Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2011/08/14
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
![28 File:"IOLE",_by_Fox_Harvard.jpg](#File:"IOLE",_by_Fox_Harvard.jpg){kind=link}
![33 File:Дворец_Спорта_"Буртасы".jpg](#File:Дворец_Спорта_"Буртасы".jpg){kind=link}
I enered the wrong license information when i added this pic, I dont know how to change it now. I tried changes few things, its not working. So i would like this file to delte. so i can upload it again with correct license information. thanks Urdulife (talk) 10:37, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Upload accident; deleted. Re-upload by the User:Urdulife High Contrast (talk) 11:01, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
The requirement to notify the author before using contradicts the stated licensing terms and is not compatible with Commons:Licensing#Acceptable licenses. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:35, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- This also applies to File:Sophie Moss.jpg. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:35, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
i am so fed up with people endless challenging MY FAMILY PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN BY MY FAMILY PUT UP BY MY FAMILY ABOUT MY FAMILY - WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE??- i have already gone through the whole process of OTRS and validated it Huguº (talk) 20:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- I'm sorry you feel that way. Commons is unlike most photo sharing sites in that we have some pretty unique core principles that we work very hard to stick to. One key principle is that everything hosted here should be free for anyone to modify and use for any purpose – commercial or non-commercial. If you have to ask for prior permission to use a photo, it isn't free, so we don't allow that type of requirement. It also contradicts the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution license under which you have chosen to publish the photos. Specifically, it states: "This License constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the Work licensed here. There are no understandings, agreements or representations with respect to the Work not specified here. Licensor shall not be bound by any additional provisions that may appear in any communication from You." You can state that you would appreciate being notified as a courtesy, but you can't require it, which it sounds like you are trying to do. If you are willing to change the requirement into a request, we can keep the files and close this discussion. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- thanks for explaining all this - what is deeply ironic is that the licence was put up by the moderators at OTRS and not us after the last time it was challenged! we are entirely happy for people to use it and courtesy would be nice. it is beyond my knowledge of how to do all this so i am very happy for you to do what is necessary to make the position clear once and for all on this and any of the other photos that have been put up. many thanks Huguº (talk) 21:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- i have changed the wording which I did not mean as you have interpreted it - is this now ok? Huguº (talk) 07:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Everything okay now. Sorry for the circumstances. Polarlys (talk) 08:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Recent statue on display since 2007, no FoP for artwork such as statues in the U.S. and it is subject to copyright Warfieldian (talk) 01:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Delete as per Warfieldian. FoP in the US is only applied for building, not for artworks unless they are in PD--Hoangquan hientrang (talk) 04:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC)- Delete Forgot the rule, my bad. Delaywaves talk • contribs 00:48, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Blurpeace 05:08, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
sorry, i uploaded this and it turns out that its coypright i thought its free use cause its public Ifightback (talk) 02:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: uploader requested deletion already completed. Blurpeace 05:09, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Per COM:NUDITY, low quality, and not in use anywhere. Courcelles (talk) 03:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Blurpeace 05:10, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Per COM:NUDITY low quality (grainy, out of focus) and not in use on any project. Courcelles (talk) 03:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
已移除畫素較差的第二張圖檔；至於第一張圖檔，不至於模糊無法辨識
Deleted: not in use anywhere Blurpeace 05:10, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
No authorship information on depicted 3D artwork. Kelly (talk) 03:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- Two clicks away: David Lewis. NVO (talk) 09:53, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks - in that case, we have to delete because it's copyrighted artwork. No freedom of panorama in the United States. Kelly (talk) 16:38, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: unfortunately so. Blurpeace 05:11, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Original research which is not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Mys 721tx (talk) 04:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - not in use, not educationally useful. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope Blurpeace 05:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Original research which is not realistically useful for an educational purpose Mys 721tx (talk) 04:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - not in use, not educationally useful. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:55, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope Blurpeace 05:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Original research which is not realistically useful for an educational purpose Mys 721tx (talk) 04:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - not in use, not educationally useful. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope Blurpeace 05:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Reluctantly nominated, but I think the picture of the statue probably violates Romanian limitations on freedom of panorama. Since the picture is otherwise of little interest, it's not de minimis. Jmabel ! talk 05:26, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: no FOP in Romania Blurpeace 05:14, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
This image contains a mistake. The total synthesis starts with a dihydrofuran derivative instead of a cyclopentene one. Georginho (talk) 08:03, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept: we don't delete mistakes; they're fixed. The best venue to bring your concern is either to an image workshop here or the relevant Wikipedia article talk page. Thanks, Blurpeace 05:17, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
derivative 77.184.190.20 00:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. Lymantria (talk) 16:49, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
A clear case of "flickr washing" - the account only has one photo uploaded to it and it's very low resolution. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 15:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, J Milburn (talk) 17:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
and other uploads by Shroffameen (talk · contribs). Unlikely to by own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- He claims on Wikipedia that this image was taken from google, so not his own work at all.--Belovedfreak (talk) 08:50, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. Yann (talk) 10:00, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Wrong symbol Vainolo (talk) 08:37, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request for unused file Badseed talk 19:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
This really does not look like own work - extremely low resolution, no metadata. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:51, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
This is the original site, with copyright liberalerna på Åland.
http://www.liberalerna.ax/sv/vara_politiker?m=kumlinge
Deleted. Yann (talk) 15:41, 9 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)
was testing for correct licence information. Urdulife (talk) 12:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: uploaders request. Martin H. (talk) 22:37, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Questionable claim of authorship. File is being used here on this website. Mathonius (talk) 14:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 21:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely authorship claims. Appears to be a photo of someone else's photo rather than the uploader's own work. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:15, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Wrong authorship claim. Martin H. (talk) 19:40, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
clear copyright violation http://www.tineye.com/search/ef109b96a38a9336432d78a02c80e924a88968d9/ Kafuffle (talk) 10:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- Speedy delete Copyvio. Courcelles (talk) 17:18, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 00:11, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
copright violation http://www.tineye.com/search/d3333b9c8778c012917be3cd28384fd73891d225/ Kafuffle (talk) 10:52, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- Speedy delete Copyvio. Courcelles (talk) 17:18, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 00:11, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
copyright violation http://www.tineye.com/search/7acd6ff63418e6ae712591590d531c361044b9d1/ Kafuffle (talk) 10:53, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- Speedy delete Copyvio. Courcelles (talk) 17:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 00:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
copyright violation http://www.afrikansoccer.com/2011/05/zamalek-star-shikabala-could-sign-for-birmingham/ Kafuffle (talk) 10:53, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- Speedy delete Copyvio. Courcelles (talk) 17:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 00:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
The contributor claims this as his own work and releases it to public domain, but it is clearly a book cover and the copyright is undoubtedly held by the publisher. WikiDan61 (talk) 11:19, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 00:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
I made a huge mistake. Nanin7 (talk) 11:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 00:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
"(C) Fox Harvard 2010 Copyright © 2010, Fox Harvard, All Rights Reserved" at src http://www.flickr.com/photos/51068974@N08/4688837693/ However, it is set to cc-by-sa in the flickr metadata. Not sure if the obviously contradicotory restriction was added afterwards (I guess you can edit image descriptions at flickr anytime). But we should discuss it. If the obviously contradictory statement was there since ever the CC license is probably void. Sadly this image was not reviewed by a human. The flickr review bot should make a copy of the description text - I am sure it does not. The uploader here also only has 3 edits since 2010-06-17 - I tend not to assume that if the restriction was present at the time of upload here he would have seen it. Saibo (Δ) 22:07, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
![22:07, 14 August 2011 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2011/08/14#c-Saibo-2011-08-14T22:07:00.000Z-File:"IOLE",_by_Fox_Harvard.jpg){kind=link}
Note: I have sent the photographer a flickr mail asking to remove the restriction. --Saibo (Δ) 22:12, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
![22:12, 14 August 2011 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2011/08/14#c-Saibo-2011-08-14T22:12:00.000Z-File:"IOLE",_by_Fox_Harvard.jpg){kind=link}
- He answered me that we may delete it. --Saibo (Δ) 21:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: In addition to nom's comments and uploader agreeing to delete, the only use of this image was in an en.wp article that was unanimously deleted so there are COM:SCOPE concerns. Wknight94 talk 02:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
![02:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2011/08/14#c-Wknight94-2011-09-21T02:19:00.000Z-File:"IOLE",_by_Fox_Harvard.jpg){kind=link}
1. Image outdated 2. the artist Carolina Eyck did not personally approve of this picture 3. Image got replaced by Carolina_Eyck_authorized_with_theremin.jpg Stroganoff (talk) 13:57, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- Again - "outdated" is never a reason for deletion on Wikimedia Commons. Keeping records of history is one of our main goals. A Wikipedia biography is not an up to date promotion folder. -- Herby (Vienna) (talk) 19:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Keep - in use, no copyright problem. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:31, 15 August 2011 (UTC)- Keep - still has value even if dated. Warfieldian (talk) 17:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Indeed, the supposed replacement has been deleted as a copyvio in the 5 weeks this was open Courcelles (talk) 07:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
bad name, i'll reimport it, sorry MathsPoetry (talk) 22:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: (not by me) Jcb (talk) 20:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
not a simple logo. non-free. ■ MMXX talk 23:58, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: (not by me) Jcb (talk) 20:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
one source image was deleted as copyvio Denniss (talk) 23:58, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- This montage is no longer subject to deletion as the image in question has been replaced with one under the Public Domain. 08OceanBeach SD (talk) 22:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- Please state which author made which image - not just in the summary a list of image authors. (EDIT: browser cache problem) --Denniss (talk) 00:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- The respective image authors and licenses have been noted in the summary of the montage. I believe, now, that the montage is no longer subject to deletion. 08OceanBeach SD (talk) 03:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 20:53, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
And File:Жилой комплекс "ТРИУМФ".jpg. The blogger credited as "author" (v.al08) is real, but the photographs were made by someone else. V.al08 wrote on the source page: "photos of Penza by Vladimir. Author does/did not object about posting them here" ("автор фото не против этого"). No evidence of a free license from the author. Oh, and as if it weren't enough "no FOP in Russia Sorry Duralex".
