Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2011/06/13
 |
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}
upk.gif){kind=link}
In use on arabic wikipedia. The picture looks scanned from somewhere. No exif. Probable copyviol? Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 09:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Speedy. Copyvio uploader. Martin H. (talk) 15:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
It seems to me that this photograph is not taken by a federal government official of some kind ("AP Photo" hints to Associated Press?). Hence {{PD-USGov}} does not apply. Lymantria (talk) 08:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Deja vu: another copy surfaced yesterday - Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gabrielle Giffords recovery.jpg. According to this thread, photographer expressly wishes to take it down. delete. NVO (talk) 17:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Speedy delete. Smaller duplicate of File:Gabrielle Giffords recovery.jpg. And copyvio. See the discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gabrielle Giffords recovery.jpg. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per OTRS-Ticket 2011061310011968 Túrelio (talk) 19:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Source and author are indicated on the image and they do not coincide with the data added to the description by uploader. Art-top (talk) 09:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation. Martin H. (talk) 16:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Doubtful authorship. Look like as images, copyed from internet. This user has uploaded images that violate copyrights. Art-top (talk) 12:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: It is. Several copyvio uploads to the es.wp article MBLAQ. Martin H. (talk) 16:47, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Looks like a TV scan 182.71.254.46 12:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- It is. the original says that it was taken from a 1996 commercial for a supermarket chain that no longer exists.--Sreifa (talk) 10:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Thanks Sreifa - deleted as copyvio. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
and all files uploader by Jonyrh: non-free content, no permission Yann (talk) 21:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Delete Copyvio screenshot. Plus it's too small to be used. Good twins (talk) 22:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. Yann (talk) 21:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
and all files uploader by Jonyrh: non-free content, no permission Yann (talk) 21:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Copyvio screenshot. Plus it's too small to be used. Good twins (talk) 22:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. Yann (talk) 21:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
no educational content Broc (talk) 21:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: empty Yann (talk) 18:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Uploader is not the author. Fair use is not allowed on Commons. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 22:23, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- ??? Why do you think? Jean-Baptiste.Commons (talk) 11:23, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
- The author is Adam Georgiev. By taking a photograph of the books you made a copy of a copyrighted work. Fair use, as is common in some countries, is not allowed on wikimedia. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 11:48, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nominator, derivative work. Podzemnik (talk) 12:14, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
No dispone de Calidad Loro 2 (talk) 14:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Oppose La calidad es suficiente para los usos que se le da en los wikiproyectos y páginas en que se utiliza; además, no hay ninguna imagen similar para sustituirla.Qoan (dis-me!) 13:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)- Oppose invalid reasoning for delete, and in use. — raeky (talk | edits) 15:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Keep Not a valid reason for deletion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: No proper reason - widely used Lymantria (talk) 11:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Copyrighted logo Waihorace (talk) 06:36, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete--hyolee2/H.L.LEE (talk) 22:33, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No PD-textlogo Lymantria (talk) 11:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
unused private figure (small) with a description that is a joke - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 08:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Copyrighted figure from the Gremlins movies. --- Herby (Vienna) (talk) 09:23, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 09:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- File:Krishnasamy4.jpeg
- File:M.Dinesh.JPG
- File:Selvakumar(amuth).jpeg
- File:Selvakumarmanjal.jpeg
- File:Selvakumar.jpeg
- File:PRASHANTH3.gif
- Unused, low quality images without description. Unknown persons, doubtful authorship, out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 08:23, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
.jpeg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
- Delete The Adaikkalaim.gif is a movie screenshot; Krishnasamy4.jpeg is a copyvio, uploader has uploaded it earlier under a different name and it was speedied. This is a copyvio of the image from here. PRASHANTH3.gif is again a movie screenshot. The rest are his personal photos. Uploader has poor understanding of how wiki works and ignores repeated instructions in en and ta wikis. probably a competency block can be considered. (i am an admin in ta wiki and i have issue a sort of final warning there)--Sodabottle (talk) 03:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope and/or copyvio Lymantria (talk) 11:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
unused text about a company in Portugal (?!) - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 08:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Lymantria (talk) 12:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
unused advertisement for a software - unclear rights, unclear notability (out of scope in my opinion) Cholo Aleman (talk) 08:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 13:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 08:46, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 13:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope (advertisement for a youth group) Cholo Aleman (talk) 08:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 13:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
The author indicated on the image - bad source, authorship, license. Art-top (talk) 08:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Fastily deleted "File:Adp Dj.jpg" (reason: No license since 13 June 2011) --High Contrast (talk) 13:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Private picture of someone self pointing a gun. Not in use. Out of scope. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 09:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Unused private picture - out of scope Lymantria (talk) 12:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Private picture of a girl. Nice actually. According to the description, her fiancee, or in love man, uploaded the pic. No illustrative or educational purpose. Not in use. Out of scope. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 10:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Unused low quality private picture - out of scope Lymantria (talk) 12:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Low resolution private pic of a boy. No illustrative or educational purpose. Not in use. Out of scope. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 10:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 13:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Private picture of unknown chap. No illustrative or educational purpose. Not in use. Out of scope. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 10:06, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 13:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Private shot of a guy in front of a fish tank. No illustrative or educational purpose. Not in use. Out of scope. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 10:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 13:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Promotional picture of a brazilian model, known only because he participated in the tv program Big Brother 11th (!) edition. A duplicate of this picture is in use on portuguese wikipedia but the page is under deletion [1]. Not notable person, accordingly. Self promotion. Out of scope. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 10:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 13:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Webcam shot of unknown man. Not in use. Out of scope. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 10:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 13:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Low resolution private picture of unknwon man. No illustrative or educational purpose. Not in use. Out of scope. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 10:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 13:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
unused small graphic - looks like a test (the other files of this user are quite good) - out of scope, unusabel in this form Cholo Aleman (talk) 10:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 13:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
I put this file on your attention, fellas. From the description "United Flight 175 Impact into the south tower (9/11/2001)". Obviously a screenshot. Own work of the uploader? Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 10:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- delete per duck test. Many many copies of this video on the web, with better resolution, e.g. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ik3xsBjxlk. NVO (talk) 18:07, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 13:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
taken from a comic - blatant copy vio Cholo Aleman (talk) 10:38, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 13:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Private picture of unknwon guy. Not in use. No apparent illustrative or educational purpose. Probably out of scope. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 10:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 13:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 10:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 13:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Private picture of a guy, hands in his pockets. No illustrative or educational purpose in sight. Not in use. Probable out-of-scope case Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 10:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 13:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
unused promotional image of an unknown rock band of france - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 10:55, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 13:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
taken from a website - copy vio Cholo Aleman (talk) 10:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 13:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Bad JPEG. 84.61.178.142 11:28, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 13:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
unused unreadable file (( ????)) - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 11:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- delete as duplicate. This is GIMP's native image format. A "plain" copy is already in place File:Distribution of Phyrrocorax graculus.png. NVO (talk) 18:25, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- right. my fault, sry. --92.225.63.102 04:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 13:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 11:36, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 09:01, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
name of file Moroyanu (talk) 11:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Duplicate of File:Letea10.jpg High Contrast (talk) 13:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
File of unknown purpose. Out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 12:36, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 13:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
File of unknown purpose. Out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 12:36, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 13:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
File of unknown purpose. Out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 12:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 13:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
No dispone de Calidad Loro 2 (talk) 14:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose La calidad es suficiente para los usos que se le da en los wikiproyectos y páginas en que se utiliza; además, no hay ninguna imagen similar para sustituirla.Qoan (dis-me!) 13:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose invalid reasoning for delete, and in use. — raeky (talk | edits) 15:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Not a valid reason for deletion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: No proper reason - widely used Lymantria (talk) 11:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to by own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 14:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
