Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2011/10/27
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
Contains several copyrighted images Ytoyoda (talk) 03:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Speedy deleted, collage with multiple blatant copyright violations yoinked off news websites. Infrogmation (talk) 03:35, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
The buiding is copyrightable work since it is the result of intellectual and creative work, therefore this is derivative work and should be deleted. Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Keep Yes, the building is copyrighted and yes, this is a derivative work of that building, but thanks to something we call freedom of panorama this photograph does not infringe on the building's copyright. (Note that the exact rules about this vary from country to country. This photo is from the UK.) --Kramer Associates (talk) 03:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept: disruptive behaviour by the nominator Denniss (talk) 07:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
This image is an image of patented equipment and therefore derivative work. Does Sony allow the publication of their industrial property under a free licence? Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Keep The lens is non-copyrightable in the US since it is a purely utilitarian industrial design with no separable artistic elements. See this section of the Commons article on derivative works. --Kramer Associates (talk) 03:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Camera lenses etc are considered utilitarian objects Commons:Image_casebook#Utility_objects and images of them are allowed. (No doubt the manufacturer maintains patents, but that is a separate issue from photos of the object not violating copyright.) -- Infrogmation (talk) 03:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Comment This is a vindictive deletion request. Colin (talk) 07:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept: disruptive behaviour by the nominator Denniss (talk) 07:14, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
This is clearly derivative work and a picture of a patented and copyrighted item. Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:14, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Comment This is a vindictive deletion request. Colin (talk) 07:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept: disruptive behaviour by the nominator Denniss (talk) 07:14, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work. Copyrighted and tradmark items. Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Looks to me like bottles simple descriptive label, minimal (if any) copyrightable artistry, may qualify as de minimis. -- Infrogmation (talk) 03:55, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Comment This is a vindictive deletion request. Colin (talk) 07:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept: disruptive behaviour by the nominator Denniss (talk) 07:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work. Registered item and brand. Clearly stated on the label. Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Comment This is a vindictive deletion request. Colin (talk) 07:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept: disruptive behaviour by the nominator Denniss (talk) 07:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Clearly derivative work, therefore a copyvio.... Label design is probably copyrighted. Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Comment This is a vindictive deletion request. Colin (talk) 07:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept: disruptive behaviour by the nominator Denniss (talk) 07:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
The buiding is copyrightable work since it is the result of intellectual and creative work, therefore this is derivative work and should be deleted. Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Keep Yes, the building is copyrighted and yes, this is a derivative work of that building, but thanks to something we call freedom of panorama this photograph does not infringe on the building's copyright. (Note that the exact rules about this vary from country to country. This photo is from the UK.) --Kramer Associates (talk) 03:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept: disruptive behaviour by the nominator Denniss (talk) 07:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
This image is an image of patented equipment and therefore derivative work. Does Sony allow the publication of their industrial property under a free licence? Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Keep The lens is non-copyrightable in the US since it is a purely utilitarian industrial design with no separable artistic elements. See this section of the Commons article on derivative works. --Kramer Associates (talk) 03:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Camera lenses etc are considered utilitarian objects Commons:Image_casebook#Utility_objects and images of them are allowed. (No doubt the manufacturer maintains patents, but that is a separate issue from photos of the object not violating copyright.) -- Infrogmation (talk) 03:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Comment This is a vindictive deletion request. Colin (talk) 07:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept: disruptive behaviour by the nominator Denniss (talk) 07:14, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
