supposedly from https://pacer.login.uscourts.gov/, but terms of use at http://www.pacer.gov/documents/pacer_policy.pdf clearly state that a fee may be required to use this site. There are no direct links to the file inside PACER, verification can only be done by creating a login, and possibly paying a fee. Technicly one may consider it as unsourced.
- The file is merely a text file, that could serve as a source for an article. There is however no added value here to having it linked to as a text-file outside commons. Therefore I consider it out of project scope.
Lymantria (talk) 15:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- The file is a court judgment. It is a matter of public record. In order for the document to be questioned you would also have to assert that the judges signiture is forged.--72.21.158.18 17:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- Please note COM:SCOPE#Excluded educational content "Excluded educational content includes: (...) Files that contain nothing educational other than raw text." Lymantria (talk) 07:55, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per COM:SCOPE#Excluded educational content – Adrignola talk 18:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
and other uploads by Andresiperrone (talk · contribs). Unlikely to by own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:37, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. – Adrignola talk 16:50, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
appears to be a snap of a non-notable comedian uploaded by himself and added to an unrelated page Krishnakumar Kunnath in English Wikipedia to prevent deletion here. Andrewa (talk) 16:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Krishnakumar_Kunnath#Image Andrewa (talk) 16:32, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
It may also not be the first try at this, see User talk:Kevin Nicks and note the previous image deletion, and also the vanity content of the deleted user page [9]. Andrewa (talk) 17:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Promotional, out of COM:SCOPE. Wknight94 talk 22:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Copyrighted picture, FOP of U.A.E not allowing to take photographs of protected pictures ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 17:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Derivative work, FOP loss. – Adrignola talk 18:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Re photographed image with unknown copyright status. Art-top (talk) 18:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Derivative work – Adrignola talk 18:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Low quality for own work, looks like as image, copyed from Internet. Art-top (talk) 18:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. – Adrignola talk 18:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work of the Pikachu character, copyrighted property of Nintendo. Maybe {{Costume}} applies, but his policy is not quite clear. Jean-Fred (talk) 11:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Delete According to description this is a doll not a costumed person. --Kungfuman (talk) 13:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. Clear derivative. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:51, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- This is a costume, not a doll. My fault. I don't know how much of an "accurate representation" this costume is, or whether this fact changes the case at all. I just wanted to clear this up. --SimenH (talk) 13:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Even taking into account it being a costume, {{Costume}} will not apply. This costume does not fall under any of the points at Commons:Image_casebook#Costumes_and_cosplay that would allow it to be kept. Derivative work of non-free content. – Adrignola talk 19:04, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Freedom of panorama (i.e taking pictures of buildings or anything which is protected by copyright) is not allowed in U.A.E, FOP is allowed only for incidental inclusions (Not primary subject) For more information see Current FOP situation ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 14:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- This object has been cut out from a photo where the Etisalat Tower is rather in the background. Would it be appropriate to upload the original photo? You can recognize that building in the original photo, but it is not primary subject. This has been made afterwards. --Mhp1255 (talk) 15:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No FOP in the UAE. A photo where the tower is not the primary subject, where it is de minimis would be acceptable. – Adrignola talk 18:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Freedom of panorama (i.e taking pictures of buildings or anything which is protected by copyright) is not allowed in U.A.E, FOP is allowed only for incidental inclusions (Not primary subject) For more information see Current FOP situation ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 14:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Another UAE FOP loss. – Adrignola talk 15:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Freedom of panorama (i.e taking pictures of buildings or anything which is protected by copyright) is not allowed in U.A.E, FOP is allowed only for incidental inclusions (Not primary subject) For more information see Current FOP situation ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 14:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Another UAE FOP loss. – Adrignola talk 18:41, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Freedom of panorama (i.e taking pictures of buildings or anything which is protected by copyright) is not allowed in U.A.E, FOP is allowed only for incidental inclusions (Not primary subject) For more information see Current FOP situation ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 14:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Another UAE FOP loss. – Adrignola talk 16:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
This is not just a simple geometric shape, it is a highly styalised icon. J Milburn (talk) 20:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- Anyway IMHO it does not meet the threshold of originality. --RanZag (talk) 11:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Not simple geometric shapes or text. – Adrignola talk 17:10, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
This image is one used by Marilyn Manson. I strongly doubt the copyright belongs to Caspian Rehbinder. J Milburn (talk) 20:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Derivative work of non-free content. – Adrignola talk 17:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
This is not just a simple geometric shape, it is a highly styalised icon. J Milburn (talk) 20:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- Anyway IMHO it does not meet the threshold of originality. --RanZag (talk) 11:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Not simple geometric shapes or text. – Adrignola talk 17:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Appears to be a modern sculpture, and is not de minimis. No freedom of panorama for sculptures in the US, unfortunately. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 09:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. – Adrignola talk 21:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
personal image. not useful for educational purpose Saqib (talk) 12:03, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Deleted. --George Chernilevsky talk 19:45, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