and other uploads by Mariainesmarques (talk · contribs). Unused mostly non-text only logos. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 14:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
A downsampled copy of a professional portrait appearing for example in http://kino-teatr.ru/kino/acter/m/ros/3607/foto/164426/ or http://ruskino.ru/art/6031/photo/17263 . Own work unlikely - duck test. ~ NVO (talk) 17:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 13:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Promotional picture of a not notable band. Satanic music, I guess. Unique contrib of the user. Not in use. Self promotion. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 17:38, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 13:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Private picture of unknown indonesian student. Unique contrib of the user as unique contrib to english wikipedia was his user profile. Not in use. Out of scope. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 17:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 13:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
File doesn't show anything. Wrong SVG Vladtep (talk) 18:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Corrupted file High Contrast (talk) 13:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Cd cover of a not notable musician. No illustrative or educational purpose. Uniqe contrib of the user. Not in use. Self promotion. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 18:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 13:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Promotional picture of a not notable dancer. He was a professional dancer but not notable enough to become a celebrity: he is mentioned only on his website [2]. Picture not in use. No illustrative or educational purpose. Probable self promotion. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 18:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 13:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Private picture of unknown guy. Web programmer, says the description. Not in use. No educational or illustrative purpose. Unique contrib of the user. Out of scope. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 18:46, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 13:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Low quality myspace picture of a not notable musician. Doubts about authorship. Unique contrib of this user. Not in use and not really in scope, for me. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 18:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 13:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Promotional picture of a not notable band. Not in use. Self promotion. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 18:52, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 13:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Logo of a not notable band. Not in use. Self promotion. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 18:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 13:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Album cover of Hu Hu Hu by Natalia Lafourcade [3]. No proof that the uploader is the copyright owner of it. Very unlikely. Probable copyviol. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 18:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 13:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Promotional picture of a not notable band. Not in use. Unique contrib of the user. Self promotion. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 18:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 13:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Promotional picture of a not notable metal band. Not in use. No illustrative or educational purpose. Self promotion. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 19:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 13:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
jpg version of a promotional picture of a not notable band. Not in use. Self promotion. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 19:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 13:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Picture of two metal guitarists from a not notable band. It's a videoclip shot so, may be, there are problem also with copyright. Not in use. Probable self promotion. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 19:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 13:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Blurred picture of a logo of this organization [4]. Not in use. Unique contrib of this user. Out of scope. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 19:07, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 13:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Private picture of a not notable band. Low quality also. Not in use. Unique contrib of this user. Out of scope. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 19:08, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 13:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Private self-shot picture of an unknown guy. Not in use. No educational or illustrative purpose. Unique contrib of this user. Out of scope. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 19:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete : I agree : Personal image--Civa (talk) 20:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 13:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Souvenir picture of a guy in Omaha Beach. Not very useful, very private indeed. For me, out of scope. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 19:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete : I agree : Personal touristic image--Civa (talk) 20:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 13:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Promotional picture of a venezuelan band. Not unknown but not very notable also. Anyway, no proof that the uploader is the copyright holder of the picture, a professional one. Unique contrib of the user. Probable copyviol. Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 19:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 13:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Personal image ; No notability ; No use ; very very small image Civa (talk) 19:21, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 13:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Personal image ; No description ; Not in scope Civa (talk) 19:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: rubbish High Contrast (talk) 13:57, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
France does not have Freedom of Panorama. See COM:FOP#France. It is not allowed to publish pictures of a building or a structure until 70 years after the death of its creator. These information panels were installed in Paris circa 1992 and are original creations of Philippe Starck. So, their images are not free of rights. Civa (talk) 19:55, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: no FOP in France High Contrast (talk) 13:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
unlikely to be work of the author; small resolution, no exif data, image probably copied from Facebook, without authorisation of the author. Broc (talk) 21:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 13:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 14:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
bad picture; personal image not used anywhere Broc (talk) 21:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 13:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 14:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Broc (talk) 21:18, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 13:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 14:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
personal image not used anywhere Broc (talk) 21:21, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 13:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 14:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
low resolution, no exif data, unlikely to be own work of the author. probable cv Broc (talk) 21:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 13:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 14:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
out of scope. personal image not used anywhere Broc (talk) 21:23, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 13:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 14:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
personal image not used anywhere Broc (talk) 21:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 13:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 14:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
personal image not used anywhere, self promotional Broc (talk) 21:25, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 13:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted High Contrast (talk) 14:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Non-free logo unless this falls under {{PD-text}}. The current license is anyways invalid. 182.71.254.46 12:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: with PD-textlogo Jcb (talk) 16:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
This is a worse copy of SVG-file File:Движение поездов по станции Сонково.svg MaxBioHazard (talk) 14:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep, we keep the original to maintain the attribution path, see Commons:Superseded images policy and note the reasons for not deleting, and that the deletion of superseded images has been discontinued!. -84user (talk) 14:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. The image quality itself is poor (not just low-quality format), so it's not the usual mindless replaceable-with-svg. However, must keep per attribution of that replacement svg as a derivative image. DMacks (talk) 08:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted --ZooFari 00:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
at http://www.dyedu.net/Article/ArticleShow/290/70461_1.html the same image (but in black and white) has the subtitle "新华社发" →(google) "Xinhua News Agency". I doubt you are the photographer. Saibo (Δ) 04:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No source, no permission. Yann (talk) 13:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Unsure if this picture is used or even needed. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 17:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - File looks like a screenshot from TV --Hold and wave (talk) 18:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No source, no permission. Yann (talk) 13:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
This is only based on an instrumental (without lyrics or singing) music by Alfred Jean Baptiste Lemaire, the music is recomposed by Peyman Soltani and lyrics is by Bijan Taraghi (died 2010). I'm not sure who is the singer of this work but it's a new work and original enough to be eligible for copyrighgt. ■ MMXX talk 16:08, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted ■ MMXX talk 15:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
This image is an very bad quality, scaled-down version of: File:Ansel Adams - National Archives 79-AA-H02.jpg There should be only one scan of an image making this image not useful and out of scope. Jarekt (talk) 04:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom 99of9 (talk) 13:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
France does not have Freedom of Panorama. See COM:FOP#France. It is not allowed to publish pictures of a building until 70 years after the death of its architect. This building is considered as architecturally distinct (see the name of the file) and is an original work. It has been achieved in 2005. No evidence of license from architects or their heirs, and this looks too big for the Commons:De minimis exception Civa (talk) 20:09, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete : per COM:FOP#France de minimis does not apply --Grcampbell (talk) 05:56, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: sadly, per nom 99of9 (talk) 13:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
France does not have Freedom of Panorama. See COM:FOP#France. It is not allowed to publish pictures of a building until 70 years after the death of its architect. This building is considered as architecturally distinct (see the name of the file) and is an original work. No evidence of license from architects or their heirs, and this looks too big for the Commons:De minimis exception. Civa (talk) 20:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete : per COM:FOP#France de minimis does not apply --Grcampbell (talk) 05:57, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: sadly, per nom 99of9 (talk) 13:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
L'argument invoqué est COM:FOP#France
Toutefois, la protection des oeuvres architecturales ne s'applique que pour les bâtiments récents dépassant le "seuil d'originalité", et présentant un caractère artistique certain (il est précisé sur Commons : "There is no freedom of panorama in France, neither for sculptures, nor for buildings that pass the threshold of originality. Concerning buildings, case law (CA Riom, 26 mai 1967) recognizes two criteria for originality: "a definite artistic character" (« un caractère artistique certain ») and the fact that it does not belong to a series. For instance, the architect of the Louvre Pyramid is entitled to claim copyright over representations of the Pyramid." ). S'il s'agit ici d'un bâtiment récent, présente-t-il un caractère artistique tel qu'il rentre dans la même catégorie que la pyramide du Louvre?
