Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2011/10/19
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
-Medetomidine_Structural_Formulae.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
Series of non-free images Quan (talk) 06:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Speedied as it had even hits at http://www.tineye.com/search/29902cd7b2547a4661de0961e04f3752609edf71/?sort=size&order=desc Túrelio (talk) 07:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Low resolution, missing EXIF, likely copyvio Quan (talk) 06:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Speedied as it hat direct hits at [1] Túrelio (talk) 07:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
The image is a possible copyright violation: http://1.2.3.12/bmi/i123.photobucket.com/albums/o295/Turka1/altay.png. The image resolution web-typical and this photo has no EXIF-information --80.187.97.118 12:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio - multiple hits in search engines Denniss (talk) 13:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Not educationally useful Tubetest (talk) 20:44, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept: speedy kept, {{Userpageimage}}. Martin H. (talk) 21:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
See note at the top of Atomium - photos of the Atomium are COM:DW. No COM:FOP#Belgium. Wknight94 talk 03:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. -- Common Good (talk) 10:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
See note at the top of Atomium - photos of the Atomium are COM:DW. No COM:FOP#Belgium. Wknight94 talk 03:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, my fault, I forgot to check information about FOP in Belgium before uploading, so I agree that photo should be deleted. Dmitry89 (talk) 04:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. -- Common Good (talk) 10:03, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
See note at the top of Atomium - photos of the Atomium are COM:DW. No COM:FOP#Belgium. Wknight94 talk 03:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. -- Common Good (talk) 10:00, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
See note at the top of Atomium - photos of the Atomium are COM:DW. No COM:FOP#Belgium. Wknight94 talk 03:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, my fault, I forgot to check information about FOP in Belgium before uploading, so I agree that photo should be deleted. Dmitry89 (talk) 04:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. -- Common Good (talk) 10:03, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
It's obviously not a self work, it's probably a press photo. Maksim Sidorov 11:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Delete Just announced on October 18, 2011 and won't be available until March 2012. ■ MMXX talk 15:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
It is a press photo, the original can be found on [2] as 18th photo. MBxd1 (talk) 11:54, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: "Vanilla copyvio" to me and so speedy - thanks Herby talk thyme 13:17, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
-Medetomidine_Structural_Formulae.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
-Medetomidine_Structural_Formulae.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Not a vector graphics but just a container for a raster graphics. Thus, the alternative File:(±)-Medetomidine Structural Formulae.png is preferred. Leyo 13:35, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
-Medetomidine_Structural_Formulae.png){kind=link}
-Medetomidine_Structural_Formulae.svg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nom NEURO ⇌ 09:08, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
-Medetomidine_Structural_Formulae.svg){kind=link}
Poor resolution, incorrect angles. Better alternatives in Category:Heptane. Leyo 22:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- Author's comment: this is a makeshift image I made back in 2006.
It is obviously now superseded by File:Heptane-2D-skeletal.png. Histmerge my work into the latter image if possible (same file format), otherwise delete. (I'd like to think my poor drawing - the first heptane skeleton on Commons - prompted later authors to make better drawings, so I'd prefer a histmerge. But that's not important for copyright reasons, and my drawing was PD anyway.) Deryck Chan (talk) 23:40, 22 October 2011 (UTC)- Sorry, but histmerge is not an option. Your image was not even the first one on Commons, File:Heptane-2D-skeletal.png was there two month earlier. --Leyo 10:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- Good point. Change to delete. Deryck Chan (talk) 09:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, but histmerge is not an option. Your image was not even the first one on Commons, File:Heptane-2D-skeletal.png was there two month earlier. --Leyo 10:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom NEURO ⇌ 09:10, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
BadJPG, not used, better alternatives in Category:Isoheptane. Leyo 22:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom NEURO ⇌ 09:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Supposedly copyright violation: two other pictures of this person from the same uploader are watermarked as belonging to well-known Russian broadcasters, this one is watermarked as well but I don't know whose watermark this symbol at the right corner is. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 00:02, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. Promotional shot, using a professional NIKON D3 camera; unlikely own work of uploader. --Túrelio (talk) 08:35, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Lymantria (talk) 16:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
the quality of this picture is too bad Andrei Romanenko (talk) 00:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Not realistically useful for an educational purpose; we have other, better quality shots of streets in central Ternopil. As per COM:SCOPE, "Files that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject, especially if they are of poor or mediocre quality" Skeezix1000 (talk) 23:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Supposed copyright violation: the name of uploader is Roman Kovbasyuk but the name of the author of picture is Taras Drum both here and at the source page Andrei Romanenko (talk) 00:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
source is copyrighted, not PD or CC shizhao (talk) 00:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
The file lacks valid license, and it's unclear if any of the revisions are licensed as PD or not →AzaToth 00:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- Clearly speedy keep. This is a testing ground for SVG, none of the files uploaded here are permanent. Fry1989 eh? 00:44, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- They are in the revision history, thus they are permanent. →AzaToth 00:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- See below. I told you they weren't permanent. Fry1989 eh? 18:53, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