Another file credited to v.al08: File:Пензенской ТЭЦ-1.jpg, actually taken from the powerplant's corporate site. Copyvio; what the blogger's name is doing there? I don't know. He wrote that he takes his own photos with a cellphone (http://www.fototerra.ru/Russia/Penza/V-al08-7488.html), but never mentioned flying.
NVO (talk) 19:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
![19:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2011/08/14#c-NVO-2011-08-14T19:16:00.000Z-File:Дворец_Спорта_"Буртасы".jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: (not by me) Jcb (talk) 20:17, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
![20:17, 24 September 2011 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2011/08/14#c-Jcb-2011-09-24T20:17:00.000Z-File:Дворец_Спорта_"Буртасы".jpg){kind=link}
off limits Leidia (talk) 06:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- What do you mean by that? Blurpeace 05:15, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. A.Savin 07:29, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
and other uploads by Alancrema (talk · contribs). Unlikely to by own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, different cameras. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. A.Savin 07:38, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
bad quality Sarrrain (talk) 02:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- Why did you upload it then? I have fixed it - better? Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 03:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Reason given no longer applies Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 10:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Redundant (doesn't add anything to its article) and facetious i.e. unencyclopedic. Publicly Visible (talk) 18:26, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Apparently a joke and out of COM:SCOPE Wknight94 talk 04:48, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Possible copyright issue. Google search shows 1 match larger than this image, and it includes extra detail. However, you can only see this via thumbnail as the site has apparently changed since it was spidered (manganext.org). This was the uploader's only contribution, it's low resolution and there is no metadata. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:57, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 04:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Who is this person? It's a very poor quality image of an unidentified (and likely unidentifiable) person that's not in use anywhere. There's no description, and the name is so basic that it can't help us use the image. Nyttend (talk) 21:19, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- This is me / my picture -- that I was using for my user page users ago. If I knew how to delete it I would. Please feel free to delete. Aepryus (talk) 23:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, delete per author request. Aepryus, you'd not made any edits in over a year, so I had no idea that you would pay attention to your talk page — I would have asked you if I'd realised that you would have made a reply. Nyttend (talk) 00:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 04:44, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Dubious claim of authorship: also uploaded at someone else's work at w:File:Joelinusartist.jpg. Stefan4 (talk) 22:45, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Delted: Natuur12 (talk) 08:17, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Photography at this concert was contractually forbidden. This photograph requires the written consent of the artist, Cassandra Wilson. Electromagnolia (talk) 13:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - not a copyright problem. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Per Pieter Kuiper and adding that this is not a copyright restriction~and that it can even be unenforceable. Tm (talk) 08:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept: per Pieter Kuiper and Tm. Rosenzweig τ 17:38, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
No permission from German Federal Archive 77.184.161.245 08:35, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Comment this edit indicates that permission was obtained. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- The archive alone? Does the country of origin (Libya? Algeria? France as the owner of colonies) have any say? NVO (talk) 09:49, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- "Country of origin" on Commons is the country of first publication, not necessarily the country where the photo was made. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:18, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- The archive alone? Does the country of origin (Libya? Algeria? France as the owner of colonies) have any say? NVO (talk) 09:49, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- Comment I added the information Pieter pointed out. But I have not gotten the ID and more information about this image from the Bundesarchiv. I will write an email to my contact person at the Bundesarchiv next week when I am back home from vacation. Raymond 15:05, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept: per Raymond. Rosenzweig τ 19:58, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Don't see the numbers. El números dels subíndex no es veuen bé Anskar (talk) 22:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep I see the nubmers jsut fine. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 07:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept: per Cwbm. Rosenzweig τ 20:02, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
The en.wp whence this image came (w:File:Page Miss Glory cartoon title card.png) indicates that the copyright was renewed in 1963. The copyright will not expire until 2032 in the US under current copyright regulations. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:58, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - Isn't this {{PD-Text}} --Sreejith K (talk) 09:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep It does not show anything copyrightable. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- In comparing this image to the copyright protection section of COM:TOO#Commons, it seems this image has as much originality as these. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- Commons admins are no authority; the decisions by the US Copyright Office are better guidance. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:13, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- None of these seems to be as complex as this image, with the exception of the 3D art, to which this is difficult to compare, given the different types of intellectual property. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- Commons admins are no authority; the decisions by the US Copyright Office are better guidance. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:13, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- In comparing this image to the copyright protection section of COM:TOO#Commons, it seems this image has as much originality as these. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept: below the threshold of originality. Rosenzweig τ 14:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Copyright violation: this is a copyrighted photo with the watermark cropped out. See, e.g., [1], which predates this upload by at least two years (November 2005). rjanag (talk) (contact me on en-wiki) 12:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
![[1]](http://www.leehom-cn.com/bbs/customavatars/14.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination, copyvio. Rosenzweig τ 09:57, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Delete as derivative work per Commons:Deletion requests/Crazy Horse Memorial. Kelly (talk) 17:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - it is a mountain. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- Please read the previous deletion discussion. Kelly (talk) 23:06, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- A mountain does not become copyrighted by fashioning a nose on it; the nose is de minimis, the rest looks like any quarry. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- migrate to en:wikipedia with "non free 3D art tag". i trust Kelly that you will stop deleting images of this notable sculpture, as you did here [2] ? Slowking4 (talk) 14:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- I can't delete anything, I'm not an administrator. Kelly (talk) 21:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- no WP:BEFORE it's a fine coincidence that you nominate all the images. if you agree that it is derivative, then you agree that it should remain as "non free 3D art", and you are well aware of the sculptor, and not "confused" about the copyright status. NFCC 10a says "should" not "must" Slowking4 (talk) 16:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- I can't delete anything, I'm not an administrator. Kelly (talk) 21:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- Also, calling this a "picture of a mountain" is like calling a sculpture "a picture of a rock". Kelly (talk) 02:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- migrate to en:wikipedia with "non free 3D art tag". i trust Kelly that you will stop deleting images of this notable sculpture, as you did here [2] ? Slowking4 (talk) 14:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- A mountain does not become copyrighted by fashioning a nose on it; the nose is de minimis, the rest looks like any quarry. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- Please read the previous deletion discussion. Kelly (talk) 23:06, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- I'm the uploader, and agree that it should be deleted. Haven't done a lot with Commons and didn't read the previous discussions regarding this monument. I would remove but don't know how. Thanks, --Tbennert (talk) 02:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
![[2]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_August_6#File:Crazy_horse_memorial_comparison.jpg){kind=link}