This is clearly derivative work and a picture of a patented and copyrighted item. Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:14, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Comment This is a vindictive deletion request. Colin (talk) 07:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept: disruptive behaviour by the nominator Denniss (talk) 07:14, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work. Copyrighted and tradmark items. Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Looks to me like bottles simple descriptive label, minimal (if any) copyrightable artistry, may qualify as de minimis. -- Infrogmation (talk) 03:55, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Comment This is a vindictive deletion request. Colin (talk) 07:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept: disruptive behaviour by the nominator Denniss (talk) 07:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work. Registered item and brand. Clearly stated on the label. Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Comment This is a vindictive deletion request. Colin (talk) 07:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept: disruptive behaviour by the nominator Denniss (talk) 07:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Clearly derivative work, therefore a copyvio.... Label design is probably copyrighted. Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Comment This is a vindictive deletion request. Colin (talk) 07:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept: disruptive behaviour by the nominator Denniss (talk) 07:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work. Did Mercedes Benz authorize the use of the image of their industrial design? This is a highly specialized vehicle.Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Keep per Commons:Image casebook#Vehicles and Commons:Derivative works#Isn't every product copyrighted by someone? What about cars? --Kramer Associates (talk) 04:18, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Disruptive DR only Herby talk thyme 08:23, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
The buiding is copyrightable work since it is the result of intellectual and creative work, therefore this is derivative work and should be deleted. Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Keep Yes, the building is copyrighted and yes, this is a derivative work of that building, but thanks to something we call freedom of panorama this photograph does not infringe on the building's copyright. (Note that the exact rules about this vary from country to country. This photo is from the UK.) --Kramer Associates (talk) 03:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept: disruptive behaviour by the nominator Denniss (talk) 07:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
This image is an image of patented equipment and therefore derivative work. Does Sony allow the publication of their industrial property under a free licence? Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Keep The lens is non-copyrightable in the US since it is a purely utilitarian industrial design with no separable artistic elements. See this section of the Commons article on derivative works. --Kramer Associates (talk) 03:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Camera lenses etc are considered utilitarian objects Commons:Image_casebook#Utility_objects and images of them are allowed. (No doubt the manufacturer maintains patents, but that is a separate issue from photos of the object not violating copyright.) -- Infrogmation (talk) 03:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Comment This is a vindictive deletion request. Colin (talk) 07:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept: disruptive behaviour by the nominator Denniss (talk) 07:14, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
This is clearly derivative work and a picture of a patented and copyrighted item. Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:14, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Comment This is a vindictive deletion request. Colin (talk) 07:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept: disruptive behaviour by the nominator Denniss (talk) 07:14, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work. Copyrighted and tradmark items. Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Looks to me like bottles simple descriptive label, minimal (if any) copyrightable artistry, may qualify as de minimis. -- Infrogmation (talk) 03:55, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Comment This is a vindictive deletion request. Colin (talk) 07:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept: disruptive behaviour by the nominator Denniss (talk) 07:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work. Registered item and brand. Clearly stated on the label. Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Comment This is a vindictive deletion request. Colin (talk) 07:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept: disruptive behaviour by the nominator Denniss (talk) 07:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Clearly derivative work, therefore a copyvio.... Label design is probably copyrighted. Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Comment This is a vindictive deletion request. Colin (talk) 07:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept: disruptive behaviour by the nominator Denniss (talk) 07:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work. Did Mercedes Benz authorize the use of the image of their industrial design? This is a highly specialized vehicle.Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Keep per Commons:Image casebook#Vehicles and Commons:Derivative works#Isn't every product copyrighted by someone? What about cars? --Kramer Associates (talk) 04:18, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Disruptive DR only Herby talk thyme 08:23, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Justicialist Party logo is non free content Banfield - Amenazas aquí 02:45, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Coat of arms created by Ángel R. Guzmán in 1930 Cambalachero (talk) 20:13, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
No use Funfood (talk) 16:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Keep maybe they get an article later --AtelierMonpli (talk) 20:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio of http://www.myspace.com/catastrofear Béria Lima msg 22:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
