Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2011/07/18
 |
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}
aaaaaaaaaa.png){kind=link}
dsdfdf.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
{{duplicate|other files}}
Kept: bogus DR by IP without deletion rationale Túrelio (talk) 08:51, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
the version of 22:16, 6 August 2009 should be deleted because it is incorrect Cwbm (commons) (talk) 13:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Version deleted. Martin H. (talk) 14:43, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Google Street view screenshot 80.187.107.36 08:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- 11:08, 18 July 2011 AmandaDC (talk · contribs) blanked the page. Reinstating information. I don't know what the building would look like/where it is, but if it is the one here, it is obviously not a screenshot as there is scaffolding up against it. -- Deadstar (msg) 13:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- Duplicate of File:Fachada Logo Impiva valencia.png. Marking it as such. -- Deadstar (msg) 14:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Duplicate of File:Fachada Logo Impiva valencia.png High Contrast (talk) 17:14, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Low res, no exif, most probably a copyvio, though I could not find the source Darwin Ahoy! 22:52, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: All other uploads by this user were blatant copyvios, no point in waiting for a DR for such an obvious cse. Darwin Ahoy! 22:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Google maps screenshot -- Deadstar (msg) 13:53, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Blatant copyright violation. Use {{Copyvio}} next time, please. High Contrast (talk) 07:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Google maps screenshot -- Deadstar (msg) 13:53, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Blatant copyright violation. Use {{Copyvio}} next time, please. High Contrast (talk) 07:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
No evidence of original painting date -- image copyrighted on source page as well —Eustress talk 16:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- I added the image so hope to help clarify. The owner of the full series of plates is my employer and he requested that I contribute the images we own after seeing terribly poor quality Rummell view images on the home pages of Yale and Brown. Seems to add a valuable visual element to each school's late 19th-early 20th century history that can not be found elsewhere. As for the date on the Cornell View, Rummell did not sign with it specifically, but the series of views was completed between 1900 and 1915 at the request of the printing house Littig & Co. I support removing dates attached to Cornell in favor of a "circa" unless more specific records can be found, but strongly oppose removing an image with no copyright issues that visually explains and enhances the quality of description and pool of knowledge associated with the university's history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbrunt122 (talk • contribs) 16:24, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Keep see w:Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. and these two documents. The artist died in 1924—barely a year past the "copyright horizon"—so even absent an explicit corroborative dating of the work, it's reasonable to accept the given date of 1910. (Edit: Come to think of it, even if the work were published in 1924, it would still be PD because of the life + 70 rule. 1924 + 70 = 1994.) For your second point, Eustress, I'm very surprised you don't seem to be aware that we ignore third parties' copyright claims on public domain works. It's very common for museums and galleries to assert copyright ownership, but it is official WMF policy- handed down "from on high", not just built from community consensus- to ignore these claims. —Notyourbroom (talk) 21:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- Appreciate the research but not the tone —Eustress talk 15:04, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- I apologize for my tone- I was angry with your edit summary on Wikipedia, which baldly accused the editor of a copyright violation. I have enough experience with these cases that I could tell at a glance that it almost certainly wasn't a copyright violation, which increased my level of frustration- not only did you make a strong accusation, but you based the accusation on an exceptionally weak case. You're also an administrator on the English Wikipedia, which gives you a greater responsibility not to jump to conclusions or make false accusations. Unless it's a clear case, you should stick to language like "the copyright status is unclear". You are correct, though, that I met (perceived) unprofessionalism with unprofessionalism, and I apologize for that. —Notyourbroom (talk) 15:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- Appreciate the research but not the tone —Eustress talk 15:04, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- I think the problem is that the painting was incorrectly licensed, but Notyourbroom has done some research and determined that the work would qualify under {{PD-old-80}}. If {{PD-1923}} is removed and the source of the painting corrected, then I would be all right closing this deletion request. —Eustress talk 15:04, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- We can't remove {{PD-1923}} because we need at least one template which is specific to US copyright law. 1923 is fine, though {{PD-Art}} would be a shade more accurate, come to think of it. (The distinction between the templates has no legal relevance, but {{PD-Art}} has descriptive prose more specific to this case.) —Notyourbroom (talk) 15:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- {{PD-Art}} is just fine and it fits the purpose (70 years past author's death = 1994), so let's use them both and Keep the image. De728631 (talk) 18:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- All right, I'm all for closing the deletion request then. Thanks again to Notyourbroom for the research. —Eustress talk 00:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- {{PD-Art}} is just fine and it fits the purpose (70 years past author's death = 1994), so let's use them both and
- We can't remove {{PD-1923}} because we need at least one template which is specific to US copyright law. 1923 is fine, though {{PD-Art}} would be a shade more accurate, come to think of it. (The distinction between the templates has no legal relevance, but {{PD-Art}} has descriptive prose more specific to this case.) —Notyourbroom (talk) 15:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Uncontroversial consensus to keep file. —Notyourbroom (talk) 14:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
This is not public domain in it's source country; Crown Copyright is 50 years and this arms was last modified in 1984. Only the shield is public domain according to http://www2.gnb.ca/content/gnb/en/departments/cnb/symbols.html. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 10:18, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- The shield is public domain, that is not in dispute. Yet, the entire coat of arms was redone in 1984 and that also had the addition of a few elements. If you read the symbol text, it says "The shield on our coat of arms , linking us with England, through the lion and celebrating our maritime location and shipbuilding prominence, was assigned by Royal Warrant of Queen Victoria on May 26, 1868. The crest and motto were assigned by Order of the Lieutenant Governor in Council in 1966. Other features were assigned by Royal Warrant of Queen Elizabeth II on Sept. 24, 1984, during a visit to Fredericton." So the crest and the motto, and all changes after that, are still under Crown Copyright (which is 50 years in Canada). Even if there was a description for the arms, we had the current coat of arms of Canada on the Commons, freely drawn by me, but still deleted for being a derivative work of a copyrighted work (because the arms were modified in 1994). User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 20:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- Let me quote Commons:Coats of arms again: "To be sure, some CoA definitions indeed claim copyright, but this is very rare. Furthermore, there is little chance for such a claim to stand in court if the claim is indeed on the definition part (whereas if the claim is made on the representation, it is obviously valid). In any case, this is a nonexistent situation for official Coat of Arms, the big picture is: you have no chance of ever finding blasoning with a copyright claim in this encyclopedia. This means that anybody can draw a new coat of arms from a definition without copyright constraints: the "derivative work" notion simply doesn't apply in that case." So the deletion of your last Canadian coat of arms on grounds of copyright was probably false. But... I have now found this disclaimer on the fair use page at en.wiki: "In addition, the Trade Marks Act, chapter T-13, Revised Statutes of 1985 (sect. 9), protects the Arms of Canada against unauthorized commercial use" This is in fact a reason to not have it on Commons because images on Commons must not have a noncommercial restriction. De728631 (talk) 19:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- We have the same issue with the Canadian flag. On our image page for the flag, "The Trade Marks Act protects the National Flag of Canada and the flags of the provinces and territories against unauthorized use. Requests to use the Canadian flag in connection with business activities should be addressed to the Department of Canadian Heritage (attention: Canadian Identity Directorate)." But that is considered not mattering to us. Now back to this arms; there is no blazon that I could find (and that is usually the standard, as you pointed out) of this coat of arms. Unless we can find someone from New Brunswick to help find this blazon (or from the College of Arms), we cannot keep the image due to the age. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 20:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Is the Royal Heraldry Society of Canada competent and reliable enough in this matter? They've got blazons for all provincial arms: [1]. And so has the Canadian Encyclopedia. De728631 (talk) 23:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- That works. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 04:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- Excellent. I've put up a link to the Heraldry Society's blazon on the file page and also added {{Coat of arms}}. De728631 (talk) 13:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- That works. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 04:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- Is the Royal Heraldry Society of Canada competent and reliable enough in this matter? They've got blazons for all provincial arms: [1]. And so has the Canadian Encyclopedia. De728631 (talk) 23:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- We have the same issue with the Canadian flag. On our image page for the flag, "The Trade Marks Act protects the National Flag of Canada and the flags of the provinces and territories against unauthorized use. Requests to use the Canadian flag in connection with business activities should be addressed to the Department of Canadian Heritage (attention: Canadian Identity Directorate)." But that is considered not mattering to us. Now back to this arms; there is no blazon that I could find (and that is usually the standard, as you pointed out) of this coat of arms. Unless we can find someone from New Brunswick to help find this blazon (or from the College of Arms), we cannot keep the image due to the age. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 20:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Let me quote Commons:Coats of arms again: "To be sure, some CoA definitions indeed claim copyright, but this is very rare. Furthermore, there is little chance for such a claim to stand in court if the claim is indeed on the definition part (whereas if the claim is made on the representation, it is obviously valid). In any case, this is a nonexistent situation for official Coat of Arms, the big picture is: you have no chance of ever finding blasoning with a copyright claim in this encyclopedia. This means that anybody can draw a new coat of arms from a definition without copyright constraints: the "derivative work" notion simply doesn't apply in that case." So the deletion of your last Canadian coat of arms on grounds of copyright was probably false. But... I have now found this disclaimer on the fair use page at en.wiki: "In addition, the Trade Marks Act, chapter T-13, Revised Statutes of 1985 (sect. 9), protects the Arms of Canada against unauthorized commercial use" This is in fact a reason to not have it on Commons because images on Commons must not have a noncommercial restriction. De728631 (talk) 19:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- The shield is public domain, that is not in dispute. Yet, the entire coat of arms was redone in 1984 and that also had the addition of a few elements. If you read the symbol text, it says "The shield on our coat of arms , linking us with England, through the lion and celebrating our maritime location and shipbuilding prominence, was assigned by Royal Warrant of Queen Victoria on May 26, 1868. The crest and motto were assigned by Order of the Lieutenant Governor in Council in 1966. Other features were assigned by Royal Warrant of Queen Elizabeth II on Sept. 24, 1984, during a visit to Fredericton." So the crest and the motto, and all changes after that, are still under Crown Copyright (which is 50 years in Canada). Even if there was a description for the arms, we had the current coat of arms of Canada on the Commons, freely drawn by me, but still deleted for being a derivative work of a copyrighted work (because the arms were modified in 1994). User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 20:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Withdrawn User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Low res and no exif data, only upload by this account, most probably grabbed from the web and uploaded with bogus license Darwin Ahoy! 01:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if this is useful, but I found the same picture in a fansite and her twitter, so I suggest
Delete. --Andrea (talk) 01:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC) - Delete per Andrea -- Blackcat (talk) 11:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 01:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Inside an Acela Express business coach.jpg, except that this one has a face blurred. Due to the presence of the same photo without the blur job, I would contend that this photo has no foreseeable educational purpose. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:07, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete: a passenger in a public train carriage has no expectation of privacy. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 10:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per Lee -- Blackcat (talk) 11:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 01:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Defaced image uploaded, Legal owner of Image want's it removed. Senor-steve (talk) 06:14, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete: emblem is too complex for {{PD-textlogo}}, and there is insufficient evidence that the copyright holder agreed to license it. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 10:50, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete not free. -- Deadstar (msg) 13:31, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 01:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
bad quality 91.156.14.16 07:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - Commons is full of these type photos already. No educational need for this one. --Hold and wave (talk) 20:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: bad quality Mbdortmund (talk) 01:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
bad quality 91.156.14.16 07:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - Commons is full of these type photos already. No educational need for this one. --Hold and wave (talk) 20:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: bad quality Mbdortmund (talk) 01:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
bad quality 91.156.14.16 07:57, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - Commons is full of these type photos already. No educational need for this one. --Hold and wave (talk) 20:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: bad quality Mbdortmund (talk) 01:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
bad quality 91.156.14.16 07:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - Commons is full of these type photos already. No educational use for this one. --Hold and wave (talk) 20:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- {[comment}} Helloooo copy/paste. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Another blurry self-made "My xxx" picture. --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: bad quality Mbdortmund (talk) 01:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
source is a website, no evidence that image has a free license Avron (talk) 08:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 01:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
personal artwork? not used Avron (talk) 08:57, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 01:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
i doubt this is self made. Google translate doesn't reveal anything about the source of this image "drawing my friend" and "pictures of ferblihez". -- Deadstar (msg) 08:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 01:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
personal artwork? unclear source Avron (talk) 09:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Mbdortmund (talk) 01:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
personal artwork? not used Avron (talk) 11:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Mbdortmund (talk) 01:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
_.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
personal photo? not used Avron (talk) 12:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
_.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nom Mbdortmund (talk) 01:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
_.jpg){kind=link}
personal photo? no description, no educational purpose Avron (talk) 12:31, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Mbdortmund (talk) 01:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
"nur ein Test"? not in scope Avron (talk) 12:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Mbdortmund (talk) 01:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
"auch nur ein Test"? not in scope Avron (talk) 12:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nom Mbdortmund (talk) 01:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
"auch nur test"? not in scope Avron (talk) 12:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nom Mbdortmund (talk) 01:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
advertisment? intenal information? not used, not in scoope Avron (talk) 12:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination, also no author and source information. De728631 (talk) 18:29, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Mbdortmund (talk) 01:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
personal artwork? not description Avron (talk) 12:43, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Mbdortmund (talk) 01:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
unused personal photo Hold and wave (talk) 12:59, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Mbdortmund (talk) 01:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
unused personal photo Hold and wave (talk) 12:59, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Mbdortmund (talk) 01:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete unused personal photo Hold and wave (talk) 12:59, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete copyrighted banner.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Mbdortmund (talk) 01:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned personal picture, out of scope. Also it appears that the subject uploaded the photo himself (see username), the copyright however belongs to someone else (see EXIF). Martin H. (talk) 13:43, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Mbdortmund (talk) 01:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Taken from a book by Jos Baeten, ISBN 9789460221286 on Virtual Action Learning. The English version of the book can be previewed here. The image is about 10 pages in. -- Deadstar (msg) 14:29, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Mbdortmund (talk) 01:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Blurry picture, easily replaceable (see Category:Calico cats and Category:Lying cats) Abujoy (talk) 15:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Mbdortmund (talk) 01:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to by own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Mbdortmund (talk) 01:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
This has GOOGLE on it in large letters? It looks like the underlying map is not own work. -- Deadstar (msg) 15:31, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- And File:Hollandrijnland2.xcf - source Google. -- Deadstar (msg) 15:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete both, derivatives of Google Earth. De728631 (talk) 07:59, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Mbdortmund (talk) 01:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Out of project scope: personal image used for vandalism on enwiki Acroterion (talk) 15:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Mbdortmund (talk) 01:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
aaaaaaaaaa.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
aaaaaaaaaa.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Own work seems to be highly doubtful: no EXIF data and low image resolution High Contrast (talk) 16:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
aaaaaaaaaa.png){kind=link}
Deleted: per nom Mbdortmund (talk) 01:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
aaaaaaaaaa.png){kind=link}
dsdfdf.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
dsdfdf.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Own work seems to be highly doubtful: no EXIF data and low image resolution High Contrast (talk) 16:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
dsdfdf.png){kind=link}
Deleted: per nom Mbdortmund (talk) 01:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
dsdfdf.png){kind=link}
Clearly not this author's own work. Seems to be a magazine scan. Xfansd (talk) 04:01, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
not related to the image, no private notepad (kein Bezug zum Bild, für private Notizen nutze bitte deine Benutzerseite) Herzi Pinki (talk) 17:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Es Notizen sind keine Notizen von mir darauf vorhanden, bitte keine Meldung in der Sache danke --Mayer Bruno (talk) 17:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC).