- comment ok i have now replaced with the equivalent english wikipedia with non free 3D art tag here [3] Slowking4 (talk) 16:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
![[3]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Crazy_Horse_Memorial_2010-2.jpg){kind=link}
Kept: what can be seen of the sculpture here is de minimis, the rest of the landscape is not copyrightable. Rosenzweig τ 14:06, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't feel confident that this is de minimis by U.S. standards. COM:DM United States states that U.S. courts have set de minimis standard, in a very narrow manner (triviality instead of incidental inclusion). In this photo, the intent of the photo is on the monument and despite the carving being a small element here, it is not trivial. See also Commons:Deletion requests/Crazy Horse Memorial, as well as the prohibition conducted by its management, the guardian of late sculptor's copyright. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:05, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Applying COM:DM#An example situation in this case: "So, for example, if the monument forms an essential part of the overall photographic composition, or if the photograph was taken deliberately to include the monument, there is likely to be copyright infringement, and it is no defence to say that the monument was 'just in the background'. If the existence of the monument was the reason the photograph was taken in the first place, copyright infringement cannot be avoided by additionally including within the frame more of the setting or the surrounding area. If the existence of the monument makes the image more attractive, more usable, or liable to cause more than insignificant economic damage to the copyright owner, then a de minimis defence to a copyright-infringement action will probably fail." This photo will not stand in front of U.S. courts and must be removed. _ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:08, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
- Comment It's a very small part of the photo, and I had to look at it at full screen to even see where it was. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:54, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. And fwiw I could see it on the preview (800x583). —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:23, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. This is a bit of a stretch. It is true that the main object and focus of the photo is the monument, except... there is no monument yet (safe for a tiny piece of the face)! The entire deletion rationale is based on the presence of a monument. Well, there isn't one. And obviously, the rubble from the carving can hardly be copyrightable. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:29, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; even though the monument is not yet completed, the face by itself can be considered a work of sculpture and therefore enjoys copyright protection, as de minimis considers the overall purpose of the work that includes the copyrighted portion as well. —holly {chat} 20:45, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
- Also: File:M F K Fisher Home in Albion, Michigan.jpg, which has similar licencing.
The licencing does not make sense; M F K Fisher lived from 1908-1992, and in this picture appears to be, perhaps, 40-50 years old, so it is not old enough to be Public Domain; the details says it was published "11 August 2011 Albion Recorder" and is "Author unknown; in possession of" a historian. There's no reason to assume this is a non-copyright image Chzz ► 00:47, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- I discovered the photos were in the possession of Albion, Michigan City Historian, Frank Passic. He used them in his article in the Albion Recorder. The photos have no indicia of copyright, and Passic doesn't know who took them or when. I emailed him for permission to upload them here for use in Fisher,s Wikipedia article. He emailed back his permission.Henryheater (talk) 01:33, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- The wizard upload did not appear to have a license option for this situation. I did post a question on the help desk about the home photo as to what to do.Henryheater (talk) 15:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep with {{PD-US-no notice}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep The historian is definitely not the copyright holder and, therefore, cannot offer his permission to use the image. Based on her age, it appears most likely to be eligible for the PD tag mentioned above. Warfieldian (talk) 01:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
- But, the only publication date we have is that of 1998 (when it appeared in the newspaper), therefore PD-us-no notice wouldn't apply? Chzz ► 16:09, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Not enough information available to be able to keep it. We don't even know when and where those images were published initially, so simply assuming PD-US-no notice is not an option. Rosenzweig τ 12:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Uploader :
- $200inaire (talk · contribs)
what is it ? Is this image within COM:SCOPE ? Also, seeing the deletion log from this user, i have serious doubts on the "own work" claim --Lilyu (talk) 05:18, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- Ah, thanks to categorizations, i understand that it is supposed to be related to an airport, but it is so small, so blurry and of such a bad quality that i doubt it can be used for anything. --Lilyu (talk) 08:35, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. So small and blurry that you have to take a guess what it actually shows. Rosenzweig τ 12:46, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
I doubt the flickr account owner, Marion Doss, holds the copyright over this 1941 picture of Rommel. Its likely a flickrwash. Leoboudv (talk) 08:43, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
The image, version of public domain: http://arcweb.archives.gov/arc/action/ShowFullRecord?tab=init/showFullDescriptionTabs/details&mn=resultsDetailPageModel&goto=11&%24searchId=2&%24showFullDescriptionTabs.selectedPaneId=&%24digiDetailPageModel.currentPage=0&%24resultsPartitionPageModel.targetModel=true&%24resultsSummaryPageModel.pageSize=10&%24partitionIndex=0&%24digiSummaryPageModel.targetModel=true&%24submitId=1&%24resultsDetailPageModel.search=true&%24digiDetailPageModel.resultPageModel=true&%24resultsDetailPageModel.currentPage=10&%24showArchivalDescriptionsTabs.selectedPaneId=&%24resultsDetailPageModel.pageSize=1&%24resultsSummaryPageModel.targetModel=true&%24sort=RELEVANCE_ASC&%24resultsPartitionPageModel.search=true&%24highlight=false with unrestriced using and unrestricted acces. Marion Doss optimized quality this photo, and uploaded at June 28. 2008. This is a longtime flickrwash. --Sepultura (talk) 15:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: When I searched it, the link was timed out. But if the image comes from the National Archives, then possibly it can be kept. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- Comment File:Gen. Erwin Rommel with the 15th Panzer Division between Tobruk and Sidi Omar, 1941 - NARA - 540147.tif -- Common Good (talk) 17:43, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
The previous image: File:Gen. Erwin Rommel with the 15th Panzer Division between Tobruk and Sidi Omar, 1941 - NARA - 540147.tif - is horizontally inversed, and very dark. The letters are HW on the licene plate but the correct order, WH - Wehrmacht.--Sepultura (talk) 09:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- Comment:Image is not PD in the source country (Germany, the photographer counts here), it may be PD in the US as the image/movie was obviously captured/taken in the curse of WW2. I don't know how Commons handles these cases of captured material but as it often states material has to be freely usable in the country of origin and the US this image may have to be deleted. --Denniss (talk) 23:49, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Not in the PD in the source country. The photographer seems to be Austrian Ernst Zwilling, who died in 1990. We have other images taken by him in Category:Photographs by Ernst A. Zwilling, but those are licensed from the Bundesarchiv, not in the PD. Rosenzweig τ 12:35, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
This is a personal opinion but I think this photo is too blurry and out of focus to be of any use for the Commons project. Does the community agree...or not? Leoboudv (talk) 09:01, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Image is in use in w:Ashlee Simpson. Tm (talk) 09:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept: in use, and apparently currently the only image we have of those two together. So, blurry as it is, we should keep it at least until we have a suitable alternative. Rosenzweig τ 12:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Composite of three images of which at least the third, a modern photograph, must be copyrighted. No source. Same image previously uploaded on en-wiki as non-free ("various sources. public domain or fair use") en:File:Family dinner.jpg), hence unlikely to be uploader's own work. – Besides, the middle image doesn't seem to be what the caption claims it is; this isn't a depcition of a "family dinner" but evidently a depiction of a scene in a restaurant (with multiple other people on separate tables around) Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, number two is "Saying Grace" by Norman Rockwell (d. 1978), painting from 1951, likely copyrighted. Number three turns up on Tineye as being copyrighted by Getty, although the link to Getty is dead; it's also found here, among other places. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, copyvio. Rosenzweig τ 12:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Es handelt sich nicht um einen Gaswagen - siehe siehe Diskussionsseite des Bildes und hier Holgerjan (talk) 10:43, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Wahrscheinlich gibt es eine URV - vergl. folgenden Link: Hier im WEB //www.deathcamps.org/gas_chambers/gas_chambers_vans_de.html werden die Bilder gezeigt.
