Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2011/10/06
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
This isn't a screenshot of the user's phone, it's a copy of the general image being used on the company's home page; if you look at the image here you can see it has the same users and images as the company's promo version Qwyrxian (talk) 00:35, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. ■ MMXX talk 00:39, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
out of scope, no educational purpose and likely copyvio Quan (talk) 10:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Speedied as attack image. Túrelio (talk) 10:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Helle Thorning-Schmidt, 2008.jpg
error in title EduVolunteer (talk) 15:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Keep I've requested that the file be renamed --Kramer Associates (talk) 21:17, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept: per Kramer Associates Courcelles (talk) 23:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Pornographic - El Juano (talk) 17:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- What were El Juano searching? Speedy Keep Because pornographic and so in scope. Tm (talk) 18:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Speedy keep as invalid deletion reason. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:39, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Doubtful claim of authorship: no EXIF data, low resolution and the same picture can be found on this website Mathonius (talk) 02:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Delete,--Motopark (talk) 04:49, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: scan/screenshot Denniss (talk) 02:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
This is a corporate logo for the Blendr program. As such, the image is copyrighted to Blendr. To use it, we're going to have to upload it on Wikipedia under a fair use claim; it can't be here. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Blackcat (talk) 10:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Lymantria (talk) 09:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
File contains a derivative work of the Eiffel Tower lights in a non de minimis setting in France which has no freedom of panorama exception meaning the uploader cannot issue a valid license without the consent of the SETE ("Société d’Exploitation de la Tour Eiffel" - the Eiffel Tower’s operating company) who adorned the Tower with lights in 2003 and copyrighted the overall spectacle. Although daytime views from the Eiffel Tower are rights-free, its various illuminations are subject to author’s rights as well as brand rights. Usage of these images is subject to prior request from the SETE. Therefore, the light display is protected under copyright, except in a wide panoramic view of Paris. In a seperate case regarding lightong on the Eiffel Tower, the SNTE installed a special sound and light show on the tower in 1989 for the tower's 100th anniversary; the Court of Cassation, France's judicial court of last resort, decided that the lights on the Eiffel Tower constituted an "original visual creation" and upheld the protection by copyright. Therefore, photos that clearly display elements of the lights are copyright violations. It doesn't matter what time of day the photo is taken, if the lights are visible, it's a copyvio. Also see c.f. Newell, Freedom of Panorama. A Comparative Look at International Restrictions on Public Photography. Creighton Law Review, 44(2), p. 405-27, p. 412: "The tower remains in the public domain and photographers can freely photograph the tower during the day, but any images taken after the lighting installation is lit up at dusk are subject to copyright restrictions and licensing requirements." --~ Grcampbell (talk) 05:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- Same as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Eiffel Tower Lighting up Paris.jpg -- Docu at 06:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept: just ordinary electric light is not eligible for copyright Jcb (talk) 10:13, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
File contains a derivative work of the Eiffel Tower lights in a non de minimis setting in France which has no freedom of panorama exception meaning the uploader cannot issue a valid license without the consent of the SETE ("Société d’Exploitation de la Tour Eiffel" - the Eiffel Tower’s operating company) who adorned the Tower with lights in 2003 and copyrighted the overall spectacle. Although daytime views from the Eiffel Tower are rights-free, its various illuminations are subject to author’s rights as well as brand rights. Usage of these images is subject to prior request from the SETE. Therefore, the light display is protected under copyright, except in a wide panoramic view of Paris. In a seperate case regarding lightong on the Eiffel Tower, the SNTE installed a special sound and light show on the tower in 1989 for the tower's 100th anniversary; the Court of Cassation, France's judicial court of last resort, decided that the lights on the Eiffel Tower constituted an "original visual creation" and upheld the protection by copyright. Therefore, photos that clearly display elements of the lights are copyright violations. It doesn't matter what time of day the photo is taken, if the lights are visible, it's a copyvio. Also see c.f. Newell, Freedom of Panorama. A Comparative Look at International Restrictions on Public Photography. Creighton Law Review, 44(2), p. 405-27, p. 412: "The tower remains in the public domain and photographers can freely photograph the tower during the day, but any images taken after the lighting installation is lit up at dusk are subject to copyright restrictions and licensing requirements." --~ Grcampbell (talk) 05:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- Same as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Eiffel Tower Lighting up Paris.jpg -- Docu at 06:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- It is the same text as the same text applies. Commons practice is to nominate individually, not ensemble. Plus your undeletion request that you have posted has no merit. The company claims copyright and we abide by Commons:PRP. --Grcampbell (talk) 06:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- Please disclose any links you may have with SETE or EdF. -- Docu at 06:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- Wrong direction. CU, perhaps. NVO (talk) 06:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- It's not a CU issue, but I think it's something we can expect Grcampbell to disclose in this type of DR. -- Docu at 04:47, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- I have nothing to disclose. Bringing up this type of thing stinks of attacking the user, not the arguments. Please refrain from attacking users and casting doubt on good faith edits by a smear campaign. Bloody disgusting behavior. --Grcampbell (talk) 04:54, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
- Please disclose any links you may have with SETE or EdF. -- Docu at 06:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- It is the same text as the same text applies. Commons practice is to nominate individually, not ensemble. Plus your undeletion request that you have posted has no merit. The company claims copyright and we abide by Commons:PRP. --Grcampbell (talk) 06:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept: just ordinary electric light is not eligible for copyright Jcb (talk) 10:13, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
The night-time light display of their sound and light show is protected under copyright Symac (talk) 16:19, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- How is that related to this image? -- Docu at 16:55, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: 1. This image does not picture the (LMEI) sound and light show. 2. It never was their (SNTE/SETE) show. 3. The original nomination tried to cover its argument under a varnish of respectability by quoting a review, but when you look at the chain of sources you realize that this review merely borrowed a comment from a Wikipedia article, which in turn merely borrowed that comment from some internet blogger [1] who was reporting SNTE's view. So the nomination ends up presenting as authority what is actually nothing more than a blogger's report of SNTE's claim. Stripped of its fancy packaging, the argument boils down to "SETE claims that it is so". Which we already knew and which only brings us back to the starting point and the same old debate. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:13, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept as per Asclepias and Jcb. Yann (talk) 07:01, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
