Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2011/08/09
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
Uploader :
- Rodrigues2 (talk · contribs)
the uploader of this file has a long deletion log, and has been blocked for uploading copyvios with "own work" claims. There's only three files left from him : 2 logos and this photo. As it is impossible to trust this user's own work claims, i think we should also delete this file, unless rock solid proofs are given that this photo was really made by him... and not the last copyvio left just because we were able to find all other copied source except this one... --Lilyu (talk) 08:53, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Delete - given the uploader's history and apparent lack of technical expertise, it is hard to see how s/he could have uploaded this professional looking photo with a watermark. Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Speedy deleted: Photograph was taken from http://www.destinoteresopolis.com/ Bidgee (talk) 11:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Very low resolution. Not used; alternatives in Category:Methanesulfonic acid. Leyo 14:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Also, the methyl connectivity is sub-par (would be clearer as "H3C—" because the C not the H is where the S connects). DMacks (talk) 15:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Ed (Edgar181) 12:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Low quality, badJPG, replace by SVG. Leyo 14:59, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Low resolution and some artifacts. Would be trivial to conjure up a high-quality raster in modern format if someone had a use for it. DMacks (talk) 15:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Suitable replacement already exists: File:Epinastine.svg Ed (Edgar181) 12:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Poor quality, replaced by File:Chloroacetic-acid-2D-skeletal.png. Leyo 15:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom--low resolution and nonstandard angles. DMacks (talk) 15:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Ed (Edgar181) 12:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Poor quality, replaced by File:Ethylenediamine-2D-skeletal.png. Leyo 15:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Obvious {{Duplicate}}. DMacks (talk) 15:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Ed (Edgar181) 12:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Poor quality, replaced by File:Hunig.png. Leyo 15:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Lower-resolution chemical-equivalent in same format of proposed replacement. DMacks (talk) 15:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Ed (Edgar181) 12:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
No evidence that the file uploader is the copyright holder. Kelly (talk) 21:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
deleted, no evidence that User:B.Zsolt is the same person as "Ligeti Gábor", the given author of the file a×pdeHello! 14:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Taken from http://www.ncbae.edu.pk/ which has a copyright notice at the bottom of the page Crusio (talk) 12:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
unusable. Berthold Werner (talk) 12:32, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete I'm no fan of deleting images on quality grounds, but the same uploader has also provided at least two other images that are near identical, and without the camera shake problem.
- PS - Can the uploader please fix their image creation dates - they claim to be 2014 at present. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
This is a derivative work Magog the Ogre (talk) 12:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
This is a derivative work; while I realize that much of the packaging is de minimis, I am not sure that it is as a whole, and the design of the cow is simply too artistic IMHO. While I'm human and could be wrong, I am fairly sure this is copyrighted. Magog the Ogre (talk) 12:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work from File:Darth_vader_hot_air_balloon.jpg. Trycatch (talk) 13:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- indeed. Delete if you want, no problem for me.--Jebulon (talk) 09:29, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
and other uploads by Rodolphus1974 (talk · contribs). Unlikely to by own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. – Adrignola talk 18:57, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Uploader :
- GeographBot (talk · contribs)
ANDROBETA (talk · contribs) tagged this file with speedydelete with the rational : Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Darth vader hot air balloon.jpg and Commons:Image casebook#Costumes and cosplay (derivative work of a copyrighted character).
As this photo is not a direct derivative of the other image (like a cropped version), i disagree with speedying it. So i removed the speedydelete and nominated it for deletion, so that community can express advice related to this specific image. --Lilyu (talk) 19:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- File:Darth Vader in Star Wars exhibition.jpg
- File:Darth Vader from Lego.JPG
- File:Darth Vader costume.jpg
- File:Gen Con Indy 2007 - costumes 13 (Storm Troopers and Darth Vader).JPG
- File:Gen Con Indy 2007 - costumes 14 (Storm Troopers and Darth Vader).JPG
- File:Gen Con Indy 2007 - costumes 15 (Darth Vader and a pirate).JPG
- File:Emperor's Royal Guard & Darth Vader cosplayers at WonderCon 2010 2.JPG
- File:Darth Vader in Star Wars exhibition (2008).jpg
- File:Emperor's Royal Guard & Darth Vader cosplayers at WonderCon 2010 1.JPG
- File:Darth Vader cosplayer at WonderCon 2007.JPG
- File:Kalle ja batman.JPG
- What is there to talk about? It's exactly the same case. Either derivatives of copyrighted characters are allowed either they aren't. I can't see how a balloon in the shape of Darth Vader's head (among other balloons in that image) can be deleted and this one not :P. --ANDROBETA 19:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- You just speedy tagged, hardly considering the case. You also tagged more than 25 other files, including cosplay, which has nothing to do with Dark vador and Ballons. Also, the countries are different -> different copyright laws. Also, i don't consider a successful DR automatically create a new policy, thus other images, especially if they are here for years or have successfully passed a DR in the past for example, should be studied in a mass DR or specific DR for each image, not by tagging them for speedy deletion.--Lilyu (talk) 19:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- Cosplay may have nothing to do with Darth Vador and balloons but it may have with being a derivative work of a copyrighted character :P --ANDROBETA 19:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- You consider there can be no differences, and that the decision on the previous DR should apply to any photo depicting sutff related to star wars characters. Let me try to show you there can be some, let's consider the following situation :
- The object is an official derivative product (not a copyvio). (difference with the balloon case)
- The object is permanently installed. (difference with the balloon case)
- The country has a COM:FOP, which is the case here (United Kingdom).
- Than the photo of it is NOT a derivative work (the copyright on the fictional character is not transfered).
- Also, consider there IS a case law in UK that state that G. Lucas copyright do not apply to star wars helmets (in that law case, it was mostly storm troopers helmets i think).