In der jetzigen Fassung des Weblinks steht noch deutlicher als in der von mir mehrfach zitierten älteren Version, dass es sich beim Foto um einen Möbelwagen handelt.
- Somit ist das Foto für Historiker unbrauchbar und sollten auch nicht in Wikipedia verwendet werden. --Holgerjan (talk) 11:59, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep The photo shows members of the Polish war crimes commission inspecting the van (according to EB), the photo is presumably from their report, the license applies. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- I suppose, you don't realize the facts:
1) The van is clearly a "Magirus" - only four other typs (Diamond, Saurer, Renault, Opel) were used as a gas-van
2) The polish commission in 1945 was wrong.
3) Today no historian declares this foto as a gas-van - ist was a van for transporting furnitures (and even typ "Magirus")
4) That is why you will not find this foto in the german wikipedia.de
5) More facts (in german language and weblink english //www.deathcamps.org/gas_chambers/gas_chambers_vans_de.html ) on my page: --Holgerjan (talk) 16:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- You do not realize what deletion debates are about. The relevant facts are:
- 1) It has a valid license, {{PD-Polish}}
- 2) It is in use on many wikipedia projects.
- /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- Do you want to declare: if the license is valid, then it is o.k., even when the foto shows another thing? I cann't believe it!!! --Holgerjan (talk) 17:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- @Holgerjan, nur kurz, da schon spät: wir löschen Dateien i.a. nur, weil/wenn sie gegen das Recht des Urhebers verstoßen, sowie in bestimmten Fällen von Persönlichkeitsrechtverletzung oder, bei ungenutzten Bildern, auf Wunsch des Hochladers. Wenn das Bild nicht das darstellt, was es vorgibt darzustellen, sollte zunächst einmal die Beschreibung korrigiert und die lokalen Projekte, wo es verwendet wird, informiert werden. Für die Löschung hier auf Commons ist eigentlich nur der Urheberrechtsstaus relevant. --Túrelio (talk) 22:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- a) Mindestens müsste doch der irreleitende Titel "Chelmno gas van" geändert werden; eine Änderung der Beschreibung allein wäre unzureichend - sie fehlt und würde wohl erfahrungsgemäß übersehen. Für eine solche zweingend erforderliche Titeländerung erbitte ich dann an dieser Stelle "technische Hilfe" -
- Titel: Wrack eines Magirus-LKW / Beschreibung: Dieser Wagen wurde 1945 zunächst irrtümlich für einen im Vernichtungslager Chelmno verwendeten Gaswagen gehalten. Tatsächlich handelt es sich jedoch um einen bereits 1939 hergestellten Möbelwagen einer Spedition:
- The inspection of the van in Ostrowski factory, done on 13 November 1945 by the judge J.Bronowski, did not confirm the existence of any elements of system of gassing of the van's closed platform. The witnesses called this van "a pantechnicon van" (a van to transport furniture). It was produced by Magirus-Werke with a diesel type engine of Deutz. The plate on the engine stated: Humboldt-Deutz A.G. Magirus-Werke Ulm (Donau) Baujahr 1939 Lieferdat 739 Abn-Stempel. Fahrgestell Nr. 9282/38 Nutzlast kg 2700 Fahrgestell-Baumuster 023. Eigengewicht 4980 kg. Motor Baumuster FoM 513 zul. Gesamtgew. 7900 Leistung P.S. 105 cm3 7412. Zulässige Achsendrücke vorn kg 2400 hinten 5500."
- The thickness of the car's wooden body was 7 cm, of the door - 8 cm. The walls, door, ceiling and floor were covered from the inside with the 2 mm sheet iron. The car was painted in grey- lead color. Under this paint the inscription was seen on the door of the cab: Otto Koehn Spedition Ruf 516 Zeulen .....da i.TH".
- b) Die fremdsprachigen Projekte (z. B. polnisch, serbisch...) kann ich naturgemäß nicht informieren. Ich habe mehrmals im englischsprachigen Wiki vergeblich auf der Diskussionsseite eines Artikels wie auch in der Bild-Disku die nötigen Argumente vorgebracht. Dies wurde teils nicht beachtet oder führte binnen Kurzem wieder zur Einfügung durch andere Benutzer. Eine "zentrale Stelle" fremdsprachiger Projekte als Ansprechpartner fehlt.
- c) In diesem Fall ist eine Löschung deshalb wichtig, weil immer wieder Holocaustleugner dieses Bilddokument als Fälschung "entlarven" und mit Hinweis auf diese angeblich vorsätzliche Irreführung den gesamten Komplex von Massentötung öffentlich in Zweifel ziehen. Unter diesem Aspekt sollte man imo dringend überlegen, die hier bestehenden Löschregeln zu ändern.
- d) Zur Ergänzung dieser unbefriedigenden Situation möchte ich auf eine anderes von mir zur Löschung vorgeschlagenen Fotos hinweisen: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Camion a gas Saurer.jpg Es wurde nur gelöscht, weil nachweislich eine URV vorliegt. Ansonsten hätte dieses Foto, das laut Urheber gar keinen Original-Gaswagen darstellt, sondern nur eine fiktive Abbildung ist, wie man sich einen solchen Wagentyp vorstellen könnte, ohne weiteres als angebliches Original-Dokument Verbreitung gefunden. Eine willkommene Steilvorlage für Holocaustleugner, die mit Hinweis auf solch sorglose eingestellten falschen "Dokumente" den gesamten Lemmatext infrage stellen! --Holgerjan (talk) 12:13, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- --Holgerjan (talk) 12:02, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- @Holgerjan, nur kurz, da schon spät: wir löschen Dateien i.a. nur, weil/wenn sie gegen das Recht des Urhebers verstoßen, sowie in bestimmten Fällen von Persönlichkeitsrechtverletzung oder, bei ungenutzten Bildern, auf Wunsch des Hochladers. Wenn das Bild nicht das darstellt, was es vorgibt darzustellen, sollte zunächst einmal die Beschreibung korrigiert und die lokalen Projekte, wo es verwendet wird, informiert werden. Für die Löschung hier auf Commons ist eigentlich nur der Urheberrechtsstaus relevant. --Túrelio (talk) 22:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- Do you want to declare: if the license is valid, then it is o.k., even when the foto shows another thing? I cann't believe it!!! --Holgerjan (talk) 17:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Please look at File talk:Chelmno Gas Van.jpg --Holgerjan (talk)
- Keep under such argumentation every image of the truck of that time could be deleted. How (and if) this junk car was used at the time of taking photo , must be a topic of separate discussion. The image seems finally taken from "Gassing Van used to liquidate Jews at the Kulmhof (Chelmno) extermination camp and near Konitz (Archives of the Polish Ministry of Justice)". Fleming, Gerald. Hitler and the Final Solution. Berkely: University of California Press. 1984. here (carefully, site under attack), and for the claim if it is really a gas van and not a junk car we need to verify existence and reliability of this source.
- The interesting detail, the image from /www.deathcamps.org/gas_chambers/pic/bigkulmhof.jpg (cannot put direct reference - blocked by spam protection filter) looks very much like the initial, better version of the same photo. In this second picture the car seems much more rusty and clearly has no front wheel remaining; such details are difficult to see in the picture under discussion Audriusa (talk) 12:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
- Fleming (1984) does not show the original foto: it is only a part/detail. This original foto was made in 1945 together with four others (Archiv der Hauptkommission in Warschau Sign 47398, 47396, 47397, 47399, 47398). Gerald Fleming did not know, that a polish investigation in 1945 proved, that this van was no gas van. Gas-vans had a petrol-motor for producing lot of CO-gas --- Magirus-Deutz was a Diesel. For other details look at the Diskussion File talk:Chelmno Gas Van.jpg.