- Delete Unrelated personal appeal to discuss speedy deletion criteria on Commons, has got nothing to do with the image. Alternatively the text could just be erased. De728631 (talk) 18:15, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Mbdortmund (talk) 01:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Peronal artwork? not used Avron (talk) 18:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Mbdortmund (talk) 01:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
personal photo, not used Avron (talk) 18:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Mbdortmund (talk) 01:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
personal artwork, not used, unclear if the uploader is the copyright-holder Avron (talk) 18:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Mbdortmund (talk) 01:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
personal artwork? not used Avron (talk) 18:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Mbdortmund (talk) 01:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
no description, not used, so no educational value Avron (talk) 18:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Mbdortmund (talk) 01:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
personal artwork, not used Avron (talk) 18:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Mbdortmund (talk) 01:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
No permission for use! 109.71.91.79 18:43, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- I got personal permission from the copyright holder, the author of the photo Andrzej Piasecki from Foksal WebStudio, as it is clear from the OTRS ticket number 2008070710021384. If you wish to remove the photo for a different reason (e.g. personal) then it is a different matter. However, the file is not used anywhere, the person seems to have low notability, so it can be removed anyway. --Zureks (talk) 07:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: OTRS Ticket Mbdortmund (talk) 01:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
personal or promotional photo? not used Avron (talk) 18:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom + missing description Mbdortmund (talk) 01:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
personal artwork, not used Avron (talk) 18:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Mbdortmund (talk) 01:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
personal photo, not used Avron (talk) 19:25, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Mbdortmund (talk) 01:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
personal photo, not usable for educational purpose Avron (talk) 19:47, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Mbdortmund (talk) 01:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
All other files by this user were copyvios, no reason to believe this one is his own work too Darwin Ahoy! 00:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Promotional image of some sort. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 00:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. High Contrast (talk) 08:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned, used in a now deleted article on en.wikipedia. no foreseeable use. FASTILY (TALK) 00:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep No reason to delete. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Insufficient source information High Contrast (talk) 08:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Replaceable by "File:Édouard Manet, Femme à la Jarretière (1878–1879).jpg", which is larger (932 × 1,123 px, compared to 300 × 361 px) and sharper. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 07:19, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted after changing to the other at WP:PL. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
I seriously doubt "wikia" is the author or copyright holder of the picture. The history of the picture on wikia (http://doblaje.wikia.com/wiki/Archivo:JerryTrainor.jpg) suggests that someone just reused pictures from the internet. Eusebius (talk) 09:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- For this similar image found on Life webside, certainly taken during the same event (premiere of Nickelodeon's Merry Christmas, Drake & Josh!on Dec 02, 2008), the credit is "Frazer Harrison/Getty Images". And for that one, "Charley Gallay/WireImage". --Myrabella (talk) 07:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- I've found it: it's a crop of that image, credited: Photo(s) by Dave Edwards- © 2008- DailyCeleb.com- All Rights Reserved - Jerry Trainor at the World Premiere of 'Merry Christmas, Drake and Josh'. Westside Pavillion, Los Angeles, CA. Not free of use it seems. --Myrabella (talk) 07:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
The lion head symbol was created in 1986 by the Government of Singapore (see "Lion head symbol of Singapore"), which thus owns the copyright in it. Unfortunately, in Singapore there is no rule that works by the Government are in the public domain: see "Commons:Licensing#Government works". The work will enter the public domain 70 years after the end of the calendar year in which the work was made, i.e., 1 January 2057. It should be transferred to a Wikipedia project and used under a fair-use justification, if this is allowed. See "Commons:Deletion requests/File:RSAF Roundel 1990-present.svg". — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 15:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
This is a collage of copyrighted images. Whpq (talk) 15:24, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- Additional note from nominator: The images used to create this collage appear to be take (in part) from the SomersTotalKare web site. See [2], [3], and [4] which correspond to elements of the collage. There is no evidence that the uploader has the necessary permissions for these images. -- Whpq (talk) 15:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
![[2]](http://www.stkare.co.uk/assets/user_uploads/rg.jpg){kind=link}
![[3]](http://www.stkare.co.uk/assets/user_uploads/mvl.jpg){kind=link}
![[4]](http://www.stkare.co.uk/assets/user_uploads/s6ng.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
and other photos by Sijothankam (talk · contribs). Unlikely to by own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:43, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. High Contrast (talk) 12:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work of a copyrighted creative work tiZom(2¢) 16:05, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- FOP for UK says that photographs of sculptures, models for buildings and works of artistic craftsmanship (if permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public) may be published in any way. Why doesn't this apply here? Materialscientist (talk) 12:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep per {{FoP-UK}}. It's a photo, not a 3d reproduction of the work of art. Specifically "The practical effect of the broad Freedom of Panorama provisions in the UK...is that it is acceptable to upload to Commons not only photographs of public buildings and sculptures but also works of artistic craftsmanship which are on permanent public display in museums, galleries and exhibitions which are open to the public." I suggest a speedy withdrawal of this deletion request. Polyamorph (talk) 17:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
This is a collective deletion request for all images in Category:Drawings by Gregor Roffalski. The artist is non-notable and frankly this is just unprofessional fan-art. Therefore it is out of scope. ~ De728631 (talk) 17:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- Hi. I've uploaded these images from Tolkien Gateway. This deletion request is really astonishing... can you explain exactly which Commons policy do they break? They all are media files in an allowable free file format, with an adequate freely licensed (CC-BY-SA-3.0-migrated), and no derivative stuff; so there isn't any problem over there. You mention the scope. This one (Aragorn II.jpg) is legitimately in use on four different Wikipedias (es, gl, ia, pl) so it “is considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose”. I haven't checked all files, but they are similar in this aspect. So the only real reason I can imagine is that the files are bad drawings. Obviously these files aren't candidates to the image of the day. I'd prefer to have an Alan Lee between wikipedians, but that is not the case, so (unless you can paint it better) these are the only free images to illustrate a bunch of articles in Wikipedias with no fair use policy. Even I must cite “a file that is used in good faith on a Wikimedia project is always considered educational, so a poor quality file that remains in use is not liable to deletion even if a better-quality file covering the same subject later becomes available”. It's funny the way you call them “unprofessional”... if only professional content would be valid in Commons we should remove 98% of the repository, so... Keep. Waiting for your explanations, regards, Rondador (talk) 20:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- I can understand your frustration but per Commons: Fan art such images may be hosted if they are "realistically useful for an educational purpose, as required by our project scope (note that self-created artwork without obvious educational use is specifically excluded)". I for one doubt the educational use of these images because they are just someone's renditions of the different Tolkien characters while there are multiple images from professional adaptations and/or artists that can be hosted individually on a fair use basis. The term "educational" is defined as “providing knowledge; instructional or informative” in the project scope. These images however can't be used to showcase the artist's work because he's not notable and they provide no information other than that a certain Gregor Roffalski envisions Aragorn et al. in that specific way and therefore I think the "self-created artwork" clause is applicable here.