Cela ne concerne pas systématiquement TOUS les bâtiments récents, mais seulement une petite partie d'entre eux.
Ne feriez-vous pas un peu d'excès de zèle, l'ami?
Djampa (talk) 11:54, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
The Canadian House of Commons does not release content under the Creative Commons. 117Avenue (talk) 01:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. Per nomination. No link to a source showing evidence that this photo is in the public domain. -- Asclepias (talk) 03:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Don't Delete'. This photograph appears to be in the public domain. I am not sure how you find photos of important people in the public domain. Do they get stamped "public domain" some how? It is being used widely on the web. I can't figure out Wikipedia's system to uploading photos. But I can guarantee that no one will object to the use of this photo. Perhaps someone at Wikipedia should use some common sense and judgment to allow this. The alternative is to have no photo of Ms. Mclaughlin, who was the first woman leader of a political party in the Parliament of Canada. AMSask (talk) 18:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
The use of this photo also qualifies as fair use for the following reasons:
1. it is a historically significant photo of a famous individual; 2. it is of much lower resolution than the original (copies made from it will be of very inferior quality); 3. the photo is only being used for informational purposes; 4. and the photo does not limit the potential marketing of these images by its copyright holder.AMSask (talk) 04:36, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Comment Hello, AMSask. Images of public figures/politicians are not automatically within the public domain. They can be copyrighted like any other image. Images of the Government of Canada are almost always copyrighted as well (it's called Crown Copyright).Here on the Commons, only public domain or freely licensed images may be uploaded. See Commons:Licensing for more information. The objective is to create a repository of images and other media files that can be used by anyone, anytime, for any purpose.
The only way to find public domain/freely licenses images of public figures on the web is to find images that are explicitly marked as being public domain or released under a license acceptable on the Commons (again, see Commons:Licensing for more details). You need to provide a link to the site in the image description of any such uploaded image so that other Commons users can verify the status of the image. If there is no explicit status/license information, we assume that the image is copyrighted, its use is restricted, and it is thus not permitted on the Commons. The alternative is to ask the copyright owner if they would be willing to freely license the image and to send an email to the Commons with a declaration to that effect. Details of that process are at COM:OTRS.
Commons does not accept "fair use" images. Some Wikipedia projects, including the English-language Wikipedia, do allow images to be uploaded locally using a fair use rationale in a very limited set of circumstances. Typically, photos of persons still living are not accepted over at en.wp on a fair use basis; because the person is still alive, it is still theoretically possible to create a free equivalent image of that person. There are some exceptions to this rule. You may want to consider asking the question at en:Wikipedia talk:Non-free content, and if the response if favourable, then uploading this image locally over at en.wp on a fair use basis. Hope that helps. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
The original upload on en.wp did not state the uploader as the author but did say: This photo is copyrighted by the Larco Museum. I obtained permission to use this photo in July 2007. It is the Mochica Portrait, the first piece in the Larco Museum Collection. No evidence of a free license release. Other files from same uploader have been deleted per en.wp PUI Martin H. (talk) 04:20, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Unused and unnecessary template. The notification of Flickr files being uploaded to Commons is part of the review process and does not need to be indicated in a separate template. Logan Talk Contributions 05:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- It's unused and thus could be deleted, but since when do we notify Flickr users that their files have been uploaded here? -- Docu at 08:07, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Its not a necessity to notify flickr users but its friendly if it done. Amada44 talk to me 10:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:22, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
deriviate work of a foto which was deleted from de: because of no license. For de:-admins compare this and that. JuTa (talk) 13:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
deriviate work of a foto which was deleted from de: because of no license. For de:-admins compare this and that. JuTa (talk) 14:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
upk.gif&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
upk.gif&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This is a logo used by a political organisation. I doubt it belongs to the uploader. J Milburn (talk) 16:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
upk.gif){kind=link}
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
upk.gif){kind=link}
This is a logo used by a political party. I doubt it belongs to the uploader. J Milburn (talk) 16:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
The same (COM:DW) as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Paleis lange voorhout.jpg. Saibo (Δ) 17:23, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
The same (COM:DW) as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Paleis lange voorhout.jpg. Saibo (Δ) 17:23, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep per (same as) Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2011-05#File:Escher museum.jpg. -- Docu at 18:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- To get this clear: this photo here does not feature a faded picture of and unrelated work ("the queen"). To the contrary it features a work by Escher which the whole museum is about. That is quite a big difference. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 00:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- It still a picture of the building. It doesn't actually matter what ad is being displayed in the advertisement space.
- If you are trying to say that the ad is there on a permanent basis, one might even consider keeping cropped versions of it. -- Docu at 06:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- It is a picture of a building where works by Escher are exhibited. Great opportunity for the photographer that even a work is displayed outside - makes the photo way more valuable.
- No I am not trying to say that the ad is there on a permanent basis?! I am not sure how you did get this idea. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 16:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- It's the main facade of a listed building and there seems to be no recent photographs without the advertisement in the picture. -- Docu at 21:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- Why should it be the problem of the artist? You can still photograph the building - just edit out the banner. --Saibo (Δ) 23:14, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
- Why should we bother with that? Commons is primarily a host for photos of architectural works in the Netherlands, not photoshop works. -- Docu at 01:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- If you do not want to bother whit that just delete it. But there is also no reason why the copyright holders need to agree to a free usage of their works. --Saibo (Δ) 01:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- Copyright is expired. Pieter de Swart died in 1772. -- Docu at 10:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- ...I meant Escher. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 22:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- Copyright is expired. Pieter de Swart died in 1772. -- Docu at 10:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- If you do not want to bother whit that just delete it. But there is also no reason why the copyright holders need to agree to a free usage of their works. --Saibo (Δ) 01:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- Why should we bother with that? Commons is primarily a host for photos of architectural works in the Netherlands, not photoshop works. -- Docu at 01:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- Why should it be the problem of the artist? You can still photograph the building - just edit out the banner. --Saibo (Δ) 23:14, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
- It's the main facade of a listed building and there seems to be no recent photographs without the advertisement in the picture. -- Docu at 21:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- To get this clear: this photo here does not feature a faded picture of and unrelated work ("the queen"). To the contrary it features a work by Escher which the whole museum is about. That is quite a big difference. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 00:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep A photo of a museum building. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- Restored The artwork is de minimis. Yann (talk) 07:25, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Info This was discussed at this undeletion request. --Saibo (Δ) 23:40, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Wrong UDR restoration (see end of last DR above). Faded Queen Beatrix was found to be de minmis at File:Escher museum.jpg. But between queen Beatrix and an Escher artwork is a big difference regarding de minimis: the queen is not (or at least not obviously) related to this building. To the contrary the artwork is highly related to this building - the whole museum is about him (if I understand correctly) and you can even see the Escher advert banners in this photo. Saibo (Δ) 23:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
The similar DR Commons:Deletion requests/File:Paleis lange voorhout.jpg I had linked to in the DR above was not overturned, was it? --Saibo (Δ) 23:51, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Btw: Why am I not notified if an UDR is going on? Maybe we should simply place a message on the talk page or the DR page (this page) of an image which is under UDR - that would be sufficient in this case. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 23:48, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- Whether the art work is related to the building or not has no bearing to the fact that it is de minimis. What is important is the size the art work related to the size of the whole picture. Yann (talk) 07:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for your Comment. At least in German law the context has a great effect to determine DM-eligibility. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Paleis lange voorhout.jpg was deleted, too. COM:PRP unless somebody shows the Netherland's law allows this. Let me also quote Commons:DM#An_example: "If the existence of the poster makes the image more attractive, more usable, or liable to cause more than insignificant economic damage to the copyright owner, then a de minimis defence to a copyright-infringement action will probably fail." The Escher artwork in the center of this image makes the photo much more attractive. --Saibo (Δ) 17:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - Its a clear derivative of an existing artwork, Digital manipulation will not remove its copyright...--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 09:02, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
