Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2011/07/15
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rocio_.jpg Fuckallthepeople (talk) 00:26, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: The file is a photo of a person, it is the only contribution of the uploader, the rest is a bunch of (empty) deletion requests for it. AVRS (talk) 18:45, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
First, Flickr account is untrustworthy; stream contains numerous clearly not self-made photos. Second, 126 tineye hits. Third, photo not from 2009 but from June 19, 2007. Fourth, appears to be a version of this image (©Jon Kopaloff/FilmMagic) with the background blurred. Lupo 11:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Definitely, I agree to spite i did in fact upload the image i really do not think who ever posted this image genuinely took the image. It should be deleted it. It was clearley obtained from the web. User: Editor2205 11:12 PM, 15 July 2011
Delete, a look at the flickrstream with this photo makes it obvious why the flickr user pimkie_fotos already is listed at COM:QFI: 4 low quality self-created photos, 7 screenshots from The Big Bang Theory, 6 unfree photos of Paris Hilton and Aniston, 1 low quality self-created picture again. --Martin H. (talk) 13:45, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Lupo 09:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Copyright violation. Allen4names (talk) 14:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Clear copyvio. Jean-Fred (talk) 22:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Misnamed duplicate of file:Renault R 4 GTL.jpg P199 (talk) 16:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Duplicate High Contrast (talk) 20:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
as per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Steve Montador.jpg. --Túrelio (talk) 08:26, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Also:
- File:Teemu Selanne 2010-12-31.jpg
- File:Drew Doughty2.jpg
- File:Nolan Schaefer.jpg
- File:Brendan Morrison and Drew Doughty.jpg
- File:Drew Doughty - Los Angeles Kings.jpg
- File:Drew Doughty3.jpg
- File:Thrashers team.jpg
- File:Patrick McNeill Bears.jpg
- File:Orr vs. King.jpg
- File:Jonas Hiller.jpg
- File:Tom Poti 2010.jpg
- File:Kenndal McArdle Panthers.jpg
- File:Jay Beagle Caps.jpg
- File:Andrei Kirilenko basketball.jpg
- File:Matt Harpring.jpg
- File:Kirilenko Odom.jpg
- File:Brad Boyes2.jpg
- File:Ryan McDonagh2.jpg
- File:Anton Gustafsson.jpg
- File:Zach Miskovic.jpg
- File:Joe Finley.jpg
- File:IMG 9730 Matt Kemp.jpg
- File:Sergei Bobrovsky Flyers.jpg
- File:Nathan Horton - 3.jpg
- File:Nathan Horton - 5.jpg
- File:NathanHortonBruins.jpg
- File:Adam McQuaid - 1.jpg
- File:Adam McQuaid -1.jpg
- File:Adam McQuaid.jpg
- File:Dennis Seidenberg (2010) cropped.jpg
- File:Dennis Seidenberg - 1.jpg
- File:Dennis Seidenberg - 2.jpg
- File:Dennis Seidenberg.jpg
- File:Evander Kane 11142010.jpg
- File:Evander Kane 2010-10-23.jpg
- File:Evander Kane 2010-10-23b.jpg
- File:Tyler Seguin.jpg
- File:Tyler Seguin - 2.jpg
- File:Tyler Seguin - 1.jpg
- File:Mark Recchi and Tyler Seguin.jpg
- File:Gregory Campbell - 1.jpg
- File:Gregory Campbell - 2.jpg
- File:Gregory Campbell Boston.jpg
_cropped.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
... (more to come) --Túrelio (talk) 08:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
A few more:
- File:Brett Clark.jpg
- File:Jiri Tlusty.jpg
- File:Mattias Ohlund 2010-11-11.jpg
- File:Sergei Bobrovsky 11072010.jpg
- File:Markus Naslund Rangers 2008-12-18.jpg
- File:Evander Kane 2010-10-23a.jpg
- File:Evander Kane 2010-11-14.jpg
- File:Dan Ellis.jpg
- File:Victor Hedman 11112010.jpg
- File:Fredrik Sjöström Toronto.jpg
- File:Braden Holtby 11052010.jpg
- File:Maxim Lapierre Samuel Pahlsson.jpg
- File:Nathan Horton - 2.jpg
- File:Nathan Horton - 4.jpg
- File:Adam McQuaid 11052010.jpg
- File:Dennis Seidenberg - 3.jpg
- File:Tyler Seguin 11042010.jpg
- File:Gregory Campbell.jpg
- File:Tuukka Rask - 2.jpg
- File:Derek MacKenzie.jpg
- File:James van Riemsdyk.jpg
- File:RyanMillerSabres.jpg
- File:Chris Pronger Flyers.jpg
- File:Aleksandr Burmistrov Thrashers.jpg
- File:Anthony Stewart (ice hockey).jpg
- File:Thomas Vanek 2010.jpg
- File:Darroll Powe 2010.jpg
- File:Sean Bergenheim Tampa.jpg
- File:Mike Richards.jpg
- File:Jay Harrison.jpg
- File:Jochen Hecht 2010.jpg
- File:JasonPominvilleSabres.jpg
- File:Ryan Wilson (ice hockey).jpg
- File:ColbyArmstrongTML.jpg
- File:Brandon Dubinsky 2008.jpg
- File:Joe Colborne.jpg
- File:Kevin Shattenkirk.jpg
- File:MikeKomisarekTML.jpg
- File:Luca Caputi.jpg
- File:Tomas Fleischmann 3.jpg
- File:ColtonOrr.jpg
- File:Ilya Bryzgalov 10102010.jpg
- File:Adam Foote 2010 - profile.jpg
- File:Matt Bradley.jpg
- File:Kevin Porter (ice hockey).jpg
- File:Kevin Porter.jpg
- File:ShawnThorntonBruins.jpg
- File:David Jones (ice hockey).jpg
- File:Matt Duchene and Nicklas Bäckström.jpg
- File:Paul Šťastný - 1.jpg
- File:Mike Green 11072010.jpg
- File:KarlAlzner.jpg
- File:Scott Hannan Capitals.jpg
- File:Scott Hannan - 1.jpg
- File:Nicklas Bäckström.jpg
- File:Nicklas Bäckström - 4.jpg
- File:Semyon Varlamov.jpg
- File:David Krejčí - 1.jpg
- File:Mark Stuart - 1.jpg
- File:David Steckel scoring.jpg
- File:Brooks Laich - 1.jpg
- File:Eric Fehr- 1.jpg
- File:Eric Fehr 2010.jpg
- File:AlexPietrangelo.jpg
- File:Roman Polák.jpg
- File:Ryan Jones Oilers.jpg
- File:Jaroslav Halak 2011-01-13.jpg
- File:Jaroslav Halak 2011-01-13b.jpg
- File:Jaroslav Halák 2011-01-13.jpg
- File:Cam Janssen.jpg
- File:Alexander Steen.jpg
- File:Zach Bogosian 11142010.jpg
- File:James Reimer Leafs.jpg
- File:JakeDowell.jpg
- File:Semyon Varlamov 04.jpg
- File:Semyon Varlamov 01.jpg
- File:ViktorStalbergHawks.jpg
- File:Evgeni Kuznetsov 07162010.jpg
- File:Sergei Kostitsyn.jpg
- File:Brandon McMillan.jpg
- File:AshtonRome.jpg
- File:Kurtis Foster 2010.jpg
- File:Braydon Coburn Flyers.jpg
- File:FrancoisBeaucheminTML.jpg
- File:TeemuSelanne DucksPractice.jpg
- File:Matt D'Agostini2.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
--Steve Icemen (talk) 17:26, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
As I've proposed several of these to-be-deleted images for fair-use on :en, the deleting admin should have a look at Category:Pending fair use deletes whether all Bridget-images have already disappeared from this cat, which means they have been fair-use-copied to :en. --Túrelio (talk) 18:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Unused lower-resolution and same level of diagram detail and fileformat as File:PropyleneOxide.png, but methyl at weird angle. DMacks (talk) 13:58, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Quality too low to be useful. --Leyo 20:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Ed (Edgar181) 12:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
No COM:FOP in Russia for modern buildings. The architect must be dead at least 70 years before a building is out of copyright in Russia or the former Soviet states. Commons cannot legally keep this image and this building is not a typical design. Its very distinctive which means its copyrightable. Leoboudv (talk) 05:03, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete them all. Note that the image description is a blatant hoax: the place is not within Garden Ring, and it's not "just a mile from Red Square". Oh, and the architect may live indefinitely, just like LRH, because it's a bunch of companies. Curiously, the other facade of their den (the one facing the street) is as nondescript as it could be - just a dull flat with a bank office in ground floor. Poor men's postmodernism. Even more curiously, COFS-Moscow themselves allowed [unaffiliated] bloggers to photograph the innards of their den, in and out - http://ottenki-serogo.livejournal.com/219900.html, http://kirill-kuzmin.livejournal.com/55706.html (both include NSFW flamewars in Russian). NVO (talk) 17:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- Hold On. Can we keep civil language please? Leoboudv, this is not my image but it comes from Flickr.com where it was provided by the owner, the Church of Scientology International (a US corporation that oversees all churches worldwide, including Moscow[1]). They own the picture but have licensed it for Commons use. Your concerns seem only valid for tourist-type snapshots but I am new to this and certainly don't know international copyright details. Could you elaborate? PictorialEvidence (talk) 18:01, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Comment: Freedom of Panorama or COM:FOP says what pictures may or may not be used on Commons in certain countries. Aircraft and Vehicles (cars, trucks, trains, etc) are free from FOP issues since they are utilitarian. But Modern buildings and bridges especially are copyrighted in countries with no FOP unless their architects died at least 70 years ago. That is why we can have pictures of the Kremlin building which is hundreds of years old. But this building looks quite new, so it may be copyrighted. This says which countries have FOP or no FOP in Europe and to what extent. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:01, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for the clarification. I do not know how old this building is but you are right, it looks quite new. On the other hand it seems that the owner licensed it CC BY-SA. Wouldn't it be possible then to use it on Commons? PictorialEvidence (talk) 17:19, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- I flickrpassed the image but it doesn't change Russian law on Freedom of Panorama. The photo cannot be used here on Commons because it must be legally acceptable to do so both in the US where wikipedia is based and in the country of origin--Russia here. It is not acceptable in Russia. This is a non-free fair use image that can only be uploaded at english wikipedia, not at Commons like this example. So, it will be deleted in the future at Commons. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:23, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for the explanation. It's a nice photo but I understand the rules now. PictorialEvidence (talk) 01:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Personal picture of user, not in use anywhere. Out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 22:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Also File:Issy.jpg for the same reason. Wknight94 talk 01:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Violation of personal rights, not used Nolispanmo 08:24, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 10:19, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
unused personal photo -out of scope Santosga (talk) 15:09, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 10:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 18:28, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 10:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 18:36, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 10:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 18:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 10:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
unused private image - not a good quality, unclear notability - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 18:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 10:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
small unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 18:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 10:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Unused (personal?) logo. --ZooFari 19:05, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 10:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Menor de edad - 201.255.111.211 05:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Keep Actress born in 1986, photo taken in 2006. Not a minor. Not to mention that it wouldn't matter if she was in this case.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: No valid reason for deletion. Yann (talk) 10:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Menor de edad - 201.255.111.211 05:33, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Actress born in 1986, photo taken in 2006. Not a minor. Not to mention that it wouldn't matter if she was in this case.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: No valid reason for deletion. Yann (talk) 10:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Menor de edad - 201.255.111.211 05:46, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Actress born in 1986, photo taken in 2006. Not a minor. Not to mention that it wouldn't matter if she was in this case.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: No valid reason for deletion. Yann (talk) 10:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Menor de edad - 201.255.111.211 05:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Actress born in 1986, photo taken in 2006. Not a minor. Not to mention that it wouldn't matter if she was in this case.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: No valid reason for deletion. Yann (talk) 10:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Menor de edad - 201.255.111.211 05:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep No reason for deletion. Picture of underage people are in no way against policy. Also, if the date is correct the person depicted is actually 20 years old in the photo. Jafeluv (talk) 07:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Actress born in 1986, photo taken in 2006. Not a minor. Not to mention that it wouldn't matter if she was in this case.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: No valid reason for deletion. Yann (talk) 10:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Menor de edad - 201.255.111.211 05:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Actress born in 1986, photo taken in 2006. Not a minor. Not to mention that it wouldn't matter if she was in this case.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: No valid reason for deletion. Yann (talk) 10:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Menor de edad - 201.255.111.211 06:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Actress born in 1986, photo taken in 2006. Not a minor. Not to mention that it wouldn't matter if she was in this case.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: No valid reason for deletion. Yann (talk) 10:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Menor de edad - 201.255.111.211 06:05, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Actress born in 1986, photo taken in 2006. Not a minor. Not to mention that it wouldn't matter if she was in this case.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:07, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: No valid reason for deletion. Yann (talk) 10:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Menor de edad - 201.255.111.211 06:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Actress born in 1986, photo taken in 2006. Not a minor. Not to mention that it wouldn't matter if she was in this case.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:07, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: No valid reason for deletion. Yann (talk) 10:53, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Menor de edad - 201.255.111.211 06:09, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Actress born in 1986, photo taken in 2006. Not a minor. Not to mention that it wouldn't matter if she was in this case.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:07, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: No valid reason for deletion. Yann (talk) 10:53, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Menor de edad - 201.255.111.211 06:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Actress born in 1986, photo taken in 2006. Not a minor. Not to mention that it wouldn't matter if she was in this case.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:07, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: No valid reason for deletion. Yann (talk) 10:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Menor de edad - 201.255.111.211 06:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Actress born in 1986, photo taken in 2006. Not a minor. Not to mention that it wouldn't matter if she was in this case.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:07, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: No valid reason for deletion. Yann (talk) 10:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Menor de edad - 201.255.111.211 06:15, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Actress born in 1986, photo taken in 2006. Not a minor. Not to mention that it wouldn't matter if she was in this case.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:07, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: No valid reason for deletion. Yann (talk) 10:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Menor de edad - 201.255.111.211 06:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Actress born in 1986, photo taken in 2006. Not a minor. Not to mention that it wouldn't matter if she was in this case.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: No valid reason for deletion. Yann (talk) 10:46, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Menor de edad - 201.255.111.211 06:19, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Actress born in 1986, photo taken in 2006. Not a minor. Not to mention that it wouldn't matter if she was in this case.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: No valid reason for deletion. Yann (talk) 10:46, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Steve Epting was dissatisfied with the photo I took of him, and requested it be taken down. I have no problem with this, since someone put a different one in his Wikipedia article back in October. Nightscream (talk) 00:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete because the file does not have a (valid) license. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:14, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- How is the license invalid? Nightscream (talk) 17:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - replaced by File:201107epting.jpg. For wikiwlayers: IAR Bulwersator (talk) 13:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Not LittleGees work, user is grabbing files from facebook. Centralized at en:Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2011_July_15#Files_by_LittleGee. --Martin H. (talk) 01:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Not LittleGees work, user is grabbing files from facebook. Centralized at en:Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2011_July_15#Files_by_LittleGee. --Martin H. (talk) 01:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Not LittleGees work, user is grabbing files from facebook. Centralized at en:Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2011_July_15#Files_by_LittleGee. --Martin H. (talk) 01:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Not LittleGees work, user is grabbing files from facebook. Centralized at en:Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2011_July_15#Files_by_LittleGee. --Martin H. (talk) 01:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
no clear source - unused (personal ?), out of project scope. ■ MMXX talk 03:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Out of project scope. ■ MMXX talk 03:36, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
These and some other uploads by User:AlessandroOdo ■ MMXX talk 03:40, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Why do you want to delete the file?, I see the problem which is all I have done and everyone I did it to one or two specific articles. AlessandroOdo (talk) 23:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:41, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Derivative of a presumably non-free sculpture in a location with no freedom of panorama (United States) meaning the uploader cannot issue a valid license without the consent of the artist. --~ Grcampbell (talk) 06:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete 2007 US statue. Teofilo (talk) 15:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:41, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Derivative of a presumably non-free sculpture in a location with no freedom of panorama (United States) meaning the uploader cannot issue a valid license without the consent of the artist. --~ Grcampbell (talk) 06:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:41, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Derivative of a presumably non-free sculpture in a location with no freedom of panorama (United States) meaning the uploader cannot issue a valid license without the consent of the artist. --~ Grcampbell (talk) 06:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Derivative of a presumably non-free sculpture in a location with no freedom of panorama (United States) meaning the uploader cannot issue a valid license without the consent of the artist. Newly created sculptures in Los Banos. --~ Grcampbell (talk) 06:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Derivative of a presumably non-free sculpture in a location with no freedom of panorama (United States) meaning the uploader cannot issue a valid license without the consent of the artist, Anna Hyatt Huntington (March 10, 1876 – October 4, 1973) --~ Grcampbell (talk) 06:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Comment: The question to be answered is whether the sculpture has a copyright notice or not, because according to the COM:FOP US sculptures "published" between 1923 and 1978 without a copyright notice can us {{PD-US-no notice}}. A SIRIUS search shows the sculpture was created in 1923 and installed in 1930. Ww2censor (talk) 16:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- comment re-uploaded to en:wikipedia with a "non-free 3D art" license. wrongful migration from english wikipedia. no notice was given uploader User talk:Anthony22. 198.24.31.118 17:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep as {{PD-US-no notice}}, no copyright notice: [2]. MKFI (talk) 19:46, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - no copyright notice. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:50, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: The SIRIS record says there was no notice. That should be good enough for us. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Derivative of a presumably non-free sculpture in a location with no freedom of panorama (United States) meaning the uploader cannot issue a valid license without the consent of the artist, Anna Hyatt Huntington (March 10, 1876 – October 4, 1973). Dedicated 1930. --~ Grcampbell (talk) 07:03, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: The question to be answered is whether the sculpture has a copyright notice or not, because according to the COM:FOP US sculptures "published" between 1923 and 1978 without a copyright notice can us {{PD-US-no notice}}. A SIRIUS search shows the sculpture was created in 1923 and installed in 1930. Ww2censor (talk) 16:40, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep as {{PD-US-no notice}}, no copyright notice: [3]. MKFI (talk) 19:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - no copyright notice. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Derivative of a presumably non-free sculpture in a location with no freedom of panorama (United States) meaning the uploader cannot issue a valid license without the consent of the artist, Anna Hyatt Huntington (March 10, 1876 – October 4, 1973). Dedicated 1930. --~ Grcampbell (talk) 07:03, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: The question to be answered is whether the sculpture has a copyright notice or not, because according to the COM:FOP US sculptures "published" between 1923 and 1978 without a copyright notice can us {{PD-US-no notice}}. A SIRIUS search shows the sculpture was created in 1923 and installed in 1930. Ww2censor (talk) 16:42, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- comment erroneously migrated to commons from en:wikipedia. i migrated it back here: [4]. the practice of migrating images with the wrong license, and deleting images with the wrong license, without adding the right license, harms the wiki. Slowking4 (talk) 15:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