File contains a derivative work of the Eiffel Tower lights in a non de minimis setting in France which has no freedom of panorama exception meaning the uploader cannot issue a valid license without the consent of the SETE ("Société d’Exploitation de la Tour Eiffel" - the Eiffel Tower’s operating company) who adorned the Tower with lights in 2003 and copyrighted the overall spectacle. Although daytime views from the Eiffel Tower are rights-free, its various illuminations are subject to author’s rights as well as brand rights. Usage of these images is subject to prior request from the SETE. Therefore, the light display is protected under copyright, except in a wide panoramic view of Paris. In a seperate case regarding lightong on the Eiffel Tower, the SNTE installed a special sound and light show on the tower in 1989 for the tower's 100th anniversary; the Court of Cassation, France's judicial court of last resort, decided that the lights on the Eiffel Tower constituted an "original visual creation" and upheld the protection by copyright. Therefore, photos that clearly display elements of the lights are copyright violations. It doesn't matter what time of day the photo is taken, if the lights are visible, it's a copyvio. Also see c.f. Newell, Freedom of Panorama. A Comparative Look at International Restrictions on Public Photography. Creighton Law Review, 44(2), p. 405-27, p. 412: "The tower remains in the public domain and photographers can freely photograph the tower during the day, but any images taken after the lighting installation is lit up at dusk are subject to copyright restrictions and licensing requirements." --~ Grcampbell (talk) 05:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- Disruptive request. Same as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Eiffel Tower Lighting up Paris.jpg. -- Docu at 06:04, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- Not a disruptive request. Commons practice is to nominate files for DR individually, not ensemble. The company claims copyright, and a very similar copyright violation was ruled in favor of the plaintiff in the French courts. On Commons we abide by Commons:PRP. --Grcampbell (talk) 06:18, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not sure where to comment if there are three deletion requests, but anyway, I noticed there were other deletion requests for similar files and I assumed this would happen. If the night lights are under copyright, and the files must be deleted, I have no problem with that. I did take the two photos showing the whole tower while the light show was on. This one, with just the base, doesn't have any of the flashing lights, just the normal lighting that illuminates the tower at night. If that is also under copyright, then fine, delete as necessary, I guess. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:49, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept: just ordinary electric light is not eligible for copyright Jcb (talk) 10:13, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
File contains a derivative work of the Eiffel Tower lights in a non de minimis setting in France which has no freedom of panorama exception meaning the uploader cannot issue a valid license without the consent of the SETE ("Société d’Exploitation de la Tour Eiffel" - the Eiffel Tower’s operating company) who adorned the Tower with lights in 2003 and copyrighted the overall spectacle. Although daytime views from the Eiffel Tower are rights-free, its various illuminations are subject to author’s rights as well as brand rights. Usage of these images is subject to prior request from the SETE. Therefore, the light display is protected under copyright, except in a wide panoramic view of Paris. In a seperate case regarding lightong on the Eiffel Tower, the SNTE installed a special sound and light show on the tower in 1989 for the tower's 100th anniversary; the Court of Cassation, France's judicial court of last resort, decided that the lights on the Eiffel Tower constituted an "original visual creation" and upheld the protection by copyright. Therefore, photos that clearly display elements of the lights are copyright violations. It doesn't matter what time of day the photo is taken, if the lights are visible, it's a copyvio. Also see c.f. Newell, Freedom of Panorama. A Comparative Look at International Restrictions on Public Photography. Creighton Law Review, 44(2), p. 405-27, p. 412: "The tower remains in the public domain and photographers can freely photograph the tower during the day, but any images taken after the lighting installation is lit up at dusk are subject to copyright restrictions and licensing requirements." --~ Grcampbell (talk) 05:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Keep per Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:Paris_2010Feb_218.jpg. -- Docu at 06:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept: just ordinary electric light is not eligible for copyright Jcb (talk) 10:14, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned, used in a now deleted hoax article on en.wikipedia. no foreseeable use. FASTILY (TALK) 08:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Agree -- Blackcat (talk) 10:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope Lymantria (talk) 09:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned, used in a now deleted hoax article on en.wikipedia. no foreseeable use. FASTILY (TALK) 08:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Agree -- Blackcat (talk) 10:57, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope Lymantria (talk) 09:59, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned, used in a now deleted hoax article on en.wikipedia. no foreseeable use. FASTILY (TALK) 08:33, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Agree -- Blackcat (talk) 10:57, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept: In scope: example of mask wore on trunk Lymantria (talk) 10:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
No evidence that uploader took picture. Picture is located at http://www.provost.iastate.edu/bio/bhoffman.html. Bbb23 (talk) 00:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- Hmm, resolution is quite a bit higher. Lymantria (talk) 09:47, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: In doubt we delete it Ezarateesteban 22:12, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
professional studio portrait - unlikely to be own work, no permission verified Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:45, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Inferior version of File:Flag of Colombia.svg ~ Fry1989 eh? 02:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Unused scaled down duplicate George Chernilevsky talk 20:32, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Scalked down duplicate of File:Flag of Saxony (state).svg ~ Fry1989 eh? 02:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Deleted: Unused scaled down duplicate George Chernilevsky talk 20:32, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Neither the subject is notable identity nor this image is encyclopedic in any possible mean. Bill william comptonTalk 02:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep it can be of some use, I just added it to the category People with guitars -- Blackcat (talk) 10:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- May I know what possible EV this image has?. A person with guitar showing his thumb, "some use" how? Bill william comptonTalk 15:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Image of non-notable person, no EV. Bill william comptonTalk 02:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope. Missvain (talk) 03:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:33, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
After seeing other two uploads (1 and 2) of this user, I'm pretty much sure that it's nothing but a self-promotion. Again, no sign of notability and EV. Bill william comptonTalk 02:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope. Missvain (talk) 03:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:34, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Low resolution and these TinEye results signify that it's a copyrighted image, whole website is dedicated to the images of the subject. Bill william comptonTalk 03:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom -- Blackcat (talk) 10:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
very unlikely that this is own work. user's only upload. Calliopejen1 (talk) 03:39, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom -- Blackcat (talk) 10:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Personal image, out of scope Quan (talk) 04:17, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:40, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Singapore International Water Week Logo3.jpg ~ Fry1989 eh? 04:39, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
It's just a scribble. Herostratus (talk) 04:45, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Far out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:40, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Watermark promotes website and business Motopark (talk) 05:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:42, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Watermark promotes website and business Motopark (talk) 05:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:42, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Watermark promotes website and business Motopark (talk) 05:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:43, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Watermark promotes website and business Motopark (talk) 05:12, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:43, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Watermark promotes website and business Motopark (talk) 05:12, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Per nom. Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:43, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Watermark promotes website and business Motopark (talk) 05:12, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:44, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Watermark promotes website and business Motopark (talk) 05:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. George Chernilevsky talk 20:44, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Watermark promotes website and business Motopark (talk) 05:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. George Chernilevsky talk 20:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Watermarked picture, web-side address shown, promotional Motopark (talk) 05:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Promotional, out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Logo of a non-notable website, out of project scope. Not used. Blacklake (talk) 09:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:46, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Low resolution, missing EXIF, likely copyvio Quan (talk) 10:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: In doubt we delete it Ezarateesteban 22:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Unused picture of a possible unnotable person Globalwheels (talk) 10:49, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:46, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Possible copyright, unused and maybe of an unnotable person Globalwheels (talk) 10:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Unused personal picture Globalwheels (talk) 10:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
