Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2011/08/03
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
There is no imaginable use for this photo, since there is no article like "Worst hairstyle ever" or "How not to use Photoshop". The depicted person is of no notability and the article about her was already deleted in the german wikipedia. And I can find no consent of the depicted person, that this photo may be used in public. So it is also a violation of the persons rights on her own picture. 80.245.147.81 08:21, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Speedied as copyvio from http://clairelabelle.de/aufbauseminare.htm. Túrelio (talk) 08:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
I am doubtful this is the uploader's own work. It looks like a cropped screen shot from Google Maps. LadyofShalott (talk) 03:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Delete, {{Copyvio}}. Non-free Google content. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:33, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Clearly from Google Maps or similar. Túrelio (talk) 15:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Author unknown, no evidence for permission by the photographer. Graham from Accounting (talk) 09:21, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Comment - it is "own work" by an established Commons user - what makes you think there is no valid permission? --Herby talk thyme 10:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC)- Keep - own work. Geo Swan (talk) 11:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Keep My work. (The view reminded me of Moses parting the Red Sea.) /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- Speedy kept DR isn't valid since the author is known and is stated as "Own work", therefore the uploader has the permission. Bidgee (talk) 02:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
File:Sets & Numbers Book Cover.pdf should also be considered in this (same author of the books and uploader on Commons)
Seems to be copyright violations even if the books are out of print. Killiondude (talk) 22:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept: pending OTRS permission as uploader is author IRL Killiondude (talk) 23:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Duplicate, wrong file name Anka Friedrich (talk) 16:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: 3 days old dupe of File:Methi Water Boy.jpg + req by upl. Túrelio (talk) 07:53, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Closing-in on this copyrighted material is a derivative work and has to be treated as non-free/fair use - no problem in the original image (FOP) Denniss (talk) 03:49, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Can be deleted, didn't knew that the closing-in is a problem, sorry.--CennoxX (talk) 12:06, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Derivative image (of a copyrighted photograph pertaining to a TV show). No FOP in Canada for 2D murals. Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:06, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:25, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Although the source is licensed as CCA-SA 3.0 as stated, it is not clear that it has authority to release this image under that licence. RobertG (talk) 11:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Although the stated source is licenced as CCA-SA 3.0, the image's actual source is here - Google user content - and there is no statement of the copyright status of the image. RobertG (talk) 11:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
accidental upload of a smaller version Wykymania (talk) 13:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work of copyrighted promo poster. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 15:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:55, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:55, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
According to author the image was taken from the official site. On that site copyright is claimed, and the logo there is 100% matching the uploaded filethis Miho (talk) 16:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:55, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
sourced to random (now dead) website, clearly a screenshot or the work of a photographer for the game show Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Derivative image (of a copyrighted photograph pertaining to a TV show). No FOP in Canada for 2D murals. Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:06, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:57, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Derivative of copyrighted non-free work. --G.dallorto 12:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete
- Keep This is a picture of a billboard on w:Nicollet Island in Minneapolis, Minnesota. The picture is used in w:Grain Belt (beer) to illustrate a landmark billboard that can be seen from many parts of downtown Minneapolis, as well as to illustrate the brand logo. I believe this case falls under Commons:Freedom of panorama. --Elkman 21:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
kept (in contrast to other ads, this advertisment seems to be permanently installed}} --ALE! ¿…? 21:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in the United States. Kelly (talk) 20:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep What is supposed to be copyrighted here? See also en:Grain Belt Beer#Name and logo. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
- The referenced section of the article indicates this billboard was published in 1940, which would mean we have to assume it's copyrighted in the US unless shown otherwise. Kelly (talk) 15:41, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
- The beer label did not have a copyright notice. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:45, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
- The referenced section of the article indicates this billboard was published in 1940, which would mean we have to assume it's copyrighted in the US unless shown otherwise. Kelly (talk) 15:41, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept: No notice, per Pieter Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Low quality, not used anywhere, probably superseded by File:MethylCyclobutane.png. Leyo 21:06, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep unless an alternative is found. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 21:16, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- Both images are equally unsatisfying. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 21:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete It's useless. The File:MethylCyclobutane.png is a bit better.--Vchorozopoulos (talk) 08:41, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per Vchorozopoulos. One poor thing doesn't mean we should keep other poor things that are no better and/or redundant. DMacks (talk) 23:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
- The alternative is very nearly according to the MOS guidelines for chemistry diagrams. In fact, I just redrew it exactly using them, and you can see in the thumbnail history how close it was. Now that it is per standard, I welcome specific comments about what is deficient about it. I'll start off the other way, and say that the nom'ed image has nonstandard bond angle for the methyl attachment, the ring–methyl bond is too short, one of the ring bonds extends slightly out of the ring at the top-right corner too, and the resolution is lower. DMacks (talk) 06:25, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, you improved the lettering on the newer version. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- The alternative is very nearly according to the MOS guidelines for chemistry diagrams. In fact, I just redrew it exactly using them, and you can see in the thumbnail history how close it was. Now that it is per standard, I welcome specific comments about what is deficient about it. I'll start off the other way, and say that the nom'ed image has nonstandard bond angle for the methyl attachment, the ring–methyl bond is too short, one of the ring bonds extends slightly out of the ring at the top-right corner too, and the resolution is lower. DMacks (talk) 06:25, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Ed (Edgar181) 14:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Derivative of copyrighted product advertising. Kelly (talk) 21:11, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep What exactly is supposed to be copyrighted here? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:27, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
- The huge advertisement on the side of the truck. Kelly (talk) 15:42, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
- All components are certainly old enough for for {{PD-US-no notice}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:47, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
- The huge advertisement on the side of the truck. Kelly (talk) 15:42, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
also for: Derivative Versions File:Jaycee Dugard.jpg