User has had one picture deleted as a copyvio; the rest of those pictures uploaded the same day, small pictures with no EXIF, are not trustworthy. Prosfilaes (talk) 20:29, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio Denniss (talk) 00:31, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
User has had one picture deleted as a copyvio; the rest of those pictures uploaded the same day, small pictures with no EXIF, are not trustworthy. Prosfilaes (talk) 20:29, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: smaller version of File:Tower Road Beach in Winnetka.jpg Denniss (talk) 00:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
User has had one picture deleted as a copyvio; the rest of those pictures uploaded the same day, small pictures with no EXIF, are not trustworthy. Prosfilaes (talk) 20:29, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: no clear evidence for copyvio but three out of four images by this user were copyvios so this is gone as well. Denniss (talk) 00:39, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
there is not any meta data, suspecting not own work Coekon (talk) 22:45, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
- Not own work by the uploader:
- ■ MMXX talk 00:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Not own work by the uploader. ■ MMXX talk 00:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Without source. Without permission. Copyvio? User:NACLE2 is not the author (2011-03-29) (2011-05-11) . HombreDHojalata.talk 20:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: unsourced Denniss (talk) 01:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Absolute nonsense with no source. ~ Fry1989 eh? 02:41, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Delete Out of scope. --Simone 19:35, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope abf «Cabale!» 22:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
It's a movie screenshot Vensatry (talk) 08:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: self-made-claim is definetely wrong, no reason given to assume any free license abf «Cabale!» 22:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
No license. Unlikely a free image Brad (talk) 10:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: weblink was given as source, no way to assume a free license from what we know abf «Cabale!» 22:05, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
unused unidentified diagram without description. AtelierMonpli (talk) 11:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: the highly intelligent description (quote: "fdssdhsh") tells everything. Out of scope! abf «Cabale!» 22:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
unused part from a pdf-file, maybe copyrighted. maybe no own work. no reaction from uploader to give cat. since 2009 AtelierMonpli (talk) 11:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: out-of-scope file without any reliable source abf «Cabale!» 22:07, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
unused, unidentified part of a pdf-file since 2009 AtelierMonpli (talk) 11:20, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: out-of-scope file without any reliable source abf «Cabale!» 22:07, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Web-address in the poicture promotional picture, out of scope Motopark (talk) 13:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination: promotional file, likely fails COM:L as well. abf «Cabale!» 22:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Web-address in the picture promotional picture, out of scope Motopark (talk) 13:01, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination: promotional file, likely fails COM:L as well. abf «Cabale!» 22:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
a higher resolution version is available at [1], so this is possibly a copyvio 99of9 (talk) 13:13, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: likely fails COM:L abf «Cabale!» 22:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Web-address in the picture promotional picture, out of scope Motopark (talk) 13:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination: promotional file, likely fails COM:L as well. abf «Cabale!» 22:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Web-address in the picture promotional picture, out of scope Motopark (talk) 13:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination: promotional file, likely fails COM:L as well. abf «Cabale!» 22:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Web-address in the picture promotional picture, out of scope Motopark (talk) 13:33, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination: promotional file, likely fails COM:L as well. abf «Cabale!» 22:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Web-address in the picture promotional picture, out of scope Motopark (talk) 13:33, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination: promotional file, likely fails COM:L as well. abf «Cabale!» 22:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope - fan-made artwork of fan-created character. Powers (talk) 14:47, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Nixón (wop!) 18:18, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: totally fails COM:SCOPE abf «Cabale!» 22:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
personal image, out of scope Quan (talk) 15:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, fails COM:PS abf «Cabale!» 22:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
it is from a web site [2] that claims exclusive rights to it. Found5dollar (talk) 15:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: likely unfree abf «Cabale!» 22:12, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
