Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2011/06/25
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
Out of scope, not a gallery and is an encyclopedic page. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 04:40, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: (not by me) Jcb (talk) 11:57, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Not a gallery page, but an encyclopedic one better used for Wikipedia. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 04:42, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: (not by me) Jcb (talk) 11:57, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Not a gallery page, but an encyclopedic one better used for Wikipedia. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 04:43, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep There are likely to be many images of this type of road/footpath attaching to this category as images from the Geograph project are categorised. There are hundreds of thousands of uncategorised Geograph images that various British members are struggling to categorise as a result of these being uploaded by a bot. It is likely to take several years for all these to be processed (and more are arriving all the time!). The problem with this specific category is that it doesn't fit wholly into any other category, being a road, a public footpath and a bridleway, which all lead to different higher categories. Skinsmoke (talk) 04:57, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: (not by me) Jcb (talk) 11:57, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Not a gallery page, but an encyclopedic one better used for Wikipedia. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 04:44, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: (not by me) Jcb (talk) 11:57, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Not a gallery page, but an encyclopedic one better used for Wikipedia. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 04:44, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: (not by me) Jcb (talk) 11:57, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Not a gallery page, but an encyclopedic one better used for Wikipedia. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 04:44, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: (not by me) Jcb (talk) 11:57, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Not a gallery page, but an encyclopedic one better used for Wikipedia. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 04:46, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: (not by me) Jcb (talk) 11:57, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
No images Vibhijain (talk) 09:36, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: (not by me) Jcb (talk) 11:58, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope, not a gallery and is an encyclopedic page. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 04:40, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: (not by me) Jcb (talk) 11:57, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Not a gallery page, but an encyclopedic one better used for Wikipedia. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 04:42, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: (not by me) Jcb (talk) 11:57, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Not a gallery page, but an encyclopedic one better used for Wikipedia. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 04:43, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep There are likely to be many images of this type of road/footpath attaching to this category as images from the Geograph project are categorised. There are hundreds of thousands of uncategorised Geograph images that various British members are struggling to categorise as a result of these being uploaded by a bot. It is likely to take several years for all these to be processed (and more are arriving all the time!). The problem with this specific category is that it doesn't fit wholly into any other category, being a road, a public footpath and a bridleway, which all lead to different higher categories. Skinsmoke (talk) 04:57, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: (not by me) Jcb (talk) 11:57, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Not a gallery page, but an encyclopedic one better used for Wikipedia. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 04:44, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: (not by me) Jcb (talk) 11:57, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Not a gallery page, but an encyclopedic one better used for Wikipedia. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 04:44, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: (not by me) Jcb (talk) 11:57, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Not a gallery page, but an encyclopedic one better used for Wikipedia. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 04:44, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: (not by me) Jcb (talk) 11:57, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Not a gallery page, but an encyclopedic one better used for Wikipedia. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 04:46, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: (not by me) Jcb (talk) 11:57, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
No images Vibhijain (talk) 09:36, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: (not by me) Jcb (talk) 11:58, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
110.21.159.170 12:28, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: No reason given for nomination. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:10, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
A copyrighed company logo. An obvious false licensing information was given by the uploader. Tomer T (talk) 11:46, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: fair use logo matanya • talk 20:04, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Was uploaded by a problematic user (see File:אסטרל-לוגו.jpg). According to this http://www.eilat.muni.il/?CategoryID=1252&ArticleID=790&sng=1 the given licensing information is unlikely accurate. Tomer T (talk) 11:49, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio matanya • talk 20:05, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Empty Page Vibhijain (talk) 16:06, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Delete Agreed. -- Blackcat (talk) 16:13, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: empty gall Túrelio (talk) 17:57, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Link to other website (maybe advertisement) Vibhijain (talk) 16:09, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: speedied as promotional. Túrelio (talk) 17:56, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
per Commons:Village_pump#DMCA_takedown --~ Grcampbell (talk) 06:35, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Comment There's an OTRS ticket. Is it a legitimate one? -- Blackcat (talk) 15:49, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Apparently the DMCA request states the person who authorized the OTRS ticket did not have the authority to do so, at least according to the discussion there. If so, then clear Delete. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:40, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Are we talking about apparent authority, aren't we? Well, consider my opinion a keep if the person is authorised and a delete any other case. -- Blackcat (talk) 17:38, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Apparently the DMCA request states the person who authorized the OTRS ticket did not have the authority to do so, at least according to the discussion there. If so, then clear
Deleted: DMCA take-downs override all other systems as described above. Removed immediately to prevent legal liability. – Adrignola talk 17:48, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Screenshot of non-free computer game. Certainly not "Own Work" as claimed Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:03, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Also:
Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio http://www.mobygames.com/game/windows/oregon-trail-ii/screenshots/gameShotId,250759/ Darwin Ahoy! 09:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Screenshot of non-free computer game. Certainly not "Own Work" as claimed Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:04, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2204023515&v=wall Darwin Ahoy! 09:43, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Screenshot of non-free computer game. Certainly not "Own Work" as claimed Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:04, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=143672 Darwin Ahoy! 09:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Screenshot of non-free computer game. Certainly not "Own Work" as claimed Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:05, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio from http://www.gamepro.com/screens/114422/the-oregon-trail-5th-edition/524399/ Darwin Ahoy! 09:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Clear copyvio - taken from here http://vincentlaforet.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/laforetheadshot1.jpg and there are no indications on the blog that the content is released under a compatible licence Biker Biker (talk) 15:48, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted - Useres seem to believe that FAL license is a sort of fair use Darwin Ahoy! 11:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Per my request: Low quality, unused, uploaded better version, several better alternatives in cat, etc. --ZooFari 00:11, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Agree. There are alternatives. -- Blackcat (talk) 15:14, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 02:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope, nothing that seems really of educational benefit to our viewers. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 04:25, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 00:07, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
unused private photo, out of scope Hold and wave (talk) 21:33, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Not more out of scope than any other picture dealing with exhibitionism. But can we consider the woman is recognizable ? (and therefore we'd nee authorization) --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 09:09, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Keep as shows female on bed naked after having sex making vagina very red, this is normal for young women to see, which does fit many suitable categories. And April is happy with her face being recognizable
- She is neither young, nor is a red vagina an indication for sex. The rest is also not discussable.
- Delete The educational scope is missing, tending to COM:PORN. --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:37, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Keep According to the uploader the woman pictured is consensual and the photo appears to be in scope. So no personality right violated. -- Blackcat (talk) 10:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Anyway the file title should be changed in "Nude woman", as there is only one.
Deleted: out of scope Jcb (talk) 00:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Unused duplicate of {{SpecialUpload elements}} Rd232 (talk) 01:37, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 07:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused file which claims to be used for Wikipedia. However, there are no links to any language Wikipedias, and this image does not convey a sense of educational benefit. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 04:31, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 07:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
This series of lines does not appear to have anything which can convey meaning or educational use to someone viewing the image, and is therefore out of scope. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 04:33, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 07:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
COM:FOP#France Ils sont des créations artistiques protégées par le droit d'auteur per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Royal-de-luxe-Élephant-mai-2005-2.jpg --~ Grcampbell (talk) 05:59, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Au moins en ce qui concerne cette image, la création est un de minimis car la photo répresente la parade (translated: "at least about this image, the artistic creation is a de minimis, as the photo shows the parade, the crowd and the big puppet) -- Blackcat (talk) 15:37, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep idem Blackcat. Deansfa (talk) 16:26, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep idem ... Mais de toute façon, je vais demander officiellement à la compagnie Royal de Luxe, par @mail. Je souhaiterais seulement de l'aide pour lui présenter et tenter de la convaincre d'accepter de remplir le "pesant" formulaire OTRS si rebutant pour tant de "contactés" ou ... simples lecteurs de base ! Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 (talk) 05:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- Le délai de 7 jours pour suppression est bien trop court ! Je demande plus de temps pour réaliser (et tenter de réussir) les démarches nécessaires. Voir mes arguments - Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 (talk) 09:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: General view. Yann (talk) 07:58, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
COM:FOP#France Ils sont des créations artistiques protégées par le droit d'auteur per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Royal-de-luxe-Élephant-mai-2005-2.jpg --~ Grcampbell (talk) 06:03, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep meme ici la photo répresente la parade et la géante est un de minimis ("here too the picture shows the parade, the Giant is a de minimis ) -- Blackcat (talk) 15:39, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep idem ... Mais de toute façon, laisser au moins le temps que j'obtienne de la compagnie Royal de Luxe la réponse à ma demande officielle, par @mail. Je souhaiterais seulement de l'aide d'un ou de plusieurs contributeurs ou administrateurs expérimentés pour lui présenter et tenter de la convaincre d'accepter de remplir le "pesant" formulaire OTRS si rebutant pour tant de "contactés" ou ... simples lecteurs de base ! Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 (talk) 06:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- Le délai de 7 jours pour suppression est bien trop court ! Je demande plus de temps pour réaliser (et tenter de réussir) les démarches nécessaires. Voir mes arguments - Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 (talk) 12:19, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep General view. Yann (talk) 15:11, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: General view. Yann (talk) 08:00, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope (maybe a self portrait of the user) Cholo Aleman (talk) 06:16, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 08:02, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope (self promotion, book publishes for money (dont know the english expression) Cholo Aleman (talk) 06:20, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 08:03, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
unused book cover - self promotion of this writer, not notable for the commons, see http://www.outskirtspress.com/a_s_jockisch/ Cholo Aleman (talk) 06:21, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 08:03, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 06:23, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 08:04, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 06:25, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 08:04, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
unused nearly private image - out of scope ( I cannot identfy him, perhaps a prize for electronic gaming?! - seems to be not notable) Cholo Aleman (talk) 06:42, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 08:17, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
unused music cover - copy vio ? - article about it was deleted in the german WP for missing relevance - out of scope here too Cholo Aleman (talk) 06:56, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No permission. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 08:18, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
imported by a bot. badly blurred and thus out of scope. Amada44 talk to me 09:24, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete de facto unusable. -- Blackcat (talk) 15:52, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 08:19, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
to blurred to be useful Amada44 talk to me 09:54, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Same as above. unusable. -- Blackcat (talk) 15:53, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 08:19, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Poor quality (badJPG, low resolution), not used anywhere, description missing. Leyo 10:27, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Vectorised to File:Hydrogenation raney nickel zh.svg--Ben.MQ (talk) 07:58, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete low-quality (compression artifacts) and unused replaceable. DMacks (talk) 10:38, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 08:20, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Poor quality (badJPG, low resolution), not used anywhere (probably replaced in article by better version), description missing. Leyo 10:29, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete vectorised to File:Desulfurization of thioacetal using Raney Ni zh.svg --Ben.MQ (talk) 07:59, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and Ben.MQ. DMacks (talk) 10:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 08:20, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Poor quality (badJPG, low resolution), not used anywhere (probably replaced in article by better version), description missing. Leyo 10:30, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete vectorised to File:Ra-Ni Thiophene Scheme zh.svg --Ben.MQ (talk) 08:00, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete as low-resolution unused. File:Ra-Ni Thiophene Scheme.png is viable raster with good description, could easily export a .zh one from the .svg if need same lang as this .jpg. DMacks (talk) 10:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 08:20, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Lower res version of File:BC Hydro Stave Falls-1.jpg Fæ (talk) 11:18, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Speedy delete I just noticed this myself a few minutes ago. File:Ruskin Dam power house.jpg is duplicated by File:BC Hydro Ruskin Generating Station.jpg as well.--NortyNort (talk) 11:38, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Duplicate. Yann (talk) 08:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