Not clear why "Released to the public by the El Dorado (California) Sheriff Department" should lead to a public domain status of these photographs. AFAIK the states in the US also have mostly not a government work → PD rule. ... if we would drop the fact that these photos are probably private shots. Maybe there is a copyright exception for photographs on "wanted" posters in the US - but someone needs to proof this. Saibo (Δ) 23:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Found some hint: File:Philip_and_Nancy_Garrido_mugshots.jpg is a bit less tight on words: "Mugshots released by the El Dorado (California) Sheriffs Office, which, according to California public records laws, are also by default to the public domain." So are all sherrif office's releases PD? Also if the photos are apparently private shots? A URL/ more exact law citation would be needed to proof the PD claim. --Saibo (Δ) 23:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- The DOJ - of which the FBI is a part - says on its website: "Information generated by the Department of Justice is in the public domain and may be reproduced, published or otherwise used without the Department’s permission. Citation to the Department of Justice as the source of the information is appreciated, as appropriate. ....With respect to materials generated by entities outside of the Department of Justice, permission to copy these materials, if necessary, must be obtained from the original source. For information on materials generated by external entities with Department of Justice funding, please refer to individual component policies." One one hand, it would seem - since the picture is cropped from an FBI (DOJ) Wanted Poster - it is a PD image. On the other hand, if it is an image "generated by entities outside of the Department of Justice" - like the Dugard family or a school photo - their permission ought to be obtained. My interpretation is that since the Wanted Poster was "generated by the Department of Justice," whatever "copyright" once existed passed to the DOJ upon its publication. But I'm a Wiki editor, not a copyright attorney. --SeduisantRedux (talk) 01:45, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
- As far as I know, only US Government Federal documents are released into the public domain, but that doesn't includes states' works. The publicdomainability of the picture should be regarded entirely on the fact that it was taken from the FBI site, and as it is a federal organization, it is public domain; however, they often use pictures from third parties, (I haven't looked for source information of this picture) and if this pic was in fact made by someone else Delete, otherwise, Keep Diego Grez return fire 01:49, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No evidence that the photographer (parents, friend, school, whoever) licensed the image. It is one thing to give a photo to the police -- it is another thing entirely to put its copyright into the PD. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:06, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
There have been 2 Pictures within. The second was a work made by police, i think. At least this should not go deleted. --Itu (talk) 19:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
I am the owner of this file and the original photographer - somebody put together a bot that scraped my Flickr page when my images were set to Creative Commons (I've since changed everything over to All Rights Reserved). I do not wish to have these available in a public format, nor do I have the rights to distribute these images for all artists I have photographed. Mn2150 (talk) 23:54, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Creative commons licenses are irrevocable. Also, can you please prove that you are the same person that took this image and uploaded to flickr?? Tm (talk) 06:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:07, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
no source - keine Quelle AtelierMonpli (talk) 00:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete no hint that the uploader User:Nicefoto is identical to claimed author (also in watermark) "Błażej Kanas". --Saibo (Δ) 01:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. High Contrast (talk) 15:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope--self created artwork with no educational use. This user has uploaded several files celebrating himself. Kenmayer (talk) 13:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. High Contrast (talk) 16:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Apparently personal artwork. Google search turns up no hits on this artist. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. High Contrast (talk) 16:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Personal photo. Google search shows no hits for this person. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. High Contrast (talk) 16:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Under copyright by the coin creator. cmadler (talk) 13:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- See also discussion at the uploader's English Wikipedia talk page: en:User talk:Estreya#Twig the Fairy images. cmadler (talk) 13:11, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. High Contrast (talk) 16:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely authorship claims by a user with a history of copyright violations. No EXIF data. Looks like a satellite or high-altititude aerial photo from some commercial map service. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- The uploader has confirmed that this was taken from Bing Maps, so speedy delete as {{Copyvio}}. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. High Contrast (talk) 16:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
I doubt this sattelite image is selfmade. This seems to have a watermark in the corner, but I can't make it out. -- Deadstar (msg) 14:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- (I checked Google maps btw, and it's not from there. -- Deadstar (msg) 14:03, 9 August 2011 (UTC))
Deleted. High Contrast (talk) 16:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to by own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:54, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. High Contrast (talk) 16:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
and other photos by Dezim1990 (talk · contribs). Unlikely to by own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. High Contrast (talk) 16:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
and other uploads by Ricardo Cordero (talk · contribs). Unlikely to by own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
This is indeed my own work, all logos and photos that have been posted of my page, are and have been created by myself and the team of young people who work along side me, thank you...
Deleted: Out of scope: encyclopedic use not thinkable High Contrast (talk) 16:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Person is not notable. Tachfin (talk) 15:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. High Contrast (talk) 16:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
The file does not meet the Public Domain criteria specified in its licence template. PeeJay2K3 (talk) 01:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Ben.MQ (talk) 17:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
This is a derivative work, and South Korea does not have freedom of panorama. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Ben.MQ (talk) 17:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work of image found here. Unclear source information, uses copyrighted logo. Ytoyoda (talk) 05:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Ben.MQ (talk) 17:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Unused personal artwork. {{Out of scope}} Sreejith K (talk) 06:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Ben.MQ (talk) 17:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Unused personal photo. Not sure whether this was intended to be a profile photo. Sreejith K (talk) 06:43, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per COM:SCOPE Ben.MQ (talk) 17:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
www.benthamscience.com has a copyright notice at the bottom of the page; should be uploaded to en.wiki under a fair-use license Crusio (talk) 07:06, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: 15:52, 3 August 2011 by Herbythyme, closed by Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
out of scope spam 217.186.16.92 07:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per COM:SCOPE Ben.MQ (talk) 17:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Ben.MQ (talk) 17:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Copyrighted file, see http://www.benthamscience.com/cmm/index.htm Crusio (talk) 09:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: By User: EugeneZelenko as copyright violation Ben.MQ (talk) 17:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Was tagged as copyvio by User:Misconceptions2: "This file is missing evidence of permission. It has an author and source, but there is no proof that the author of the file agreed to license the file. The image is property of paramount pictures." While we don't need evidence of permission, we'd need some kind of evidence this image is actually PD-US-NotRenewed; that's how it is tagged. I couldn't find anything about this particular image's copyright not having been renewed at the source given for the image. Rosenzweig τ 16:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep The author of the photo is basically unknown as it was taken by the studio publicity department so there may be one of more authors. Normally headshots taken prior to 1964 don't usually get a lot of strong copyright because they are just for publicity purposes and besides the photograph is well over 60 years old. I think it should be kept.FlickrVintageStars (talk) 18:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- So far that's presumption, not knowledge. --Rosenzweig τ 19:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep {{PD-US-no notice}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:01, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep I spotted this at File talk:Bancroft still.jpg which I'm just doing a copy'n'paste:
- As stated by film production expert Eve Light Honathaner in The Complete Film Production Handbook, (Focal Press, 2001 p. 211.):
- "Publicity photos (star headshots) have traditionally not been copyrighted. Since they are disseminated to the public, they are generally considered public domain, and therefore clearance by the studio that produced them is not necessary."
