Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2011/07/20
 |
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}
![52 File:"Hanoi_Jane_Urinal_Sticker".jpg](#File:"Hanoi_Jane_Urinal_Sticker".jpg){kind=link}
_.JPG){kind=link}
Low res and no exif, most probably yet another copyvio uploaded by yet another sockpuppet of Vitor Mazuco Darwin Ahoy! 04:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Last remaining image of copyvio only account, obvious copyvio, no need to wait for the DR Darwin Ahoy! 04:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
This is a file I uploaded on Wikimedia by mistake. It should have gone in Wikipedia. It is the image of a person that I only want on the wikipedia page of the person (that I have created), not for use everywhere. Thanks and Sorry! Veenarp (talk) 03:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: good-faith request by uploader 1 day after upload. Túrelio (talk) 08:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Poster in public space, no FOP in France Ben.MQ (talk) 13:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
This is a virtual projection, in fact. The both poster of the 2011-Tour weren't printed in big format at the end! Stefhort (talk) 14:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- Then it would likely be copyvio?--Ben.MQ (talk) 14:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- Well, considering that I'm the director of the show and that I'm working for this company, as well that I'm sure that I don't violate any right, I wouldn't consider this as copyvio! you can check in the website of the Cirque Starlight. --Stefhort (talk) 21:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- Above user works for the company, detailed in OTRS ticket 2011072110010602 and at http://www.starlight-production.com/spectacle/distribution/. – Adrignola talk 16:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Withdrawn. Ben.MQ (talk) 16:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
The photo is not of Bert Hoselitz unfortunately but of John Nash. I'm coauthoring an article about Hoselitz for the English Wikipedia; my coauthors know for certain this photo shows Nash. We can't find a public domain photo of Hoselitz but I'm told by a writer about Hoselitz (who knew him) that by this age Hoselitz was balding in front. The account that posted this image has not posted other images on Commons nor to the Polish Wikipedia since 2009. Econterms (talk) 23:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: A bad name is not a reason to delete. Please use {{Rename}} and change the description appropriately. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
No reliable permissions info. The source info is a dead link. The |account which uploaded it has not participated in Wikipedia project for 2.5 years. The photo is not of Bert Hoselitz, as discussed at the previous deletion request. Therefore the category information was wrong and I have removed it. It was suggested at the previous deletion request to rename this image instead of deleting it, but we do not have any reason to use this image, or any page actively linking to it -- because we do not know when or where it was taken. We are not short of photos of John Nash and we need not officially make a guess that this is a photo of him and it does not seem plausible that it is a photo of any other particular person. I have good info from en:User:DavidFrankMitch that it is not Bert Hoselitz however. Econterms (talk) 15:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted (not by me) Jcb (talk) 15:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Originally tagged with no permission. Could be PD-ineligible, thoughts? --ZooFari 00:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Delete, its complexe enough and its from the UK. Permission from the copyright holder or delete. --Martin H. (talk) 01:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)- migrate to en:wikipedia with "non-free logo" Slowking4 (talk) 15:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Originally tagged with 'no permission'. Could be PD-inelible, thoughts? --ZooFari 00:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Comment Ineligible for copyright in the US, but this is French... /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:42, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Low-quality (resolution and pixelation) poor file-format unused (replaceable by File:Demjanov Fattori-endo.png) DMacks (talk) 00:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. --Leyo 07:08, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom 99of9 (talk) 11:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Low-quality (resolution and pixelation) poor file-format unused (replaceable by File:Demjanov Fattori-exo.png) DMacks (talk) 00:38, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. --Leyo 07:08, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom 99of9 (talk) 11:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to be uploader's own work. Appears to be a book cover, similar to this. Not the first copyvio by this uploader. AussieLegend (talk) 02:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- comment migrate to en:wikipedia with "Non-free book cover" Slowking4 (talk) 15:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Studio style photo of an individual. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 05:04, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
This is really a derivative image of this person on the big screen rather than a photo of her in person. This is not really a true photo of her and De Minimis cannot apply here. Leoboudv (talk) 05:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
no Source, Date, Author Quantité négligeable (talk) 06:24, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- As to the author and date, the description said "Unknown photographer" and mentioned the year 1924. But we do need a proper source, the Estonian Wikipedia must've gotten it from somewhere before. De728631 (talk) 19:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Fake license. Girl was killed in 1965 and she was not famous before she die. ShinePhantom (talk) 07:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Tagged as copyvio by User:Leoboudv. Convert to DR to discuss if the structure is de minimis. Ben.MQ (talk) 07:38, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete because DeMinimis should be a case where a new building occupies perhaps 10-15% of the picture. But here the Louvre pyramid is about 30% of the picture. Its really very prominent and eyecatching. I wonder if Commons can really keep it under De Minimis. But I'll let the community decide. PS: I'll flickr pass this image since the flickr account owner licenses his images as ARR today. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Keep In my opinion it's a de minimis. Pyramid is not the main focus of the picture, plus it's occupation is less than 20 percent of pic. -- Blackcat (talk) 11:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)- Delete De minimis is strictly interpreted under French case law. One important question is: is the artwork deliberately included in the picture? Conversely, could the main subject of the picture have been represented without including the allegedly secondary subject? In this case it seems clear to me the Pyramid was deliberately included as a composition effect. In terms of visual impact the Pyramid is an important part of the picture: it stands in the foreground, and it's more brilliantly lit. I don't believe this picture is De minimis under Common Law, and it certainly isn't under French law. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 08:12, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: That's the heart of the problem as Admin Jastrow notes. The photographer deliberately framed the picture to include a large portion of the modern Louvre pyramid but its visual impact is so striking that De Minimis cannot apply here; it totally destroys any basis for this interpretation of case law. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete The pyramid is too prominent in the photo to be de minimis If the photographer had stepped forward to a point where you the pyramid wasn't included, it would be a very different image. --RL0919 (talk) 01:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Unfortunately, per delete votes above. 99of9 (talk) 11:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
insufficient resolution (I mean actual, usable resolution, not pixel count) G.Hagedorn (talk) 08:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:28, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Picture of a recent building and no Freedom of panorama in France Léna (talk) 10:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:28, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
No Freedom of panorama in France and this is a picture of a recent building. Léna (talk) 10:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:28, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