No COM:FOP#Japan. Most of the screen is copyrighted (probably copyright-violated) anime artwork, not the car. Fairuse. Vantey (talk) 11:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- The works depicted on itashas are usually own works/graphics since uniqueness is the main goal in the creation of an itasha. This kind of (maybe) adoptions are well known to be not persecuted by potential copyright holders. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 11:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Comment Arguments that amount to “The copyright owner will not bother to sue”, run counter to Commons’ aims.- If the most of the screen is the appearance of a car, as the other images in Category:Itasha, I'm not going to be a problem. But this is not. Most of the screen of this is the artwork, not the appearance of a car. And, this image can be used to describe the copyrighted character. It is copyvio and fairuse. --Vantey (talk) 19:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No FOP in Japan for artistic works. Copyrighted content is not de minimis. – Adrignola talk 18:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Author is given as Wilfred Glud (1872-1946), so this work is not in the public domain. There is a US-specific license template but obviously that is not enough for a Danish work. 188.178.233.110 12:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- File:HusmoderensBlad1902page9.png has the same problem. 188.178.233.110 12:50, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- Any danish heir will rally Commons. Journals in Denmark are PD after 30 years.haabet 15:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- No, journals in Denmark are protected until 70 years after the death of author. You can look at Commons:Licensing if you are in doubt. I don't know what you mean to say regarding the rallying commons-part. 188.178.233.110 20:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- No, journals in Denmark are protected until 30 years after printning. Who are the author of a journal?haabet 09:14, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
A Artwork have need of a "værkshøjde" to acquire rights.haabet 09:14, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
- What you are saying about 30 years is nonsense. Read the copyright act.
Journals typically have multiple authors. For the parts that are signed – as these are –, it is safe to assume to that the signature belongs to the author. You specified the author yourself when uploading so I assume you agree with me on this point.
Works do need to meet the threshold of originality to be considered works in the copyright sense but these clearly do. If you think otherwise, present court rulings on similar images to back up your claim. 188.178.233.110 10:29, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
- What you are saying about 30 years is nonsense. Read the copyright act.
Deleted: Not PD. Not 70 years after author's death. – Adrignola talk 17:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
and other art uploaded by Savesh.pather (talk · contribs). Modern art. I think painter identity confirmation via Commons:OTRS is necessary. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi Eugene The artist in question is the subject of the article where the pictures were used, namely contemporary artist Melvin Pather of South Africa. The pictures were taken and used with his kind permission. I ommitted to link the pictures to a Category: Contemporary Art. Can you assist? Savesh.pather (talk) 08:20, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Originality? Seems to be a copy of Boticelli. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Derivative work of File:La nascita di Venere (Botticelli).jpg, which is public domain. Other uploads need to be considered separately. One I looked at is also definitely a derivative of another PD art piece. – Adrignola talk 21:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Doubtful authorship. Picture of a famous person that is uploaded at a very low resolution. Looks like the image taken from the Internet. The only contribution made by the user. Art-top (talk) 18:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. – Adrignola talk 17:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
unused private data - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 19:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. – Adrignola talk 18:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
unused private image / text - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 19:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
the same is true for these files:
Cholo Aleman (talk) 19:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. – Adrignola talk 18:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Poor quality photgraph, Hands 'Orchand' is the wrong spelling, does not exist and is not representitve of Great Comberton. Tedward1987 (talk) 21:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Source page spells it that way, the image is in use legitimately, and it is in scope as a result. – Adrignola talk 16:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
_-_Oct_2010.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Oct_2010.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This is a three dimensional artwork. It is copyrighted by the creator. Furthermore it is not placed in the public, so freedom of panorama does not apply. 91.57.77.170 13:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
_-_Oct_2010.jpg){kind=link}
- It is placed in a "public place or any premises to which the public has access" (SIC from the Indian Law), so that is not the problem. Those wax sculptures are part of permanent scenarios, which seem to be there for many decades (notice the faded paintings in the wall), though I don't know if this qualifies as "permanent".-- Darwin Ahoy! 14:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- If the sculptures in "permanent" display are not considered to be permanent on themselves, please don't delete the wax sculpture pictures without telling me, as there are a number of items there, such as collars, clothing and other objects that are not under copyright and may be useful to illustrate Orissa ethnic related articles.-- Darwin Ahoy! 15:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- Darwin, you obviously misunderstood the nominator's rationale. This user sees a problem with this image because it depicts a three dimensional artwork that seems to be copyrighted - as the user stated. The "placed in the public"-annotation by this user was intended to express that no FOP regulation fits here because it is place inside a building. --High Contrast (talk) 15:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- No, I don't believe I misunderstood it. If you read the Indian law, it doesn't establish a difference between exterior and interior spaces. Furthermore, the Indian law specifically states that pictures of sculptures are allowed under FOP, so the 3D bit is irrelevant here. Or perhaps I'm missing something?-- Darwin Ahoy! 15:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- Darwin, you obviously misunderstood the nominator's rationale. This user sees a problem with this image because it depicts a three dimensional artwork that seems to be copyrighted - as the user stated. The "placed in the public"-annotation by this user was intended to express that no FOP regulation fits here because it is place inside a building. --High Contrast (talk) 15:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Keep per FoP India and FoP UK --Yuval Y § Chat § 12:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Per FOP India. – Adrignola talk 21:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