- This is not about a crop, but the image currently at File:17723 EscherMuseum.jpg. -- Docu at 11:10, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep "Paleis Lange Voorhout" is a "Rijksmonument" (Dutch National Heritage Site) due to its architecture (architect died in 1772). Commmons, as a multimedia library, hosts images of such sites. For buildings, we necessarily need past and present views of their main facade. In this case, any image taken in recent years happens to include the same poster. This isn't a choice of the photographer, but as it's there most of the time (likely not against the wishes of the copyright owners). Similarly, pictures of Time Square will include some poster (e.g. File:UFC 88 - Time Square.JPG), not always the same though. -- Docu at 11:12, 10 July 2011 (UTC) (edited)
- So because this image is so important you just don't care about legal issues? Cool. —Pill (talk) 11:16, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
- The legal issue was addressed clearly by the administrator who restored the image. -- Docu at 11:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
- So because this image is so important you just don't care about legal issues? Cool. —Pill (talk) 11:16, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep per Docu, see also http://www.escherinhetpaleis.nl - this is pretty much a permanent display, and the photo shows the work "zoals het zich aldaar bevindt" (COM:FOP#The Netherlands). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:19, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
- Not sure what you want to say with the website link. If it is permanent we can undelete the other photos, too. However, COM:FOP#The Netherlands says: "Article 18 is limited to works that were originally made for being placed permanently in public places." And as we see from File:Escher museum.jpg they seem to change the exhibited artwork on the front sometimes. This contradicts "permanent". --Saibo (Δ) 18:39, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
- File:Escher museum.jpg is from 2005. -- Docu at 18:40, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Oh!!!, I looked at the old picture, This one is deminimis and not covering atleast 10% of the picture, But a crop will be in problem...--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 04:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- Not sure what you want to say with the website link. If it is permanent we can undelete the other photos, too. However, COM:FOP#The Netherlands says: "Article 18 is limited to works that were originally made for being placed permanently in public places." And as we see from File:Escher museum.jpg they seem to change the exhibited artwork on the front sometimes. This contradicts "permanent". --Saibo (Δ) 18:39, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept - per concensus - Jcb (talk) 15:58, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I don´t want Wikipedia to use my photo anymore! Hages (talk) 18:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
I second the request for deletion, but with the reason Copyright Violation. -- Tegel (talk) 18:21, 13 June 2011 (UTC)- Moved to here from image page: Cropped version of copyright protected picture from http://www.birds.se/images/lonae01-070512.jpg. --Túrelio (talk) 19:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. The image was obviously uploaded by the photographer himself (see upload log) in 2007. Therefore, the claim of a copyvio seems to be unsubstantiated. The deletion rationale from the uploader "I don´t want ..." isn't valid for an image uploaded nearly 4 years ago, which is in use on many Wikimedia projects and on external websites[5]. --Túrelio (talk) 19:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep If the author is the uploader, I'm sorry he has changed his mind but Creative Commons Licenses are not reversible. Otherwise I put a picture of mine in Public Domain and, when I see that someone has used it because it was functional to him and -moreover- for free, I change the license and I start to ask for money. If this hypothetical picture of mine was printed in a book, the author cannot remove it and he would be forced to pay me back.
In Italy we call it "mafia". Because, I hope, in this case the author is not a godfella, why he changed his mind?Forget About It [6] :)--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 20:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. I withdraw my request for deletion. As you say he can't come 4 years after and change his mind. -- Tegel (talk) 21:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
@Hages, this is your own work, right? 4 years ago you donated it to the world, for which we are grateful. Your image has been well accepted, as you can see from its use. Why do you want to retract your donation from 2007? --Túrelio (talk) 21:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- I can't answer for Hages, but I think that the reason is that he got blocked one week on sv.wiki for spamming articles with links to his webpage even after he was asked to stop doing that. -- Tegel (talk) 23:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
So, it seems I am not in the state of changing my mind about this photo even though I am the copyright holder? The reason why I want to remove it from here is not relevant, so the most easy thing for you is just to remove it from wikipedia. As you can see in the earlier text here, there are already other photos that can take its place. -- Hages
{{copyvio|http://www.birds.se/images/lonae01-070512.jpg}} -- Hages
- @Hages, releasing an image under a free license is a legal act, that is considered to be non-revocable, though IANAL. Besides, even if we delete the image from Commons, you cannot forbid others, who have downloaded it in the last 4 years, to use it. --Túrelio (talk) 06:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
I am fully aware of that Túrelio, but I don´t think wikipedia is the right place for my photos, and even if people have downloaded it in the past I have no intention to "force to pay me back. In Italy we call it "mafia"." With a comment like this I just wonder where the Mafia-actions take place?? Maybe it is right in front of your own eyes? -- Hages
- Sorry for this inappropriate comment by Giorgiomonteforti. So it's not my eyes. --Túrelio (talk) 06:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Dear Hages, I'm sorry if you get offended by my joke. It was, evidently, inappropriate but it wasn't my intention to insult anyone. Anyway, I don't change my mind about this issue. Sorry, for that also.--Giorgiomonteforti Speak your mind 10:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Personal artwork (work from my imagination) ; not in scope ; not understandable file name Civa (talk) 18:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Personal artwork ; not used ; not in scope ; no categorized since creation Civa (talk) 19:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
France does not have Freedom of Panorama. See COM:FOP#France. It is not allowed to publish pictures of a building until 70 years after the death of its architect. These buildings were achieved in the 80's. Commons:De minimis doesnt appy here, because the towers are the main subject of the photo (see the name of the file). It should be necessary to upload the image with low definition as fair use onto en wikipedia and fr wikipedia. Civa (talk) 19:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per COM:FOP#France de minimis does not apply --Grcampbell (talk) 05:56, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:06, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
superseded by File:Position of West Coast.png Iketsi (talk) 19:55, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Actually, this is a later image than the other. We often keep more than one locator map. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
no source and appears to be somebody's logo Eeekster (talk) 21:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
The correction requested has been made by the owner. Iscript (talk) 17:20, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Corporate logo, very unlikely our uploader has the rights to freely license it. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
This file has been marked as a duplicate of File:RR5110-0102R.png, but the two files are different, so I believe a DR is more appropriate Darwin Ahoy! 21:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep I find this image in better quality than the supposed duplicate, both in colour and in sharpness, that's why I don't agree with the deletion as duplicate.-- Darwin Ahoy! 21:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Perceived sharpness is the effect of added colour (the larger file is BW, the smaller is tinted yellow: the tip of the nose reads R 202, G 204, B 186). Try converting both to BW, or both to same tint and see how perception changes. I'm not sure that yellow tint is the way to go but it indeed looks better on a typical screen. NVO (talk) 22:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- I suspected it could be something like that, indeed. On the other hand, I'm not sure if the newer file is not merely a resized BW version of the smaller file. If that is the case, it could perhaps be argued that it is the larger file which is the "duplicate" and not the other way round.-- Darwin Ahoy! 22:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Perceived sharpness is the effect of added colour (the larger file is BW, the smaller is tinted yellow: the tip of the nose reads R 202, G 204, B 186). Try converting both to BW, or both to same tint and see how perception changes. I'm not sure that yellow tint is the way to go but it indeed looks better on a typical screen. NVO (talk) 22:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- BTW, if the file is kept, please reverse the Delinker actions. Personally I believe the file has been substituted for a worst version.-- Darwin Ahoy! 21:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Photograph by Henri Martinie (1881-1963), according to Roger-Viollet #435-12. Not public domain. --Martin H. (talk) 21:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Part of a documentary. Doubtfull that uploader Jimbrey is the copyright owner. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 22:21, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Picked up from hostelworld.com image 24034_1.jpg. Probably copyright violation Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 22:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Source says © 2006 - 2011 Morgan Priest - Tous droits réservés. Probable copyright violation. If you really are Morgen Priest, follow the Commons:OTRS procedure. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 22:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