- Another source with similar explanation: "There is a vast body of photographs, including but not limited to publicity stills, that have no notice as to who may have created them." See, The Professional Photographer's Legal Handbook By Nancy E. Wolff, Allworth Communications, 2007, p. 55. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 06:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
- Additionally, en:Copyright_law_of_the_United_States#Public_domain states that "Works published with notice of copyright or registered in unpublished form on or after January 1, 1923, and prior to January 1, 1964, had to be renewed during the 28th year of their first term of copyright to maintain copyright for a full 95-year term." and "With the exception of maps, music, and movies, the vast majority of works published in the United States before 1964 were never renewed for a second copyright term." There's a cite for the first phrase of "U.S. Copyright Office, Circular 15a, Duration of Copyright: Provisions of the Law Dealing with the Length of Copyright Protection." (with a URL that curerntly goes to a 404 error but I think should properly be http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ15a.pdf) and one for the second pointing to "Stephen Fishman, The Public Domain, 4th ed., Nolo, 2008, p. 383–384."
Lastly and most importantly, a search of the US government copyright records (online at http://cocatalog.loc.gov/) for the keyword "bing crosby" with the search limited to a date range from 1945 to 1947 (one year to either side of the date for this picture) and Item Type set to "Visual Materials" comes back with no records, which to me indicates it was never copyrighted to begin with.(Sorry, missed that the online database is only for works post 1978; pre-1978 are in an offline database). Tabercil (talk) 18:22, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No original publication provided, no evidence that the claim is true. Uploads of abusive sockpuppeteer removed. Martin H. (talk) 18:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
1999 photography, impossibly Template:PD-old as claimed. Original photo is not public domain for any reason, reproduction of unfree photograph therefore. Martin H. (talk) 22:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- Cor.: 1956, but still in copyright for many, many years. --Martin H. (talk) 07:51, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
unused photo of personality from Cameroon with no notability as per fr:Discussion:Sikam Happi V/Suppression - out of socpe Santosga (talk) 22:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I am the owner of this file and the original photographer - somebody put together a bot that scraped my Flickr page when my images were set to Creative Commons (I've since changed everything over to All Rights Reserved). I do not wish to have these available in a public format, nor do I have the rights to distribute these images for all artists I have photographed. Mn2150 (talk) 23:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Creative commons licenses are irrevocable. Also can you please prove that you are the same person that took this image and uploaded to flickr?? Tm (talk) 06:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Ben.MQ (talk) 17:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
If this really is own work, a permission via OTRS is needed. Anyway, are such low resolution scans in scope (strangely used in fr:Anexo:Enlace en moléculas poliatómicas)? Leyo 10:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete The picture seems to come from a book (ISBN), so I strongly doubt it has a free license. The uploader is not longer active. Same for this. --Yikrazuul (talk) 11:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- Uploader's name matches book's author (who has uploaded many such images), but it is a commercially published book not (as far as I can tell) free or dual-licensed content. DMacks (talk) 16:13, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
If deleted all the files in Category:Química General e Inorgánica should be deleted. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 16:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: All files in Category:Química General e Inorgánica deleted due to absence of sufficient evidence of copyright permission. Files can be restored if OTRS is contacted with evidence of permission. Ed (Edgar181) 15:29, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
missing permissions since march. OTRS-message was declared on description-page, but no ticket entered till today. No activity of uploader. Quedel (talk) 21:23, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- Umm.. Quedel you misunderstood me. The "otrs pending" tag is from me and was addded today after I had a chat with the uploader. And he said that he will contact the record company again... so.. I suggest this DR is deleted. ;) --Saibo (Δ) 00:49, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
- added {otrs received} (awaiting processing). —Pill (talk) 19:50, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
The OTRS e-mail calls out CC-BY-NC-SA, so it is not acceptable because we do not allow NC images. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- which email? ticket:2011080310015461 doesn't. —Pill (talk) 11:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- Hmm. I don't read German, so I depend on Google. The ticket reads:
- "Ich erlaube hiermit jedermann die Weiternutzung des Bildes unter der freien Lizenz „Creative Commons Namensnennung-Weitergabe unter gleichen Bedingungen 3.0 Deutschland"
- which Google translates as
- "I hereby authorize any person to continue using the image under the free license "Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Germany"
- Hmm. I don't read German, so I depend on Google. The ticket reads:
- I see now that Google does not translate any of the single words in any way that could mean "non-commercial" and obviously User:Pill reads German better than Google or me, so I withdraw the comment. We've discovered a weird Google Translate bug which we should keep in mind for the future. I should also be clear when I'm using a machine translation -- apologies for that. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:28, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- indeed, google is wrong here, it's just the written-out form of cc-by-sa/3.0/de. cheers, —Pill (talk) 13:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- I see now that Google does not translate any of the single words in any way that could mean "non-commercial" and obviously User:Pill reads German better than Google or me, so I withdraw the comment. We've discovered a weird Google Translate bug which we should keep in mind for the future. I should also be clear when I'm using a machine translation -- apologies for that. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:28, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept, as OTRS-ticket is now given. Quedel (talk) 20:27, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Screenshot of a program (possibly copyrighted). Unused. May be {{Out of scope}} Sreejith K (talk) 06:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination. Unidentified and unused Badseed talk 09:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Unused photo with no meaningful description. Not evident whether this is is profile photo either. Sreejith K (talk) 07:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination. Unidentified, unused personal photo, single global contrib by user Badseed talk 09:57, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
This, and many of the images from the Flickr user are Flickrwashed. This logo is not available freely. Courcelles (talk) 15:11, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom Badseed talk 08:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Two trees, an uninteresting building, nothing special (same for Volume welplaat.jpg). Yikrazuul (talk) 16:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep office building of an organization, perfectly in scope. MKFI (talk) 22:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep How do you gonna illustrate "Compagnie under the social employment in Spijkenisse Holland the welplaat"? In scope (also see categories). Tm (talk) 12:13, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept: In scope. Avi (talk) 17:43, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
John Duncan died in 1945, so this is not in the public domain until 2016; See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Riders of the Sidhe.jpg and Category:John Duncan. I am adding this request to Category:Undelete in 2016. -84user (talk) 00:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC) 84user (talk) 00:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- Painting is still copyrighted, artist died in 1945 (less than 70 years ago) 84.81.114.142 20:12, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Images should be out of copyrigt in both the US and home country to be hosted on the Commons. As regards the US, this image was almost certainly published prior to 1923. However, under UK (Scotland) copyright laws, it remains under copyright until 70 years after the author's death, which would be 1/1/2016. Therefore, I will move the image to EnWiki, where it may legally be hosted, and it should be undeleted on 1/1/2016. Avi (talk) 17:52, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
- Moved to EnWiki at w:en:File:Thechildrenoflirduncan1914.jpg -- Avi (talk) 17:57, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned vanity photo, low quality, out of scope, no foreseeable use. FASTILY (TALK) 00:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, Aude (talk) 22:40, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
missing source and author AtelierMonpli (talk) 00:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. FASTILY (TALK) 02:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
missing source and author AtelierMonpli (talk) 00:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. FASTILY (TALK) 02:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Copyright for this photo is own by user pczps022 (heritage) - who created this page. If we talk about Czech law: Skolil from Olomouc was only photographer not owner of this photo. I disagree with request for deletion.