This is a Russian statue. The stamp is a derivative work, and the permission of the copyright holder for the subject is still needed. Russia gives 70-year pma for artistic works; its sculptor Yevgeny Vuchetich died in 1974, so his copyright does not run out till 2045. Furthermore, Russia does not have freedom of panorama. Jappalang (talk) 13:09, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep How many times we had this discussion in the past? I feel hundreds of times. All German stamps including such from the BRD as well as DDR are per it self in the PD. If there are work of artists like paintings, statues or even the graphics of the stamp designer - these picture must before given to the PD, if not the stamp can't be issued. Therefore keep and close these deletion request. NobbiP talk 13:22, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- How many time and you still fail to see a problem here? The monument is not PD (because it's not) and yet it is (because it's on a German stamp)? The Bundespost does an excellent job of trashing commies' "copyright" in their own land, but it does not affect the laws of Florida, or of the countries of origin. NVO (talk) 17:31, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep per Nobbi. -- Blackcat (talk) 16:01, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Glaubt wirklich jemand das die kleine DDR ihren grossen Waffenbruder UdSSR nicht gefragt hätte? Und selbst wenn nicht, als Amtliches Werk ist diese Briefmarke gemeinfrei. Gruss --Nightflyer (talk) 18:28, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Help me, I do not understand German! -- Blackcat (talk) 17:30, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- "Does anyone realy believe, that the small DDR doesn't ask its big brother in arms UdSSR? But even when not, these stamps are an "Amtliches Werk", therefore PD" translated in my poor en NobbiP talk 17:43, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Incidentally, there was a (very small) record of copyright disputes between the Soviet Union and East Germans - mostly revolving around East German publishers' self-appointed "right" to print and distribute surplus runs of books ordered for printing by Soviet publishers. The finest Russian books were printed in West Germany, the next-to-best in the DDR. Apparently those shady VEB managers did not tell Moskau either ;) NVO (talk) 21:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- "Does anyone realy believe, that the small DDR doesn't ask its big brother in arms UdSSR? But even when not, these stamps are an "Amtliches Werk", therefore PD" translated in my poor en NobbiP talk 17:43, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Help me, I do not understand German! -- Blackcat (talk) 17:30, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- I would suggest those arguing on the basis of "German stamps are PD" to read up Commons:Derivative works. The subject of the image has its own valid copyright (separate from the photograph/stamp). This is analogous to photographs taken by US federal employees. Their photographs are PD-US by virtue as US federal work; however, in cases like Commons:Deletion requests/Derivative works of Sesame Street puppets, the presence of copyrighted subjects mean the photographs are not "free" in the definition of Commons' policy and guidelines.
- I see nowhere in German law that states "these picture must before given to the PD, if not the stamp can't be issued", please show the relevant ruling. Regardless, this is a stamp issued by the East German government in 1983 (before a united Germany). Their "fair use" of the statue does not mean the united German government has the permission of the statue's copyright owner. Neither does it mean that the German government will stop the passing of article 5 on the basis of one stamp. Jappalang (talk) 00:55, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- Regarding German law: The argument frequently put forward here and particularly on dewiki is that German stamps (as well as coat of arms, some coins etc.) are exempt from copyright because they are published in an official gazette which itself is an official work by § 5 (1) UrhG (this is more or less based on a 1987 decision by LG München I <LG München I 10.03.1987 21 S 20861/86 "Briefmarke"; GRUR 1987, 436>). If one follows this line of argument, there would be no point in digging deeper into Russian copyright law. It is sometimes forgotten, though, that it is, matter-of-factly, necessary that the work has been published in an official gazette -- I am not aware of whether or not that was the case in East Germany (the templates listed at Commons:Briefmarken#Deutschland are utterly confusing and, from my view, misleading). This needs to be shown. —Pill (talk) 15:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC) (So much for Commons policy. As for me: Because I still haven't found even a single serious legal commentary or article in support of the view of LG München and my count of commentaries against its (and Wikipedia's) interpretation stands now at ~12 -- some listed here --, I can only (personally) recommend not to upload, use or reuse such files.)
Kept: as per Nobbi. Yann (talk) 08:28, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
file is copyrighted and NOT gfdl, see http://www.balkanmedia.com/jelena-rozga-pokazala-gacice-i-spot-foto-video-cl6967.html Edoderoo (talk) 14:10, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- If the author of this particular image wants to give the item free under a GFDL/ccbysa license, please send email to OTRS. Edoderoo (talk) 14:12, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. No permission. Yann (talk) 08:37, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Copyright violation, lifted from http://autos.in.msn.com/gallery.aspx?cp-documentid=3663277&page=2 Brianhe (talk) 14:34, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Tineye shows that the image is used in lots of places so this is clearly a copyvio - http://www.tineye.com/search/d30b7ab77d4b8cb18f6cc4ca44a44136ba803926/ --Biker Biker (talk) 15:15, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. Yann (talk) 08:38, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
photo of some shop probably in China, not categorized since 2008, not used Honza chodec, earlier known as Slfi (talk) 14:59, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- I think it's in Japan, since the description text is using "ja", not "cn". I categorized it in Supermarkets in Japan. JeanBono (talk) 09:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: No valid reason for deletion. Yann (talk) 08:38, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
This is a old photo of barisal Town hall which is not looks like this. so please.. Bslwikicorporation (talk) 15:47, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep at least for historic purposes. The fact that now the building has changed is not a good reason for asking the deletion of pictures representing how it was before. Commons is plenty of demolished-remoderned buildings. -- Blackcat (talk) 16:12, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep What do you mean by "old photo of barisal town hall"? This is indeed a recent photo of Ashwinikumar Town Hall of Barisal.[1] a landmark in Barisal city. If you imply that this is not the office of the Barisal City corporation, that's an entirely different matter ... This building is historically and currently known as the Aswinikumar Town Hall. And there hasn't been any changes to this landmark since the photo was taken in 2007. So, your claim is incorrect, or wrongly worded. Either way, there is no reason to delete this photo. --Ragib (talk) 21:52, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: No valid reason for deletion. Yann (talk) 09:03, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Against the Notability Guildlines Vibhijain (talk) 16:07, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: by Jameslwoodward. Yann (talk) 08:39, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Copyright by Sony Pedroca cerebral Talk-Up 17:23, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. Yann (talk) 08:40, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
unused personal image, advertising Santosga (talk) 19:54, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 08:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
CV from http://www.google.it/imgres?imgurl=http://www.paulette-magazine.com/assets/IMG_9881_1.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.paulette-magazine.com/fr/culture/talent-d-acteur-cyril-descours/168&usg=__10bmBnX_Xwb3vUGNsdeItcGGbCc=&h=555&w=555&sz=130&hl=it&start=58&sig2=eYGkurxIJUPR-iuAeBhSxA&zoom=1&tbnid=m1otk-7NOKlhrM:&tbnh=158&tbnw=153&ei=C0AGToa2Ao6g-AaZxtTMDQ&prev=/search%3Fq%3DCyril%2BDescours%26um%3D1%26hl%3Dit%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3DN%26biw%3D1440%26bih%3D799%26tbm%3Disch&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=806&vpy=252&dur=1557&hovh=224&hovw=224&tx=105&ty=97&page=3&ndsp=29&ved=1t:429,r:4,s:58&biw=1440&bih=799 Broc (talk) 20:08, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: by Túrelio. Yann (talk) 08:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
personal image not used anywhere Broc (talk) 20:10, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 08:43, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
personal image not used anywhere Broc (talk) 20:14, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 08:43, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
personal image not used anywhere Broc (talk) 20:15, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 08:44, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope (unclear notability, cannot be identified) Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:26, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 08:44, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
unused private image - unclear notability - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:27, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 08:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
probable copyvio, non free image Broc (talk) 20:30, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No source, no permission. Yann (talk) 08:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:31, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 08:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
unused private text - out of scope ( a similar one was deleted ) Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:41, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 08:49, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:42, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 08:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
looks like taken from somewhere - copy violation Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:44, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No source, no permission. Yann (talk) 08:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope (unless it has some fotographic quality) Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:45, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 08:47, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Promotional image of some sort. Used in a now deleted hoax article on en.wikipedia. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 20:46, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No source, no permission. Yann (talk) 08:47, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
unused self "portrait" of a company - advertisement - out of scope (not the best quality) Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:48, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 08:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
unused promo image of an unknown band - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:52, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No permission. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 08:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
File:This_is_the_man_who_apparently_does_not_understand_how_important_facebook_status_is_to_some_people.jpg
[edit]unused private image - out of scope (joke) Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:53, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 08:50, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
taken from a website - needs otrs - copy vio ( ?? !! ) Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:56, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. Yann (talk) 08:50, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
unused partial representation of a computer project ?! - looks like to be a test, or an unfinished version - unusable, out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 21:00, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 08:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
small, unused black and white image of abstract art ?! - unclear notability, not realistically useful - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 21:02, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. High Contrast (talk) 15:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
unused image of an advertisement (self promotion of this company) - derivative work, copy vio of a poster ( + good night) Cholo Aleman (talk) 21:05, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. High Contrast (talk) 15:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
OTRS missing, a user with a single upload a no other proof he is the owner 2.82.238.237 00:49, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination -- Blackcat (talk) 17:51, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No source, no permission. Yann (talk) 08:53, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Unclear licencing situation: this file is likely not the own work of the uploader High Contrast (talk) 21:39, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No source, no permission. Yann (talk) 08:59, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
I accidentally uploaded this with the wrong name (Lundaria vs. lunaria). I have since uploaded a version with the correct name. Nonenmac (talk) 22:43, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- That needs no discussion. You'd better use {{Rename}} or {{Duplicate}} instead of {{Delete}} for such purposes. Mithril (talk) 02:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: by Shizhao. Yann (talk) 09:00, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Thumbnail file of this image. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:53, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Duplicate. Yann (talk) 09:01, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
copyright issue Ktaushea (talk) 23:27, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: by Jcb. Yann (talk) 09:01, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
No verifiable source; unlikely claims of the uploader being the copyright holder. According to the uploader, who has uploaded multiple copyright violations (made-up Free Art License claims, claiming to be the author of files found on Skyscrapercity, etc.), it comes from the their PC, but there is no explanation of how it got there. Saving a file from the Internet on one's PC doesn't make one the copyright holder of that file. The author is supposedly a Williams Faccioli. Who is that? —LX (talk, contribs) 00:58, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Comment The image quality is so poor that it could actually have been as well taken with i.e. a cell phone camera, so i tend to believe that the uploader is actually the copyright owner; nonetheless i agree and understand who doubts. -- Blackcat (talk) 15:21, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- The other photographs nicked from other people by the uploader were also amateur photographs (e.g. File:Estadiocolonremodelando.jpg = http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/232/cancha5.jpg/). It doesn't appear to come straight off a phone camera (there is no EXIF indicating a make and model, and someone's added the comment "P" in the file's metadata). —LX (talk, contribs) 16:01, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Film poster unlikely to be owned by the uploader 68.183.106.2 01:31, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
I may be new to editing on wikipedia, but I can assure you that I do in fact own the rights to this poster. I created it three months ago and have many other versions of the same file. Is there some sort of action I should take to prove that I do own this picture? I can upload any sort of alteration to the photo to show that I do have the original psd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xxj4dx (talk • contribs) 06:40, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Assuming in good faith the above user is the actual copyright holder. -- Blackcat (talk) 15:24, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete This is presumably here in support of a WP:EN article on the film. The article has been deleted as not notable. Therefore this is probably out of scope. If despite that, we are going to keep this, we should get permission using Commons:OTRS with the e-mail coming from the official web site of the film, which I could not find on Google. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:05, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per Jim Ezarateesteban 22:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused file. This simple image could be duplicated anywhere, in any form, and it would not have educational meaning. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 04:27, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Only used in a deleted article, en:BlueTree Advertising. Mike Rosoft (talk) 05:10, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Is "unused file" though properly licenced and in scope, a sufficient reason for deletion on Commons? -- Blackcat (talk) 15:32, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think the logo is in scope. (The speedily deleted article seems to have been created by the company to promote itself.) I'll quote one version of the article here, for reference. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 08:32, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- BlueTree Advertising is an advertising agency founded in 2010 by an advertising student at The University of Texas at Austin in Austin,TX.