And similar: File:Zguschene moloko z kavoju.png, File:Згущені вершки.png, File:BandW condensed milk.jpg, File:Iryska.png
Looks like DW. Label on the can is copyrighted. Anatoliy (talk) 00:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. Following the guideline Template:Packaging it corresponds to 3 and 4 for the design (this design is a traditional Soviet design for condensed milk cans which exists since at least several decades, and the label contains only geometric figures) and 1 and 2 for the logo (the logo is a very small part of the label, about 2 or 3 percents which corresponds to DM, and this logo is in a public domain as it is a logo of Ukrainian factory which falls under {{PD-UA}} as (d) symbols and signs of enterprises). As the main purpose of this image is to show traditional Soviet design of condensed milk can and not the logo of some enterprise even if the logo will be found to be copyrighted I think it can be photoshopped without any loss for the image. Same for the awards which are so small that it's even impossible to read the signification of these awards, if they are copyrighted they can be removed from the image as well. Thus there is nothing preventing this image from being stored on Commons — NickK (talk) 09:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- keep until evidence of "copyrighted" (where? when? registration number?) is presented. This is an exceptional statement which needs solid evidence (unlike modern trademarks owned by specific owners). Indeed, as NickK said, this is generic design, dating back to 1930s (author's name lost in history [7]), and is used by dozens of independent manufacturers. Unlike some other Soviet trademarks which were snatched and privatized through court rulings, this one remains generic - at least in the eyes of trademark law. NVO (talk) 17:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Well, when artist draw a picture it is copyrighted, and when painter draw the label it will be copyrighted too, won't it? I did not say about trademark. So, design of the first can label is simple, but other labels are not simple.--Anatoliy (talk) 21:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- We don't know if the original was copyrighted in the United States or any other places that had copyrighting practice in place. Sounds unlikely. As for present day, why should a canning factory go these lengths? They just pick a free (and yet recognizable) pattern and save their hard-earned billions. NVO (talk) 21:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Copyright exists since creation the image, you should not register your image.. (Согласно Бернской конвенции (которую подписали 164 государства), авторское право на произведение возникает автоматически с момента создания этого произведения, нигде регистрировать их не нужно.)--Anatoliy (talk) 21:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Author's rights and exclusive rights for graphic art, as defined in Civil Code, are quite far from the concept of registered copyright as it existed in the US. Russian legislation prescribes copyrighting for software and some other technical stuff but not for graphic art. One may equate this or that right declared in Civil Code to copyright declared in the Berne Convention, but the act of having a graphic work copyrighted (passive voice) is impossible. But this is all secondary to main point: does the pattern on a can fall into any of sixteen types of IP defined in Civil Code? Does it qualify as a work of art or not? NVO (talk) 22:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Another question with copyright is: 1) it was created in 1930s, thus it can be already be in PD anyway, 2) I didn't find any evidence that labels for consumer goods created for government (as they were the same for all Soviet Union, and the source says that it was a centralised campaign) were copyrighted in 1930s, 3) we don't know the author, and the author was never mentioned on a can. Thus it perfectly falls under {{PD-Russia-2008}} for works published anonymously, even if we consider this design complicated enough to be {{PD-ineligible}}. The only way to deny this is to find copyright holder who have registered copyright — NickK (talk) 19:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- Maybe first image has been created in 1930s but others is not. And where you find information about 1930s?--Anatoliy (talk) 21:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- Another question with copyright is: 1) it was created in 1930s, thus it can be already be in PD anyway, 2) I didn't find any evidence that labels for consumer goods created for government (as they were the same for all Soviet Union, and the source says that it was a centralised campaign) were copyrighted in 1930s, 3) we don't know the author, and the author was never mentioned on a can. Thus it perfectly falls under {{PD-Russia-2008}} for works published anonymously, even if we consider this design complicated enough to be {{PD-ineligible}}. The only way to deny this is to find copyright holder who have registered copyright — NickK (talk) 19:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- Author's rights and exclusive rights for graphic art, as defined in Civil Code, are quite far from the concept of registered copyright as it existed in the US. Russian legislation prescribes copyrighting for software and some other technical stuff but not for graphic art. One may equate this or that right declared in Civil Code to copyright declared in the Berne Convention, but the act of having a graphic work copyrighted (passive voice) is impossible. But this is all secondary to main point: does the pattern on a can fall into any of sixteen types of IP defined in Civil Code? Does it qualify as a work of art or not? NVO (talk) 22:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Copyright exists since creation the image, you should not register your image.. (Согласно Бернской конвенции (которую подписали 164 государства), авторское право на произведение возникает автоматически с момента создания этого произведения, нигде регистрировать их не нужно.)--Anatoliy (talk) 21:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- We don't know if the original was copyrighted in the United States or any other places that had copyrighting practice in place. Sounds unlikely. As for present day, why should a canning factory go these lengths? They just pick a free (and yet recognizable) pattern and save their hard-earned billions. NVO (talk) 21:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep 1) All logos are {{PD-UA}}. 2) All designs are too simple, see. {{Packaging}}. 3) If this is DW, than what about Soft drink bottles? --Amakuha (talk) 23:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- Well, if all designs are simple, take a pencil and try to draw this image: File:Zguschene moloko z kavoju.png (without Photoshop or similar editor, it is for difficult images). And you are wrong about logos. Not all nominated images are Ukrainian, and not all Ukrainian logos are not copyrighted.--Anatoliy (talk) 01:06, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
- Comment different cases from different countries; the US packaging with canned milk looks like an old design that probably would be {{PD-US-no notice}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- But it produced in Netherlands.--Anatoliy (talk) 22:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
File:Zguschene moloko.png and File:Iryska.png kept as I do not see a threshold of originality met, the other cases deleted as they are derived work of more elaborate designs. Proofs that these designs are PD are missing. --AFBorchert (talk) 16:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- Seems that File:Згущені вершки.png is a very old image as well. The same design is used in Belarus (Hlubokoe, Rogachev, Russia (Tyazhinskiy, Bielgorod), Ukraine (Kupyansk, Ichnya). It looks like it is a very old and typical Soviet design as well, but I can't find anything about author (obviously, he is not indicated on the can) — NickK (talk) 20:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Personal image ; No notability ; No use : Commons is not a personal web site Civa (talk) 18:06, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- dismiss frivolous nomination. You were already told to stop [8]. NVO (talk) 18:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope.--Anatoliy (talk) 09:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: This isn't a personal picture but rather one of a particular event. – Adrignola talk 19:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
No es conveniente mantenerlo en Wikimedia Commons, por razones personales El tecnomago (talk) 23:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. – Adrignola talk 20:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Flickr user is not the photographer of this photo of Daniel Erthal. backlink: flickr Martin H. (talk) 18:18, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Found it: its from a promotional photo setting by photographer Fernando Torquatto. See Paparazzo/Globo. --Martin H. (talk) 18:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- As I said in my talk page, I didn't want it to be uploaded. A shame you've opened this discussion before clarifying this matter with me. Tomer T (talk) 19:25, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Flickr license laundering. – Adrignola talk 18:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
This map is not showing the Avisio river, but a combination of Ahr, Rienz and Eisack. DanielHerzberg (talk) 14:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. Feel free to use {{Rename}}. Wknight94 talk 23:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Image can be renamed rather than deleted. – Adrignola talk 21:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
No true explanation of copyright, claimed by author. No clear reason why this ought to be useable. No clear source (although one imagines as the file is an SVG the original may have been somewhat different. Grandiose (talk) 19:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Obviously usable, given its use on many projects. Regaridng copyright, the author has no claim to copyright, as it's an image of text that doesn't meet the threshold of originality. – Adrignola talk 18:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Insufficient information provided to show why {{PD-old}} is applicable. The text "ex libris Trimalchoinis" on the right side in a modern italic Times New Roman font is suspicious. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 14:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Keep, I think. The line showing 40N intersects the coast of Spain exactly at the line showing 0 longitude. The actual intersection is at 1'49"E longitude. 20th century maps of Europe are not usually out by that much, so I'm inclined to believe that is early 19th century. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: per Jim. Likely the image was taken from another site that added the caption, but that addition is {{PD-text}} anyway. – Adrignola talk 20:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Copyrighted logo... ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 11:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Logo itself is "de minimis", subject of the photo is a whole sign, independently of its content.