![[4]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:El-Cid-Anna-H-Hunt---.jpg){kind=link}
That was my image, uploaded onto wikipedia 5 years ago, before I really understood how the "land of the free" could not have freedom of panorama. I did not move it out of wikipedia. And if gets deleted from everything.....oh well. Carptrash (talk) 17:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- Carptrash do you remember if the statue has a copyright notice on it or not? I believe the move back to the enwiki by Slowking4 is bad one because it fails their non-free criteria, so will likely be deleted there to unless the status of the statue is shown to be in the public domain. But that will have to be dealt with over there. Ww2censor (talk) 18:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- As part of the recent GLAM created with Balboa Park, I'll contact the staff there and see if they have any details about the statue's copyright status. I'm assuming a curator or librarian there will know or have paperwork somewhere. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- Carptrash do you remember if the statue has a copyright notice on it or not? I believe the move back to the enwiki by Slowking4 is bad one because it fails their non-free criteria, so will likely be deleted there to unless the status of the statue is shown to be in the public domain. But that will have to be dealt with over there. Ww2censor (talk) 18:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep as {{PD-US-no notice}}, no copyright notice: [5]. MKFI (talk) 19:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - no notice. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
If the statue had a copyright it would have been a small mark about 12 feet up in the air, in any case, I did not notice one. The SIRIS entry on the statue ( http://siris-artinventories.si.edu/ipac20/ipac.jsp?session=1K12165483SL7.106753&profile=ariall&source=~!siartinventories&view=subscriptionsummary&uri=full=3100001~!321934~!5&ri=1&aspect=Keyword&menu=search&ipp=20&spp=20&staffonly=&term=hyatt&index=.AW&uindex=&oper=&term=el+cid&index=.TW&uindex=&aspect=Keyword&menu=search&ri=1 ) includes the date, 1927, and the foundry, Gorham, but no mention of a copyright, unless that stuff qualifies. Carptrash (talk) 02:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Derivative of a presumably non-free sculpture in a location with no freedom of panorama (United States) meaning the uploader cannot issue a valid license without the consent of the artist, Anna Hyatt Huntington (March 10, 1876 – October 4, 1973). Begun in the 1950s and unveiled in 1965. --~ Grcampbell (talk) 07:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- migrate to en:wikipedia with "non free 3D art"; no notice to uploader User:David Shankbone --Slowking4 (talk) 18:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - pre-1978 statue, probably no copyright notice, look it up on SIRIS before you nominate. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: SIRIS says there was no notice. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:03, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Derivative of a presumably non-free sculpture in a location with no freedom of panorama (United States) meaning the uploader cannot issue a valid license without the consent of the artist, Anna Hyatt Huntington (March 10, 1876 – October 4, 1973). Completed 1955. --~ Grcampbell (talk) 07:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - pre-1978 statue, probably no copyright notice, look it up on SIRIS before you nominate. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- SIRIS does not mention a copyright notice. Teofilo (talk) 16:12, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:03, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Derivative of a presumably non-free sculpture in a location with no freedom of panorama (United States) meaning the uploader cannot issue a valid license without the consent of the artist, Anna Hyatt Huntington (March 10, 1876 – October 4, 1973). Completed 1955. --~ Grcampbell (talk) 07:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - pre-1978 statue, probably no copyright notice, look it up on SIRIS before you nominate. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- SIRIS dated 1955, no copyright notice is reported. Teofilo (talk) 14:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:03, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Derivative of a presumably non-free sculpture in a location with no freedom of panorama (United States) meaning the uploader cannot issue a valid license without the consent of the artist, Anna Hyatt Huntington (March 10, 1876 – October 4, 1973). Completed 1961. --~ Grcampbell (talk) 07:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - pre-1978 statue, probably no copyright notice, look it up on SIRIS before you nominate. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: SIRIS reports that there was no notice. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
It contains images not owned by The Pirate Bay −ebraminiotalk 09:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
The music group sings Elvis Presley Jailhouse Rock, a song published in 1957. Cantons-de-l'Est (talk) 10:37, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- i don't know if related rights exist in the USA to protect the performers' rights like it does in Europe, but if it's the case, than this recording is probably breaking such rights.--Lilyu (talk) 01:14, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- probably Delete - the song composition is probably still copyrighted. It is due to the uploader to proof why a upload of other person's work is PD. Then there may be performers rights. See also: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Smetana - Bartered Bride overture.ogg and User_talk:Saibo#when_PD_definitions_are_not_so_defined. --Saibo (Δ) 01:14, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Performer's rights are irrelevant here. This work is a derivative work of the composition of "Jailhouse Rock", and so is a copyright infringement. We could only keep it if it were muted. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:56, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
It is a scrach of TV show, not the own work of the uploader. Zhxy 519 (talk) 10:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely own work. Appears to be a COM:DW of an old posed photograph. Wknight94 talk 11:45, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:07, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No indication at the source that the image is freely-licensed (as far as I can tell). The City of Toronto does not normally freely license the materials on its website. Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:07, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No indication at the source that the image is freely-licensed (as far as I can tell). The City of Toronto does not normally freely license the materials on its website. Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:36, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:07, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Per Commons:FOP#Iran; in addition copyvio/plagiarism from de:Datei:Chemical warfare warningboard iran.jpg fa:File:Chemical warfare warningboard iran.jpg. Leyo 13:33, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
There is indeed no copyright problem
that board is a commemorative plaque of the Iranian State. Free of any copyright.
That is not ART and not a PAINTING etc.
see please Wikifarsi or the image-site
Thank you Doktorjan (talk) 17:04, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- There are two photographs that are probably unfree on the board. --Leyo 13:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- That people are 100% D E A T H. The People are not identifiable and the Artist has released the pictures
- Please provide a reference for the last statement. --Leyo 14:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- The owner is the city hall of Tehran, represented by the mayor of Tehran... See please Wikifarsi or the image-site They are Iranian and you/we speek about Iranian LAW!!! or i'm wrong??? Doktorjan (talk) 15:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete obvious violation of copyright. (No freedom of panorama in Iran as well as the paintings are copyrighted according to the Iranian copyright law) --Razghandi (talk) 16:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- از ماست که بر ماست. همشهربی دستتان درد نکند. آقا مارادونارو ول کن جاسمو بگير؟؟؟
- you are passing the Iranian administration (= the owner!!!)??? Well done Mr. Lawyer! Doktorjan (talk) 17:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- Comment The memorial sign itself and the typeface both have simple design, but the two photographs and arabesque design are possibly not free, I suggest someone take a new photo from the new memorial sign (like this) which have a more simple design, blur the photographs and then upload it. ■ MMXX talk 20:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
not used anymore; no other use Si! SWamP (talk) 15:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
not used anymore; no other use Si! SWamP (talk) 15:04, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
unused photo of french politician with no notability as deleted here fr:Yves Mollier-Pierret - out of scope Santosga (talk) 15:14, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
unused photo of German personality with no notability as decided here de:Wikipedia:Löschkandidaten/17. April 2008#Lars Flemming (gelöscht) - out of scope Santosga (talk) 15:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Image appear to have been copied from a webpage or catalogue, uploader unlikely to be copyright holder MilborneOne (talk) 16:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Available at http://www.airdata.ca/images/stories/PitotPSP.pdf no evidence of release or that it is the work of the uploader. Hosted website http://www.airdata.ca/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=23%3Apitot-probes-&catid=7%3Aavionics&Itemid=14&lang=en says copyright 2009 Air Data Inc All Rights Reserved MilborneOne (talk) 16:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Product spec from Air Data Inc unlikely to be the work of the uploader MilborneOne (talk) 16:36, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope (for the name you can find an abandoned blog) Cholo Aleman (talk) 18:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
selfcomment: people of argetina, a group of musicians or bloggers - though the persons are not notable, they can be kept as a documentary of live in argentina Cholo Aleman (talk) 03:19, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:19, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope - joke Cholo Aleman (talk) 19:09, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:19, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
The source, a blog, is licensed under cc-by-es license, but the blogger is not the photographer of this picture as a google similarity search quickly shows. The picture was used on various blogs and websites around October 2009. Martin H. (talk) 19:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- Si pero, cuando hice la búsqueda de la imagen me apareció como de licencia libre, deberías considerarlo, ya que mostraba ser licenciada por Creative Commons. Además hice la búsqueda por este sitio: http://search.creativecommons.org/.