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:09, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
The file is licensed under CC-BY-NC conditions but not CC-BY-SA as declared in the description. Mithril (talk) 05:34, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Any chance that the author changed from CC-BY to NC? I tend to Delete. --Ben.MQ (talk) 07:52, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- I've notified the uploader but seems to me he just didn't know that all files are to be free for commercial use. Look here. Mithril (talk) 08:41, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:09, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
The file is licensed under CC-BY-NC conditions but not under CC-BY-SA as declared in the description. Mithril (talk) 05:39, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:09, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
COM:FOP#France Ils sont des créations artistiques protégées par le droit d'auteur per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Royal-de-luxe-Élephant-mai-2005-2.jpg --~ Grcampbell (talk) 05:59, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep ... au moins le temps que j'obtienne de la compagnie Royal de Luxe la réponse à ma demande officielle, par @mail. Je souhaiterais seulement de l'aide d'un ou de plusieurs contributeurs ou administrateurs expérimentés pour lui présenter et tenter de la convaincre d'accepter de remplir le "pesant" formulaire OTRS si rebutant pour tant de "contactés" ou ... simples lecteurs de base ! Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 (talk) 05:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- Le délai de 7 jours pour suppression est bien trop court ! Je demande plus de temps pour réaliser (et tenter de réussir) les démarches nécessaires. Voir mes arguments - Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 (talk) 09:25, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: per Commons:Deletion requests/File:La Petite Géante (Royal de Luxe) 11.jpg Jcb (talk) 21:04, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
COM:FOP#France Ils sont des créations artistiques protégées par le droit d'auteur per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Royal-de-luxe-Élephant-mai-2005-2.jpg --~ Grcampbell (talk) 06:00, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep ... au moins le temps que j'obtienne de la compagnie Royal de Luxe la réponse à ma demande officielle, par @mail. Je souhaiterais seulement de l'aide d'un ou de plusieurs contributeurs ou administrateurs expérimentés pour lui présenter et tenter de la convaincre d'accepter de remplir le "pesant" formulaire OTRS si rebutant pour tant de "contactés" ou ... simples lecteurs de base ! Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 (talk) 05:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- Le délai de 7 jours pour suppression est bien trop court ! Je demande plus de temps pour réaliser (et tenter de réussir) les démarches nécessaires. Voir mes arguments - Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 (talk) 09:26, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: per Commons:Deletion requests/File:La Petite Géante (Royal de Luxe) 11.jpg Jcb (talk) 21:05, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work. Eusebius (talk) 06:07, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Yes, but derivative of what work? -- Blackcat (talk) 15:41, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- The design of the photographed map, the background picture, the crest. --Eusebius (talk) 06:29, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
This puppet is an artistic creation, unless User:Pannini is the creator, I doubt that this should be here. --~ Grcampbell (talk) 06:18, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not the creator of the puppet. Feel free to remove this picture from Wikimedia Commons, maybe you can move it to Wikipedia ? --Pannini (talk) 08:44, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
It can probably be used under fair use on the individual projects. --Grcampbell (talk) 15:14, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Misidentified species, should be L rufus.jpg Sharksbaja (talk) 07:32, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Not a reason to delete. Use {{Rename}} Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:13, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Professional portrait for publicity purposes, this would require a more formal release via OTRS to ensure appropriate verification of copyright. Fæ (talk) 08:34, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:13, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
wrong filename Stvinthebox (talk) 09:08, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep if it's wrong then ask for renaming it, not deleting it. -- Blackcat (talk) 15:52, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:13, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Plain text in jpg format, out of scope. Commons:Alcance_del_proyecto#Contenido educativo excluido. Martin H. (talk) 11:02, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 08:21, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Plain text is out of scope (Commons:Alcance_del_proyecto#Contenido educativo excluido), there are unsourced, unfree photographs in this presentation, therefore a possible copyright violation too. Martin H. (talk) 11:03, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. High Contrast (talk) 15:28, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Self-created (or not because of the different author and username?) artwork without educational value, out of scope. Martin H. (talk) 11:07, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. High Contrast (talk) 15:29, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned personal picture, remaining of Williams Martinez. Out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 11:12, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 08:22, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned personal picture, remaining of Williams Martinez. Out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 11:13, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 08:22, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Personal picture, not in use anywhere. Out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 11:14, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 08:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned personal picture, out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 11:18, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 08:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
sole purpose of the image is to mock and denigrate the man portrayed herein, as shown by the random-gibberish filename DS (talk) 11:46, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- hmmm, take away the name of the file, and what's left? Is the text he carries genuine (looks so)? NVO (talk) 16:50, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:14, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Russia gives 70-year pma for artistic works; its sculptor Yevgeny Vuchetich died in 1974, so his copyright does not run out till 2045. Furthermore, Russia does not have freedom of panorama. See also the big warning sign in Category:The Motherland Calls. Jappalang (talk) 13:07, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:16, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Russia gives 70-year pma for artistic works; its sculptor Yevgeny Vuchetich died in 1974, so his copyright does not run out till 2045. Furthermore, Russia does not have freedom of panorama. See also the big warning sign in Category:The Motherland Calls. Jappalang (talk) 13:08, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep unlike the other photos in this one the monument is a de minimis -- Blackcat (talk) 16:07, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Then perhaps the image can be safely cropped to show just the trees and roses? "We" cannot leave the pathway and man-made hills, because being elements of "urban planning and lanscaping art", they are protected and censored just like the statue. You see, this is not the first time when this photograph is brought to deletion (I surely saw it in 2008 when all this fopshit hit the fan). The deletionados will have their way, starting new FFDs until it's gone, so it's not worth the trouble. NVO (talk) 17:39, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yes but as long as I will be able to produce arguments against its deletion I will do. I'm not necessarily an inclusionist (indeed, I have nothing to oppose to other RfD about the same subject) but there must be a reasonable threshold beyond which we can consider a copyrighted subject as a de minimis. As for the FOP fury, I do not judge anyone else's acts. As for me I do prefer spending time here categorizing uncategorized or badly categorized images and so on, but this is just my humble opinion and is not necessarily the Truth. -- Blackcat (talk) 09:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- The statue is clearly visible and occupies at least one-third of the photograph. It is clearly a focal point of the photograph and not a de minimis feature. Jappalang (talk) 22:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- The image is 1,500 pixel wide x 998 high. It makes 1,497,000 pixel. The statue's maximum width and height in pixel is respectively 350 and 670. It makes 234,500 pixel. Compared to 1,497,000 pixel it's 15,66%, c'est à dire less than one sixth of the total surface of the photograph, not one third. Sorry, but maths is not an opinion. Thus I can affirm that the monument is a de minimis. -- Blackcat (talk) 09:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- It is not; the statue is obviously the subject of this photograph. Jappalang (talk) 11:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- That can be discussed; what I wanted to contest is the concept of de minimis according to percentage of occupied space (not to mention that the percentage you said was wrong).-- Blackcat (talk) 15:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- Luckily, no one did use such a concept here. The core of Jappalang's argument is that the statue is "clearly a focal point of the photograph." (Also, the size of the protected work relative to the image size can certainly be an indicator for whether or not something might still be considered de minimis.) —Pill (talk) 12:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- Of course. What I wanted to point out is that for me the size of a subject is not an issue to consider the work as de minimis or less. In this case Evgenij Vučetič's work can be IMHO considered safely a de minimis being only a part of the picture. I know that this FOP issue is making us frantic, but we can also put a reasonable threshold. -- Blackcat (talk) 19:30, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- I would be curious which country's copyright law your analysis is based on. —Pill (talk) 19:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- Of course. What I wanted to point out is that for me the size of a subject is not an issue to consider the work as de minimis or less. In this case Evgenij Vučetič's work can be IMHO considered safely a de minimis being only a part of the picture. I know that this FOP issue is making us frantic, but we can also put a reasonable threshold. -- Blackcat (talk) 19:30, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- Luckily, no one did use such a concept here. The core of Jappalang's argument is that the statue is "clearly a focal point of the photograph." (Also, the size of the protected work relative to the image size can certainly be an indicator for whether or not something might still be considered de minimis.) —Pill (talk) 12:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- That can be discussed; what I wanted to contest is the concept of de minimis according to percentage of occupied space (not to mention that the percentage you said was wrong).-- Blackcat (talk) 15:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- It is not; the statue is obviously the subject of this photograph. Jappalang (talk) 11:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- The image is 1,500 pixel wide x 998 high. It makes 1,497,000 pixel. The statue's maximum width and height in pixel is respectively 350 and 670. It makes 234,500 pixel. Compared to 1,497,000 pixel it's 15,66%, c'est à dire less than one sixth of the total surface of the photograph, not one third. Sorry, but maths is not an opinion. Thus I can affirm that the monument is a de minimis. -- Blackcat (talk) 09:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Then perhaps the image can be safely cropped to show just the trees and roses? "We" cannot leave the pathway and man-made hills, because being elements of "urban planning and lanscaping art", they are protected and censored just like the statue. You see, this is not the first time when this photograph is brought to deletion (I surely saw it in 2008 when all this fopshit hit the fan). The deletionados will have their way, starting new FFDs until it's gone, so it's not worth the trouble. NVO (talk) 17:39, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:18, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Russia gives 70-year pma for artistic works; its sculptor Yevgeny Vuchetich died in 1974, so his copyright does not run out till 2045. Furthermore, Russia does not have freedom of panorama. See also the big warning sign in Category:The Motherland Calls. Jappalang (talk) 13:31, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello pleace. I did visitit tourist in Volgograd sommer 2007 and take this foto. It is free here (Wikimedia commons), but i d`t give licence Russia or more organisation. It is rare and good, but only foto. I think, that not problem licence with Yevgeny Vuchetich. The Russia exceptional country, but plake general tourist area and free plake take fotos. Kindly --Zindox (talk) 17:23, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:19, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope - page this was used on was deleted over 3 months ago. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:15, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:21, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Copyvio Svgalbertian (talk) 18:44, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:22, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