- And as to your argument of automatic usefulness, please note that the condition reads "a media file that is in use on one of the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation..." – that is to say that files that are hosted on a Wikipedia site and have been approved over there may be transferred from WP to Commons because they are useful, but just because any WP uses something from Commons that Commons content needs not be educationally useful per se. De728631 (talk) 23:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Since at least one of these is in use, they are not all out of scope. De728631 may start a new DR, specifically listing only those images that are not in use. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
I doubt that the uploader owns the copyright of this image. If so, the uploader must consult our OTRS-team. High Contrast (talk) 18:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
duplicate of File:Flickr - europeanpeoplesparty - EPP Summit December 2010 (33).jpg Cargoking talk 18:22, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Speedy delete as duplicate. De728631 (talk) 18:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
personal artwork? not used Avron (talk) 18:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep No valid reason for deletion. If it was a photograph we would keep it, but if it is a painting of the same sunset you would delete it? --Tony Wills (talk) 06:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- I suggest also low quality photographs with no educational value for deletion.--Avron (talk) 12:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete bad quality, watermark --Mbdortmund (talk) 01:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- I suggest also low quality photographs with no educational value for deletion.--Avron (talk) 12:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
No COM:FOP#Japan, and copyvio as literature work. Vantey (talk) 18:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
The file has wrong infos on the author and the license, since at least one of the pics contained in the collage (see Katedra Chrystusa Zbawiciela w Moskwie 2.jpg) is taken not by the uploader of the collage and is not PD licensed. I suppose that the same applies for the other parts of the collage. - A.S. 19:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- ... and at least one of these photographs was gloriously deleted, - that's the problem (as well as three or four others that can be deleted with COM:FOP). Licensing alone wouldn't be an issue - if all photos were identified and their licenses were compatible, license can be changed in a simple edit. delete both. NVO (talk) 02:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- I'm is the author of this collage. Images was taken by me from free images from commons, and licensed. Cutting and drawing up of the image - only my work that I confirm it. Foreign pictures not from Commons this image don't not contented. On the basis of stated, I ask don't remove this image. Creation of the specified image has occupied from me a lot of time and forces. Removal of a part of images isn't at the bottom for collage removal. Anyway nobody has addressed about infringement of its right to the specified image, and it is impossible to establish the initial legal owner as the image has been placed in Commons. Yours faithfully,Texmon (talk) 20:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: At least one image is A DW of recent architecture. Collages must list all images that make them up, with credits to authors. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
The file has wrong infos on the author and the license, since at least one of the pics contained in the collage (see Улица Свердлова.jpg) is taken not by the uploader of the collage and is not PD licensed. I suppose that the same applies also for the other parts of the collage. A.S. 19:12, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- delete. This one is unsalvageable - each pic can be deleted through COM:FOP (well, there were cases when modern skylines were kept but it did not prevent fop-warriors from re-nominating them again and again). NVO (talk) 04:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
out of scope, not in use Banfield - Amenazas aquí 20:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. High Contrast (talk) 12:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Issues have been raised about license. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_sound_candidates#William_Tell_Overture_.28symphony.29 TCO (talk) 21:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per my assessment of the licence over on Wikipedia. I'm willing to keep an open mind if someone can convince me that the licence is both legally correct and compatible with our mission, but I doubt that will happen. Themfromspace (talk) 21:52, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep there are dozens of files that are classified as {{PD-US-record}}. Although there seems to be no where on Wikipedia or Commons to validate this file type, it seems that we should be spending energy focussing on developing a consensus on this license type rather than picking off the files one at a time here on commons.--TonyTheTiger (talk) 12:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. The de facto status of how we deal with state restrictions is to not let them stop us. Until that consensus changes as a group (which I don't have a strong opinion on), we should not go after individual files. IOW, even if one disagrees with the policy, it is how we operate and should not affect a singular example until we decide to change how we deal with the class. Some note (a tag or even a written note) that there may be state restrictions would be valuable, though.TCO (talk) 00:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- This gets into the horribly messy sound recording stuff. PD-US-record is basically correct, except that I'm fairly sure that multiple states (not just New York, though they are the most recent) have upheld pre-1972 recording copyrights -- after all, there was a music recording industry before 1972, and all of those recordings remain protected the same way. There is no way we can use that tag on, say, an early Led Zeppelin recording. This file is marked CC-BY-NC-SA at the archive.org source... if the uploader there had the rights to the original recording, it would seem to not be a free enough license. If they did not, then of course that archive.org license is irrelevant. I am unfortunately suspicious of commercial recordings, even older ones like this, if the rights have passed down to current companies -- not sure if that is the case here though. The situation does absolutely suck, as TonyTheTiger says, but there are no easy answers. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Comment The real source seems to be http://victor.library.ucsb.edu/ but I cannot find any discussion there of the copyright situation of these recordings. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Hm, that site is actually just a database listing of the Victor recordings, not the recordings themselves (and does list this one, without an audio link). However, in general they do link to a number of actual recordings from the National Jukebox, a Library of Congress project. That project says In 2008, Sony Music Entertainment granted the Library of Congress an unprecedented gratis license to stream over the internet all of the pre-1925 recordings in their catalog, including those of the Victor, Columbia and Okeh labels. So, just the Library of Congress has that license. This is from 1926, so it is not available from the Library of Congress site, though for reference a sample Victor recording there has the following under the "Rights" tab: This recording is protected by state copyright laws in the United States. The Library of Congress has obtained a license from rights holders to offer it as streamed audio only. Downloading is not permitted. The authorization of rights holders of the recording is required in order to obtain a copy of the recording. Contact jukebox@loc.gov for more information. Under Credits, they have Inclusion of the recording in the National Jukebox, courtesy of Sony Music Entertainment. On the source archive.org site, it says the digital transfer was done by "F Reeder", who seems to have done a lot of stuff uploaded there, from a number of dates and a different labels (mostly Victor and Columbia, both Sony-owned now). You'd think Sony's name would be on them though, if truly licensed. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:32, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Conclusion: Delete. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Conclusion:
- Hm, that site is actually just a database listing of the Victor recordings, not the recordings themselves (and does list this one, without an audio link). However, in general they do link to a number of actual recordings from the National Jukebox, a Library of Congress project. That project says In 2008, Sony Music Entertainment granted the Library of Congress an unprecedented gratis license to stream over the internet all of the pre-1925 recordings in their catalog, including those of the Victor, Columbia and Okeh labels. So, just the Library of Congress has that license. This is from 1926, so it is not available from the Library of Congress site, though for reference a sample Victor recording there has the following under the "Rights" tab: This recording is protected by state copyright laws in the United States. The Library of Congress has obtained a license from rights holders to offer it as streamed audio only. Downloading is not permitted. The authorization of rights holders of the recording is required in order to obtain a copy of the recording. Contact jukebox@loc.gov for more information. Under Credits, they have Inclusion of the recording in the National Jukebox, courtesy of Sony Music Entertainment. On the source archive.org site, it says the digital transfer was done by "F Reeder", who seems to have done a lot of stuff uploaded there, from a number of dates and a different labels (mostly Victor and Columbia, both Sony-owned now). You'd think Sony's name would be on them though, if truly licensed. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:32, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Not the seal of Youngston, but of Ohio, and File:Seal of Ohio.svg is the pre-existing SVG of that. Fry1989 (talk) 21:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Can't I upload a new version. ThisguyYEAH (talk) 22:21, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- Do you have the real seal of Youngstown? You can upload that over this yes. But if you don't, then it should be deleted, as we already have the same file in SVG format. Fry1989 (talk) 22:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