- --Santiago Casuriaga (talk) 19:23, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- http://search.creativecommons.org/: «Do not assume that the results displayed in this search portal are under a CC license. You should always verify that the work is actually under a CC license by following the link. Since there is no registration to use a CC license, CC has no way to determine what has and hasn't been placed under the terms of a CC license. If you are in doubt you should contact the copyright holder directly, or try to contact the site where you found the content.» --Martin H. (talk) 19:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:19, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Doubtful authorship and license - theater logo, author T. Shalashova (Т. Шалашова). 79.173.80.61 21:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Doubtful authorship and license - festival poster with theater logo (see also: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dobryi teatr P1060817-2.jpg). 79.173.80.61 21:40, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
this is much too ornate and creative to be PD-Textlogo DS (talk) 21:40, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
All thanks to the uploader, but as this is a photo of a copyrighted product package and nothing else, it's a derivative work, and thus, non=free. Courcelles (talk) 22:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Promotional image for the Azeri-language film "My Family", commercial, not free, watermarked for what I think is a showbiz site DS (talk) 23:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Likely copyright violation, see here. Hekerui (talk) 08:37, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Deletion request was started by Uploader here after discussion here Agathoclea (talk) 20:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC) --Agathoclea (talk) 21:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per Jimbo and uploader Killiondude (talk) 18:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
This .png was made by me from File:Caisson.svg (no attribution path issues, SVG is same quality or better) and is unused Henrik (heb: Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 08:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted per uploader request, not used in any wiki Alpertron (talk) 00:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Copyright violation. Many photos have been extracted from Google Images. Stevvvv4444 (talk) 19:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No source for the base image used in the compilation Denniss (talk) 11:59, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Roman pronunciation for this word is same as Classical, which already has file Robert.Baruch (talk) 00:24, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 13:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Roman pronunciation for this word is same as Classical, which already has file Robert.Baruch (talk) 00:26, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 13:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Roman pronunciation for this word is same as Classical, which already has file Robert.Baruch (talk) 00:33, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 13:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Roman pronunciation for this word is same as Classical, which already has file Robert.Baruch (talk) 00:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 13:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Roman pronunciation of this word is same as Classical, which already has file Robert.Baruch (talk) 18:46, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 13:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Roman pronunciation for this word is same as Classical, which already has file Robert.Baruch (talk) 18:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 13:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Roman pronunciation for this word is same as Classical, which already has file Robert.Baruch (talk) 18:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 13:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Roman pronunciation of this word is same as Ecclesiastical, which already has file Robert.Baruch (talk) 18:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 13:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Roman pronunciation for this word is same as Classical, which already has file Robert.Baruch (talk) 19:00, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 13:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Roman pronunciation for this word is same as Classical, which already has file Robert.Baruch (talk) 19:04, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 13:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Roman pronunciation for this word is same as Classical, which already has file Robert.Baruch (talk) 19:08, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 13:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Roman pronunciation of this word is same as Classical, which already has file Robert.Baruch (talk) 19:10, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 13:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
File already exists under another name (la-cls-numerus.ogg) Robert.Baruch (talk) 19:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 13:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Roman pronunciation of this word is same as Classical, which already has file Robert.Baruch (talk) 19:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 13:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Roman pronunciation for this word is same as Classical, which already exists Robert.Baruch (talk) 19:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 13:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Roman pronunciation of this word is same as Classical, which already has file Robert.Baruch (talk) 19:15, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 13:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Possibly unfree logo, above the threshold of originality. Martin H. (talk) 20:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 13:16, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
I doubt own work and suspect a copyvio (we had several copyvios from this user at dewp - see de:Benutzer_Diskussion:Saibo#Tunc:_fremde_Bilder:_letzte_Warnung_.28hierhin_verschoben.29). This file seems to be from http://www.cargurus.com/Cars/Pictures-t10025-pi35719515-2006-Corvette-Z06.html jpg. Uploaded there (according to HTTP header data) September 2008 in much higher resolution than here. Saibo (Δ) 00:37, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. – Adrignola talk 01:27, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Uses wrong pronunciation; will be replaced by correct file later Robert.Baruch (talk) 00:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- Replaced by File:La-cls-barbaria.ogg, with correct name structure. The incorrect version (and name) is no longer needed. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:55, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader requests removal of unused file shortly after upload. Replaced by File:La-cls-barbaria.ogg to boot. – Adrignola talk 23:33, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Low quality picture. A better picture is avaliable in Category:SVG chess pieces. OTAVIO1981 (talk) 12:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Replaced by File:Chess bgg45.svg. – Adrignola talk 00:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Not free kvardek du (la plej bela nombro) 16:29, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio: http://www.letram-grandbesancon.fr/ – Adrignola talk 00:01, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
unused small private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 19:24, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Very low resolution; highly likely copyright violation and unlikely to be uploader's own work. – Adrignola talk 00:27, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
i uplound new version MT0 (talk) 08:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request, not in use Ben.MQ (talk) 23:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
bad upload MT0 (talk) 09:28, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request, not in use Ben.MQ (talk) 23:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
image has no source and was uploaded by user with terrible history of copyvio DS (talk) 20:23, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete: It's somewhat doubtful that this image might be an own work by the user. The very same image is displayed on a page about "Spinal Stenosis" of the Department of Neurosurgery, University of Florida website: same size, same EXIF data, with the same creation date on , 08:39:09. One can read on the Disclaimer & Permitted Use page of this website: "All information contained within these Web sites at the University of Florida Department of Neurosurgery is the property of the University. Unless permission is otherwise specified on an individual Web page, duplication of any information for reasons other than personal use requires the expressed written permission of the University of Florida." There is no specific permission on the page about "Spinal Stenosis" where the same image can be found. --Myrabella (talk) 17:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per above Ben.MQ (talk) 23:23, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Derivative of a presumably non-free sculpture in a location with no freedom of panorama (United States) meaning the uploader cannot issue a valid license without the consent of the artist. Created in 1951. --~ Grcampbell (talk) 06:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Keep Very few sculptures from this period had the required copyright notice. Even fewer had the required renewal. This does not appear in the [US Copyright Office database, although without knowing the sculptor's name or the title of the work, I may have missed it. It also does not appear in the Smithsonian database. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 14:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Unusable SVG (Vancouver Skytrain map - plenty of alternatives in Category:Public transport maps of Vancouver). ~ NVO (talk) 17:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- Unusable because ... ?
(do I assume it is a copy of something copyrighted?)--Tony Wills (talk) 11:59, 16 July 2011 (UTC) - Keep No valid reason for deletion. It is not an exact duplicate of any other version of this map. It looks fine in inkscape, probably just needs some tweeks. --Tony Wills (talk) 22:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 14:35, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
User:Dr. Domingo Cabred
[edit]- File:Estacion Santo Domingo, linea Roca.jpg
- File:Estación Santo Domingo - Línea Roca.jpg
- File:Estacion Bragado.jpg
- File:Estación Reserva.jpg
- File:Estación Krabbé.jpg
- File:Estación Coronel Suarez.jpg
- File:General La Mardid.jpg
- File:Estación Stegmann.jpg
Uploader has already uploaded a large amount of copyright violations from various of sites (Flickr, Panoramio, Blogspot ect), it is very much unlikely that these photographs are the uploader's since they are a number of sizes and most have no EXIF data and those that do/did are from a number of different cameras. -- Bidgee (talk) 11:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Same reason as in Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by PrinceMarciano and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Imagedupurpleraintour.png. Looks like a screenshot of a television broadcast or a photographs of a television screen rather than the uploader's own work. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:03, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Prince Marciano le 17/07
[edit]
Bonjour a tous, cette image provient d'un DVD de la tournée Purple Rain que j'ai acheté. Donc de par cette achat j'ai le droit d'utiliser le contenu, donc inutile de la supprimé car je la trouve très bien en plus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PrinceMarciano (talk • contribs) 13:30, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- Owning a copy of a DVD is not the same as being the copyright holder of that DVD. Taking a screenshot of someone else's non-free work does not make you the author or copyright holder, and you cannot distribute that screenshot without the consent of the legitimate copyright holder. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Si ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.161.221.105 (talk • contribs) 09:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:07, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nova a.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Draco nebula.gif - it is not image from NASA but from ROSAT (german satellite), so "This file is in the public domain because it was created by NASA" cannot be used - maybe other licencing is possible Bulwersator (talk) 17:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- Regarding File:Rosat_0.75kev_diffuse_background_map.gif: I've added this "Credit: The Max Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics, Snowden et al. 1995, ApJ, 454, 643" to the article on WikiPedia where the image appears. There is no copyright notification at the bottom of the page, url=http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/science/know_l2/diffuse_figure3.html where the image appears indicating that the image is in the PUBLIC DOMAIN. If you like I will try to get in touch with Snowden for specific permission for the image to be here. I don't know if this applies to The Max Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics or not since they probably funded Snowden. I did this with File:Draco nebula.gif; i.e., got permission from the originators (authors) and re-uploaded the image. What do you think? Marshallsumter (talk) 00:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept: per NASA website Jcb (talk) 10:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Fabian RRRR as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Author is Max Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics, not NASA. Yann (talk) 16:17, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
- I've sent an email to Dr. Hannelore Hämmerle, the Press Officer for The Max Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics, to find out the status of both images: File:Rosat 0.75kev diffuse background map.gif and File:Rosat 0.25kev diffuse background map.gif regarding Public Domain. --Marshallsumter (talk) 16:59, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
- I've received a response from Dr. Hannelore Hämmerle: "as long as Credit is given for MPE, we normally allow use of our material. We only restrict/deny it, if it is used in an advertorial or commercial context (educational/science books excluded).