bad image, out of focus and with low resolution. There are a lot of similar images with really better quality. Broc (talk) 19:21, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:22, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
bad image, out of focus and with low resolution. There are a lot of similar images with really better quality. Broc (talk) 19:21, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:22, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
no educational content Broc (talk) 19:57, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 21:05, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned, used in a now deleted article on en.wikipedia, low quality, no foreseeable use. FASTILY (TALK) 20:46, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 21:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
unused logo of a new element??!! - advertisement for a shop in Mexico ?! - out of scope both ways Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:58, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: nonsense Jcb (talk) 21:07, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
unused logos of a shop, strange description , nearly a joke (see DR above) Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:59, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: nonsense Jcb (talk) 21:07, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Euro coins are copyrighted. 84.61.149.207 21:09, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Euro coins are copyrighted. 84.61.149.207 21:11, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Question - COM:MONEY#Euro says the Euro side of the coin is OK. However, the national side isn't; is this the design of Greece (which isn't OK, per COM:MONEY#Greece), or of the EU. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:06, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, it's the national side of the Cypriot coin, although this particular design is by Georgios Stamatopoulos (signed ΓΣ on the coin), who also designed the series of Greek coins. This 2009 commemorative design was used as the central motif on the national sides of all countries that year, with the variations required for identifying the country. The copyrights on the national sides are owned by the issuing authority of the respective country and apparently nothing indicates that there was an exception to this basic rule in this case, even if this design for the central motif of the 2009 coins was used by all the countries. So, the normal rule probably applies that in this case the copyright on this national side of a Cypriot coin is owned by Cyprus. You can see this DR for a reference to the law of Cyprus. (Other possibilities would be that it is owned by Greece, as Stomatopoulos usually makes the designs for Greece, or exceptionally by the European Commission, although that would be surprising. In any of those cases, the design would not be free anyway.) (Note that the common sides are not considered ok for Commons, per this DR. Yes, the text of com:money can look misleading.) -- Asclepias (talk) 06:18, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
British coins are copyrighted. 84.61.149.207 21:18, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Actually these are not British coins -- they are a fantasy, but they still have a copyright. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:25, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
bogus PD-licensing for a not-by-uploader image of the living person born in 1950. Túrelio (talk) 21:27, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:25, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Non-free toys figurine hasbro 70.26.201.178 22:28, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Non-free toys figurine hasbro. FrankyLeRoutier (talk) 05:40, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:25, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Non-free toys figurine 70.26.201.178 22:32, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Non-free toys figurine. FrankyLeRoutier (talk) 05:39, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:25, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't agree this does not meet the threshold of originality. Muhandes (talk) 23:17, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom, this is not PD-textlogo Jcb (talk) 21:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
clearly not uploader's 'own work' despite claim, clearly a corporate logo, and *probably* not PD-ineligible DS (talk) 23:58, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: PD-textlogo Jcb (talk) 21:09, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
A similar image with better resolution has been uploaded by me Asifzafar88 (talk) 16:57, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: uploader request Ezarateesteban 00:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
The same image in better resolution has been uploaded by me Asifzafar88 (talk) 16:58, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Ezarateesteban 00:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
The same image in better reolution has been uploaded by me Asifzafar88 (talk) 17:00, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Ezarateesteban 00:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope, file not used for educational purpose, some parts copyrighted Wikipedia and/or Mozilla. Browsing the Czech Wikipedia serves the same purpose.. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 04:21, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Comment The file was used to illustrate the error of tables with quotes in Czech Wikipedia articles. See: http://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskuse:Fašismus#Probl.C3.A9m_se_zobrazov.C3.A1n.C3.ADm I do not see copyrighted Wikipedia stuff. If you think that it include copyrighted Mozilla stuff, you can crop it. I agree that this file could be deleted in future but think that we should wait some time, for example, until the discussion from which the image is intentionally linked will move to the archive. --Dezidor (talk) 08:46, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep for now, as long as it is useful to our Czech friends. -- Blackcat (talk) 15:27, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete It does not appear to be linked to anything -- or am I missing something? Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Text content is copyright cc-by-sa-3.0 and no source is provided. – Adrignola talk 18:17, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
COM:FOP#France Ils sont des créations artistiques protégées par le droit d'auteur per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Royal-de-luxe-Élephant-mai-2005-2.jpg --~ Grcampbell (talk) 06:00, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep ... au moins le temps que j'obtienne de la compagnie Royal de Luxe la réponse à ma demande officielle, par @mail. Je souhaiterais seulement de l'aide d'un ou de plusieurs contributeurs ou administrateurs expérimentés pour lui présenter et tenter de la convaincre d'accepter de remplir le "pesant" formulaire OTRS si rebutant pour tant de "contactés" ou ... simples lecteurs de base ! Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 (talk) 05:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- Le délai de 7 jours pour suppression est bien trop court ! Je demande plus de temps pour réaliser (et tenter de réussir) les démarches nécessaires. Voir mes arguments - Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 (talk) 09:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. – Adrignola talk 21:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
COM:FOP#France Ils sont des créations artistiques protégées par le droit d'auteur per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Royal-de-luxe-Élephant-mai-2005-2.jpg --~ Grcampbell (talk) 06:01, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep ... au moins le temps que j'obtienne de la compagnie Royal de Luxe la réponse à ma demande officielle, par @mail. Je souhaiterais seulement de l'aide d'un ou de plusieurs contributeurs ou administrateurs expérimentés pour lui présenter et tenter de la convaincre d'accepter de remplir le "pesant" formulaire OTRS si rebutant pour tant de "contactés" ou ... simples lecteurs de base ! Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 (talk) 05:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- Le délai de 7 jours pour suppression est bien trop court ! Je demande plus de temps pour réaliser (et tenter de réussir) les démarches nécessaires. Voir mes arguments - Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 (talk) 12:15, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. – Adrignola talk 21:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
COM:FOP#France Ils sont des créations artistiques protégées par le droit d'auteur per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Royal-de-luxe-Élephant-mai-2005-2.jpg --~ Grcampbell (talk) 06:01, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep ... au moins le temps que j'obtienne de la compagnie Royal de Luxe la réponse à ma demande officielle, par @mail. Je souhaiterais seulement de l'aide d'un ou de plusieurs contributeurs ou administrateurs expérimentés pour lui présenter et tenter de la convaincre d'accepter de remplir le "pesant" formulaire OTRS si rebutant pour tant de "contactés" ou ... simples lecteurs de base ! Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 (talk) 05:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- Le délai de 7 jours pour suppression est bien trop court ! Je demande plus de temps pour réaliser (et tenter de réussir) les démarches nécessaires. Voir mes arguments - Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 (talk) 12:17, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. – Adrignola talk 21:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
COM:FOP#France Ils sont des créations artistiques protégées par le droit d'auteur per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Royal-de-luxe-Élephant-mai-2005-2.jpg --~ Grcampbell (talk) 06:02, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep ... au moins le temps que j'obtienne de la compagnie Royal de Luxe la réponse à ma demande officielle, par @mail. Je souhaiterais seulement de l'aide d'un ou de plusieurs contributeurs ou administrateurs expérimentés pour lui présenter et tenter de la convaincre d'accepter de remplir le "pesant" formulaire OTRS si rebutant pour tant de "contactés" ou ... simples lecteurs de base ! Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 (talk) 05:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- Le délai de 7 jours pour suppression est bien trop court ! Je demande plus de temps pour réaliser (et tenter de réussir) les démarches nécessaires. Voir mes arguments - Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 (talk) 12:18, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. – Adrignola talk 21:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
COM:FOP#France Ils sont des créations artistiques protégées par le droit d'auteur per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Royal-de-luxe-Élephant-mai-2005-2.jpg --~ Grcampbell (talk) 06:05, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep ... au moins le temps que j'obtienne de la compagnie Royal de Luxe la réponse à ma demande officielle, par @mail. Je souhaiterais seulement de l'aide d'un ou de plusieurs contributeurs ou administrateurs expérimentés pour lui présenter et tenter de la convaincre d'accepter de remplir le "pesant" formulaire OTRS si rebutant pour tant de "contactés" ou ... simples lecteurs de base ! Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 (talk) 06:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- Le délai de 7 jours pour suppression est bien trop court ! Je demande plus de temps pour réaliser (et tenter de réussir) les démarches nécessaires. Voir mes arguments - Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 (talk) 12:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. – Adrignola talk 21:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
COM:FOP#France Ils sont des créations artistiques protégées par le droit d'auteur per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Royal-de-luxe-Élephant-mai-2005-2.jpg --~ Grcampbell (talk) 06:06, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom.--Chaser (talk) 15:16, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep ... au moins le temps que j'obtienne de la compagnie Royal de Luxe la réponse à ma demande officielle, par @mail. Je souhaiterais seulement de l'aide d'un ou de plusieurs contributeurs ou administrateurs expérimentés pour lui présenter et tenter de la convaincre d'accepter de remplir le "pesant" formulaire OTRS si rebutant pour tant de "contactés" ou ... simples lecteurs de base ! Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 (talk) 06:06, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- If the image is deleted and subsequently you get permission, the image can then be restored. Google Translate.--Chaser (talk) 16:23, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- Pas satisfaisant du tout, ce système hâtif de suppression/restauration !