- This foto has no use in german Wikipedia. We don't like this falsification, for Holocaust-deniers will take this as an evidence, that Wikipedia is wrong. --Holgerjan (talk) 17:31, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- The interesting detail, the image from /www.deathcamps.org/gas_chambers/pic/bigkulmhof.jpg (cannot put direct reference - blocked by spam protection filter) looks very much like the initial, better version of the same photo. In this second picture the car seems much more rusty and clearly has no front wheel remaining; such details are difficult to see in the picture under discussion Audriusa (talk) 12:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept: The license used seems to be in order. Anyone who criticised factual errors in the image description, please correct them. Use the template {{Rename}} to have the image moved to a more suitable, correct file name. Rosenzweig τ 13:02, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Quelle des Fotos und Zuschreibung als Gaswagen unklar - siehe siehe Diskussionsseite des Bildes und hier + URV Holgerjan (talk) 10:48, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- Es ist unklar, woher dieses Foto stammt.
- Die Zuschreibung als "Gaswagen" ist unbegründet und unbelegt. 1) Das unscharfe Foto lässt nicht erkennen, ob es sich um ein Fahrzeug der Firma "Saurer" handelt. 2) Das Fahrzeug könnte zum Beispiel auch einen Möbelwagen darstellen. 3) Gaswagen haben besondere Merkmale, die nicht äußerlich erkennbar sind: Gitterrost im Inneren, Ablauf, flexible Schlauchverbindung beim "Betrieb". 4) in der Beschreibung findet sich keinerlei Hinweis darauf, woher das Foto stammt und welcher Historiker dieses Fahrzeug als Gaswagen identifizert hat. 5) In der wissenschaftlichen Literatur ist diese Abbildung nicht zu finden. 6) Überdies ist eine URV anzunehmen - siehe //www.deathcamps.org/gas_chambers/gas_chambers_vans_de.html
- Eine Anfrage beim User:Llorenzi [vom 31. Juli] blieb unbeantwortet.
- Hier im WEB //www.deathcamps.org/gas_chambers/gas_chambers_vans_de.html werden die Bilder gezeigt, aber in der letzten Zeile steht ausdrücklich:
- Die Bilder der Diamond-, Opel- und Saurer-Wagen sowie des Gas-Anhängers sind keine Originalaufnahmen. Sie dienen nur der Anschauung.
- Somit sind sie für Historiker unbrauchbar und sollten auch nicht in Wikipedia verwendet werden. --Holgerjan (talk) 11:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, you refer to a completely different photo on britannica. Problematic upload by Llorenzi (talk · contribs) who uploaded tons of files with false author claims. --Martin H. (talk) 19:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, my comment was about the previous DR. This postwar photo is here attributed to a "G. Flatz, Bregenz, Austria", license is wrong -> Delete. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, my comment was about the previous DR. This postwar photo is here attributed to a "G. Flatz, Bregenz, Austria", license is wrong ->
Deleted: copyvio per nomination and consensus. Rosenzweig τ 12:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work of a copyrighted sculpture. There is no FOP in France, and it was not a permanent installation anyway. Eusebius (talk) 12:46, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, I moved the picture from fr.wikipedia when I saw the category Category:Sculptures by Fernando Botero. I didn't know that the sculpture were concerned with freedom of panorama. Bloody-libu (talk) 17:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- Fernando Botero is a living artist, so all his work is copyrighted by default and we cannot use pictures of his sculptures, unless there is a copyright exception (freedom of panorama is an example of exception, but it does not hold in France). --Eusebius (talk) 18:39, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Rosenzweig τ 14:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Really PD ? What is the policy of http://www.stm.info about licence ? ( http://www.stm.info/English/info/a-notesjuridiques.htm ) and who is the designer ? Did he put his work under PD ? --MGuf (d) 14:05, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: no clue why this should be PD, site says © STM 1997-2011. Rosenzweig τ 14:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to by own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:18, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept: No concrete reason to believe this is actually a copyvio, couldn't find it on the web outside of wikip/media. Rosenzweig τ 14:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
whyever this is so blurry (upscaled)... anyway, reason for deletion: copyrighted design (especially the fruit) of the can. Commons:Image_casebook#Product_packaging Saibo (Δ) 19:33, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Rosenzweig τ 14:41, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
copyrighted design (especially the fruit) of the packaging. Commons:Image_casebook#Product_packaging Saibo (Δ) 19:37, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Rosenzweig τ 14:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
copyrighted design (especially the fruit) of the packaging. Commons:Image_casebook#Product_packaging Saibo (Δ) 19:38, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Rosenzweig τ 14:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
copyrighted design (especially the fruit) of the packaging. Commons:Image_casebook#Product_packaging Saibo (Δ) 19:38, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Rosenzweig τ 14:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
copyrighted design (especially the fruit) of the packaging. Commons:Image_casebook#Product_packaging Saibo (Δ) 19:39, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- Dann aber bitte auf .de hochladen. --Ralf Roletschek (talk) 13:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
- Wird auf dewp nicht verwendet. Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ) 01:54, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Rosenzweig τ 14:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
copyrighted design (especially the fruit) of the packaging. Commons:Image_casebook#Product_packaging Saibo (Δ) 19:39, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Rosenzweig τ 14:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Most likely an invalid claim of authorship by GagaJonatika. This isn't (entirely) his/her own work and it isn't public domain either. Mathonius (talk) 19:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- I think that this image only consists of simple geometric shapes and/or text. It does not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection, and is therefore in the public domain. --GagaJonatika (talk) 19:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio from http://www.paramore.net/blog/paramore-2010-summer-tour-ep/. The image is more than simple geometric shapes and text. Rosenzweig τ 14:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
DW: copyrighted design (especially the drawings) of the packaging. Commons:Image_casebook#Product_packaging Saibo (Δ) 19:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- Does the same rule apply to the whole Category:Soft drink bottles, especially Category:Coca-Cola bottles? --Egg (talk) 23:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- Yes it does. Yes, I know there are much more images like this. I wait for the outcome here and then proceed. ;) Only simple designs or accidental/partly inclusion in an image or old works are okay. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 05:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- That's sad because many WP articles will be significantly impoverished. But IANAL, you're probably right. :-/ --Egg (talk) 09:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- I think we should delete rather early than late when files are in heavy use.. however, I do not have much time.
- A hint for you: Some photos which are not okay on Commons may be okay on dewp as local upload as the threshold of originality is usually seen a bit higher there (see de:Wikipedia:Bildrechte#Produktfotos_und_eigene_Nachzeichnungen_.28Marken.2C_Cover.2C_Comicfiguren.2C_.E2.80.A6.29) which means that also designs which are a bit too creative to be kept here may be kept in dewp. This Almdudler drawing could also be too much on dewp. You can ask at de:WP:UF if it would be okay.