No really useful content. RE rillke questions? 10:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Not useful, out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Unused personal image Globalwheels (talk) 11:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:49, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Unused personal image Globalwheels (talk) 11:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Unused logo and not a simple logo Globalwheels (talk) 11:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Unused image appears to be a personal picture Globalwheels (talk) 11:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:50, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Personal drawing Globalwheels (talk) 11:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:50, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
not useful . HombreDHojalata.talk 11:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- Did you check the content with GIMP or a compatible program? What's the content? -- RE rillke questions? 14:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- It was substituting for this one: File:Comunidad de Villa y Tierra de Béjar.jpg. --. HombreDHojalata.talk 18:49, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
out of scope, dele. multiple times on de - user blocked Nolispanmo 12:20, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:51, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Copyvio from [2], original has no CC-BY-SA 3.0 license. vıכıaяפ ᚨ 12:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
confusing name as Rhododendron campylocarpum is not a hybrid — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uleli (talk • contribs) 21:55, 8. June 2011 (UTC)
- Can you prove this, please. We do not have to delete, we can move. -- RE rillke questions? 13:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- Listed as a natural species in:
Uleli (talk) 19:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- There are no files in Commons showing this species. The files earlier was R. campylocarpum hybrids, now in the category Category:Rhododendron cultivars. Uleli (talk) 19:50, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: rename the file, please Ezarateesteban 22:23, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Uleli (talk · contribs) wants this being deleted because: Wiki Commons does normaly not have articles of plant taxa below rank of species, and anyway the article title is a nameing not according to botanical rules. RE rillke questions? 14:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Wiki Commons does normaly not have articles of plant taxa below rank of species, and anyway the article title is a naming not according to botanical rules. Uleli (talk) 21:05, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Drawing of a grinning face - out of scope. It's the only upload of the user Traumrune (talk) 21:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. Trollface, see [3]. Rosenzweig τ 18:27, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
grossly insulting vandalism ELEKHHT 22:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope vandalism. Rosenzweig τ 18:29, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Image used for hoax article in eswiki Jcaraballo 22:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:55, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
I DONT WANT NO MORE BE A MEMBER OF THE WIKIPEDIA COMUNITY Tobillitos (talk) 23:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
As described in "source" in Japanese, this is a screenshot of a copyrighted TV program called "クニマスは生きていた！" on MBS. ぶんぶんぶんご (talk) 14:20, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Goolge translate agrees with the nomination, and the given PD-ineligible licence is clearly not applicable Courcelles (talk) 00:48, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Seems like a personal vacation photo to me. Out of scope. P199 (talk) 15:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Keep - File in use in English Wikipedia. Not {{Out of scope}} --Sreejith K (talk) 17:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- Removed personal vacation photo from article. No longer in use. --P199 (talk) 17:29, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- Still useful to depict children of West Bengal or even camping tents. --Sreejith K (talk) 06:22, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Out of project scope IMO -- George Chernilevsky talk 20:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept: I find myself agreeing with Sreejithk2000, and further, it is only one of six images we have of this town, all vastly different, and one of two that shows humans. In scope Courcelles (talk) 00:53, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
This photo seems to clearly have been photoshopped ScottHW (talk) 17:35, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Comment There is no problem with photoshopped images on Commons. --High Contrast (talk) 19:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Comment If it's allowed to stay I think we need to note the photo has been altered. Since we have no idea how people will use the photo, the fact may be of importance to someone where using Photoshopped pictures would be a problem. Green Cardamom (talk) 00:50, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- This photo is not altered at all. It was at the Rally to Restore Sanity, and there were many many satirical signs - check the category out. --David Shankbone (talk) 14:59, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- Here are photos from other photographers of the same sign[4][5]. Just to make it clear: I never alter my images by photoshopping in things that aren't there, nor photoshop out things that are. --David Shankbone (talk) 15:02, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept: No valid reason for deletion Courcelles (talk) 00:57, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
I severely doubt that this satellite photograph is the own work of the uploader 80.187.106.237 19:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: AS evidenced by File:Padrauna.png, this uploader has taken Google screenshots. Courcelles (talk) 01:04, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
DW since FOP in Canada ("... does not apply to typical two-dimensional works such as paintings, murals ... ") doesn't apply to murals. This one is from 1953 and therefore still copyrighted, isn't it? According to the photographer's userpage in enwp he cannot be the painter since this was made 1953 (according to description). Saibo (Δ) 23:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- As a commissioned work, I believe it would fall under public domain as it was "published" more than 50 years ago by an act of government. The deal changer is whether or not the painter was paid by taxpayer dollars to create this work. If so, it is public domain. If not, it isn't. - Floydian (talk) 23:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: First, I think the mural is modern, not from 1953 which is the date of the accident, not the painting. Second, the artist would own the copyright under most circumstances, even if the government were involved (and we have no evidence of that). Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:31, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Same file like File:Chapelle du séminaire des barbelés.jpg 19:50, 6. Okt. 2011 EmmanuelFrance. Signatur nachgetragen. --Asio 22:37, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Delete, wenn User:Yoyogui nicht Urheber des Bildes ist. --Asio 22:59, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:34, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
COM:DW 217.186.19.166 06:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Do not delete. This is an image I took of my personal property and have obtained the permission to use the images on the tag from the copyright/company owner. SJayQ (talk) 13:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: We will need permission using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
The file is tagged with the Free Art License tag, but the source is listed as the NMMU website and there is no evidence that the uploader has the authority from NMMU to release the logo under the FAL. Htonl (talk) 07:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Please advise the creator on how to correct the information.MC107 (talk)18:28, 7 October 2011.