_-_Oct_2010.jpg){kind=link}
Uploader request. SVG poorly formatted, unable to be used. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader request GeorgHH • talk 19:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Band logo with no corresponding article on any project. Out of scope. Quibik (talk) 15:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Promotional content. GeorgHH • talk 19:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Band logo with no corresponding article on any project. Out of scope. Quibik (talk) 15:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Promotional content. GeorgHH • talk 19:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
No plausible information on source or licensing given Uwe (talk) 19:04, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No permission from stated author, KH Freiburg. – Adrignola talk 17:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
,_and_Staff,_circa_1903.jpg){kind=link}
,_and_Staff,_circa_1903.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This image from 1903 is SURELY not the "own work" of the person who uploaded it to WIKIMEDIA/WIKIPEDIA/COMMONS 91.57.74.197 23:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
,_and_Staff,_circa_1903.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep - {{PD-anon-70}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept. – Adrignola talk 21:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
,_and_Staff,_circa_1903.jpg){kind=link}
This is the National anthem of Madagascar, I don´t think that the fact that the US Navy Band plays it, makes the anthem itself PD-USGov. Lymantria (talk) 17:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete copyright term in Madagascar is 70 years after the death of the author, and the composer died in 1971, so unless there is something such as an exemption of copyright on national symbols in Madagascar, this is in copyright. —innotata 17:54, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
- States often purchase the copyright from the composer specifically so that it can be performed by anyone, anywhere without having to pay royalties. Please hold off on deleting the file for a week while I research and try to find the proof that this composition is not subject to the 70-year rule. Lemurbaby (talk) 01:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No reason to assume this is PD. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 13:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
unused small image of an unknown band - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 19:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 13:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work of non-free images and text. Art-top (talk) 23:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Derivative work of copyrighted poster. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 13:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work (re photographed image) of photo with unknown license status. Art-top (talk) 23:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Derivative work of copyrighted photograph. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 13:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Incorrect license, the author it is unknown, the picture is made in 1949-1956 Testus (talk) 06:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No permission. – Adrignola talk 16:47, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
No COM:FOP#Japan and fairuse. Statue of copyrighted character. Vantey (talk) 12:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. – Adrignola talk 19:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Logo of Paraguay bicentennial. It is not the work of the uploader, nor simple enough to be ineligible for copyright Cambalachero (talk) 17:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- Do you have a source for this? I could not find it on the internet. If it is an official logo, it should be displayed somewhere, right? Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 13:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Official page, credit provided to Gentileza Roberto Goiriz here. No permission from author, false own work claim. – Adrignola talk 19:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
copyrighted logo not appropriate for hosting on Commons Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 23:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: Not sure the simple basic design, with symbols of cross and lily, are copyrightable. This particular drawing might be, but then it's freely licensed. -- Asclepias (talk) 03:21, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Beaussant Scouts et Guides Saint-Louis.svg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Scouts et Guides Saint-Louis badge.jpg. --Jergen (talk) 07:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Keep: Very basic design with classic heraldic elements, no proof of copyrighted status given. --Jergen (talk) 07:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
I am a member of this litle association (200 people) and I know the president M. Desroche. There are no "copyrights" on this logo, it's a logo for French "Association loi 1901 à but non-lucratif". No commercial use. Tibidibtibo (talk) 10:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep nobody owns any copyright on the fleur-de-lis. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:30, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Ben.MQ (talk) 08:21, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
copyrighted logo not appropriate for hosting on Commons Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 23:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Insigne Scouts et Guides Saint-Louis.svg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Scouts et Guides Saint-Louis badge.jpg. --Jergen (talk) 07:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Keep: Very basic design with classic heraldic elements, no proof of copyrighted status given. --Jergen (talk) 07:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Same thing for this logo ... Tibidibtibo (talk) 10:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Ben.MQ (talk) 08:21, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Picture in use on arabic wikipedia on the entry "village palisade". No exif. Source given: age. Author: Omar Omari. Title: Depeche Mode. No valid source, no proof that the picture is in PD, no proof that the uploader is the copyright holder of this pic. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 17:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No evidence of it being PD Avi (talk) 17:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
File:1.901.- Estatua de Sorolla en yeso.jpg 88.7.194.0 20:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Hay que borrar esta foto de mi propiedad porque no me interesa para nada su difusión libre a través de cualquier uso en Wikipedia y en Wikimedia Commons, por ser una foto colocada en una página que ya no existe, al haberla suprimido un bibliotecario sudamericano que me dijo que yo escribia textos en plan vandalismo, por lo tanto, esta foto histórica única en el mundo que existe sobre la estatua de "Sorolla" de 1901, no quiero que nadie la utilice en otras páginas y articulos en la Enciclopedia Internacional Wikipedia.