- I'm not familiar with USA fairuse, but it is definitely not public domain." I will upload File:Rosat 0.75kev diffuse background map.gif to Wikiversity under USA fairuse. --Marshallsumter (talk) 18:36, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: See above. --Yann (talk) 10:30, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Image by SSE wmc
[edit]
User:SSE wmc has uploaded various images that can be found online at different sources, but claimed to be own work. This user has already have a number of deleted images. --Ben.MQ (talk) 17:23, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- I noticed the problems with the uploads of this user. I was able to find the copied source of some of his uploads, identifying them as clear copyvios (or lacking permission). It's hard with this user to identify the sources, cause they come from various websites, and some files are edited to be cropped. Doing the job using russian is quite hard too :)
- I can't give further informations, cause files were deleted, and what i said is just by memory. But all his uploads were tagged own work i think, even those coming from the web.
- Though, one of his files have exif data File:Кадыр Мырзалиев.jpg, but small size (286 × 394 px) 115 Ko, so i'm not sure.
- I would advice deletion of all files from this user because he has shown we can't trust his claims of "own work". Images can be restored on a single case basis, after investigation from OTRS, and if he can kinda proves he's the photographer by providing high resolution files clearly coming from camera, and not some low resolution cropped photos easy to find on the web.Lilyu (talk) 21:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Permission to publish this as CC-by-sa from Deutsche Fotothek? X-Weinzar (talk) 17:26, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- Die (Quelle) Dresdner Fotothek ist ein gemeinfreies Projekt, die Benutzung der Bilder ist für gemeinützige Projekte kostenlos, es genügt auf die Quelle hinzuweisen. Besser mal vorher rechieren oder mal anfragen, bevor man sinnlose Arbeit produziert! Grüße! --SKOMP46866 (talk) 19:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- Die Fotothek hat auch Material, das gemeinfrei ist, aber seit wann ist sie ein "gemeinfreies Projekt"? Werfen wir mal einen Blick in die Nutzungsbestimmungen: "Die Digitalen Sammlungen der SLUB einschließlich der Bilddatenbank der Deutschen Fotothek werden zur nicht-kommerziellen Nutzung gebührenfrei angeboten" Schön und gut, aber diese Formulierung gibt es nicht her, dass du Material der Fotothek unter CC-by-sa veröffentlichen darfst, denn diese Lizenz würde auch kommerzielle Nutzung erlauben. Und was lesen wir dort im nächsten Satz: Jede Form der kommerziellen Verwendung (einschließlich elektronischer Formen) ist gebührenpflichtig und bedarf der vorherigen schriftlichen Zustimmung des Rechteinhabers, vorbehaltlich des Rechtes, die Nutzung im Einzelfall zu untersagen. Aus den Nutzungsbestimmungen kann man also maximal eine CC BY-NC, also "non-commercial", rauslesen, was wiederum bei Commons und in der Wikipedia nicht erlaubt ist. Was die Fotothek unter dieser auch für kommerzielle Nutzung freigegebenen Lizenz zur Verfügung stellen möchte und in welcher Auflösung, entscheidet sie selbst: "Von der Gebührenpflicht ausgenommen sind die von der Deutschen Fotothek für Wikimedia Commons in eingeschränkter Qualität zur Verfügung gestellten Digitalisate. Diese unterliegen den Bestimmungen des Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 Germany-Lizenzmodells." Grüße --X-Weinzar (talk) 15:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- Das stimmt nicht ganz, was du sagst und ist juristisch auch so nicht ganz richtig, da es sich um zwei verschiedene Rechtsgüter handelt! Die hier bei Commons als "Digitalisat in eingeschränkter Qualität" "gebührenfrei" eingestellten Bilder der Deutschen Fotothek stehen in keinerlei Gegensatz zu den Bestimmungen des CCBY-SA 3.0, denn dort steht Weitergabe unter gleichen Bedingungen und diese Bedingungen sind eindeutig durch den Verweis definiert und müssen hier vollumfänglich auch eingehalten werden! Steht ja sogar weiter noch eindeutiger erläutert: "Wenn Sie das lizenzierte Werk bzw. den lizenzierten Inhalt bearbeiten oder in anderer Weise erkennbar als Grundlage für eigenes Schaffen verwenden, dürfen Sie die daraufhin neu entstandenen Werke bzw. Inhalte nur unter Verwendung von Lizenzbedingungen weitergeben, die mit denen dieses Lizenzvertrages identisch oder vergleichbar sind." Das heißt wenn jemand wirklich das Bild kommerziell nutzen will, dann darf der das auch, dem steht auch überhaupt nichts dagegen, aber eben nur unter den gleichen Bedingungen der Deutschen Fotothek. Das Wort "gebührenfrei", wie Du es verstehst, kommt hier nirgends vor! OK? Im übrigen ist die Deutsche Fotothek ein Teil der Sächischen Landesbibliothek, ich weiß nicht, wie man einen solchen staatlichen Eigenbetrieb besser als mit "gemeinfrei" bezeichnen könnte, dazu ist der nämlich da, wie nennst Du das? Grüße --SKOMP46866 (talk) 18:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: no evidence for stated license Jcb (talk) 10:13, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Permission to publish this as CC-by-sa from Deutsche Fotothek? X-Weinzar (talk) 17:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- Die (Quelle) Dresdner Fotothek ist ein gemeinfreies Projekt, die Benutzung der Bilder ist für gemeinützige Projekte kostenlos, es genügt auf die Quelle hinzuweisen. Besser mal vorher rechieren oder mal anfragen, bevor man sinnlose Arbeit produziert! Grüße! --SKOMP46866 (talk) 19:46, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- Die Fotothek hat auch Material, das gemeinfrei ist, aber seit wann ist sie ein "gemeinfreies Projekt"? Werfen wir mal einen Blick in die Nutzungsbestimmungen: "Die Digitalen Sammlungen der SLUB einschließlich der Bilddatenbank der Deutschen Fotothek werden zur nicht-kommerziellen Nutzung gebührenfrei angeboten" Schön und gut, aber diese Formulierung gibt es nicht her, dass du Material der Fotothek unter CC-by-sa veröffentlichen darfst, denn diese Lizenz würde auch kommerzielle Nutzung erlauben. Und was lesen wir dort im nächsten Satz: Jede Form der kommerziellen Verwendung (einschließlich elektronischer Formen) ist gebührenpflichtig und bedarf der vorherigen schriftlichen Zustimmung des Rechteinhabers, vorbehaltlich des Rechtes, die Nutzung im Einzelfall zu untersagen. Aus den Nutzungsbestimmungen kann man also maximal eine CC BY-NC, also "non-commercial", rauslesen, was wiederum bei Commons und in der Wikipedia nicht erlaubt ist. Was die Fotothek unter dieser auch für kommerzielle Nutzung freigegebenen Lizenz zur Verfügung stellen möchte und in welcher Auflösung, entscheidet sie selbst: "Von der Gebührenpflicht ausgenommen sind die von der Deutschen Fotothek für Wikimedia Commons in eingeschränkter Qualität zur Verfügung gestellten Digitalisate. Diese unterliegen den Bestimmungen des Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 Germany-Lizenzmodells." Grüße --X-Weinzar (talk) 15:30, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- Das stimmt nicht ganz, was du sagst und ist juristisch auch so nicht ganz richtig, da es sich um zwei verschiedene Rechtsgüter handelt! Die hier bei Commons als "Digitalisat in eingeschränkter Qualität" "gebührenfrei" eingestellten Bilder der Deutschen Fotothek stehen in keinerlei Gegensatz zu den Bestimmungen des CCBY-SA 3.0, denn dort steht Weitergabe unter gleichen Bedingungen und diese Bedingungen sind eindeutig durch den Verweis definiert und müssen hier vollumfänglich auch eingehalten werden! Steht ja sogar weiter noch eindeutiger erläutert: "Wenn Sie das lizenzierte Werk bzw. den lizenzierten Inhalt bearbeiten oder in anderer Weise erkennbar als Grundlage für eigenes Schaffen verwenden, dürfen Sie die daraufhin neu entstandenen Werke bzw. Inhalte nur unter Verwendung von Lizenzbedingungen weitergeben, die mit denen dieses Lizenzvertrages identisch oder vergleichbar sind." Das heißt wenn jemand wirklich das Bild kommerziell nutzen will, dann darf der das auch, dem steht auch überhaupt nichts dagegen, aber eben nur unter den gleichen Bedingungen der Deutschen Fotothek. Das Wort "gebührenfrei", wie Du es verstehst, kommt hier nirgends vor! OK? Im übrigen ist die Deutsche Fotothek ein Teil der Sächischen Landesbibliothek, ich weiß nicht, wie man einen solchen staatlichen Eigenbetrieb besser als mit "gemeinfrei" bezeichnen könnte, dazu ist der nämlich da, wie nennst Du das? Grüße --SKOMP46866 (talk) 18:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- Die Fotothek hat auch Material, das gemeinfrei ist, aber seit wann ist sie ein "gemeinfreies Projekt"? Werfen wir mal einen Blick in die Nutzungsbestimmungen: "Die Digitalen Sammlungen der SLUB einschließlich der Bilddatenbank der Deutschen Fotothek werden zur nicht-kommerziellen Nutzung gebührenfrei angeboten" Schön und gut, aber diese Formulierung gibt es nicht her, dass du Material der Fotothek unter CC-by-sa veröffentlichen darfst, denn diese Lizenz würde auch kommerzielle Nutzung erlauben. Und was lesen wir dort im nächsten Satz: Jede Form der kommerziellen Verwendung (einschließlich elektronischer Formen) ist gebührenpflichtig und bedarf der vorherigen schriftlichen Zustimmung des Rechteinhabers, vorbehaltlich des Rechtes, die Nutzung im Einzelfall zu untersagen. Aus den Nutzungsbestimmungen kann man also maximal eine CC BY-NC, also "non-commercial", rauslesen, was wiederum bei Commons und in der Wikipedia nicht erlaubt ist. Was die Fotothek unter dieser auch für kommerzielle Nutzung freigegebenen Lizenz zur Verfügung stellen möchte und in welcher Auflösung, entscheidet sie selbst: "Von der Gebührenpflicht ausgenommen sind die von der Deutschen Fotothek für Wikimedia Commons in eingeschränkter Qualität zur Verfügung gestellten Digitalisate. Diese unterliegen den Bestimmungen des Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 Germany-Lizenzmodells." Grüße --X-Weinzar (talk) 15:30, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Baurat Walter Wackwitz (1894 - 1976). --95.157.18.206 09:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: no evidence for stated license Jcb (talk) 10:13, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Images by Eszhanov
