Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2011/10/02
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
,_grille_du_château_(disparu),_rue_de_Baillet.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![100 File:Bühnenbild_(Schiffsszenen"_der_Oper_Die_Passagierin.JPG](#File:Bühnenbild_(Schiffsszenen"_der_Oper_Die_Passagierin.JPG){kind=link}
http://photos-d.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/281844_10150251973880894_184587770893_7995847_6269408_a.jpg Denniss (talk) 00:17, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: hit the wrong button - it's a copyvio Denniss (talk) 00:17, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Copyright NobbiP talk 00:36, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio Denniss (talk) 03:38, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned personal image. Out of scope. Missvain (talk) 00:39, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nominator Denniss (talk) 03:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Personal image image that appears to be used for an attack towards the person in the image. Missvain (talk) 00:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Speedy delete. The only purpose of the upload seems to be for a personal attack against a non-notable individual. Photo of a private person with no evidence of consent to publication from the subject. Same thing with all other uploads from the same account. -- Asclepias (talk) 01:38, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: attack image Denniss (talk) 03:39, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Personal photo that was being used on a created user attack page. Out of scope for sure. SarahStierch (talk) 02:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: attack image Denniss (talk) 03:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
This image is not Flickr's own work because the description there states that it is a courtesy image of Proteus Books so it must have a permission Quan (talk) 02:55, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Flickr washing Denniss (talk) 03:23, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Low resolution, missing EXIF, no evidence of permission, likely copyvio Quan (talk) 03:02, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: multiple hits in google - copyvio Denniss (talk) 03:26, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
It is now Noncommercial 123.24.84.163 05:51, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Image was positively Flickr-reviewed 4 years ago[1]. Later change is not relevant. Túrelio (talk) 07:49, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Do_not_eat_urinal_cakes.jpg&diff=5291796&oldid=5287781){kind=link}
It is now Noncommercial 123.24.84.163 05:51, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Image was positively Flickr-reviewed 4 years ago[2]. Later change is not relevant. Túrelio (talk) 07:49, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Image has an OTRS ticket, but it appears that the original source information was bogus, as the photo is credited to Getty Images. Ytoyoda (talk) 01:43, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Delete Could be speedied...? Missvain (talk) 02:45, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Speedied as copyvio. Rosenzweig τ 19:24, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Actitis macularius 1891.jpg Missvain (talk) 05:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: as a duplicate of File:Actitis macularius 1891.jpg, both files uploaded by nominator. Rosenzweig τ 18:58, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Scaled down duplicate of File:Egedal_logo-hires.jpg Froztbyte (talk) 10:27, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Exact or scaled-down duplicate: File:Egedal logo-hires.jpg -- Common Good (talk) 19:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC) Common Good (talk) 19:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fabrizio_Romano2.jpg Ibsen (talk) 17:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept: restored original version Denniss (talk) 17:10, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Source website (here) says photos are copyrighted, and uploader makes no claim to be the photographer. Appears to be a copyvio. Gump Stump (talk) 00:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: speedy Jcb (talk) 07:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
falscher Name Goofy50 (talk) 10:01, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
What should this be renamed to? You can rename it yourself - see Commons:Dateien verschieben - Kramer Associates (talk) 04:22, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
thanks,i`m try it
Kept: Clearly of the Reichstag, which is fairly close to the Brandenburg Gate. Renaming, as there is not valid reason for deletion here. Courcelles (talk) 23:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope, orphaned promotional photo. Missvain (talk) 00:16, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 00:07, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope personal photo, orphaned. Missvain (talk) 00:19, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 00:07, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Non-notable promotional photo. Out of scope. Missvain (talk) 00:26, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: Looks like some sort of derivative of this photo. -- Asclepias (talk) 01:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope.--Bill william comptonTalk 18:56, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 08:41, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
user is not the owner of the copyright or the photograper Off2riorob (talk) 00:30, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- The copyright owner gave me permission to upload this photograph. ThomasHorn7 (talk) 14:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- To use it in what way and to release in under what license, sorry word of mouth and vague statements without support for a legal release are not good enough. Off2riorob (talk) 02:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:21, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
uploader is not the owner of the copyright or the photograper Off2riorob (talk) 00:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
uploader is not the owner of the copyright or the photograper Off2riorob (talk) 00:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
uploader is not the owner of the copyright or the photograper Off2riorob (talk) 00:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
uploader is not the owner of the copyright or the photograper Off2riorob (talk) 00:34, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Copyright owner gave me permission to use this photograph.User:ThomasHorn7
- You have falsely claimed you are the copyright owner, something you have a lengthy history of. To use it in what way and to release in under what license, word of mouth and vague statements without support for a legal release are not good enough. If you don't understand copyright policy please stop uploading pictures that you did not take and/or are not the owner of the copyright. Off2riorob (talk) 02:03, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Was a copyvio tag ([3]) might be a PD-simple though. Changing to nomination. –Krinkletalk 01:53, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: 15:14, 2 October 2011 by EugeneZelenko, closed by Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:28, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Personal photo. Out of scope. Oprhaned. I think we can release this one. Missvain (talk) 02:41, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 08:42, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
This is a picasa wash. It is not 'own work.' This image was taken in 1946--or 65 years ago. But the author does not look 65 years old. Its likely taken from somewhere on the Internet and posted on his picasa account. Leoboudv (talk) 02:58, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- You are probably right. My bad for uploading it. Mr.choppers (talk) 08:08, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Did you read the text to the right of his gallery page? The images may have been shot by Allen Drebert, the father of the uploader. Anyway, I have now directly contacted the Picasa user. Lets wait what he has to say. --Túrelio (talk) 08:25, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- No. I am not familiar with picasa at all sadly unlike you. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:50, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:34, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Personal image, out of scope Quan (talk) 03:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Non-notable person, unencyclopedic.--Bill william comptonTalk 18:58, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:37, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