Muchas gracias. --88.7.194.0 21:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC)José Luis Causarás Castelló, jlcc2011barcelona, 12 de junio de 2011.
- Comment The sculptor of the statue was Ricardo Causarás Casaña, (Valencia,1875 - Barcelona,1953). The author of the original picture was Martín Vidal Romero (Valencia, 1872-1944). Dunno about copyright issues in Spain but both, statue and picture, look fully copyrighted yet.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 01:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Spanish copyright is for life of author plus seventy years. Therefore, the statue is under copyright until 1/1/2024. Interestingly, this image is PD in the US, as it was published prior to 1923. Therefore, the picture should be uploaded to English Wikipedia, and then removed from the Commons. Avi (talk) 18:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Coca-Cola logo is not copyrighted but the Olympic rings and Torino 2006 logo are copyrighted Anatoliy (talk) 22:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep cannot copyright circles and crosses. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Olympic rings and Torino logo are de minimis Ben.MQ (talk) 04:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
copyrighted logo not appropriate for hosting on Commons Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 23:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Insigne Scouts et Guides Saint-Louis.svg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Scouts et Guides Saint-Louis badge.jpg. --Jergen (talk) 07:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Keep: Very basic design with classic heraldic elements, no proof of copyrighted status given. --Jergen (talk) 07:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - Nobody owns any copyright on the fleur-de-lis. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:25, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Does not meet threashold of originality Ben.MQ (talk) 04:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
copyrighted logo not appropriate for hosting on Commons Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 23:50, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- Comment. Basic design made mainly out of classic heraldic elements, so it's unclear if this ever was copyrighted. The association behind this logo was disbanded in the late 1950s [10]. --Jergen (talk) 07:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Ben.MQ (talk) 04:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
No date of death of the author. No reason to believe he is already more than 70 years dead. Date of production about 1920 - but this is not sufficient. Date is too young to assume author is dead more than 70 years. → inapplicable license. Saibo (Δ) 17:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC) edited. --Saibo (Δ) 01:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
So langsam vergeht mir die Lust an der Mitarbeit bei Wikipedia. Ich finde hier auf eben dieser Seite nur englischen Text, den ich nur erraten kann, aber keinen Button, der mir hilft, den Text gleich ins Deutsche zu übersetzen. Bitte ihr Wikipedianer, denkt daran, dass auch Ältere wie ich ( fast 73 Jahre) noch viel Wissen in Wikipedia einbringen können. Macht es uns leichter !!!
So, nun zu dem Bild:
Das Foto ist nur ein Ausschnitt einer Postkarte des Ortes Conow, vermutlich vor 1926 aufgenommen. Hauptmotiv auf dieser Postkarte war , wie üblich, die örtliche Gastwirtschaft. Ich habe als Quelle eine "Carola Borchers" deswegen angegeben, da diese Dame so nett war und mir diese Postkarte gescannt per Mail mal zugeschickt hat.
Und wenn dies immer noch gegen die Lizenzvorschriften verstößt, dann - so sagt man ja heute - haut sie doch in die Tonne ! --Berginspektor (talk) 08:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- Hallo Berginspector, kein Problem, ich kann dir den Text auch auf Deutsch schreiben. Standardmäßig tue ich dies jedoch auf Englisch, damit ihn die meisten Leute verstehen. Ich schreibe dir gleich noch etwas auf deiner Diskussionsseite.