- That's why each image should be studied case by case, or at least in a mass DR... but you tagged a too wide variety of photos (ballons, cosplay, different countries, etc) to put all of them in a single mass DR.--Lilyu (talk) 00:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- Now, considering THIS specific photo, i really have no idea and i prefer to let people check and decide by themselves, there might be other points i didn't thought of. If i knew you had tagged with this abusive rational so much images and not only this one, i would just have reverted your tag without opening this DR.--Lilyu (talk) 00:57, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- Cosplay may have nothing to do with Darth Vador and balloons but it may have with being a derivative work of a copyrighted character :P --ANDROBETA 19:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- You just speedy tagged, hardly considering the case. You also tagged more than 25 other files, including cosplay, which has nothing to do with Dark vador and Ballons. Also, the countries are different -> different copyright laws. Also, i don't consider a successful DR automatically create a new policy, thus other images, especially if they are here for years or have successfully passed a DR in the past for example, should be studied in a mass DR or specific DR for each image, not by tagging them for speedy deletion.--Lilyu (talk) 19:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- What do you mean by official? If you mean that the derivative is released by the copyright owner, it makes absolutely no difference. Taking a picture of a 3d copyrighted character of theirs is the same as taking a picture of another picture with that copyrighted character. So it's still copyrighted.
- So what if it's permanently installed? If they would have permanently installed that balloon there, would've that make a difference in it's copyright status?
- Freedom of panorama applies to panoramas, that is when the captured copyrighted item just randomly happens to be there and is not the subject of the image, like it is in all the images tagged by me.
- I only tagged american copyrighted characters cosplay (though this one may be some stuffed figure or smtn) and a Joker fan art (which doesn't comply at all with Commons copyright policies).
- Besides, this image really is useless just considering it's quality and the fact that there are other better images of it's kind (not for long though >:) ). --ANDROBETA 17:37, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, but maybe you should avoid mass tagging copyvios if you dont understand what is COM:FOP and the difference with com:de minimis. *sigh*
--Lilyu (talk) 20:25, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
_-_3.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
_-_3.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_3.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_-_3.JPG){kind=link}
_-_3.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Please note that the original nominator has been cloning the deletion template on other images which are not even mentioned here, and revert warring, restoring them even after being asked not to do so (ex. [1], [2]). I hope somebody can clean this mess. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Darth_Vader_from_Lego.JPG&diff=prev&oldid=57870645){kind=link}
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Gen_Con_Indy_2007_-_costumes_14_%28Storm_Troopers_and_Darth_Vader%29.JPG&diff=next&oldid=57823195){kind=link}
- COM:POINT : i'm not going to clean that mess, and there's not going to be any rational discussion supported by policies and copyright laws... I'm out of here.--Lilyu (talk) 02:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- Lilyu, I admit that I didn't had the time to study all the policies in detail, but this should say more than enough: Commons:Image casebook#Costumes and cosplay.
- Piotr, please retain yourself from making such absurd statements. I've been "cloning the deletion template"? Do I have to list all the files I nominate for deletion at every deletion request discussion page (and update each list as I nominate more)? Revert warring? Do you even know what that means? I previously added a speedy deletion template because I considered those images to be obvious copyright infringement and I still do. I was told by some that they do not consider it obvious copyvio and someone reverted my edits. So I added a regular deletion template so that the cases are analysed individually (though this is only wasting time). What mess? If anything I'm only helping cleaning up commons of copyrighted material, before issues may occur. --ANDROBETA 18:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, I forgot to tell that I didn't notice that the delete template I copied from here was sending to the same discussion page, so I made it into a mass deletion request: Commons:Deletion requests/2011/08/12#File:Darth Vader - geograph.org.uk - 1379636.jpg. --ANDROBETA 11:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: The two exhibition photos might have been all right, but they are from Spain which has no FOP indoors or for non-permanent displays. The others are all private creations, almost certainly unlicensed, and therefore copyvios themselves.
Note, please, that User:ANDROBETA's comment:
- "Freedom of panorama applies to panoramas, that is when the captured copyrighted item just randomly happens to be there and is not the subject of the image, like it is in all the images tagged by me."
is not correct. FOP applies whenver it fits, even if the copyrighted item is the principal subject of the photo. Thus, File:De tre vingarna, Alexander Calder.JPG is OK because it is in Sweden where there is FOP for sculpture. It would not be OK if it were in the USA.
Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:58, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I doubt you are the photographer. http://openwaterpedia.com/index.php?title=File:Petar_Stoychev_international_marathon_swimming_hall_of_fame.JPG (04:01, 27 June 2011 user:Munatones) and File:Petar_Stoychev_World_Champion_25K.jpg Saibo (Δ) 00:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:33, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
please upload the full resolution if you are the photographer. http://www.novinibg.com/news/12923 http://sportnovini.blogspot.com/2011/07/blog-post_23.html Saibo (Δ) 00:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:33, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
low res, no cats, no links, a personal photo? Consent of the depicted person? COM:PS Saibo (Δ) 00:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:33, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
low res, no cats, no links, a personal photo? Consent of the depicted person? COM:PS Saibo (Δ) 00:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:33, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
http://swampland.com/img/Image/calemine/panic89.jpg at http://swampland.com/articles/view/title:thunder_on_the_mountain_interview_with_widespread_panics_dave_schools "Photo credits James Calemine, Brad Hodge, Dave Vann & Eric Adkins" Also compare with other uploads form this user - smells like copyvio. Saibo (Δ) 00:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Seems to be a photo from the old website of the band itself: http://liveweb.archive.org/http://www.widespreadpanic.com/media/graphics/quartet.jpg Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 00:43, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:32, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Surely not the own work of the uploader 91.57.81.85 01:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:32, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
COM:DW - that is too close to the fair use photo which is used as source Saibo (Δ) 01:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:32, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
no source, never had source at en.wiki, promotional/official image Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:32, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Incorporates image of Bart Simpson, a copyrighted work of Fox Broadcasting, I think. Ytoyoda (talk) 03:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Not only that, but this looks like a flickrwashing to me, of a fairly common internet image. Courcelles (talk) 04:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:32, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Out of project scope, no educational value Mathonius (talk) 06:14, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: I'm not sure it is out of scope, but I doubt it is own work Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:32, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
this file come from the english wikipedia, there the file is licensed with "Fair use", but here is a violation of the copyrights Remux (talk) 06:54, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Delete, i make a mistake with this file when I was a novice and when I don't understand what was Fair Use. --
Sahaquiel - Hast du eine Frage? 