- Should be this bus stop sign considered as an unique, creative, original artwork to be protected by copyright?
- Should we believe that there is a real concern of the copyright holder of the logo that the appearance of the bus stop sign has to be secret? Is it a real intention and meaning of UAE law? --ŠJů (talk) 13:52, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- I cannot consider the logo as de minimis, but a thought about the law is welcoming..moreover FOP in the UAE does'nt allow such photographs..--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 13:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Apparently, real life contradicts your idea of the Emirates. The sheer number of photographs shows that photography is allowed. Publication of photographs may be not, but it's a whole different matter. NVO (talk) 18:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- I cannot consider the logo as de minimis, but a thought about the law is welcoming..moreover FOP in the UAE does'nt allow such photographs..--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 13:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- "Copyrighted" by whom, where - please provide registration date and number. The world must know the bloody infidels who "copyrighted" the Emblem of the United Arab Emirates (actually, the emblem of the Arab world - Emirates, Iraq, Libya etc. append the Falcon with their own escutcheons and banners). And don't you dare call it "logo"! (grin. I hate bus stops, too.). NVO (talk) 18:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- And don't you dare call it "logo" - Its not for me, I cannot consider your words in its sense...Its a logo for the transport department of abu dhabi (As seen on the sign) and it have a copyright, its the responsibility of the uploader to prove that this image is in PD so that a derivative is allowed here..--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 04:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- FYI, Emblem of U.A.E is also listed for deletion..--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 08:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- And don't you dare call it "logo" - Its not for me, I cannot consider your words in its sense...Its a logo for the transport department of abu dhabi (As seen on the sign) and it have a copyright, its the responsibility of the uploader to prove that this image is in PD so that a derivative is allowed here..--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 04:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- It shows a bus stop and some houses, there is a right to take photos in public places. And why should there be a copyright ? --Blonder1984 (talk) 21:22, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- No' there is no right to take photos from public places, its restricted...see COM:FOP#UAE.--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 07:51, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Derivative work of sign containing likely copyrighted emblem. No evidence given why this should be PD. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 13:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Die Künstlerin lebt noch: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricarda_Jacobi - es ist keine Freigabe vorhanden, Besitz des Bildes ist nicht Besitz der Urheberrechte Ralf Roletschek (talk) 14:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Transl.: Artist still living; no permission included with upload. Mere possession of a copyrighted painting doesn't transfer copyright from artist to owner. --Túrelio (talk) 14:46, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for translation! --Ralf Roletschek (talk) 15:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- User:Citric01 ist the owner and uploader of the painting. He has written a mail to me that the permission of the artist Ricarda Jacobi will follow: "she has agreed to write a letter releasing permission for the publication of my portrait, in wikipedia commons." Citric01 begs to postpone the deletion of the file, until the permission has arrived: "The message says that my portrait will be deleted in 7 days? can you help me get an extension, so i can scan and send the brief(letter) to the administrator?" Please find a solution until Ricarda Jacobi's permission has arrived. Many thanks from --Gudrun Meyer (talk) 10:01, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- According to a new mail of User:Citric 01 he authorized me to change the licence. I hope that there are no objections against the change. --Gudrun Meyer (talk) 13:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Mail received in OTRS ticket 2011062110000428. The attached statement of permission is written by hand so I can't machine translate to determine the language for the queue it should go to, much less determine if the artist actually agreed to a specific license. – Adrignola talk 17:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
- I think it is in German -- it is quite short, and I don't think it gives permission -- none of the expected words (Wikimedia, Commons, CC-BY-SA, etc.) appear to be there. As Adrignola suggests, the handwriting is not clear enough for a non-German speaker to transcribe it. Either we need a German speaking OTRS member or, if one of the German speakers here would e-mail me, I will send them the tif of the permission, with the artist's address erased. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps I can help you. Fernando del Valle (Citric), with whom I have corresponded, sent a copy of the permission to me. Unfortunately I was not at home during the last week and could not read my mails. Here is a translation in English language:
- "I, Ricarda Jacobi, give the authors' rights of the portrait, which I painted 2003, to Fernando del Valle. He can use the portrait for all purposes.