- Le délai de 7 jours pour suppression est bien trop court ! Je demande plus de temps pour réaliser (et tenter de réussir) les démarches nécessaires. Voir mes arguments - Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 (talk) 12:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:FOP#France. – Adrignola talk 21:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
COM:FOP#France Ils sont des créations artistiques protégées par le droit d'auteur per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Royal-de-luxe-Élephant-mai-2005-2.jpg --~ Grcampbell (talk) 06:06, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep ... au moins le temps que j'obtienne de la compagnie Royal de Luxe la réponse à ma demande officielle, par @mail. Je souhaiterais seulement de l'aide d'un ou de plusieurs contributeurs ou administrateurs expérimentés pour lui présenter et tenter de la convaincre d'accepter de remplir le "pesant" formulaire OTRS si rebutant pour tant de "contactés" ou ... simples lecteurs de base ! Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 (talk) 06:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- Le délai de 7 jours pour suppression est bien trop court ! Je demande plus de temps pour réaliser (et tenter de réussir) les démarches nécessaires. Voir mes arguments - Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 (talk) 12:25, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. – Adrignola talk 21:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
COM:FOP#France Ils sont des créations artistiques protégées par le droit d'auteur per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Royal-de-luxe-Élephant-mai-2005-2.jpg --~ Grcampbell (talk) 06:06, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep ... au moins le temps que j'obtienne de la compagnie Royal de Luxe la réponse à ma demande officielle, par @mail. Je souhaiterais seulement de l'aide d'un ou de plusieurs contributeurs ou administrateurs expérimentés pour lui présenter et tenter de la convaincre d'accepter de remplir le "pesant" formulaire OTRS si rebutant pour tant de "contactés" ou ... simples lecteurs de base ! Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 (talk) 06:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- Le délai de 7 jours pour suppression est bien trop court ! Je demande plus de temps pour réaliser (et tenter de réussir) les démarches nécessaires. Voir mes arguments - Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 (talk) 12:26, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. – Adrignola talk 21:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
COM:FOP#France Ils sont des créations artistiques protégées par le droit d'auteur per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Royal-de-luxe-Élephant-mai-2005-2.jpg --~ Grcampbell (talk) 06:06, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep ... au moins le temps que j'obtienne de la compagnie Royal de Luxe la réponse à ma demande officielle, par @mail. Je souhaiterais seulement de l'aide d'un ou de plusieurs contributeurs ou administrateurs expérimentés pour lui présenter et tenter de la convaincre d'accepter de remplir le "pesant" formulaire OTRS si rebutant pour tant de "contactés" ou ... simples lecteurs de base ! Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 (talk) 06:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- Le délai de 7 jours pour suppression est bien trop court ! Je demande plus de temps pour réaliser (et tenter de réussir) les démarches nécessaires. Voir mes arguments - Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 (talk) 12:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. – Adrignola talk 21:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
COM:FOP#France Ils sont des créations artistiques protégées par le droit d'auteur per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Royal-de-luxe-Élephant-mai-2005-2.jpg --~ Grcampbell (talk) 06:06, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep ... au moins le temps que j'obtienne de la compagnie Royal de Luxe la réponse à ma demande officielle, par @mail. Je souhaiterais seulement de l'aide d'un ou de plusieurs contributeurs ou administrateurs expérimentés pour lui présenter et tenter de la convaincre d'accepter de remplir le "pesant" formulaire OTRS si rebutant pour tant de "contactés" ou ... simples lecteurs de base ! Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 (talk) 06:11, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- Le délai de 7 jours pour suppression est bien trop court ! Je demande plus de temps pour réaliser (et tenter de réussir) les démarches nécessaires. Voir mes arguments - Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 (talk) 12:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:FOP#France. – Adrignola talk 20:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
COM:FOP#France Ils sont des créations artistiques protégées par le droit d'auteur per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Royal-de-luxe-Élephant-mai-2005-2.jpg --~ Grcampbell (talk) 06:07, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep ... au moins le temps que j'obtienne de la compagnie Royal de Luxe la réponse à ma demande officielle, par @mail. Je souhaiterais seulement de l'aide d'un ou de plusieurs contributeurs ou administrateurs expérimentés pour lui présenter et tenter de la convaincre d'accepter de remplir le "pesant" formulaire OTRS si rebutant pour tant de "contactés" ou ... simples lecteurs de base ! Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 (talk) 06:12, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- Le délai de 7 jours pour suppression est bien trop court ! Je demande plus de temps pour réaliser (et tenter de réussir) les démarches nécessaires. Voir mes arguments - Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 (talk) 12:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. – Adrignola talk 21:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
COM:FOP#France Ils sont des créations artistiques protégées par le droit d'auteur per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Royal-de-luxe-Élephant-mai-2005-2.jpg --~ Grcampbell (talk) 06:07, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep ... au moins le temps que j'obtienne de la compagnie Royal de Luxe la réponse à ma demande officielle, par @mail. Je souhaiterais seulement de l'aide d'un ou de plusieurs contributeurs ou administrateurs expérimentés pour lui présenter et tenter de la convaincre d'accepter de remplir le "pesant" formulaire OTRS si rebutant pour tant de "contactés" ou ... simples lecteurs de base ! Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 (talk) 06:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- Le délai de 7 jours pour suppression est bien trop court ! Je demande plus de temps pour réaliser (et tenter de réussir) les démarches nécessaires. Voir mes arguments - Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 (talk) 12:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. – Adrignola talk 21:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
COM:FOP#France Ils sont des créations artistiques protégées par le droit d'auteur per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Royal-de-luxe-Élephant-mai-2005-2.jpg --~ Grcampbell (talk) 06:08, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. – Adrignola talk 20:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
COM:FOP#France Ils sont des créations artistiques protégées par le droit d'auteur per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Royal-de-luxe-Élephant-mai-2005-2.jpg --~ Grcampbell (talk) 06:08, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. – Adrignola talk 20:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
COM:FOP#France Ils sont des créations artistiques protégées par le droit d'auteur per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Royal-de-luxe-Élephant-mai-2005-2.jpg --~ Grcampbell (talk) 06:08, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. – Adrignola talk 20:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
COM:FOP#France Ils sont des créations artistiques protégées par le droit d'auteur per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Royal-de-luxe-Élephant-mai-2005-2.jpg --~ Grcampbell (talk) 06:08, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. – Adrignola talk 20:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
COM:FOP#France Ils sont des créations artistiques protégées par le droit d'auteur per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Royal-de-luxe-Élephant-mai-2005-2.jpg --~ Grcampbell (talk) 06:08, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. – Adrignola talk 20:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
COM:FOP#France Ils sont des créations artistiques protégées par le droit d'auteur per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Royal-de-luxe-Élephant-mai-2005-2.jpg --~ Grcampbell (talk) 06:08, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. – Adrignola talk 20:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
COM:FOP#France Ils sont des créations artistiques protégées par le droit d'auteur per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Royal-de-luxe-Élephant-mai-2005-2.jpg --~ Grcampbell (talk) 06:08, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. – Adrignola talk 21:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
COM:FOP#France Ils sont des créations artistiques protégées par le droit d'auteur per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Royal-de-luxe-Élephant-mai-2005-2.jpg --~ Grcampbell (talk) 06:07, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. – Adrignola talk 16:34, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
COM:FOP#France Ils sont des créations artistiques protégées par le droit d'auteur per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Royal-de-luxe-Élephant-mai-2005-2.jpg --~ Grcampbell (talk) 06:09, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. – Adrignola talk 16:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
COM:FOP#France Ils sont des créations artistiques protégées par le droit d'auteur per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Royal-de-luxe-Élephant-mai-2005-2.jpg --~ Grcampbell (talk) 06:09, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. – Adrignola talk 16:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
COM:FOP#France Ils sont des créations artistiques protégées par le droit d'auteur per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Royal-de-luxe-Élephant-mai-2005-2.jpg --~ Grcampbell (talk) 06:09, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Vue d'ensemble. Yann (talk) 14:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Commons:FOP#France. – Adrignola talk 16:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
COM:FOP#France Ils sont des créations artistiques protégées par le droit d'auteur per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Royal-de-luxe-Élephant-mai-2005-2.jpg --~ Grcampbell (talk) 06:09, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. – Adrignola talk 16:34, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
COM:FOP#France Ils sont des créations artistiques protégées par le droit d'auteur per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Royal-de-luxe-Élephant-mai-2005-2.jpg --~ Grcampbell (talk) 06:10, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. – Adrignola talk 16:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
COM:FOP#France Ils sont des créations artistiques protégées par le droit d'auteur per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Royal-de-luxe-Élephant-mai-2005-2.jpg --~ Grcampbell (talk) 06:10, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. – Adrignola talk 16:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
COM:FOP#France Grcampbell (talk) 06:55, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. – Adrignola talk 16:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
The copyrights for photographs are separate from the subject. The permission of the copyright holder for the subject is still needed. Russia gives 70-year pma for artistic works; its sculptor Yevgeny Vuchetich died in 1974, so his copyright does not run out till 2045. Furthermore, Russia does not have freedom of panorama. See also the big warning sign in Category:The Motherland Calls. Jappalang (talk) 13:09, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep the Memorial is a de minimis -- Blackcat (talk) 16:04, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- De miminis is when the subject concerned is a trifle feature of the image. The statue occupies half of this photograph and is clearly shown in its entirety. It attracts the attention of the readers' eyes as much as or more than the foreground figures (whose blurred features are almost indiscernible). The statue is certainly not a minor feature here. Jappalang (talk) 22:00, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- Here, again: photograph is 334 wide per 500 high (167,000 pixel). The monument's maximum width and height are resp. 104 and 265 (27,560 pixel, thus 16,5%, about one sixth of the pic, not half); Comrade Putin and his funny brigade occupies 54,846 pixel, the double as the monument and about one third of the whole image. Can we safely consider the monument, thus, a de minimis? -- Blackcat (talk) 09:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- No, one does not need to see the statue to see Putin and his men. Using pixels to count borders on the ridiculous: one could argue a photograph solely of the statue only occupies 40% of the image is de minimis when it is plainly not. Jappalang (talk) 11:45, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- I might agree with part of your statement: but it was not me who contested the de minimis with the argument that the statue occupies half of the picture: I simply demonstrated that on the basis of the maths, the statue occupied one sixth. -- Blackcat (talk) 15:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- It is ridiculous and malicious to imagine that I was speaking of pixels when I spoke of "occupies half of this photograph"; it is perfectly clear to me the meaning would be the spatial dominance (practically the statue dominates the attention in at least half the photograph space). I apologize if I was unclear in my words but it seems to me your intent is not to explain the statue is de minimis but rather to belittle the arguments presented.
- As stated in the example given for Commons:De minimis,
- "However, if the poster is entirely incidental to the overall subject-matter of the photograph, the copying may be considered de minimis (perhaps the poster takes up a small, insignificant part of the image, is entirely out of focus compared with the main subject, or is largely hidden in the background). In other words, a court would not be quick to uphold a claim of copyright infringement just because a photographer happened to include accidentally and incidentally a copyright-protected poster.