05:38, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:31, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
COM:DW 77.184.57.241 07:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:30, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
poor quality image, not useful for educational purposes SpacemanSpiff (talk) 08:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- The image is visible and serves as a reference for enthusiasts of this celeb.Hindustanilanguage (talk) 08:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:30, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
no longer used and desired Luxusfrosch (talk) 08:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:30, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
norwey 155.55.60.112 10:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- ...sorry? --Aqwis (talk) 11:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Keep invalid reason for deletion. MKFI (talk) 12:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)- Keep norwey. Also no reason to delete.Tm (talk) 03:51, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:30, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Seems to be fictional. FA2010 (talk) 11:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:28, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Seems to be fictional. FA2010 (talk) 11:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:25, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Screeenshot from a TV program. Does not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection. OTAVIO1981 (talk) 11:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:23, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Logo taken from http://royalsocietypublishing.org/site/openbiology/ which has a copyright notice at the bottom of the page. Crusio (talk) 11:48, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:23, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
This item was marked as {{GFDL-presumed}} at English Wikipedia; it was then marked as {{GFDL-self}} by an IP. Only English Wikipedia admins can see this, because the file is deleted at en.wp, but I've copied thepage history below:
Page history
(del/undel) (diff) 06:40, 9 August 2011 . . Sreejithk2000 (talk | contribs | block) (181 bytes) (F8: Media file available on Commons)
(del/undel) (diff) 12:02, 12 March 2011 . . Acather96 (talk | contribs | block) (117 bytes) (Tagging image to be Moved to the Wikimedia Commons ({{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}}))
(del/undel) (diff) 12:02, 12 March 2011 . . Acather96 (talk | contribs | block) (96 bytes) (moved File:DSC00542.jpg to File:Sparham, Norfolk.jpg: more descriptive)
(del/undel) (diff) 01:25, 2 July 2009 . . DrilBot (talk | contribs | block) (96 bytes) (Update licensing in accordance with image license migration)
(del/undel) (diff) 17:06, 8 May 2007 . . Cydebot (talk | contribs | block) (76 bytes) (Robot - Fixing GFDL tags project-wide per Wikipedia:GFDL standardization.)
(del/undel) (diff) 13:04, 6 May 2006 . . 88.109.188.201 (talk | block) (59 bytes)
(del/undel) (diff) 10:40, 6 May 2006 . . Ej159 (talk | contribs | block) (63 bytes)
(del/undel) (diff) 10:40, 6 May 2006 . . Ej159 (talk | contribs | block) (63 bytes)
(del/undel) (diff) 10:40, 6 May 2006 . . Ej159 (talk | contribs | block) (63 bytes)
(del/undel) (diff) 10:39, 6 May 2006 . . Ej159 (talk | contribs | block) (23 bytes)
(del/undel) (diff) 10:38, 6 May 2006 . . Ej159 (talk | contribs | block) (17 bytes)
(del/undel) (diff) 10:38, 6 May 2006 . . Ej159 (talk | contribs | block) (23 bytes)
(del/undel) (diff) 10:36, 6 May 2006 . . Ej159 (talk | contribs | block) (17 bytes)
(del/undel) (diff) 10:36, 6 May 2006 . . Ej159 (talk | contribs | block) (39 bytes)
(del/undel) (diff) 10:34, 6 May 2006 . . Ej159 (talk | contribs | block) (59 bytes)
(del/undel) (diff) 10:34, 6 May 2006 . . Ej159 (talk | contribs | block) (52 bytes)
(del/undel) (diff) 10:33, 6 May 2006 . . Ej159 (talk | contribs | block) (74 bytes)
(del/undel) (diff) 10:32, 6 May 2006 . . Ej159 (talk | contribs | block) (75 bytes)
(del/undel) (diff) 10:31, 6 May 2006 . . Ej159 (talk | contribs | block) (37 bytes)
(del/undel) (diff) 10:28, 6 May 2006 . . Ej159 (talk | contribs | block) (78 bytes)
(del/undel) (diff) 19:07, 4 May 2006 . . OrphanBot (talk | contribs | block) (39 bytes) (Image has no source information)
(del/undel) (diff) 18:24, 4 May 2006 . . Jackderrick (talk | contribs | block) (empty)
Magog the Ogre (talk) 11:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Comment Looks like the uploaders only edit on the page is when the image was uploaded. The uploader has no long history of editing in Wikipedia either. Confusing. To guide this discussion, can you please also provide the template he used when he uploaded? --Sreejith K (talk) 12:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- As you can see, it says (empty): there was nothing provided. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:23, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
90.84.146.225 14:03, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept: no reason given, the file is in use. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:22, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Ellin Beltz as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Source page http://www.southeastlinuxfest.org/#Ryan_.22Icculus.22_Gordon is listed © 2015 SouthEast LinuxFest
Converted by me to DR, merely for procedural reasons, as the image is on Commons since 2011. Maybe we have overlooked a license statement at source; otherwise the nomimation is correct. -- Túrelio (talk) 16:10, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Copyright Clarification
[edit]
The image is a snapshot taken from this video reposted here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkvDhdK0HAE
Note the copyright notice: "This video is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License."