- They are in the revision history, thus they are permanent. →AzaToth 00:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- Well, yes, ... taken strictly this file is unlicensed. All revisions are probably pd or some free license (but author/src usually not mentioned). We should have a admin bot delete the file revisions every day ;) --Saibo (Δ) 00:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- The problems making svg-files for wikimedia commons and other wikis are enormous. Not every svg-file can be uploaded to wikimedia because of the specific requirements that the wiki-pages demands. I cannot tell how much time I have spent trying to figure out why the file that looked good in Inkscape looked so bad on Wikimedia. Until somone pointed out the page that we are talking about. The page is an indispensable tool for making good svg-files for wikimedia. For more information see a previous post that I have pasted on my own talkpage: Important Note. Citypeek (talk) 07:59, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- Most problems can be detected with Commons:SVG Check (be sure to also enable the error check) - but it resembles not all problems MediaWiki has with SVGs. w3 validator should also be used. Anyway, we need a real test area - somehow - since the other tools are not sufficient. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 12:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- I would challenge if it's really most problems. A lot of the font problems only become visible with scaling (thumbs), which is not supported in the tool. Yes, we want/need a realistic testing ground and I am sure nobody would object if old revisions (and actual files) got deleted after a week or so. (Which is actually the advantage of having one testing ground for everything and not a lot of them spread all over the place) Iridos (talk) 15:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- As I just see now, the first version of this file is from August this year, so obviously it already is periodically deleted, so nothing is permanent in the revision history. Perhaps someone involved in the technical side of those deletions would like to comment (and I guess then we can close this request) Iridos (talk) 15:08, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- I would challenge if it's really most problems. A lot of the font problems only become visible with scaling (thumbs), which is not supported in the tool. Yes, we want/need a realistic testing ground and I am sure nobody would object if old revisions (and actual files) got deleted after a week or so. (Which is actually the advantage of having one testing ground for everything and not a lot of them spread all over the place) Iridos (talk) 15:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- Most problems can be detected with Commons:SVG Check (be sure to also enable the error check) - but it resembles not all problems MediaWiki has with SVGs. w3 validator should also be used. Anyway, we need a real test area - somehow - since the other tools are not sufficient. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 12:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept: It obviously serves an important purpose, and time is needed to figure out the technical side. In the meantime, there is no need to keep this nomination open. However, the grounds of nomination are valid -- it's not clear to what extent all the images in the revision history are released into the public domain (I also suspect many of these tests were ultimately uploaded under a free license, not as PD, which raises another problem). There is surely a technical solution, other than relying on someone with spare time occasionally manually deleting some of the backlog in the revision history, to address the issues raised in this nomination. As Saibo suggests, it would be great if a bot could regularly delete the revision history. I think it goes without saying that this keep is without prejudice to a future nomination for deletion, if a solution is not implemented. Skeezix1000 (talk) 23:42, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
- I tried to clean up a bit: Deletion caused an deletion error but did work apparently. What not worked: the restore of the page versions - anyway - not really needed. If someone needs ask me. ;) Probably due to the many versions. Maybe we should switch to a new name. ;) I did the same to File:Testfile.svg now. Strange: although it had far less versions it still has shown a deletion error (all gone anyway) --Saibo (Δ) 00:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Following versions I uploaded, must be deleted due to not naming authors/source: (Copyright)
- 19:10, 17. Dez. 2017
Done - 21:08, 14. Nov. 2017
Not done only a red rectangle - 12:12, 22. Okt. 2017
OK is correct named in upload comment File:StrekenProvincieUtrecht1.svg
— Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 19:02, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
By the way, look at Media with unacceptable data in old versions – there are two images with copyrighted fonts in old revisions. A volunteer sysop to finalize the purge of Adobe stuff? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:18, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
- Hey JoKalliauer, I deleted only the first file, because due a bug this file can't fully deleted anymore. (Maybe now with some other method as the regular.) -- User: Perhelion 14:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Perhelion: Thanks. In my opinion StrekenProvincieUtrecht1_soso does not agree with Cc-by, there should be at least a link to the filedescriptionpage File:StrekenProvincieUtrecht1.svg, or naming the autors. I neither linked it correctly, nor named the autor. But I'm shure User:Glrx won't charge me, that I didn't cited him correctly on File:Test.svg. Therefore resolved in my opinion.
- — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 22:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Perhelion: I deleted the deletionrequest on File:Test.svg. (I hope it is ok according to the rules.) — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 22:55, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Closet: Requestor withdrawn @JoKalliauer it is ok. -- User: Perhelion 23:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Delete old versions see File_talk:Test.svg — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 19:00, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Deleted, all versions older than April 2016 by User:Steinsplitter — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 19:00, 6 July 2019 (UTC))
Kill test hahahahahahahaha! B3nd4i Vi3tbi0 (talk) 12:04, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Kept: nonsense request. --Rosenzweig τ 12:23, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Reasons for deletion request -Vickynorum (talk) 17:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Incomplete deletion request by original uploader. Skeezix1000 (talk) 23:32, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Arquivo: Forcefire ao vivo em Mangaratiba, Brasil.jpg
[edit]
REASON FOR DELETION Vickynorum85 (talk) 19:54, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Minoraxtalk 05:43, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Delete my old photo, i upload in my old account vickynorum. I haven't had an account since 2008 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vickynorum85 (talk • contribs) 21:52, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Why should it be deleted? - Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:56, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
this photo is mine and was placed by me in 2008, in an account to which i no longer have access to vickynorum. i want to remove the photo because it was for wikipedia in 2008, as my band the text was not approved the photo was abandoned at wikicommons. I want the photo to be removed and deleted because we are not famous musicians and I am in the photo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vickynorum85 (talk • contribs) 01:38, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Low res photo of non-notable band. Minimal if any in-scope usefulness. Support courtesy deletion. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 13:49, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - Whilst licences are irrevocable and whilst it is categorised under Category:Music in 2008 - the file is of low/poor resolution and the guy in the image is non-notable anyway so given the aforementioned issues the file wont ever be used on or off wiki so in this specific case I too support a courtesy deletion.
Please also be aware Vickynorum courtesy deletions are very rare and never ever happen unless there's mitigating reasons so please don't upload files and then change your mind etc, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 21:49, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Keep - Well given the user has now go on from personally attacking people to canvassing I'm placing myself here. The file is of non-notable people however it's categorised under "Music in 2008" as it shows an image from that era.
- This might seem spiteful but if the user wants to blatantly personal attack people and then canvas then no I don't see why a courtesy deletion should continue.
- (I've added the file to Category:People with handheld microphones and Category:Topless men in Brazil.) –Davey2010Talk 11:35, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep: No reason for courtesy deletion when the uploader makes liberal use of insults and profanity to support his case. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 06:47, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Comment Vickynorum85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has canvassed numerous editors talk pages (e.g. [3]) with the subject line "Vote delete photo" and a link to this DR. If this photo is to be deleted, it shouldn't be a "courtesy deletion" (it would be rewarding them and set a dangerous precedent for future DR cases). Bidgee (talk) 05:18, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete In my opinion, the photo and all the attitudes of the person responsible for placing the item for removal, all that is happening is only giving more publicity for this person to appear. User talk:jimrogersjames 19:45, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- Publicity is not our problem. We're here to provide useful images to the world, Being blunt and to the point > It's not our problem if the photo uploader wants to make a complete ass out of themselves. –Davey2010Talk 20:14, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Interesting that jimrogersjames (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is a new account and the only edit was a vote to delete in this DR. Bidgee (talk) 21:21, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted. small unused personal photo without metadata, the user's only upload. Looks like not own work, but copyright violation. Also I will block Jimrogerjames indefinitely as sockpuppet. Taivo (talk) 07:00, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
unused private image. JuTa 00:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Not in use. I don't expect this work will ever be in use. Herigona (talk) 15:45, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Artist died 1942. So not (yet) PD. The given CC-License is incorrect anyhow. JuTa 01:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
completing an incomplete DR. --JuTa 01:21, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- Quote: bad quality — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandronikos (talk • contribs) 2011-10-18 05:07:26 (UTC)
Deleted: It might be a photo of a bride, but hard to tell because the image is so tiny, and the image description of "ddddd" does not help. Not of sufficient quality to be in scope. Skeezix1000 (talk) 23:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
COM:DW of non-free image(s). Wknight94 talk 03:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete per nominator--Quan (talk) 05:20, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
COM:DW of non-free image. Wknight94 talk 03:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
My belief has been that all Tom and Jerry cartoons are copyrighted, that none are in the public domain. I do not know how to check the copyright status of this cartoon, but I think it might be a good idea to err on the side of caution and remove this screenshot until proof that Puss Gets The Boot is actually a public-domain cartoon is given. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 03:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Such beliefs are frequently wrong. However, the Copyright Renewals show a renewal for this film, R404444.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright renewed Lymantria (talk) 16:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Looks like copyrighted school marketing poster Wknight94 talk 03:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Probably a copyvio Kramer Associates (talk) 04:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio / missing permission Lymantria (talk) 16:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Probably a copyvio Kramer Associates (talk) 04:46, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio / Missing permission Lymantria (talk) 16:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
The template is wrongly named - the title is "Editing Template..." in (уредување=editing in Macedonian). I created the correct template, so this one should be deleted. Thanks. B. Jankuloski (talk) 05:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Low resolution, missing EXIF, likely copyvio Quan (talk) 06:29, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Appears to be the scan of a newspaper image, see the frame and the white surrounding the image. Unless actual source and release are provided the precautionary principle should apply. —SpacemanSpiff 06:52, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
This photo is not from News paper but based on a photo made available to me by Mansukh Ranwa, author of a book on Digendra kumar. I scanned it and digitized to use for Wikipedia. There is no point to in deleteing it. Keep. LRBurdak (talk) 03:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Obviously not own work as claimed in the image file. Permission must be obtained using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
The people running the website where the picture was taken from don't even know where they got the image from. They admit that they have no idea whether it's copyrighted or not. See the disclaimer: Copyright information We do not own the copyright to the images used on this website. We believe that most of the images are in the public domain and that provided you use them on a website you are unlikely to encounter any difficulty. However, if you wish to use them in any other way -- in "paper" publishing or on a CD for example -- we cannot guarantee that there may not be outstanding copyright problems. We have not kept a record of where we found any of the images we have used. If you believe that you own the rights to any of the images we use, please contact us and we will either withdraw that picture or add an acknowledgement. JOC/EFR August 2001 If they have no clue about where the picture is from and who has or has not copyright, that's not a valid source to upload this as copyrighted-free-use or GFDL. Rainer Mumpitz (talk) 09:10, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:35, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
The text in itself is copyrighted. It might also be out of scope. Esby (talk) 09:17, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- delete, if there is no clue that the text of this German language tribute should be under CC-BY-SA or any other free license. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 09:23, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- A screenshot of a copyrighted text is copyrighted. No clue that the text itself is not copiryghted. --Hercule (talk) 09:29, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Simple citation. No threshold of originality. Trafalguar (talk) 09:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- This is the full text. You can't argue that it's simple citation, or we can copy any poem of less that X lines... --193.253.198.44 15:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - PD-ineligible - in use, so in scope - Jcb (talk) 10:05, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- How can you pretend that this text is PD-ineligible. You so consider that any text that no newspaper short article is PD-eligible. --193.253.198.44 15:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Does not pass the threshold of originality. Does not have any creative aspect, and only consists of a few sentences. Fairly generic; it would be very hard to make the case that it is copyrightable in any way. InverseHypercube 16:44, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- It's not less original or creative than any synopsis. And these synopsis are copyrighted. The lenght of a text is not an argument to make it copyrightable. It's an argument to justify a citation of a part of it (and not the whole text) --Hercule (talk) 07:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete This is not an image, but a screenshot of a text. As it's already published elsewhere we need a formal republication authorization. Otherwises it's presumed to be copyrighted. --Hercule (talk) 07:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep per above--Quan (talk) 09:40, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:36, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
- (At least) those files have also been deleted for the same reason / due to this DR (listing here for possible restoration or whatever):
Possible privacy infringment. Unlikely to be public document. Certainly not own work 114.76.62.55 11:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- keep
- > French papers of Guilad Schalit were intentionnaly spread to prove his french nationality.
- I can produce a permission document from his familly if you need it.
- Gisors (talk) 12:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- delete
- what exactly is the use of posting someone's ID-card (or whatever it is) on wikipedia. This needs to be nuked until there's an unequivocal OTRS from Shalit himself.
- Seb az86556 (talk) 01:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- delete
- Now that he is free, this document is not required for any public purpose, or to benefit Shalit, and may violate privacy. I vote delete.
- 206.220.194.165 04:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- perhaps keep
- Um, how do we know its not a free image created by someone with publicly available information? Deleting valid files is dumb too.
- 115.64.159.41 12:13, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- delete
- I feel that official identity papers of a live individual (i.e., not of any historical interest) should not be published on Wikipedia (or anywhere else).
- It is likely to constitute a breach of privacy. In this case, the fact that his family approved of publication matters little; the individual himself obviously did not have a chance to express his opinion. Further, no effort was made to remove personal information (like date of birth, registration number).
- It provides a convenient reference for counterfeiters.
- Substantiating facts on Wikipedia is (as I understand) normally done by citing reliable sources, not by researching artifacts and publishing reproductions or original reports about them. So it would be enough, for example, to cite an article published in a major newspaper.
- Wlgrin (talk) 06:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:41, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Completing an incomplete DR. --JuTa 13:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- Quote: This is a duplicate another page SpiceJet exists — Preceding unsigned comment added by Premkudva (talk • contribs) 2011-10-19 03:36:27 (UTC)
Deleted: Empty category Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:24, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Proper permission is missing. This is a copyrighted image. Grashoofd (talk) 13:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept: OTRS permission Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Unused in personal pages; out of scope Ciaurlec (talk) 14:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep please check before you nominate something. This image is in use at en:User:Debivort and therefore in scope. Multichill (talk) 15:47, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep I apologize for this mistake: i checked only in commons. I please you to create a category about your files, as some users yet done, making them usefuls for you and less difficult maintenance of main categories. Ciaurlec (talk) 18:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:42, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
No evidence that this image is work of the United States Federal Government. It comes from Chicago Daily News, Inc. Maybe an other PD-old tags could apply. JuTa 14:29, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Keep with {{PD-US-1923}}. --Nachcommonsverschieber (talk) 09:29, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: It may have been pulished in the newspaper -- or may be simply an unpublished negative from the newspaper's archives. We don't know which. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:45, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Copyrighted product packaging. Kelly (talk) 14:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: Does freedom of panorama apply? edward (talk) 18:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: FOP applies only in public places Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:46, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Copyrighted product packaging. Kelly (talk) 14:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:46, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Copyrighted product packaging. Kelly (talk) 14:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:46, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
According to copyright law of Poland it should not be free, except if this is a governmental work. ■ MMXX talk 15:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia article about "Homer Glumplet" was deleted as hoax.[4] Peter E. James (talk) 15:05, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:46, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text logo. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:50, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:46, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
and File:Sto. Cristo.jpg. Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:46, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Unauthorized reproduction from http://img.allabout.co.jp/gm/article/59033/boki1.jpg きゅっきゅっきゅっニャー (talk) 16:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
doppelt Martin V. (talk) 16:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
- Delete, near-duplicate of File:1957 Mercedes Benz 220 S Coupe Lengerich Westf. 17.10 (2).JPG. MKFI (talk) 16:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
derivative picture of the 2011 "bonhomme carnaval" figure for the Carnaval de Québec, which is a copyrigthed 3d works, so it is non-free. (No "de minimis" or FOP involved here) Boréal 17:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Not free until 70 years after sculptor's (Marit Wiklund, b. 1945) year of death. Se also File:Per Karsensen byste B.JPG, File:Per Karsensen byste C.JPG and File:Per Karsensen byste D.JPG 4ing (talk) 18:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Non-free logo, no evidence of permission. Unused. January (talk) 19:02, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
cut and copy from the web - results from tineye - no meta data - http://www.tineye.com/search/85e72c14709a3e043d00c506cde47d865c059445/?pluginver=firefox-1.1 Off2riorob (talk) 19:17, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Appears to be a reduced version of this Flickr image marked "All rights reserved". The position of the trophy in relation to the background, the runners in the back left corner and the reflection are all the same, and there appears to be an attempt to erase the photographer credit in the bottom right. Ytoyoda (talk) 19:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - unambiguous copyright violation. --S Larctia (talk) 19:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per Ytoyoda ans S Larctia and because of the file name, "Imgres". Mnid (talk) (uploads) 20:39, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:02, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Appears to be taken from here, an article dated November 2010. Ytoyoda (talk) 19:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - unambiguous copyright violation. --S Larctia (talk) 19:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:08, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Image appears to be from this Skyscraperlife.com thread. Ytoyoda (talk) 19:44, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:08, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Image comes from [5] Ytoyoda (talk) 19:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:08, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Composite image with no indication where each component photograph comes from. Ytoyoda (talk) 19:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:08, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I doubt this is really "own work". Trijnstel (talk) 20:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:05, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Architect Henri Chomette died in 1995 and there is no FOP in France: this photo should be deleted. Pymouss Let’s talk - 20:59, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:White Ducati Multistrada 1200s by road.jpg Biker Biker (talk) 21:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:05, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Ducati Multistrada 1200S dual low-profile exhaust.jpg Biker Biker (talk) 21:40, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Was tagged no permission, but given it is two semi-circles, it isn't eligible for copyright. That said, it is a hand-drawn low-quality image, not in use, and we have many proper examples of this sign, therefore this isn't in scope. Courcelles (talk) 23:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- I agree it should go. It's a terrible file, we have many better ones of the same design. Fry1989 eh? 03:58, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Copyright violation. Company logo of NS (dutch national railways), rights owned by that company, designed by Dumbar & van Raalte in 1968, definitely not public domain as indicated. Jaho (talk) 13:23, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- I added a {{Trademarked}} now. But I think {{PD-ineligible}} or even {{PD-shape}} does apply here. Keep --JuTa 13:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - {{PD-ineligible}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:22, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep -- i believe {{PD-shape}}applies in this case Hybirdd (talk) 19:50, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 18:46, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
- The logo is a registerd trademark or at least a copyrighted image. The fact that a template exists that can be used to suggest that image is in the public domain doesn't make it so. Using that template only means that someone thinks the image is in the public domain. There's no proof given that is in fact in the public domain and the disclaimer on the website of the NS suggests otherwise. Until it is 100% proven that this image is in the public domain, it is not. And nobody here can be the judge of that, you need unbiased, reliable sources for that. EvilFreD overleg 17:25, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep per last DR, nothing new. Fry1989 eh? 17:50, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep The image is still simple enough to be under the threshold of originality, no matter what the company claims. Of course, the image is a trademark and is tagged as such. --B1mbo (talk) 19:05, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep design too simple, could use moar templates for less drama. Penyulap ☏ 17:13, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
This image is a personal image for personal uses. For more info email @ 'holypower10@gmail.com' Illuminating Friend (talk) 16:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: (not by me) Jcb (talk) 18:39, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
An exact duplicate in a better file format exists. Bender2k14 (talk) 18:17, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept: We do not delete source files. MGA73 (talk) 17:09, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
no permission, no used (del. on DE), invalid source, pers. rights Nolispanmo 12:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 17:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
no permission, no used (del. on DE), invalid source, pers. rights Nolispanmo 12:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 17:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Esta foto no corresponde con la persona del articulo de la que se esta hablando 187.154.5.76 06:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Denniss (talk) 02:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
And File:Memorial Lost at Sea in Vagur Faroe Islands.JPG
This is a 1977 work. This image infringes on the copyright belonging to the sculptor or his heirs. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- I don't agree! This statue is a memorial, located in a public place in a village in the Fareo Islands. As far as I know, we don't have so strict rules in the Faroe Islands regarding photos of statues made by Faroese sculpturors. There are several other photos of Faroese statues and memorials here on Wikimedia Commons and else where on the internet.
- Here is one example of a photo (taken by me) from this place, but from the street Vágsvegur, you can see the memorial here from a distance: Geolocation.ws
I can add to the information about this place, that it is a very important place for the village Vágur. Several cememonies are held here every year: On 12 March we celebrate the return of our national bird Tjaldur (Oystercatcher), on 25 April we gather here to here speech and to sing in order to celebrate our national Flagday. In the end of June every second year we celebrate the festival Jóansøka here (every second year it is held in another village, Tvøroyri). The students are celebrated here when they end their education. At Christmas time we have a X-mas tree here and gather to sing and celebrate with Santa Claus etc. In November we gather here to remember and honour our dead who lost their lives at sea. I started a new page here about this place, but you deleted it strait away. Why? I planned to upload other photos regarding this place, not just about the statue but also about the events on this place, I thought that they might have public interest. Kind regards EileenSanda (talk) 13:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- As a general rule, any photograph of a copyrighted work is a Derivative Work and requires permission of the creator. This is true for all works -- architecture, sculpture, paintings, literary works, and so forth. There are exceptions in some countries, but they do not apply in Denmark. Unless you can show that the Faroese copyright law is different from the Danish law, or can obtain the permission of the sculptor, these two images must be deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:46, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- Hmm, if Commons:FOP#Denmark applies for the Fraoe Island too this image should be deleted because its an artwork an not a building. --JuTa 13:44, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- I have just read the end of the Danish law at page 35 in the link above, provided by Ta, it says in Section 3 (4): "This Act shall not extend the the Faroe Islands and Greenland." I will try to find the Fareose law, but as you can see, the Danish law does not apply to the Faroe Islands. EileenSanda (talk) 14:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- I would certainly prefer to keep the images of the sculpture, but it is hard to believe that there is no effective copyright in the Faroes. Note carefully, that, as I said above, FOP is an exception to the general rule that all works have a copyright in (as far as we know) every place but Afghanistan.
- Also, please read the sections on page 35 again -- the cited law may apply to the Faroes. My educated guess is that it, or its predecessor, does apply there. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:02, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- Of course the Faroe Islands has a law regarding copyright, we are not like Afganistan! I have searched on the internet and found the law, it is here (written in Danish): US.fo, I think that §24, stk. 2 is the most relevant part. And as I read it, there is no problem as long as the art work is placed in a public place and the photo is not meant for sale, but just for information or for a newpaper article etc. The text says in Danish: Stk. 2. Kunstværker må afbildes, når de er varigt anbragt på eller ved en for almenheden tilgængelig plads eller vej. (...) In English: Paragraph 2. Artworks can be depicted when they are permanently affixed to or by the public of available space or road. (Google translated). §20 says in Danish: "§ 20. Når et værk er udgivet, eller når et eksemplar af et kunstværk af ophavsmanden er overdraget til andre, må de udgivne eller overdragne eksemplarer vises offentligt." In English that means: "§ 20 When a work is published, or if a copy of an artwork by the author are transferred to others, the published or transferred copies may be displayed publicly". Well, what do you think? As I understand this law there is no problem here, the artwork is not longer owned by the artist and it is placed in a public area in a park which is next to the main road in the village Vágur. The law also says else where that people should use common sence and that the artist should be mentioned if photos of his/hers artwork are published (those were not the excact words, the law is not only regarding art work like this sculpture but also about litterature, music, films, plays etc. Regards EileenSanda (talk) 23:35, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- By the way, I can't ask the artist himself for permission to publish a photo of the memorial, which he made in 1977, he died in 1988. But as I mentioned above, I don't think that this photo is against the Faroese law, not as far as I understand the law.
- Of course the Faroe Islands has a law regarding copyright, we are not like Afganistan! I have searched on the internet and found the law, it is here (written in Danish): US.fo, I think that §24, stk. 2 is the most relevant part. And as I read it, there is no problem as long as the art work is placed in a public place and the photo is not meant for sale, but just for information or for a newpaper article etc. The text says in Danish: Stk. 2. Kunstværker må afbildes, når de er varigt anbragt på eller ved en for almenheden tilgængelig plads eller vej. (...) In English: Paragraph 2. Artworks can be depicted when they are permanently affixed to or by the public of available space or road. (Google translated). §20 says in Danish: "§ 20. Når et værk er udgivet, eller når et eksemplar af et kunstværk af ophavsmanden er overdraget til andre, må de udgivne eller overdragne eksemplarer vises offentligt." In English that means: "§ 20 When a work is published, or if a copy of an artwork by the author are transferred to others, the published or transferred copies may be displayed publicly". Well, what do you think? As I understand this law there is no problem here, the artwork is not longer owned by the artist and it is placed in a public area in a park which is next to the main road in the village Vágur. The law also says else where that people should use common sence and that the artist should be mentioned if photos of his/hers artwork are published (those were not the excact words, the law is not only regarding art work like this sculpture but also about litterature, music, films, plays etc. Regards EileenSanda (talk) 23:35, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- I have just read the end of the Danish law at page 35 in the link above, provided by Ta, it says in Section 3 (4): "This Act shall not extend the the Faroe Islands and Greenland." I will try to find the Fareose law, but as you can see, the Danish law does not apply to the Faroe Islands. EileenSanda (talk) 14:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- Hmm, if Commons:FOP#Denmark applies for the Fraoe Island too this image should be deleted because its an artwork an not a building. --JuTa 13:44, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- I am sorry, but the exception in the law is not enough for Commons. It seems (regarding works of art) to be the same as in Finland. Images at Commons are required to be available for commercial use, e.g. for use on T-shirts and in books printed and sold.
- Regarding permission, you can still ask the heirs of the author. If commercial use of similar photos is not a significant source of income, they might agree it is more important to make the art known also through Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia.
- It might even be possible to change the law (in the long run). In e.g. Sweden the exception covers commercial reuse. It is about the income of artist on one hand and the interest of the public on the other. I think the artist usually gets the main compensation right away (when the statue is erected), and provision for e.g. postcards sold is of little significance, while restricting photography and publishing is a nuisance.
Our colleague is correct. A prohibition against commercial use ("NC" in our license jargon) is not allowed on Commons. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:58, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- Well, then there is not much I can do about this, is there? I don't don't know if the sculpturor had any children, he came from a very small village in the Northern Islands of the Faroes, I come from the southernmost, I can't find anyone from his village Mikladalur with the same lastname Joensen, so I don't know what to do. I don't see any big commersial purpose for these two photos, postcards could be the only thing, but not significant. I can't imagine that the artist would mind that photos of his artwork were published here so more people could admire his work, in this village there are only 1400 inhabitants. Anyway, I don't know if I should try to find out if he had children and is so I could ask them if they mind, I will see. How long time is there before the images will be deleted? EileenSanda (talk) 13:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- If you want to do the research, and perhaps learn something at the same time, it is likely that the sculptor left a will, which will name his heirs, or, in most countries, if he died without a will, then there will be court order that will give the distribution of his estate. Any of that will be on the public record. With that information you can probably find the heirs.
- I am sorry to say that several of the arguments you make above are explicitly covered in our policy at Commons:Precautionary principle.
- In the ordinary course of events here, the images will probably be "deleted" on October 26. I put "deleted" in quotes, because we do not actually ever delete anything -- we simply make them unavailable to anyone but an Administrator. They can very easily be undeleted if you get permission later. Good luck.
- Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: But if permission can be acquired per COM:OTRS or other legal factors arise, of course the photos can be restored. Wknight94 talk 11:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Possible flickrwashing, somewhat higher res exists at https://picasaweb.google.com/103684974087620751394/ShuQiComSlideShow#5193310015964425986 flickr also has some text containing "This photo is copyrighted. Please do not use this photo for any purpose without my prior consent." →AzaToth 17:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- impossible, author changed license few minutes ago after my request. He also had some other photos of Shu Qi, but hide it now. Dont make me nervous plz, I do a huge job with this requsting, spend a lot of time and after all of that you nominate picture for deletion. You mention this site and you think that its all real? --Алый Король (talk) 18:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- how about all these photos? this this and this and this is it also possible flickrwashing? ha ha --Алый Король (talk) 18:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- The actual image I found on google images is http://lh5.ggpht.com/-gPWDpcWkjaw/SBJX8bYJrwI/AAAAAAAAEFg/C2JqXskZyj4/278210019_af30d0d31d_o.jpg which doesn't look upscaled, offcourse I can be wrong, that's why I opened up this discussion to have an second opinion regarding the matter. The text on the flickr page can be disregarded if it's true that he changed the license recently. →AzaToth 18:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- I can send you text of my letters to him. High resolution its not problem, maybe earlier his pictures were uploaded with high resolution. The obvious fact is that he is professional photograph, not sick collctor of good images. You have another point of view (mine), what is the next step? --Алый Король (talk) 18:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- discouraged to do something for Commons again --Алый Король (talk) 18:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- @Алый Король, please try to remain calm. This is a regular (aka slow) DR, nothing personal. --Túrelio (talk) 11:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- The actual image I found on google images is http://lh5.ggpht.com/-gPWDpcWkjaw/SBJX8bYJrwI/AAAAAAAAEFg/C2JqXskZyj4/278210019_af30d0d31d_o.jpg which doesn't look upscaled, offcourse I can be wrong, that's why I opened up this discussion to have an second opinion regarding the matter. The text on the flickr page can be disregarded if it's true that he changed the license recently. →AzaToth 18:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
From the web hits we have for this image so far, the Flickr site seems clearly to have priority, as it was posted there already on October 24, 2006. What I find a little bit strange is the beveled line behind the head of the depicted; eventually the original image was analogue and it's a scratch on the print or even on the film. Anyway, a Google image search for "Shu Qi 最好的時光" and "舒淇 最好的時光" did yield only the Flickr users pages, no other hits. Taken together with the other images from the same event, as linked above by Алый Король, I think we have no solid reason not to believe that this image is the own work of the Flickr user. Therefore, Keep.--Túrelio (talk) 11:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Per Turelio. Wknight94 talk 11:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Unclear if uploader is author; Regardless, how is the copyright situation in Libya nowadays? →AzaToth 01:29, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep - 5 years copyright on simple photos. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept: While I am always leery of DRs that involve countries with copyright laws that distinguish between simple and artistic photographs (b/c we rarely have any information on how the law makes that distinction), this seems like it would have a 5-year copyright period according to the tag. Moreover, copyright would have expired prior to the URAA date in Libya (1996-01-01), so it is also public domain in the U.S. Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
unbrauchbar 93.230.209.133 09:17, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep No valid reason given. --Leyo 17:12, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept: As per Leyo. Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Low quality COM:VULVA photo, unlikely to be useful A1Cafel (talk) 16:42, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep Interesting touch through sepia photography. --Lukas Beck (talk) 16:53, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep perfectly good image Dronebogus (talk) 05:38, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. ✗plicit 07:00, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Memorial_Lost_at_Sea_in_Vagur-2.JPG
Deleted: Already deleted as per referenced discussion Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Bad quality duplicate of File:Comissão do Peladão.jpg
I think the upload failed and the picture was uploaded again under the other title. It is the same uploader, but here the categories are missing and there is no use of the file. --Kleiner Tümmler (talk) 11:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: As per nom. No educational value in a damaged version of the other photo. Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
This appears to infringe on the copyright of the writer. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:40, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per COM:FOP#Sweden. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: As per nom. Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:37, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
reason for deletion Bashar Khallouf (talk) 14:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Bash Bashar Khallouf (talk) 14:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Strange. This is a DR for a File talk page that had nothing on it but the {{Delete}} Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
bad quality Alexandronikos (talk) 16:35, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- Comment nothing wrong with quality (put your 3d glasses on!) but dubious because of the comsonchai watermark. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:51, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: probable copyvio Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
crop of an online pic - http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://cdn1.beeffco.com/files/poll-images/normal/nawaz-sharif_3545.jpg&imgrefurl=http://electionsmeter.com/polls/nawaz-sharif&h=375&w=500&sz=46&tbnid=0oh9ds-5tJ3V2M:&tbnh=98&tbnw=131&prev=/search%3Fq%3DNawaz_Sharif%26tbm%3Disch%26tbo%3Du&zoom=1&q=Nawaz_Sharif&docid=sYo_6aSFY4pIbM&sa=X&ei=tB6fTppswrfyA9Wk9ZYJ&ved=0CGAQ9QEwBg&dur=2551 Off2riorob (talk) 19:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete copyright violation. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:59, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Romania has no FOP Prosfilaes (talk) 19:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- It's OK because it is an image with a public monument published only for non-commercial use (as per the Romanian copyright law of 1996)
- (Rgvis (talk) 19:35, 19 October 2011 (UTC))
- Commons does not accept files for only non-commercial use.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:46, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- Wrong interpretation: this memorial belongs to the city of Iasi, it is a public monument installed on public land and it is for "public use"!
- On the other hand, the Romanian Law on Copyright and Neighboring Rights states, at Chapter VI, Limitations on the Exercise of Copyright, that:
- (...) uses of a work already disclosed to the public shall be permitted without the author's consent and without payment of remuneration, provided that such uses conform to proper practice, are not at variance with the normal exploitation of the work and are not prejudicial to the author or to the owners of the exploitation rights (Romanian Law on Copyright and Neighboring Rights).
- Actually, the Romanian law is very similar to the Spanish copyright law, as already stated at Commons:Licensing#Romania.
- Otherwise, thousands of files (with images from Romania) on Wiki Commons should be deleted!
- (Rgvis (talk) 13:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC))
- Delete The quote above is incomplete and out of context. The full relevant text of the law is:
- "Art. 33.-(1) The following uses of a work already disclosed to the public shall be permitted without the author's consent and without payment of remuneration, provided that such uses conform to proper practice, are not at variance with the normal exploitation of the work and are not prejudicial to the author or to the owners of the exploitation rights:"
- (a)-(g) omitted
- "(h) the reproduction, to the exclusion of any means involving direct contact with the work, circulation or communication to the public of the image of an architectural work, work of three-dimensional art, photographic work or work of applied art permanently located in a public place, except where the image of the work is the principal subject of such reproduction, circulation or communication, and if it is used for commercial purposes;" (emphasis added)
- Since Commons requires that a work be available for commercial use, Prosfilaes' summary above is correct. Romania has no FOP exception to copyright which we can use. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:00, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:52, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Romania has no FOP Prosfilaes (talk) 19:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- It's OK because it is an image with a public monument published only for non-commercial use (as per the Romanian copyright law of 1996)
- (Rgvis (talk) 19:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC))
- Commons does not accept files for only non-commercial use.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:46, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- Wrong interpretation: this memorial belongs to the city of Iasi, it is a public monument installed on public land and it is for "public use"!
- On the other hand, the Romanian Law on Copyright and Neighboring Rights states, at Chapter VI, Limitations on the Exercise of Copyright, that:
- (...) uses of a work already disclosed to the public shall be permitted without the author's consent and without payment of remuneration, provided that such uses conform to proper practice, are not at variance with the normal exploitation of the work and are not prejudicial to the author or to the owners of the exploitation rights (Romanian Law on Copyright and Neighboring Rights).
- Actually, the Romanian law is very similar to the Spanish copyright law, as already stated at Commons:Licensing#Romania.
- Otherwise, thousands of files (with images from Romania) on Wiki Commons should be deleted!
- (Rgvis (talk) 13:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC))
- Delete see Commons:Deletion requests/File:The_Victims_of_Communism_Memorial_3.jpg Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:02, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:53, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Available elsewhere on the internet in articles and blog posts that predate the upload, like [6]. Based on other deleted images from this user, good chance this is not an original work. Ytoyoda (talk) 17:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- I agree, it's a good solid "maybe". In order for the 1987 rule to apply, someone needs to show that first publication was in Algeria (the subject's country), not Spain, where the image was shot, or someplace else -- this was the World Cup, after all. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:55, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
This proposal seems to have been abandoned for years; I'm uncertain if it should be deleted or marked as such →AzaToth 17:44, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- Is there a Commons policy/guideline in respect of keeping/deleting stale discussions such as this? If not, what is the value in deleting it? If someone were to ever propose something similar, wouldn't it be helpful for people to be able to see/refer to a previous effort? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept: I see no reason to delete it -- it may be useful in the future. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:55, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Die vielen (4) eigenen gleichen Dateiversionen stören mich. Keine Seite benutzt diese Datei, also kein Schaden. Ich muss es, wenn ich mich besser eingelesen habe neu probieren. Danke für das Verständnis. Hockei (talk) 18:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - good photo, the history does not matter; an admin could delete previous uploads, but it does not save any server space anyway. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:56, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:56, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
The given CC-license seems to be incorrect. The corrsponding SVG currently has {{PD-simple}} which is doubtfull as well. Maybe to original license of the SVG {{PD-Libya}} is correct,maybe not. JuTa 12:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
- PD-Libya is correct, of course, but few people will agree is you replace the template.--Antemister (talk) 18:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- Why would this be a deletion request, if the end result is that it would be licensed OK? If this is simply copied out of a PDF, agreed that there shouldn't be a CC license, since that act doesn't add any expression. Unsure if the original is truly uncopyrightable, but possibly in Libya. Anyways, the fix is to change the license, not delete it. It's in (light) use. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. FASTILY (TALK) 12:11, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
The {{PD-simple}} is doubtfull. Maybe to original license of the SVG {{PD-Libya}} is correct, maybe not. JuTa 12:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
- Um, what? I have no idea what you're talking about. -Kudzu1 (talk) 14:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- Look at this version, where {{PD-simple}} was applied. --JuTa 15:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- PD-Libya is correct, but there are many people here preferring copyfraud CC-licences. Speedy keep OK?--Antemister (talk) 18:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- I don't have any idea what the issue is here either. Both licenses are valid. "PD-Simple is doubtfull (sic)"? What is that supposed to mean? How is it doubtful? Virtually every other national seal on Wikipedia uses the exact same pair of licenses: [7], [8], [9]. Can we stop talking about this now? This is ridiculous. Speedy keep. -- E. Brown from Wikipedia
- All of the images you showed are public domain because of symbols being exempt from copyright protection or due to age. This image fits neither of those categories and we routinely delete coat of arms of countries. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 15:55, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- I don't have any idea what the issue is here either. Both licenses are valid. "PD-Simple is doubtfull (sic)"? What is that supposed to mean? How is it doubtful? Virtually every other national seal on Wikipedia uses the exact same pair of licenses: [7], [8], [9]. Can we stop talking about this now? This is ridiculous. Speedy keep. -- E. Brown from Wikipedia
- PD-Libya is correct, but there are many people here preferring copyfraud CC-licences. Speedy keep OK?--Antemister (talk) 18:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- Look at this version, where {{PD-simple}} was applied. --JuTa 15:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
![[7]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Coat_of_Arms_of_South_Sudan.svg){kind=link}
![[8]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Coat_of_arms_of_South_Africa.svg){kind=link}
![[9]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Coat_of_arms_of_the_Czech_Republic.svg){kind=link}
- Keep - I had to jump through bloody hoops to get that Arabic text right. I changed the license from {{PD-simple}} to {{PD-Libya}} because it seemed logical. I don't actually know what the legal position is given what's going on in Libya at the moment. The reason I used {{PD-simple}} in the first place was because another NTC logo was using the same license. Let's see what happens in the transition of Libya before we start nuking what will be a useful image for lots of wikis. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 15:27, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- The only way this could be PD under PD Libya is if "It is one of "official documents such as texts of laws, decrees, regulations, international agreements, legal judgements and various official documents"" since everything else is dependent on time and the seal was just created in, I believe, March of this year. Currently, the main websites are down for the NTC so I cannot check their documents. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 15:47, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- From en "The National Transitional Council, supported as the legitimate administration by the United Nations since September 2011, uses a seal to certify official documents". As this is a seal and not a CoA then by its very nature, i.e. certifying official documents, it becomes part of those official documents thereby becoming PD. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 18:32, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- It is the common policy here that seals or emblems on PD-official documents are also PD, except the the case such copyright protection is explicitly stated--Antemister (talk) 19:14, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- That works for me. Keep. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 23:18, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- It is the common policy here that seals or emblems on PD-official documents are also PD, except the the case such copyright protection is explicitly stated--Antemister (talk) 19:14, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- Simple or Libya does that really make a difference? How about fixing problems NOT deleting it? Keep--عمرو (talk) 07:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep for reasons mentioned above. --Philly boy92 (talk) 18:58, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep As PD as a makeshift symbol like this can become. I suspect it will be replaced swiftly by the new Libyan autorites, btw. Asav (talk) 23:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- Not to mention the fact that the ne'er-do-wells who made the country's laws spent time in a meat-locker regretting their actions and not being overly concerned about copyright. Just one more thing for Saif to get a bit hot under the collar about though I suppose. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 23:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- Can we close this DR, we can keep it as PD-Libya, as we do with thousands of other such files.--Antemister (talk) 20:44, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
- Not to mention the fact that the ne'er-do-wells who made the country's laws spent time in a meat-locker regretting their actions and not being overly concerned about copyright. Just one more thing for Saif to get a bit hot under the collar about though I suppose. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 23:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Completing an incomplete DR. --JuTa 00:47, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- Quote: Category replaced by Category:South African Class 15C (4-8-2), all files moved — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andre Kritzinger (talk • contribs) 2011-10-18 18:02:33 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Commons is not for self-created artwork collections, and I see no obvious educational use for these images, however talented the artist may be.
- File:Deshabillage Dessin de nu femme.jpg
- File:Fesses de femme Dessin de nu femme.jpg
- File:Repassage Dessin de nu femme.jpg
- File:Nuque de femme Dessin de nu femme.jpg
- File:Jambes de femme Dessin de nu femme.jpg
- File:I love my wife Dessin de nu femme.jpg
- File:Sous les jupes 2.jpg
- File:Sous les jupes.jpg
- File:Nude woman on a bed by Efsey.jpg
- File:Body1024.jpg
- File:Fille au t shirt 005.jpg
- File:Dessin femme en maillot.jpg
- File:Woman in the kitchen.jpg
- File:Legs in supermarket 1.jpg
- File:Woman in Bathroom-01.jpg
- File:Jambes femme.jpg
- File:Girl street.jpg
- File:Femme au sac.jpg
- File:Dessin femme a la baignoire.jpg
- File:Dessin femme nue.jpg
Dominic (talk) 02:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - File:Fille au t shirt 005.jpg was kept at DR only a month ago, on the basis of Commons having less than 200 pencil drawings. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fille au t shirt 005.jpg. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep As one of the very few drawn body pictures. Beta M (talk) 07:44, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, non-notable artist. The "less than 200 pencil drawings" comes from lack of categorization and/or missing descriptions and from no one beeing interested in uploading notable artists drawings. It not comes from a lack of availability of such works. Certainly at one point in the future we will have enough drawings, in anticipation of future uploads this ones are dispensable. --Martin H. (talk) 00:39, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- Then please point out for what drawings there is such an urgent demand. If no publisher wants to publish your work and no gallery wants to show it, Wikimedia Commons will not be your cheap alternative to still earn some public attention. This project is not some non-notable artists publishing platform. --Martin H. (talk) 12:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- In short, they illustrate pencil drawings, the medium, and pencil drawings of nudes in particular. Dcoetzee (talk) 04:27, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- Then Category:Drawings of nude women offers you a whole lot of pencile drawings, for example by Gustav Klimt, Mucha or Schiele. --Martin H. (talk) 10:27, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, I didn't do my research there. Delete. Dcoetzee (talk) 12:58, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, I didn't do my research there.
- Then Category:Drawings of nude women offers you a whole lot of pencile drawings, for example by Gustav Klimt, Mucha or Schiele. --Martin H. (talk) 10:27, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- In short, they illustrate pencil drawings, the medium, and pencil drawings of nudes in particular. Dcoetzee (talk) 04:27, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- Then please point out for what drawings there is such an urgent demand. If no publisher wants to publish your work and no gallery wants to show it, Wikimedia Commons will not be your cheap alternative to still earn some public attention. This project is not some non-notable artists publishing platform. --Martin H. (talk) 12:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per Commons is not a free host for really bad amateur drawings especially when we already have over 100 higher quality drawings of the same subject. Kaldari (talk) 07:06, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Scan of an identification card. Not self made, and likely copyrighted by issuing government. -- Deadstar (msg) 08:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation, definitely *not* own work by uploader Pbech (talk) 11:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Croton Dam Muskegon River Dscn1100 cropped.jpg. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep looks like a case for {{Pd-ineligible}}. ← Körnerbrötchen » ✉ 21:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Kept, {{PD-ineligible}}. Kameraad Pjotr 20:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Copyright violation. Company logo of NS (dutch national railways), rights owned by that company, designed by Dumbar & van Raalte in 1968, definitely not public domain as indicated. Jaho (talk) 13:23, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- I added a {{Trademarked}} now. But I think {{PD-ineligible}} or even {{PD-shape}} does apply here. Keep --JuTa 13:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept - clear case of PD-ineligible - Jcb (talk) 18:47, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
- The logo is a registerd trademark or at least a copyrighted image. The fact that a template exists that can be used to suggest that image is in the public domain doesn't make it so. Using that template only means that someone thinks the image is in the public domain. There's no proof given that is in fact in the public domain and the disclaimer on the website of the NS suggests otherwise. Until it is 100% proven that this image is in the public domain, it is not. And nobody here can be the judge of that, you need unbiased, reliable sources for that. EvilFreD overleg 17:39, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- No, the license is correct. Just the trademark warnign was missing. --Denniss (talk) 14:49, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep design too simple, could use moar templates for less drama. Penyulap ☏ 17:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
{{delete}} Bashar Khallouf (talk) 13:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Bashar Bashar Khallouf (talk) 14:02, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- Comment If we would know where it is geographically, it would be a useful image. P.S. You've done a nomination twice. Beta M (talk) 19:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
No thanks Bashar Khallouf (talk) 14:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Identical raster version of the vector File:Aiga_parking_inv.svg. Vector is a more appropriate format for this image, and no pages (other than the SVG and an old GIF redirect) link here. BorgHunter (talk) 12:58, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: per policy, we don't delete a raster file for the presence of a vector file Jcb (talk) 22:04, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Wrong closure by jcb, as policy states "It is still possible to post a normal deletion request for superseded images (and/or to request deletion of "superseded" images for other reasons)" →AzaToth 14:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - per previous DR - you didn't provide such "other reasons" - Jcb (talk) 18:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
- it says "and/or", not only "and" →AzaToth 16:01, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - useless renomination. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:22, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept. It does no good to delete files such as this -- as you surely know, we actually keep everything, so "deletion" actually means "change status so that only Admins can view it", with no saving in storage. Some potential users off-WMF may not understand SVG, so having the PNG might be useful. Certainly that is not very likely, but since it costs nothing, why not keep it? Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:37, 2 November 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)
Works by James Bouillé
[edit]Architect James Bouillé died in 1948. So his work is protected until 2019. As there's no FOP in France, these photos should be deleted.
- File:Chapelle de l'Institution Saint-Joseph.jpg
- File:Scrignac.jpg
- File:Scrignac cross.jpg
- File:KoadKev TranseptSud.JPG
- File:KoadKev Gisant.JPG
--Pymouss Let’s talk - 20:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- I am always happy when my work is destroyed by a stupid law. Too bad, I'll upload my pictures on the french wikipedia, where the FOP isn't yet prohibited... - Bzh-99 (talk) 21:29, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
- Restored: as per [10]. Yann (talk) 20:55, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
I do not believe Rozsa-Flores Eduardo took and uploaded this image, especially when a larger version 700px × 470px is available at http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/151/mursa1.jpg/, which is presented as a downscaled 640px × 430px. The image here is a screen capture of that downscaled image (readily evident by Difference on Photoshop). Jappalang (talk) 14:29, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Rosenzweig τ 23:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