Deleted. FASTILY (TALK) 02:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
This is the by Ananda Samarakoon, who died in 1962; from my reading of {{PD-Sri Lanka}}, this means that any derivative work of the national anthem is non-free until 2013. Additionally, this work is a derivative of a recording, which means that recording is non-free for another 50 years, in this case, circa 2048. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- As per the {{PD-Sri Lanka}} Laws and decisions of courts and administrative bodies have no copy right, the national anthem is part of the Sri Lankan constitution (countries law) and governed by the laws of the country so there is no copyright to it. This is the first time ever I am hearing that a national anthem can be copyrighted by someone 193.34.100.34 09:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- The original uploader on English Wikipedia has left me this note on my talk page, because he cannot remember his commons password. I am copying it below. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
- I disagree on the reasons you have given for deletion, though it is the national anthem that is written by Ananda Samarakoon it doesn't necessarily mean he has copyrights over it. He was commissioned by the government of Sri Lanka to write the national anthem, moreover the national anthem is part of the constitution (the countries law) and it cannot have copyrights. NëŧΜǒńğerTalk to me 06:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
My response to the above: we have several issues now for how this work exists under copyright:
- According to the IP above: it is considered a law and decision of courts/administrative body. Frankly, this seems unlikely to me. Unless Sri Lankan law is unique compared to most other governments of the world, this clause is only talking about laws and judicial decisions, not a national anthem. Please notice the template doesn't say any governmental work, just these subsections of it.
- It may be considered folklore (cf. Folklore#Cultural). If this is the case, we must delete the file, as the copyright will persist forever. I'm not familiar enough Sri Lankan law to say whether or not this is the case; if someone can find a written explanation in favor of or against this, it will help us.
- If it is a work-for-hire, we will have to know the work-for-hire laws of Sri Lanka. This is difficult to know; the only reference I have is for Australia, UK, US, China, Japan, France, and Germany [1].
- Even if all of these issues are satisfied, we still have this individual sound recording and performance of the national anthem; the former is almost certainly copyrightable, and the latter likely is as well.
- One of you may have a publication which shows it's copyright-free; by all means, share it with us. However, if you do not have such a publication, it will be difficult for us to believe (e.g., it may be a common misconception among the Sri Lankan public that it is public domain. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Please don't misunderstand me; I dont' want to be Scrooge and delete this item when it's widely propogated. But if Sri Lankan law says it's copyrighted, then it's copyrighted. Perhaps one of you could write to your legislators? 
Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. FASTILY (TALK) 02:37, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
A Tineye search reveals a link to http://blog.sun.com (see [2] this link which will only remain live for another 72 hours). Unfortunately, the blog is gone. While the image is smaller on the blog, it is likely that it was pointing to another image of larger resolution. It seems unlikely that a sun.com blog picked this image up off a Wikipedia upload.
Additionally, the image on the blog is actually a composite image with the back of the monitor shown; it seems much more likely to me that this image was originally cropped by someone from the sun.com image, not that the sun.com image was a composite of two images, one of which would be this upload.
Finally, the uploader at en.wp has a history of both copyright confusion and outright lying [3]. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:26, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
![[3]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=File%3AViharamahadevi.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete I've found the same image, in same resolution, on an Oracle wiki, on a page providing official documentation about those products (see "Sun Ray 270 Client" section). The "Terms of use" link at the botttom of the page send us back to the general Oracle "Terms of use" page, wich indicates: "3. Use of Materials - (a) the Materials may be used solely for your personal, informational, noncommercial purposes; (b) the Materials may not be modified or altered in any way; and (c) the Materials may not be redistributed." "Materials" includes images and photographs. --Myrabella (talk) 22:24, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. FASTILY (TALK) 02:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Audiodatei: Geschichte der Berliner Band Die Ärzte. Lizenz fragwürdig. beepworld.de ist keine seriöse Quelle. Außerdem wurde die Datei gleich 2x hochgeladen, s. File:De-Die-Ärzte-articel.ogg. Kolja21 (Diskussion) 03:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC) Kolja21 (talk) 03:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. FASTILY (TALK) 02:37, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Per this. Own work claim is a misrepresentation. Sven Manguard (talk) 07:51, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. FASTILY (TALK) 02:37, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Его не видно Volodinspb (talk) 08:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. FASTILY (TALK) 02:37, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Poster apparently taken from the series' website [4]. If this is really released freely, we need an OTRS ticket to confirm. Also, the only article on the series was just deleted on enwp due to notability. Courcelles (talk) 09:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. FASTILY (TALK) 02:37, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Rather unclear copyright status. Image is claimed to be by Einar Einarsson Kvaran, whoever that is, not the uploader at :en. In addition, image seems to show a sculpture by en:Ivan Meštrović, who died only in 1962. Therefore, depending of the unknown location, the photo may also be a copyviolating derivative. Túrelio (talk) 09:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. FASTILY (TALK) 02:37, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Copyrighted logo, see www.benthamscience.org Crusio (talk) 09:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. FASTILY (TALK) 02:37, 13 September 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. Architect Guðjón Samuelsson died 1950. Fingalo (talk) 10:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. FASTILY (TALK) 02:37, 13 September 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. Architect Guðjón Samuelsson died 1950. Fingalo (talk) 10:23, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. FASTILY (TALK) 02:37, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Appears to be a copy of http://static2.stuff.co.nz/1289871372/503/4350503.jpg hosted at http://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/music/4350142/Patrick-Cavill-becomes-global-sensation and dated from November 2010, which predates the upload of this file to Commons; therefore it seems unlikely this image is the uploader's own work, and may be a copyvio Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. FASTILY (TALK) 02:37, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
copyvio . HombreDHojalata.talk 12:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. FASTILY (TALK) 02:37, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Photo infringes copyright on artwork on the wall. No evidence of permission. Small resolution, question "own work". Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - Per Jim and because the file is "used" (see description) to make another (as I've seen here and here -write only-) article out of project scope. --Dэя-Бøяg 15:54, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. FASTILY (TALK) 02:37, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
highly doubt this is own work (web-resolution, border) Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. FASTILY (TALK) 02:37, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
highly doubt this is own work - web-resolution, looks like it was taken by an official photographer Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. FASTILY (TALK) 02:37, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
highly doubt this is own work - web-resolution, border Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. FASTILY (TALK) 02:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