Therefore the image is also licensed as above. 17:17, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Also see here: https://archive.org/details/SouthEast_LinuxFest_2009_Videos
--- Kept: Under CC 3.0 license, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkvDhdK0HAE --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 03:01, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
This file got 1244 hits on TinEye. I'm not sure which is the original, but it's unlikely it came from here. -- Deadstar (msg) 14:49, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:21, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Uploader is not the author. Lacking proof of permission. ComMonster (talk) 15:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Temporary installation, FOP does not apply. Also, uploader changed source/author after DR was opened. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:26, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Uploader is not the author. Lacking proof of permission. ComMonster (talk) 15:24, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - uploader made the photo. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - There is FOP in the Netherlands. --ELEKHHT 09:31, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:24, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Uploader is not the author. Lacking proof of permission. ComMonster (talk) 15:24, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Author/source was originally shown as Groenewoud/Buij. Uploader changed it after the {{Delete}} was added. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:18, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Uploader is not the author. Lacking proof of permission. ComMonster (talk) 15:24, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Author/source was originally shown as Groenewoud/Buij. Uploader changed it after the {{Delete}} was added. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:17, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Uploader is not the author. Lacking proof of permission. Possible NO-FOP too (inside building) ComMonster (talk) 15:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Author/source was originally shown as Groenewoud/Buij. Uploader changed it after the {{Delete}} was added. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:16, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Uploader is not the author. Lacking proof of permission. ComMonster (talk) 15:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:16, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Uploader is not the author. Lacking proof of permission. ComMonster (talk) 15:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Author/source was originally shown as Groenewoud/Buij. Uploader changed it after the {{Delete}} was added. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:15, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Uploader is not the author. Lacking proof of permission. ComMonster (talk) 15:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Author/source was originally shown as Groenewoud/Buij. Uploader changed it after the {{Delete}} was added. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:15, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Uploader is not the author. Lacking proof of permission. Possible NO-FOP too. ComMonster (talk) 15:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Author/source was originally shown as Groenewoud/Buij. Uploader changed it after the {{Delete}} was added. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:15, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
NO FOP. Uploader is not the author. Lacking proof of permission. ComMonster (talk) 15:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Author/source was originally shown as Groenewoud/Buij. Uploader changed it after the {{Delete}} was added. Also, probably infringes copyright on sculpture. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:14, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Uploader is not the author. Lacking proof of permission. ComMonster (talk) 15:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Author/source was originally shown as Groenewoud/Buij. Uploader changed it after the {{Delete}} was added. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:14, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Uploader is not the author. Lacking proof of permission. ComMonster (talk) 15:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - looks like uploaders own work to me. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Author/source was originally shown as Groenewoud/Buij. Uploader changed it after the {{Delete}} was added. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:11, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
This claims to be an official portrait, so would the uploader really have rights? Could be PD-USGOV I guess. It also has a signature "Anton" in the corner. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete This image is the reupload of an image that was previously deleted at Speedy Long.jpg. There is a difference between owning a physical copy of the image and its copyright and we need some evidence that the uploader owns the copyright. Unless we get this plausibly clarified I assume this is an old image taken in a studio and not an original work by the uploader. Hekerui (talk) 17:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:08, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
The sculpture artist Salaval Scherbakov is alive. Author's rights are violated. PereslavlFoto (talk) 15:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
А давайте удалим фотографии всех работ Щербаова в Википедии - http://ru.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%D0%A9%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B1%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2,_%D0%A1%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%82_%D0%90%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B4%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87&stable=0#.D0.93.D0.B0.D0.BB.D0.B5.D1.80.D0.B5.D1.8F
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:07, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Created in 2002, author Yury Orekhov, no FOP in Russia. PereslavlFoto (talk) 15:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:07, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
and File:КММ колейный механизированный мост 1.JPG. Illustrations from books. Unlikely to be in public domain - post WWII trucks. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:07, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Created in 1976, authors Chernov and Galperin, no FOP in Russia. PereslavlFoto (talk) 15:49, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:07, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
and File:DylanPoepic.png. Unlikely to by own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:07, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Fictional flag. 84.61.163.116 16:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete I agree, flag is fictional. --Telim tor (talk) 12:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope, not used anywhere, and has no foreseeable use. Appears to be someone's fantasy flag. Courcelles (talk) 18:26, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:07, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
There is no Freedom of Panorama in France and the creator of this 3-D artwork died in 1944. Therefore the work is still copyrighted and images must not be taken without license.. De728631 (talk) 16:48, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- I didn't take care of this. --Berthold Werner (talk) 06:06, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:07, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
the parent cat has been cleaned up by moving paintings into sub-categories. images on the building should be in the Museum cat (as long as <50 images dont need a sperate cat on the building/architecture. --ZH2010 (Diskussion) 17:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC) ZH2010 (talk) 17:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Fictional flag. 84.61.163.116 17:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete I agree, flag is fictional. --Telim tor (talk) 12:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope, not used anywhere, and has no foreseeable use. Appears to be someone's fantasy flag. Courcelles (talk) 18:28, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:05, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
COM:DW as COM:FOP#Germany does not apply since the flag is probably dismounted after the contest (→not "permanent"). Saibo (Δ) 18:12, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:05, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
unclear restriction: "Image author requests all image use limited to resized versions for other Wikipedia articles". Does it mean that the full version is not freely licensed? Then it contradicts COM:L. Saibo (Δ) 18:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:03, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Crab clip art used is likely not available under a license that is free and/or allows for use in derivative works. Also, zero encyclopedic value. KinuP (talk) 19:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:03, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Logo of some sort, used in a now deleted advert on en.wikipedia. no foreseeable use. FASTILY (TALK) 20:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:02, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Not notable person. Probably out of scope. And the uploader said here that he found the image in a newspaper. mickit 20:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:02, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
No OTRS. Kobac (talk) 20:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:02, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
personal attack on en-WP disguised as an image. thumperward (talk) 21:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
No source given to verify copyright claim. Kelly (talk) 21:43, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep It's a cropped version of Photo #:U.S. Army C-545 (Color), from the Army Signal Corps Collection in the U.S. National Archives, source here [3]. The uncropped image exists as File:FDR on quincy.jpg. Mikenorton (talk) 19:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:55, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Cannot verify that this is the work of NASA. Kelly (talk) 21:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep It appears to be this image [4], confirming it as a work of NASA - I have added the link to the file description. Mikenorton (talk) 22:03, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:53, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
No evidence that the file uploader is the copyright holder. Kelly (talk) 21:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:52, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
No evidence that the uploader is the copyright holder. Kelly (talk) 21:59, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- OK, but why should we assume good faith here? Railwayfan2005 (talk) 20:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Because the source has a copyright notice and the uploader is not the author/source. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:52, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
not interested 174.254.135.16 22:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- I removed the deletion request, as no sensible reason for deletion was given. -- Cymothoa exigua (talk) 20:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Please do not remove {{Delete}} tags until the DR is closed -- the process has several steps, including adding a {{Kept}} tag to the talk page and removing the {{Delete}} permaturely upsets the script we use to close DRs. Thanks. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:50, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Uploader is not the author. Lacking proof of permission. ComMonster (talk) 15:24, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Author/source was originally shown as Groenewoud/Buij. Uploader changed it after the {{Delete}} was added. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:17, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
This image infringes on the copyright of the character. While the creator of the balloon may or may not have obtained a license to copy the character, this photograph is a derivative work and does not have a license.