This is a professional photograph by one Gerard de Haan, see http://www.gerarddehaan.nl/portfolio/portraits/index.html where more photographs can be seen, including on of Vrieze. THere is no indication that this picture has been licenced under a free licence, the website says "(c)2011 Gerard de Haan Photography" and the site does have a section 'free photos' but this picture is not there. User name LWessels does not sound like "G de Haan", though could be his PR agent Pbech (talk) 10:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:28, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Picture of a 2001 statue in France, a country with no freedom of panorama. Léna (talk) 10:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:29, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Picture of a 2001 statue in France, a country with no freedom of panorama. Léna (talk) 10:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete No FoP in France, sorry for uploading copyrighted content. PierreSelim (talk) 09:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:29, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Sculpture by a still-alive sculptor in a country (France) with no freedom of panorama Léna (talk) 10:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:29, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Photography of a recent building in France, country with no freedom of panorama Léna (talk) 10:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Delete as per nom Warfieldian (talk) 22:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom, clear architectural artistry 99of9 (talk) 11:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Photography of a recent building in France, country with no freedom of panorama Léna (talk) 10:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Delete as per nom Warfieldian (talk) 22:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom, clear architectural artistry 99of9 (talk) 11:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Photography of a recent building in France, country with no freedom of panorama Léna (talk) 10:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Delete as per nom Warfieldian (talk) 22:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom, clear architectural artistry 99of9 (talk) 11:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Dubious image for suspect uses. Either way it is an unused personal image - out of scope. Tony Wills (talk) 11:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Description says "Copyright - Ronald H. Miller" He did not give permission here, only someone else who may have spoke to him about "free use " Hold and wave (talk) 11:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- comment good faith attempt to provide permission. use OTRS process first, before deletion. Slowking4 (talk) 15:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Incorrectly licensed: PD-Self does not apply if you have not created the work yourself. The image is taken from http://www.sincfala.be/sf/images/stories/collecties_db/Audiovisuele%20materialen/AVMPKHE00134.jpg (larger version, different colour). A 1928 postcard, which could be PD-Old, but there is not enough information to verify.If this is kept, perhaps we can upload the larger version from the site. -- Deadstar (msg) 11:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:0 Soignies - Château Paternoster (côté Parc).jpg Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 12:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Google is provided as the source 117Avenue (talk) 13:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- speedy - Getty watermark. NVO (talk) 17:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: obvious copyvio 99of9 (talk) 12:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Low-quality (resolution and pixelation) poor file-format unused (replaceable by File:Demjanov mech rearrangement.png) DMacks (talk) 13:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom 99of9 (talk) 12:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Low-quality (resolution and pixelation) poor file-format unused (replaceable by File:Demjanov mech SN2.png) DMacks (talk) 13:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom 99of9 (talk) 12:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Low-quality (resolution and pixelation) poor file-format unused (replaceable by File:Demjanov_Rearrangement_Scheme.png) DMacks (talk) 13:24, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Agreed, this is of little use. Any needs for it are better served by the alternative. Tree Falling In The Forest (talk) 08:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
I strongly doubt that this is the user's Own Work, and the graphic elements seem too ornate to qualify for PD-INELIGIBLE or PD-TEXTLOGO DS (talk) 13:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Low-quality (resolution and pixelation) poor file-format unused (uses replaced by higher quality separate diagrams of each stage). Also, missing steps, so this is not the full "mehanism" DMacks (talk) 13:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Low-quality (resolution and pixelation) poor file-format unused (uses replaced by higher quality separate diagrams of each stage). Missing key intermediates and includes suspicious mechasnisms vs standard textbook DMacks (talk) 13:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Low-quality (resolution and pixelation) poor file-format unused (uses replaced by higher quality separate diagrams of each stage). Missing key intermediates and includes suspicious mechasnisms vs standard textbook DMacks (talk) 13:38, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Incorrect structure, see en:Talk:Ammonium diuranate und this discussion. Leyo 14:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep In use -> in scope. Multichill (talk) 19:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- Inappropriate statement: If there will be an agreement, that the structure is incorrect (there is IMHO no doubt), it will be removed from the two articles. If you prefer, I can also do this right now. --Leyo 19:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete remove from articles, where it is verifiably incorrect as used and delete as incorrect and unused/unusable (because it is incorrect). DMacks (talk) 22:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Info Now removed from the fr-WP and nl-WP article. --Leyo 07:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete completely unused und incorrect --JWBE (talk) 22:14, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: @Leyo -- Multichill's comment was entirely appropriate -- if it is in use, it cannot be deleted for scope or content Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- If it is agreed that the image should be deleted after the normal time for discussion at Deletion Requests has passed you will need to replace all instances where the image is used with the superior file. You can find where the image is being used via GlobalUsage. After all replacements have been made an admin will delete the image. --Leyo 14:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
for personnal reason Andersonfalcaoduarte (talk) 15:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete user image, not used. -- Deadstar (msg) 15:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Image not really found on source. It appears here with the notice "Copyright © 2010 All rights reserved FAMILY FIRST Party". Damiens.rf 15:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- It seems that it did appear on the linked source page [1], which also provides specific permission for the image as CC by SA 3.0. Somewhere along the line the site has been changed, but it looks like it was released under an appropriate license. - Bilby (talk) 16:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. The permission page of the official website is clear enough, especially coupled with [2] and [3], showing that it indeed applies to this photo. (It would be good if a Commons reviewer left a review note on the description page, in case the permission page ever gets deleted from the external website.) -- Asclepias (talk) 16:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Incomplete source do not allow us to verify the PD claim. Damiens.rf 15:13, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. Created by the White House Photograph Office. (But replacing it with a non-flipped and larger copy closer to the original would be better.) -- Asclepias (talk) 15:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Why would one doubt that that source link once worked? This is closely related to http://arcweb.archives.gov/arc/action/ExternalIdSearch?id=3555656 /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
image is so tiny that it's practically illegible, there's no information about what exactly it is or where it comes from, it's not used on any pages except for places where people were referring to logos in general. Once this thing is gone, we should lock "LOGO.jpg" to make sure no one else tries uploading images with this name. DS (talk) 15:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete : I agree : It is some cyber squatting --Civa (talk) 20:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Logo seems to come from http://www.avespatagonia.com/ (permission?) and is unused anyway ("use" on :de is probably an error due to the extremely generic filename). -- Túrelio (talk) 13:43, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete This logo seems not too simple for Commons. The page should be protected under recreation anyway. Otourly (talk) 15:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. -- Common Good (talk) 18:29, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
image has no source information and is not used by any page DS (talk) 15:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Photograph of a photograph – insufficient evidence that the original photograph was taken by the uploader or that he was authorized to license it to the Commons. In any case, such a photograph is not useful for any project, and it is not in use. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 16:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- ... huh. It is a photo of a photo. I initially perceived it as a photo taken from an airplane window. DS (talk) 19:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- I've never seen an airplane window of that shape before. ;-) — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 19:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
The user has numerous copyvio deleted but claimed to be own work. Ben.MQ (talk) 16:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
The other copyvio cases have been deleted. These are large image with EXIF but looks suspicious - They are taken by different camera models and the last one is photo by erik ERXON. --Ben.MQ (talk) 16:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- For File:M.I_SHORT_BOY.jpg (Nikon D91) The EXIF refers to a photographer connected with the label.