It is from a copyrighted webpage [3] Found5dollar (talk) 16:01, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: likely unfree abf «Cabale!» 22:12, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Possibly a copyrighted image, available on multiple sites. Bill william comptonTalk 16:42, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: likely unfree abf «Cabale!» 22:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
out of project scope MoiraMoira (talk) 18:42, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination: out of scope abf «Cabale!» 22:15, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
File:Male_genital_anatomy_-_penis_erected_(Anatomie_der_mänlichen_Genitalien_-_erigierter_Penis)-2.jpg
[edit]Fehlerhafte Datei - bitte löschen! Luemmel (talk) 00:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Question should this be deleted as a duplicate of File:Male genital anatomy - penis erected (Anatomie der männlichen Genitalien - erigierter Penis).jpg? --Kramer Associates (talk) 01:11, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Duplicate. Yann (talk) 06:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Appears to be a news image found here: http://www.sport.ro/spania/cristiano-ronaldo-mesaj-emotionant-pentru-victimele-din-japonia-vezi-ce-le-a-transmis.html Ytoyoda (talk) 04:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Clear {{Copyvio}}. Wknight94 talk 04:18, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
user is a copyright violator - no meta data Off2riorob (talk) 01:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: "No metadata" is not a reason to delete -- none of my images have metadata -- but this user has uploaded only five images. The other four have been deleted as copyvios, so this is likely the same. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
user is a copyright violator - no meta data Off2riorob (talk) 01:18, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: "No metadata" is not enough reason for a deletion, but this is a complex school logo and the listed source is not the uploader Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
user is a copyright violaotor Off2riorob (talk) 01:18, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Source = Own work, Author = Pontefract NEW College -- the latter is probably true and there is no evidence of permission Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:04, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
File:Clip from a video said to be anonymously released by the East Turkestan Islamic Party.jpg
[edit]Copyright ©2007 through 2010, Public Multimedia Inc. All Rights Reserved. 124.244.189.247 02:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep -- This nomination seems to be based on a misconception. The copyright notice the nominator has copied and pasted from the source URL applies to the original text on that web page. Books, newspapers, academic journals, and web-pages routinely use images they have liscensed, or which are in the public domain, or which they are using as "fair use". A copyright notice on a web page does not establish that individual or agency owns the intellectual property rights to images on that page.
I don't remember uploading this image. I used {{PD-because}} -- a tag I don't remember ever using. The explanation I gave was:
- I believe that material anonymously released by underground groups should be considered in the public domain. First, the group has no realistic path to sue to defend their intellectual property rights, if they planned to retain them. Second, because they are underground, and release their material anonymously, there is no path through which a surviving member could claim something was their intellectual property -- if the members of the group were offered an amnesty.
- In retrospect I regret I didn't ask for input about this use of {{PD-because}} at village pump, or elsewhere, when I advanced this reasoning. It appears I didn't do so. I still think this justification makes sense. Geo Swan (talk) 02:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: The listed source has an explicit copyright notice. The reasoning used in the box fails because most (maybe all) countries copyright laws make explicit provision for work published anonymously -- it never, as far as I know, becomes PD because it was published anonymously. "The owners won't sue" is one of the five arguments explicitly listed as invalid at COM:PRP. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
copyvio apparently scanned from a book, http://www.maaref-foundation.com/english/library/pro_ahl/imam12_mahdi/al-imam_al-mahdi/index.htm Rafy (talk) 02:55, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Copyvio http://subhanandashram.blogspot.com/2010/11/philosophy-of-subhanandasubhananda.html Vssun (talk) 05:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:21, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
File is uploaded as own work but 4 things make me wonder if that is correct: 1) The text "unknown" (like in unknown photographer?), 2) The text "in Sixties" (like picture is from the sixties) 3) The fact that the file was uploaded ashi:चित्र:सुबिमल बसाक.jpg by another user before it was uploaded here and 4) The fact that other of the uploaders files was deleted as copyvios. MGA73 (talk) 07:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:22, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Likely copyright violation. Source page collects non-free media and does not name author, publishing date, or original source. Hekerui (talk) 07:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Zero reason offered to support claimed free license. Authorship ascribed only to "photographer"; their name is unknown but their licensing agreements are? File name seems prank/POV. -- Infrogmation (talk) 16:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:22, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
