Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2011/07/17
 |
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}
_commemorating_Year_of_the_Dog_-_2006.jpg){kind=link}
duplicate File:Slingelandt, Pieter Cornelisz Van - Lady with a Pet Dog - 1672.jpg A. Wagner (talk) 22:16, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: identical duplicate Jarekt (talk) 02:52, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Please delete this picture, because it is a picture of Prince Diponegoro, not his great grandfather King Hamengkubuwono I. This picture is famous, most of Indonesian elementary students will say so. I also contacted the initial uploader, as can be seen below:
- Acknowledgement for the uploader
Maks, I like to inform you that I am proposing the file that you uploaded (Hamengkubuwono I) to be deleted since it is a picture of Prince Diponegoro, instead of his great grandfather King Hamengkubuwono I. Naval Scene (talk) 07:09, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, my mistake!--Maks Stirlitz (talk) 02:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Naval Scene (talk) 16:59, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Again, a bad name is not a reason for deletion -- please suggest a good name for this file, using {{Rename}} Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
File:Coat of Arms of Slovakia.svg is pre-existing superior SVG file. No use, delete. Fry1989 (talk) 22:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Keep They use different heraldic conventions (this one with black lines separating the tinctures and enclosing the shield, the other one without such lines). There's no policy on Wikimedia Commons enforcing one set of heraldic artistic conventions... AnonMoos (talk) 00:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: The source does not show the file. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:24, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't see a rationale as to why this should be public domain. Design style looks much more recent than 1923; certainly not a trivial geometric image; what is the basis? Jmabel ! talk 19:54, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: The school itself is from 1973, no way its logo is from 1923. Uploaded with bogus license, as usual, therefore deleted. Darwin Ahoy! 01:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
If I'm not wrong, Czech's copyright law protect the work for 70 years p.m.a. This is dated as 1945 and it looks like a scan unless the uploader is the photographer of the original image. Ben.MQ (talk) 15:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- I think it will be OK, the user is an elder lady, I'm communicating with her per e-mail. I'm going to fix the description etc., please just wait for OTRS confirmation. The same problem has been succesfully solved in some of her previous uploads (example).--Jieκeren (talk) 16:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: I think that is OK, uploader is daughter of B. Weleková (woman at the picture). She released some pictures frome her personal archive into public domain. Podzemnik (talk) 10:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
No COM:FOP for modern buildings in France. The architect must be dead for at least 70 years for this image to be copyright free. Leoboudv (talk) 00:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- comment: "Architect must be dead" ? sounds scary. May I suggest: drop this second line, leave it to Campbells and Fernrohrs. You should know better that architects (businesses) can live indefinitely, and that identifying all architects (persons) of a modern structure is frequently impossible - there's just too many of them, and most names are buried in never-published papers. Not to mention that some jurisdictions explicitly prohibit such provenance research. NVO (talk) 08:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Comment: 70 years is the cut off date for the end of FOP (where the architect or designer or creator has died like Gustav Eiffel for the Eiffel Tower) but this is a modern building. Under French law, this building is copyrighted since France has no FOP for buildings or bridges. We have to follow local state laws here. --Leoboudv (talk) 19:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)- Keep The building might be copyrighted but the photo pictures a portion of it that couldn't be of any use rather than informative or educational. No one would make a commercial use of this (and, so to ask, how many newpapers have been sued for publishing such photos?). -- Blackcat (talk) 11:25, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:41, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Historical photo of some sort. Possibly copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. Unlikely uploader is author. FASTILY (TALK) 00:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Info Source here I guess. That image was illustrating an article in en:WP deleted since. --Myrabella (talk) 16:07, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:41, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Looks like a probable copyrighted image scanned from a book. Free images are available. Praveen:talk 02:02, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:41, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children is not an arm of the US Government, and there is no evidence that material from the NCMEC is public domain, nor any evidence that this image in particular is public domain. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:32, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep I tend to go beyond this strict intepretation. I mean, Schuminweb might be right, but the purpose of such photos is to be widespread on media just because of their nature (helping identify missing - unknown killed persons). So I guess is very unlikely there might be some sort of copyright on such photos or images. -- Blackcat (talk) 11:29, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- "Intended for widespread distribution" doesn't it make free content suitable for inclusion on Commons. Whether it is permissible on local Wikipedias is out of scope for this discussion, as Commons only deals with free content. Right now, we still have no evidence that this is free content. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:31, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: While it may seem illogical, the source site's terms of use have very tight restrictions which are unacceptable to Commons in several ways. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Less than 50 years old - still under States copyright per Guernsey law (cf Commons:Deletion requests/File:Guernsey One Pound.jpg) Man vyi (talk) 06:33, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- That older case could be misleading, why should UK laws affect a duchy not belonging to the kingdom? GG is also no part of the EU. The one plausible argument in that older discussion was your statement. –Be..anyone (talk) 08:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, UK law is irrelevant; Guernsey law applies. As I cited in the other discussion: "Guernsey copyright law states: "States copyright in a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work continues to subsist until the end of the period of 50 years from the end of the calendar year in which the work was made."[1]" Man vyi (talk) 12:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:04, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
The logo was created in 2000, so this would still be under copyright of the London Government http://www.london.ca/d.aspx?s=/Newsroom/logorequest.htm. On a side note, this is not the actual flag of the city; http://www.london.ca/City_Council/Chapter16.htm is. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 06:37, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- What bemuses me is why the London govt people don't mention copyright at all, if it's copyrighted. (They mention trademarks about 5 gazillion times, by comparison.) That's not to say it isn't, just an interesting diversion. Jarry1250 (talk) 16:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- Because copyright is automatic in the terms of law. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I know they don't have to mention it, I'm just bemused why they choose not to. Jarry1250 (talk) 15:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Because copyright is automatic in the terms of law. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
It was based on en:File:Londonflag.PNG, which is why I assumed it to be PD at the time. It was one of the first images I uploaded, and I took other peoples copyright notices at face value. I am fine with deletion. --Svgalbertian (talk) 11:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- I doubt that was even the flag of London, Ontario (based on research I done) but that is an issue I can speak to you on your talk page. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- this is a logo [2] move to en:wikipedia use "non free logo" 198.24.31.118 16:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- It will be moved shortly. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- this is a logo [2] move to en:wikipedia use "non free logo" 198.24.31.118 16:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted:
An aside -- the reason that copyright is often not mentioned on items that also have a trademark is that trademark is a much stronger protection -- if properly handled it lasts forever and can be obtained on things that are too simple for copyright. If you have a strong trademark, copyright is irrelevant. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:07, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
This file is a edited portion of the Galle Fort.JPG, which was uploaded to en.wikipedia by me on 6 July, 2010 and transferred to Wikimedia commons by User:Lee using CommonsHelper. The duplicate file also contains a false copyright watermark in it too. - Shehanw (talk) 08:08, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
And File:Kopie van ergo 10.jpg. I wouldn't argue with "own work" (for both photograph and overlaid graphics). But the emblem in lower left raises suspicion - what is it doing there? (it's the emblem of the en:Université catholique de Louvain - File:Sedesucl.jpg). And file description looks like marketing hype. What do you make of it? NVO (talk) 08:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC) NVO (talk) 08:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- Comment The fact is that the Université catholique de Louvain offers an instructional program on ergonomics, examples: [3], [4]. I would tend to think that those images have been extracted from a course document. --Myrabella (talk) 16:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Suspect copyvio: how could copyright holder (Conde Nast) release all rights if they still sell copies of these magazine covers [5] ?? NVO (talk) 09:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC) NVO (talk) 09:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: They certainly could continue to sell covers even after releasing all rights, but I doubt that they would release the valuable rights -- and certainly we have no evidence that they did. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:27, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Personal photo, unused, no notability. ~ NVO (talk) 09:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 09:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Derivative of the Rolling Stones logo (by en:John Pasche, 1971) - acceptable or not? ~ NVO (talk) 09:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:28, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
The statue is ancient, but this is a photograph of a three-dimensional object taken from a book published in 1973 (see http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/288004092). There is insufficient information to establish that the photograph is in the public domain due to age. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 10:37, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:28, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Missing source/authorship information. Having a photo in one's archive doesn't make one the author. The "own work" claim was added by a bot. This also affects File:Portuguese 0021.jpg. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:30, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:28, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