a newspaper from 1996? → permission from the photographers and text authors needed Saibo (Δ) 03:16, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:38, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
There is no Freedom of Panorama exception in France per COM:FOP#France. The size of the building menas that de minimis does not apply. Ww2censor (talk) 03:37, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:38, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
There is no Freedom of Panorama exception in France per COM:FOP#France, so this image is a derivative work and needs permission from the copyright owner who is likely to be the architect or developer. The size of the building menas that de minimis does not apply. Ww2censor (talk) 03:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:38, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
There is no Freedom of Panorama exception in France per COM:FOP#France, so this image is a derivative work and needs permission from the copyright owner who is likely to be the architect or developer. The size of the building means that de minimis does not apply. Ww2censor (talk) 03:42, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:38, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Despite the {{FoP-France}} template this image's central content is centered on the Tour du Crédit Lyonnais building making it a derivative work that needs permission from the copyright owner who is likely to be the architect or developer because there is no Freedom of Panorama exception in France per COM:FOP#France. The size of the building means that de minimis does not apply. Ww2censor (talk) 03:51, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:38, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Very low resolution, likely copyvio Quan (talk) 04:15, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:38, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope, small promotional image. Orphaned, as well. Missvain (talk) 04:17, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 08:44, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
unused .gif replaced by a .png - uploader requested Gobonobo (talk) 06:25, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. Unused poor quality duplicate George Chernilevsky talk 08:47, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
i made a mistake Barmental (talk) 06:25, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Uploader requested for deletion.--Bill william comptonTalk 18:55, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 00:14, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Personal image. Rapsar (talk) 10:06, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 08:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Non free image.This image form [4] [5].Free image license is none. See also Image:20110927 megumi hamamatsu.jpg.-Los688 (talk) 17:11, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Not published under FAL or any other free license at source, contrary to what the uploader claims on the file description. Martin H. (talk) 19:15, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Не свободное произведение 92.101.100.149 18:26, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Speedy delete - copyrighted book covers, no permission to use these. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:42, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 21:20, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
dont need it Mrlawrencewilds (talk) 21:12, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept: you actually DO need to have a user talk page Jcb (talk) 12:31, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Non-notable logo. Orphaned. Out of scope. Missvain (talk) 04:24, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Being notable is not a requirement of every graphic loaded to Commons and as been explained in other deletion requests you have been involved in, being orphaned is not on its own a reason for deletion either. Please provide a rationale for deletion that explains why you believe this image is out of scope and takes into account policy. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 07:10, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Fae can you please tell me the educational use of this image? Deletion guidelines are how we go about determining the deletion of content on Commons, unless I am incorrect. You tell me that I'm incorrect in my nominations but a very large portion of nominations, that myself, and others make based on the Commons deletion policy rationale are often deleted. How come you don't leave comments like this on others nominations who state "out of scope" "orphaned" "non-notable" as reasons? I've noticed it's primarily only mine. The mission of Commons is to house educational media content - not every single piece of media on earth. Missvain (talk) 17:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- "Non-notable logo. Orphaned. Out of scope." was the nomination. This is immediately flawed as "orphaned" is not against any policy and "non-notable" is not against any policy. All that remains might be "out of scope" but your nomination is cryptic and meaningless. Yes, other nominations for deletions exist and I find an amazing number of deletion nominations unrelated to policy but based on vague assumptions and the prejudices of the nominators. I have been noting your nominations as they have affected images in areas that I keep an eye on and I have particular concern with some of the opinions you have expressed coming from bias and personal taste (such as your single word opinion of "dislike" used on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Große chance kl jumbohand.JPG) rather than with a long term view on educational value as defined by the purpose of Commons expressed as "providing knowledge; instructional or informative". I would be happy to support your nomination if you could explain it coherently. --Fæ (talk) 19:35, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- Fae I still don't understand what is educational about the image that I nominated here. The "dislike" was a mere joke playing on "Facebook likes" which utilize a similar hand-icon, a joke that didn't quite translate. If nominating content that I believe does not follow through with the mission and vision of Commons and the Wikimedia Foundation, then call me bias. Missvain (talk) 20:46, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, you don't understand the purpose of this image, why are you nominating it for deletion? --Fæ (talk) 21:24, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- I would imagine that not "understand[ing] the purpose of this image" and deeming it in the absence of explanation to be out-of-scope to be the very essence of the nomination... But clearly I'm confused? James F. (talk) 21:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- No, the nomination was that it was not notable, orphaned and out of scope. That an individual does not understand the purpose of the image is not a rationale. Instead of this cryptic nomination and then imagining what it might mean, one might usefully argue that a logo made for Trash Tournus has no application as there is no organization, source or context that Spanish text given with the image relates to and a search on Google fails to find anything relevant. If the nomination were on this basis, showing that the nominator had checked the Spanish text and made some attempt to understand the given context, then others might intelligently express an opinion rather than being confused or just using their random imaginings. --Fæ (talk) 21:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- I'm confused. You think you are being unintelligent, and the cause for this is something you blame on an AGF-violating comment about a fellow Wikimedian?
- James F. (talk) 22:01, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- You appear to be misreading my comments. What is exactly is the AGF violation and who do you believe is failing to AGF? --Fæ (talk) 22:03, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- I'm sure that no-one disagrees that "that [only one] individual does not understand the purpose of the image is not a rationale". But given that we're talking about a nomination from a senior community member who clearly understands from her wider work both the complex nature of copyright and the way we approach it, and the purpose of Commons and other Wikimedia ventures, your suggestion that Sarah in saying that something is outwith the project scope has failed to do the due diligence that we might reasonably expect (under Assume Good Faith) her to do on the potential education re-use value falls significantly below the level I would expect from someone I respect.
- Commons is an Augean Stables of nonsense, and I would gently suggest that there are more constructive ways to support efforts to clean it than picking issue with a less-relevant deletion criterion when a more-than-sufficient one is provided.