It is my Photo, I took it. And I would like to remove it from Wikipedia. MagnusL3D (talk) 08:11, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep We appreciate the donation of the picture. We've put it to good use. Since when you uploaded it, you agreed to let us use indefinitely, we're going to have to decline to remove it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:29, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
- It's not clear to me what deletion would accomplish. It is my understanding that if the work is deleted, anyone at anytime can still share a copy as long as attribution is given to the original author (per BY-SA 3.0). It's a stunning photo and we should all be thankful it is in the Creative Commons. --Ds13 (talk) 19:09, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Beutiful photo. Thank you for giving it to us and all of our users. Fortunately for Commons, the license you gave us may not be revoked. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: I flickrpassed this image not because of this DR but because the flickr license is CC BY SA 2.0 Generic today. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:02, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
The image shows a painting. Hence, the image is a derivative work of a copyrighted piece of art. ALE! ¿…? 12:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep freedom of panorama dude. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 21:39, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- No, because FoP is for permanently installed art. This art is NOT at a fixed place. --ALE! ¿…? 08:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: "lorsqu’elle est située en permanence dans un lieu public" -- it must be permanent to fall under Tunisian FOP Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
The permission given is not satisfactory. The permission statement says that permission is only given so long as no fees are charged - which does not meet the requirements of the given CC license. Ajbpearce (talk) 13:51, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
- This is rather concerning, as the image is essential to the article. I'll contact the author to see what can be worked out. Prioryman (talk) 18:51, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
- I agree its an important image, used on several articles, and if there is a way to get a compatible license that would be great. Looking a bit deeper - it seems like the image was taken from livius.org and that there are a good number of images taken from that site with a specific permission or release by the author, so hopefully we can get an updated permission. Otherwise, the cylinder is apparently in the British Museum and so if this image cannot be saved there is an active page of requests for BM images, so hopefully if posted there a new image of the cylinder could be taken by a wikipedia contributor (and infact there are a number of other images already on commons that could be used). EDIT:actually, this is apparently a more serious issue as the "no-fees" phrasing is used on a wide number of images from livius - so either the phrasing needs to be updated on a large number of images to reflect what the given permissions actually are or a significant number of images (35 with a quick search) will need to be deleted. Becuase of this I'm going to ask OTRS to look up the permission given and see what it actually says, and we should pause this discussion until that has been doneAjbpearce (talk) 12:15, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- I've already contacted the webmaster of Livius to point out this discussion and ask him for advice. The policy posied on Livius here specifically addresses Wikipedia but is incompatible with free licensing. I agree that the discussion should be paused until we find out what the situation is. It may be (though it would be deeply regrettable) that we might have to remove all Livius images. Prioryman (talk) 08:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- There are some more pictures of the object in Category:Cyrus cylinder! One has just to change Cyrus cilinder.jpg in Cyrus Cylinder.jpg - ok in several articles... But it should be no problem to delete this one. --Ana al'ain (talk) 16:42, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- No, the key thing about this one is that it is a professionally taken image of the object, taken by a professional scholar while it was out of its display case. It is much higher quality than the others and of a greater clarity than is possible for amateur photographers who have to take a picture of it in its display case. If we can save this image we should. Prioryman (talk) 08:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Under the circumstances, we cannot keep it -- if we can get permission, it can easily be restored. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:32, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:47, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
No use Funfood (talk) 16:18, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Keep bad sound, but picture is ok *headbang* --AtelierMonpli (talk) 18:37, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Delete duplicate --AtelierMonpli (talk) 20:37, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: no image here. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:35, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
This image is scaned post card. Original textual infromation from backside of card: "Река Чусовая. Камень "Шайтан". Фото О. Листопадова. (C) "Планета". 1983. 24/8в-5150. 300 тыс. 2 коп. 3. 11. КПК". It is means that this image is non-free, author of foto - O. Listopadov. - Lzhl (talk) 17:28, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