- File:Audu M.jpg (Canon EOS 50D) got a dubious watermark.
- File:Jesse J.jpg has again some different author and a big watermark.
- No such obvious information for File:J - Copy.jpg (Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II) or File:M.I Mama.jpg (NIKON D200) but altogether it not looks trustworthy. --Martin H. (talk) 17:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: 18:39, 23 July 2011 by Yann, closed by Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
In Dec. 2010, someone tag this picture as an work of a living artist. Indeed it seems to be a modern work... so {{PD-Art}} doesn't apply for it. Giro720 (talk) 17:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- The painter Robert Lentz is still alive and there is no indication for a free license. Delete as copyvio. De728631 (talk) 19:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- evident copyvio, see here, Delete. --Bjs (talk) 09:18, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- evident copyvio, see here,
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Unauthorized derivative work of the artwork on the truck. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 17:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- This was originally posted to NL.wiki, which means it was most likely taken in .nl, which places it under NL laws on Freedom of Panorama, which makes it permissible. DS (talk) 19:20, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think a piece of artwork on the side of a vehicle can be considered as being permanently located in a public place. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 19:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Taken from Michigan Tech website Two Hearted River (talk) 17:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Taken from Michigan Tech website Two Hearted River (talk) 17:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Low quality and a non-descriptive name. The image can easily be replaced with File:Citroen ds3 red.jpg. De728631 (talk) 19:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Description missing ; What is it ? Where ? So, no encyclopedic value ; No use Tangopaso (talk) 19:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Derivative work of copyrighted sticker. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 19:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
![19:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2011/07/20#c-ChrisiPK-2011-07-20T19:31:00.000Z-File:"Hanoi_Jane_Urinal_Sticker".jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
![14:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2011/07/20#c-Jameslwoodward-2011-07-27T14:03:00.000Z-File:"Hanoi_Jane_Urinal_Sticker".jpg){kind=link}
Promotional image of some sort, used in a deleted advert on en.wikipedia. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 19:32, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:04, 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. FASTILY (TALK) 19:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Not St Stephens Tower. St Stephens Tower is the Clock Tower at the Palace of Westminster. 188.221.121.73 19:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep I respect and appreciate the anonymous user's desire to correct what they perceive as an error. However, I must say that this method of achieving the intended effect strikes me as extreme—it would be more effective to simply propose the renaming of the file, which is a good photograph of its subject (whatever that subject might be).
- To address the user's argument, however, this photograph does show St Stephen's Tower. This page's content has mysteriously disappeared (a conspiracy, no doubt), but once it is restored—I have drawn the attention of the website's administrators to the matter—it will confirm that the Clock Tower has never been officially called "St Stephen's Tower", despite the widespread myth that this is its name. The structure is simply called "The Clock Tower", an admittedly unimpressive name which partly explains why so many people think there must be more to it, even though they were attentive enough to notice that the popular nickname "Big Ben" normally refers to the bell rather than the tower. Now, what the photograph in question shows is the real St Stephen's Tower of the Palace of Westminster, according to this page (see paragraph just above the photograph). Located in the middle of the Palace's west front, between Westminster Hall and Old Palace Yard, it contains St Stephen's Entrance, the public entrance to the Palace, and several floors of offices. I can get into more detail if needed, but I believe I have proved my point. Waltham, The Duke of 23:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: No good reason to delete. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
No source CharlieEchoTango (talk) 19:38, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, copyvio! (wait a long time at the "animated" image on the right) (oh and here)Mabdul (talk) 20:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
No source CharlieEchoTango (talk) 19:38, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Copyvio? CharlieEchoTango (talk) 19:39, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, copyvio! Mabdul (talk) 20:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Copyvio? CharlieEchoTango (talk) 19:39, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, copyvio! Mabdul (talk) 20:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Promotional image of some sort. Used in a now deleted advert on en.wikipedia. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. no foreseeable use. FASTILY (TALK) 19:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Logo, used in a now deleted advert on en.wikipedia. no foreseeable use. FASTILY (TALK) 19:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, copyvio! Mabdul (talk) 20:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
The reproduction of this coin is not - and never was - licensed under Creative Commons. The reproduction (photography) is unfree, the image was transfered from en:File:Ivan Asen 2-coin-gold.JPG with the false information that it is freely licensed and that the en.wp uploader is the author. Martin H. (talk) 20:04, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
I made a mistake in the classification table an I would like to make a right one Kadwalan (talk) 20:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep You can edit the svg and upload a new version (link near the bottom of the file page). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
unused private image, humor - out of scope Santosga (talk) 21:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Image is only free for non-commercial use until 70 years following the architect's death per COM:FOP#Iceland. Fingalo (talk) 21:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
The .svg format did not work as intended, so the image was replaced with File:Enochian alphabet.png Obankston (talk) 21:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:16, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work. Looks like a screenshot from a website. – Adrignola talk 21:08, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:16, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Image is only free for non-commercial use until 70 years following the architect's death per COM:FOP#Iceland. Fingalo (talk) 21:14, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:16, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Account used to upload this image is a sock puppet of a longterm abusive user on both the English Wikipedia and the Portuguese Wikipedia, known as Diogomauricio3. A user with such a status cannot be trusted with copyright and as such I think this image should be removed as a precaution. The lack of camera meta data and the relatively low resolution for a camera do raise suspicion also. CT Cooper · talk 21:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Image is only free for non-commercial use until 70 years following the architect's death per COM:FOP#Iceland. Fingalo (talk) 21:24, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Uploaded with bogus FAL license, possible PD-ineligible, if not for the MVCCorporation logo, but it may be de minimis here Darwin Ahoy! 21:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Image is only free for non-commercial use until 70 years following the architect's death per COM:FOP#Iceland. Fingalo (talk) 22:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Uploaded with bogus FAL license, not simple, but much possibly PD-old, though more information is needed Darwin Ahoy! 22:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Image is only free for non-commercial use until 70 years following the architect's death per COM:FOP#Iceland. Fingalo (talk) 22:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
unused low-resolution, replaceable by File:ACh.png and numerous other png and svg in Category:Acetylcholine DMacks (talk) 22:13, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Can't find evidence that this comound exists (no hits for name in google or scifinder), and drawing is not useful (impossible tangled geometry, making image unusable, and undefined stereochemistry) to figure out what is meant. Structure-search finds many specific stereoisomers, any of which could be drawn clearly if there was a need. DMacks (talk) 22:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- The name is mentioned in doi:10.1007/BF00484367, but no structure is given. --Leyo 12:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC) PS. Special:ListFiles/Urtica might be worth being inspected.