- (Replied to this on user talk page.) - Htonl (talk) 02:13, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Not educationally useful: Nearly identical to File:Israeli Air Force P5080103.JPG. Other and far superior images exist in Category:AH-64D (Israeli Air Force) Marokwitz (talk) 09:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- very usefull - and different - one of three helos and one of two. Do not forget - commons is a repository of free usufull images - how many free images of three AH-64D are there? Deror avi (talk) 13:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Actually they both have three helos, but the uploader is correct. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:09, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
the article make no sence since Rhododendron williamsianum is not a hybrid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uleli (talk • contribs) 22:06, 8. June 2011 (UTC)
- Please prove this. If you are right, just move it. -- RE rillke questions? 13:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- Here is a link to Flora of China, listing it as a natural species [6]. The images show hybrids of Rhododendron williamsianum and should be filed in category:Rhododendron cultivars. Uleli (talk) 16:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept: If I understand this discussion correctly, this should simply be tagged with {{Rename}}. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Insufficient indication that uploader is the creator of the logo, and the logo is too complex for {{PD-textlogo}}. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 14:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the statue is not de minimis and there is no freedom of panorama in Ukraine. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 15:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Painter died in 1942, so copyrighted until 2013. License-template ("100 year after dead of author") is wrong. Quedel (talk) 15:12, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Too sophisticated for PD-German-logo? If yes, we need permission. RE rillke questions? 15:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Opel logo 2009 .png -- RE rillke questions? 15:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Per my comments at C:DR/File:Opel logo 2009.png. Also, this has to be mergeed there since it is basically the same logo. Tbhotch (talk) 05:23, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Opel logo 2009 .png RE rillke questions? 15:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Does not meet the threshold of originality? You're kidding me. False license. Woodcutterty (talk) 18:15, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- Striked out the nomination for now, might get back on it later. Image does not qualify for use on nl-wiki though. Woodcutterty (talk) 01:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Withdrawn --Denniss (talk) 18:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Bo jak jest logo, to nie powinno być napisu Wir leben Autos. 77.254.61.186 14:51, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- It has been suggested in earlier deletion discussions that this logo is not copyrighted, because it's just a combination of a circle and a blitz and therefore does not meet the threshold of originality. This is obviously false: not only is it not just a combination of a circle and a blitz (it's a circle, a blitz, the words 'opel' and the slogan 'Wir Leben Autos' in a chrome design), it is generally accepted (at least in European jurisprudence) that even though the individual elements of a work might not be eligible for copyright protection, the combination of these elements may constitute a work of art. I believe that is the case here, so I propose to delete it, taking into account the precautionary principle. Woodcutterty (talk) 15:05, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- It is a German logo, where the threshold is not as high as the UK or East European countries. This has been renominated ad nauseum (this logo and other similars) that frankly there is no valid reason for users to nominate it over and over again; the only valid reason to nominate it is because an Adam Opel AG legal representant makes a complain, and that would be through WMF legal department, not here. Tbhotch™ 16:03, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- (1) The threshold of originality is the same across the European Union and has been at least since the Court of Justice determined in 2009 that it's been harmonized; COM:TOO is outdated to the point of being preposterous. (2) The fact that it is a German logo does not mean German law dictates the threshold of originality. That is to say, if it doesn't meet the threshold in Germany (which it does), that doesn't mean it's not protected anywhere else in the world. Anyone with a basic understanding of international private law will tell you that. Waiting for the copyright holder to complain is obviously contrary to the precautionary principle. Woodcutterty (talk) 16:16, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Nominating the same logo for 5 years in a row is obviously disruptive for the project. From Commons:Threshold of originality#Germany: Note: Some of the information in this section may be outdated due to a 2013 German Federal Supreme court ruling on the TOO for applied art; see this English summary for details." This logo was published way before the 2013 ruling, whichever this is, and this logo is clearly not "applied art". Whichever the ruling is now for Germany, the ruling at the time of the creation was that simple logos were not copyrighted, ergo, this is not grandfathered to copyright by default. Also, "doesn't mean it's not protected anywhere else in the world" is irrelevant. Commons allows to host logos that are in the public domain/free licensed in both, the country of origin and the US ("Wikimedia Commons only accepts media {...} that are explicitly freely licensed, or {...} that are in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work.") And finally, the precautionary principle states, and I cite: "where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file, it should be deleted." You haven't provided minimal evidence that there is "significant doubt about the freedom" of German laws at the time of the publication (a 1968 emblem) of the Opel bolt logo (or all the Opel-logos that where nominated by the same IP editor). Tbhotch™ 04:49, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- If you don't know that a finding by a court that the threshold of originality is lower than was previously assumed works retroactively, then there's really no point in explaining anything to you. Whether or not a creation is eligible for copyright protection is not solely determined by the standards at the time of creation. Woodcutterty (talk) 10:58, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Nominating the same logo for 5 years in a row is obviously disruptive for the project. From Commons:Threshold of originality#Germany: Note: Some of the information in this section may be outdated due to a 2013 German Federal Supreme court ruling on the TOO for applied art; see this English summary for details." This logo was published way before the 2013 ruling, whichever this is, and this logo is clearly not "applied art". Whichever the ruling is now for Germany, the ruling at the time of the creation was that simple logos were not copyrighted, ergo, this is not grandfathered to copyright by default. Also, "doesn't mean it's not protected anywhere else in the world" is irrelevant. Commons allows to host logos that are in the public domain/free licensed in both, the country of origin and the US ("Wikimedia Commons only accepts media {...