- In determining whether the copying was sufficiently trivial, the court will consider all the circumstances. So, for example, if the poster forms an essential part of the overall photographic composition, or if the photograph was taken deliberately to include the poster, there is likely to be copyright infringement, and it is no defence to say that the poster was 'just in the background'. If the existence of the poster was the reason the photograph was taken in the first place, copyright infringement cannot be avoided by additionally including within the frame more of the setting or the surrounding area."
- The capture of the statue here as a large part of the picture composition is clearly intentional. It is certainly not de minimis in any way you claim to argue the point. Jappalang (talk) 12:56, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- I might agree with part of your statement: but it was not me who contested the de minimis with the argument that the statue occupies half of the picture: I simply demonstrated that on the basis of the maths, the statue occupied one sixth. -- Blackcat (talk) 15:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- No, one does not need to see the statue to see Putin and his men. Using pixels to count borders on the ridiculous: one could argue a photograph solely of the statue only occupies 40% of the image is de minimis when it is plainly not. Jappalang (talk) 11:45, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Here, again: photograph is 334 wide per 500 high (167,000 pixel). The monument's maximum width and height are resp. 104 and 265 (27,560 pixel, thus 16,5%, about one sixth of the pic, not half); Comrade Putin and his funny brigade occupies 54,846 pixel, the double as the monument and about one third of the whole image. Can we safely consider the monument, thus, a de minimis? -- Blackcat (talk) 09:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- De miminis is when the subject concerned is a trifle feature of the image. The statue occupies half of this photograph and is clearly shown in its entirety. It attracts the attention of the readers' eyes as much as or more than the foreground figures (whose blurred features are almost indiscernible). The statue is certainly not a minor feature here. Jappalang (talk) 22:00, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- Jappalang, my intention wasn't belittling your argumentation which I consider weak but not unworth of respect, was simply pointing out how that FOP-phobia if pushed to extreme could paradoxically lead to half of Commons' media deletion (i.e.: a football game pictures a stadium; the stadium, which is most likely a copyrighted opera, is inherently a consistent part of the game (no stadium = no game), thus you'd find someone who claims that it can't be considered a de minimis: not to mention that the game is under some League's rights, and so on...). Like everything in life, FOP policy must be applied with common sense. Not every photo that pictures a copyrighted subject is per se a copyright violation. There are reasonable distinctions. The FOP-phobia tends to flatten all the cases and deny exceptions. We are here to discuss where there are reasonable exceptions instead. -- Blackcat (talk) 14:52, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, considering that you did not offer any evidence to back your opinion why the statue in this photograph is de minimis, your only response (by attempting to misrepresent another editor's reasoning—change a case of spatial dominance to pixel count) would only warrant the above response from me.
- It would help the case more to present evidence on why the statue is de minimis rather than ranting about FOP-phobia and taking it as a crusade to blindly oppose any deletion that had probable grounds on FoP. This request is of this photograph and not part of a movement of some sort. So let not any such campaign come into play here and focus on this image.
- As stated, this is an image of Putin and his men deliberately taken with a clear view of the statue as a dominant part of the image (equal in dominance with the subjects in the foreground), which contravenes the de minimis definition; it is not a photograph of Putin with the statue incidentally in it. So how does the statue befits de minimis as you declared? Jappalang (talk) 02:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- Jappalang, am not campaigning against FOP-phobia, otherwise i would be doing it elsewhere (and please don't try reading my intentions, you'd be always wrong), i am staying on the subject of the file, and i would kindly ask you to stay on this rather to try to guess what I am campaigning for. I am contesting the unproper use of FOP as argument not its correct application. This is the typical case in which FoP is not an issue: there are Putin and his men, period. This is the focus. Incidentally there's a statue on background, which is a de minimis. -- Blackcat (talk) 09:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- No one brought up anything about "FOP-phobia" until you ("was simply pointing out how that FOP-phobia if pushed to extreme could paradoxically lead to half of Commons' media deletion"); one can always deny what the situation suggests and to me, it seems that you are not looking into this with detachment.
- The photographer could simply have taken a wide photograph that captures all of Putin and his men without the statue; instead he took a vertical photograph whose top half is open sky dominated clearly by The Motherland Calls. The composition is certainly deliberate. The photograph is not just about Putin and his men, it is obviously about Putin, his men and The Motherland Calls.
- I think there is no way to reconcile our viewpoints here. Jappalang (talk) 02:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, but we are not here to read into photographer's mind. Sigmund Freud died several years ago. The fact is, the main focus is Putin and his friends. -- Blackcat (talk) 09:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- Jappalang, am not campaigning against FOP-phobia, otherwise i would be doing it elsewhere (and please don't try reading my intentions, you'd be always wrong), i am staying on the subject of the file, and i would kindly ask you to stay on this rather to try to guess what I am campaigning for. I am contesting the unproper use of FOP as argument not its correct application. This is the typical case in which FoP is not an issue: there are Putin and his men, period. This is the focus. Incidentally there's a statue on background, which is a de minimis. -- Blackcat (talk) 09:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- Jappalang, my intention wasn't belittling your argumentation which I consider weak but not unworth of respect, was simply pointing out how that FOP-phobia if pushed to extreme could paradoxically lead to half of Commons' media deletion (i.e.: a football game pictures a stadium; the stadium, which is most likely a copyrighted opera, is inherently a consistent part of the game (no stadium = no game), thus you'd find someone who claims that it can't be considered a de minimis: not to mention that the game is under some League's rights, and so on...). Like everything in life, FOP policy must be applied with common sense. Not every photo that pictures a copyrighted subject is per se a copyright violation. There are reasonable distinctions. The FOP-phobia tends to flatten all the cases and deny exceptions. We are here to discuss where there are reasonable exceptions instead. -- Blackcat (talk) 14:52, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep the statue is de minimis as per Blackcat. russavia (talk) 21:43, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
- Comment It also needs to be noted that this image is from Kremlin.ru and is thence available under the CC-BY-3.0 licence as per the permission letter, and is also available for other commercial use as per the terms on the Kremlin website. Do we then not assume that the highest power in the land of Russia would have cleared this with their own legal people, before publishing on their website and thereafter allowing the photo to be used in a commercial setting. russavia (talk) 13:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
- I see this as the same situation as photographs taken by US federal employees and then posted onto US federal websites (ref: Commons:Deletion requests/Derivative works of Sesame Street puppets). For the US federals, its photographs are in the public domain, however, for others to use their photographs of copyrighted subjects, additional permission would be required. The copyright holder of the subject permitted the photographer to take picture of the subject, but that permission is not a consent to release the subject into the public domain.
- In the case of the Kremlin, I read it as that the Kremlin considers all its photographs on the website licensed under CC-BY-3.0; however, that does not mean they have the permission of the copyright holder of the statue to license the designs of the statue under that. The Kremlin should have been asked, "Does the Kremlin have the permission to license the design of The Motherland Calls under CC-BY-3.0, allowing anyone to make 3D derivatives of that statue (e.g. toy statues or miniatures) and sell them for profit, provided they inscribe an attribution to the Kremlin or Vuchetich on the base?" or something similar. Per Commons:Project scope/Evidence, the burden to provide the answer to this falls on the uploader or other person arguing for the file to be retained. Jappalang (talk) 00:56, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
- Hmm weak argumentation. Kremlin spelt, that's decisive. The rest doesn't count. Kremlin doesn't need to ask, nor we have to say what Kremlin should do in its own country. -- Blackcat (talk) 09:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
By Ockham's, thus, the fact is : if it's not a problem for the Kremlin, must not be a problem for us, too.- Not as weak as claiming that the Kremlin owns everything it photographs even when it does not. Not as terrible as trying to avoid the burden of proof policy laid on us as uploaders to make sure the materials we have can be "safely" used by everyone. Jappalang (talk) 02:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- I have met the burden of proof, that being confirmation from the Press Attache of the President of the RF that all materials on their website have been licenced under CC-BY-3.0. This is in writing as per the authorisation letter. That is all the burden that I believe, I, as uploader, are required to meet. Plus, please review the comments below.... russavia (talk) 13:28, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- Russavia, my reply was made in kind to the snide remarks given by Blackcat, of whose comments seem to advocate what I retorted against. I apologize if you thought I tried to impugn your honest intention in uploading this work; it truly was not my intention. Jappalang (talk) 01:54, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- Jappalang, you are (for the furthest time) kindly and politely invited to avoid doubting someone's good faith. If I had intention to campaign against every deletion request on FOP ground, I would have contested every RfD about the cited monument. Which I did not. I simply stated that here (in this specific file) the monument is a de minimis and that more generally FOP can't be a blanket. Sometimes we can invoke it, sometimes we can't do. This is a case where we can't, IMHO. Period. -- Blackcat (talk) 09:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- Russavia, my reply was made in kind to the snide remarks given by Blackcat, of whose comments seem to advocate what I retorted against. I apologize if you thought I tried to impugn your honest intention in uploading this work; it truly was not my intention. Jappalang (talk) 01:54, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- I have met the burden of proof, that being confirmation from the Press Attache of the President of the RF that all materials on their website have been licenced under CC-BY-3.0. This is in writing as per the authorisation letter. That is all the burden that I believe, I, as uploader, are required to meet. Plus, please review the comments below.... russavia (talk) 13:28, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- Not as weak as claiming that the Kremlin owns everything it photographs even when it does not. Not as terrible as trying to avoid the burden of proof policy laid on us as uploaders to make sure the materials we have can be "safely" used by everyone. Jappalang (talk) 02:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- Hmm weak argumentation. Kremlin spelt, that's decisive. The rest doesn't count. Kremlin doesn't need to ask, nor we have to say what Kremlin should do in its own country. -- Blackcat (talk) 09:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- Further comment The following files also contain imagery of the statue, yet, they are clearly PD-RU-exempt. File:Emblem of Election Commission of Volgograd region.png, Category:Coats of arms of Volgograd Oblast, Category:Flags of Volgograd Oblast. Are these files also going to be deleted, even though Russian law clearly places these files in the public domain, and yes, they contain imagery of the statue. russavia (talk) 13:28, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- Maybe, maybe not. Note that while the emblem and arms might not be copyrightable works per PD-RU-exempt, that does not mean that the components they use would have surrendered their own copyrights. The issue I see for them would be Commons:Derivative works, which in the end is based on the principle of underlying copyrights. The images we upload to Commons are supposed to be "freely" usable and when derivative works come into play, we would have examine whether the components of the image would require additional permission for reuse. Jappalang (talk) 01:54, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Delete The statue is in the center of the image, it is the main subject of half the image, it is represented in its entirety, the image would not be as good without the statue. De minimis can't apply (see law cases).
So, for example, if the poster forms an essential part of the overall photographic composition, or if the photograph was taken deliberately to include the poster, there is likely to be copyright infringement, and it is no defence to say that the poster was 'just in the background'. If the existence of the poster was the reason the photograph was taken in the first place, copyright infringement cannot be avoided by additionally including within the frame more of the setting or the surrounding area. 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. A useful test may be to ask whether the photograph would be as good or as useful if the poster were to be masked out. If no, then it is difficult to argue that the poster is actually de minimis, even if the poster is small and is "in the background".