- I uploaded the image to the English Wikipedia back in 2007, when I first joined the project. I no longer have this file and cannot validate its provenance. In any case, it is probably redundant since we have this File:Maksimovsky rock Chusovaya river.jpg from here [4]. Graham Colm (talk) 21:11, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete then. The photo does look like a postcard and the information provided by the nominator is consistent. There was a remote chance that О. Листопадов died long ago, but this is unlikely, as these [5] [6] are contemporary photos, and the chances are negligible that there are two famous postcard photographers with this name. Materialscientist (talk) 23:28, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - incomplete DR, listed by me to the today DR log - Jcb (talk) 16:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
no origin for pictures (licence ?) ; also need to remove e-mail adress --MGuf (d) 16:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
contain no free documents --MGuf (d) 16:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:37, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Sculpture by Danish sculptor Holger Wederkinch (died 1959). France has no freedom of panorama. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 17:11, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
- Hi. Interesting point but can this sculpture really be considered an isolated work of art covered by individual copyright? Isn't it rather just part of a collective architecture work that has already fallen into the public domain? --Hispalois (talk) 04:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
- I'm afraid not. The present bridge was built in 1905. This sculpture was added in 1930 as a gift of the Danish community in Paris. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 11:04, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:37, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work of a text that is original enough to attract copyright. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 17:14, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:37, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
i would like to reload the image with the filename "OAR_model.png", or if you have the ability to make this change, that would be great! George.joeckel (talk) 17:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: To rename an image, use {{Rename}}. I was going to rename it, but I noticed an explicit copyright from your university. We will need permission from the University using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. When and if that arrives, the image will be restored. Please do not reload it, as that would be a violation of policy. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:41, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Taken directly from [7]. The photograph is copyrighted by the vendor who uploaded it. While the coin's copyright has expired, the photograph can still be copyrighted. Simone 19:33, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:45, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope, uploaded for promotion of own company MoiraMoira (talk) 19:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
out of scope, uploaded to make promotion for own company MoiraMoira (talk) 19:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Seems to be a test version of File:2005-Herbst.png with no description or categorization. Not in use and not usable. ELEKHHT 19:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it can be deleted. It's only a test-version. Thanks! ;) -- 320td (talk) 20:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
- Please feel free to add others if you have more, thanks. --ELEKHHT 20:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
likely copyvio. watermark credits it to eSolar and appears as a PressPhoto http://www.esolar.com/news/press_photos.html. Published in January 2010 prior to upload here http://theenergycollective.com/toddwoody/28834/esolar-two-gigawatt-china-deal. ELEKHHT 20:27, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
likely copyvio. watermark credits it to eSolar and appears as a PressPhoto http://www.esolar.com/news/press_photos.html. ELEKHHT 20:28, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
likely copyvio. watermark credits it to eSolar and appears as a PressPhoto http://www.esolar.com/news/press_photos.html. ELEKHHT 20:30, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
likely copyvio. watermark credits it to eSolar and appears as a PressPhoto http://www.esolar.com/news/press_photos.html. ELEKHHT 20:30, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
"Cedido por el autor" is not a valid license . HombreDHojalata.talk 21:43, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Licence is provided in the 'Licensing' section, simply making a mistake in filling out the template is not a reason to delete. Beta M (talk) 19:30, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Author is "3M_87". Uploader is User:NACLE2. See Commons:OTRS. --. HombreDHojalata.talk 19:43, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
"Cedido por el autor" is not a valid license. . HombreDHojalata.talk 21:43, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Licence is provided in the 'Licensing' section, simply making a mistake in filling out the template is not a reason to delete. Beta M (talk) 19:30, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Author is "3M_87". Uploader is User:NACLE2. See Commons:OTRS. --. HombreDHojalata.talk 19:44, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
"Cedido por el autor" is not a valid license. . HombreDHojalata.talk 21:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Licence is provided in the 'Licensing' section, simply making a mistake in filling out the template is not a reason to delete. Beta M (talk) 19:30, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Author is "3M_87". Uploader is User:NACLE2. See Commons:OTRS. --. HombreDHojalata.talk 19:44, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