- And in enwp this photo could maybe (I do not know their rules very good) be allowed as fair use image. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 03:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete derivative work of copyrighted label, more than simple text label especially with the drawing on the label. Warfieldian (talk) 02:25, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Copyvio, derivative work of a copyrighted work. --Mormegil (talk) 15:47, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Rosenzweig τ 14:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
DW: copyrighted design (especially the drawing) of the packaging. Commons:Image_casebook#Product_packaging Saibo (Δ) 19:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Rosenzweig τ 14:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
DW: copyrighted design (especially the drawings) of the packaging. Commons:Image_casebook#Product_packaging Saibo (Δ) 19:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Rosenzweig τ 14:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
DW: copyrighted design (especially the drawings) of the packaging. Commons:Image_casebook#Product_packaging Saibo (Δ) 19:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Rosenzweig τ 14:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Source image #1 was deleted as copyvio, add number three to the list. Denniss (talk) 23:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. Rosenzweig τ 12:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Source image #1 was deleted as copyvio Denniss (talk) 23:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- Number three was a copyvio as well and is gone now. --Denniss (talk) 19:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- Given the usage of this file, I'd be happier with a crop to remove the top image, and letting projects either live with the remaining montage, or make a new one from free files. Ten projects user this, and there's no question raised over the free status of the bottom three. Courcelles (talk) 17:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, Delete and start over. Would be nice if someone got a file here that was clean, that could just slide into the local projects, though. Courcelles (talk) 19:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- Okay,
Deleted: Copyvio. Rosenzweig τ 12:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Unused image without categoryes and description, with bad name - unknown building, unknown place - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 08:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jcb (talk) 10:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Low quality for own work. Art-top (talk) 19:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyvio uploader. --Martin H. (talk) 22:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Bad source, questionable license and the author - site name in image. Art-top (talk) 15:29, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete copyvio. Good twins (talk) 22:32, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Adding three more files with the same problems (same uploader):
- --Art-top (talk) 23:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, by Masur
Unused photo of unidentified buildings in unidentified locations. No description, uninformative filename. 79.173.80.61 00:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps the uploader knows the answers. NVO (talk) 09:43, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- A duplicate of this image is in use at ar:قلعة شنقل. Here we get the geolocation. Some ancient castle in Turabah in Saudi Arabia. Lupo 08:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Now known and in COM:SCOPE. Wknight94 talk 02:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Ahura21 has uploaded a large number of blatant copyright violations. On their user page, they pretty much openly admit to nicking photographs from photographers including Mahdi Kalhor and Reza Hajipour, both of whose photos are clearly marked "all rights reserved" on Panoramio and which Ahura21 claimed to be their "own work." The user has not responded to the numerous warnings they have received, other than by repeatedly blanking their user talk page and uploading additional copyright violations. The user's uploads were all created with multiple different cameras and multiple different mobile phones. At this point, I find no reason to consider any of their authorship claims to be credible.
- File:Shahbazii.jpg Nokia N82 on 2008-03-20
- File:تخت جمشید.jpg Nokia N82 on 2008-03-20
- File:Parseahur.jpg Nokia N82 on 2008-03-20
- File:Parse1.jpg Nokia N82 on 2008-03-20
- File:Parse7.jpg Nokia N82 on 2008-03-20
- File:Parse8.jpg Nokia N82 on 2008-03-20
- File:Eram1001.jpg Nokia N82 on 2008-03-27
- File:Saadi1001.jpg Nokia N82 on 2008-03-27
- File:Shirazbarg.jpg Nokia N82 on 2008-11-25
File:Qzvin.jpg Nikon 3000 on 2008-11-29, taken from http://www.panoramio.com/photo/54993403Relicensed on Panoramio, OK now.- File:Parse5.jpg Nokia N82 on 2008-12-05
- File:Shirazsaadi.jpg Nokia N82 on 2009-02-20, appears to be a derivative of a presumably non-free sculpture or wax doll
- File:Shirazzinat.jpg Nokia N82 on 2009-02-20
- File:Shirazinat.jpg Nokia N82 on 2009-02-20
- File:Shirazayene.jpg Nokia N82 on 2009-02-20
- File:Shzhotel.jpg Sony DSC-W55 on 2009-03-25
- File:Ghaledokhtar.jpg Nokia N82 on 2009-04-24
- File:Ghaledokhtaar.jpg Nokia N82 on 2009-04-24
- File:Firozahur.jpg Nokia N82 2009-04-24
- File:Kakhardshir.jpg Nokia N82 on 2009-04-24
- File:Firozabadkakh.jpg Nokia N82 on 2009-04-24
- File:Persianchild.jpg Nokia N78 on 2009-05-01
- File:Margahur.jpg Samsung Techwin NV 7 2009-07-01
- File:Margahur1.jpg Samsung Techwin NV 7 on 2009-07-01
- File:Margahur2.jpg Samsung Techwin NV 7 on 2009-07-01
- File:Arashkamngir.jpg Canon DIGITAL IXUS 75 on 2009-07-05 - Needs more information about it's creator(s) and owner. See COM:FOP#Iran
- File:Parsahur.jpg Nokia N82 on 2009-07-17
- File:Parsahur2.jpg Nokia N82 on 2009-07-17
- File:Sadabad5.jpg Canon DIGITAL IXUS 75 on 2009-09-05
- File:Sadabad9.jpg Canon DIGITAL IXUS 75 on 2009-09-05
- File:سینما سعدی.jpg Sony Ericsson P1i on 2010-07-23, appeared on http://www.shiraz1400.com/2010/07/blog-post_24.html one year before it was uploaded here
- File:Chenar.jpg Nokia N82 on 2009-11-26
- File:Sadabad.jpg Nokia N82 on 2009-11-26
- File:Sadabad1.jpg Nokia N82 on 2009-11-26
- File:Sadabad2.jpg Nokia N82 on 2009-11-26
- File:Sadabad3.jpg Sony Ericsson W810i on 2009-11-26
- File:Sadabad4.jpg Sony Ericsson W810i on 2009-11-26
- File:Sadabad6.jpg Sony Ericsson W810i on 2009-11-26
- File:Sadabad8.jpg Canon PowerShot S5 IS on 2009-11-26
- File:Araashk.jpg Canon PowerShot S5 IS on 2009-11-26 - Needs more information about it's creator(s) and owner. See COM:FOP#Iran
- File:Parse.jpg Nokia N82 on 2010-02-19
- File:Persepolispic.jpg Nokia N82 on 2010-02-19
- File:Parse3.jpg Nokia N82 on 2010-10-27
- File:Hafezahur.jpg HTC Desire on 2011-01-13
- File:Eramahurr.jpg HTC Desire on 2011-01-20
- File:Eramshiraz.jpg HTC Desire on 2011-01-20
- File:باغ ارم.jpg HTC Desire on 2011-01-20
- File:Erama.jpg HTC Desire on 2011-01-20
- File:حافظیه.jpg HTC Desire on 2011-01-26
- File:حافظه.jpg HTC Desire on 2011-03-14
- File:Kavir.semnan.jpg Canon PowerShot A2100 IS on 2011-03-23, taken from http://www.panoramio.com/photo/54183581
- File:Parse4.jpg Sony DSC-W350 on 2011-03-25
- File:A-yardang .jpg Canon PowerShot A2100 IS on 2011-04-02, taken from http://www.panoramio.com/photo/55228074
- File:Shzahur.jpg HTC Desire on 2011-04-13
- File:Shirazahur.jpg HTC Desire on 2011-04-13
- File:Shzahur2.jpg HTC Desire on 2011-04-13
- File:Shazahur.jpg HTC Desire on 2011-04-13
- File:Eram ahurr.jpg HTC Desire on 2011-04-13
- File:Eramahur2.jpg HTC Desire on 2011-04-13
- File:Eram ahur3.jpg HTC Desire on 2011-04-13
- File:Eram ahur 4.jpg HTC Desire on 2011-04-13
- File:Eramahur.jpg HTC Desire on 2011-04-13
- File:Eram1.jpg HTC Desire on 2011-04-13
- File:Kafshroshan.jpg HTC Desire on 2011-07-23
- File:Cinemashz.jpg HTC Desire on 2011-07-23
- File:Cinemapersia.jpg HTC Desire on 2011-07-23
File:Dasht-mishan.jpg Nikon D3000 on 2088-04-09 (sic!), taken from http://www.panoramio.com/photo/56726284Relicensed on Panoramio, OK now.- File:200million-comparison-final.jpg – appeared on http://www.clicktoexit.com/journal/tag/stats two days before it was uploaded here
- File:Mcdo.jpg – scaled-down duplicate of File:Albert Einstein at the age of three (1882).jpg with false authorship claims
- File:Spnua.jpg
- File:Spnus.jpg
- File:Spnuf.jpg
- File:Milaad1.jpg See COM:FOP#Iran
- File:Sadabad7.jpg Needs more information about it's creator(s) and owner. See COM:FOP#Iran
- File:Parse6.jpg
.jpg){kind=link}
—LX (talk, contribs) 09:53, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! with multiple different cameras, see DATE different @ah0ra (talk) 10:01, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- (I moved the above comment here from Commons talk:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Ahura21.)
- I added the dates and the cameras used above. It doesn't exactly make it more convincing that these photos are all your own work.