According to Com:de minimis, de minimis cannot honestly be claimed here with good faith.
Licensing by kremlin's website is only regarding the photographer's rights, they can't change the licensing of the statue. If the statue is copyrighted, this image can't be hosted on Commons.
My advice is to crop the image to keep only the part we can use in an encyclopedia: the people depicted on this photo.Lilyu (talk) 09:05, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- Are you suggesting I'm claiming de minimis in bad faith (je le demande en français aussi: tu es donc en suggérant que je ne suis pas en bonne foi?) -- Blackcat (talk) 09:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- I'm just giving my opinion based on commons policies, my understanding of copyright laws and law cases, to help the admin who will close this DR by providing useful informations. I'm not here to chat, troll, or intervene on every comment made on this DR *rollseyes*
--Lilyu (talk) 17:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not trolling too, but is not pleasantful to read "de minimis cannot honestly be claimed here with good faith". -- Blackcat (talk) 17:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- I'm just giving my opinion based on commons policies, my understanding of copyright laws and law cases, to help the admin who will close this DR by providing useful informations. I'm not here to chat, troll, or intervene on every comment made on this DR *rollseyes*
_11.jpg){kind=link}
_15.jpg){kind=link}
_1983,_MiNr_2830.jpg){kind=link}
_12.jpg){kind=link}
_14.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_Eléphant_3.jpg){kind=link}
_Eskimo_10.jpg){kind=link}
_Elephant_1.jpg){kind=link}
_Eléphant_2.jpg){kind=link}
_Eskimo_11.jpg){kind=link}
_Eskimo_12.jpg){kind=link}
_Eskimo_13.jpg){kind=link}
_Eskimo_14.jpg){kind=link}
_Pied_droit_3.jpg){kind=link}
_7.jpg){kind=link}
_Main_droite.jpg){kind=link}
_Pieds.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
_11.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_11.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_11.jpg){kind=link}
_11.jpg){kind=link}
_15.jpg){kind=link}
_15.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_15.jpg){kind=link}
_15.jpg){kind=link}
_1983,_MiNr_2830.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1983,_MiNr_2830.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_1983,_MiNr_2830.jpg){kind=link}
_1983,_MiNr_2830.jpg){kind=link}
_12.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_12.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_12.jpg){kind=link}
_11.jpg){kind=link}
_12.jpg){kind=link}
_14.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_14.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_14.jpg){kind=link}
_14.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_El%C3%A9phant_3.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_El%C3%A9phant_3.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_Eléphant_3.jpg){kind=link}
_Eléphant_3.jpg){kind=link}
_Eskimo_10.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Eskimo_10.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_Eskimo_10.jpg){kind=link}
_Eskimo_10.jpg){kind=link}
_Elephant_1.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Elephant_1.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_Elephant_1.jpg){kind=link}
_Elephant_1.jpg){kind=link}
_El%C3%A9phant_2.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_El%C3%A9phant_2.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_Eléphant_2.jpg){kind=link}
_Eléphant_2.jpg){kind=link}
_Eskimo_11.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Eskimo_11.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_Eskimo_11.jpg){kind=link}
_Eskimo_11.jpg){kind=link}
_Eskimo_12.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Eskimo_12.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_Eskimo_12.jpg){kind=link}
_Eskimo_12.jpg){kind=link}
_Eskimo_13.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Eskimo_13.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_Eskimo_13.jpg){kind=link}
_Eskimo_13.jpg){kind=link}
_Eskimo_14.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Eskimo_14.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_Eskimo_14.jpg){kind=link}
_Eskimo_14.jpg){kind=link}
_Pied_droit_3.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Pied_droit_3.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_Pied_droit_3.jpg){kind=link}
_Pied_droit_3.jpg){kind=link}
_7.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_7.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_7.jpg){kind=link}
_7.jpg){kind=link}
_Main_droite.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Main_droite.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_Main_droite.jpg){kind=link}
_Main_droite.jpg){kind=link}
_Pieds.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Pieds.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_Pieds.jpg){kind=link}
_Pieds.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
Kept: Image cropped to remove nearly all of the statue and focus on Putin, as per the image's title. Any remaining portion is now de minimis. Problem solved. – Adrignola talk 19:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
bad resolution Leha-11 (talk) 09:30, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
- Keep Photo used on many wikis. Electron ツ ➧☎ 11:59, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
- Kept in use across multiple projects.--KTo288 (talk) 16:05, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
The image was tagged {{copyvio|source=http://twitpic.com/45zw93}} by User:Karppinen.
Already before it was tagged {{no permission since|month=June|day=16|year=2011}} and {{copyvio|source=http://twitpic.com/45zw93}} by User:Karppinen but removed those tags were removed by user:Yuval Y (not the uploader) with the comment "seems as the flickr uploader also uploaded the image to twit".
On twitpic it was uploaded by "Wael Ghonim" in 600×1000 px on 2011-03-04.
On Flickr it was uploaded by "yamaha_gangsta" in 347×574 px (at least it is only downloadedable in this size at maximum) on 2011-02-13 and he has only uploaded photos of Egyptian Protests.
It is also at full-resolution at various other places in the net.
In my opinion the flickr upload is likely a "fan upload" and not to be taken as a valid license source.
A non-OTRS member added OTRS #2011022010003167 here. Maybe there is permission. Saibo (Δ) 14:03, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- On Flickr the title is Wael Ghonim at Qasr al-Nil Bridge. It also said that This photo was taken on February 13, 2011 in Qasr An-nil, Cairo, Al Qahirah, EG. twitpic picture was uploaded by user @Ghonim aka Wael Ghonim, on March 4, 2011. If File:Wael ghonim.jpg has OTRS, I guess the simplest way is to contact Wael and ask him to send official pictures of him. --Yuval Y § Chat § 19:03, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Do I understand it wrong or have you just repeated the upload dates I also have mentioned above? ;-)
- I have asked user:Mido on his talk page in arwp as he seems to be far more active there. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 20:36, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- The OTRS ticket is intended solely for the image I uploaded as stated in Wael's email, I'm not sure of the copyright status of Qasr Al-Nil image and who has it. But I agree with Saibo that probably the flickr upload is not original and should be discarded as a source unless otherwise proven by the uploader. Regards --Mido (talk) 21:22, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Would you be kind to ask Wael to send you the original picture, or to see if he wants it to be deleted..? --Yuval Y § Chat § 07:50, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- The OTRS ticket is intended solely for the image I uploaded as stated in Wael's email, I'm not sure of the copyright status of Qasr Al-Nil image and who has it. But I agree with Saibo that probably the flickr upload is not original and should be discarded as a source unless otherwise proven by the uploader. Regards --Mido (talk) 21:22, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No OTRS permission received. – Adrignola talk 19:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Veröffentlichung eines Fotos eines geschützten Markennamens ohne Angabe des Urhebers und ohne Genehmigung.--89.247.76.213 16:32, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. Trademark-template added. No copyright problem, as design is too simple to be copyrightable, see Commons:Image casebook#Trademarks. For comparison see File:ICE-Logo DB-Type.jpg. --Túrelio (talk) 17:43, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Retourkutschenantrag. Keep -- Ra Boe watt?? 17:55, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Retourkutschenantrag.
§ 5 MarkenG - Geschäftliche Bezeichnungen (1) Als geschäftliche Bezeichnungen werden Unternehmenskennzeichen und Werktitel geschützt.
§ 57 UrhG Unwesentliches Beiwerk Zulässig ist die Vervielfältigung, Verbreitung und öffentliche Wiedergabe von Werken, wenn sie als unwesentliches Beiwerk neben dem eigentlichen Gegenstand der Vervielfältigung, Verbreitung oder öffentlichen Wiedergabe anzusehen sind.
Es liegt hier die Fotografie einer Marke vor, welche nicht im Sinne des § 57 UrhG als Beiwerk bestimmt werden kann, da das ganze Bild gleich zweimal das Logo abbildet.