In order to keep the image on Commons, we will need Commons:OTRS permission from the copyright holder, which is probably Nickelodeon Animation Studios.
Anticipating comments that the Freedom of Panorama exception to copyright applies in Mexico, I point out that FOP applies only to permanent installations. If this were a statue of SpongeBob, it might be all right.
Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
KeepThis deletion request by this particular nominator borders on harrassment. The rationale for deletion is completely flawed and it would create the precedent of having to erase thousands and thousands of photographs on the whim of unqualified admin. This image is that of a public event, in a public land, of public airspace. The balloon is meant to be seen and it is completely unreasonable for the owner of the charachter to expect the population at large to abstain from photographing it. For all we know, it may be part of their strategy to promote the character. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 13:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Delete per nomination: copyright violation; FOP does not apply. --High Contrast (talk) 08:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Comment "permanent" for sandcastles can mean "until the next wave". Interesting question what it might mean for hot air balloons. -- Docu at 07:38, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- I thought about that, but a sandcastle is built in one place and cannot be moved. It is permanent until nature takes its course, just as it will with all "permanent" installations, although some will take tens of thousands of years. A hot air balloon, on the other hand, is inflated in one place usually for less than a day, then taken down and moved to another place. If you moved a sculpture from place to place on a daily basis, no one would argue that it is permanent within the meaning of the FOP laws. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 09:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- I think the statue thing depends on the country. "permanent" could mean "not in transit", but not necessarily "eternally". -- Docu at 10:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Comment The figure is recognisable only when the baloon is inflated, thus only when in public space. --ELEKHHT 06:27, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- Comment From what I see in the law (and what is written in COM:FOP#Mexico), Mexican FOP covers both permanently and non-permanently installed objects visible from public places (the only thing that is important -- the object should be visible from a public place). Trycatch (talk) 10:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- I still don't get it. It was on main page in March. As advertized as it could be - hard to miss. And then it was good. An inquiry on COM:Licensing went unanswered. Now it's not good. Why? Why did you leave it alone then but changed your mind now? NVO (talk) 10:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- I could simply say that it is an obvious copyvio -- a copyrighted character, with no evidence that either the balloon creator or the photographer has a license from Nickelodeon Animation Studios -- and ask why none of those who saw it on the Main Page or the query at Licensing noticed that, but I understand that they have their skills and interests, and those of us who do DRs have ours.
- There are only so many hours in my Commons day -- I spend them largely on administrative tasks and virtually never see the Main Page or Commons_talk:Licensing. A few numbers:
- Images on Commons -- 10,705,665
- Active editors (at least one edit in last thirty days) -- ~25,000
- Human (Non-bot) edits per day -- ~29,000
- Administrative actions per day (97% of which are deletions) -- ~1,000
- Administrative backlog -- varies, currently growing
- Administrators -- 258
- Administrators who do half of all Admin actions -- 7
- Given the large numbers of images and edits, is it surprising that those of us with a reasonable knowledge of copyright -- maybe a few hundred all told -- didn't see this image until it came to our attention because a sister image was DRed and deleted?
- I suggested at Commons:Village_pump#Image_of_the_day_deleted that before an image is given prominent display, that it should either have a nominal DR or some other process that exposes it to the administrative segment of the Commons population. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- Any thoughts on above comments by Trycatch and myself ? --ELEKHHT 12:49, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- I don't read Spanish, so I can't comment intelligently on the question of just how far FOP extends in Mexico, either physically or temporally. I think, though, that FOP is largely irrelevant unless the uploader shows that the balloon does not itself infringe on the copyright -- that is, that the creator of the balloon actually has a license from Nickelodeon Animation Studios. Given that our uploader believes that anything in public, anywhere, anytime, with or without permission of the copyright holder, should be kept on Commons, it seems unlikely that he has made any attempt to determine that. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:49, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- Any thoughts on above comments by Trycatch and myself ? --ELEKHHT 12:49, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- I suggested at Commons:Village_pump#Image_of_the_day_deleted that before an image is given prominent display, that it should either have a nominal DR or some other process that exposes it to the administrative segment of the Commons population. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Comment The Mexican Law of National Waters (Ley de Aguas Nacionales) states that bodies of water are national property, thus public property. Article XLVII states that from the highst level national property extends 10 meters. This balloon is on top of the body of water, well inside the 10 meters, and the shore belongs to a public part anyway. So we are talking about an object well inside public property. This is a public event, in a public place, and no reasonable person is either to refrain from photographing what is in the public view and/or contact whomever for permission to photograph that which is in public view. The image as a whole is a graphic record of an event and if Nickelodeon has an issue about protecting its character, then they should either cancel the agreement they have with the balloon owner, if there is such an agreement, and if not, let them act against them anyway. The intent of the image is not to infringe on copyrights, and if someone with ill intentions does so from this image, then let the owner(s) of copyrights act against infractors. The precedent that would be established by deleting this image on the current rationale would obligate Commons to wipe out thousands, if not millions of images. Common sense should be applied. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept: as per Tomascastelazo. Yann (talk) 10:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Tagged with {{Copyvio}} by User:1Veertje with the reason "Copyright protected cartoon figure". This was the subject of a long DR (see above) and should not be a speedy now. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:27, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete I agree with 1Veertje that this should be deleted. There is no evidence that Nickelodeon Animation Studios gave permission for the creation of the balloon. FOP cannot make an image of an infringing object OK. The argument put forth by Tomascastelazo at the end of the DR above is explicitly prohibited by COM:PRP #1 and #2. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:33, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Keep The Leon International Hot Air Ballon Festival is the second largest balloon festival in the world, and the largest in Latin America, so to suggest that Nickelodeon ignores its existence is at the very least chidishly naive. The base argument for deletion is that it is possibly a copyvio. This is a photograph of a very public event, in a very public place, in a country where freedom of panorama exists. This is a newsworthy event too with editorial value. Lack of evidence should not be used as a motive for deletion, on the contrary, certainty of evidence is what should apply. If lack of evidence becomes common practice, Commons would be left with very, very few images rendering Commons inoperative. It is evident that although the character plays an important role, it is placed inside a context that does not intend to exploit the charachter itself, but to place a hot air balloon inside its intended context and purpose. The nominator has in her user page photographs of her cell phone and other objects by themselves, with no other context... I say this because I am sure that such objects have copyrights and protected industrial designs, if any, such images would be clear violations of copyrights. Why not delete those? What is the argument to keep those where the intention of the image is no other but to represent the object itself, as opposed in this picture where the intention is to represent a public event... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:04, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FoP may be invoked only for authorized/intended public placement. As a logical corollary, one could not buy a book, set it on a public bench in Mexico, and then be allowed to license freely photographs of the pages. The argument for retention in both discussions is patent nonsense, based primarily on OTHERSTUFF, failure to consider COM:PRP and ignorance of the concept of seperability in industrial designs (aka useful articles). Further, the contention that “Lack of evidence should not be used as a motive for deletion, on the contrary, certainty of evidence is what should apply” is precisely the opposite of what we require. The impetus is on uploaders/proponents of retention to provide the necessary support for a free license. Эlcobbola talk 21:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Deletion of this file was requested twice before. This March it was deleted on the grounds that "FoP may be invoked only for authorized/intended public placement." It was later restored by King of Hearts, who gave the reason as "a discussion on COM:UNDEL a while ago that indicated that FoP in Mexico applies to everything, not just permanent installments." This reasoning seems to ignore the question of whether "the creator of the balloon actually has a license from Nickelodeon Animation Studios." If Nickelodeon didn't give permission, then FOP doesn't apply. Rybec (talk) 04:45, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
- Comment I am a bit incredulous about this point as well. However, per the result of Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive#File:Hot air balloon sans darth vader.jpg I decided to enforce consistency and save further discussion for a later date, which I guess is now. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:29, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
- Images of most crimes taking place are ok on commons. Exceptions are for snuff videos and things like that. Images of assassinations and riots and so on, if we can get them, are ok.
- For example, we don't need an authorisation letter for an assassination that we have on video, that is to say, authorisation is required for the video, not for the assassination. Nor is it possible to categorise the balloon image into Category:examples of copyright infringement if we don't know. What we need to know is that you can take photographs of stuff in Mexico, and that Tom is ok with us using his photos. If a claim is being made, to say it is or is not copyright infringement shown in the image, or any other crime shown in the image is a separate matter not related to the image licensing. Would it come under notcensored ? IDK.
- Images of some crimes are censored and not allowed on commons and some are, but to work out if every piece of clothing every person in every image is wearing is an authorised genuine article, or a cheap sweatshop copy and so forth is beyond the bounds of copyright paranoia. Surely there are Nickelodeon staff who will swear it's not so, but the arguments presented for one commons image must apply to all commons images in comparable categories.
- Transforming the image back into plain spongebob, rather than a Mexican balloon festival would be a serious problem, so there are limits to what can be done with it. Penyulap ☏ 05:37, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
- At this point I am very suspicious about attempts to delete this image. I can see that once could be a legitimate attempt, twice it smells fishy because old opposers reappear, but three times is simply pretty ridiculous.
- To begin with it questions the rulings of administrators that three times have ruled to keep the image, and therefore, by extension, this puts any of their rulings into question and subject to be reversed.
- Second, it sets a precent for harrasment any user by nominating her/his images for deletion until an administrator is found who will rule in favor of the nominator. It has been demostrated that administrative behaviour can be, and has been outside rules, guidelines and procedures, canvassing has taken place and double voting has occurred in order to affect outcomes.
- Third, this image is of a newsworthy event and within the law in Mexico. To go off and speculate if the owners of the airship obtained permission from the owners of the character is pretty farfetched. Why not assume in good faith they do? After all, it is the second most important hot air ballon festival in the world, it is a public event, it takes place on public land and airspace, the character is shown within the context of the festival, etc., etc.
- And last, the reasoning expressed for the deletion would need to be enforced on millions of photographs in Commons where just about any copyrighted image would need to be deleted, car brands, coca cola images, printed t-shirts, etc., etc.
- So, needless to say, I
Oppose this nomination with extreme prejudice and question its origin and motives.
- So, needless to say, I
- Keep per the closing note of PierreSelim at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Leon international hot air ballon festival nov 2012.jpg. JKadavoor Jee 11:33, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- Comment If it would have been taken in the USA, the file would definitely be a copyright violation since it is a derivative work of the copyrighted character. But I do not know what is the mexican law about the copyright on the characters themselves. Do they allow copyright like that or is it just the work where such characters appear that is copyrighted? Somebody please answer. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 16:50, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Freedom of panorama, and the balloon is authorized by Nickelodeon Brazil. [5] [6] Hope this finally settles it.--Atlantima (talk) 03:22, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- Keep per the link given by Atlantima, which clearly answers the nominator's worry that Nickelodeon didn't give permission. --GRuban (talk) 19:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- Keep If the only reason is simply not knowing if the balloon was authorized or not. Unless there is documentation or very good reason to believe it was not authorized, I think we should assume it was. 100% certainty is rarely actually achievable; we usually have to make common-sense assumptions. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:09, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Kept, yet again -FASTILY 08:59, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Jonnymoon96 as Copyvio (copyvio) despite the page being kept previously after a deletion nomination. User gave no reason for nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:20, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Kept: New nomination without arguments. Yann (talk) 09:42, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
=== File:Pioneer_11_-_Saturn_-_p176.jpg ===
Ten obraz przedstawia Jowisz, a nie Saturn jak w nazwie pliku 83.24.19.223 19:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- Please translate the reason into English as this is the English language version of Wikipedia.109.154.74.121 08:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- That is silly. The file should simply be renamd then, or the same file uploaded with the proper name. There is no reason to delete the file though. Nonetheless, I should have caught the error prior to uploading the image; my apologies. -Xession (talk) 21:02, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- I've added a {{Rename}} request, suggesting File:Pioneer 11 - Jupiter - p176.jpg. Could a passing admin please close this deletion request? -84user (talk) 12:31, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept, Kept and renamed. Courcelles (talk) 08:13, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Commons:Nudity: low resolution and little descriptive information, lots of better pictures in Category:Penis Mathonius (talk) 06:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, no educational use at this quality, given the better photos available. Courcelles (talk) 04:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - Commons does not need you to drop your pants and grab a camera.--Hold and wave (talk) 21:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 00:10, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Out of project scope, this picture with nudity in it has no educational value Mathonius (talk) 06:20, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- Nudes-a-poppin is a public nudism event where the crowd participates clothing optional.This photo is commonplace activity in the crowd that I thought would be of interest to some. Having said that, I don't really know Wikimedia policy, so if this photo is not fitting ia ANY way, please feel free to delete it with my full respect and acceptance of the decision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cottonball (talk • contribs) 06:37, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - can illustrate en:Nudes-A-Poppin. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete ...and for en:Nudes-A-Poppin it is misleading or with a false titel: I donna see any "dance". --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:58, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - Commons does not need you to drop your pants and grab a camera.--Hold and wave (talk) 21:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 00:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Restored per udel --MGA73 (talk) 09:40, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This image does not reflect accurate flag of Serbia used from 1941 to 1944. Uploader of the image claims that image is derivative work created from this file, but eagle and shild in two files are different. Uploader in fact did not used historical symbols, but created flag which using eagle from modern flag of Serbia and not from historical flag from 1941-1944. From the heraldical point of view, this flag uploaded by user:TRAJAN 117 neither representing historical flag of Serbia (which its title claims) neither modern one. Furthermore, user:TRAJAN 117 admitted that he used eagle from modern flag: [7] This flag is completelly fictional and cannot serve any educational purpose and therefore it should be deleted. ~ PANONIAN (talk) 07:49, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