} that are explicitly freely licensed, or {...} that are in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work.") And finally, the precautionary principle states, and I cite: "where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file, it should be deleted." You haven't provided minimal evidence that there is "significant doubt about the freedom" of German laws at the time of the publication (a 1968 emblem) of the Opel bolt logo (or all the Opel-logos that where nominated by the same IP editor). Tbhotch™ 04:49, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- (1) The threshold of originality is the same across the European Union and has been at least since the Court of Justice determined in 2009 that it's been harmonized; COM:TOO is outdated to the point of being preposterous. (2) The fact that it is a German logo does not mean German law dictates the threshold of originality. That is to say, if it doesn't meet the threshold in Germany (which it does), that doesn't mean it's not protected anywhere else in the world. Anyone with a basic understanding of international private law will tell you that. Waiting for the copyright holder to complain is obviously contrary to the precautionary principle. Woodcutterty (talk) 16:16, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- It is a German logo, where the threshold is not as high as the UK or East European countries. This has been renominated ad nauseum (this logo and other similars) that frankly there is no valid reason for users to nominate it over and over again; the only valid reason to nominate it is because an Adam Opel AG legal representant makes a complain, and that would be through WMF legal department, not here. Tbhotch™ 16:03, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
_pic2_Logo-only.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep, per before, before, before, my comment above, and that the reason for being nominated (translated from Polish) is not a valid delete reason. Tbhotch™ 16:07, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Kept: As per others. --Ronhjones (Talk) 23:05, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Bo pod logiem nie powinno być napisu Wir leben Autos. 87.105.137.253 18:39, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Bo pod logiem jest niepotrzebny napis Wir leben Autos. 87.105.137.253 18:41, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
- Keep No valid reason – his reason translated into English is "Because under the logo there is unnecessary phrase Wir leben Autos". Also this and other nominations of this guy look like vandalism to me so I've already reverted them. --jdx Re: 19:17, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --INeverCry 00:31, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Bo pod logiem jest niepotrzebny napis Wir leben Autos. 78.10.135.248 12:04, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Vandalism – no valid reason. --jdx Re: 12:29, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Ronhjones (Talk) 16:57, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
File:Erich_Heckel_Wandbild_-_Angermuseum_Erfurt_-_1923_-_Die_Welt_des_Mannes_-_Stefan_George_ist_in_der_Mitte_mit_Adeptem_abgebildet.JPG
[edit]
Copyrightviolation: uploaded with license template "100 years after author-death" and given year of death of 1970 ... no words for this. Copyrighted until 2041 Quedel (talk) 15:16, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
File:Die_Welt_des_Mannes_-_Die_reifen_Männer,_Ausschnitt_Wandgemaelde_E._Heckel,_Angermuseum_Erfurt.JPG
[edit]
Copyrightviolation: uploaded with license template "100 years after author-death" and given year of death of 1970 ... no words for this (as of others files). Copyrighted until 2041. --Quedel (talk) 15:17, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- As the mural is located in-house in Germany, claiming of freedom-of-panorama is not possible in this case, regrettably. --Túrelio (talk)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Copyrighted model, which would not appear to be covered by any freedom of panorama provisions. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:19, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Copyrightviolation: picture is from 1946, even if author died a day after the picture was taken: it is still copyrighted. Quedel (talk) 15:20, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
File:Zeichnung_von_Prof._Hans_Meid_in_'Die_Schuldbrüder',_Roman_von_Albrecht_Schaeffer_1926.JPG
[edit]
Author died in 1957, copyrighted until 2028. License PD-old is wrong (and the uploader knows that ...) Quedel (talk) 15:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Picture was taken in 1904, no evidence given, that the author died within 36 years. Even for anonymous-license-template: no declaration, that the author isn't named in the source. Quedel (talk) 15:25, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
File name Mispelling EduVolunteer (talk) 15:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Please use {{Rename}} Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
File:Hans_Fehr_ca._1955_(9._September_1874_in_St._Gallen-21._November_1961_in_Muri_bei_Bern).JPG
[edit].JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Picture from 1955 - how should the photographer died before 1941? As of many other deleted and to delete files from the uploader .... Quedel (talk) 15:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
wrong name Lazyhawk (talk) 15:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Picture cannot be from 1718 - because the church was build in 1948. So the picture can only be taken after this date. Photographs taken from 1941 until today are copyrighted. So Copyvio. Quedel (talk) 15:33, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
renamed elsewhere EduVolunteer (talk) 15:33, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Keep and rename Rename to what? --Kramer Associates (talk) 21:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Romania, and no evidence that the statue is in the public domain. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 15:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep The statue is not independent, but is a decoration of en:Peleș Castle, designed by Karel Liman, who died in 1928 [7] and Johannes Schultz (died 1883)--Strainu (talk) 15:49, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- Please add this information to the file description page, adding some references if possible. Also, who is the statue of? — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 15:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- I could not say what the statue represents, only that it stands next to an entrance in the castle, so it's probably some kind of symbolic guard. If I had more information, I would have added it when I uploaded the picture, including by giving it a more distinctive name. The fact that it's from Peleș is obvious from the monument-id.--Strainu (talk) 19:49, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- Please add this information to the file description page, adding some references if possible. Also, who is the statue of? — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 15:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
copyrighted photograph. Color-photograph, so it should be taken not too long in the past. For anonymous no evidence that the name wasn't give (and the uploader isn't correct in such situations) Quedel (talk) 15:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
It comes from cover of Ibaraki city library's leaflet "富士正晴 文学アルバム".