highly doubt this is own work - web-resolution, border Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. FASTILY (TALK) 02:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
uploaded from website with no indication of free licensing Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. FASTILY (TALK) 02:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
uploaded from website with no indication of free licensing Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. FASTILY (TALK) 02:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
uploaded from website with no indication of free licensing Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. FASTILY (TALK) 02:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
source page (real source, that is) gives no indication this is PD; no particular reason to think it would be PD Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. FASTILY (TALK) 02:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
based on date, not necessarily 70 years after death of author. and no evidence it was published anonymously. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep with {{PD-Finland50}} then. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:41, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
The original source file en:File:AngiotensinCE-1O8A.png was removed there because of missing licence. Before the file was copied to de:Datei:Angiotensin Converting Enzyme.png and tranfered to commons end of June. The given license within de: is very doubtfull. JuTa (talk) 20:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. FASTILY (TALK) 02:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Looks like vandalism per the end of the description. Acather96 (talk) 20:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. FASTILY (TALK) 02:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope, useless. Acather96 (talk) 20:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep good example for the Total-wiki-psiho or wiki-maniac :-) and picture from Wikimedia meetups in 2007 --AtelierMonpli (talk) 00:56, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
- documenting our own history is in scope. --Saibo (Δ) 01:17, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
No pages link to this file; merely an annotation from the usual Mali satellite image. Irregulargalaxies (talk) 21:33, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. FASTILY (TALK) 02:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
invalid reason to be PD (and being published 1930 does not mean that it is now 70 years after the author's death) Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- The author of this image cannot be identified. The Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft is using this image without doubt [5], same see ZBW - Deutsche Zentralbibliothek für Wirtschaftswissenschaften Leibniz-Informationszentrum Wirtschaft (ZBW) [6] and the Hamburgisches Welt-Wirtschafts-Archiv has opened its archives - where this image is comming from - for the public [7] and archives are operated by ZBW. Therefore it can be used. -- Ulanwp (talk) 23:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
![[7]](http://webopac0.hwwa.de/DigiJPG/P/22495/P224950001000000H_C.JPG){kind=link}
- Are you saying that this should be kept and tagged {{Anonymous-EU}}? The fact that archives have this image does not say anything about its copyright status. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:12, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
- So far as I know and I could sort it out, "The Times Trade and Engineering Supplement (London)" doesn't exists any more and in one article from "The Times" from 1st Feb 1927 (Digital Archive 1785-1985) the picture was used together with nine others persons from the Financial Committee of the Leaque of Nation, shown in form of a photo gallery without naming the authors of these photos. So it must be older than this day of publishing. These photos where looking as they where taken by someone ordered by governmental department to take photos for the public and the media. It's really interesting thing. Niemeyer was a very important person at this time and had a big influence in british and world finance and only few photos can be found about him. Sorry, but no other evidences can be found, as well to the author. I would say let us put this image under {{Anonymous-EU}}? like you suggested. -- Ulanwp (talk) 12:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep anonymous old photo. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:57, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Anon old photo MBisanz talk 00:00, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Images of Thepowermancity1022 (2nd nomination)
[edit]- File:Suphachalasai Stadium.jpg
- File:SIAM SQUARE 1.jpg
- File:SIAM SQUARE 2.jpg
- File:Bhumibol Bridge.jpg
- File:Bhumibol Bridge At Night .jpg
- File:View of the Business district skyline.PNG
- File:View of the Business district skyline in Bangkok.PNG
It doesn't seem that the [User:Thepowermancity1022]] has changed his behaviour since last time. File:Thammasat Stadium.jpg is an obvious infringement, others listed above have missing EXIF data or that of different cameras, and some have author name overlays. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:51, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Modern paintings by William Quigley
[edit]- File:Antietam 1996.jpg
- File:CAA and Mickey 1996.jpg
- File:Cezanne 1995.jpg
- File:Civil War Book 1996.jpg
- File:Confederate Flags 1996.jpg
- File:Jay McIlearney 1996.jpg
- File:John Brown 1996.jpg
- File:Johnny Comes Home 1996.jpg
The above are all images of paintings by American painter William Quigley (born in 1961). The top 8 were uploaded by Gowanus Public Bath (talk · contribs), who had been asked to send on permission for another file by the same artist, which was then deleted. He blanked his talk page. All have a self-license.
Gettysburg 1996 (talk · contribs) uploaded the bottom 3. He mentions a website as the source for his uploads, namely the artist official site http://www.quigleyart.com. The files are again licensed with a self-license. That site has no copyright notice on it that I could find. If the painter is uploading these himself, we need OTRS. Otherwise, I think these are copyvios and should be deleted. ---- Deadstar (msg) 08:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- (In a related note, en: wiki has en:File:Quigley Studio.jpg with a fair use rationale. Uploader was since blocked as being a sockpuppet. It looks though that the original image was colorised?? -- Deadstar (msg) 08:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC))
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:51, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
What is this image for? The only usage is a user page. The image has a website address at the top, as well. Nick Moreau (talk) 12:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- So? It's funny, and it's a free image. We should thank the contributor. Quadell (talk) 19:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Kept no reason to delete, and uploader was not even notified (non-admin closure). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Not a free image Fangusu (talk) 12:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - own work by User:Gaspirtz. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - I do not see a reason, why it should be not free? it is own work by User:Gaspirtz. --LutzBruno (talk) 14:47, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept no evidence for copyright violation. --High Contrast (talk) 16:07, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
These images, licensed as cc-by-2.0 on Flickr, were/are tagged as copyvio derivatives (of photographs) or missing permission. The qestion is whether they really are derivatives violating copyright or if they are original work not based on photographs, as the uploader says of some. At least the Depardieu and Boucquet images and the image of Sue Gardner (not included here, since it's based on a photograph under a free license) are quite clearly derived from photographs. How about the others? For at least some, namely the "Tytane" images, an original source is already mentioned at Flickr. Not so with the Depardieu and Boucquet images, yet the original images for these were clearly found. So there are two questions: a) Are all those images derived from (copyrighted) photographs, even if the Flickr uploader doesn't tell? Can we take for granted that in that case no source image exists, even if in at least two case this was already shown to be wrong? And b) Are those images derived from the original photographs derivatives as far as copyright is concerned, which (with rare exceptions like the Mona Lisa and Sue Gardner images) would make them copyvios for us?