- Keep The flag can easily be modified to reflect the original image. TRAJAN 117 (talk) 13:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- So, you agree that it does reflect original image? If it could be modified, why you do not modify it? There is no reason that this unmodified image remains here because it does not represent anything and it does not serve any educational purpose. If image is deleted and if you create another SVG image that show actual historical flag of WW2 Serbia then you can upload that image again. I do not see reason why this obviously inaccurate image should remain here. PANONIAN (talk) 18:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- How easy is it to modify it TRAJAN? If you look over at Serbia under German occupation on wikipedia, User:XrysD has offered to help by redrawing the flag from the original. He says he can either modify this one or start a new one from scratch. Fainites (talk) 15:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- So, you agree that it does reflect original image? If it could be modified, why you do not modify it? There is no reason that this unmodified image remains here because it does not represent anything and it does not serve any educational purpose. If image is deleted and if you create another SVG image that show actual historical flag of WW2 Serbia then you can upload that image again. I do not see reason why this obviously inaccurate image should remain here. PANONIAN (talk) 18:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep heraldically, it is the same bird. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep The flag has now been modified to resemble the original image, so this discussion is now irrelevant. TRAJAN 117 (talk) 06:57, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep File was easily modified. Fry1989 eh? 21:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This image does not reflect accurate coat of arms of Serbia used from 1941 to 1944. Uploader of the image claims that image is derivative work created from this file, but eagle and shield in two files are different. Uploader in fact did not used historical symbols, but created coat of arms which using eagle from modern coat of arms of Serbia and not from historical coat of arms that was used from 1941 to 1944. From the heraldical point of view, this coat of arms uploaded by user:TRAJAN 117 neither representing historical coat of arms of Serbia (which its title claims) neither modern one. Furthermore, user:TRAJAN 117 admitted that he used eagle from modern coat of arms: [8] This coat of arms is completelly fictional and cannot serve any educational purpose and therefore it should be deleted PANONIAN (talk) 07:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
- Keep The coat of arms can easily be modified to reflect the original image. TRAJAN 117 (talk) 13:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- So, you agree that it does reflect original image? If it could be modified, why you do not modify it? There is no reason that this unmodified image remains here because it does not represent anything and it does not serve any educational purpose. If image is deleted and if you create another SVG image that show actual historical coat of arms of WW2 Serbia then you can upload that image again. I do not see reason why this obviously inaccurate image should remain here. PANONIAN (talk) 18:12, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - heraldically, it is the same bird. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep The coat of arms has now been modified to resemble the original image, so this discussion is now irrelevant. TRAJAN 117 (talk) 07:02, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep File has been updated. Fry1989 eh? 21:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Unused personal photograph of workshop graduates. I don't think this is in scope, and I doubt the people in the image are aware of the image here. -- Deadstar (msg) 11:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- Apologies, file is in use. Close request. -- Deadstar (msg) 11:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Per above Courcelles (talk) 07:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
The author that you fond on flicker, is not the real author. 194.11.254.132 10:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 00:04, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Replaced by http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coat_of_Arms_of_North_Korea.svg User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 20:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 00:04, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned vanity photo, out of scope, no foreseeable use. FASTILY (TALK) 20:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- What do you mean by vanity? The left guy could be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Pasquale#cite_note-0 If we get him indentified as en:Larry Pasquale and this is no copyvio then it would be a valuable photo for his article and therefore clearly Keep. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 23:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- Ahh here is a (near) dupe File:Larry Pasquale Picture.jpg (maybe File:SCAN0001.JPG should be merged to the file version history of File:Larry Pasquale Picture.jpg). File:LarryPasqualeScan.JPG tells us that it it is the guy I suspected. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 23:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader apparently didn't know we have {{Rotate}} and rotated it himself, after which he reuploaded under a different name - no need to keep this version Jcb (talk) 12:44, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
the official coa. wrong license at least - but maybe not possible here. Cannot find a gov't exception: Commons:Licensing#Argentina Commons:Copyright_tags#Argentina Saibo (Δ) 03:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 16:10, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Who's the copyright holder of this professional photo? Kobac (talk) 10:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 16:10, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Who's the copyright holder of this professional photo? Kobac (talk) 10:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- Probably the uploader?! See [9], appears to have been taken at some car show. OTRS confirmation would be nice, though, since the image has already been published elsewhere. Lupo 11:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 16:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
files by Mathewn duke
[edit]All files from Mathewn duke (talk · contribs)
- File:Sai-gon-chang-vang.jpg
- File:Sai gon (new year).jpg
- File:Sai-gon-chang-vang-1.jpg
- File:Sai-gon-chang-vang-2.jpg
- File:Sai-gon-chang-vang-3.jpg
- File:Sai-gon-chang-vang-4.jpg
- File:Sai-gon-chang-vang-5.jpg
- File:Sai-gon-chang-vang-6.jpg
- File:Sai-gon-chang-vang-7.jpg
- File:Sai-gon-chang-vang-8.jpg
- File:Sai-gon-chang-vang-9.jpg
- File:Tp-hcm.jpg
- File:Tp-hcm-1.jpg
- File:Tp-hcm-2.jpg
- File:Tp-hcm-4.jpg
- File:Tp-hcm-5.jpg
- File:Tp-hcm-6.jpg
- File:Tp-hcm-8.jpg
- File:Tp-hcm-11.jpg
- File:Tp-hcm-12.jpg
- File:Tp-hcm-13.jpg
- File:Tp-hcm-14.jpg
- File:Tp-hcm-15.jpg
- File:Tp-hcm-16.jpg
- File:SAIGON1.jpg
- File:SAIGON2.jpg
- File:SAIGON3.jpg
- File:SAIGON4.jpg
- File:SAIGON5.jpg
- File:SAIGON6.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
i hope i didn't forgot one
Reasons for deletion request : I saw Mathewn duke (talk · contribs) uploads and detect a possible copyright violation. I tag one of his files, and i saw that the problem was concerning more files... i was going to open a DR when i saw the OTRS pending tag on the first upload (File:SaiGon1.jpg). So i warned uploader and waited ([10]).