I think this file is not {{PD-Japan-exempt}}.
Because the leaflet's cover is not "the text of national or local laws, regulations, and circular notices and/or directives" that will be unprotected under Article 13 of the Copyright Law of Japan. And we still can not confirm the permission of the Ibaraki city library. --Kansai explorer (talk) 15:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:49, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Not old enough to be sure that the file is public domain. No evidence given, that the photographer wasn't named, so anonymous not possible. Quedel (talk) 16:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Another image from this Flickr user, File:Tom Daley and Max Brick in action.jpg, was deleted because it came from Getty Images. I'm not certain where this one comes from, but the same image appears here and the posting date is well before the Flickr upload date, so I'm pretty sure the Flickr uploader isn't the copyright owner. Ytoyoda (talk) 16:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Suspected of copyvio. Tineye gives 5 results, some with higher resolution. P199 (talk) 16:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Another image from this Flickr user, File:Tom Daley and Max Brick in action.jpg, was deleted because it came from Getty Images. I'm not certain where this one comes from, but the same image appears here and the posting date is well before the Flickr upload date, so I'm pretty sure the Flickr uploader isn't the copyright owner. Ytoyoda (talk) 16:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
File:Erika_Mann_und_Richard_Hallgarten_in_Berlin_als_Sieger_eines_Autorennens_quer_durch_Europa_1931.JPG
[edit]
Picture from 1931, no evidence given, that the author died within 10 years. No declaration, that the photographer wasn't named in the source, so anonymous-template not possible. Quedel (talk) 16:25, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Photo taken in 1929, no reason given, that the author died within 12 years. So possible copyrighted and so --> delete. No declaration, that the author-name wasn't credited in the source, so anonymous-templates doesn't fit here. Quedel (talk) 16:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
too young to be safely public domain. No declaration, that author isn't credited in the source, so anonymous-template doesn't fit. Quedel (talk) 16:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Original Research of the uploader Quedel (talk) 16:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- And not used at any project. --Quedel (talk) 19:29, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Original research is not prohibited on Commons, but it must be useful. I don't think this is. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:20, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Uploader's other images from this time show a misunderstanding of copyright, and this appears to be a photograph of a TV screen. (ESkog)(Talk) 17:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:20, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
i have uploaded it from mistake it exist as another file Georgy90 (talk) 18:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
"Please provide where and when the image was first published" so that this PD-Polish license can be used. 80.187.106.237 19:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
"Please provide where and when the image was first published" so that this PD-Polish license can be used. 80.187.106.237 19:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Image seems to be from www.civildefencelahore.gov.pk - see the photo iscription 80.187.106.237 19:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
probably a copyright violation; source: http://www.iisd.ca/climate/sb32/pix/2june/DSC_5596%20bolivia.jpg Razvan Socol (talk) 19:19, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
User is a quacking sock of User:Divineabraham, and has been indef blocked on enwiki as such. (No pages link to this file either) 173.171.53.193 20:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
User is a quacking sock of User:Divineabraham, and has been indef blocked on enwiki as such. (No pages link to this file either) LikeLakers2 (talk) 20:25, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
User is a quacking sock of User:Divineabraham, and has been indef blocked on enwiki as such. (No pages link to this file either) LikeLakers2 (talk) 20:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
The file is tagged with an own-work GFDL+CC-BY-SA license tag, but the source is listed as the NMMU website and there is no evidence that the uploader has the authority from NMMU to release the logo under a copyleft license. Htonl (talk) 07:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
The file license has been changed . If it is still incorrect please advise the creator on how to correct the information.MC107 (talk)17:59, 7 October 2011.
- (Replied to this on user talk page.) - Htonl (talk) 02:13, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
While I personally don't want this image delete as a matter of trying to follow the rules, I am beginning to think that this image is a copyright violation, but I'm not sure. This image appears from the LDS General Conference. However, per the rules at the conference center (see here) Photography is not allowed during the meetings, except by credentialed news media. Therefore, the image cannot be owned by Trödel. Since this is a televised event the image would be owned by Bonneville Communications. --ARTEST4ECHO talk 17:25, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- Comment/question. If we assume for the sake of my question that Trödel took the photo him/herself in violation of the Conference Center rules, would s/he nevertheless own the copyright of it, or is there some weird provision that photos taken within the Conference Center are owned by Intellectual Reserve? Good Olfactory (talk) 20:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- That is exact issue I see (and to be 100% honest I hope I'm wrong). Dose he own the copyright since it is a televised event where no photography is allowed. If I went to a live taping of a TV show and took photos of the actors, the studio would have a legal claim against me giving permission to allow for commercial use of the image, so doses Bonneville Communications. I hope I'm wrong, but I see this as a issue with this image. If I am wrong, by all means tell me and close this as keep.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 20:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- Just so everyone knows, I have found and uploaded File:Gordon B. Hinckley.jpg and File:Gordon B. Hinckley2.jpg and so (at a minimum) there are possible replacements to the image.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 21:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. I think that unless we can figure out otherwise that what's happened here is legal, we'd be better safe than sorry in this case. We should probably delete it. The image is replaceable, so it's not a irredeemable loss. Good Olfactory (talk) 21:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- I don't want to lose this image, as it is in color, and have asked this question before, but no one can tell me. It seems logical to me, but copyright law isn't logical. If someone knows please say so.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 21:25, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- Comment. I deny there is any copyright violation. No one here is even claiming that there is a copyright violation, only that their might be a permissions issue based on dubious suspicions and uninformed legal opinions. Furthermore, the aggrieved party, if any, has not made any claim that the work is being used improperly. The nomination implies that in addition to getting a proper license from the copyright holder, it is the policy on Commons to demonstrate that the artist had permission from the subject and was not trespassing or violating any agreement that the artist might have with others in order to be appropriate for Commons. That is not Commons policy.