Zudem ist der Verursacher laut eigener Webseite geschäftlich auch mit Fotografien beschäftigt, weshalb hier davon auszugehen ist, dass er die Fotos auf WP als "Werbung" pro domo benutzt oder benutzen kann. Kann er also eine dementsprechende Genehmigung von Air-Berlin nachweisen, sowohl zur Veröffentlichung als auch Übertragung der Veröffentlichungsrechte an die WP, ist das in Ordnung. Kann er das nicht, ist das Foto zu löschen.--89.247.76.213 18:48, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Wenn hier schon mit dem Markenrecht argumentiert wird, dann bitte auch das MarkenG weiterlesen und nicht vorher zum UrhG abbiegen. In §14 MarkenG ist beschrieben, was der in §5 erwähnte Schutz umfasst. Da steht nichts davon, dass man die Marke nicht abbilden darf. Und dann bitte noch einen Augenmerk auf §16 MarkenG werfen. Summa Summarum: Unzulässige Verknüpfung von MarkenG und UrhG bzw. im Volksmund: Nebelkerze. --Gnu1742 (talk) 19:08, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keepaus den von Turelio und Gnu genannten Argumenten. --Alupus (talk) 21:18, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept, as unfounded and obvious externally canvassed (http://www.lawblog.de/index.php/archives/2011/06/25/zensursula-ein-strfaktor-in-der-wikipedia/) bad-faith revenge nomination. Túrelio (talk) 09:16, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Robert Kaelter who might be the author died in 1926, i.e. less than 70 years ago but it is unsure if it really was him. If not, the author might have died (much) later. Leyo 12:42, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep is 1926 less than 70 yrs ago? To me appears to be 85 yrs ago. -- Blackcat (talk) 15:58, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Oops, I seem to have mixed up two DRs somehow. I rephrased my reasoning above. --Leyo 22:33, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- So far we must assume Kälter is the author, or do we have other elements that make us believe otherwise? -- Blackcat (talk) 17:31, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- I am not sure if the precautionary principle needs to be applied here. --Leyo 06:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- So far we must assume Kälter is the author, or do we have other elements that make us believe otherwise? -- Blackcat (talk) 17:31, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Oops, I seem to have mixed up two DRs somehow. I rephrased my reasoning above. --Leyo 22:33, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep with {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Author died more than 70 years ago Alpertron (talk) 23:43, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Images from "Evil Empire" website
[edit]- File:DJ Hyde sticks two syringes through the cheeks of Thumbtack Jack - Tournament of Death 8.jpg
- File:MASADA - A Tangled Web 2 - August 8, 2009.jpg
- File:JC Bailey - Tournament of Death Fast Forward - September 15, 2007.jpg
- File:Thumbtack Jack with a Lighttube Kenzan - Tournament of Death 8.jpg
- File:DJ Hyde - Tournament of Death 8 - June 6, 2009.jpg
- File:Justice Pain 2006.jpg
- File:Danny Havoc on May 17, 2008.jpg
- File:Thumbtack Jack on June 6, 2009.jpg
- File:Matt Prince aka Wifebeater in 2003.jpg
- File:Lobo aka Joseph Eubanks.jpg
- File:NickGage.jpg
- File:Backseatboyz.jpg
- File:Abdullah Kobayashi - Tournament of Death 9 - June 26, 2010.jpg
- File:Abdullah Kobayashi with a lighttube - Tournament of Death 9 - June 26, 2010.jpg
- File:Brain Damage with the CZW Ultraviolent Underground Championship on May 12, 2007.JPG
- File:Danny Havoc with the CZW Ultraviolent Underground Championship - A Tangled Web 2 - August 8, 2009.jpg
- File:MASADA, Thumbtack Jack and a syringe - Tournament of Death Rewind - October 25, 2009.jpg
- File:Nick Gage strikes MASADA with a Lighttube Sword - Tournament of Death Rewind - October 25, 2009.jpg
- File:Halfbreed.JPG
- File:Cartergrey.JPG
- File:Samicallihan.jpg
- File:Ricblade.jpg
- File:Joeyryan.JPG
- File:Messiahczw.jpg
- File:Bboyironmanchampion.jpg
- File:ArikCannon.jpg
- File:Adamflashchamp.jpg
- File:Trentacid1.jpg
"Feel Free To Use" is no valid license agreement.--141.84.69.20 00:46, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - sounds good enough for me; he didn't add any restrictions, and was quite clear he was OK with usage under condition of a) attribution and b) not bonking with his website (b is no longer an issue, as the site is gone). I will risk using OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as an argument because I think it's valid in this circumstance, seeing as we've had licenses around before which have stood the test of time: cf. {{Attribution}}, {{WTFPL}}. I appreciate the nominator's zeal for copyright, but unless I'm missing something, I think this looks legit. Magog the Ogre (talk) 10:29, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- He never implied the extent of the allowed usage, much like with the Ubisoft affair. "Use these images" likely only relates to "show them around on your own webspace", see condition b) and his other remarks. Alteration, reuse in other works and commercial usage surely were never even considered.--141.84.69.20 12:04, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Comment couldn't any of us contact the original author to ask them what does "feel free to use" mean? I mean, is the author aware that those photos can also be used for commercial purpose? I suppose that we need an explicit permission in order to use those pics. -- Blackcat (talk) 15:18, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Not likely; the only email I can immediately find on a randomly selected archived version of the webpage [2] has an email listed at the domain which is no longer active. Unless someone wants to try mailto:livelc@aol.com on the basis that it's the AOL account of the person who housed the site. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:47, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Weak delete I feel that I agree we need a clearer statement before using it here. Just like sending a email to OTRS saying that 'I allow it to be used under whatever requirements of Commons', we always ask for a more specific license. I think the author's intention wasn't truly to allow unrestricted use of the image. He was just fed up that people were using his image anyhow and he couldn't do anything about it. --Ben.MQ (talk) 07:41, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Tendentially delete as long as we don't have further licence specifications. -- Blackcat (talk) 17:41, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep, Concur with Magog the Ogre, per the description "All I've asked of people who use my pics is that they credit me and don't direct link my pictures.".--Methamphetamines (talk) 07:06, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - if we delete this, we will need to go after most images that use the {{Attribution}} template and link to a third party website. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:10, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - probably best if someone gets in touch with him to secure a clear permission and maybe get some more pictures :-) Multichill (talk) 11:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- As I've stated a few times above, I don't believe this is possible. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- I believe it is. Googling I get http://lylecwilliams.net which seems to be operated by the same individual as the previous .com. http://lylecwilliams.net/gallery.html states "Not Much Here Yet, as I'm Starting to Re-load Stuff." That page continues the yearly listing seen at the Comcast site. It's a private registration but I'll email the registrant for some insight. – Adrignola talk 18:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- As I've stated a few times above, I don't believe this is possible. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No response via the proxy private registration email. As it is this release is not explicit enough. To draw an analogy, the wording could easily reference cc-by, cc-by-nc, cc-by-nd, cc-by-nc-nd, the latter licenses not permitted at Commons. If the wording was slightly different, this wouldn't be an issue. Feel free to use for any purpose. Policy states that if there is significant doubt about a file it should be deleted. – Adrignola talk 13:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Copyrighted content (Donald Duck)--Hoangquan hientrang (talk) 04:53, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep The subject is Jamie Lee Curtis; Donald Duck is de minimis -- Blackcat (talk) 15:30, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- The worst that can be done is crop to just JLC. Disney is evil. NVO (talk) 17:42, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. Per nomination. We already have a cropped version: File:Jamie Lee Curtis crop.jpg. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:38, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Still, the subject is JLC not DD; a fair reason for deleting could be avoiding keeping double images on the same subject, one of which de facto unusable. -- Blackcat (talk) 17:37, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Copyrighted content (Donald Duck)--Hoangquan hientrang (talk) 07:36, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep the subject is the family; Donald Duck is a de minimis -- Blackcat (talk) 15:51, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:13, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
The stamp is a derivative work, and the permission of the copyright holder for the subject is still needed. Russia gives 70-year pma for artistic works; its sculptor Yevgeny Vuchetich died in 1974, so his copyright does not run out till 2045. Furthermore, Russia does not have freedom of panorama. Jappalang (talk) 13:09, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Stamps are not copyrighted in Russia according to Part IV of Civil Code No. 230-FZ of the Russian Federation of December 18, 2006; this extends also to USSR. -- Blackcat (talk) 16:04, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Two objections.
- First, how do you know that "Stamps are not copyrighted in Russia"? Well of course they are not copyrighted because Russian legislation does not use the concept of copyright. Perhaps you meant that they are exempt from "author's rights" along with "state symbols and signs (flags, emblems, orders, banknotes, and the like" (translation as in {{PD-RU-exempt}} original: ГКРФ ст. 1259 ч. 6: "Не являются объектами авторских прав: ... 4) государственные символы и знаки (флаги, гербы, ордена, денежные знаки и тому подобное)")? What made stamps, which are issued by a company, "state symbols and signs"? A convenient "consensus" reached a few years ago on commons? It could've be been the path of least harm, but then it should not be brought as an argument.
- Second, the fact that a company (Post of Russia) or a government agency (Post of the USSR) used a protected primary work to create "symbols and signs", does not affect the status of primary work. It is still protected. Remember the case of Tavasieva vs. Coca-Cola? A regional government rightfully used a monument for their official coat of arms, but use of this COA by a third party, even when endorsed by COA holder, is a certified copyvio. NVO (talk) 17:26, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- We're not talking about Coke cans, I'm reasonnably sure the Russian government wouldn't sue itself for picturing a State-owned statue :-) -- Blackcat (talk) 17:29, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Don't expect anything reasonable from Russian government. They are very fond of kicking and biting one another ;) NVO (talk) 21:51, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Oh I don't need to be Russian to see governors biting and kicking one another, I am Italian, and under this aspect we get lessons by no one ;-) -- Blackcat (talk) 08:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Don't expect anything reasonable from Russian government. They are very fond of kicking and biting one another ;) NVO (talk) 21:51, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- We're not talking about Coke cans, I'm reasonnably sure the Russian government wouldn't sue itself for picturing a State-owned statue :-) -- Blackcat (talk) 17:29, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Two objections.
- I suggest reading Commons:Derivative works. The subject of the image has its own valid copyright (separate from the photograph/stamp). This is analogous to photographs taken by US federal employees. Their photographs are PD-US by virtue as US federal work; however, in cases like Commons:Deletion requests/Derivative works of Sesame Street puppets, the presence of copyrighted subjects mean the photographs are not "free" in the definition of Commons' policy and guidelines. Jappalang (talk) 00:55, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- Still, I tend to believe that if the Russian government issued a PD stamp picturing a subject watsoever, it is an automatic give up of their rights over the pictured image. -- Blackcat (talk) 08:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
PS Is a convinction driven by common sense, more than logics- No, as NVO pointed out: it is debatable if stamps qualify as any of the terms listed in PD-RU-exempt. Furthermore,
- "Before 1992, copyrights belonging to legal entities were valid for an unlimited period of time. When these legal entities were broken up following the collapse of the Soviet Union, their copyrights were automatically transferred to the Russian government. The new law abolished ownership of copyrights by entities. Copyrights owned by entities in existence before 1993 were given a 50-year term from creation or publication." (Fishman, Stephen, The Public Domain (2010), p. 307.)
- This stamp, made by a company in 1989, therefore would be copyrighted till 2040 (and that is not even considering Vuchetich's copyright of his statue). Jappalang (talk) 12:05, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- No, as NVO pointed out: it is debatable if stamps qualify as any of the terms listed in PD-RU-exempt. Furthermore,
- Still, I tend to believe that if the Russian government issued a PD stamp picturing a subject watsoever, it is an automatic give up of their rights over the pictured image. -- Blackcat (talk) 08:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: copyright situation not clear Jcb (talk) 22:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Uploader unlikely the photographer; composed of 3 images; one also found on http://she-natics.weebly.com/; wording in description is sounds as if copied from a Flickr page. Alleged creator name "Anna Fontelara" shows little similarity to account name "Yeyep0t". --Túrelio (talk) 14:08, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
yes, the file is also at Ms. Sheryl Cruz's fan page site http://she-natics.weebly.com/ because it was also contributed on the said site. i am a member of the site. what's wrong if I, Anna Fontelara, the creator, has no similarity with my account name yeyepot. it is my nickname that's why.
Deleted: no evidence of permission Jcb (talk) 22:22, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Photos of photos or directly copied from elsewhere. In any case: not entirely own work.
- File:Rt1235.jpg
- File:123456.jpg
- File:A12111.jpg
- File:Nongluk.jpg
- File:Ratchanee.jpg
- File:Prapai.jpg
- File:Boss13.jpg
- File:Boss12.jpg
- File:Boss11.jpg
- File:Boss9.jpg
- File:Boss8.jpg
- File:Boss7.jpg
- File:Boss6.jpg
- File:Boss5.jpg
- File:Boss4.jpg
- File:Boss3.jpg
- File:Boss2.jpg
- File:1one.jpg
- File:Mini-Busi4889.jpg
- File:Gift2-1.jpg
- File:01000.jpg
Martin H. (talk) 15:42, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No source, no permission. Yann (talk) 09:09, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Flo-star
[edit]- File:LHF 20-12 CAFS.JPG
- File:DLK 23-12 Berliner Feuerwehr.jpg
- File:Teleskopmast TM 50 Berliner Feuerwehr.jpg
No OTRS from Jens-P. Wilke (Stab 31 - Öffentlichkeitsarbeit) --77.184.132.78 18:12, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:22, 2 July 2011 (UTC)