- Lots of useless IMO but not chemically-offensively so (other than already tagged) to a quick glance. DMacks (talk) 13:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
This item was likely not self-created;if it was, then we need OTRS permission to verify the identity of the uploader(s). Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- I'm glad you opened this DR, I share the same doubts about this logo.-- Darwin Ahoy! 22:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:20, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
The user who originally uploaded this to the English Wikipedia has a total of 5 image uploads, four of which are now deleted due to copyvio, no source info, and other issues, making this the last image of theirs that has not been investigated. Due to their other image issues, I'm doubtful as to whether this file is really their image to upload. It has no metadata and the original upload only said "is mine" with a {{PD-author}} template. Killiondude (talk) 23:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- http://music.aol.com/sessions/green-day-the-kids-are-alright-sessions, photo gallery linked on the right side, image number 8 of 20. Caption reads: Green Day at AOL Music Sessions held in New York,September 20, 2004 Photo Credit: Clay Enos for AOL. Clear copyright violation and stupid uploader says „is mine“. --82.83.51.74 10:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned company logo. used in a now deleted advert on en.wikipedia. no foreseeable use. FASTILY (TALK) 05:04, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Ezarateesteban 22:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Low-quality (resolution and pixelation) poor file-format unused and mechanistically flawed (if intent is to illusatrate mech, a key step is missing; and this is not the usual diazotization mechanism anyway (usually drawn with "NO+" intermediate not additional catalytic nitrite)) DMacks (talk) 13:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Low quality, unused file with technical problems in the chemistry Ed (Edgar181) 18:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
doubtful license Postoronniy-13 (talk) 16:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Ezarateesteban 22:16, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
The description says this is based upon album artwork. Given that, I don't think the uploader can truly call it his own work. Am I incorrect? LadyofShalott (talk) 01:55, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- I never said I created the logo... I created the file with it and which I uploaded here. I don't know what else you want to hear. The picture itself is my own work. It's not screenshot or photo of anything, my work made by ordinary MS Paint and than saved in JPG format by PhotoShop for better quality. I only wanted to do something for Wikipedia and so I did.
But if you want to delete it... be my guest. It seems you have decided to do it before you finished this message, which clearly says that this "deletion request" is nothing more than a charade just for show, with no other purpose than to satisfy the protocol. So I really don't care about decision, which already has been made.
Niusereset (talk) 22:07, 24 July 2011 (UTC)- Actually, I am only one person who does not have the ability to delete the image. I just raised the issue for discussion, and others may or may not agree. LadyofShalott (talk) 03:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
This qualifies as PD-text-logo, but it remains to be proven if it is in scope.
- Is the band notable? Probably, see Blackmore's Night.
- Is this actually the group's logo, or is it Niusereset's creation? If it is not actually the group's logo, then it is out of scope.
I'd like to suggest that Niusereset cool it a little. A DR is a perfectly ordinary reaction to your not understanding that "own work" has to be the whole thing, not just the current realization. A DR is nothing like "a charade just for show" -- it is an opportunity for the community to make a decision. A deletion requires at least two people, one of whom must be an elected Administrator, to decide that an image cannot be kept. LadyofShalott even expressed her uncertainty in the nomination. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC) Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- I know what DR is and I know its purpose... but the style of message from LadyofShalott, that is what makes me angry, what makes me feel like the dessision was already made.
This file woudn't be the first deleted nor the last deleted file here. If you want to change description atributes... change it. I'm not well acquainted with this license stuff.
I'm not exactly sure if it can be called "logo" I called that file like that 'cause it was the best idea I have for a name. It is just a style how their name is printed on some of their albumes. I recreated it for wikimedia. It is almost like the style used for "Harry Potter" sign... there are dozens of fonts simulating this style so anyone can recreate it with them... It would be also copyrighted?
Niusereset (talk) 09:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)- First, let me say that LadyofShalott's nomination above is gentle compared to many -- she says "I don't think" and Am I incorrect?" Often the nominator has already made up her or his mind -- else why the nomination -- but LadyofShalott makes it clear that not even her mind is made up.
- The problem here is not any copyright. Fundamentally, anything that is only a few words of text does not have a copyright, so this is OK there.
The problem is that it is your creation, not the band's. Fan interpretations of what a band's logo might be are out-of-scope.Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Therefore, Delete.- Out of scope menas what? I looked on the page, but... too much english text with no version in my language... I started to read but I realized I don't understand what it means...
This file is not just some fan-art. It is recreation of a "label" or how to call it, which was used on several of their albums. Not all of them, but on more than one. It is not just some picture with the bands name... the name there is created and wrote in a very specific way, created to be the closest to the original, used on several of their albumes. I cannot upload here the entire cover, it would be copyright violation. I cannot upload here from the very same reason the cut of a cover with their name. Instead I made the whole new picture by myself, to made that emblem to looks like the same as it is on the artwork, without using the artwork.
And you are right... I apologise to LadyofShalott...
Niusereset (talk) 20:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- Out of scope menas what? I looked on the page, but... too much english text with no version in my language... I started to read but I realized I don't understand what it means...
- OK, let's work this out. "Out-of-scope" means that an image (not this one) is not within the broad range of images that the Commons community has decided it wants here -- Commons is not Flickr, so we do not host images of friends and family, art created by amateurs, poor quality images, and other images that do not have an educational purpose.