- File:Carla Bruni, afterimage.jpg
- File:Patrice Leconte, afterimage.jpg
- File:Serge Gainsbourg, afterimage.jpg
- File:Pierre Cardin, afterimage.jpg
- File:Bono, afterimage.jpg
- File:AMY WINEHOUSE, afterimage.jpg
- File:GERARD DEPARDIEU.jpg
- File:BEYONCE, Afterimage.jpg
- File:MICHAEL JAKSON, Afterimage.jpg
- File:TYTANE N.jpg
- File:TYTANE P.jpg
- File:PENELOPE CRUZ HUILE.jpg
- File:CAROLE BOUQUET.jpg
- File:CHARLOTTE RAMPLING.jpg
Rosenzweig τ 14:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: File:TYTANE N.jpg, File:TYTANE P.jpg have a source which I can not verify. -- RE rillke questions? 15:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete File:GERARD DEPARDIEU.jpg and File:CAROLE BOUQUET.jpg since they are derivatives and the original is not available under a free license. -- RE rillke questions? 15:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- Determining a derivative work in this situation can be rather hard. The photographer has no copyright over what the person looks like, but rather just that particular photographic depiction, though if they did any particular arranging of the subject matter that can change things (since there can be a copyright on that too). But, like the Obama "Hope" poster which was pretty much determined to be derivative (the judge basically ordered the artist to settle because wasn't going to end well for him), these certainly can be derivative. Not sure what a French court would say though. The Depardieu one looks like it maybe came from the photo here... oof, borderline to me. Not many exact outlines were really used, though you can get a sense of the original photo. The Bouquet one seems like this photo; same thing as the Depardieu really -- not completely sure, as most expression from the photo is gone, but not all of it. The Tytane ones don't even use outlines really, so that is much harder to make a case for being a derivative work -- though possible, if someone did work to get a particular look for the photo, and that can be seen as still present in these. I can't see the original photo on those, so less sure. The Bono one seems like it could well be an infringing derivative, though I can't find the photo -- similar to the one here, but I don't think that's the source (and if it is, may not be derivative). The Amy Winehouse... maybe this photo, maybe this one, or more likely some other photo taken that day. The Penelope Cruz one is also fairly more abstract than some of these others... these are hard calls really. Charlotte Rampling... looks like it came from a photo seen on this page; I would tend towards deletion with that. The Carla Bruni one... may tend more towards keeping (can't find a source photo but that one seems more abstracted). Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:54, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- Patrice Leonte... seems like this photo, but not 100% sure. Borderline again for me. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- Gainsbourg... this photo maybe? If so I may tend towards keep. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:05, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep*File:Carla Bruni, afterimage.jpg / Digital drawing directly without using original photo.
I told you that the artist does not use the original photo in this case, it was inspired by several photo, only work with a graphic, it is not forbidden, this is not a photo retouched! is A DIGITAL DRAWING.
- Keep* File:Patrice Leconte, afterimage.jpg /Digital drawing directly without using original photo
I told you that the artist does not use the original photo in this case, it was inspired by several photo, only work with a graphic, it is not forbidden, this is not a photo retouched! is A DIGITAL DRAWING.
- Keep* File:Serge Gainsbourg, afterimage.jpg /Digital drawing directly without using original photo
I told you that the artist does not use the original photo in this case, it was inspired by several photo, only work with a graphic, it is not forbidden, this is not a photo retouched! A DIGITAL DRAWING
- Keep* File:Pierre Cardin, afterimage.jpg /Digital drawing directly without using original photo
I told you that the artist does not use the original photo in this case, it was inspired by several photo, only work with a graphic, it is not forbidden, this is not a photo retouched! is A DIGITAL DRAWING
- Keep* File:Bono, afterimage.jpg /Digital drawing directly without using original photo
I told you that the artist does not use the original photo in this case, it was inspired by several photo, only work with a graphic, it is not forbidden, this is not a photo retouched! is A DIGITAL DRAWING
- Keep* File:AMY WINEHOUSE, afterimage.jpg /Digital drawing directly without using original photo
I told you that the artist does not use the original photo in this case, it was inspired by several photo, only work with a graphic, it is not forbidden, this is not a photo retouched! is A DIGITAL DRAWING
- Delete* File:GERARD DEPARDIEU.jpg /OK TO DELETE
- Keep* File:MICHAEL JAKSON, Afterimage.jpg / Digital drawing directly without using original photo
I told you that the artist does not use the original photo in this case, it was inspired by several photo, only work with a graphic, it is not forbidden, this is not a photo retouched! is A DIGITAL DRAWING
- Keep* File:TYTANE N.jpg Original source indicated with author Alain Agostini[[8]]
- Keep* File:TYTANE P.jpgOriginal source indicated with author Alain Agostini [[9]]
- Keep* File:PENELOPE CRUZ HUILE.jpg / Hand painting on canvas, no original photo
- Delete* File:CAROLE BOUQUET.jpg / OK TO DELETE
- Keep* File:CHARLOTTE RAMPLING.jpg / Digital drawing directly without using original photo
I told you that the artist does not use the original photo in this case, it was inspired by several photo, only work with a graphic, it is not forbidden, this is not a photo retouched! is A DIGITAL DRAWING
--Falcom (talk) 16:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- How do you know he did not use the original photos? Are you the artist yourself? And if not, why do you know how he worked? --Rosenzweig τ 16:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- I'm quite sure that he is either the artist or has close contact because he managed to change the license on flickr in less the one hour without leaving a comment beyond the photo. -- RE rillke questions? 16:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- The Charlotte Rampling one came from a photo seen here; that is not just "inspired". But really, that is the only one I have a strong "delete" opinion on. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- In the case of Charlotte Rampling, the artist admits to being inspired by this photo, but in terms of rights? What to do? Now it is forbidden to paint the actress with the hair going into the wind to the right?--Falcom (talk) 18:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- Yes I know this artist and I communicate by email, But this is not the problem, it is not forbidden in the law of artistic inspiration from a photo of how when the drawing was done directly on a graphics tablet, it is not here an edited photo is digital art and the image is visible only in your subconscious or virtually! Check with image specialists.