- Ricarda Jacobi"
- This is of cause no sufficient licence. The painter, Ricarda Jacobi is an old lady, born 1923, and I believe that neither she nor Fernando del Valle did know the correct text for the licence. On the other hand I think, that the file should not be deleted, because Ricarda Jacobi gave a permission to Fernando del Valle to publish the portrait. --Gudrun Meyer (talk) 18:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps I can help you. Fernando del Valle (Citric), with whom I have corresponded, sent a copy of the permission to me. Unfortunately I was not at home during the last week and could not read my mails. Here is a translation in English language:
Deleted: We unfortunately do not have the essential information needed to keep this file. A specific license or release into the public domain is needed for all images at Wikimedia Commons. "Permission for use" is not sufficient. – Adrignola talk 15:57, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Files by Yeibatista825
[edit]- File:Marisol2.jpg
- File:Zuleyka-rivera-424702.jpeg
- File:Denisse Quiñones.jpg
- File:Miss Universe 2007.jpg
- File:Jimena-miss-universo-2010.jpg
- File:MU 2009.jpg
- File:MU 2008.jpg
- File:Oxana Destituida.jpg
- File:Mu 1959.jpg
- File:Mu 61.jpeg
- File:Mu 62.jpg
- File:Mu 63.jpg
- File:Mu 64.jpg
- File:Mu 65.jpg
- File:Mu 66.jpg
- File:MU 1967.jpg
- File:MU 68.jpg
- File:MU 1974 .jpg
- File:MU 1971.jpg
- File:MU 1972.jpg
- File:MU 1973.jpg
- File:MU 1975.jpg
- File:MU 1976.jpg
- File:Mu 1977.jpg
- File:Mu1978.jpg
- File:MU 79.jpg
- File:MU 80.jpg
- File:MU 1984.jpg
- File:MU 81.jpg
- File:MU 1982.jpg
- File:MU 83.jpg
- File:Mu 86.jpg
- File:Mu 1985.jpg
- File:Mu 90.jpg
- File:MU 87.jpg
- File:89.png
- File:MU 88.jpg
- File:Mu 94.jpg
- File:MU 93.jpg
- File:MU 1992.jpg
- File:MU 1991.jpg
- File:MU 1999.jpg
- File:MU 98.jpg
- File:MU 2000.jpg
- File:MU 95.jpg
- File:MU 97.jpg
- File:MU 96.jpg
- File:Natalie-glebova.jpg
- File:MU 2004.jpg
- File:MU 2003.jpg
- File:MU 2002.jpg
- File:Mu 1993.jpg
- File:Mu 54.jpg
- File:Mu 52.jpg
- File:Mu 53.jpg
- File:Mu 55.jpg
- File:Usa1956s.jpg
- File:Mu 57.jpg
- File:Mu 58.jpg
- File:1960-mu.jpg
Doubtful authorship, license, source - professional photos of famous people, uploaded in low resolution, without correct exif. --Art-top (talk) 07:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete nuke all with CC license (which is clearly wrong without specific evidence to the contrary. AnonMoos (talk) 08:25, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Ah! there must be uglier targets, but let them go... delete. NVO (talk) 17:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Own work by the uploader is highly doubtful. High Contrast (talk) 08:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Files about Karako
[edit]Here files of the user Novikovalexandervictorovich, but I have doubts about authorship, and some photos have wrong license tag. Dmitry89 (talk) 09:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- File:Karako.jpg - wrong license tag, Karako Victor born in 1948, on this photo he was about 30 years old, so it was taken probably in 1980-ies → it is not PD.
- old photos, Karako Victor was architect of these buildings, small dimensions, I have doubts about authorship, maybe it is non-commercial uses only because Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Former_Soviet_Union;
- small dimensions, different devices:
- File:Headoffice.jpg (DCF, 2007)
- File:Gardeners house.jpg (DCF, 2007)
- File:Pototskiy country estate.jpg (no metadata)
- File:Designing The Absent .jpg (Canon, 2010)
- File:Chandelier 30.jpg (NIKON, 2011)
- 3D models, projects of Karako architect agency, I think, are copyrighted:
- Commons cannot host anything designed by K per COM:FOP (unless K himself files an OTRS release), even if they were indeed own photographs. Delete/nuke. NVO (talk) 17:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:23, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Incomplete source can't be verified. Damiens.rf 15:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Here the Library statement: While the donor of the collection, Cowles Communications, Inc., dedicated to the public all rights it possessed in the collection, copyright to some photographs in this collection may be retained by the actual creators or their heirs. In an Instrument of Gift executed with the Library, Cowles has also expressed its intention to the Library that works not be used for "advertising or trade purposes." The Library cannot provide further interpretation of this phrase. Privacy and publicity rights may also apply. [9].--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 19:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
What exactly is the reason for the deletion request? --Tungsten (talk) 09:17, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
- How do I verify this image is part of the LOOK collection? How do I verify this image is not one of those whose photographs in this collection whose copyrights may be retained by the actual creators or their heirs? --Damiens.rf 16:01, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: photographer is not in the list at the website Jcb (talk) 00:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Incomplete source can't be verified. Damiens.rf 15:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Library of Congress statement: While the donor of the collection, Cowles Communications, Inc., dedicated to the public all rights it possessed in the collection, copyright to some photographs in this collection may be retained by the actual creators or their heirs. In an Instrument of Gift executed with the Library, Cowles has also expressed its intention to the Library that works not be used for "advertising or trade purposes." The Library cannot provide further interpretation of this phrase. Privacy and publicity rights may also apply. [10]
What exactly is the reason for the deletion request? --Tungsten (talk) 09:17, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
- How do I verify this image is part of the LOOK collection? How do I verify this image is not one of those whose photographs in this collection whose copyrights may be retained by the actual creators or their heirs? --Damiens.rf 16:01, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: photographer is not in the list at the website Jcb (talk) 00:11, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
en:File:Dhaka_salimullah_med.jpg. ... made a DR because Jcb opposed my speedy request... Saibo (Δ) 16:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Delete certainly not "own work" as claimed, but night well be PD-old. The uploader will need to provide us with source and author information. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:58, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Info source / duplicate at enwp is now under discussion here: en:Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2011_June_28#File:Dhaka_salimullah_med.jpg. --Saibo (Δ) 02:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Hmm. Seems to come from an old photograph (see for example here); the person died in 1915 so that photograph should almost certainly be PD in the US (published before 1923) and Bangladesh, Pakistan, or India (which had a term of 50 years from publication for photos... India has since extended to 60 but that would likely matter little). This however appears to be colorized, maybe even a painting... also possibly old but much less easy to determine. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep subject died 1915, -> {{PD-India}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per Carl Lindberg: "...appears to be colorized, maybe even a painting..." - we don't know sufficient about this image to keep it Jcb (talk) 00:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
No COM:FOP#France Wknight94 talk 14:46, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Kept: all possible FoP issues are DM Jcb (talk) 16:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
France does not have Freedom of Panorama. See COM:FOP#France. It is not allowed to publish pictures of a building until 70 years after the death of its architect. The tour Montparnasse was achieved in 1973. Commons:De minimis doesnt appy here, because the tour Montparnasse is the main subject of the photo (see the name of the file). Civa (talk) 20:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per COM:FOP#France De minimis does not apply. --Grcampbell (talk) 05:48, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Don't we have enough of these? How many images of a woman sucking penis do we need to illustrate a concept? IMO, this low quality (and resolution) image does not sufficiently meet our guidelines of being a serious database of free knowledge to warrant inclusion. Blurpeace 19:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Low res and just another pornographic image. fetchcomms☛ 19:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, in answer to the (seemingly rhetorical) question of "Don't we have enough of these images", we seem to have a total of five photographs of fellatio, of which there are three that are useful and illustrate unique positions/situations. This one illustrates oral sex, but without the whole passive object (penis) hidden by the active object (mouth) - so it seems it does fit a useful niche. Max Rebo Band"almost suspiciously excellent" 04:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Not the most brilliant of photographs perhaps, but it's being used on two sister projects (da., eo.) and therefore is within project scope. Anatiomaros (talk) 23:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- Comment, Max Rebo Band just added those images – check the pages' histories. I could easily revert and use a higher quality photo available. Blurpeace 18:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for that information Blurpeace; I'll remember to do so next time. Have you a particular image in mind? Regarding the retention of this image, I feel it's becoming increasingly difficult in the current climate for editors to support our hosting "pornographic" images of any description, regardless of quality, without being accused of wanting to see Commons becoming a "porn host". That is sad and a bit scary. If we had a decent and varied selection of images in this category I'd have no problem with deleting an image of borderline quality, but I don't think that is the case here. I certainly don't want to see Commons "flooded with porn" though. Problem is we have no clear guidelines as to what constitutes an acceptable range of images and probably never will have: I usually categorise such exciting things as fields, buildings and roads (e.g. GeographPtoject) and