[edit]User uploaded various small/low quality images without EXIF, or the metadata shows a scanner. Most of images can be found online but all claim to be own work. It is suspicious to me. --Ben.MQ (talk) 17:29, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 10:24, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Marked as copyvio by User:Verica Atrebatum noting "This is a modern painting. It is not over 100 years old." The original photograph is from http://www.wilfrid.com/heraldry.htm, the original artwork is in York Cathedral. FOP in the UK seems not to be ok for paintings (Commons:FOP#United Kingdom), so it depends on the age and author of the artwork. Rosenzweig δ 17:36, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. The website it's from states, "Pictures in York Cathedral not to be reproduced without permission of the Dean and Chapter of York". Night w (talk) 23:35, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 15:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Permission to publish this as CC-by-sa from Deutsche Fotothek? X-Weinzar (talk) 18:09, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- Die (Quelle) Dresdner Fotothek ist ein gemeinfreies Projekt, die Benutzung der Bilder ist für gemeinützige Projekte kostenlos, es genügt auf die Quelle hinzuweisen. Besser mal vorher rechieren oder mal anfragen, bevor man sinnlose Arbeit produziert! Grüße! --SKOMP46866 (talk) 19:46, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- Die Fotothek hat auch Material, das gemeinfrei ist, aber seit wann ist sie ein "gemeinfreies Projekt"? Werfen wir mal einen Blick in die Nutzungsbestimmungen: "Die Digitalen Sammlungen der SLUB einschließlich der Bilddatenbank der Deutschen Fotothek werden zur nicht-kommerziellen Nutzung gebührenfrei angeboten" Schön und gut, aber diese Formulierung gibt es nicht her, dass du Material der Fotothek unter CC-by-sa veröffentlichen darfst, denn diese Lizenz würde auch kommerzielle Nutzung erlauben. Und was lesen wir dort im nächsten Satz: Jede Form der kommerziellen Verwendung (einschließlich elektronischer Formen) ist gebührenpflichtig und bedarf der vorherigen schriftlichen Zustimmung des Rechteinhabers, vorbehaltlich des Rechtes, die Nutzung im Einzelfall zu untersagen. Aus den Nutzungsbestimmungen kann man also maximal eine CC BY-NC, also "non-commercial", rauslesen, was wiederum bei Commons und in der Wikipedia nicht erlaubt ist. Was die Fotothek unter dieser auch für kommerzielle Nutzung freigegebenen Lizenz zur Verfügung stellen möchte und in welcher Auflösung, entscheidet sie selbst: "Von der Gebührenpflicht ausgenommen sind die von der Deutschen Fotothek für Wikimedia Commons in eingeschränkter Qualität zur Verfügung gestellten Digitalisate. Diese unterliegen den Bestimmungen des Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 Germany-Lizenzmodells." Grüße --X-Weinzar (talk) 15:29, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- Das stimmt nicht ganz, was du sagst und ist juristisch auch so nicht ganz richtig, da es sich um zwei verschiedene Rechtsgüter handelt! Die hier bei Commons als "Digitalisat in eingeschränkter Qualität" "gebührenfrei" eingestellten Bilder der Deutschen Fotothek stehen in keinerlei Gegensatz zu den Bestimmungen des CCBY-SA 3.0, denn dort steht Weitergabe unter gleichen Bedingungen und diese Bedingungen sind eindeutig durch den Verweis definiert und müssen hier vollumfänglich auch eingehalten werden! Steht ja sogar weiter noch eindeutiger erläutert: "Wenn Sie das lizenzierte Werk bzw. den lizenzierten Inhalt bearbeiten oder in anderer Weise erkennbar als Grundlage für eigenes Schaffen verwenden, dürfen Sie die daraufhin neu entstandenen Werke bzw. Inhalte nur unter Verwendung von Lizenzbedingungen weitergeben, die mit denen dieses Lizenzvertrages identisch oder vergleichbar sind." Das heißt wenn jemand wirklich das Bild kommerziell nutzen will, dann darf der das auch, dem steht auch überhaupt nichts dagegen, aber eben nur unter den gleichen Bedingungen der Deutschen Fotothek. Das Wort "gebührenfrei", wie Du es verstehst, kommt hier nirgends vor! OK? Im übrigen ist die Deutsche Fotothek ein Teil der Sächischen Landesbibliothek, ich weiß nicht, wie man einen solchen staatlichen Eigenbetrieb besser als mit "gemeinfrei" bezeichnen könnte, dazu ist der nämlich da, wie nennst Du das? Grüße --SKOMP46866 (talk) 18:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- Die Fotothek hat auch Material, das gemeinfrei ist, aber seit wann ist sie ein "gemeinfreies Projekt"? Werfen wir mal einen Blick in die Nutzungsbestimmungen: "Die Digitalen Sammlungen der SLUB einschließlich der Bilddatenbank der Deutschen Fotothek werden zur nicht-kommerziellen Nutzung gebührenfrei angeboten" Schön und gut, aber diese Formulierung gibt es nicht her, dass du Material der Fotothek unter CC-by-sa veröffentlichen darfst, denn diese Lizenz würde auch kommerzielle Nutzung erlauben. Und was lesen wir dort im nächsten Satz: Jede Form der kommerziellen Verwendung (einschließlich elektronischer Formen) ist gebührenpflichtig und bedarf der vorherigen schriftlichen Zustimmung des Rechteinhabers, vorbehaltlich des Rechtes, die Nutzung im Einzelfall zu untersagen. Aus den Nutzungsbestimmungen kann man also maximal eine CC BY-NC, also "non-commercial", rauslesen, was wiederum bei Commons und in der Wikipedia nicht erlaubt ist. Was die Fotothek unter dieser auch für kommerzielle Nutzung freigegebenen Lizenz zur Verfügung stellen möchte und in welcher Auflösung, entscheidet sie selbst: "Von der Gebührenpflicht ausgenommen sind die von der Deutschen Fotothek für Wikimedia Commons in eingeschränkter Qualität zur Verfügung gestellten Digitalisate. Diese unterliegen den Bestimmungen des Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 Germany-Lizenzmodells." Grüße --X-Weinzar (talk) 15:29, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Fotograf Walter Möbius (* 29. Januar 1900 in Leuben bei Dresden; † 9. März 1959 in Dresden). --95.157.18.206 09:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 15:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Permission to publish this as CC-by-sa from Deutsche Fotothek? X-Weinzar (talk) 18:10, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- Die (Quelle) Dresdner Fotothek ist ein gemeinfreies Projekt, die Benutzung der Bilder ist für gemeinützige Projekte kostenlos, es genügt auf die Quelle hinzuweisen. Besser mal vorher rechieren oder mal anfragen, bevor man sinnlose Arbeit produziert! Grüße! --SKOMP46866 (talk) 19:45, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- Die Fotothek hat auch Material, das gemeinfrei ist, aber seit wann ist sie ein "gemeinfreies Projekt"? Werfen wir mal einen Blick in die Nutzungsbestimmungen: "Die Digitalen Sammlungen der SLUB einschließlich der Bilddatenbank der Deutschen Fotothek werden zur nicht-kommerziellen Nutzung gebührenfrei angeboten" Schön und gut, aber diese Formulierung gibt es nicht her, dass du Material der Fotothek unter CC-by-sa veröffentlichen darfst, denn diese Lizenz würde auch kommerzielle Nutzung erlauben. Und was lesen wir dort im nächsten Satz: Jede Form der kommerziellen Verwendung (einschließlich elektronischer Formen) ist gebührenpflichtig und bedarf der vorherigen schriftlichen Zustimmung des Rechteinhabers, vorbehaltlich des Rechtes, die Nutzung im Einzelfall zu untersagen. Aus den Nutzungsbestimmungen kann man also maximal eine CC BY-NC, also "non-commercial", rauslesen, was wiederum bei Commons und in der Wikipedia nicht erlaubt ist. Was die Fotothek unter dieser auch für kommerzielle Nutzung freigegebenen Lizenz zur Verfügung stellen möchte und in welcher Auflösung, entscheidet sie selbst: "Von der Gebührenpflicht ausgenommen sind die von der Deutschen Fotothek für Wikimedia Commons in eingeschränkter Qualität zur Verfügung gestellten Digitalisate. Diese unterliegen den Bestimmungen des Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 Germany-Lizenzmodells." Grüße --X-Weinzar (talk) 15:29, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- Das stimmt nicht ganz, was du sagst und ist juristisch auch so nicht ganz richtig, da es sich um zwei verschiedene Rechtsgüter handelt! Die hier bei Commons als "Digitalisat in eingeschränkter Qualität" "gebührenfrei" eingestellten Bilder der Deutschen Fotothek stehen in keinerlei Gegensatz zu den Bestimmungen des CCBY-SA 3.0, denn dort steht Weitergabe unter gleichen Bedingungen und diese Bedingungen sind eindeutig durch den Verweis definiert und müssen hier vollumfänglich auch eingehalten werden! Steht ja sogar weiter noch eindeutiger erläutert: "Wenn Sie das lizenzierte Werk bzw. den lizenzierten Inhalt bearbeiten oder in anderer Weise erkennbar als Grundlage für eigenes Schaffen verwenden, dürfen Sie die daraufhin neu entstandenen Werke bzw. Inhalte nur unter Verwendung von Lizenzbedingungen weitergeben, die mit denen dieses Lizenzvertrages identisch oder vergleichbar sind." Das heißt wenn jemand wirklich das Bild kommerziell nutzen will, dann darf der das auch, dem steht auch überhaupt nichts dagegen, aber eben nur unter den gleichen Bedingungen der Deutschen Fotothek. Das Wort "gebührenfrei", wie Du es verstehst, kommt hier nirgends vor! OK? Im übrigen ist die Deutsche Fotothek ein Teil der Sächischen Landesbibliothek, ich weiß nicht, wie man einen solchen staatlichen Eigenbetrieb besser als mit "gemeinfrei" bezeichnen könnte, dazu ist der nämlich da, wie nennst Du das? Grüße --SKOMP46866 (talk) 18:29, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- Die Fotothek hat auch Material, das gemeinfrei ist, aber seit wann ist sie ein "gemeinfreies Projekt"? Werfen wir mal einen Blick in die Nutzungsbestimmungen: "Die Digitalen Sammlungen der SLUB einschließlich der Bilddatenbank der Deutschen Fotothek werden zur nicht-kommerziellen Nutzung gebührenfrei angeboten" Schön und gut, aber diese Formulierung gibt es nicht her, dass du Material der Fotothek unter CC-by-sa veröffentlichen darfst, denn diese Lizenz würde auch kommerzielle Nutzung erlauben. Und was lesen wir dort im nächsten Satz: Jede Form der kommerziellen Verwendung (einschließlich elektronischer Formen) ist gebührenpflichtig und bedarf der vorherigen schriftlichen Zustimmung des Rechteinhabers, vorbehaltlich des Rechtes, die Nutzung im Einzelfall zu untersagen. Aus den Nutzungsbestimmungen kann man also maximal eine CC BY-NC, also "non-commercial", rauslesen, was wiederum bei Commons und in der Wikipedia nicht erlaubt ist. Was die Fotothek unter dieser auch für kommerzielle Nutzung freigegebenen Lizenz zur Verfügung stellen möchte und in welcher Auflösung, entscheidet sie selbst: "Von der Gebührenpflicht ausgenommen sind die von der Deutschen Fotothek für Wikimedia Commons in eingeschränkter Qualität zur Verfügung gestellten Digitalisate. Diese unterliegen den Bestimmungen des Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 Germany-Lizenzmodells." Grüße --X-Weinzar (talk) 15:29, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Fotograf Walter Möbius (* 29. Januar 1900 in Leuben bei Dresden; † 9. März 1959 in Dresden). --95.157.18.206 09:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 15:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Permission to publish this as CC-by-sa from Deutsche Fotothek? X-Weinzar (talk) 18:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- Die (Quelle) Dresdner Fotothek ist ein gemeinfreies Projekt, die Benutzung der Bilder ist für gemeinützige Projekte kostenlos, es genügt auf die Quelle hinzuweisen. Besser mal vorher rechieren oder mal anfragen, bevor man sinnlose Arbeit produziert! Grüße! --SKOMP46866 (talk) 19:45, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- Die Fotothek hat auch Material, das gemeinfrei ist, aber seit wann ist sie ein "gemeinfreies Projekt"? Werfen wir mal einen Blick in die Nutzungsbestimmungen: "Die Digitalen Sammlungen der SLUB einschließlich der Bilddatenbank der Deutschen Fotothek werden zur nicht-kommerziellen Nutzung gebührenfrei angeboten" Schön und gut, aber diese Formulierung gibt es nicht her, dass du Material der Fotothek unter CC-by-sa veröffentlichen darfst, denn diese Lizenz würde auch kommerzielle Nutzung erlauben. Und was lesen wir dort im nächsten Satz: Jede Form der kommerziellen Verwendung (einschließlich elektronischer Formen) ist gebührenpflichtig und bedarf der vorherigen schriftlichen Zustimmung des Rechteinhabers, vorbehaltlich des Rechtes, die Nutzung im Einzelfall zu untersagen. Aus den Nutzungsbestimmungen kann man also maximal eine CC BY-NC, also "non-commercial", rauslesen, was wiederum bei Commons und in der Wikipedia nicht erlaubt ist. Was die Fotothek unter dieser auch für kommerzielle Nutzung freigegebenen Lizenz zur Verfügung stellen möchte und in welcher Auflösung, entscheidet sie selbst: "Von der Gebührenpflicht ausgenommen sind die von der Deutschen Fotothek für Wikimedia Commons in eingeschränkter Qualität zur Verfügung gestellten Digitalisate. Diese unterliegen den Bestimmungen des Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 Germany-Lizenzmodells." Grüße --X-Weinzar (talk) 15:29, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- Das stimmt nicht ganz, was du sagst und ist juristisch auch so nicht ganz richtig, da es sich um zwei verschiedene Rechtsgüter handelt! Die hier bei Commons als "Digitalisat in eingeschränkter Qualität" "gebührenfrei" eingestellten Bilder der Deutschen Fotothek stehen in keinerlei Gegensatz zu den Bestimmungen des CCBY-SA 3.0, denn dort steht Weitergabe unter gleichen Bedingungen und diese Bedingungen sind eindeutig durch den Verweis definiert und müssen hier vollumfänglich auch eingehalten werden! Steht ja sogar weiter noch eindeutiger erläutert: "Wenn Sie das lizenzierte Werk bzw. den lizenzierten Inhalt bearbeiten oder in anderer Weise erkennbar als Grundlage für eigenes Schaffen verwenden, dürfen Sie die daraufhin neu entstandenen Werke bzw. Inhalte nur unter Verwendung von Lizenzbedingungen weitergeben, die mit denen dieses Lizenzvertrages identisch oder vergleichbar sind." Das heißt wenn jemand wirklich das Bild kommerziell nutzen will, dann darf der das auch, dem steht auch überhaupt nichts dagegen, aber eben nur unter den gleichen Bedingungen der Deutschen Fotothek. Das Wort "gebührenfrei", wie Du es verstehst, kommt hier nirgends vor! OK? Im übrigen ist die Deutsche Fotothek ein Teil der Sächischen Landesbibliothek, ich weiß nicht, wie man einen solchen staatlichen Eigenbetrieb besser als mit "gemeinfrei" bezeichnen könnte, dazu ist der nämlich da, wie nennst Du das? Grüße --SKOMP46866 (talk) 18:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- Die Fotothek hat auch Material, das gemeinfrei ist, aber seit wann ist sie ein "gemeinfreies Projekt"? Werfen wir mal einen Blick in die Nutzungsbestimmungen: "Die Digitalen Sammlungen der SLUB einschließlich der Bilddatenbank der Deutschen Fotothek werden zur nicht-kommerziellen Nutzung gebührenfrei angeboten" Schön und gut, aber diese Formulierung gibt es nicht her, dass du Material der Fotothek unter CC-by-sa veröffentlichen darfst, denn diese Lizenz würde auch kommerzielle Nutzung erlauben. Und was lesen wir dort im nächsten Satz: Jede Form der kommerziellen Verwendung (einschließlich elektronischer Formen) ist gebührenpflichtig und bedarf der vorherigen schriftlichen Zustimmung des Rechteinhabers, vorbehaltlich des Rechtes, die Nutzung im Einzelfall zu untersagen. Aus den Nutzungsbestimmungen kann man also maximal eine CC BY-NC, also "non-commercial", rauslesen, was wiederum bei Commons und in der Wikipedia nicht erlaubt ist. Was die Fotothek unter dieser auch für kommerzielle Nutzung freigegebenen Lizenz zur Verfügung stellen möchte und in welcher Auflösung, entscheidet sie selbst: "Von der Gebührenpflicht ausgenommen sind die von der Deutschen Fotothek für Wikimedia Commons in eingeschränkter Qualität zur Verfügung gestellten Digitalisate. Diese unterliegen den Bestimmungen des Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 Germany-Lizenzmodells." Grüße --X-Weinzar (talk) 15:29, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Fotograf Walter Möbius (* 29. Januar 1900 in Leuben bei Dresden; † 9. März 1959 in Dresden). --95.157.18.206 09:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 15:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Permission to publish this as CC-by-sa from Deutsche Fotothek? X-Weinzar (talk) 18:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- Die (Quelle) Dresdner Fotothek ist ein gemeinfreies Projekt, die Benutzung der Bilder ist für gemeinützige Projekte kostenlos, es genügt auf die Quelle hinzuweisen. Besser mal vorher rechieren oder mal anfragen, bevor man sinnlose Arbeit produziert! Grüße! --SKOMP46866 (talk) 19:44, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- Die Fotothek hat auch Material, das gemeinfrei ist, aber seit