- James F. (talk) 22:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, nominations that are cryptic, joke opinions in deletion requests or single-word nominations that may as well be "I don't like it" are against the principle of open knowledge projects with a policy to preserve material of educational value. I see nothing wrong with asking for clarification and pointing out the weakness of the nomination, how else are they going to improve? Being accused of bad faith for doing so is unhelpful. Your point that Missvain does excellent work elsewhere is not a reason for letting poor nominations slide by on the basis that her name is more important than someone else, one could compare this to the fact that you been quick to hold me to account against AGF disregarding the fact that you know me in real life. Thanks Fæ (talk) 06:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- You appear to be misreading my comments. What is exactly is the AGF violation and who do you believe is failing to AGF? --Fæ (talk) 22:03, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- No, the nomination was that it was not notable, orphaned and out of scope. That an individual does not understand the purpose of the image is not a rationale. Instead of this cryptic nomination and then imagining what it might mean, one might usefully argue that a logo made for Trash Tournus has no application as there is no organization, source or context that Spanish text given with the image relates to and a search on Google fails to find anything relevant. If the nomination were on this basis, showing that the nominator had checked the Spanish text and made some attempt to understand the given context, then others might intelligently express an opinion rather than being confused or just using their random imaginings. --Fæ (talk) 21:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- I would imagine that not "understand[ing] the purpose of this image" and deeming it in the absence of explanation to be out-of-scope to be the very essence of the nomination... But clearly I'm confused? James F. (talk) 21:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, you don't understand the purpose of this image, why are you nominating it for deletion? --Fæ (talk) 21:24, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- Fae I still don't understand what is educational about the image that I nominated here. The "dislike" was a mere joke playing on "Facebook likes" which utilize a similar hand-icon, a joke that didn't quite translate. If nominating content that I believe does not follow through with the mission and vision of Commons and the Wikimedia Foundation, then call me bias. Missvain (talk) 20:46, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - like Sarah, I cannot find (having looked, for those who don't AGF) the basis for this being anything other than out-of-scope of Commons, as I cannot see its education purpose or potential for future use. As should go without saying, I would be more than willing to alter my opinion if presented with information supporting the rationale that this image indeed does have education and/or re-use value in keeping with the Commons:Project Scope. James F. (talk) 22:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per James F, after doing my own due diligence. In addition, I am perplexed by Fae's comments, which appear to imply that there should be higher standards for a nomination than for an image itself; there is no claim or explanation of educational value on the image page, leaving us to guess and speculate about what said value might be. In some cases, educational value is self-evident, or is demonstrated by inclusion in another Wikimedia project; where that does not pertain, I think it's reasonable that the uploader (or somebody else) should provide a brief explanation in the description that identifies educational value in some way. That is not the case here. -Pete F (talk) 19:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope, not in use Ezarateesteban 22:50, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Low quality, orphaned image. Other photos represent this clearer (i.e. without the dark tint, etc). I think we can spare this one for the better quality images in the category. Missvain (talk) 04:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Please provide a selection of similar pictures (you claim there are). --Saibo (Δ) 01:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC) Is the tint better now? ;) --Saibo (Δ) 01:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- Category:Vulva has plenty of quality (some high quality) content of trimmed, shaven, waxed, hairy, stubbly vulvas. And yes, I laughed just writing that. --Missvain (talk) 03:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- I am not asking for a Category name - I think you can guess that I know where to find the correct category. ;) I was asking for "selection of similar pictures" - i.e. same parameters (angle, object parameters (length of hair, age)). Simply comparable images. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 23:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- Category:Vulva has plenty of quality (some high quality) content of trimmed, shaven, waxed, hairy, stubbly vulvas. And yes, I laughed just writing that. --Missvain (talk) 03:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Keep I see no reason to delete this one, execpt if we have storage space problems ? -- Gddea - Daniel E. Als-Juliussen (talk) 13:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)- Comment I believe this falls into the deletion policy area of "Not educationally useful" especially this section "Files that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject, especially if they are of poor or mediocre quality." Rather cut and dry IMHO! :) Missvain (talk) 15:16, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Really shitty quality, but sadly there aint exists any images this this exact regrowth of pubic hair and this exact leg position. →AzaToth 23:21, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept: per consensus Ezarateesteban 23:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Encyclopedic value missing Hans Haase (talk) 00:48, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Nominator failed to provide any new arguments. --Leyo 13:51, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Kept: No valid reason stated --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:03, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
comparing this with other photos, i'm pretty sure it's not pat mccabe as claimed Calliopejen1 (talk) 06:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope, not in use Ezarateesteban 22:55, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
wrong license information Sayginer (talk) 07:19, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Ezarateesteban 22:57, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
single drive by upload - clearly not a photograph - no evidence of permission - likely cut and copy from the web Off2riorob (talk) 08:47, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Ezarateesteban 23:14, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
The architect ( http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Alleman ) died less than 70 years ago (66 years). As there's nofop in France, this file has to be deleted until 2015. Symac (talk) 10:10, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: no FOP in France Ezarateesteban 23:15, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Terrible quality and better examples already exist in the same category. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:44, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: not in use Ezarateesteban 23:17, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Clearly modern stamp that is still in copyright. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete As per nominator's rationale, PD-India doesn't apply here.--Bill william comptonTalk 19:00, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Ezarateesteban 23:18, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Clearly modern stamp that is still in copyright. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Ezarateesteban 23:19, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
licence Mturper (talk) 12:39, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: no license Ezarateesteban 23:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Probably a copyvio - unlikely a movie poster would be an "own work" or be CC-BY Kramer Associates (talk) 23:59, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: not fair use in commons Ezarateesteban 23:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Non free image.This image form [6] [7].Free image license is none. -Los688 (talk) 17:06, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted (not by me) 99of9 (talk) 09:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
I hate to do this, but, I'm unsure about the permissions for this. It hits on TinEye in numerous places including a modified version with a smaller shark/fish behind this one (possibly this is a deriv?). Missvain (talk) 00:43, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Comment Avalaible at Flickr since 2009, but the Flickr uploader AlKok seems to be identical to the Commons uploader User:Albert kok (see nl:Gebruiker:Albert Kok for more info, including a link to the Flickr account with the underwater images). --Rosenzweig τ 19:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. All TinEye versions are low resolution images whereas the Commons version is 2303 × 1708, complete with EXIF data. And considering the info provided by Rosenzweig above, it seems more likely that all the other versions are rip-offs. --P199 (talk) 16:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept: I think Rosenzweig has the facts right in this case Courcelles (talk) 23:57, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Image is credited to Getty Images, unlikely that Flickr account owns the image. Ytoyoda (talk) 01:49, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Please also delete the cropped version of the image, File:Edward Norton.PNG. --Ytoyoda (talk) 01:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete (Please set CommonsDelinker to replace uses of both original and derivative with File:Ed Norton Shankbone Metropolitan Opera 2009.jpg). The OTRS ticket on the file came from a Gmail address with typed text below saying that GenArt should be credited with a link. (Not a clear acceptance of the terms the emailer supposedly first presented rather than use of {{Attribution}}). Maybe the response came from someone at GenArt. Maybe not. We were not forwarded the original email response with headers or email addresses shown. That's right, there's not even an email shown for the GenArt contact if we wanted to verify the release. I could write such a fake conversation with myself too. Ytoyoda has linked to a source with a higher resolution version of the image and additionally the Flickr account image contains no EXIF. – Adrignola talk 04:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- I added the delinker commands but it may take a while (Toolserver broken again?). --Denniss (talk) 12:48, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No uses left of either file Courcelles (talk) 23:57, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
wird neu eingegeben unter kategorie "Essen-Werden" Goofy50 (talk) 10:08, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep “wird neu eingegeben unter kategorie "Essen-Werden"” means that the image shall be recategorized. This is not at all a delition reason. -- Ies (talk) 20:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Per Ies Courcelles (talk) 23:58, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
wird in eine neue kategorie geladen Goofy50 (talk) 10:11, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep “wird in eine neue kategorie geladen” means that the image shall be recategorized. This is not at all a delition reason. -- Ies (talk) 20:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Per Ies Courcelles (talk) 23:58, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
,_grille_du_ch%C3%A2teau_(disparu),_rue_de_Baillet.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_grille_du_ch%C3%A2teau_(disparu),_rue_de_Baillet.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Wrong filename : it is Chauvry, not Béthemont. P.poschadel (talk) 15:48, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
,_grille_du_château_(disparu),_rue_de_Baillet.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete as duplicate. All you have to do is add the {{Duplicate}} template to the file description. --P199 (talk) 16:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Processed as duplicate. Túrelio (talk) 19:30, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
,_grille_du_château_(disparu),_rue_de_Baillet.jpg){kind=link}
the only subjects are magazines, hardly COM:DM. It should be uploaded as fair use when needed. Ben.MQ (talk) 17:19, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- That is a mistake what I did. I decide it to delete it if its not fair use. --Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 17:25, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per author request Trijnstel (talk) 18:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
doppelt Goofy50 (talk) 09:57, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
What file is this a duplicate of? - Kramer Associates (talk) 04:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC) neu geladen:File:Kreuzberger_fassaden.jpg
Kept. Jcb (talk) 22:05, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
doppelt Goofy50 (talk) 10:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
What file is this a duplicate of? - Kramer Associates (talk) 04:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 22:06, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
no licence, a scan of a banknote is not CC. Nigerian copyright law does not exclude official documents from protection Antemister (talk) 10:14, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 22:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
uploader is not tthe photographer or the owner of the copyright Off2riorob (talk) 10:30, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 22:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
This file is a picture of a cake with the logo of EBU on it. So, it should be deleted because it is a deriactive work of a copyrighted work, because on the tag said "Recreating the logo by entirely yourself doesn't allow you to publish it under a free license. --Phanuruch8555 (talk) 12:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept: the logo is too simple to cause such an issue Jcb (talk) 22:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
The full version of this has been in use on the internet earlier than local upload [8] is an example which claims an upload date of 2003. No EXIF data either. Likely copyvio, precautionary principle should apply. SpacemanSpiff (talk) 15:37, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Rosenzweig τ 14:09, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely own work, a few other contributions from the user were deleted as "copyright violations only", I couldn't find a match for this image, but it belongs to a professional set -- [9], [10] SpacemanSpiff (talk) 17:31, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Rosenzweig τ 14:13, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Screenshot from a computer which can't be uploaded here Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 17:30, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
RE:Screenshot from a computer which can't be uploaded here
This is not screenshot. http://www.stahuj.centrum.cz/utility_a_ostatni/komprese/freearc/
Deleted: (not by me) Jcb (talk) 16:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
LQ, Low quality picture with a very low resulution. and the reader can barely see what it is 71.84.245.122 03:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
This picture is being used to describe the origin of the Santur. It is used in a page called: Santur There are 2 other pictures that express the same thing and it's over kill using a really bad low quality image. 71.84.245.122 03:08, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Keep Currently in use on en wiki, and we don't have a better picture of that particular work of art to replace it with. - Kramer Associates (talk) 00:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Comment Can a picture of a relief be copyrighted apart from the relief itself? If so, delete as a copyvio, if not, we need to change the license to PD-old. - Kramer Associates (talk) 03:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
LQ, Low quality picture with a very low resulution. and the reader can barely see what it is 71.84.245.122 03:04, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. Bridgeman v Corel covers only paintings, this image has a copyright of its own and is taken from a web site with an explicit (c). Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:36, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
This is a logo owned by European Broadcasting Union (EBU) for Eurovision Song Contest 2011.It is not ineligible for copyright. 80.187.97.233 19:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
This logo requires a FUR for usage. Textlogo cannot apply for any original designed font as this logo shows, consequently it meets the threshold of creativity required for copyright. Fæ (talk) 15:17, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- For the United States, PD-textlogo absolutely includes any original designed font; the U.S. does not recognize any copyright on *typeface* in all its forms (including, for example, Chinese calligraphy). Deletions to the contrary are completely mistaken. Second, the threshold of originality for Germany logos is way, way higher than the U.S. -- see Threshold of originality#Germany. This one is not even close to the borderline to me. Keep. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- However what I see in this logo is neither a true typeface that could be re-used elsewhere or just simple geometric shapes, in particular the "V" as a heart is a unique design that does not fit either category. To be fair, I would consider this a marginal case (hence I raised it for discussion rather than speedy deletion) and comparison with other cases on Commons might be helpful; should anyone have some key examples to hand. I also regret my nomination wording, I had my UK "hat" on at the time. --Fæ (talk) 17:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- If you can read it as letters, it is typeface. Hand-drawn Chinese calligraphy is also considered "typeface" in the U.S. A heart is a common symbol; and that is quite arguably a "minor variation". Courts have refused copyright on a particular version of a fleur-de-lys before, as it was a variation on a common symbol. Threshold of originality#United States has some examples (including one with a heart). Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, the example of File:Luv Sailor.JPG is not on the basis of PD-textlogo but that it was composed of non-original material as so is not useful as a comparison. In all the other examples shown in Threshold of originality, the nearest match would be File:Laufendes-Auge.jpg and a similar case could be made here, though I would appreciate opinions from those that know more about copyright in Germany. I would also like to confirm that only German copyright law applies for this Eurovision Song Contest image. --Fæ (talk) 20:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- File:NY Arrows logo.png is also hand-drawn; that was ruled uncopyrightable. Drawing a basic heart is similarly not really a creative act and I don't think would qualify (or really come close) under U.S. law. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- Why is US copyright relevant? I would have thought that copyright for this image is held in Germany. --Fæ (talk) 22:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- There is a "free in the U.S. and in the country of origin" policy... the U.S. part is haphazardly enforced but it is sometimes. ;-) As for Germany, given the logos which have not passed their threshold of originality, this one isn't remotely a concern there. I think they are one of the countries which do not like to have copyright and trademark (or maybe it is industrial design) overlap. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- Why is US copyright relevant? I would have thought that copyright for this image is held in Germany. --Fæ (talk) 22:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- File:NY Arrows logo.png is also hand-drawn; that was ruled uncopyrightable. Drawing a basic heart is similarly not really a creative act and I don't think would qualify (or really come close) under U.S. law. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, the example of File:Luv Sailor.JPG is not on the basis of PD-textlogo but that it was composed of non-original material as so is not useful as a comparison. In all the other examples shown in Threshold of originality, the nearest match would be File:Laufendes-Auge.jpg and a similar case could be made here, though I would appreciate opinions from those that know more about copyright in Germany. I would also like to confirm that only German copyright law applies for this Eurovision Song Contest image. --Fæ (talk) 20:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- If you can read it as letters, it is typeface. Hand-drawn Chinese calligraphy is also considered "typeface" in the U.S. A heart is a common symbol; and that is quite arguably a "minor variation". Courts have refused copyright on a particular version of a fleur-de-lys before, as it was a variation on a common symbol. Threshold of originality#United States has some examples (including one with a heart). Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- However what I see in this logo is neither a true typeface that could be re-used elsewhere or just simple geometric shapes, in particular the "V" as a heart is a unique design that does not fit either category. To be fair, I would consider this a marginal case (hence I raised it for discussion rather than speedy deletion) and comparison with other cases on Commons might be helpful; should anyone have some key examples to hand. I also regret my nomination wording, I had my UK "hat" on at the time. --Fæ (talk) 17:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Also included are File:Eurovision Song Contest 2011 logo.png and File:Logo of ESC 2011 .jpg. Yann (talk) 16:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
- File:Eurovision Song Contest 2011 logo.png I would say would definitely be copyrightable in the U.S. (maybe even Germany); I think that should be deleted. File:Logo of ESC 2011 .jpg is more borderline. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
- There seems to be an ongoing confusion about which copyright law applies here. As I understand it, only German copyright is relevant as that is the country of publication. If the images listed here are uncopyright-able under German law, then as the country of the publisher that should be all that matters. The alternative is that we have to review copyright definitions for every country for which copyright exists, including the US. --Fæ (talk) 16:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
- Commons policy (see Commons:Licensing) is that works need to be OK both in their country of origin (publication), and also specifically in the U.S. (not *all* countries). The Foundation as a U.S. institution can be directly sued in the U.S., even if protection does not exist or has expired in the source country. Admittedly, enforcement of the U.S. side of things is not often done (particularly for works which have *expired* in the source country; we have the {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} tag while we come to some determination on that). I feel it is more dangerous to keep these modern works which do exceed the U.S. threshold of originality, even if they don't in their country of origin. If the Foundation got a DMCA takedown request they would definitely delete them, without warning. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
- I respect your feelings, however if the worst that could happen would be the Foundation might respond to a takedown request (that presumably would have to come from the same German organization that freely published the material on the Internet under German law without expecting any benefit from copyright protection and so no financial loss could be involved) by removing the images, then labelling this as "dangerous" seems to be overstating the case. --Fæ (talk) 17:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
- ...and any usages on local wikipedias where it may have been OK would be gone. If we want to keep on those grounds, I would suggest not deleting the pictures from the German wikipedia. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
- I respect your feelings, however if the worst that could happen would be the Foundation might respond to a takedown request (that presumably would have to come from the same German organization that freely published the material on the Internet under German law without expecting any benefit from copyright protection and so no financial loss could be involved) by removing the images, then labelling this as "dangerous" seems to be overstating the case. --Fæ (talk) 17:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
- Commons policy (see Commons:Licensing) is that works need to be OK both in their country of origin (publication), and also specifically in the U.S. (not *all* countries). The Foundation as a U.S. institution can be directly sued in the U.S., even if protection does not exist or has expired in the source country. Admittedly, enforcement of the U.S. side of things is not often done (particularly for works which have *expired* in the source country; we have the {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} tag while we come to some determination on that). I feel it is more dangerous to keep these modern works which do exceed the U.S. threshold of originality, even if they don't in their country of origin. If the Foundation got a DMCA takedown request they would definitely delete them, without warning. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
- There seems to be an ongoing confusion about which copyright law applies here. As I understand it, only German copyright is relevant as that is the country of publication. If the images listed here are uncopyright-able under German law, then as the country of the publisher that should be all that matters. The alternative is that we have to review copyright definitions for every country for which copyright exists, including the US. --Fæ (talk) 16:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I am also including File:ESC 2011 logo.PNG which is similar to the others added above. CT Cooper · talk 17:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah that one is also (easily) copyrightable in the U.S., and I would be surprised if it wasn't in Germany, but I have less feel for that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. IMO, This logo requires a FUR for usage. Textlogo cannot apply for any original designed font as this logo shows, consequently it meets the threshold of creativity required for copyright. is doubtless. It's not plain background+text logo but quite complicated and original design. Masur (talk) 07:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- That is incorrect; textlogo can indeed apply to originally designed fonts. That is definitely the case in the U.S. And Germany appears to have a pretty high threshold when it comes to logos. Some of the ones mentioned above have an intricate bit of heart-based artwork alongside the textual part; those go (way) over the line for me, but the main nominated one does not (and I don't think it's all that close, even, if Germany is the country of origin). Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep for File:Eurovision Song Contest 2011 logo.svg; Delete all others included in the nomination - Per above File:Eurovision Song Contest 2011 logo.svg is a generic Eurovision logo with a plain background with only two possible copyrighted elements (a) the text, and (b) the heart. The font alone can't be copyrighted per above, and the heart is probably too simple/unoriginal for copyright as a "minor variation" of a common symbol. On a side note, Category:WikiProject Eurovision contains images with the hearts which are in use on the English Wikipedia, and have not been previously seen as an issue. All the other logos are much more complex and seem likely to be copyrighted. CT Cooper · talk 11:06, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - Note that File:Düsseldorf2011.jpg has also been added to the nominations. I'm saying Keep for this one as well per above. CT Cooper · talk 16:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, not text only, need OTRS-permission--Motopark (talk) 06:37, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Question All of them, or just File:ESC 2011 logo.PNG? CT Cooper · talk 11:15, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
- All of those shall be deleted, can ne used as fair use in english and finnish wikipedia.--Motopark (talk) 11:26, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
- I'm fairly confident the english wikipedia doesn't need fair use -- are you saying the heart is copyrightable? Also, why Finnish? Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:25, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
- All of those shall be deleted, can ne used as fair use in english and finnish wikipedia.--Motopark (talk) 11:26, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Kept. - obvious case of PD-textlogo - Jcb (talk) 16:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
- I overlooked the fact that some files were added to this nomination. I will deal with them now:
- File:Eurovision Song Contest 2011 logo.png - deleted, PD-textlogo cannot be applied to this version
- File:Logo of ESC 2011 .jpg - kept, PD-textlogo
- File:Düsseldorf2011.jpg - kept, PD-textlogo
- I also agree with the deletion of File:ESC 2011 logo.PNG by another admin. Jcb (talk) 22:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
It is copyrighted by EBU. A license tag at local file at enwiki had a FUR and license tag "Non-free logo", so it is copyrighted and not PD-textlogo. --Phanuruch8555 (talk) 12:12, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - Per previous debate and my rationale for keeping previously, which has not been refuted. If individuals decide to upload logos as non-free on the English Wikipedia to be on the safe side, then that has no consequence to the copyright status of files on Commons, and some more complex logos upload over there do meet the threshold of originality, however ones like this do not. CT Cooper · talk 12:55, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Speedy kept - DR shows lack of understanding of {{PD-textlogo}} - no need to go on with this - Jcb (talk) 13:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
and other uploads by Dbtijournal (talk · contribs). Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:06, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 10:05, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
image is fan-made speculation about what the logo might look like, not the *actual* logo DS (talk) 15:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Proof? Fry1989 eh? 19:00, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- I have to agree with Fry1989 there. Please give us a sufficient source on why it isn't the logo as there's a chance (s)he asked Turner Europe to give it to him/her. 109.152.106.70 21:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- You decide. DS (talk) 23:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- But the image included in the website is clearly different; the Cartoon Network text on the bottom of the logo is white instead of black, and there is no first party or at least second party confirmation that it is not the logo. 109.152.106.70 11:15, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
- cartoonnetwork.co.uk doesn't show the logo for CN Too at all, only CN. So just because the CN logo is a certain way, that's not a basis to say that his one has to match. That's not proof this isn't the new logo. Fry1989 eh? 03:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- Proof on why there isn't any of the new CN Too logo in the website? As it could be hidden inside the website's files. And I would doubt if he copied it directly from the website that speculates what the picture might look like. 109.152.106.70 09:32, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
- cartoonnetwork.co.uk doesn't show the logo for CN Too at all, only CN. So just because the CN logo is a certain way, that's not a basis to say that his one has to match. That's not proof this isn't the new logo. Fry1989 eh? 03:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- But the image included in the website is clearly different; the Cartoon Network text on the bottom of the logo is white instead of black, and there is no first party or at least second party confirmation that it is not the logo. 109.152.106.70 11:15, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
- You decide. DS (talk) 23:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- I have to agree with Fry1989 there. Please give us a sufficient source on why it isn't the logo as there's a chance (s)he asked Turner Europe to give it to him/her. 109.152.106.70 21:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- Proof? Fry1989 eh? 19:00, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept: in use Jcb (talk) 10:08, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
and other uploads by Reidfabian (talk · contribs). No evidence of permissions. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:31, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: this file, no reason to doubt about all the files in general, most have exif from the same camera Jcb (talk) 10:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text logo. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 10:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
hi
Beyond My Ken edited my original image: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Technics_1200_MK2,_Technics_1210_MK2_%26_Pioneer_DJM-500.jpg & reuploaded it saying that he was the author when he wasnt, can his poor quality version of the image please be removed.
thanks
Technics 1200 MK2, Technics 1210 MK2 & Pioneer DJM-500 crop.jpg Jenkinslane (talk) 15:53, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - My name going into the author slot was an artifact of its transfer from en.wiki and was unintentional. I wasn't aware of it until just now, and I've edited it to restore your name as the author. The purpose of the crop was to focus on the equipment rather than on the wall behind it or the records below it. I did do some color balancing, because the quality of the original was extremely poor. The resulting image is still poor in quality, but it's better than it was.
When you uploaded your file, you released it into the public domain, which means that anyone can use it for any purpose and change it in any way, so you actually have no special standing to request that it be deleted -- it's not "your" file anymore. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept: in use Jcb (talk) 10:14, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Text only file EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:57, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 10:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
doubtful license Postoronniy-13 (talk) 15:58, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 10:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
doubtful license Postoronniy-13 (talk) 16:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
and other user's contributions [11] Postoronniy-13 (talk) 15:46, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 10:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
not PD-USgov - image used on wanted poster, but according to image page seems to have come from (copyrighted) TV interview Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:18, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
I just went to the FBI website [a] and carefully reviewed the photo. I don't see anything there that says it was from a copyrighted television interview.
Generally, if there's copyrighted material in a US Gov. publication, there will be a tag saying "material copyrighted by John Dow and used by permission". Nothing like that here.
[a] http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/wanted_terrorists/abdul-rahman-yasin
166.84.1.5 01:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 10:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Upload from user with at least one copyvio in history near time of this upload (appeared to be confused about licensing in early uploads); web resolution; different camera EXIF data than other uploads by this user at the same time -> unlikely uploader is the author. Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 10:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Derivative of copyrighted artwork. Kelly (talk) 16:25, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Does this actually count as copyrighted artwork though? After all, it is the design of a vehicle, not a painting or sculpture? (Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC))
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 10:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Files of User:Mdaniels0609
[edit]Mdaniels0609 (talk · contributions · Statistics)
- File:03_Whatever_Happened_to_You.ogg CC-BY-NC-ND
- File:02_Daddy's_Little_Girl.ogg CC-BY-NC-ND
- File:01_Take_Me_With_You.ogg CC-BY-NC-ND
- File:LOST.ogg
- File:Selected-IMG_8014.JPG Neil Zlozower
- File:Selected-IMG_8038.JPG
- File:Selected-IMG_8033.JPG
- File:Selected-IMG_7929.JPG
- File:Selected-IMG_7914.JPG
- File:Selected- IMG 7881.JPG Neil Zlozower
- File:LABand5.JPG
- File:KrisLonn.jpg
- File:Kris_6267.jpg
- File:Kris_6250.jpg
- File:Kris_6138.jpg
- File:Kris_on_bar_(Richie_cropped_out).jpg
- File:Kris_leaping_at_Kershaw_concert-hi_res-Band-45_1645-rez-logo.jpg
- File:Hadlockwood.JPG
- File:HadlockDrums.jpg
- File:HadlockCat.jpg
- File:Hadlock_6218.jpg
- File:Hadlock_6157.jpg
- File:Hadlock_5432.jpg
- File:Hadlock_5416.jpg
- File:Hadlock_5070.jpg
- File:Hadlock_5061.jpg
- File:Hadlock_4983.jpg
- File:Hadlock_4913.jpg
- File:Hadlock_4870.jpg
- File:Hadlock_4718.jpg
- File:Hadlock_4694.jpg
- File:Hadlock_4685.jpg
- File:BCRich.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
No permission. -- Common Good (talk) 17:17, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Yep, no permission, and it has been over a week that [{Category:Unknown]] would have given it for OTRS. Courcelles (talk) 00:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Courtesy photos US Armed Forces (2)
[edit]Courtesy photos. Per Commons:Deletion requests/Courtesy photos US Armed Forces.
- File:USS_Freedom_(LCS-1)_after_christening_ceremony.jpg - Photo released courtesy Lockheed Martin
- File:US_Navy_110322-N-0000X-001_U.S._Marine_Corp_Lt._Col._Matt_.jpg - Photo courtesy of Lockheed Martin
- File:US_Navy_110322-N-0000X-002_U.S._Marine_Corps_Lt._Col._Matt_.jpg - Photo courtesy of Lockheed Martin
- File:US_Navy_110326-N-0000X-001_Joyce_Rumsfeld,_wife_of_former_Secretary_of_Defense_Donald_Rumsfeld,_christens_the_amphibious_transport_dock_ship_Pre-Co.jpg - Photo courtesy of Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding
- File:US_Navy_110516-N-YY999-002_he_second_F-35C_test_aircraft_(CF-2)_arrives_at_Naval_Air_Station_Patuxent_River_May_16._CF-2_is_the_designated_loads_te.jpg - U.S. Navy photo courtesy of Lockheed Martin
- File:US_Navy_110623-N-ZZ999-001_An_artist_concept_of_a_mobile_landing_platform_(MLP)_ship_under_construction_at_the_General_Dynamics_National_Steel_and_.jpg - U.S. Navy photo illustration courtesy of NASSCO
- File:US_Navy_110727-N-GR159-001_An_F-35C_test_aircraft_piloted_by_Lt._Christopher_Tabert_launches_from_a_steam_catapult_for_the_first_time._CF-3_is_the_.jpg - Photo courtesy of Lockheed Martin
- File:US_Navy_110727-N-GR159-002_An_F-35C_test_aircraft_piloted_by_Lt._Christopher_Tabert_launches_from_a_steam_catapult_for_the_first_time._CF-3_is_the.jpg - Photo courtesy of Lockheed Martin
- File:US_Navy_110813-O-GR159-001_An_F-35C_test_aircraft_CF-1,_rear,_with_an_F-A-18E_Super_Hornet_prepares_for_two-aircraft_jet_blast_deflector_testing.jpg - Photo courtesy of Lockheed Martin
_after_christening_ceremony.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_arrives_at_Naval_Air_Station_Patuxent_River_May_16._CF-2_is_the_designated_loads_te.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_ship_under_construction_at_the_General_Dynamics_National_Steel_and_.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
-- Common Good (talk) 18:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 10:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Émile Bernard
[edit]Émile Bernard died 1941.
- Émile Bernard died 16 April 1941. Please note that this is more than 70 years ago, and hence his work is now in the public domain.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Daderot (talk • contribs) 20:16, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- Comment
Basically all countries in the world specify that when a copyright expires, it does so at the end of the year. Thus, works of an author who died on June 27, 1937 did not become copyright-free on June 28, 2007 but only on January 1, 2008 under a "70 years p.m.a." rule.
October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - belongs in the public domain...Modernist 00:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- File:WLANL - jankie - Zelfportret met portret van Gaugin, Emile Bernard (1888).jpg
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep - The artist died more than 70 years ago, and hence this work is now in the public domain. Daderot (talk) 20:16, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - The artist died more than 70 years ago, and hence this work is now in the public domain. Daderot (talk) 20:16, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - This 19th century image should be kept, and should be seen as being in the public domain...Modernist 21:02, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - The artist died more than 70 years ago, and hence this work is now in the public domain. Daderot (talk) 20:16, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
_-_%C3%89mile_Bernard.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep - The artist died more than 70 years ago, and hence this work is now in the public domain. Daderot (talk) 20:16, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - This rare 19th century image should be kept, and should be seen as being in the public domain...Modernist 21:06, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - The artist died more than 70 years ago, and hence this work is now in the public domain. Daderot (talk) 20:16, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - This important 19th century image should be kept, and should be seen as being in the public domain...Modernist 21:07, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - The artist died more than 70 years ago, and hence this work is now in the public domain. Daderot (talk) 20:16, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
-- Common Good (talk) 18:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - These 19th century images should be kept, and should be seen as being in the public domain...Modernist 21:02, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - The artist died more than 70 years ago, and hence this work is now in the public domain. Daderot (talk) 20:16, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- Not in the public domain (see comment on 70 years p.m.a. rule). Will become copyright-free on January 1, 2012. -- Common Good (talk) 18:06, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept - files will be free from 2012-01-01, no reason to delete in the meantime, who has a problem with that, please consider this nomination still open for the coming two months - Jcb (talk) 10:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
doubtful license Postoronniy-13 (talk) 18:48, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 14:43, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
License says it is the work of the uploader; that is not possible because infobox says the author is unkonown Avron (talk) 19:02, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 14:43, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
license problems, eiter RU-exempt or pd-own but both are wrong Avron (talk) 19:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. This "PD-RU-exempt", i fix it. --Kaganer (talk) 21:36, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 14:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
possibly copyvio. no evidence of permission Connormah (talk | contribs) 19:23, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep True this may have been uploaded by a campaign worker, but with no evidence that it has been taken from a website, I believe the uploader had the permission to release the image under the licence they did. Can an ORTS be requested? 117Avenue (talk) 19:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - It might be worth having someone check the OTRS ticket for File:Alison Redford in 2008.jpg - which also looks like an official portrait. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:19, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- User:David Fuchs checked it. See [12] Connormah (talk | contribs) 01:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: Is there any evidence that its a scan or a derivative? It may have been taken by a Redford campaign worker or be a copy vio. The second picture with the OTRS ticket is not representative of Redford as she doesn't look like this today. The only other photo of her here is legitimate but its too informal for a picture of a future premier. (though it may be a good third image for her wiki article). Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:41, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 14:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
no OTRS ticket exists for this image, we don't know that this was uploaded by a campaign worker, and it was kept without explanation Hekerui (talk) 11:23, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, no evidence of a copyright infringement has been provided. It is an original work, and the uploader had the rights to it. 117Avenue (talk) 03:00, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- This is a professional studio headshot, permission or connection to the Redford campaign cannot be just assumed. Hekerui (talk) 01:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- Where did it come from then, and why did the uploader choice their name? 117Avenue (talk) 03:05, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted Should never have been kept the first time around. COM:OTRS is available to establish permission, and on photos such as this, which are clearly professional in nature, OTRS is essential. The file can be undeleted if OTRS is established at a later date, until them COM:PRP applies. russavia (talk) 03:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
possible copyvio. no evidence of permission as an official campaign photo. Connormah (talk | contribs) 19:24, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep True this may have been uploaded by a campaign worker, but with no evidence that it has been taken from a website, I believe the original uploader had the permission to release the image under the licence they did. 117Avenue (talk) 19:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 14:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Derivative of File:Alison Redford headshot.jpg. ~ 117Avenue (talk) 23:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Out of focus, black vertical line on the left side CLI (talk) 20:11, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. Redundant to better images at Category:Cossus cossus (caterpillar). --P199 (talk) 16:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 14:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Copyright vio, this image has been uploaded countless times. 117Avenue (talk) 20:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 14:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
This is not Francois de Choisy; it is Jean de la Bruyere. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 20:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- A higher resolution image of Jean de la Bruyere already exists, so a rename is not necessary.Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 20:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete duplicates. Although I am not convinced which image has higher resolution. File:Jean de La Bruyère.jpg looks like someone re-sized small image to be larger. --Jarekt (talk) 13:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept: in use Jcb (talk) 14:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Unfortunately, it contains a non-free derivative of the coat of arms of Singapore. Government works in Singapore are not in the public domain. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 20:44, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
I am not an IP expert, but .... does JackLee mean that any photo taken with the coat of arms cannot be posted to the public domain? E.g. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Statutes-Singapore-20050521.jpg seems to display the coat of arms as well - should this photo be deleted? What about a photo of the Singapore flag, or any building that prominently displays the coat of arms? Please enlighten. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ProjectManhattan (talk • contribs) 18:10, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Hi. I'd say the difference between the photograph of the medal and the one of the statutes is that in the latter the coats of arms are de minimis, whereas in the medal it is pretty much front and centre. Perhaps the reverse of the medal doesn't have any copyrighted image on it? As for the Singapore flag, I'd say it's elements are simple enough not to be copyrightable (ie, {{PD-textlogo}} applies). — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 03:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 16:10, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Uploader-claimed PD-status is questionable, as the photographer of a 1963 image cannot be dead since 70 years. FAL license is also inappropriate. --Túrelio (talk) 21:08, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Some problem with the cropped versions: File:Pope Paul-VIbs.jpg and File:Pope Paul-VIas.jpg. --Túrelio (talk) 21:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Protected is, when is photographer known. How can be photo protected, when photographer is unknown? It is photography of Pope Paul VI and it was exposed during his life. It is now my photography, in my posession, because it is donated to me today from paroch of Titel and Lok. I give my photography as free license. Why not?
- I have photographed this photography too and I will give it on Wikipedia - I think, that than it shall not be problem as was with this, which I scanned.--Stebunik (talk) 22:12, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Are you kidding???? You are not even able to describe from what publication you scanned it and now you seriously claim copyright over something - (photo or painting?) - that you scanned? Delete, bad upload. --Martin H. (talk) 11:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- The picture was on fall and nobody can who photographed. When Pope Paul VI was elected, every parish gave his picture in Parish office. There are thousaunds of various pictures: photos, paintings, drawings. The most of them have nothings of artificial worth and nobody can, who was an author. I think that this picture is between them too. I think, that this picture is photo, but maybe is printed? More pictures are from John Paul II.--Stebunik (talk) 20:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- @Stebunik, as you have de-3 in your homewiki babel box, you may write in German if you find that easier. Both Martin and I are de-native speakers. --Túrelio (talk) 20:35, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Papst Paul VI.
[edit]
Ich glaube dass hier ist ein Missverstaendniss. Ich selbst schrieb, wann ich uploaded die veschidene Bilder von Papst Paul VI.: delete. Warum? Ich bemerkte, dass einige Exemplaren wiederholen sich. Darum nur - denn ich kannte diese überbliebenden Exemplaren nicht vernichten. Die Namen von Bilder sind verschiedene, aber die Bilder sind diegleiche. Ich verstehe wdirklich nicht, warum muss man auch die anderen Exemplaren von Paul VI. löschen. --Stebunik (talk) 20:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- Leider versteht ich auch jetzt nicht wirklich, was du uns sagen willst.
- Es ist doch so: ein Photograph hat 1963 ein Photo von Papst Paul VI. aufgenommen. Er (bzw. seine Erben) behält das Urheberrecht daran bis 70 Jahre nach seinem Tod. Wenn du (oder ich) einen print dieses Photos findest oder sogar kaufst und davon eine Reproduktion (per Scan oder durch Abphotographieren) machst und diese verbreitest (also z.B. auf Commons hochlädst), dann wird das Urheberrecht des ursprünglichen Photographen verletzt. Das gilt grundsätzlich auch dann, wenn die Photographie ein anonymes Werk sein sollte. Wie ich dir schon auf deiner Diskussionsseite geschrieben hatte, ist es eher unwahrscheinlich, dass ein Papst-Photo von 1963 wirklich ein anonymes Werk ist[13].
- Die einzige Ausnahme vom oben dargelegten Prinzip ist die sog. Panoramafreiheit, die aber von Land zu Land unterschiedlich geregelt ist. Da das Original, von dem du eine Reproduktion gemacht hast, sich in Lok befindet, wären vermutlich die Bestimmungen für Commons:Freedom of panorama#Serbia anwendbar. --Túrelio (talk) 21:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Uploader obviously has trouble understanding how copyright works. Rosenzweig τ 14:24, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Copyrighted stageset (model). AndreasPraefcke (talk) 21:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 16:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Copyrighted stageset (and no FOP as in other Bregenz Festspiele photos, this one is from a production inside the house, not the publicly accessible stageset on the lake) AndreasPraefcke (talk) 21:55, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 16:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Copyrighted stageset (and no FOP as in other Bregenz Festspiele photos, this one is from a production inside the house, not the publicly accessible stageset on the lake) AndreasPraefcke (talk) 21:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
![21:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2011/10/02#c-AndreasPraefcke-2011-10-02T21:56:00.000Z-File:Bühnenbild_(Schiffsszenen"_der_Oper_Die_Passagierin.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 16:12, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
![16:12, 26 October 2011 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2011/10/02#c-Jcb-2011-10-26T16:12:00.000Z-File:Bühnenbild_(Schiffsszenen"_der_Oper_Die_Passagierin.JPG){kind=link}
Wikimedia Commons ist nicht gedacht um Bilder ungeklärte Herkunft hochzuladen und dann nach Abmahnkundschaft ausschau zu halten. Habe an einem Tag 4 Berliner Kanzleien und 6 Abmahnopfer seiner Bilder gefunden. Die Tendenz so die Juristen scheint Richtung rechtsmissbräuchliche Abmahnpraktiken zu gehen. Bild zeigt Bau der Olympiahalle, nicht des Olympiastadions. 95.157.4.62 22:36, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Der Löschgrund ist absurd. Das Foto zeigt eindeutig das Stadion. --MfG ''[[Benutzer:byggxx|byggxx]]'' [[Benutzer Diskussion:byggxx|™]] (talk) 06:09, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- Das wird ja wohl zu klären sein, ist aber keinesfalls ein Löschgrund. M.E. hier beenden, dauf der Diskussionsseite klären und falls tatsächlich falsch, verschieben. --Bjs (talk) 18:49, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 16:12, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