nobody has ever argued for deleting our thousands of files of farm gates in Britain, even though the image quality of many of them is poor and they illustrate pretty much the same thing. But hey, that's life... Anatiomaros (talk) 22:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Siilar to what Anatiomaros is saying, I am not sure which "higher quality photograph" you could replace the image with - as mentioned, it seems to be the only illustration of fellatio that doesn't obscure the penis. Max Rebo Band"almost suspiciously excellent" 03:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. Not again ... --JN466 20:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Could you be more specific, other than "it depicts something I find sexually arousing"? Because we have 250 photographs of bare feet, which I find sexually arousing, and this is the only clear photograph of fellatio, as mentioned above. Max Rebo Band"almost suspiciously excellent" 01:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- It's a poor image in many respects. Most of the penis is in fact obscured, by the woman's hand. In fact, nothing of the man can be seen, except for one half-inch of his penis. The woman herself has been clumsily "cut out", as though with scissors, and dropped onto a white background -- presumably because the original background was distracting. This is an amateur porn shot (Description: "sucking last drops"), and I resent the po-faced argument that this should in fact be an image created for an educational purpose, or one that would really be suited for fulfilling one. The argument that images of fellatio are just like images of farm gates is remote from real world attitudes. By all means, let's have images of fellatio, images that are technically accomplished and have an educational and aesthetic value, but let's not collect tacky images of the act which do the whole idea of illustrating such subjects for an educational purpose a disservice. Okay? --JN466 05:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- Could you be more specific, other than "it depicts something I find sexually arousing"? Because we have 250 photographs of bare feet, which I find sexually arousing, and this is the only clear photograph of fellatio, as mentioned above. Max Rebo Band"almost suspiciously excellent" 01:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep In new version of this file is better quality now -I found an original picture. By the way, I agree with Max Rebo Band and Anatiomaros. Remas6 22:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- Where exactly did you find it? If it is no longer the Flick image, the source needs to be updated. --JN466 05:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- You have right, now is correct source and it is the Flick image. Remas6 15:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep It's in use now; whatever you might way about how it was put there, it's been in use for a couple weeks on some of these WPs and no one has removed it from the page. And we have six photos of fellatio and this is from a different angle from any of the other ones.--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- The principle of "silence is consensus" on smaller projects is moot. I could easily go in, switch the photos, and nobody on the local project would know. They probably don't even know this deletion request is happening. Blurpeace 07:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- Images get deleted from en.Wiki all the time without anyone knowing the deletion request is happening. In this case, we have images on multiple WPs being changed for weeks, and not on tiny WPs; if it is at all possible for them to deal with vandalism, then at the very least some patroller has looked at it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Fellation-spam makes it not better in any respect. I think more and more people realize that you can abouse commons as data storage for private pics and crap. --Yikrazuul (talk) 11:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
- Says someone spamming Commons with stuff like File:Kadethrin.svg, which looks practically the same as File:Imidacloprid.svg; do we really need 100 chemical diagrams for insecticides alone? And if we do, how can you complain about six pictures of fellatio?--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
- The truth is that some people find that even one picture is one too many. I was going to ignore JN466's comment (above) - "The argument that images of fellatio are just like images of farm gates is remote from real world attitudes" - as I was not implying anything of the sort, pretty obviously, but I'll bring it in here now as it in itself sums up a certain attitude where "real world attitudes" actually means "my point of view". We do not have an effective "cap" or limit on the images in any particular category and nobody ever complains that we have too many images unless the subject is related to sex and sexuality. As Prosfilaes notes, we only have 6 images here not thousands. And just where are we supposed to get the "images that are technically accomplished and have an educational and aesthetic value"? It would be great to have them but where are they? Are we supposed to get rid of every image that does not meet those requirements - which are themselves open to debate, of course - in the meantime? If amateur sexual images by private individuals are "spam" how are we supposed to find professional ones that are not copright violations? With respect, this whole line of argument is disingenuous and unhelpful. Anatiomaros (talk) 15:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
- Says someone spamming Commons with stuff like File:Kadethrin.svg, which looks practically the same as File:Imidacloprid.svg; do we really need 100 chemical diagrams for insecticides alone? And if we do, how can you complain about six pictures of fellatio?--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. COM:PORN High Contrast (talk) 11:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep This file was condidate for speedy deletion [11] by High Contrast as Out of scope: COM:PORN because (in High Contrast opinion) it is copyrighted and not published under a free license, but the original file is published under a free license, please have a look to http://www.flickr.com/photos/47114695@N06/4332217348 Jacopo Werther (talk) 12:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep No good reason for deletion. --Dezidor (talk) 15:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep This file was restored JUST ONE WEEK AGO as a result of an undeletion request. I'm adding the undeletion debate below as it is now archived:
![[11]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AGlans_Stimulation.png&action=historysubmit&diff=42612034&oldid=42361998){kind=link}
Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2010-08#File:Glans Stimulation.png (replaced text with link to archive: Prosfilaes.)
I'd like to know what has changed since the 8th of August, or is this simply part of a campaign to "clean" Commons of all sexuality-related material for whatever excuse happens to be convenient? Anatiomaros (talk) 15:31, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep It can't be out of scope. It's in use.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Kept. In use. ZooFari 00:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Eyes closed = dominating behaviour. Best alternatives uploaded. Unused. ~ FAP (talk) 19:12, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Dominating behavior = usable on pages about domination in human sexuality. Do we really need to go over and over the same pictures? The fact that it was in use is good evidence it is usable in an educational context.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:39, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept - Having your eyes closed is not dominating behaviour, sometimes you just want to be able to concentrate on what's in your mouth, not watching pubic hair fly at your eyes. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:52, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
This member is no longer active on Flickr - permission no longer given Hold and wave (talk) 21:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep That's what {{Flickrreview}} is for. Anytime the image source goes absent, we know that the image had been reviewed under a free license. --ZooFari 22:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Permission is irrevocable, otherwise we couldn't use Flickr.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Question Do we have evidence of the subject's consent to distribute this? (Flickr-review is about a different issue, licensing status.) If we don't, this now fails COM:PEOPLE (per recent WMF resolutions). --99of9 (talk) 14:08, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept Creative Commons licences are irrevocable. It is not of interest whether the flickr user is still active or not. --High Contrast (talk) 14:01, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
No EXIF data, possible flickrwashing - account no longer exists. Poor description, while that is not a reason for deletion, it is not educational in any manner. No Flickr also means lack of model release, identifiable person. Other images of better quality of this topic exist. (And I had no clue this was nominated so many times in the past..sorry to beat a dead horse, ha!) Missvain (talk) 13:02, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Please note that the closing admin on the latest discussion was unaware of the latest WMF resolutions on identifiable subject consent to publish, and agrees they mean deletion here. We now require evidence of consent, usually at least a statement by the uploader. --99of9 (talk) 13:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - As per 99of9.--Hold and wave (talk) 15:50, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - on the closer's talkpage, it was suggested that COM:PEOPLE be updated to include this WMF resolution before renominating - this has not been done. Can somebody please do this so we're all singing from the same hymn sheet? -mattbuck (Talk) 16:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
- Among other mentions of requirements for evidence of consent, we now have: "an identifiable individual with no evidence of consent given... normally not OK: Nudes, underwear or swimsuit shots, unless obviously taken in a public place (unreasonable intrusion without consent)". Although there may be further tweaks, this is one of our most obvious cases IMO. --99of9 (talk) 11:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted - Jcb (talk) 16:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)