- Even supposing that that the assumption is true (I'm not saying it is correct or not) that the picture was taken in violation of the license granted to an attendee of the conference, the remedy that Bonneville and or Intellectual Reserve has would be to revoke the license (i.e. to kick out the attendee), the ownership of the copyright still resides in the artist. If taking the picture were a violation of the license, IR or Bonneville might be able sue in equity to recover the artwork and the rights inherent in the artwork as damages for the violation. However, no such suit has been instigated, and even if it were to do so and win, it is likely that any license granted previous to the suit would survive the change in ownership of the rights.
- In your flawed analogy to a TV show, you are confusing permission with copyright law. If permission of the subject of the photograph were needed, they would need to assert the claim and seek damages; however, such permission does not change the copyright of the artwork. The remedy for use without permission is economic, and (in rare cases where there is irreparable harm) the court can order no further publication of the image. However, (1) no claim of use without permission has been made by the subject of the artwork, and (2) continued publication of the image does not result in any harm to Mr. Hinckley since IR licenses similar copyrighted works without compensation and the use of the work is not derogatory in any way; therefore, it is very unlikely that a court would find the irreparable harm necessary to deny further publication.
- Finally, you are in someways mixing in a claim of a violation of privacy. As a public figure, Hinckley has less of a claim of a violation of privacy than the average person. He may, however, have publicity rights in his image but that does not change whether this is copyrighted properly or not, and again the remedies are primarily monetary and only when commercial use is demonstrated. --Trödel 22:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- Your comment makes sense on a theoretical level. But Trödel, how did you manage to get that photo taken? Were you a member of the press? Or did you somehow sneak a camera in? Or was it taken before a camera ban was in place? Or was it taken with a cell phone or something? Just curious as to the logistics of how this picture was taken. If you just said how the picture actually came about, it would probably make it an even easier case. Good Olfactory (talk) 01:01, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- You may not understand this, but answering these questions on Commons would go against my principles. They aren't relevant to the discussion of whether the copyright was valid or not. It's valid on its face, it is not a derivative work of the video feed or any other copyrighted work - that's all Commons needs to know. --Trödel 19:49, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- Right, snuck it in. Got it. Good Olfactory (talk) 00:22, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- That assumption is incorrect. --Trödel 16:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- Right, snuck it in. Got it. Good Olfactory (talk) 00:22, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- You may not understand this, but answering these questions on Commons would go against my principles. They aren't relevant to the discussion of whether the copyright was valid or not. It's valid on its face, it is not a derivative work of the video feed or any other copyrighted work - that's all Commons needs to know. --Trödel 19:49, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- Your comment makes sense on a theoretical level. But Trödel, how did you manage to get that photo taken? Were you a member of the press? Or did you somehow sneak a camera in? Or was it taken before a camera ban was in place? Or was it taken with a cell phone or something? Just curious as to the logistics of how this picture was taken. If you just said how the picture actually came about, it would probably make it an even easier case. Good Olfactory (talk) 01:01, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep I think this is exactly the same as images taken in museums in violation of the museums' rules. The museum (or the church, in this case) may have a cause of action against our uploader, but Commons is in the clear. Our policy is to keep such images, see Commons:Image_casebook#Museum_and_interior_photography. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep per Commons:Non-copyright restrictions#"House rules", it does not matter to us if the Conference forbids photography. MKFI (talk) 21:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Scaled down duplicate of File:US flag 13 stars – Betsy Ross.svg ~ Fry1989 eh? 02:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- In use on eswp. Courcelles (talk) 00:47, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- It wasn't when I nominated it (yes I'm absolutely sure), and can easily be replaced with an SVG. Fry1989 eh? 00:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- And now it's be replaced. Fry1989 eh? 00:57, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep The change of type of the file don't justify a deletion. Otourly (talk) 18:13, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- It's being a scaled down duplicate of a superior and pre-existing SVG is. Fry1989 eh? 20:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- And now it's be replaced. Fry1989 eh? 00:57, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- It wasn't when I nominated it (yes I'm absolutely sure), and can easily be replaced with an SVG. Fry1989 eh? 00:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: as scaled down duplicate of File:Us flag large Betsy Ross.png Jcb (talk) 11:40, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Unused and unuseable chart of alleged derivation between two alphabets, entirely speculative private concoction by uploader, absurdly against common sense and academic opinion (e.g., chart contains several letters that simply didn't exist at the time these alphabets were in contact. Link between these two alphabets was a now obsolete but legitimate theory in the 19th century, but not based on these letter correspondences.) No possible legitimate educational use, hence outside project scope. Presence of this chart in our category listings, even if orphaned, may still mislead uninformed users and is therefore actively harmful. OR nature of the chart was acknowledged even by uploader himself, who requested deletion for that reason here [8]. The account that did that tagging was a known sockpuppet of the original uploader, so it could be honoured as a legitimate author request. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
![[8]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:RunicGreek.png&diff=58002975&oldid=35849899){kind=link}
- It's certainly semi-stupid, since no attempt was made to correlate the particular forms of the Greek alphabet that might have been accessible to the inventer(s) of Germanic runes. AnonMoos (talk) 16:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- "Semi-"? :-) It's got "Yot" and "Sampi" in there. And tack-shaped "Heta", and any number of additional absurdities. In any case, to what extent Runic borrowed from Old Italic or from Greek or through whatever other intermediaries is a matter that's been discussed in the literature and that can be easily sourced; according to the sources cited in the en:Elder Futhark article, the Greek hypothesis is considered obsolete. But that's not what this table here is about; it corresponds to no proposal ever made anywhere in the literature. The basic fact is that no Wikipedia editor should make any attempt at "correlating" anything on their own in the first place in such a matter. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:49, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- OK, the overall conception and approach was semi-stupid, but many of the details are 100% idiotic. The predominantly-Greek source hypothesis is not favored, but many have suspected that some form of the Greek alphabet (most probably not 24-letter Ionic) was in the mix as a supplemental source to Latin, and I don't know that this is strictly disproven... AnonMoos (talk) 22:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 11:56, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Uleli (talk · contribs) wants this being deleted because: "The rank is not given (var./subsp.) and the images did not have anything to do with O. tegragona" RE rillke questions? 14:16, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
the rank is not given (var./subsp.) and the images did not have anything to do with O. tegragona. Uleli (talk) 09:24, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 12:12, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Uleli (talk · contribs) wants this being deleted because: "The name Ludwigia lemnithoechiza does not excist, the plant in the photos is a species of Scrophulariaceae or maybe Plantaginaceae... not a Ludwigia" RE rillke questions? 14:17, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
The name Ludwigia lemnithoechiza does not excist, the plant in the photos is a species of Scrophulariaceae or maybe Plantaginaceae... not a Ludwigia
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 12:12, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
and other uploads by Just Feel It (talk · contribs). Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:27, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 12:14, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
and other uploads by Sector001 (talk · contribs). Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete copyvio from [9]. MKFI (talk) 21:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jcb (talk) 12:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
There is really no evidence that this file is a NASA-file: when not, public domain (NASA) is obsolete 80.187.106.237 19:16, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
On that basis you might want to check out all of these [flood images] uploaded by the same chap. EdwardLane (talk) 09:18, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi guys, thanks for the watchful eyes on the stuff I've been doing. I got the images of [10] where it says Data provided by NASA in the bottom right corner. This seemed to me to be enough but I must admit that I'm new to uploading images and its policies. However if that isn't living up to standards I'll flag them to be removed. Meanwhile I'll check out [11] and the "Fair use images" policy. The quality of the images is pretty poor and is way less than the site provides so it does make a (strong) case for fair use anyway. Well I'll hear from you I hope. AlwaysUnite (talk) 16:01, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
--
Images flooded landscapes
Hello AlwaysUnite, Thanks for dropping me a line, I can't claim any depth of knowledge on the free licence uploading of images. Someone else nominated it for deletion, but I'm not sure they are right. It might be that all the files need is a source showing it's from Nasa, but I don't know enough to even confirm that. I guess the place to check is Wikipedia:Image_use_policy and perhaps the people at Wikipedia:Help_desk might be worth asking. EdwardLane (talk) 16:30, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello, go and look at the http://flood.firetree.net/ pages you snipped and see what it says down the bottom right. Does it say Google maps? That is what I see on the front page. If it is Google maps then the images are unsuitable due to restrictions that Google place on their use. but if it is directly from NASA then you still need to see how that web site changed it with a copyright notice (or not). Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:44, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
--
These posts are from my talk page. I copied them here as they are part of this discussion. AlwaysUnite (talk) 14:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- I'm putting all floodmap images up for fair use per:
1Purpose and character: to educate and inform the general public about a important geological feature of our planet 2Nature of the copied work: it's is important to publish this material to be able to understand the basic evolution of our planet. As for the images of the Laguna Salada, The Salton Sink, The Qattara Depression, the Inner lakes of Australia and the Dead Sea it is also important to understand the geology of the terrain because of hydroelectricity proposals to flood these areas completely or partially. 3Amount and substantiality: The amount of work used is limited. The resolution compared to the original is very low. 4Effect upon work's value: The effect upon the original work's value is low and/or negliable because of the aforementioned low resolution one will still have to visit the original site. Additionally because the images do not include the changeable sea level featured on the site the copies do not interfere with the primary goal of the original site [12].
I hope the issue can be archived now. Kind regards, AlwaysUnite (talk) 13:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- BTW because commons does not allow fair use images I flag them for deletion.
All involved images
[edit]
- File:Floodmap Asal.jpg
- File:Floodmap Danakil.jpg
- File:Floodmap Egypt East.jpg
- File:Floodmap Libya East.jpg
- File:Floodmap Kaspian.jpg
- File:Floodmap Australia.jpg
- File:Floodmap Laguna Salada.jpg
- File:Floodmap Laguna del Carbon.jpg
- File:Floodmap Greater Antilles.jpg
- File:Floodmap Egypt West.jpg
- File:Floodmap Death Valley.jpg
- File:Floodmap Dead Sea Rift.jpg
- File:Floodmap Oasis Depressions.JPG
AlwaysUnite (talk) 14:55, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Commons deletion request at Commons:Deletion_requests/2011/10/10#Files_of_User:AlwaysUnite AlwaysUnite (talk) 15:13, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: (not by me) Jcb (talk) 15:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
There is really no eviddence that this file is a NASA-file: when not, public domain (NASA) is obsolete 80.187.106.237 19:18, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, there is evidence. An identical photo is in the book Space Shuttle: The History of the National Space Transportation System, The First 100 Missions by Dennis R. Jenkins (p.31); it is credited "Tony Landis Collection". The Tony Landis Collection is, as far as I can determine, comprised exclusively of U.S. government, public-domain photographs and images from the U.S. Air Force and NASA. While the photograph needs attribution in that fashion - and I will do so - it is without a doubt a public-domain, U.S. government image. - The Bushranger (talk) 19:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep per Bushranger, NASA image. MKFI (talk) 16:22, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, MKFI. Please bring arguments for your keep votes; the quantity of "keep"-opinions do not count in DRs.
Comment The same image (in a higher image resolution) can be found here: http://history.nasa.gov/x15conf/history.html. --High Contrast (talk) 16:58, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept: evidence has been brought that this is indeed an NASA file Jcb (talk) 12:18, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Subject individuals in the photo have requested me to remove them. I am the original contributor of the image. Richard David Ramsey (talk) 23:55, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept: The only image we have of a notable person, in use in his article. THe image is now PD by your action, which cannot be reversed even if we were to delete it. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
One of the people in it wants it out. Richard David Ramsey (talk) 21:46, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Speedy keep. Again, the image is in the public domain -- you put it there. There is nothing in US law which gives the subjects of images such as this one any control over its use. It is in use on WP:EN and we do not have another image of Johansson.
Please do not open this nomination again. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)