We can not prohibit a artist to paint a famous face, if the result does not look like the photo. Sorry for my English, I translate with google, cordially--Falcom (talk) 17:11, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- Like I said, determining a "derivative work" is not easy. Using photos as inspiration, that is not a problem, however, using the actual expression is an issue. In that particular case, the photographer may have been going after a particular look with the hair, which is pretty much copied in the artistic version. You can use the same idea, but not the expression (i.e. the precise way everything is laid out) -- that seems to be part of the photographer's work still. These can be touchy things; see the case about the Obama "hope" photo (details at en:Barack Obama "Hope" poster#Origin_and_copyright_issues; the judge basically told the artist to settle because he was going to lose (see here); they did eventually settle, though the judge (while not explicitly ruling a derivative work) did eventually order that the poster was *not* fair use, so that could not be used as a defense. Now, this is a U.S. case, and I am coming at this from that mindset, and France may be different. It comes down to how much a judge feels the resulting image takes the explicit expression from the original photo... not easy questions in cases like this. But, for works which come too close to duplicating the precise angle and other elements seen in the photo, the more it's a problem. Also, if the underlying photos are studio shots where the photographer had some creative control over the poses etc. of the subject (as opposed to a snapshot on the street), there is a larger danger of infringing on the original copyright. This type of thing walks all over the borderline, probably both sides of it in different cases, and it does not make for easy decisions. I think the Rampling one is the furthest over the line, at least in the ones where the underlying photos have been found. Nobody is disputing that the artist did some pretty creative things here, but copyright law gives certain rights to the authors of the underlying work, and I'm not sure these are different enough to break that link. If you know of any French court cases along these lines, that info would always help. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:22, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
No I do not have documents on the French law, your decision is good for Charlotte Rampling, but for others? I think TYTANE Pet TYTANE P, Pierre Cardin, Patrice Leconte, Beyonce, Amy Whinehouse, Michael Jackson, Serge Gainsbourg, Bono and especially Penelope Cruz (which is a painting painted directly on canvas, you can check with the zoom) are acceptable.--Falcom (talk) 08:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC) More Carla Bruni--Falcom (talk) 08:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC) --Falcom (talk) 15:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
- For File:PENELOPE CRUZ HUILE.jpg, see details here painting [[10]] It is really a painting and not a derivative photo, painting with only the imagination of the artist!!!!!
![[10]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:PENELOPE_CRUZ_HUILE.jpg){kind=link}
- For File:TYTANE P.jpg digital drawing that is very far from the original work: TYTANE P before:[[11]] , TYTANE P after:[[12]] It's very different!!!!Can you solve these two problems quickly?
![[12]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:TYTANE_P.jpg){kind=link}
Thank you, sincerely--Falcom (talk) 16:15, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Please don't be impatient, deletion requests run for 7 days. And there's no need to use multiple exclamation marks (!!!!!), they don't strengthen your argument, rather on the contrary. Lastly: The facebook images apparently can only be seen by other Facebook users (that means, not by me, among others it seems). --Rosenzweig τ 16:20, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
- CommentOk, sorry, I understand. About TYTANE P, if the origin is facebook, it must be recognized that the end result is absolutely different and the artist is honest to say and he mentioned the name of the author.--Falcom (talk) 16:49, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
- I can't see the underlying work on the Tytane ones, but yes those do seem considerably more abstracted. A lot of this "gut feel" though, and it's impossible to even guess without actually seeing the original. If it is a derivative work, then just mentioning the other person's name isn't enough, *unless* permission to Parant was given by that person -- in that case there is no issue. Also, a painting on canvas could still be a derivative work -- you can still copy expression doing that. A few of these I'm borderline one, a few I'd be inclined to keep probably. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
- Comment When a singer or actor is universally known, you will find thousands of photographs with thousands of facial expressions. Should you it prohibit all painters to represent a celebrity because we always find an expression that already exists on any picture?--Falcom (talk) 17:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
- No, but you can picture the face at a different angle, have the bits of hair being in different places, that kind of thing. It's when the really small details match up, then it is more likely to be a problem. There was something about that one photograph in particular that appealed in the first place, and if trying to copy that aspect... that could well be an issue. Try to imagine the same face (expression even) from a different angle, and paint that. I'm not saying *all* of these are derivative... a few look transformative enough for me that I'd keep (the Tytane quite possibly, the Carla Bruni one probably. The Rampling is the one I'd most likely delete. The Bono one seems quite possibly derivative depending on the base photo, if it's found. It's certainly not guaranteed that I'm right -- a court may decide along different lines. There was one U.S. case where an artist used the leg from the photo of a model in a different work (which combined many such photos of legs). The result was deemed to not be a derivative work (or at least fair use), even though the leg was straight copied, as the result had nothing to do with the original photograph (the focus was on the model in that case, the leg was incidental) -- it was a "transformative" use. In some of these cases, it seems as though some essential aspect of the original photograph remains in the result. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:59, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
So no problem with Tytane's and Penelope's hairs.--Falcom (talk) 08:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
- Comment See Commons:Deletion requests/Drawings by Paolo Steffan for a similar case.--141.84.69.20 20:34, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept: most, deleted some, according to discussion Jcb (talk) 23:33, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Palace of Westminster exterior views
[edit]- File:Big ben i parlament anglés des del london eye.JPG
- File:Fale London 5.jpg
- File:Fale London 76.jpg
- File:Fale London 77.jpg
- File:Fale London 78.jpg
- File:HoP IJA.PNG
- File:Houses of Parliament 1 db.jpg
- File:I n g l a t e r r a.jpg
- File:London Eye view, May 2007 --5.jpg
- File:Londres 136..jpg
- File:Londres 153..jpg
- File:Marcocarboni.jpg
- File:Palace of Westminster1.jpg
- File:Palace-of-westminster-panorama-3.jpeg
- File:Palacio de Westminster, Abadia de Westminster e Igreja de Santa Margarida.jpg
- File:River Thames, London-11Sept2009.jpg
- File:Westminster Bridge, Parliament House and the Big Ben.jpg
- File:Westminster-eye.jpg
- File:Westminster-from-taxi-2.jpg
- File:WestminsterHall.jpg
- File:Westminsterpalatset-2.jpg
Like the categories of many a famous landmark, Category:Palace of Westminster is filled with photographs taken by enthusiastic tourists and other amateur photographers. Unfortunately, the quality of many of these images ranges from unexceptional to very bad, they tend to be taken from the same few view-points, and their subject is often cut. Furthermore, some have odd compositions or colours, are very underexposed, or feature hard-to-remove date stamps. In general, and irrespective of their artistic merits, these images share a very low or non-existent encyclopaedic value, and more-usable photographs of the subject from all relevant view-points can be found in Commons (and even more elsewhere on-line). I therefore argue that the above files fall outside the scope of Commons and, in the interests of de-cluttering the Palace of Westminster category, I propose that they be deleted. Waltham, The Duke of 18:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC) [edited 18:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC)]
- Comment There are more images of comparable quality in the said category, but I have excluded from this nomination certain borderline cases, photographs of potential historic interest (i.e., rather old), photographs from the Geograph project (I do not believe we are supposed to be deleting those), and photographs which do not focus exclusively on the Palace and may possess encyclopaedic value in the illustration of other structures. I may also have missed a couple of recently uploaded (or categorised) images. Waltham, The Duke of 18:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep all; an interesting batch. Snowmanradio (talk) 22:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep all; if one user do not want to use the image, he is not obliged to use them. The commons is an open project and all images are free and without copyright. If you want, make a separate category there too; deleting free images also discourages people to come up new images -- Andrevruas (talk) 03:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
- I understand that we are all volunteers here; I just wish people would stop contributing photographs which are both redundant and unusable in an educational context (some more than others). Commons seems to have acquired a reputation as an indiscriminate collection of media; this nomination is a small effort on my part to counter this reputation. My request to people participating here is to have a look at the category and not just the pictures. (Category:Big Ben is an even more egregious example of this phenomenon.) Waltham, The Duke of 10:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
- Partly agree about some of the Flickr-pictures. -- Lavallen (talk) 10:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC)~
- Keep All in scope. Why dont edit them the underexposed ones". Also all are usable, and some images are very usable.