duplicate from File:Adolf Friedrich Erdmann von Menzel 038.jpg, its only a cut A. Wagner (talk) 11:37, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Personal photo, not in use Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:46, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 09:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Includes several files which have been deleted for missing or incorrect legal information. en:File:NunoAlvaresPereira.jpg was transferred to Commons and then deleted. en:File:Damiao5.jpg was deleted for lack of licensing information. File:Josesaramago.jpg was deleted as a copyright violation taken from EFE. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Promotion purposes only, no educational value. License is wrong too. It is an animated gif, it cannot be 50 year old. → out of scope Jahobr (talk) 11:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Wrong license. Yann (talk) 09:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Looks to be a stock photograph not originating from the US Fed Gov: http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-10598071-zombie.php Kimsə (talk) 12:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- Nice catch. Yeah, this should probably be deleted, unless the CDC somehow became owner of the copyright and then released that right into the public domain. Travisl (talk) 04:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Out of project scope. Rosenzweig δ 13:14, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 09:30, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Out of project scope, unless someone can explain who this is. Rosenzweig δ 13:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 09:30, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Spanish text biography of a musician. Out of project scope. Rosenzweig δ 13:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:30, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Promotion purposes only, no educational value. → out of scope Jahobr (talk) 14:15, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 09:31, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work of copyrighted sign artwork. No evidence of a release under a free license or into the public domain. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:17, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:30, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Supplied info says this photo was taken ca 1983. If that is true, it's not public domain yet. The b/w suggests that the date could be wrong, but as it stands, something is not consistent. 99of9 (talk) 14:22, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Delete Better safe than sorry. The picture quality is surprisingly good for a pd-old photograph, which leads me to believe it's relatively modern but filtered as as B&W image. Lankiveil (talk) 07:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC).
- It turns out there are a stack of them: Commons:Deletion requests/File:StateLibQld 1 105268 Sir Thomas Alfred Hiley with Queen Elizabeth II, Brisbane Cricket Ground, 1963.jpg has a list, probably better to discuss there. --99of9 (talk) 07:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:31, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
It doesn´t look as a self-work Banfield - Amenazas aquí 15:33, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No source, no permission. Yann (talk) 09:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Copyrighted image Vssun (talk) 15:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - uploader has uploaded a few other copyrighted images. i think he doesnt have a good understanding of copyright restrictions.--Sodabottle (talk) 12:29, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: by Bidgee. Yann (talk) 09:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
_commemorating_Year_of_the_Dog_-_2006.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_commemorating_Year_of_the_Dog_-_2006.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
The side of the bus has a photograph of a dog as well as red and yellow patterns that are not de minimis and presumably copyrighted. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 15:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
credit line includes N. Smith (UC Berkeley), see image policy which explains that separate permission must be obtained. 84user (talk) 16:11, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
unused redirect Uwe W. (talk) 16:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:34, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
This counts as a derivative work. Libya does not have freedom of panorama (see COM:FOP#Libya), and presumably the transitional council in Benghazi has either not adopted a law concerning the issue (meaning it defaults to no FOP), or its law copies that of its predecessor state. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- Why should this be "derivative"; the picture shows a person sitting on a table preparing the next event, some posters behind. Why should en:freedom of panorama be touched here, as there are no "buildings and sculptures" concerned? --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 00:07, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Freedom of panorama doesn't simply refer to buildings and sculptures, it refers to any artwork in the public square. It seems to me that the posters are among the primary subject of the photo, and are not subject to de minimis. ("showing flags and symbols of the movement."). Are you indicating otherwise? Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- 1. The first sentence in en:freedom of panorama says:
- 'Panoramafreiheit, translated literally into English as Freedom of Panorama (or Panorama Freedom) .. is a provision in the copyright laws of Germany that permits taking pictures .. of buildings and sculptures which are permanently located in a public place without infringing any copyright that may subsist in such works..'