wann ist sie ein "gemeinfreies Projekt"? Werfen wir mal einen Blick in die Nutzungsbestimmungen: "Die Digitalen Sammlungen der SLUB einschließlich der Bilddatenbank der Deutschen Fotothek werden zur nicht-kommerziellen Nutzung gebührenfrei angeboten" Schön und gut, aber diese Formulierung gibt es nicht her, dass du Material der Fotothek unter CC-by-sa veröffentlichen darfst, denn diese Lizenz würde auch kommerzielle Nutzung erlauben. Und was lesen wir dort im nächsten Satz: Jede Form der kommerziellen Verwendung (einschließlich elektronischer Formen) ist gebührenpflichtig und bedarf der vorherigen schriftlichen Zustimmung des Rechteinhabers, vorbehaltlich des Rechtes, die Nutzung im Einzelfall zu untersagen. Aus den Nutzungsbestimmungen kann man also maximal eine CC BY-NC, also "non-commercial", rauslesen, was wiederum bei Commons und in der Wikipedia nicht erlaubt ist. Was die Fotothek unter dieser auch für kommerzielle Nutzung freigegebenen Lizenz zur Verfügung stellen möchte und in welcher Auflösung, entscheidet sie selbst: "Von der Gebührenpflicht ausgenommen sind die von der Deutschen Fotothek für Wikimedia Commons in eingeschränkter Qualität zur Verfügung gestellten Digitalisate. Diese unterliegen den Bestimmungen des Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 Germany-Lizenzmodells." Grüße --X-Weinzar (talk) 15:29, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- Das stimmt nicht ganz, was du sagst und ist juristisch auch so nicht ganz richtig, da es sich um zwei verschiedene Rechtsgüter handelt! Die hier bei Commons als "Digitalisat in eingeschränkter Qualität" "gebührenfrei" eingestellten Bilder der Deutschen Fotothek stehen in keinerlei Gegensatz zu den Bestimmungen des CCBY-SA 3.0, denn dort steht Weitergabe unter gleichen Bedingungen und diese Bedingungen sind eindeutig durch den Verweis definiert und müssen hier vollumfänglich auch eingehalten werden! Steht ja sogar weiter noch eindeutiger erläutert: "Wenn Sie das lizenzierte Werk bzw. den lizenzierten Inhalt bearbeiten oder in anderer Weise erkennbar als Grundlage für eigenes Schaffen verwenden, dürfen Sie die daraufhin neu entstandenen Werke bzw. Inhalte nur unter Verwendung von Lizenzbedingungen weitergeben, die mit denen dieses Lizenzvertrages identisch oder vergleichbar sind." Das heißt wenn jemand wirklich das Bild kommerziell nutzen will, dann darf der das auch, dem steht auch überhaupt nichts dagegen, aber eben nur unter den gleichen Bedingungen der Deutschen Fotothek. Das Wort "gebührenfrei", wie Du es verstehst, kommt hier nirgends vor! OK? Im übrigen ist die Deutsche Fotothek ein Teil der Sächischen Landesbibliothek, ich weiß nicht, wie man einen solchen staatlichen Eigenbetrieb besser als mit "gemeinfrei" bezeichnen könnte, dazu ist der nämlich da, wie nennst Du das? Grüße --SKOMP46866 (talk) 18:31, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- Die Fotothek hat auch Material, das gemeinfrei ist, aber seit wann ist sie ein "gemeinfreies Projekt"? Werfen wir mal einen Blick in die Nutzungsbestimmungen: "Die Digitalen Sammlungen der SLUB einschließlich der Bilddatenbank der Deutschen Fotothek werden zur nicht-kommerziellen Nutzung gebührenfrei angeboten" Schön und gut, aber diese Formulierung gibt es nicht her, dass du Material der Fotothek unter CC-by-sa veröffentlichen darfst, denn diese Lizenz würde auch kommerzielle Nutzung erlauben. Und was lesen wir dort im nächsten Satz: Jede Form der kommerziellen Verwendung (einschließlich elektronischer Formen) ist gebührenpflichtig und bedarf der vorherigen schriftlichen Zustimmung des Rechteinhabers, vorbehaltlich des Rechtes, die Nutzung im Einzelfall zu untersagen. Aus den Nutzungsbestimmungen kann man also maximal eine CC BY-NC, also "non-commercial", rauslesen, was wiederum bei Commons und in der Wikipedia nicht erlaubt ist. Was die Fotothek unter dieser auch für kommerzielle Nutzung freigegebenen Lizenz zur Verfügung stellen möchte und in welcher Auflösung, entscheidet sie selbst: "Von der Gebührenpflicht ausgenommen sind die von der Deutschen Fotothek für Wikimedia Commons in eingeschränkter Qualität zur Verfügung gestellten Digitalisate. Diese unterliegen den Bestimmungen des Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 Germany-Lizenzmodells." Grüße --X-Weinzar (talk) 15:29, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Fotograf Walter Möbius (* 29. Januar 1900 in Leuben bei Dresden; † 9. März 1959 in Dresden). --95.157.18.206 09:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 15:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Who drew this? If it was de:Otto Eduard Schmidt himself, it's no PD, because he died in 1945. X-Weinzar (talk) 18:19, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 15:52, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Permission to publish this as CC-by-sa from Deutsche Fotothek? X-Weinzar (talk) 18:40, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 15:52, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Signatures of living people
[edit]- File:Firma de Rafael Corres.svg
- File:Firma Alex Aguinaga.svg
- File:Firma de Jim Carrey.svg
- File:Firma de Pelé.svg
- File:Firma de Tom Cruise.svg
- File:Firma de Daniel Craig.svg
- File:Firma de Mel Gibson.svg
- File:Firma de Natalie Portman.svg
- File:Firma de Jimmy Wales.svg
No se deben realizar firmas de personas vivas, aclaración de Jimmy Wales en su página de discusión con dabit100 Jimbo's page --Dabit100 (talk) 19:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept - tenemos muchas firmas de personas vivas - PD-ineligible - Jcb (talk) 16:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
If - as this description claims - the file is "derived from a poster used to promote Prince's 1999 Tour", then it is copyright violation (if not, it may be Fan art, but then it should be made clear than it is irrelevant for any "educational purpose"). Azurfrog (talk) 22:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Réponse de Nelson Classique
[edit]
Ce fichier est une création que j'ai faite sur paint c'est donc l'objet de Mon travail. Je me suis inspirer pour la mise en forme d'une affiche de publicité mais cela reste mon travail. J'ai trouver que cela ajouterait de la ouleur et de l'ambiance sur la page 1999 Tour et je trouve que c'est le cas. ça rend les choses plus jolit je trouve donc inutile de la supprimer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NelsonClassique (talk • contribs) 13:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Avis de PrinceMarciano
[edit]
Bonjour j'ai bien analyser ce travail et je trouve qu'il serait vraiment injuste de l'éffacer surtout que j'ai appris que NelqonClassique avait prit 2 semaine à le faire et on m'a dit qu'en plus c'était un homme éxtrèmement dépressif. Et en plus je trouve que ce travail est vraiment très utile à la page et lui donne un gout de vue, de passion, de bonheur... Donc sils vous plait ne l'éffacer pas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.130.114.137 (talk • contribs) 16:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: It is probably a copyvio. It is also out of scope -- a user interpretation of a Tour de France poster (unless the user is Picasso) is not useful. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
no any proofs of permission for free usage There are no any proofs of permission for free usage of this file.--Leonst (talk) 18:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- KeepThe original IP, that nominated this for deletion (without a DR reason), also deleted the {{Attribution}} license while he was at it, there was also an extra redundant and empty info template just to confuse matters. Original DR looks like simple vandalism to a widely used image. --Tony Wills (talk) 01:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept: In scope and no CV George Chernilevsky talk 07:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
I didn't understand why this file wasn't deleted at the first time, but I must repeat that there are no any proofs of permission for free usage of this file. It was downloaded into ukrainian wikipedia in 2007 year, with wrong license. That original file was already deleted from ukrwiki, because of copyright violations.--Leonst (talk) 18:58, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- Apparently a copyvio from here, photo seems to have been around since at least the year 2000. --Rosenzweig δ 23:09, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted cv (per Rosenzweig)--Anatoliy (talk) 11:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
See w:Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2011 July 15#Trevor farbo 2008.jpg Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 16:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Not needed: a file already exists for this Robert.Baruch (talk) 23:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Pronunciation already exists in a different file Robert.Baruch (talk) 16:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 13:16, 9 September 2011 (UTC)