- So much usable that these images are in heavy use:
- Also per Andrevruas "if one user do not want to use the image, he is not obliged to use them". Also we in commons dont judge the encyclopaedic value of an image, insted we leave it to the other projects to judge by themselves (we dont editorialize), but instead if an image is in scope or not, and these images are clearly in scope. Also if the main categorie is cluttered with images, use {{Categorise}} template to uncletter instead of deleting images. Tm (talk) 03:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- The deletion policy names as out-of-scope those files which are "not realistically useful for an educational purpose", and more specifically those "that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject, especially if they are of poor or mediocre quality". I am not active in Commons meta-space so I don't know how widely or narrowly this criterion is interpreted, but you can see that many of these images lack this quality of being "educationally distinct" from many other photographs of the same subject. If you in Commons "don't judge the encyclopaedic value of the image", then it may be the case that the said criterion ought to be rephrased. Waltham, The Duke of 12:00, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep All Commons is a library, just because they're not used on sister sites doesn't mean that they should be deleted. People all over the world may want to use the free images for whatever purposes that's why they've been released into the public domain. Why de-credit commons of it's rich selection of images just because they're not used on sister sites? I think people are forgetting about the purpose of commons, it delivers media to the masses; a huge selection of the media is in the public domain and the masses should be able to pick choose and use any licence free media they want. IJA (talk) 09:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete at least the worst of the worst of the worst. If we want Commons to remain usable we need to stop hosting all the trash which drives users away. For instance I am sure we could all agree that File:Westminster-from-taxi-2.jpg is completely redundant. I am tired of searching for usable images in this Commons mess. We need some basic hygiene. --ELEKHHT 06:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- As another example, I don't think that the watermarked, blurred, badly exposured, randomly tilted, nastily cropped, with colour aberrations, poorly described and inappropriately named File:I n g l a t e r r a.jpg adds anything to what we already have in many versions. --ELEKHHT 06:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep The image quality is a subjective matter. I just wanted to replace one of the images currently used on Wikipedia with one of the images from this batch when I noticed this deletion proposal. I don't think there is any sense to this request whatsoever, therefore I vote to keep them all.--Avala (talk) 17:33, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
- Many aspects of image quality are of course objective. See also Commons:Quality images. --ELEKHHT 00:12, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
- But nowhere does it mention they can be erased if they don't fit the criteria to become quality images of featured images.--Avala (talk) 12:55, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
- It is very clearly stated in Commons:Deletion policy cited by the nominator of the present DR that "Files that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject, especially if they are of poor or mediocre quality" are out of scope. I am confident that at least some of the images nominated here (per my comments above) unambiguously satisfy this criteria. --ELEKHHT 01:00, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
- That is my very point. We have much better images of the same subject from the same angles, and the policy as it is currently phrased allows us to remove the poorer-quality ones to keep the project and its categories usable. We have to start cleaning at some point; apart from the images we already have, new ones will continue to arrive... Waltham, The Duke of 16:29, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
- However, so far the argument at DRs has been that as long an image is used on a sister project (in article space) it cannot be considered redundant. Therefore I suggest to withdraw those images from the nomination (as listed above by Tm), so that the discussion can be focused on the ones where consensus could be established. --ELEKHHT 05:45, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
- That is my very point. We have much better images of the same subject from the same angles, and the policy as it is currently phrased allows us to remove the poorer-quality ones to keep the project and its categories usable. We have to start cleaning at some point; apart from the images we already have, new ones will continue to arrive... Waltham, The Duke of 16:29, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
- It is very clearly stated in Commons:Deletion policy cited by the nominator of the present DR that "Files that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject, especially if they are of poor or mediocre quality" are out of scope. I am confident that at least some of the images nominated here (per my comments above) unambiguously satisfy this criteria. --ELEKHHT 01:00, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
- But nowhere does it mention they can be erased if they don't fit the criteria to become quality images of featured images.--Avala (talk) 12:55, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
- Many aspects of image quality are of course objective. See also Commons:Quality images. --ELEKHHT 00:12, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept, No prejudice against smaller, targeted nominations. Sorting through image quality really isn't the closing admin's job, despite one call to delete a couple that I agree are fairly low quality, and some of these images are very clearly within scope as they are in use. Courcelles (talk) 06:51, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Highly likely not the own work of the uploader. High Contrast (talk) 14:22, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Comment the same for these two images: File:PantherHouffalize.jpg and File:Houffalize09.jpg. --High Contrast (talk) 14:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
- more likely mis labeled, would be nice to get some more history.Slowking4 (talk) 16:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Image perdue, auteur décédé Jihemde (talk) 21:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio Bapti ✉ 20:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC)