Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2011/10/12
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
_cropped.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
_Flag.gif){kind=link}
link clearly indicates copy-vio as it's a promotional shot used by Billboard Japan. SKS2K6 (talk) 03:30, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio Denniss (talk) 03:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Smells flickrwashing, larger version exists at http://celebshut.com/selena-gomez-grammy-awards-2011.html →AzaToth 22:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: known copyvio upload, bot failed to detect Denniss (talk) 22:51, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Unused personal image, out of project scope ■ MMXX talk 01:54, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted / Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 00:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
This flag is a mistification. Nakhchivan no has a flag. This is a official site a Nakhcivan Republic --N KOziTalk 04:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Delete This is fake. --►Safir yüzüklü Ceklimesaj 05:08, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
- P.S.: The national symbols of Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic are the national flag, emblem of the Azerbaijan Republic, the national anthem. of the Azerbaijan Republic.--►Safir yüzüklü Ceklimesaj 06:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Comment:
I think we have to deal together with
- File:Flag of Nakhichevan.jpg
- File:Flag of Naxçıvan.PNG
- File:Flag of Nakhichevan.png
- File:Flag of Nakhichevan - Variant.svg
According to www.crwflags.com/fotw, these flag were historical flags. An user claims it is reliable source. But I suspect reliability of www.crwflags.com/fotw.
In Russian Wikipedia, this flag is used as the flag of ru:Аракская Республика. Takabeg (talk) 13:20, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted / Wrong.--Fanghong (talk) 00:27, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Studio photograph of celebrity Ryan Potter by a user with no other uploads. Web resolution suggesting it was taken from a web source. Unless they happen to be a celebrity photographer, this is a very likely copyvio. However I could not identify the original source, so I just have suspicions to go on. Dcoetzee (talk) 07:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Delete. Same image here (ours might even be a crop from that one), background image at [1], marked ©2011 RyanPotter.com. Lupo 10:57, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted / Copyvio.--Fanghong (talk) 00:34, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
copyright violation screenshot 77.184.53.4 09:02, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted / Copyvio.--Fanghong (talk) 00:41, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
No FOP in France; this is a 3-dimensional non-free sculpture InverseHypercube (talk) 00:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - clear FOP violation. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - no FOP in France. --PierreSelim (talk) 11:02, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - Nice statue, but not allowable. Someone should make sure to get this uploaded locally with a strong fair use rationale if they want it. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:07, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
According to this site, the author (Maicon Fernandes) is the same of the other pictures uploaded at Commons by Michael10k. Although, i couldn't find this picture at Panoramio. Giro720 (talk) 00:21, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:59, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Own work seems doubtful. Permission given as "OTRS" but what is the actual source then? No author given. User's only upload. Wknight94 talk 02:42, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:59, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
It is not PD (2011 - 1949 = 62 years, not 70, furthermore nobody knows if the author of the photo alive or dead now). In ru-wiki we still use it as fair-use. Dmitry89 (talk) 04:02, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:59, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Copyvio. It's a work by it:Mauro Berrettini (as stated here), living Italian artist, and there is no FOP in Italy. Elitre (talk) 08:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
- I should add that, while Jcb refused to speedy delete this, Turélio fulfilled my request for an image by the very same author, CIVETTA.JPG. --Elitre (talk) 08:05, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Keep low artistic profile... --Sailko (talk) 05:29, 18 October 2011 (UTC)- Strong delete. In this modern sculpture it's clearly possibile to see original authorship: eligible for copyright protection. Not simple or common shape. Further, as stated here, the symbol it's strictly protected by Consorzio di Tutela del Palio di Siena. It's a non-copyright restriction, but I don't know if the symbol itself it's in the public domain due to age.--Trixt (talk) 19:53, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Obvious Delete. Copyrighted statue. Buddy431 (talk) 04:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Copyvio. It's a work by it:Mauro Berrettini, living Italian artist, and there is no FOP in Italy. Elitre (talk) 08:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
- I should add that, while Jcb refused to speedy delete this, Turélio fulfilled my request for an image by the very same author, CIVETTA.JPG. --Elitre (talk) 08:05, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
- See Commons:CSD#File: "This does not include Freedom of panorama cases." - Jcb (talk) 10:30, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
_cropped.jpg){kind=link}
_cropped.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Almost identical to File:HMAS Sydney (AWM 301473).jpg. Only difference is that this has some ocean cropped off the bottom to remove the watermark, while the other removed the watermark through other means -- saberwyn 08:54, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
_cropped.jpg){kind=link}
Kept: It is in use widely and I, for one, prefer this one with less blank sea. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:02, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
_cropped.jpg){kind=link}
Copy (low resolution) of File:Johannes_Hevelius_-_Prodromus_Astronomia_-_Volume_III_"Firmamentum_Sobiescianum,_sive_uranographia"_-_Tavola_Emisfero_Boreale.jpg Cicciopasticcio00000 (talk) 09:22, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:02, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
This is the wrong rendering of Urdu in Devanagri. It should actually be उर्दू . Hindustanilanguage (talk) 09:23, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:02, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
This image appears to be copyrighted. Check the image with the possible mark of the website from where it was taken (www). Hindustanilanguage (talk) 09:28, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:02, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
The uploader doesnt seem to be Dr Inayatullah Faizi - author of the book. Copyrighted material. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 09:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:02, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Copyright protected, imoo Aʁsenjyʁdəgaljɔm11671 09:49, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
- PD-text not appliable for me, we are beyond threshold of originality. PierreSelim (talk) 10:19, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept: PD-textlogo Jcb (talk) 15:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Copy (low resolution) of File:Johannes_Hevelius_-_Prodromus_Astronomia_-_Volume_III_"Firmamentum_Sobiescianum,_sive_uranographia"_-_Tavola_Emisfero_Australe.jpg Cicciopasticcio00000 (talk) 09:53, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
category not used. Correct category is Category:Prussian Censuses Vluebben (talk) 10:55, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Individual photographs do not constitute a published edition, so {{PD-SG-edition}} is wrong: see "Commons:Licensing#Published editions of work or works". {{PD-SG-photo}} is the appropriate licence, but can only be used if 70 years have passed since the end of the year in which the photographs were taken. In other words, the licence can only be used on photographs taken before or in 1940. Also, there is insufficient evidence that the photograph was published in Singapore. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 11:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Individual photographs do not constitute a published edition, so {{PD-SG-edition}} is wrong: see "Commons:Licensing#Published editions of work or works". {{PD-SG-photo}} is the appropriate licence, but can only be used if 70 years have passed since the end of the year in which the photographs were taken. In other words, the licence can only be used on photographs taken before or in 1940. Also, there is insufficient evidence that the photograph was published in Singapore. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 11:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Individual photographs do not constitute a published edition, so {{PD-SG-edition}} is wrong: see "Commons:Licensing#Published editions of work or works". {{PD-SG-photo}} is the appropriate licence, but can only be used if 70 years have passed since the end of the year in which the photographs were taken. In other words, the licence can only be used on photographs taken before or in 1940. Also, there is insufficient evidence that the photograph was published in Singapore. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 11:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
The aeroplane featured in the photograph is really too small to be recognizable, so the image is not useful for any project. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 12:03, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - this photo is free file and can be useful. --Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 20:50, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
trademark of LinkedIn without permission of LinkedIn Paulbe (talk) 12:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept: PD-text-logo -- trademark does not concern us. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
This image violates the copyright rule Gupta-meghna64 (talk) 15:07, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: redirected to effective duplicate. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:45, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
The uploader claims that this is his own work - but the photo is of his grandfather as a young man - so this is not possible. The permission given is "my own family" - this is not consistent if it was his work. Brookie (talk) 12:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
The uploader claims that this is his own work; as the photo is of his uncle's wedding in 1968 this seems unlikely. The permission given is "My family" which is inconsistent with it being his own work. Brookie (talk) 12:17, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:05, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
The uploader claims that it is his work; this looks like an RAF photo and it is most unlikely that he would have taken it. The permission given is "My family" which is inconsistent with him being the creator of the photo. Brookie (talk) 12:23, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:05, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
The uploader claims that this is his work - but it is of his grandfather as a young man in the 1930s! It is stated as being from his family collection; the permission claimed is of "My family" this is inconsistent with it being his own work, Brookie (talk) 12:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:05, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Corrupted file. Transfer from en wiki not successful. Sreejith K (talk) 12:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept: fixed by Giro720 Jcb (talk) 15:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
converted by me to DR from a copyvio-speedy by User:Missvain for "Highly doubtful this artwork is public domain". --Túrelio (talk) 13:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Useless tiny personal pic. P199 (talk) 13:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Personal vanity photo. Out of scope. P199 (talk) 13:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Unused private image, out of scope. Achim (talk) 14:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
deleted. INeverCry 19:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Commons is not for posting your CV. P199 (talk) 13:13, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Useless tiny personal vanity pic. P199 (talk) 13:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Test file to demonstrate problem was temporary and server-side; can be deleted now 84user (talk) 14:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:08, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:03, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:10, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
copyvio ([2]) . HombreDHojalata.talk 15:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:10, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
and File:NIKHIL MAHARAJ TRIP 1.jpg. Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:50, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Personal image, not used. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 16:58, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Copyright 관인생략 (talk) 17:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Low quality image, that been replaced with one of better quality (PY&A 1818.jpg). Author also supports deletion. Niagara (talk) 17:13, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
- Support deletion - as the photographer and uploader. Smallbones (talk) 17:30, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Although it is very blurry, it shows the other side of the car, which may be useful to some users. There is no reason to delete it. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
This was previously up for deletion, but it was not deleted because it shows the other side of the car. This is no longer the case and should be deleted now. We have high quality images of both sides: A and B. -- Ram-Man 19:28, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- As previously, I'd be happy to see this go - as photographer and uploader. I just shouldn't have tried to get so many shots that day. Smallbones (talk) 20:35, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
deleted. INeverCry 01:11, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
It is highly doubtful that this image is the own work of the uploader. Maybe a NASA photo? If yes, please provide a proper source with all information needed 80.187.102.233 17:23, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
.JPG&action=edit){kind=link}
.JPG&diff=0){kind=link}
.JPG&action=history){kind=link}
.JPG&action=watch){kind=link}
.JPG&action=unwatch){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=purge){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&preload=Commons:Deletion_requests/preload){kind=link}
.JPG&action=delete){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
converted by me to DR from a speedy by User:Edelseider for "out of focus, unencyclopaedic", as some discussion might be appropriate. --Túrelio (talk) 18:43, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
- Delete, shot out of car/bus (windows reflections), really unusable. If building had been blown up the next day, this image might have been of use. --Túrelio (talk) 18:46, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Could not findpermission for any proper license..and exotic art libre? D.W. (talk) 19:45, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Big Mensaje (talk) 20:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
_Flag.gif&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Flag.gif&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
_Flag.gif&action=edit){kind=link}
_Flag.gif&diff=0){kind=link}
_Flag.gif&action=history){kind=link}
_Flag.gif&action=watch){kind=link}
_Flag.gif&action=unwatch){kind=link}
_Flag.gif){kind=link}
_Flag.gif&action=purge){kind=link}
_Flag.gif){kind=link}
_Flag.gif){kind=link}
_Flag.gif){kind=link}
_Flag.gif&action=edit&preload=Commons:Deletion_requests/preload){kind=link}
_Flag.gif&action=delete){kind=link}
_Flag.gif){kind=link}
_Flag.gif){kind=link}
There is better version of this file a SVG file, superseded by File:Israeli Army (Land Arm) Flag.svg.
– HonorTheKing (talk) 20:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
_Flag.svg){kind=link}
_Flag.gif){kind=link}
Kept: per policy, we don't delete raster files for the presence of a vector file Jcb (talk) 15:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
_Flag.gif){kind=link}
Contains WP screenshots complete with WP logo - logo is not allowed free use Ronhjones (Talk) 20:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
- I've added the {{Copyright by Wikimedia}} tag, in case anyone should get confused. Please do that in the future rather than nominate Wikipedia-related files for deletion; such files are perfectly fine on Commons.--ragesoss (talk) 20:55, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
the pixelation makes the image pretty unusable →AzaToth 20:45, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
- as it is the only free image we have from this actress so far, I prefer to keep it. It was received by the www.wikiportret.nl project on the Dutch wikipedia, where we ask for free image from the public. I have just added this picture to the dutch wiki-page of this actress, so unusable is not the right wording to my idea. Edoderoo (talk) 20:49, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
copyvio, Marcoos44 is not the author of this photo [3] . HombreDHojalata.talk 20:57, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Copyvio, Marcoos44 is not the author of this photo [4] . HombreDHojalata.talk 20:58, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
copyvio, Marcoos44 in not the author of this file [5] . HombreDHojalata.talk 21:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
copyvio, Marcoos44 is not the author of this file [6] . HombreDHojalata.talk 21:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Promotional image of some sort, used in a now deleted advert on en.wikipedia. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 21:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope; likely derivative of a copyrighted image. Dominic (talk) 22:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
No date of death of real author. No reason to believe he is already more than 70 years dead. Date of production "early 1920s" - but this is not sufficient. Date is too young to assume author is dead more than 70 years.
example: author's age 55 in 1920. Died at 80 years: 1945. That would be only 65 years ago. Saibo (Δ) 22:23, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Bad requested file, already existing Gigillo83 (talk) 22:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Image is too blurred to be of use in any project. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 12:21, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep I may try to improve the image by its quality. I have a better camera to clarify the photo. --Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 22:42, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - Out of focus, and there are so many better examples of the same thing available here. Techtri (talk) 16:57, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - unusable! Brookie (talk) 08:38, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:05, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
and other uploads by The Exilex00 (talk · contribs). Promo shoots, band logo and album cover. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Band Promotion - out of scope Neozoon (talk) 22:46, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
copyvio, Marcos44 is not the author of these seven photos . HombreDHojalata.talk 16:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No declaration who created the pictures of the collage and history of several copyright violation uploads Neozoon (talk) 22:52, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Too blurry to have any educational value Kramer Associates (talk) 20:38, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Jcb (talk) 15:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
and other photos by Felipe Escobar Ochoa (talk · contribs). Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:05, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nominator Denniss (talk) 17:57, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
and other uploads by Nenyedi (talk · contribs). Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:28, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Ezarateesteban 17:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
and other uploads by CelesJalee (talk · contribs). Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:38, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Category:The Motherland Calls states the statue is copyrighted, there is no full FOP in Russia, and photos of the statue are copyright violations. Mormegil (talk) 13:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
- Who did "copyright" it? Where? When? Exceptional statements need exceptional evidence. There is no "copyright" in the country of origin, their law uses different terms. Certainly delete as non-free. NVO (talk)
- Eh? You seem to misunderstand the word “to copyright”. The photograph needs to be deleted because its subject is copyrighted, i.e. protected by авторское право. We are in agreement here. --Mormegil (talk) 14:56, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
- Definitely not copyrighted. There is no formal copyrighting procedure (like existed in the US many years ago). Rights emerge at the moment of creation, or when levied by law (oh yes, in a Fahrenheit 451 state a "right" is a burden). NVO (talk) 19:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
This file comes from the website of the Governor of Volgograd Oblast. Is it possible that there has been purchased a permission to release it under a free licence? --High Contrast (talk) 15:52, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
- The photograph itself is freely licensed, no doubt about that (well, according to Template:Volganet.ru). The problem is the statue pictured. And I seriously doubt the heirs of Yevgeny Vuchetich and Nikolai Nikitin gave a specific permission for this use (or that the operators of the Volgograd Governor website tried to get it). --Mormegil (talk) 18:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
- Worse than that, inquiring about the identities of the heirs of V and N (and dozens of other contributors) is de-facto prohibited, and could be outright dangerous (not for the governor, though). Dead end. NVO (talk) 19:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
So, Mormegil, you think the person in charge of the website of the Governor of Volgograd Oblast made a mistake by releasing this file under a free licence without any permission? --High Contrast (talk) 19:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
- Strongly agree. If it is a mistake, the person responcible for this is Governor of V.Oblast. - Zac allan (talk) 21:23, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Comment - the Motherland Calls isn't the sole focus of this picture. Could we simply add Template:FoP-Russia to the licensing, as is done at File:RodinaVolgograd.jpg ? --Simone 20:52, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:43, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Category:The Motherland Calls states the statue is copyrighted, there is no full FOP in Russia, and photos of the statue are copyright violations. Mormegil (talk) 13:27, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:43, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Files in Category:Palais des Sports de Grenoble
[edit]There is no freedom of panorama in France (see COM:FOP#France). Building made in 1967 for Olympic games.
- File:Palais des sports -1- Grenoble.JPG
- File:Palais des sports -2- Grenoble.JPG
- File:Palais des sports -3- Grenoble.JPG
- File:Palais des sports -4- Grenoble.JPG
- File:Palais des sports -5- Grenoble.JPG
- File:Stade de Glace-Grenoble-1968.jpg
PierreSelim (talk) 06:52, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:59, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Files in Category:Stade des Alpes
[edit]No freedom of panorama in France (COM:FOP#France), Stadium built in 2005.
- File:Grenoble - Stade des Alpes - Charpente métallique -1.JPG
- File:Grenoble - Stade des Alpes - Charpente métallique -2.JPG
- File:Grenoble - Stade des Alpes - En construction -1.JPG
- File:Grenoble - Stade des Alpes - En construction -2.JPG
- File:Grenoble - Stade des Alpes - En construction -3.JPG
- File:Stade des alpes - coté Jean Pain.jpg
- File:Stade des Alpes - Grenoble.JPG
- File:Stade des Alpes en construction 2.JPG
- File:Stade des Alpes en construction 3.JPG
- File:Stade des Alpes en construction.JPG
- File:Stade des Alpes à Grenoble.JPG
- File:Stade des Alpes, Grenoble.JPG
- File:Stade des Alpes.JPG
PierreSelim (talk) 07:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
bad record user. Poor image quality. --Alakasam (talk) 23:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Not own work as claimed. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Appears to have been taken from the website of Yonhap, the South Korean news agency (size is identical). — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 14:30, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. Too similar for doubt imo, and as such the license information is incorrect. Ajraddatz (talk) 04:03, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:09, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
This photo of a star-shaped drawer pull was taken from Google and uploaded with a false Free Art License claim, and I tagged it as a copyright violation. The problem tag was removed, and the {{FAL}} tag replaced with {{PD-ineligible}}. As a deliberately lit and clearly post-processed photograph of a three-dimensional object, I don't think {{PD-ineligible}} applies, notwithstanding the fact that one surface of the depicted object constitutes a simple geometric shape. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept: {{PD-ineligible}} Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:10, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Considering I think I explained quite clearly in the last nomination why {{PD-ineligible}} does not apply, the rationale for closing the nomination is hardly satisfactory. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:10, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Too simple for copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:44, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep It is an absolutely plain pink five pointed star. Neither the pink color nor the shadow adds anywhere near enough to make this eligible for copyright in the USA. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- Look at the full resolution version of the file. Again, it's a photo of a three-dimensional object, taken at a slight angle with lighting and cast shadows. Photographs of three-dimensional objects are not ineligible for copyright protection. This is well-established policy on Commons. See, for example, Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag#This does not apply to photographs of 3D works of art, Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag#Photograph of an old coin found on the Internet, Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Athelstanobv2.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/Image:€2 commemorative coin San Marino 2006a.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:SiegelBalduin.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Piece de el hadjar.png and Commons:Deletion requests/File:1francobelga1996front.jpg. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- We're not judging the full resolution; we're judging the version here. This is not a coin or work of art.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:50, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- It's the same photo. The full-resolution makes the details of the lighting and the fact that it is a photo of a real-world object more apparent, but resizing it hasn't affected its copyrightability. I'm obviously not claiming that it is a coin or a work of art. A photograph of a coin is copyrightable as a photograph irrespective of the copyright status of the coin itself, because a coin has a three-dimensional aspect to it and will appear differently depending on angle and lighting. This photograph is copyrightable as a photograph irrespective of the copyrightability of the depicted object, because the object has a three-dimensional aspect to it, and there are many different ways in which it could have been lit and photographed. —LX (talk, contribs) 05:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- We're not judging the full resolution; we're judging the version here. This is not a coin or work of art.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:50, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep PD-ineligible is correct and the closure was ok Neozoon (talk) 22:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, but repeatedly insisting that something is the case without addressing the arguments for why it's not the case is not really all that helpful. —LX (talk, contribs) 05:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- I fully understand your point -- that an image of a PD-ineligible object can (and usually will) have copyright of its own. Our automobile photographs are good examples of this.
- With that understood, though, this version of the photograph is PD-ineligible -- all of the things you comment about that are visible in http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31u25AHPlJL.jpg are missing here. The larger images is well lighted to show the bevels in the star and its depth. I might agree with you with respect to the larger image -- I'm not sure -- but this smaller one seems clearly ineligible. It is small enough so it amounts to a pink star icon with typical icon shadows. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- Granted, any photo scaled down sufficiently (think 1×1 pixel) is {{PD-ineligible}}, but stretching that to claim that we can take a copyrightable 488×500-pixel photo, scale it down to 28%, and call it ineligible seems to be a risky position to take. Where did it cross the line (as you appear to think it has), and which kinds of photos does that apply to? How do we explain to new users that they can't just upload any thumbnail from the Internet? I think the truth is actually much more straightforward: anyone who sees File:PinkStar.jpg and the non-free full-resolution version can tell that the former was derived from the latter, which makes it a non-free derivative of a non-free work. If we really need an icon of a pink star (this one is not used and never has been), we have plenty of unambiguously free SVG files which could easily be adapted (e.g. File:Star with shadow.svg). —LX (talk, contribs) 06:14, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- It certainly is highly subjective and will vary by subject. Images much smaller than this of many subjects would be infringements, but in this case, my eye tells me that the copyrightable detail has been lost. DRs are not votes, but opinion here is running 3:1 against you. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:38, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- Granted, any photo scaled down sufficiently (think 1×1 pixel) is {{PD-ineligible}}, but stretching that to claim that we can take a copyrightable 488×500-pixel photo, scale it down to 28%, and call it ineligible seems to be a risky position to take. Where did it cross the line (as you appear to think it has), and which kinds of photos does that apply to? How do we explain to new users that they can't just upload any thumbnail from the Internet? I think the truth is actually much more straightforward: anyone who sees File:PinkStar.jpg and the non-free full-resolution version can tell that the former was derived from the latter, which makes it a non-free derivative of a non-free work. If we really need an icon of a pink star (this one is not used and never has been), we have plenty of unambiguously free SVG files which could easily be adapted (e.g. File:Star with shadow.svg). —LX (talk, contribs) 06:14, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept - obvious case, PD-ineligible - Jcb (talk) 16:33, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
smells like copyvio. Cameras: Sony W120, Canon 500D, Nokia N72, SOny Cybershot, no EXIF×4, Nikon D200. Varying res. Screen captures, scale up, five files were already deleted for copy/no permission.
- File:Y_9b1c0796.jpg screen capture
- File:312020.jpg http://www.bk55.ru/magazine/archive/2009/131/11228/
- File:ЮнисЛада_173.JPG http://sferakino.ru/act24468
- File:Kinopoisk.ru-Proekt 3A-Antropomrf-1633637.jpg http://www.kinopoisk.ru/picture/1633637/ "© 2003–2011 КиноПоиск.Ru
- File:Chernyavskij pavel.JPG
- File:Z 1774ce1f.jpg
- File:4a.jpg
- File:Svetozarov.jpg
- File:G.Kotov.jpg
- File:P. Chernyavskij, spektakl.jpg
Saibo (Δ) 19:40, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)