This is much more than a signature. Its a drawing of an artist, isn't it. And it's not own workof th uploader. JuTa (talk) 21:53, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Per Commons:Freedom of panorama#United States and Commons:Derivative works, images of statues are derivative works of the statue; unless the statue is public domain, then the image is non-free. Drilnoth (talk) 23:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept. According to SIRIS, the required copyright notice is not present on this 1969 work. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
To begining with, this is a logo of a TV Channel, not "own work". Looks like screencapture or similar. Also, I´m not sure this qualifies as {{PD-textlogo}}. // es: Para comenzar, este es el logo de un canal de televisión, no "trabajo propio". Parece captura de pantalla o similar. Además, no estoy segura de que califique como {{PD-textlogo}}. --Andrea (talk) 00:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Delete Obviously a copyrighted logo beyond a simple text-based design. The coloured eye-shaped parts above the text make this one an original work. De728631 (talk) 18:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- move to en:wikipedia as "non free logo" Slowking4 (talk) 16:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- en.wiki doesn't have a page for this TV channel to use the file. Does Spanish law allow for fair use? If so, move to es.wiki. De728631 (talk) 22:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- Not at all. In es:WP we only accept CC-BY-SA. We decided it years ago, because most of the spanish-speaking countrys don't allow it or have not legislation about it. Sorry. Move it there is not possible; such the DR origin. --Andrea (talk) 00:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- en.wiki doesn't have a page for this TV channel to use the file. Does Spanish law allow for fair use? If so, move to es.wiki. De728631 (talk) 22:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
unused logo Avron (talk) 12:53, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: license issues Gnangarra 01:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Blurry picture, easyly replaceable (see Category:Yawning cats) Abujoy (talk) 14:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: poor quality, some far better alternatives exist George Chernilevsky talk 19:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
This image uses currency to indicate scale, which is discouraged per the infobox on the description page. Further compounding the problem is that the image is so small that anyone who doesn't know what the coin is immediately (I think it's a 1 Euro coin, but I'm not familiar with it myself) cannot even make the scale comparison. MSJapan (talk) 01:54, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- No reason to delete, see text on Category:Images with coins to indicate scale. --Stündle (talk) 10:15, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- Being "discouraged" establishes definitely no valid reason for deletion. --Burkhard (talk) 20:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- So far I roughly added scaling. (BTW: There is no reference ruler to paste into pictures) --Stündle (talk) 19:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - problem solved. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: per above Trycatch (talk) 13:59, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Content in the browser is not free. -- Deadstar (msg) 10:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- File:Sputnikfreeuse.png is free. Content removed. Maybe I should paste some content in it. Smile4ever (talk) 11:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for that. -- Deadstar (msg) 14:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per above Trycatch (talk) 14:02, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
personal artwork? nor usful for educational purpose Avron (talk) 11:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Trycatch (talk) 14:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
This image gets 8 hits on tineye, a few larger than this. Also one for Getty images (which I can't access at the moment) so I suspect this is not freely licensed. -- Deadstar (msg) 14:24, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Judging from their filenames a few of the tineye results are of identical origin. The Getty file is not available any more in their database but this site uses the oldest image in terms of exif data (17 April 2007). The problem is that the original source has not been transferred from wikibooks so we can't be sure where this comes from. On the other hand the file had been sitting on wikibooks for 2 years without a problem before being transferred to Commons. De728631 (talk) 18:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: CB047326 Students Working with Microscope ca. 2000 © Corbis. All Rights Reserved. [5] Trycatch (talk) 14:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
![[5]](http://regex.info/exif.cgi?imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.act.waterwatch.org.au%2FImages%2Fclipart%2Fj0401960.jpg){kind=link}
Black rectangle appears on the thumbnails that I can not repair. . HombreDHojalata.talk 19:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- I've tried to fix that but now the second thumbnail in the history looks clean while the thumb of my new files is also tainted. Could that be a bug in the thumbnail generation on Commons? There are frequent thumbnail issues but the original svg seems to be ok. See also the good examples to the right which are working just fine, so I'd say Keep. De728631 (talk) 19:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- Español: El aspecto en el artículo gl:Impulso (aerodinámica) sigue apareciendo erroneo ¿alguien puede ayudar?... Gracias. --. HombreDHojalata.talk 09:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- This looks ok now for me. I suppose you still had the old faulty image in your browser cache when you were checking the article? De728631 (talk) 16:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- Ok! Thanks!--. HombreDHojalata.talk 22:38, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
- This looks ok now for me. I suppose you still had the old faulty image in your browser cache when you were checking the article? De728631 (talk) 16:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: per above, now it works fine. Trycatch (talk) 14:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Copyright mention (c) on the watermark ; redundant with File:Bolivian Cactus SG.jpg which is the same image without the watermark Tangopaso (talk) 20:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. Not the same. This one is much higher resolution. Wknight94 talk 22:43, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: per Wknight94. Trycatch (talk) 14:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Source information for every single image is missing High Contrast (talk) 17:09, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- Halo HC, I don't see any problem there. The uploader says that it is his own work and it is plausible. It is a beautiful collage but not imposible to do for many good photografers. --Createaccount 12:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
I do have certain doubts that this beautiful collage is the own work of the uploader. Two of the images that appear in this collage could be easily found via google: [6] and [7]. This "own work" statement does not convince me. --High Contrast (talk) 13:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
![[6]](http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/856/84927285.jpg/){kind=link}
![[7]](http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/607/osornonoche.jpg/){kind=link}
Deleted: At least two of the four images are clearly copyright violations. Rosenzweig τ 16:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
DR to decide if this qualifies as a simple logo Darwin Ahoy! 22:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete The shaded background makes it more than just a textlogo with fonts and geometric shapes. This is original art. De728631 (talk) 22:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete I agree with De, seems to meet threshold of originality in my opinion. Jujutacular talk 21:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 01:45, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to by own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:12, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 17:59, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Given that non-free media is never allowed on Commons, what point is this template? If it has utility, it needs to be repaired, but I can't see the utility. Courcelles (talk) 05:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- could it be a to do list to migrate newly found non free images back to english wikipedia? do you want an orderly process, or shall we have an ad hoc one? Slowking4 (talk) 16:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: en.wikipedia copy The Evil IP address (talk) 11:16, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Own work seems to be highly doubtful: no EXIF data and low image resolution High Contrast (talk) 16:54, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