- You supposedly used a Nikon 3000 DSLR in November of 2008 and then switched to a Sony DSC-W55 point and shoot camera less than four months later. Another three months later, you tossed that for a Samsung Techwin NV 7 point and shoot, followed by a Canon DIGITAL IXUS 75 point an shoot just four days later. Another five months down the road, it's a Canon PowerShot S5 IS compact zoom. Finally, a little over a year later, you switched to a Canon PowerShot A2100 IS point and shoot.
- Additionally, you apparently switched mobile phones from a Nokia N82 to a Nokia N78, back to a Nokia N82, to a Sony Ericsson P1i and back again to a Nokia N82 between April and November of 2009. On 2009-11-26, you apparently took a photo with your Nokia N82 even though you had your Canon PowerShot S5 IS with you and took a photo with that 12 minutes later.
- You were asked in June to explain which of your uploads (if any) are actually your own work. Instead of responding only by blanking all questions, it's time to actually answer them now. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:46, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Oppose Few seems to be suspicious, but majority (at least all from Nokia N82 and HTC Desire) is OK. I think that problem is language barrier, just copyvinote template is very brief and Commons:Licensing nor Commons:Image casebook (nor Commons:OTRS) did not exists in Farsi. I suggest to found some farsi native speaker and let him talk to Ahura21 in his native language. I will try to contact some farsi speaking admins. --Jklamo (talk) 21:22, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Comment The uploader claimed that pictures under the "photographers" section on their user page belongs to their friends and they have permission for using them, however this should be verified through OTRS. ■ MMXX talk 21:59, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- Well, surely they didn't agree to have their "friend" claim credit for their work. I also think that section is incomplete. For example, File:سینما سعدی.jpg and File:200million-comparison-final.jpg seem to come from other sources. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:19, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, many images are not listed on the user page, uploader used 'own work' template incorrectly for many images also some sculptures might not be free as there is no FOP in Iran. ■ MMXX talk 23:15, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- به جز این سه تا تصویر و یه تصویر از لوگو بلاگر بقیه تصاویر متعلق به خودم هست که اکثرن هم با موبایل گرفته شدن وبه جز چندتا،و در تاریخ های مختلف از 2009 هست تا 2011
- ،تصاویری که از مجسمه ها گرفته شده نمی دونم چرا حساس تر هست اگه میشه توضیح بدید،یه جای تاریخی هست و همه میرن و عکس می گیرن،مسلما این مجسمه ها هم در اونجا هستند حالا چه جور باید ثابت کنم که خودم گرفتم ؟
- ،فقط می مونه تصاویری که از پانو هست و از صاحب اثر اجازه گرفتم و تصاویر که من اپلود کردم اصل اثر بود که فاقد کادر یا اسم عکاس هست که در سایت می تونید ببینید اکثر عکس هاشون کادر دارن یا اسمشون زیرش حک شده
- این هم میل های صاحب اثر می تونید باهاشون تماس بگیرید
- email:reza193577@gmail.com Reza Hajipour
- email:kalhor.mahdi@gmail.com kalhor.mahdi
- و این همه صفحه خودم در پانو
- عکس هایی هم که با این دوربین ها گرفته شده کار خودم هست فقط وسیله اش ماله خودم نبوده،نمی دونم اون کسی که عکس رو گرفته مهمه یا وسیله ای که ازش استفاده شده،توی سفر می تونه سارژ تموم شه مشکل پیش بیاد و از یه وسیله ی دیگه استفاده کرد
- Sony Ericsson W810i
- Sony DSC-W55
- Samsung Techwin
- Canon DIGITAL IXUS 75
- Canon PowerShot S5 I
- خواهش می کنم این سه تا عکس رو هم برگردونید تا مجوز لازم رو بذارم! خواهش می کنم
- user:ahura21
- The uploader admitted that these three pictures are not their own work: (And I think they don't know who their author is.)
- They say: "Pictures taken by these cameras are my own work but I don't own it's device, I don't know if photographer is important or owner of the camera, in travels some device might run out of battery charge and use another camera"
- Sony Ericsson W810i
- Sony DSC-W55
- Samsung Techwin
- Canon DIGITAL IXUS 75
- Canon PowerShot S5 I
- This is the uploader's page at panoramio and they claim that they have permission from Reza Hajipour and Mahdi Kalhor,
- They also asked for restoring some of images so they could add proper license, but this could only be done after confirming the permission. ■ MMXX talk 11:31, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- Okay. I'm glad Ahura21 has finally started interacting, and I'm genuinely sorry it took a mass deletion request to get a response. I can believe that the Nokia N82 and HTC desire photos are the uploader's own photos. As for the rest, I'm still a little hesitant, as the camera switching pattern still seems rather improbable. The ones that are confirmed to come from other Panoramio users, included already deleted ones, need OTRS permission or (and this would be easier for everyone) a change of licensing on Panoramio. The three photos listed above as being of unknown origin should be deleted. Thanks for translating. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- Reza Hajipour has changed license of their images on panoramio and they can be used freely now. ■ MMXX talk 17:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Oppose I agree few need further investigation but majority seems to be in order. Dr. Persi (talk) 04:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Info During the course of this deletion discussion, the uploader has once again blanked their user talk page and uploaded File:Naghsherostam.jpg (not listed above), which they claim to be their own work and which is taken with yet another camera, a Sony DSC-W350 in March 2011. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
- Comment This is a confusing case. That pic was uploaded to Ahura's panoramio account within a few days of being taken [4], along with a few other pics taken on the same day. Thus it's unlikely to be stolen from the web. More likely the user either claims his friend's pics as his, or has in fact borrowed his friend's camera. --99of9 (talk) 12:04, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Oppose The image you mentioned (File:Naghsherostam.jpg), is not copyright violation. Check the metadata. And user should have uploaded his images with the information that he has this work in other website. Furthermore, it does not make any sense that someones own work has to do anything with deletion discussion which is assumed as copyright violation but apparently it's not. Only the violation proof will work.Unless and until deletion should be considered carefully--NAHID 18:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
- I did check the metadata. How else do you think I noted that it's not taken with any of the half-dozen cameras the uploader claims to be using above? I have no idea what "someones own work has to do anything with deletion discussion which is assumed as copyright violation but apparently it's not" is supposed to mean. The way things work here is that we assume that uploaders are telling the truth until there is a reason to doubt their claims. In this case, the uploader has demonstrably provided false source and authorship information for several of their uploads. That means that their claims need to be viewed with some degree of doubt. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:56, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Images by Mahdi Kalhor which are not released under a free license and images of sculptures which their creator, owner and date of public presentation is not clear should be deleted. ■ MMXX talk 13:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
تصاویر تهیهشده بوسیله Mahdi Kalhor که تحت جواز آزاد منتشر نشدهاند و همچنین عکسهای مجسمههایی که سازنده، مالک و تاریخ عرضه آنها مشخص نیست باید حذف شوند. ■ MMXX talk 13:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, files like File:Parse6.jpg (500px typical panoramio thumbnail size) are obviously copied from other websites, user must take care of such old sins. --Martin H. (talk) 19:04, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
- But then again File:Parse5.jpg and File:Parse7.jpg were taken with his Nokia, and the full-res uploaded to Panoramio, but only the panoramio thumbnail got through to us... I've now copied across the high-res version. --99of9 (talk) 00:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- Update: In fact this applies to all the other Parses except 6. I guess that's why you picked on 6? --99of9 (talk) 00:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- Update 2: Oh, but File:Parse4.jpg wasn't taken with the Nokia... --99of9 (talk) 00:43, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- All the Sadabad files also appear in his panoramio account, I have uploaded them and filtered them by metadata. On one day (2009-11-26) 3 cameras were used, but they do seem to be the same roadtrip. --99of9 (talk) 01:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- نتیجه گفت و گو برای حذف یا ماندن نگاره ها من چی شد ؟ 31.56.206.238 08:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: I've kept all the Nokia N82 and HTC desire - I am confident they are all own work. I've deleted anything that has no metadata or is not on the list of cameras the user claims (or on his panoramio stream) - they are certainly too risky, given the user did not understand the "own" template. For the cameras he did claim, I'm going to assume good faith for now, because most of the other statements made by the uploader have been validated or at least not found to be false. However if any evidence is later found that any of this category are copyvios, I suggest deletion of all except the Nokia and HTC. 99of9 (talk) 10:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Unclear copyright status. A row of "National Geographic" images configured by uploader with {{PD-Art}}-fails grabbed from http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2013/01/125_years_of_national_geograph.html. File:Bp18.jpg (taken in 1963, Associated Press, grabbed from e.g. http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2013/08/revisiting_martin_luther_kings.html) with a {{PD-US}}-fail. Historical photos may be in public domain but relevant (correct) info must be provided.
Gunnex (talk) 20:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- Delete I think all of these images are still copyrighted. For example Richard Hewitt Stewart died 2004, Howell Walker died 2003 .... per nom PD-Art is wrong, so they're all missing permission. --Wikijunkie (talk) 20:29, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per discussion. --Krd 16:07, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
copyed from http://www.bunka.go.jp/chosakuken/riyoumark.html Ks aka 98 (talk) 12:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- {{PD-Japan-exempt}} is not applicable? --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 12:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- Comment The original is a work by the Agency for Cultural Affairs of Japan and we should check if {{PD-Japan-exempt}} could be applied. Yasu (talk) 14:58, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept: with PD-Japan-exempt, also close to PD-ineligible Jcb (talk) 15:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
copyed from http://www.city.hachinohe.aomori.jp/index.cfm/9,3125,c,html/3125/03-02_rinen-hoshin_016-044.pdf p.28 Ks aka 98 (talk) 12:03, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- Comment The original is a work by the City of Hachinohe and we should check if {{PD-Japan-exempt}} could be applied. Yasu (talk) 15:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: I don't see how we can apply PD-Japan-exempt to this Jcb (talk) 15:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Lower quality duplicate of File:Salyut 6 drawing.svg Fred the Oyster (talk) 12:05, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 15:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Copyright violations: these paintings were made by Willy E. Nocken, who died in 1995, and cannot be the "own work" of Broessler.
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Mathonius (talk) 13:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Rosenzweig τ 13:10, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Only test of the CommonsHelper2 script! Jan Luca (talk) 18:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Simonxag (talk) 10:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Not needed anymore Jan Luca (talk) 14:49, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted (not by me) Jcb (talk) 20:16, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Possibly a DW of the organ design (reconstructed 2008 after a design from 1721). We need to know that the changes to the original design were either ineligible to copyright or are DM in the photo. If I read the dewp article correctly all figures and animals are new.
Panoramafreiheit gibt es in Russland generell nicht. Und de:Königsberger_Dom#Neue_Orgel_2008: " ... weitgehend dem Barockprospekt der 1721 von Josua Moosengel erbauten Domorgel nachempfunden ..." Saibo (Δ) 14:51, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - a church organ, a harp, a piano, a flute, drums - what next? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- ... a Pieter is next - Hi! :) I did write what I am concerned about - not about the organ itself... --Saibo (Δ) 04:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- Die Orgel ist völlig neu errichtet, ohne Verwendung älterer Teil, da 1945 alles verloren ging. Es handelt sich um eine weitgehende Rekonstruktion der 1721 geschaffenen Barockorgel, wobei im Prospekt, der repräsentativen Schauseite einige Elemente gegenüber der Vorlage modifiziert wurden, wie in dem genannten Artikel zu Königs gut beschrieben (Phoenix, das Königsberger Stadtwappen usw.), siehe als Quelle die Homepage des Doms www.sobor-kaliningrad.ru. Gruß, --Wikiwal (talk) 10:42, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
- Dank dir Wikiwal! Ich habe auch auf [5] dies alte Bild gefunden. Wie man auch (wie im Artikel beschrieben) hier sieht, sind die Figuren gänzlich anders, als früher. Die Frage ist, wie prägend die Figuren für das Gesamtkunstwerk "Orgel im Königsberger Dom" sind, ob sie also als Beiwerk anzusehen sind. Ich tendiere dazu sie nicht als Beiwerk anzusehen, also das Foto als Bearbeitung der Skulpturen anzusehen. Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ) 22:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept: In this photo, the statues are de minimis (Beiwerk) IMHO. Rosenzweig τ 16:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
and other uploads by Илья Демьянков (talk · contribs). No evidence of permissions. "Own" works may also originates form web sites. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Rosenzweig τ 16:41, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
and other uploads by Punkinfo (talk · contribs). Unlikely to by own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:47, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't know if this is where I voice my opinion or not about the file deletion request but the only issue is that it has small/inconsistent resolutions. Well all I can say is that they were all taken on a blackberry phone and I don't know if that's the case for the low res or not but they are my own photos. So I would ask if you would please leave them on the article. They are my own original photos that I own and have never been used for any other purpose other than this original article. Thank You for the consideration and I ask that you please remove the request for deletion. Thanks Punkinfo
I looked up what EXIF means and I'm sure all of my photos are Jpeg's if I understood it right, also these fotos were stored in a file before being uploaded they were not straight from my Blackberry. These foto's are my own work and you will not find them being used on any other site or on the internet. I took them and own them. feel free to do what ever you need to I won't be upset only I must say they are mine and I offer them to the public and Wikipedia for all and any use. I feel they spice up the article and I am in no way in any violation. I have no Idea why you say no EXIF and I can only guess the low res is because they were stored in a file first. I assure you with all the work I,ve done to help Wikipedia have better articles in the punk rock area that on my name that these foto's are my own work and in no way are any form of copyright infringement.
Kept: per uploader's explanation, which seems plausible and I hope is true. Rosenzweig τ 16:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
the svg version was deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/PL voivodship as a copyright violation Cwbm (commons) (talk) 16:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 10:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
svg version File:Spain.SanFernandoDeHenares.escudo.svg has been deleted because of copyvio Cwbm (commons) (talk) 16:37, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 10:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Look like a picture a the same person take in 1956 by C.A. Barbier [6]. Can't be PD-Canada since is was taken after 1948. --Fralambert (d) 16:39, 14 August 2011 (UTC) Fralambert (talk) 16:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Delete Derivative work of a copyrighted original. De728631 (talk) 22:07, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Rosenzweig τ 16:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
This appears to be a photograph of a copyrighted toy. The copyright most likely either belongs to either Metallica, Todd McFarlane, or his toy company.[7] Rockfang (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 10:23, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
No OTRS evidence of permission. Kelly (talk) 18:08, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- This should be grouped with Commons:Deletion requests/File:PT91 tank.jpg (related nom). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:22, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 10:24, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Statue dedicated Aug 2011 and under copyright. No FoP for 3D artworks in the U.S. Warfieldian (talk) 18:56, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
This statue was donated to Oklahoma Baptist University on August 1, 2011. As to how MY photograph of the statue needs to be deleted, I haven't the foggiest. The statue itself may be under copyright, but I shared the photograph for all to enjoy. Would you please explain as to why it needs to be deleted? Gigrantula (talk) 06:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)Gigrantula
- Delete sadly, such is the state of the copyright law that photographs of a statues are considered derivative works and require permission from the artist. See also Commons:Image casebook#3D art (sculptures etc.). MKFI (talk) 19:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- Note that while the image is most likely not allowed in Commons due to copyright law, it can be uploaded locally into english Wikipedia and used there under fair use to illustrate en:James R. Scales article. In en-wiki you can use en:Template:Non-free 3D art license tag. MKFI (talk) 19:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Rosenzweig τ 16:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Copyright LD (talk) 20:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Consider also non-educational purpose. The image illustrates original investigation by the uploader. chanchicto 21:58, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 10:24, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
I doubt this flag is more than pure phantasy! a×pdeHello! 21:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
There are even more "flags" ...
- File:Flag of Fustumum.PNG - same phantasy
- File:Flag of Fustumum without seal.PNG and File:Flag of Fustumum without seal.svg - phantasy without the yellow ... whatever ...
- File:Flag of Fustumum Independendist.PNG and File:Flag of Fustumum Independendist.svg - phantasy with a white star
None of those pictures is in Project scope, so with regards to the Deletion policy they should be deleted. a×pdeHello! 01:29, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 10:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