- If you feel it should also be applied to 'any Artwork' you might want to work for a party to change that legislation. Currently it does not. In other words, the lack of FOP in Libya has no Unterscheidungskraft (distinctive character) for this picture.
- - Talking about architecture and sculpture, have a look at these categories:
- Applying your wisdom about a lack of FOP in Libya, most of the pictures there would have to be deleted. Wikipedia is waiting for your engagement.
- 2. Look at the picture, it shows a stage of the court house in Benghasi, there are some arabic slogans (IMHO without Schöpfungshöhe), some posters (maybe with it), a speakers desk and a person sitting at a desk on that stage and doing some work. Are you complaining about the posters?
- --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 07:59, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: I suggest that User:Bernd.Brincken read Commons:Freedom of panorama rather than the WP:EN version which quotes the German law. He or she should also note that FoP is an exception, so the fact that even the German law does not mention "any artwork" means that even in Germany, images of art other than sculpture and architecture are not permitted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
This file is so small and low in resolution that important details are not visible. It is unused (and unusable) and has been replaced by File:Luteine - Lutein.svg Ed (Edgar181) 17:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. DMacks (talk) 14:14, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 09:35, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
source is clearly confused - florida state attorney's office is not the copyright holder, so it cannot release this image into the public domain. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:37, 17 July 2011 (UTC)maybe Casey Anthony gave the Florida states attorneys office permission to use it...
Delete Okay, I know the source says "Photo Released to Public Domain by Florida State Attorney's Office", but why do we think a state agency has any right to do that? This photo was fairly obviousily not taken by an employee of the Florida government. Note the source -- written by random people -- would never qualify as a reliable source if used to support article content on Wikipedia. Yeah, the State Attorney may well have used it, but under what authority did they make it PD, rather than just distributed? Courcelles (talk) 17:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- support deletion - no evidence of permission. Clearly they did not take the photograph so without evidence that they are the owners of the copyright there is no evidence of permission for this claim of PDomain release. Off2riorob (talk) 18:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- It was likely seized during the investigation, which would, if the image did indeed originate from Florida's Attorney's office, make it PD of the office chose to release it to the general public, as all materials seized during a criminal investigation become state property, with some exceptions. Legally, the answer is we can Keep this one. Ronk01 (talk) 23:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- Have you got a diff that asserts "all materials seized during a criminal investigation become state property" - In the UK they seize things but materials unrelated to evidence - which this picture doesn't appear to be, are returned to the owner of said property. Off2riorob (talk) 00:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- And even "we took the hardcopy of this photo" would be a lot different than taking the copyright of it. Courcelles (talk) 02:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- Have you got a diff that asserts "all materials seized during a criminal investigation become state property" - In the UK they seize things but materials unrelated to evidence - which this picture doesn't appear to be, are returned to the owner of said property. Off2riorob (talk) 00:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose By nom's own admission, the Florida's State's Attorney's Office has released it the image to the public domain. The nominator appears to be engaging in original research in suggesting that the State of Florida doen't have the legal authority to release an image to the public domain. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- Comment It seems like a fair use case could be made for including it in the w:Death of Caylee Anthony article: it's low resolution, not replaceable (the child is deceased) and of historic import to that article. That would mean moving it to en.wikipedia, as fair use is not a valid justification on commons, but I think that would be acceptable to those who wish to include it in said article.--agr (talk) 01:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose The State created it, (CSI probably took it) the State can release it for public domain. Mugginsx (talk) 16:29, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- How exactly can a CSI have taken this... before Caylee's death? :S --ErrantX (talk) 13:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete we assume images taken by state officials are PD, however this is very clearly not taken by an official and so we cannot make that assumption. We only have Examiner.com's assertion to back this up... in lieu of a clear declaration from the Attorney's office clarifying that the image has either been released PD or the copyright/rights transferred to the Attorney's office by the original author. --ErrantX (talk) 13:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:41, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
School picture, doubt uploader holds the copyright. Unused. Acather96 (talk) 17:46, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:41, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Copyrighted map that is certainly not owned by the uploader. It is an older version of the map on the website of the Singapore Mass Rapid Transit Corporation. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 18:07, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- Well there are obvious differences between the style of "the orginal" and File:MRT System Map 2010.png ... Maybe the author has drawn his own picture using the original map as template? a×pdeHello! 08:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Highly unlikely, in my view. Judging from features such as the text font, the image is most likely just an older version of http://www.smrt.com.sg/trains/images/tn_networkmap_big_140410.jpg taken off the SMRT website in 2010. In any case, if the image was really redrawn by the uploader (which I doubt), it is a slavish copy and also contains a non-free logo of the SMRT in the background. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 08:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Speaking about the background logo, it is different! a×pdeHello! 12:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- The dimensions are different, but it is the same logo. The difference is probably due to the fact that the current map on the SMRT website is taller than the 2010 map. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 17:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Speaking about the background logo, it is different! a×pdeHello! 12:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Highly unlikely, in my view. Judging from features such as the text font, the image is most likely just an older version of http://www.smrt.com.sg/trains/images/tn_networkmap_big_140410.jpg taken off the SMRT website in 2010. In any case, if the image was really redrawn by the uploader (which I doubt), it is a slavish copy and also contains a non-free logo of the SMRT in the background. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 08:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
We need OTRS confirmation for this copyright claim. I don't even see it on her Facebook profile. It is at least three years old, but I do not know what the original source is. Chaser (talk) 18:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm not totally sure, but the depiction of the portrait in this image might be a copyright violation. Since it is dominant inside the picture i doubt "de minimes" would be applicable. Even so it does illustrate drawing it is strongly comparable to a poster put up on the street or inside a window (not permanent, needed in many FOP laws).. ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 19:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- delete. No permission granted. The uploader doesn't seem to have such a permission or understanding the problem with this, since he just removed the permission needed tag. --Don-kun (talk) 20:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator. —Notyourbroom (talk) 20:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep -- This is a photo of an anonymous artist working in a public place, not a photo of the painting. Although the painting is somehow prominent, it is obviously not the subject of the image. The difference is substancial especially in which the use of the image is concerned. Furthermore, the drawing is not complete. What if fewer lines were there (like in here)? Would the issue be the same? Also, take a look at this picture of the Louvre Museum and the Pyramid. Why is the image kept in Commons though there is no freedom of panorama in France in which the Pyramid is concerned? Because it is not the subject of the photo. Please be careful with your assessments and ask the opinion of someone more knowlegeable on this matter. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep per Alvesgaspar. —stay (sic)! 09:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Drawing is de minimis. Yann (talk) 09:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
File:Flag of First Slovak Republic 1939-1945.svg is pre-existing SVG file. No use, delete Fry1989 (talk) 20:11, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
out of scope, self promotional Ezarateesteban 20:29, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- Might be in scope, but it looks like a promo shot. I doubt own work here. Yann (talk) 09:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Video of artistic performance - both dance (visual) and music (audio) - these are copyright by the performers and there is no permission indicated. Simonxag (talk) 21:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
spam image used only by (long-since-deleted) spam article on enwiki DS (talk) 21:11, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 09:41, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
spam image used only by (long-since-deleted) spam article on enwiki DS (talk) 21:11, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 09:41, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
unused private image- out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 19:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. High Contrast (talk) 08:24, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope, self promotion Cholo Aleman (talk) 22:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 09:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
File:Escudo del Departamento de Colonia.svg is pre-existing identical SVG. No use. Fry1989 (talk) 22:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
KeepI know it is duplicate, but: I created a cropped version of the svg, because it has too much white space around it and in 20px size, as I intend to use it in templates, one does not see anything but a white square with some specks on it. Please, let it be. Hoverfish (talk) 22:59, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- You can do that with the SVG file. Fry1989 (talk) 23:02, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- You were trying to use the flag in your template. This is the coat of arms. If you use the file I linked above, your problem will be solved. Maintaining my deletion nomination. Fry1989 (talk) 23:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- You are right. I didn't notice you were pointing at a version with no white margin. I used it and it does solve the problem. Thank you. I take back my "keep". Hoverfish (talk) 00:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Biographical text in Spanish about a poet, as such out of project scope. Rosenzweig δ 23:22, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 09:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
And: File:Voyage4dimension1.jpg
Cover is not public domain yet. The cover illustration is by Léonard Sarluis (1874-1949) as another user had already noted here and can be read here and seen in the signature. Commons:Licensing#Netherlands says: 70 years pma. Same if we look for France (book author's country). Saibo (Δ) 23:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
useless: small dimensions, watermarked, advert or missing permission (confirmation that the user is the photographer as it is on a website). Saibo (Δ) 23:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Looks like Walter Möbius is the photographer. So where is the permission to release as PD? X-Weinzar (talk) 13:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep The picture, labeled as number FD 054 777 in Bildindex, is in fact from the Deutsche Fotothek (code df_hauptkatalog_0054777) and should be avaliable under the proper license.--201.230.62.21 00:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- So which license do you suggest and why? --X-Weinzar (talk) 01:44, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- I think {{cc-by-3.0-de|Deutsche Fotothek}} will be a good choice in this case.--201.230.11.113 20:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Since it is {{PD-old}}. Let me know if I'm wrong. Ben.MQ (talk) 08:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
I made a mistake when closing the above DR. I read the description page wrongly. Please refer to the discussion above. Ben.MQ (talk) 15:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted (not by me) Jcb (talk) 15:29, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
File:Coat of Arms of the First Slovak Republic.svg is pre-existing superior file. No use. Delete Fry1989 (talk) 20:08, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, in use. PNG file is more correct graphically. --Kwasura (talk) 18:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- Not in use, and there's no proof it's more accurate then the pre-existing SVG. Fry1989 eh? 21:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Superseded by File:Coat of Arms of the First Slovak Republic.svg – Adrignola talk 00:48, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
This should be licensed under Crown Copyright as a fair use image. Harrison49 (talk) 20:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- move to en:wikipedia "non free logo" Slowking4 (talk) 16:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 14:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
File is an exact duplicate of File:Perseus' Stellar Neighbors.jpg 50.50.116.36 02:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Unsure, but the two images are not at all identical. They have different image quality and different internal metadata (the older one has notes on orientation, field of view, Epoch and so forth, while the newer one has more comment data). They both look like procvessed versions of the TIFF from [6]. I would keep both in order to maintain a history. No space is saved by deleting the smaller one anyway. -84user (talk) 14:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Changing my non-vote to Delete together with the newer larger image. This is because the image appears to be also copyright L. Cieza, and this paragraph from http://www.spitzer.caltech.edu/info/18-Image-Use-Policy becomes important: "Some image and video materials on Spitzer public web sites are owned by organizations other than Caltech, JPL, or NASA. These owners have agreed to make their images and video available for journalistic, educational, and personal uses, but restrictions are placed on commercial uses. To obtain permission for commercial use, contact the copyright owner listed in each image caption and/or credit. Ownership of images and video by parties other than Caltech, JPL, and NASA is noted in the caption material and/or image credit with each image." -84user (talk) 15:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- Changing to Keep for now, but please keep this open until my confusion is cleared up, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Perseus' Stellar Neighbors.jpg and Commons:Village pump/Copyright#NASA JPL Caltech Spitzer policy. -84user (talk) 19:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. It seems that you left out the important part when quoting the "special cases" section of the spitzer.caltech.edu copyright page above. It reads: "Some image and video materials on Spitzer public web sites, identifiable by credit lines that do not begin with "NASA" or "NASA/JPL-Caltech," are owned by organizations other than Caltech, JPL, or NASA." The credit line of this image begins with "NASA/JPL-Caltech". Therefore, this image is not a special case. And therefore, it falls instead under the general provision, which reads: "Unless otherwise noted, images and video on Spitzer public web sites (public sites ending with a spitzer.caltech.edu address) may be used for any purpose without prior permission [...]." And because nothing is "otherwise noted" about this image, this general provision applies to it. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- It's worse than that, in the other DR I explained my mistake was that I had completely misread the "do not begin with" as "are not"! -84user (talk) 21:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 10:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
This is a near-duplicate of Arrondissement Charleroi Belgium Map.png, with one important difference: this one shows the municipality of Morlanwelz as belonging to the Charleroi District. According to both the English and Dutch Wikipedias, the municipality is actually a part of the Thuin District, and the map of that district confirms it. Therefore I think this incorrect version should be replaced with the correct one and this one deleted. Jafeluv (talk) 22:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept: it's not our task to judge that, it's still in use Jcb (talk) 18:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Incorrect map (per above). The file is no longer in use. Jafeluv (talk) 10:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC) Deleted. – Adrignola talk 23:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Who is Abbas Yari? There is no evidence that they approved the stated license. This also affects File:JoseSaramago.jpg and File:Portuguese 0021.jpg. If it is kept, I believe the license should have been migrated. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- en:Abbas Yari is a film critic. And this moving licenses to what the authors have never given permission for is just despicable. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- I'm just pointing out the license migration issue since the GFDL tag is not a real GFDL tag and hence was never processed. In this case, there is no sign that the author has given any sort of permission for any sort of licensing, since it was licensed "on his behalf" by fa:User:Mostafazizi. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep This is from 2006, before OTRS was common (and this was on the Farsi wikipedia). There is no reason to suspect that Mostafa Azizi (who seems to be a real person, born 1962) was lying about his contacts with the film critic Abbas Yari. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- Having contacts with the copyright holder doesn't mean you can grant a license on their behalf, though. You can relay a permission granted by the copyright holder, but you cannot be the one to grant it, as the file description suggests. —LX (talk, contribs) 05:32, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: permission unclear Jcb (talk) 10:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
The image appears to be also copyright L. Cieza, and this paragraph from http://www.spitzer.caltech.edu/info/18-Image-Use-Policy becomes important: "Some image and video materials on Spitzer public web sites are owned by organizations other than Caltech, JPL, or NASA. These owners have agreed to make their images and video available for journalistic, educational, and personal uses, but restrictions are placed on commercial uses. To obtain permission for commercial use, contact the copyright owner listed in each image caption and/or credit. Ownership of images and video by parties other than Caltech, JPL, and NASA is noted in the caption material and/or image credit with each image." -~ 84user (talk) 14:58, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
We note the ambiguity in the stated Spitzer image use policy and are taking steps to clarify it. On our site the credit line is just a credit, and not a copyright statement, and any image that leads with a NASA credit is covered by our policy for open use. The quote you include specifically refers to a small number of images we include from other non NASA sites and for those we refer people to the source copyright owner. Please bear with us until we can improve the wording on our policy to make this clear (since nearly every image includes in the credit line an acknowledgement to the principle investigator and their home institution, which is not intended to imply restricted use). ~Spitzersteph 13:24, 18 July 2011
- In that case, as the nominator, I vote Keep for this image. The wording always confused me so your clarification is useful. I also note that Spitzer's Image Use Policy has:
- 2. to use a credit line in connection with images. Unless otherwise noted in the caption information for an image, the credit line should be "Courtesy NASA/JPL-Caltech".