- Danke schonmal für deine Antwort. Aber, ja, leider sieht das Urheberrecht (an das wir uns halten) lange Schutzfristen vor (siehe dazu auch Commons:Lizenzen). In dem Lizenzbaustein, den du auf der Dateiseite angegeben hast, steht ganz deutlich drin, dass der Autor mehr 70 Jahre verstorben ist. Dies ist für das abgebildete Foto aber in nicht Weise belegt oder nachvollziehbar. Weißt du mehr über die Postkarte (Kaliwerk)? Wenn wir wüssten, dass der Fotograf schon mehr als 70 Jahre verstorben ist, wäre es kein Problem. Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ) 01:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Lieber Saibo, vielen Dank für die Aufklärung. Ich weiß auch nicht, ob der Fotograf schon über 70 Jahre tot ist. Ich hatte aber nicht angenommen, dass für alte Postkarten generell noch eine Lizenzfreiheit nachgewiesen werden muß! Bist Du Dir da so sicher? Jetzt schreib aber bitte nicht, ich solle in irgendeine der Wikipedia-Lizenzvorschriften reinschauen. Mich schreckt davor schon das Englische und die Informationsfülle ab. Die Nerven setze ich lieber produktiver ein. Wenn Du mir helfen möchtest, weil Du im Lizenzdickicht den besagten Durchblick hast, so schick mir bitte eine Nachricht, wo genau darin steht, dass auch alte Postkarten unter die Lizenzvorschriften fallen. Vielen Dank im Voraus ! Berginspektor--Berginspektor (talk) 09:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- Alles klar. Ja, ich bin mir sicher, dass die Gemeinfreiheit nachgewiesen werden muss. Das steht auch in der deutschen Version der zugehörigen Richtlinienseite Commons:Lizenzen (bzw Commons:Lizenzvorlagen).
- Bei einer Postkarte von 1920 müsste (damit das Foto bei bekanntem Fotografen nicht mehr geschützt ist) der Fotograf spätestens 20 Jahre nach Erstellung des Fotos gestorben sein. Das kann keineswegs als sicher gegeben angesehen werden.
- Ich möchte dir nicht vorenthalten, dass es auch den Lizenzbaustein {{Anonymous-EU}} gibt. Für die Anwendbarkeit dessen müsste aber sicher sein, dass es sich bei dem Foto um ein anonymes Werk handelt. Ich gehe nicht davon aus, dass du sehr viel über dieses Foto weißt, insofern sehe ich diese Regelung als nicht anwendbar an. Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ) 22:50, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- 2011-05-16, 09:51:43 Uhr wurde vom Hochlader {{Anonymous-EU}} eingefügt. Mein Kommentar dazu vorstehend. Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ) 01:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- Lieber Saibo, vielen Dank für Deine Antwort. Bitte kläre doch in Deinem Lizenz-Expertenteam , ob diese alte Postkarte , um die sich mit Sicherheit kein Mensch mehr kümmert, nicht doch so, wie ich angegeben, unter "Lizenzfrei" eingestuft werden kann. Glück auf, Dein Berginspektor--Berginspektor (talk) 13:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- Bitte siehe zu "um die sich mit Sicherheit kein Mensch mehr kümmert" jenes: Commons:Projektrahmen/Vorbeugendes Prinzip. Ja, es wird sich noch ein Lizenzexperte darum kümmern. Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ) 22:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept: license is OK now Jcb (talk) 11:58, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Wie ich oben schon sagte, aber von Jcb ignoriert wurde: Für die Anwendbarkeit von {{Anonymous-EU}} müsste sicher sein, dass es sich bei dem Foto um ein anonymes Werk handelt. Siehe dazu auch den Inhalt des Lizenzbausteins.
As already stated above but knowingly ignored by Jcb: We have no evidence that the author's name (the original photographer) was not published in conjunction with the image within 70 years of its original publication. Saibo (Δ) 02:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - we have to do the reasonable to see if the author is know, not the impossible - Jcb (talk) 09:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- In future, I will simply not tell people anymore of this template if this is every time such a time consuming process. Who said that it must be easy to use this template? Nobody. If you go with your reasoning you can trash PD-old-70 and simply tag every file with a anon-license. The requirements are stated in the template and I suggest you to read here: de:Wikipedia:Bildrechte#Bilder.2C_deren_Urheber_nicht_bekannt_ist and de:Anonymes Werk (Urheberrecht). Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 23:37, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- Comment (largely copy&pasting what i've written elsewhere) we cannot simply assume something to be an anonymous work just because it appears somewhat plausible -- there are, in fact, myriads of ways the creator may use to identify herself -- with the result that in case someone gets sued after publication of the image, she has to prove to have done really extensive research on the author's name (see Katzenberger in Schricker/Loewenheim, UrhR, 4th ed., § 66, 10). authors, for instance, do have the explicit right to determine whether or not they want to be named at all (§ 13 urhg) - in many cases, they are not named simply because it's very difficult to do that technically or because it is not typical for their line of business ("Branchenübung") (think about industrial design or the advertisement industry). but that does not mean such works are automatically not protected 70 years p.m.a., see § 66 (2) urhg: "An die Identifizierbarkeit des Urhebers [sind] [...] keine hohen Anforderungen zu stellen, so dass einem Dritten, der sich auf die verkürzte Schutzdauer [...] berufen will, durchaus ein beträchtlicher Ermittlungsaufwand zuzumuten ist" (Katzenberger ibid.; translation). and that is exactly why the uploading process for anonymous works on dewiki is so complicated. for instance, if the postcard included the name of the company publishing it, you have to contact them etc. —Pill (talk) 00:11, 16 June 2011 (UTC) (@Berginspektor, hier eine automatisch generierte Übersetzung)
- Keep the copyright on anonymously published works is not 150 years; it is 70 years. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:04, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- And what, if I may be so bold as to ask, does this have to do with what we are discussing? —Pill (talk) 21:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. No research has been demonstrated. Just the fact, that the image does not have the author's name on it, is not sufficient for Anonymous-EU. As has been stated several times: Thorough research has to be done. I can't see any evidence of that here. -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 13:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
As per Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Varghese_Palakkappillil.jpg, uploader edited the image and added the colour and straighten the image, but it will not create another copyright... ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 09:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- This a new photograph which i created and i have all the rights to publish it.Achayan (talk) 15:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- In commons we are calling it as derivative work..!!! ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 07:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- This a new photograph which i created and i have all the rights to publish it.Achayan (talk) 15:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- Learn the rules buddy. Derivative work means editing or modifying an alredy existing file. This is a new photo drawn and created by me. It has no copyright problems either.Achayan (talk) 18:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Clearly DW of the deleted photograph. DW does not require working on an existing file, but merely seeing it or using it as a model. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Copyright infringement - See Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Varghese_Palakkappillil.JPG and Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Varghese_Palakkappillil.jpg and false claims in the undeletion requests, 2 times deleted and finding another way to keep the copyrighted picture in commons ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 07:58, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Recent UDR -Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:Varghese_Palakkappillil.JPG...--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 08:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- The above discussion was not about the current image. That was a different color photo of Varghese Palakkappillil and was not uploaded as PD. The present picture is a black and white photo. It was uploaded as PD but got deleted saying there was no evidence that the image is in PD. See the following discussion
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Varghese_Palakkappillil.jpg
Since it is again nominated for deletion by the same person, Captainofhope, I will clearly explain to you about the copyright issues of this picture.
First of all, as I said in the undeletion request, I, Rahul Johnson Palakkappillil, belong to the same family of Varghese Palakkappillil. I own the copyright of almost all the famous photos of Varghese Palakkappillil. But this particular photo was published for the first time 80 years back and is now in PD. Once it was deleted saying there was no evidence for my claim.
This picture is of a person who died in 1929 and clearly this picture is in PD. It was first published in the Malayalam daily 'Nasrani Deepika' dated 6th October 1929 along with the news of death of Varghese Palakkappillil. It is more than 80 years now and has no copyright problems.
Please see the photo of another saint from Kerala http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Saint_Kuriakose.jpg
If the above picture has no copyright violations then what is the point in arguing that the picture which I uploaded has copyright violation! After all I gave you evidence too. At least now please be kind enough to stop attacking this image again and again for no reason. This picture clearly has the right to be in Commons.Achayan (talk) 05:40, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Your claim is its a "Photo" but its clear that its a pencil drawing, and moreover there is no evidence available that this picture is available in PD. if you belong to the same family that doesn't bring a copyright to you and you are telling this 'story' after 2 successfull deletion request so it can be considered as COM:PRP--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 08:15, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
This is a photo and not a drawing. Some minor edits have been done. That is why you are mistaking it as a drawing. And moreover it doesnt matter whether its a photo or a drawing. This same picture was first published on October 6th 1929 and therefore it is clearly in Public Domain. And if you are saying that this file was deleted twice successfully then please do not forget the fact that this same file has once survived the deletion request and again after deletion it got restored once. so even I have 2 success stories to tell you!
And if you are too reluctant to believe that I am a relative of Varghese Palakkappillil then its your headache to prove that I am not a relative of Varghese Palakkappillil. I once again promise to all the users here that Fr.Varghese Palakkappillil is my great great grandfather's younger brother. Also I own the copyright of many photos of Varghese Palakkappillil.Achayan (talk) 17:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Please show a link that shows this image (pencil drawing) published in 1929, without a valid link how i can assume that this is published long time ago, at least you can submit the scan image of the purticular newspaper if its published on 1929...Current undeletion req was a weak one and its closed by the admin Yann, without getting more arguments into the page...relation and copyright ownership is only your claims, like anybody who pretend to be the copyright owner and getting support with precautionary elements...--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 08:12, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
I have given you the name of the newspaper along with the date. I really do not understand why you are again asking for more links! Please do check the particular newspaper and confirm it. That is all I have to tell you. And later this photo has come in the newspapers several times.Achayan (talk) 09:41, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Its is the responsibility of the uploader, that to establish a clear copyright stand for the images listed in deletion, and it should be provided inorder to came into a consensus, untill such varifiable links didn't come the image will get deleted...--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 09:43, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- I think that Achayan has answered the questions, and provided the needed information. Asking for more is not reasonable, it looks like more double standard, or even harassment. Yann (talk) 11:52, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Uploader didn't provide any informations rather than some false statements that this image was published in 1929, he can claim it to be PD but an evidence is necessary to prove such status and @yann is the only one who close the UDR without listening to others words or commons policy...AGF is away for this case..--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 12:59, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Info Publication date is 2009, Link--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 13:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Uploader didn't provide any informations rather than some false statements that this image was published in 1929, he can claim it to be PD but an evidence is necessary to prove such status and @yann is the only one who close the UDR without listening to others words or commons policy...AGF is away for this case..--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 12:59, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- I think that Achayan has answered the questions, and provided the needed information. Asking for more is not reasonable, it looks like more double standard, or even harassment. Yann (talk) 11:52, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Its is the responsibility of the uploader, that to establish a clear copyright stand for the images listed in deletion, and it should be provided inorder to came into a consensus, untill such varifiable links didn't come the image will get deleted...--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 09:43, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Keep This is just a memoir written by Superior General mother Smitha SD in 1995. Achayan has clearly stated that he is the copyright owner and you do not have a reason to disbelieve him or the age of the photo. You are just too adamant and it makes me wonder about your intentions.Ajaykuyiloor (talk) 06:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- You are pretending this to be archaic, but no evidence of such 'false' claims, uploader currently claims that he is the relative of the subject and copyright belongs to him, moreover if the image is published in 1929 it will be in PD but there is no evidences available to the community other than statements from uploader who is willing to keep this image and that too will fall under precautionary principles...--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 09:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
If a user cannot upload his grand father's picture in Commons even when it is in public domain, I think Commons has lost it somewhere. And for the vigor at which Captainofhope is trying to delete this picture and for his personal remarks on the uploader, I sense a personal attack here than a honest worry on copyright. --117.254.153.30 19:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
No evidence for a PD status, renominating for deletion for 5th time since this file was deleted 2 times, kept 2 times and undeleted one time. And the last keep was without commenting anything and tempting the nominator to re-open this DR, This time itself community need to be able to identify the copyright status of this 'pencil drawing' which is drawn by somebody who is behind the creation of article as sourced, If uploader want to keep this image, please show a verifiable link which shows that this is a 'photograph' and which is published before 60 years. All the claims like relative, heirs are out of the board, since there is no enough evidence available that this drawing was done by the relative of the up-loader. In a simple way, commons cannot keep a copyrighted artwork (pencil drawing) which is drawn on or before 06th September 2009 (As per the date written on the article). ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 13:50, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Comment Related discussion: Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#.27Keep.27_for_a_DR_and_that.27s_too_without_a_valid_reason..Commons:Deletion_requests.2FFile:Varghese_Palakkappillil.JPG. -- Docu at 06:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
No FOP in the UAE. 84.61.170.180 18:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- These buildings are still under construction (even until now). Therefore FOP is not an issue. --Nepenthes (talk) 04:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Indeed it seems that Burj Khalifa pictures (for example) under construction have been kept for the same reason. Jeriby (talk) 16:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: unfinished buildings Jcb (talk) 12:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Freedom of panorama (i.e taking pictures of buildings or anything which is protected by copyright) is not allowed in U.A.E, FOP is allowed only for incidental inclusions (Not primary subject) For more information see Current FOP situation ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 14:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - renominator forgot to address the previous keep reason: the buildings are unfinished. Nominator is aware of the fact that we have the practice not to delete pictures of unfinished buildings for FOP issues - Jcb (talk) 14:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Building under construction. Jeriby (talk) 16:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- Its fully constructed, clearly pass threshold of originality.. (there is no exception for buildings under construction, but subject to threshold of originality)--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 17:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. There is no explicit exemption for construction listed at COM:FOP, so we default to common sense. Common sense says that the buildings themselves are depicted in their finished state when compared to the completed forms, and the presence of a crane doesn't keep the image from being a derivative of a structural design that surpasses the threshold of originality for copyright protection. – Adrignola talk 18:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Files of User:Rustybloods
[edit]- File:TheCharms Schooney.jpg
- File:TheCharms BillCampfire.jpg
- File:TheCharms billyX.jpg
- File:TheCharms GearHeads.jpg
- File:TheCharms Hermosa.jpg
- File:TheCharms Iguanas.jpg
- File:TheCharms JimBenham.jpg
- File:TheCharms LeisureVan.jpg
- File:TheCharms 2ndAveBasement.jpg
All are unused photos of an American band whose article was deleted twice here en:The Charms - west coast for no notability (do not mistake this band with its homonym en:The Charms); some pictures are categorized in broad cats (e.g. musicians) but they are too low-res to be of any use - non-notable, bad quality, no foreseeable use, out of scope (Note: I'm also nominating this user's media in en wikipedia for deletion as non-notable). Santosga (talk) 14:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Jcb (talk) 16:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
I uploaded this file by mistake Nodar Kherkheulidze Talk 08:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
- Please speedy tag files like this in the future with {{speedy|author request}} MorganKevinJ(talk) 19:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
speedy|author request Nodar Kherkheulidze Talk 16:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
speedy|author request Nodar Kherkheulidze Talk 16:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: speedied; author request 3 days after upload; unused file Túrelio (talk) 18:14, 12 June 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.. 15:12, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: nothing special to see here Jcb (talk) 15:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Re-nominating with same reason...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.. 17:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - building doesn't meet the threshold of originality (It's well known that this specific nominator denies the existence of the threshold of originality) - Jcb (talk) 20:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete seems creative enough for me - that's really an subjective thing here I guess. --Ben.MQ (talk) 08:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. No freedom of panorama in the Philippines. Given the comment above, I will say that I've likewise seen people suggest that Jcb uses an inflated threshold of originality when assessing images. – Adrignola talk 17:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
No source for this rendering, cannot verify if it is PD-US. Svgalbertian (talk) 21:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 23:57, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Patrick J. Callahan
[edit]
These images were primarily used on an article on the English Wikipedia that was deleted under this discussion as being a vanity or non-notable biographical page. I do not think there is any other encyclopedic or educational content use for them. The first image is a non-notable trophy supposedly named after him, which is obviously a rip-off of the Vince Lombardi Trophy. The second image is the subject of the now-deleted article himself. --Zzyzx11 (talk) 22:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 23:57, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2066 (95 years after publication). - Fma12 (talk) 12:43, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
This isn't the image that appear in the art cover of the original album. The original cover is this. Zeroth (talk) 22:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- The full image first appeared in the reedition of the album released in 2010.--Zeroth (talk) 23:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
This cover that the complainant shows is the first Uruguayan re edition 1976 (Lavel: Clave, Uruguay) it's the same as the original : Lavel Trova ,October 1972, Argentina. Where "technical information" (back) says : Art: Juan Bernardo Arruebarrena , Cover picture : René Petit, etc .The designer Juan Bernardo Arruebarrena by "Trova Lavel" was the most famous designer from Argentina his list of works figure the album , that l have mentioned (Lavel Trova , October 1972, Argentina). The human image l uploaded it's the same with some artistic adjustment : grey eliminations and rotated.--Negromacondo (talk) 03:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Eduardo Mateo picture by Rene Petit was a popular image from the 70's . Originally published in "Pelo Magazine, Argentina" (Revista Pelo 1972, Argentina) . And in others graphics media, like the album "Eduardo Mateo "La Maquina del Tiempo": 3 er Viaje, 1era Parte : IDA (1971-1974)" (Lavel :Ayui ,SERIE DE LA MEMORIA, A/E 133CD ) , 1995 Uruguay. It was also published in "Razones Locas" book (Eduardo Mateo biography) 1994 , Uruguay .--Negromacondo (talk) 03:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC) This link contains information about the development of the image.--Negromacondo (talk) 05:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- The licence only aplies to photographs, not artwork, and the cover is clearly an artwork derivated from the photograph. If there is another argentinian source of the full photograph this should be noted in source instead of the album. The others albums where the photograph suposedly appeared are from Uruguay, so this licence doesn't applies.--Zeroth (talk) 20:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
The english above is hard to understand, but lt appears you have changed your position from the original statment. Anyway.The album was published in Argentina, Oct. 1972 [11], for the no-longer existent label Trova. The cover was made in Argentina by Argentine artists. All the speculation about art or picture is not important , because the disc information said : cover picture : Rene Petit.--Negromacondo (talk) 06:29, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
- I'm sorry if my english is not the best, but that doesn't change the fact that the cover is clearly an artwork, and the license used only applies to photographs.--Zeroth (talk) 16:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: the difference between the original and this version doesn't seem to be eligible for copyright Jcb (talk) 00:02, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 12:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
copyrighted logo not appropriate for hosting on Commons Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 23:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- Comment. Basic design made mainly out of classic heraldic elements, so it's unclear if this ever was copyrighted. The association behind this logo was disbanded in the late 1950s [12]. --Jergen (talk) 07:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 00:04, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
copyrighted logo not appropriate for hosting on Commons Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 23:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- Comment. Basic design made mainly out of classic heraldic elements, so it's unclear if this ever was copyrighted. The association behind this logo was disbanded in the late 1950s [13]. --Jergen (talk) 07:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 00:04, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