- Delete – Definitely not an "own work". Bill william comptonTalk 16:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Badseed talk 08:36, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Logo of a TV Channel. I´m not sure if {{PD-textlogo}} aplies. --Andrea (talk) 20:29, 18 July 2011
Also nominating: File:Logo bendita.png
- Delete both, copyrighted logos beyond simple text and geometry. De728631 (talk) 19:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete – Copyvio and as above said, doesn't qualify for PD-Ineligible. Bill william comptonTalk 16:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyrighted logo Badseed talk 08:33, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
The file has wrong infos on the author and the license, since at least one of the pics contained in the collage (see Palace Square2, St. Petersburg, Russia.jpg) is taken not by the uploader of the collage and is not PD licensed. I suppose that the same applies also for the other parts of the collage. A.S. 19:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Sources have now been added and licencing updated. Additionally, this collage is in use throughout many of the Wikipedia projects (in multiple languages) to illustrate the character of Saint Petersburg, therefore I believe it is fair to say that the quality of such articles would be diminished (at least temporarily) if the image were to be removed. Gnesener1900 (talk) 19:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Licencing now fulfills requirements russavia (talk) 11:21, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
SVG file is not allowed per {{PD-font}}, replaced with File:Songti.png Ben.MQ (talk) 09:05, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: PD-ineligible Jcb (talk) 23:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Original source of the image is, very unfortunately, unknown. The copyright status is thus indeterminable. It pains me to have to delete this image instead of using it, but even the FU provisions on en.wiki are very unforgiving for highway photography. Floydian (talk) 03:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- Was the original Flickr uploader not the creator of the image (see page history for removed tags)? I notice that the Flickr username was similar to the Commons username, so it would not surprise me to hear that it was Flickr washing. – Adrignola talk 12:12, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- I know the editor that uploaded it. I believe it was a good faith mistake on their part, as they were relatively new to our copyright set up. They are not the original author of the image, and nobody is quite sure who is. - Floydian (talk) 20:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- No, Flickr user haljackey definitely was not the original author. We deleted this image at least once already, four years ago: Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Highway 401 18 lanes.jpg. It exists at this Flickr image since September 12, 2006 and is marked "all rights reserved" there. See also en:Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Highway 401 18 lanes. It was uploaded again as en:File:Highway_401_Miss.jpg back in 2007 and discussed again at en:Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Highway 401 Express-Collector. BTW, the user who uploaded the image en:File:Highway_401_Miss.jpg back in 2007 was en:User:Haljackey, who had previously already edited the file description of the earlier upload en:File:Highway 401 18 lanes.jpg... His upload three years later here at the Commons is hardly a newbie error. Delete or get an OTRS release from Flickr user Clashmaker. Lupo 14:29, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- And before I forget it: File:Highway 401 18 lanes.jpg had been transferred from the English Wikipedia: file en:File:241325999_6d230b2255_o.jpg, which had been uploaded on March 14, 2007 by en:User:Haljackey, correctly sourced to Clashmaker's photo at Flickr. Lupo 16:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- I have contacted this person in the hopes that it can be freely released (and that they took it). - Floydian (talk) 01:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Not original uploader's work; no OTRS permission received to retain. – Adrignola talk 18:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Probably copyright violation; download from a site (low res, etc.), like all the uploads from the user. 85.247.71.163 11:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. – Adrignola talk 00:53, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Probably it is a copyright violation; download from a site (low res, etc.), like all the uploads from the user. 85.247.71.163 11:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. – Adrignola talk 00:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Probably it is a copyright violation; download from a site (low res, etc.), like all the uploads from the user. 85.247.71.163 11:57, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. – Adrignola talk 00:53, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Source/Author=Argos Oil. So not selfmade. Can't find it on http://www.argos.nl, but the image on the front page is probably from the same series. -- Deadstar (msg) 14:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- The uploader is Jandirksnl. Argos Oil has a marketing and communications manager named Jan Dirks, who would most likely be authorised to grant licenses to their photos. Mr Dirks would have to send an e-mail to OTRS from his @argos.nl e-mail address to confirm that he is actually in control of the account here (since anyone could register an account by that name). —LX (talk, contribs) 11:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No OTRS permission received for images. – Adrignola talk 23:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
It is unlikely that this logo is self made. It is from http://www.corendon.nl/. However, could it qualify for PD-Ineligible? -- Deadstar (msg) 15:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Definitely qualifies for PD-ineligible, but change the summary and licensing. Bill william comptonTalk 16:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept: PD-ineligible. – Adrignola talk 00:55, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Seems to be a low res version of this image: http://www.dansbyran.se/assets/images/repertoar/workshops/afrobrasilianskdans/afro_scen_stor.jpg Darwin Ahoy! 18:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. Seems to be © Dansbyrån. De728631 (talk) 18:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - the upload has more of the scene to the right. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, indeed... Could simply mean that both have a common (unknown) source, though.-- Darwin Ahoy! 10:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Significant doubt about the origin given the resemblance to the Dansbyran work, the border, and the low resolution. Per COM:PRP. – Adrignola talk 23:17, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Familie des Fotografen widerruft Nutzungsrechte kommerzfunk (talk) 19:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - irrevocable license. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:51, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Speedy keep per COM:Licensing. Licenses given are irrevocable. De728631 (talk) 22:35, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete License was given by error. Photograph died some years after I bought Original Slides with signed paper "mit allen Rechten" (all rights inclusive). Photograph's family now says, that paper does not give any right - it's not a 'Rechteübertragung' it's rubbish. So what can I do? I like the image to be deleted to avoid future complications. Should not be a problem, it's not in use anywhere, is it? kommerzfunk (talk) , 12:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- Comment As far as I know copyrights can't be sold according to German law and are inherited when the author dies. "All rights inclusive" should however include the right of free use and these rights can be obtained by third parties (you). But that's just a legal layman's interpretation. If there are unclear rights issues though we might as well delete the files. De728631 (talk) 20:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of consideration for the uploader and because the file is not in use, we can make an exception. But don't make this a habit. – Adrignola talk 22:53, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Familie des Fotografen widerruft Nutzungsrechte kommerzfunk (talk) 19:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - irrevocable license. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Speedy keep per COM:Licensing. Licenses given are irrevocable. De728631 (talk) 22:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - License was given by error. Photograph died some years after I bought Original Slides with signed paper "mit allen Rechten" (all rights inclusive). Photograph's family now says, that paper does not give any right - it's not a 'Rechteübertragung' it's rubbish. So what can I do? I like the image to be deleted to avoid future complications. Should not be a problem, it's not in use anywhere, is it? kommerzfunk (talk) , 12:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- A deal does not need to be in writing to be valid. You own the original slides and you have a document to prove that you acquired the rights from the photographer. The family would not have a chance in court (but I am not a lawyer). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete: Not in use, and uploader has a good reason to want it deleted. Even if he is in the clear, legally, it could still cause a lot of problems. Unless you are willing to provide competent legal defense to Mr. Mlucan in the event he is taken to court, Mr. Kuiper, I suggest that you refrain from giving legal advice. Buddy431 (talk) 04:24, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of consideration for the uploader, and because this file is not in use, we can make an exception. – Adrignola talk 22:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
No work from Argentina Polarlys (talk) 19:43, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: The publication is based in Peru, not Argentina. Not PD. – Adrignola talk 03:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Google Street view screenshot 80.187.107.36 08:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sede Impiva Valencia.png. I don't know what the building would look like/where it is, but if it is the one here, it is obviously not a screenshot as there is scaffolding up against it. -- Deadstar (msg) 13:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep I may be missing something, but I do not understand why the nom thinks that this is a Google image. It is true that the uploader is currently blocked for uploading a variety of copyvios, but this one is not obvious, at least to me. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: this is clearly not Google Street View Jcb (talk) 21:18, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
SVG file is not allowed per {{PD-font}}, replaced with File:Songti-zh-hant.png Ben.MQ (talk) 09:05, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: PD-ineligible Jcb (talk) 21:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
No source given for underlying map. -- Deadstar (msg) 10:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 22:34, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Copyright violation; http://yeswecare.nl/index.php?language=en-GB&f=2 Kthoelen (talk) 13:22, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: PD-textlogo Jcb (talk) 21:22, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
No different from Classical pronunciation, which already has file Robert.Baruch (talk) 16:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 22:33, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Pronunciation already exists Robert.Baruch (talk) 16:51, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 22:33, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Pronunciation already exists Robert.Baruch (talk) 16:54, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 22:33, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
personal photo, hardly used for educational purpose Avron (talk) 19:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- 首先这不是私人图片，第二，维基百科什么时候有说上传的图片要有“教育目的（educational purpose）”了？说你们这些外国人真是吃饱了没事干乱搞。--Chintunglee (talk) 08:27, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
- Translation: Firstly this is not a personal photo, secondly, when did Wikipedia require uploaded image to have educational purposes? You foreigners have nothing better to do.--Ben.MQ (talk) 23:48, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Not within the Project scope. Commons tolerate no personal attack. Be careful what you say against other fellow contributors. Ben.MQ (talk) 23:33, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Contains copyrighted elements as seen on website http://www.osbornewood.com and would thus only be permissible with either explicit permission via OTRS from copyright-holder, or possibly on local wiki under terms of NFC/fair use Chzz ► 19:12, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete – Copyvio and no permission. Bill william comptonTalk 16:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Ben.MQ (talk) 23:49, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
SVG file is not allowed per {{PD-font}}, replaced with File:Liti.png Ben.MQ (talk) 09:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: PD-ineligible Jcb (talk) 14:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Not a place fro private photos or for someone searching a new lover Denniss (talk) 09:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Tabercil (talk) 12:34, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by D-Kuru: out of scope (unsused)
Personal webcam shot, no claim of educational value and so out of scope. Fæ (talk) 08:09, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Deleted Yann (talk) 20:13, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Personal photo with no foreseeable educational purpose. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:22, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted 01:05, 25 July 2011 by Mbdortmund, closed by Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Historical photo of some sort. Possibly copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. Unlikely uploader is author. Unlikely licensing claim is accurate. FASTILY (TALK) 01:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep with {{PD-anon-70}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- That should work. It would still be copyrighted in the US though, see the small script disclaimer in the {{PD-anon-70}} rationale. De728631 (talk) 22:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- Comment.The file is possibly taken from her (in Kazakh language). Geagea (talk) 00:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: with PD-anon-70 Jcb (talk) 18:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Оставить! полпред (talk) 17:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
wrong licensing info. I cannot see any info why this should be an anonymous work. The only info is "1929". Was the author's name never published? How do we know? Saibo (Δ) 21:40, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Sigh, sigh, Saibo... this is s o tedious. What are you trying to accomplish? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:27, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - per previous DR - Jcb (talk) 13:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Оставить! полпред (talk) 17:12, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
SVG file is not allowed per {{PD-font}}, replaced with File:Mingti-zh-hant.png Ben.MQ (talk) 09:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- From google search and what the category of the image suggests, it is a Microsoft typeface and likely to be copyrighted --Ben.MQ (talk) 04:04, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- Well, you might be up to something there. If this is a native Windows font taken straight from the screen then we should use a bitmap version to be on the safe side. De728631 (talk) 18:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- From google search and what the category of the image suggests, it is a Microsoft typeface and likely to be copyrighted --Ben.MQ (talk) 04:04, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: PD-ineligible Jcb (talk) 18:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Apparently taken from newspaper or magazine Lymantria (talk) 09:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Also:
- File:Абайділданов Әділбек.jpg
- File:Абдрахманов Сауытбек Абдрахманович.jpg
- File:Махмұт Абдрахманов.jpg
- File:АБДРАХМАНОВ МҰХАМЕДЖАН.jpg
- File:Абдуллин Хамза.jpg
- Delete Transliterated, the source reads "Kazakstan zhazushylary entsiklopediyasy", so apparently some sort of print encyclopedia. Copyvio. De728631 (talk) 18:43, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- Comment. All the uploades from the same user have the same problem. Added more files. Geagea (talk) 01:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 18:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Not useful for any project, as uploader only indicated that photograph was taken in "Ramgarh" but there are many places of this name in South Asia. It is also difficult to tell what animal is feeding from the basin. I left a message on the uploader's talk page on 10 July 2011 asking for more information about the photograph but received no response. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 10:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete – Doesn't seem fit for any educational use. And I think it's a cow. Bill william comptonTalk 16:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom 99of9 (talk) 12:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
"vinala language"? personal artwork? not used, not in scope Avron (talk) 12:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom 99of9 (talk) 12:43, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
small size, so I doubt "own work" Avron (talk) 12:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: unuseably small anyway 99of9 (talk) 12:44, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
unused wiki-logo Avron (talk) 12:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: uploaded 2006... no further contribs 99of9 (talk) 12:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
"Contactsheet to proof I am licenseholder of these pics. Internal use only." Does it work with the GNU-Licence? Avron (talk) 12:59, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- Deletion OK with me. Thor NL (talk) 13:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: uploader agrees 99of9 (talk) 12:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
"Contactsheet to proof I am licenseholder of these pics. Internal use only." Does it work with the GNU-Licence? Avron (talk) 13:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- Deletion OK with me. Thor NL (talk) 13:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: uploader agrees 99of9 (talk) 12:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
someone questions its copyright TCO (talk) 13:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep {{PD-US-no-notice}}. Can you get an exact date please? SV1XV (talk) 13:53, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- I sent an email to the museum site that is hosting the image asking for more details.TCO (talk) 14:07, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- Got a response back and forwarded as an OTRS. The text from the director of medical history, "What information we have about the image can be found on the main image page, on the left in the grey sidebar. I would guesss that the image is from about 1919, but we cannot be sure. For publication rights, I would contact the American Lung Association, as they are most likely to be the successors to the county TB associations."TCO (talk) 00:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- On file in ticket 2011072010000241. – Adrignola talk 14:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- Got a response back and forwarded as an OTRS. The text from the director of medical history, "What information we have about the image can be found on the main image page, on the left in the grey sidebar. I would guesss that the image is from about 1919, but we cannot be sure. For publication rights, I would contact the American Lung Association, as they are most likely to be the successors to the county TB associations."TCO (talk) 00:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- I sent an email to the museum site that is hosting the image asking for more details.TCO (talk) 14:07, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep As per SV1XV.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep per SV1XV. This is PD-US-no_notice if published before 1978 for sure, and virtually certainly if published before March 1, 1989. File:PreventDiseaseCarelessSpitting.jpg is a copy, with a guessed date of 1918, but that's not quite right. The Rensselaer County Tuberculosis Association was founded in 1919[8]; there are a couple of other copies on the web which guess a date of 1925, which seems like the best guess; this 1925 Syracuse magazine hints at a campaign against public spitting that year. The Rensselaer County Tuberculosis and Public Health Association (obviously renamed at some point) was dissolved in 1979. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep per above. More precise info very welcome. Infrogmation (talk) 14:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Pre 1978 with no copyright notice. U.S. National Library of Medicine states this poster is circa 1925 [9] The American Lung Association claims a 2003 copyright on this poster. Swtpc6800 (talk) 19:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep US-PD-no_notice. Age c. 1918-1920s.TCO (talk) 00:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- American Lung Association claim the copyright. It looks like it was published with a copyright notice as the text at the bottom appears to say "Rensselaer County Tuberculosis Association, Troy, N.Y.(c)". You just can't make it out very clearly because the slide is blurry. DrKiernan (talk) 16:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- That's not a proper copyright notice; it lacks a date, and that's as good as not having one at all. (Copyright Office PDF, page 5, left column.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- 1) As mentioned, that is not a valid copyright notice even if that is a C-in-a-circle, so it would be void, 2) The American Lung Association cannot claim a 2003 copyright on this, 3) even if it was a valid notice, the work would have had to be renewed with the Copyright Office in 1952/3, something we can search (highly unlikely that it was). Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- Fine. DrKiernan (talk) 09:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept. DrKiernan (talk) 07:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Superseded by File:RSAF_Roundel_1990-present.svg Limkopi (talk) 07:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Kept. In use. –Tryphon☂ 06:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
The lion head symbol was created in 1986 by the Government of Singapore (see "Lion head symbol of Singapore"), which thus owns the copyright in it. Unfortunately, in Singapore there is no rule that works by the Government are in the public domain: see "Commons:Licensing#Government works". The work will enter the public domain 70 years after the end of the calendar year in which the work was made, i.e., 1 January 2057. I have transferred it back to the English Wikipedia as "File:RSAF Roundel (1990–present, low visibility).svg". — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 08:00, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
- Keep, derivative of Singaporean Air Force roundel. See Deletion requests/File:RSAF Roundel 1990-present.svg for further comment. Fry1989 (talk) 08:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:45, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
The lion head symbol was created in 1986 by the Government of Singapore (see "Lion head symbol of Singapore"), which thus owns the copyright in it. Unfortunately, in Singapore there is no rule that works by the Government are in the public domain: see "Commons:Licensing#Government works". The work will enter the public domain 70 years after the end of the calendar year in which the work was made, i.e., 1 January 2057. It should be transferred to a Wikipedia project and used under a fair-use justification, if this is allowed. See "Commons:Deletion requests/File:RSAF Roundel 1990-present.svg". — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 15:25, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Speedy delete. This was uploaded again after the DR above. If a user objects to a DR, our process is to use Commons:Undeletion requests rather than simply uploading it again. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:33, 21 July 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)
Own work seems to be highly doubtful: no EXIF data and low image resolution High Contrast (talk) 16:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, authorship unsure, user blocked for copyright violations. A.J. (talk) 09:23, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Files from JungleBoy
[edit]
- File:Garantido.jpg
- File:PaulinhoFaria.JPG
- File:PaulinhoFaria3.JPG
- File:PaulinhoFaria2.JPG
- File:AlvoradaGarantido.jpg
- File:DonaMariaAngela.jpg
- File:Boi Garantido dançando na Alvorada.jpg
All these photos are problematic, and seem to have been grabbed from Orkut in 2008, except 3 which have exif data because they are photographs of older photographs (therefore the EXIF is irrelevant). The original photo from which File:PaulinhoFaria.JPG was cropped can be found in Orkut and apparently belongs to the Faria family which organizes this festival. Two other copyvios from this user have already been found and deleted. Darwin Ahoy! 17:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
The file has wrong infos on the author and the license, since at least one of the pics contained in the collage (see Katedra Chrystusa Zbawiciela w Moskwie 2.jpg) is taken not by the uploader of the collage and is not PD licensed. I suppose that the same applies for the other parts of the collage. - A.S. 19:21, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: I spent a while trying to find the source images. I found some, but not all. Authors of collages should ensure they link to their source images... especially since some of those source images were CC-licensed and REQUIRE attribution. 99of9 (talk) 13:24, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
no original source/author as tagged by me before. The original uploader has uploaded several copyvios / did not understand the licensing rules. Saibo (Δ) 19:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete I'm the user who reverted the first delete request made by Saibo. Sorry, I didn't know about author's copyvios. I thought you were requesting an explicit source in the template. Now I suppose you can ask for a speedy deletion, no problem for me Jalo 08:00, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- Comment. What about this? Geagea (talk) 02:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- Either he is the photographer or has borrowed several photos by another photographer of this house. I do not mind to keep it then... But the uploader lost my trust, sorry. --Saibo (Δ) 02:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- The panoramio looks to me o.k. and more important you claim her that: Maybe the other photos (without source) with the K610 mobile phone are also his. Geagea (talk) 08:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- Either he is the photographer or has borrowed several photos by another photographer of this house. I do not mind to keep it then... But the uploader lost my trust, sorry. --Saibo (Δ) 02:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: http://www.panoramio.com/photo/10186307 the user appears to be the author of this one 99of9 (talk) 13:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Seems to be a screenshot from the television series It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia. Nick Moreau (talk) 21:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Comment Retouched picture captioned as "Charlie Kelly dressed as Green Man outside the Philadelphia Eagles football tryouts" in en:The Gang Gets Invincible. Teofilo (talk) 15:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: per caption, I've included it in the file description 99of9 (talk) 13:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