- which appears to mean the credit line must be indicated as some kind of attribution in the license on the Commons image description page; I am asking at Commons:Village pump/Copyright#NASA JPL Caltech Spitzer policy what the best Commons template is for this; for example, Hubble images have {{Cc-Hubble}}; Commons has discussed a similar case with NASA images that request credit Commons:Village pump/Archive/2007/12#Nasa Copyright here concluding that such requests are not obligatory
- Under "Special Cases", Spitzer's policy begins Some image and video materials on Spitzer public web sites, identifiable by credit lines that do not begin with "NASA" or "NASA/JPL-Caltech,". My mistake was I had completely misread the "do not begin with" as "are not". -84user (talk) 19:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 10:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
This image appeared on caltech's website in 2004 with Credit line: NASA/JPL-Caltech. Caltech's image use policy at that time appeared to forbid commercial use, see this 2004 gallery archive and 2004 December archive of their image policy which states "Digital images on the Spitzer public Web site are available for non-commercial educational and public information purposes (including journalistic uses) free of charge." and "Commercial users, excluding journalistic users, are required to copy the SSC/Caltech Image Release form (PDF form) and return a signed copy to the following address: California Institute of Technology Intellectual Property Counsel Mail Code 201-85 Pasadena, CA 91125 USA". This policy changed in later years. 84user (talk) 15:42, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- Comment I have asked for feedback at Commons:Village pump/Copyright#NASA JPL Caltech Spitzer policy. -84user (talk) 19:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: per the other DRs about this topic Jcb (talk) 10:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
See Commons:Deletion requests/File:SIRTF ir 1.jpg 84user (talk) 15:43, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 10:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Not the users own work, Therefore wrong license could be a PD simple though Good twins (talk) 22:47, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- Comment If the goal is to simply get the tag changed, I would have thought that a note to the uploader would have been preferable to a deletion nomination (with the latter approach to be used only if the former doesn't work). Having said that, it is perhaps not as simple as adding a {{PD-simple}} tag. These logos were discussed at Commons talk:Licensing/Archive 33#Pan Am Games 2015, and the discussion was inconclusive. Arguably the logos are copyrighted. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 10:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- I have change the tag. Intoronto1125 (talk) 14:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept: tag has been fixed Jcb (talk) 15:16, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
While the conclusion of the last deletion discussion may or may not be correct, it would be helpful to have a discussion close that addresses the issues raised in the Commons talk:Licensing discussion and that doesn't suggest that a mistaken tag was the only problem. The closing admin is offline for a few weeks, so I am nominating again so we can have another look at this one (and its sister file File:2015parapanlogo.jpg). Skeezix1000 (talk) 23:22, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. The cited discussion ended up on the delete side, based on the relatively low threshold of the Candadian law. For the record, I think these would have copyright in the USA as well. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Not the users own work. So incorrect license. Could qualify for simple PD license though Good twins (talk) 22:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- I have commented at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Toronto2015.png, since the same issues are involved. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 11:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- I Have changed the tag. Intoronto1125 (talk) 14:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 15:17, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
While the conclusion of the last deletion discussion may or may not be correct, it would be helpful to have a discussion close that addresses the issues raised in the Commons talk:Licensing discussion and that doesn't suggest that a mistaken tag was the only problem. The closing admin is offline for a few weeks, so I am nominating again so we can have another look at this one (and its sister file File:Toronto2015.png). Skeezix1000 (talk) 23:23, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)