10 days later, i asked two OTRS to check if a permission mail was received, and none of them found it. The file tagged with OTRS pending was thus deleted.
All files have the same kind of problem :
- all images have numerous hits on google image
- high quality image in a small size + no EXIF data => this is not original photos.
- Possible source : Flickr where it is tagged "all rights reserved".
- some are Watermarked "aaphoto.vn" => http://aaphoto.vn/i-love-saigon/#/content/start/
- OTRS pending tag clearly shows the uploader knows Commons and knew there was a permission problem with those files.
- No answer from uploader on his talk page.
--Lilyu (talk) 10:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No answers → no proofs that the updloader is the owner of the rights Otourly (talk) 18:31, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work of a copyrighted character. Kelly (talk) 14:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
The uploader is not the creator and/or copyright holder of the photo. --Odeesi (talk) 14:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
and other historical photos by DrRoque (talk · contribs). May be in public domain, but proper information should be provided. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:02, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No information about source and ownership Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 10:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Privacy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.65.181.179 (talk • contribs) 20:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Not a valid reason for deletion of a Category Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Privacy 12.169.97.130 16:20, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
- "Privacy/stalker (mandatory)" - according to 208.65.181.179. Mathonius (talk) 16:43, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Speedy keep No valid reason for deletion. Please do not nominate this again. Repeated actions without a reason are vandalism. If there is something you don't understand, you may post a note on this DR's talk page or on my talk page. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
The upload claims that someone who is neither the subject nor closely related to the subject but only someone who is in contact with her publicist (reference: en:Talk:Kristen_Wiig#Issues with the current article) is the photographer. Thats untrue, the photographer is a professional photographer as we can see in the EXIF. False claim of own work, false author, invalid license and OTRS permission sent by someone who is not the legal owner. Martin H. (talk) 18:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Have you seen the OTRS correspondence? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- No, but Ive asked the OTRS-member who added the ticket (with no result) and I have enough information [11][12] to say what I said. With false source and author information on the file description any OTRS permission can only confirm false information and is therefore invalid. --Martin H. (talk) 21:38, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- I see, User talk:Zscout370/Archive 5#File:Kristen Wiig.JPG is not very enlightening. I left a message at the OTRS notice board. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- New email received, from same individual from Digital Media Management; ticket 2011080910014899. Neither the old nor new email was from the photographer in the EXIF and the original email did not get clarification as to how the copyright was transferred. The OTRS agent also did not modify the fields to match what was stated in the email, in that it was stated that Kristen Wiig was the copyright owner. I asked for more information as to how Kristen Wiig has obtained the copyright from Matthew Imaging. – Adrignola talk 23:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- No, but Ive asked the OTRS-member who added the ticket (with no result) and I have enough information [11][12] to say what I said. With false source and author information on the file description any OTRS permission can only confirm false information and is therefore invalid. --Martin H. (talk) 21:38, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
The photo is owned by Kristen Wiig, at least according to her publicist. I believe they spoke to Matthew Imaging directly. What do I need to do to correct the OTRS?
- The publicist or Kristen Wiig herself needs to indicate how copyright was transferred from Matthew Imaging and ensure that it wasn't limited to just use of the image under limited terms for self-promotion. Specifically, Kristen Wiig must be able to license the image. – Adrignola talk 20:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: in the ticket mentioned by Adrignola we never received clarification Jcb (talk) 14:38, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the source site given, http://www.madaboutmountains.com/ has no indication of licensing on it. -- Deadstar (msg) 10:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Another image from the same website reads: "Associated website http://www.keswick.u-net.com states "you are welcome to copy and use these pictures but please credit the photographer - Ann Bowker - or better still include a link to my homepage mad about mountains", but I can't find that info? -- Deadstar (msg) 10:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I found it at the bottom of http://www.keswick.u-net.com/ldp.htm /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:47, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Mbdortmund (talk) 22:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Previously nominated and kept at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bowfell.jpg. However, the page cited for the copyright by Peter Kuiper does not include this image. Kelly (talk) 22:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep The source given is http://www.madaboutmountains.com/00615m.jpg on Ann Bowker's old site, the same site name that she mentions in the quoted license (but with a hyperlink to the new site). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- The license only appears to apply to the images on that particular page. Kelly (talk) 23:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- She has the same license on her photos for 2006, 2007, probably also for 2008 and 2009. Here and here are more recent, higher quality images than this pre-2006 photo. So, go ahead, and replace it if you cannot trust uploaders at all. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- The license only appears to apply to the images on that particular page. Kelly (talk) 23:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Forgive me, I'm new to the Commons deletion process, but could we not just contact the photographer using the email address on the Mad About Mountains website and ask what license they may be used under? - Highfields (talk) 13:27, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept - Jcb (talk) 12:46, 25 September 2011 (UTC)