- So, I did what I should have done earlier and Googled "Blackmore's Night" images. The results show that this is clearly the type face, arrangement, and colors that they use on several albums, so it's in scope for me. As I noted above, it is PD-text-logo, so there are no copyright problems -- Keep. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- So, I did what I should have done earlier and Googled "Blackmore's Night" images. The results show that this is clearly the type face, arrangement, and colors that they use on several albums, so it's in scope for me. As I noted above, it is PD-text-logo, so there are no copyright problems --
- Thanks for explanation :-) And thanks for chaging vote ;-)
Niusereset (talk) 20:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for explanation :-) And thanks for chaging vote ;-)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
From en:Edward Hutton (writer) (1875–1969), not public domain. --Martin H. (talk) 15:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
...and very poor description. File:Toledo - Vista.jpg (p184, Toledo), File:Cádiz - Vista.jpg (p250, Cadiz) are not credited to someone else but from Edward Hutton. But File:Granada - Vista.jpg (p272, Granada from the Alhambra) File:Granada_-_Patio_de_los_Leones.jpg (p278, The Court of the Lions, Granada) are photos by F. Lineares, Granada. The biographical data for this uploads must be added, according to COM:L#License_information, to verify that the files are public domain (or not) according to COM:L#Spain 80 years following the photographers death. Pages and titles refer to Hutton's The cities of Spain, Methuen Publishing, London 1906. --Martin H. (talk) 15:24, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Uploaded with bogus FAL license and fairuse claims, though may probably qualify as a simple logo, anyway. Darwin Ahoy! 23:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep PD-textlogo. De728631 (talk) 19:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Nothing copyrightable. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: PD-textlogo Jcb (talk) 22:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
COM:D#Self-promotion or vandalism/attack. This logo is being used by one editor (99% exclusively on English Wikipedia) for vandalism purposes - that is, replacing the legitimate logo of w:National Transitional Council with this fake logo. Singularity42 (talk) 00:20, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
you again are you the leader behind this movement many others have come but they listen to resoan you are diffrent. I will stop now because this is not about mudslings this is about right and wrong 1. My Logo is used by other people on other wiki's that is good because they may have a better assement of the situation in liya after all there goverment has replaced it with the regime of gadfii 2. i based this logo on the standing wikipage now it is oraphaned it will be removed soon because of support people other than me are removing it from wikipedia 3. Gaming the sysetem as these users are doing is not allowed i will the proscution of them to the admin's they cannot copyright an image just to place it on wikipedia
Ulatimaly the desiesion will come to the admin but by then the other image will be removed if you delete this there will be no more seal of the ntc singing off...--Rancalred (talk) 00:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- I don't understand anything you have said above, but I'll try to reply. I am not "a leader behind this movement" - I have simply been reverting your vandalism on english-Wikipedia. You logo is being used for disruptive purposes, as you are using this 'modified' logo to replace the organization's actual logo. The National Transitional Council's real logo is on the system - it can be found at w:File:National Transitional Council logo.svg. Singularity42 (talk) 10:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
How is this vandalism i am saying that you cant copyright a logo just to use it on wikpedia it is not copyrighted by it's source contury so, as ntc.libya.org is libya based it be moot because as is seen it is only copyrighted by the wikpedian that created it --Rancalred (talk) 23:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- Why do you keep going on about copyright? I have not nominated this file for deletion due to copyright. I am nominating it because it's only use is for vandalism purposes. That is, you uploaded this file, and then went around various Wikipedia articles to replace the actual logo of an organization with this fake logo. You were told not to do it. You continued to do it until you were given a block warning. This file has not been used for any legitimate purpose other than disruptive purposes to vandalize articles related to this organization. It is therefore out of this project's scope. Singularity42 (talk) 01:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
After Speaking To Singularity42 about this on his talk page i have changed "Department" to "Committee" if any body has any concerns about this image speak now or forever hold their peace--Rancalred (talk) 13:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- You seem to have misinterpreted what I said on my Wikipedia talk page. I'm not sure if it is accidential or intentional. In any event, I have explained myself multiple times in multiple forums on Commons and Wikipedia. Changing it from a handwritten "Department" to a handwritten "Committee" does not change the fact that you are using this graphic for the sole purpose of replacing this orgaization's actual logo with your fake one. I will leave it in the hands of the admins now. Singularity42 (talk) 21:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete: Out of COM:PS and leaking essential information such as license and source. I just had a look at the revision-history. That was enough. -- RE rillke questions? 14:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Your arugment has no basis in reality (PC-0) Do not post the delete signal if you are not an admin the purpose of this image is to represent a entiy and or politcal opioin so do not post any more arugments such as this that would be misamendor vanalism. --Rancalred (talk) 20:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- The file was uploaded on 15th of July 2011 and you got a warning that this file may be deleted if no license is added after seven days. 15+7= yes, today, so we can speedydelete it. once there was an invention, it's name is point, dot, fullstop, ... to indicate the end of a sentence.
- Even if you do not believe, I am allowed to express my opinion as non-admin here, when I am polite. -- RE rillke questions? 21:42, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
There Are No Rules preventening you from expressing your opoion just please do not use the delete stamp if you are not an admin the offending file has been replaced by a svg file that still offends wkipedia policy i have used it plus the master file to make a svg for this. --Rancalred (talk) 14:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC) The Svg version will not upload plese if want to propose a new svg please do so here also Libya has been gold-locked indenfenitly this is bad for this image --Rancalred (talk) 22:08, 30 July 2011 (UTC) Because of the gold-lock a de-aminship trail will be put in place on wikipedia contiue all dissuion there --Rancalred (talk) 18:22, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Delete: The word "Council" on the seal, has been poorly replaced by a scribble. Besides, there is an svg version already available on Wikipedia, so keeping this poorly edited version is pointless. TRAJAN 117 (talk) 01:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 13:39, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Picture of a work made in 2007 while there is no freedom of panorama in France Léna (talk) 10:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Keep I think the answer of Tisséo to my question says pictures are allowed.
Je vous remercie pour votre email et pour l’intérêt que vous portez aux œuvres d’art du réseau des transports en commun de l’agglomération Toulousaine. L’ambition des commandes publiques des lignes A, B et de la ligne de tramway T1 est de proposer un ensemble cohérent et représentatif de la création visuelle contemporaine.
L’autorisation de prise de vues qui est accordée, sur demande, concerne des reportages effectués dans un lieu public. A cet égard, Tisséo attire l’attention sur les contraintes juridiques liées au droit à l’image des personnes qui pourraient figurer sur les reportages, et dont l’autorisation peut, dans certaines circonstances, être requise. Il en est de même s’agissant des œuvres qui ornent l’ensemble du réseau métro Tisséo.
De surcroit et pour répondre à votre question, Tisséo autorise la prise de vue mais se dégage de toute responsabilité quant à l’exploitation (reproduction et représentation) des images prises sur le réseau.
Enfin, Vous pourrez, en cliquant sur le lien ci-dessous, découvrir le fascicule consultable, téléchargeable et imprimable des 43 œuvres d'art qui agrémentent le réseau métro/tram Tisséo : http://www.tisseo.fr/tisseo/nos-demarches/arts
Cordialement.
Direction de la Communication - Tisséo
Message reçu aujourd'hui. Traumrune (talk) 22:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Sadly, I'll have to agree with Léna there. Traumrune, the mail you have recieved does autorise you to take the photograph, but it does not autorise you to publish it afterwards. The snag here is the copyright of the authors of the artwork. To have the right to publish the photograph, you should contact the authors and ask them to allow the licensing of tyour images under a Free licence (Cc-by-sa, for instance), and send the mail to the OTRS. Sorry, as Léna says, you are a victim of the lack of a French law on "Freedom of panorama"; if you had taken the photograph in Germany or in Switzerland, it would not have been a problem. Rama (talk) 05:46, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Traumrune, maybe you can ask Tisséo to give you the mail/phone number of the artists ? They might be OK to give anyone the right to put pictures of their works under a free licence. (Yes, I'm really sad their is no "freedom of panorama"). Léna (talk) 09:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- I will contact Tisséo for the mail of the artist fr:Ange Leccia. He seems to work in France so it should be possible to join him, but it might be difficult to have an answer before september. Everyone is on holiday. Traumrune (talk) 15:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- Great :) The deletion request is thus suspended until you get an answer :) Léna (talk) 17:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- Yes great news to know you are trying to reach the artist, at least we will have a clear answer on the problem. PierreSelim (talk) 08:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
- Great :) The deletion request is thus suspended until you get an answer :) Léna (talk) 17:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- I will contact Tisséo for the mail of the artist fr:Ange Leccia. He seems to work in France so it should be possible to join him, but it might be difficult to have an answer before september. Everyone is on holiday. Traumrune (talk) 15:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- I sent the authorisation five minutes ago. I had to scan the answer of the artist. I sent him my request also by email with the otrs email, but it seems to be easier to answer a letter :-) Traumrune (talk) 18:20, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
- This is awesome :D Léna (talk) 18:21, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
- I sent the authorisation five minutes ago. I had to scan the answer of the artist. I sent him my request also by email with the otrs email, but it seems to be easier to answer a letter :-) Traumrune (talk) 18:20, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: permission via OTRS Bapti ✉ 16:28, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Not sure this logo is eligible for threshold of originality. Mys 721tx (talk) 08:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: PD-textlogo is fine for this Jcb (talk) 14:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Mio96 (talk · contribs) are related to some non-notable Counter Strike clan "cs:CS Army". Not usefull educationally, out of scope.
- File:CSAyellowM.png
- File:CSAxanaduM.png
- File:CSAwhineM.png
- File:CSAsaffronM.png
- File:CSArustM.png
- File:CSAredM.png
- File:CSApurpleM.png
- File:CSAorangeM.png
- File:CSAoliveM.png
- File:CSAmaroonM.png
- File:CSAgreyM.png
- File:CSAgreenM.png
- File:CSAgoldenrodM.png
- File:CSAerinM.png
- File:CSAcyanM.png
- File:CSAbrownM.png
- File:CSAblueM.png
- File:CSAaquaM.png
- File:CSA-200x186.png
Martin H. (talk) 00:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Rudyard Lake Steam Railway
[edit]
- File:3-exmoors-may11.jpg
- File:Pendragonbraskensunsteam.jpg
- File:Santa-train-arrives-Lakeside.jpg
- File:Pendragon-lakeside-loop.jpg
Possible copyvios - images located at http://freespace.virgin.net/hanson.mike/Exmoor.htm, http://www.rlsr.org/Santa.htm and other RSLR pages. Low resolution, no metadata. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:15, 20 July 2011
- (I took the pictures and have the copyright to them and the copyright to the webpages. If you dont like the picture of a brand new steam engine in a location not open to the public thats a shame I wont lose any sleep over it. Mike Hanson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.207.164.126 (talk • contribs) 13:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Freedom of Panaroma UK.
migrate to en:wikipedia with "non-free 3D"oh dear, an assumption of bad faith. if you question whether uploader is "Mike Hanson" why don't you email him or ring him [4]. given the way the photos are used in the articles, i would say burden of proof is on those who assume bad faith. Slowking4 (talk) 15:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)- OK, to first correct you, freedom of panorama is not relevant here - trains are considered to be utilitarian objects and so ineligible for copyright. My issue was finding suspiciously low resolution images here, and on the railway's website where they are used without any attribution, licence, etc. The uploader was in no way identified with Mike Hanson. I made this a DR because I thought it might be a problem, but wasn't sure. That's what this process is for. If I am sure I don't wait for a DR, I just delete it. Given the uploader claims to be the website's owner, I withdraw the nomination. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Freedom of Panaroma UK.
Withdrawn
Reopening. We have a comment by an IP user, 90.207.164.126, who signs himself "Mike Hanson" that they are his images and that he owns the web site from which they apparently came. The uploader is User:Merlin242. I think there are enough uncertainties here to ask Mike Hanson to use the procedure at Commons:OTRS to verify the ownership of these copyrights. My apologies for the extra work, but the reason we take care is to protect the rights of photographers like Hanson. And, by the way, if you did actually take them, we'd appreciate it if you would upload higher resolution versions.
And, to Slowking4's comment -- the burden of proof is always on the uploader. There is no assumption of bad faith here -- just uncertainty. We delete about 1,000 images every day, many of them naive uploads from people who do not understand copyright -- they are not acting in bad faith, but sincerity does not solve copyright problems. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: OTRS will be needed Jcb (talk) 15:23, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
File:2008_Sheridan_Ave_Film_Exchange_OKC.jpg and other uploads by OKShipwreck (talk · contribs)
[edit]
License File:2008_Sheridan_Ave_Film_Exchange_OKC.jpg, File:2008 Oklahoma Theatre Supply OKC.jpg and File:2009 Film Row Streetscape Efforts OKC.jpg have {{Attribution}}. The source given for these files is the Oklahoma City Film Exchange Archive. Their website has a clear copyright notice on it. So unless user is B. Wynn and is releasing these images seperately, the license is incorrect.
For File:1943 Paramount Pictures OKC.jpg however, the author is named as webmaster from the site (B. Wynn). It is unlikely that he would be the actual author of a 1943 picture. It has a non-existent template on it and a different license to the top file, namely {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}}
File:1946 Warner Bros OKC.jpg was uploaded with a {{Attribution}} license and Author:Stanley Warner Box from USC Cinematic Arts Library and OKC Film Exchange Archive. No further source info. So even if uploader is B. Wynn, this needs more information.
-- Deadstar (msg) 15:32, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
While the outer lettering may be "simple text" the combination of that and the inner colours suggests this requires some consideration. Herby talk thyme 17:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - This logo is only text and four little squares in the corners, I can't see how this may attract any copyright. I've never seen the choice of colours being taken into consideration as well.-- Darwin Ahoy! 17:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- The colouring creates the internal letters. I don't think it is as simple as you do - that is all. --Herby talk thyme 17:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- I believe it's immaterial how the text is created, it's only text with some colours in between. Anyway, let's see what others say.-- Darwin Ahoy! 17:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- The colouring creates the internal letters. I don't think it is as simple as you do - that is all. --Herby talk thyme 17:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep It may need a little Gestalt switch, but it just says CEVI in white in a common font on a colored background; although I do not know of any French court decisions about logos, I would be surprised if this were protected by copyright. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: obvious case of PD-textlogo Jcb (talk) 10:29, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Copyvio: All appear to be website rips.
- File:Fsn12 nameplate redcandy.jpg
- File:Mkz11 redcandy.jpg
- File:2011 toyota yaris 20366712-E.jpg
- File:2011 toyota corolla 20370527-E.jpg
- File:2010 toyota matrix 20318802-E.jpg
- File:2011 suzuki sx4 20368916-E.jpg
- File:2011 subaru impreza 20349929-E.jpg
- File:2011 nissan versa 20345153-E.jpg
- File:2012 nissan sentra 20379576-E.jpg
- File:2011 mitsubishi lancer 20360061-E.jpg
- File:2011 mazda mazda3 20352215-E.jpg
- File:2011 mazda mazda2 20345101-E.jpg
- File:2011 kia rio 20364660-E.jpg
- File:2011 kia forte 20369438-E.jpg
- File:2011 hyundai accent 20354481-E.jpg
- File:2012 hyundai accent 20378323-E.jpg
- File:2012 hyundai elantra 20379338-E.jpg
- File:2011 honda fit 20368623-E.jpg
- File:2011 ford fiesta 20345400-E.jpg
- File:2012 honda civic 20374617-E.jpg
- File:2012 ford focus 20375374-E.jpg
- File:2011 nissan cube 20370145-E.jpg
- File:2011 kia soul 20353733-E.jpg
- File:Fiesta the best new small car in Canada.jpg
- File:VehicleSpotlight 300.gif
MorganKevinJ(talk) 19:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
_.JPG){kind=link}
_.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Promotional image of some sort, used in a deleted advert on en.wikipedia. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 19:32, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
_.JPG){kind=link}
Kept: in use, also I don't see why this image would be suspicious for copyright violation Jcb (talk) 15:25, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
_.JPG){kind=link}
Promotional image of some sort, used in a deleted advert on en.wikipedia. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 19:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- The aerial Photograph of a trade fair area is promotional? Can't follow you. --Emha (talk) 09:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
- It has most probably been uploaded for a promotional purpose, see http://www.vinitaly.com/img/it/testata/testata_home_quartiere.jpg. Note that the uploader's username is "Veronafiere - Vinitaly" or so-called User:Staff vinitaly. --Myrabella (talk) 09:35, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- If the photo is good, if the subject of the image is suitable for the (relevant) article in Wikipedia, then I couldn't care less for the purpose of the uploader. There is no logo visible, just an neutral aerial photograph. Keep --Emha (talk) 14:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, if the uploader is really the copyright holder. The website vinitaly.com and the "Ente Autonomo Fiere di Verona" don't release their content under an explicit CC+GFDL license: http://www.vinitaly.com/popover/copyright/lang/it. --Myrabella (talk) 14:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio Jcb (talk) 15:29, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Completely useless, illegible file (eg. [5]) TreasuryTag (talk) 21:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
![[5]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cf/Janko_keyboard.svg/2000px-Janko_keyboard.svg.png){kind=link}
- Heh. I was wondering how long before you started stalking my edits. :-) In any case, this is usable at its native resolution, and shouldn't be deleted. I would assume that someone can repair it so it renders properly, right folks? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- What's wrong with it? 83.58.106.156 15:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- At native resolution, it's difficult to read: at higher resolutions, the letters spill over the sides of the boxes.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, letters do not display well in SVG. It should be converted to some other format. Handige Harrie (talk) 08:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- At native resolution, it's difficult to read: at higher resolutions, the letters spill over the sides of the boxes.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- What's wrong with it? 83.58.106.156 15:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: file is in use, so no valid deletion reason remains Jcb (talk) 15:31, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Not a valid copyright tag. There is no evidence that the archives own the copyrights of the images, which it says "includes everything from amateur family photographs to portraits by the top professionals in the business."[6] The archives also say that "Some of the images may be protected by copyright."[7] And in any event there is nothing that connects what was said in the 2008 email on the template page to any creative commons licensing. Some of these images may be PD-US, but this is not a valid license template in itself. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- This is an issue of licensing and is nothing to do with the template. Accordingly I've tagged the entire category and images for deletion.
- See Commons:Deletion requests/Images from the Florida Photographic Collection Andy Dingley (talk) 22:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- It is not a stand alone license template. It is a detailed explanation of the permissions involved and should thus be used in the permission section of the description. Andy seems to have misunderstood the broadness of your issue. He seems to think the issue is that the pictures are tagged as PD-US or not at all, which is not the case as far as I am aware. Andy's argument in the template was that Florida law had more limited requirements for use than the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 1.0 Generic license and thus that license could be used for photos in the collection. Feel free to clarify Andy if this is incorrect.--Jorfer (talk) 23:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- As to the "broadness" of Calliopejen1's issue, I can only judge that from the Ted Bundy image removal here. They claim there is an issue with the licensing of these image, because we (as the broad WikiMedia project) can't trust the statements of a public collection of the State of Florida. If there is such a problem, then the images have to be deleted en masse (or perhaps some that are demonstrably old might anyway be PD by now). If the State of Florida's archivists and librarians are to be considered competent on copyright, then this is just a template indicating that. I certainly fail to understand what "Not a valid copyright tag." means. There is no requirement at Commons for works to be licensed unde CC-by-Sa. The need is for them to be freely licensed, and our benchmark notion of "free" is taken to mean at least as free as CC-by-sa. The licence expressed by the Florida collection indicates that they meet at least this. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
My point is that the agency's statements about copyright are mixed at best. As noted above, they explicitly state on the website that some images are protected by copyright. That alone is enough to delete this tag. And the email says nothing about the images' copyright status - just that wikipedia may use them and that there are no "copyright problems" with doing so - which could also be a statement about our ability to use them under the fair use doctrine. Anyways I don't see the point in including this even as an optional template because there is no reason to think that the archive owns the rights to any of these images - since there is no evidence they own the rights, their "permission" is meaningless. Calliopejen1 (talk) 12:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- Also, paragraph (1)(b) and subsection (4) (under which use is allowed by statute) authorize the preservation and administration of the archives, and the making of certified copies under seal, respectively. The statute does not authorize commercial use of these photos or the creation of derivative works, both of which are required by Commons policy. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
I think the State of Florida knows what they can license better than someone at Wikimedia Commons does. Vidor (talk) 07:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- Some related discussion at en:Talk:Ted_Bundy#Bulk_image_deletion Andy Dingley (talk) 09:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: We have {{Attribution}}, so why not allow a template that just requires attribution? Jcb (talk) 15:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Contested rights issue by user:Calliopejen1, affecting all files from this State photo collection source.
See original deletion discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Image from the Florida Photographic Collection
- (I would suggest centralising all discussion there) Andy Dingley (talk) 22:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - seems correctly tagged as {{PD-FLGov}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: per Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Image from the Florida Photographic Collection Jcb (talk) 15:50, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Images from the Florida Photographic Collection
[edit]Contested rights issue by user:Calliopejen1, affecting all files from this State photo collection source.
See original deletion discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Image from the Florida Photographic Collection
- (I would suggest centralising all discussion there)
- PD-NASA. Infrogmation (talk) 19:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- File:Bluebird land speed record car 1927 n041927.jpg
- File:Bluebird land speed record car 1928 n041928.jpg
- File:Bluebird land speed record car 1931 pr09069.jpg
- File:Bluebird land speed record car 1935 rc10413.jpg
- File:Courtneywcampbell.jpg
- File:CJJonesLumbeMill-JeromeFlorida-fa0827b.jpg
- File:Daviscauseway.jpg
- File:Dental evidence ted bundy.jpeg
- File:Diver holding a mermaid at Rainbow Springs Florida.jpg
- File:Drewfieldcard.jpg
File:Firstgandy.jpg
- Undated US published postcard 1920s-1950s = no valid copyright; PD. Infrogmation (talk) 19:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- File:Golden Arrow land speed record car 1929.jpg
- File:Howardfranklandaerial.jpg
File:Jess Dixon in his flying automobile.jpg
- Note - An author who wrote a book on this subject used this photo, and all that was required was "courtesy of Florida State Archives". It's clearly CC-by-SA and perfectly suitable for the Commons and WP with the attribution as it is now. Doc9871 (talk) 08:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- File:Malcolm Campbell rc10431.jpg
- File:Miami Canal in 1921.jpg
- File:Ray Keech n041941.jpg
File:Sears, Roebuck and Company Department Store 1920's.jpg
- PD-US
- File:Sears, Roebuck and Company Department Store.jpg
- File:Secondgandy.jpg
- File:René Stapp at Daytona Beach.jpg
- File:Sunbeam Silver Bullet rc10436.jpg
- File:Ted Bundy headshot.jpg
- All Bundy images from the Florida Archive have the same message: "Any use or reproduction of material deposited with the Florida Photographic Collection shall be allowed pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (1)(b) and subsection (4), provided that appropriate credit for its use is given." I will credit all FPC photos used in the Bundy article to FPC, which should remove any objection to keeping them, correct? DoctorJoeE (talk) 19:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- That message relates to all the Florida Collection images, not just the Ted Bundy ones. The purpose of this DR is to try and establish the validity of the FLorida statement for all of these images, not just those that we can multiple-license by some other route, such as PD-gov or PD-old. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:34, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, how about this: I found the following (signed, if I'm not mistaken, by you):
- A direct request to the Florida Archives, specifically concerning use on Wikipedia / Wikicommons (13 May 2008) elicited the following response: "You may use any of the images posted on the Florida Memory Project website. The State Archives of Florida is not aware of any copyright issues with any of the images." That sounds pretty unambiguous to me. DoctorJoeE (talk) 20:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- Hardly surprisingly, it sounds fine to me too. However Calliopejen1 claims that it's a "false template" and thus everything that can't be proven independently has to be deleted. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- Does Calliopejen1 have any evidence to support this allegation? Seems to me it's up to him or her to prove that assertion, it's not up to us to disprove it. A simple e-mail to the Florida Archives would have resolved this without threatening deletion of the entire Florida Archive -- and to what end? DoctorJoeE (talk) 16:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
- It continues to astound me that user:Calliopejen1 believes she knows both the law and the status of these pictures better than the Florida legislature and the Florida Archive do. Vidor (talk) 01:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- This image is {{PD-FLGov}}. I keep changing the image page to reflect this, but I keep getting reverted without explanation. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- Add an additional relevant licence tag by all means, but why do you remove the previous template as well? As to "no explanation", then I think that an hour's work in editing this deletion request, triggered by your solo claim that the Florida photo collection licence is unacceptable, is quite enough explanation to expect. You can hardly claim you weren't aware of this. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- I removed the template (actually, exchanged it for the {{Information}} template) because the Florida Archive's permission is totally irrelevant. If this image is created by a florida government employee, it is public domain, so there is no need to credit the archives. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:48, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- PD-US.
- File:Webbscity.jpg
- File:White Triplex n041942.jpg
- File:White Triplex n041953.jpg
- File:White Triplex pr14150a.jpg
File:William K Vanderbilt with automobile 1904 N041926.jpg
- This is burning down the orchard to get after a few possibly bad apples. Each and every photo nominated for deletion should be checked very carefully before it is deleted. The last photo on the list was taken in 1904! It's... probably in the Public Domain - safe bet. Doc9871 (talk) 04:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- My point was not to nominate every photo for deletion, but to delete the false template and to assess each item individually. The template does not prove that something is public domain, but it does not prove that something is not public domain either. Calliopejen1 (talk) 11:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- Comment I think you are correct to do so. The images need to be examined individually to determine if they are PD for some reason or another or not. I have struck a couple of images that seem to be established as now properly free licensed. Infrogmation (talk) 19:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- You call the template "false" when you have no basis for that statement. Vidor (talk) 01:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- My point was not to nominate every photo for deletion, but to delete the false template and to assess each item individually. The template does not prove that something is public domain, but it does not prove that something is not public domain either. Calliopejen1 (talk) 11:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- This is burning down the orchard to get after a few possibly bad apples. Each and every photo nominated for deletion should be checked very carefully before it is deleted. The last photo on the list was taken in 1904! It's... probably in the Public Domain - safe bet. Doc9871 (talk) 04:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- NOTE - I have contacted the Archives concerning the Bundy images that started all this. The text of the e-mails is here, and I naturally can forward that e-mail if necessary. They say they are unaware of any copyright issues and that we can use them as long as we credit them. Is this not permission enough to apply a CC-by-SA? Or must we make them do it? Do we need OTRS for each and every one of these images? Why? The template seems absolutely fine when you consider that they have twice confirmed that all we need is fair attribution to their Archives. Doc9871 (talk) 21:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Doc9871's good work above should be all that is necessary to end this discussion and prevent deletion of the photos. Vidor (talk) 02:55, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks to Doc9871 for doing this, but it doesn't actually change much. There are many images under this category, potentially many more in the future too. Some of these, like the Bundy images, have authorship that would make them Commons-usable even if they hadn't come via the Florida Archives. PD-Gov is PD-Gov regardless. The broader question here is for the non-Bundy images, those where we're relying on the Florida Archive release alone and don't have any other obvious reason to place a licence upon them. Although the Florida Archive has now been approached twice over these (I emailed them myself in 2008) and they agree with our use here, Calliopejen1 is still claiming that this is "a false template" and so the rest of these images should still be deleted.
- The Bundy images are not my personal interest here and I recognise the hard work and involvement of those working on that topic. Likewise the NASA images are under the NASA blanket copyright, so are clearly acceptable to Commons anyway. My own interests are in those other images where it comes down to Calliopejen1's opinion vs. the Florida State Archives. We've already had images like this deleted in the past, so we need a clear ongoing statement from Commons or WMF that the Florida Archives claim is seen as acceptable to us. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:19, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept - per Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Image from the Florida Photographic Collection - Jcb (talk) 15:54, 22 September 2011 (UTC)