"Cedido por el autor" is not a valid license. . HombreDHojalata.talk 21:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Licence is provided in the 'Licensing' section, simply making a mistake in filling out the template is not a reason to delete. Beta M (talk) 19:30, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Author is "3M_87". Uploader is User:NACLE2. See Commons:OTRS. --. HombreDHojalata.talk 19:44, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
the uploader seems to be related to the manufacturer of the billlboard. But they probably do not have the rights on the advert. → DW. FOP doesn't seem to apply (not "permanent") and isn't claimed by the uploader. Saibo (Δ) 22:04, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:49, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
The uploader seems to be related to the manufacturer of the billlboard (see other uploads). But they probably do not have the rights on the advert. → DW. No FOP in Italy. Saibo (Δ) 22:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:49, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Duplicate file of http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dunet_(Indre).JPG Léna (talk) 22:20, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't want to have my photo on Wikipedia anymore Radek Papež (talk) 15:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Private photo. Per request George Chernilevsky talk 16:01, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't want to have my photo on Wikipedia anymore. -- Radek -- Radek Papež (talk) 15:26, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Private photo. Per request George Chernilevsky talk 16:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Lighting of the Eiffel tower is copyrighted. Léna (talk) 21:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
- I think that adding the copyright of the lighting [Eclairage de la Tour Eiffel - Copyright Société d’Exploitation de la Tour Eiffel] is enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EXistenZ (talk • contribs), 06:43 (UTC), 28 October 2011
- No, sorry, but if a work in France is copyrighted, you can't take a picture of it and put it on the web legally without the explicit agreement of the rightful owner. (I know it's creepy:()Léna (talk) 09:43, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
- I doubt that the Service valorisation du fonds patrimonial, SOCIETE D'EXPLOITATION DE LA TOUR EIFFEL SETE 1, QUAI DE GRENELLE 75015 PARIS would refuse that wikimedia keep this image if it's clear that commercial use of the photograph is not allowed. But if it's easier to erase the image, go for it, I don't really care. It's just a bit sad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IP 82.64.246.165, 13:42 (UTC), 28 October 2011
- Actually, commercial use of the photograph is allowed : we use CC-by-SA licence, not CC-by-SA-nc licence. Wikimedia projects are under free licence and both the open software initiative and the free software foundation have defined non-commercial restrictions as non-free. Léna (talk) 14:13, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Lighting is original enough to attract copyright; France does not recognise freedom of panorama. Commons does not accept NC licences. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 20:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Restored: No copyright on ordinary light. Yann (talk) 15:35, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Lighting of the Eiffel Tower and monument in first plan are both copyrighted. Léna (talk) 21:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. Don't know what the thing in the foreground is (the file doesn't have a description) but it looks like it could be some copyrighted thing. -- Asclepias (talk) 00:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
- It's the "mur de la paix" (peace wall), which was made in 2000. Léna (talk) 06:15, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. Clearly copyrighted then. I wasn't sure if it wasn't a fancy bus stop shelter. :) -- Asclepias (talk) 17:31, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Lighting of the Tour Eiffel is original enough to attract copyright; copyrighted artwork in the foreground. France does not recognise freedom of panorama. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 20:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Restored: No copyright on ordinary light. Yann (talk) 15:36, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
No permission/license, not enough information to tell if it's PD-Russia Kramer Associates (talk) 00:20, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
- More than enough to tell that it's not (not PD for use on commons, not real life). NVO (talk) 08:52, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:59, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Moved from speedy. The file moved originally from en.wiki in 2007. According to User:Takabeg taken in 1946. from the files talk page:
- According to the Article 27 of the Turkish copyright law, the copyright of those files have not expired.
Art. 27. The term of protection shall last for the lifetime of the author and for 70 years after his death. If there is more than one author, this period shall end upon the expiry of 70 years after the death of the last remaining author. The term of protection for works that have been first made public after the death of the author shall be 70 years after the date of death. The term of protection in the cases determined in the first paragraph of Article 12 shall be 70 years from the date on which the work was made public, unless the author reveals his name before expiry of such term. If the first author is a legal person, the term of protection shall be 70 years from the date on which the work was made public.
Takabeg (talk) 03:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
- You have to made regular DR and return back the original license. Geagea (talk) 03:43, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
- This picture was taken in 1946. The violation is very clear. Takabeg (talk) 03:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
- Well, no harm will be done in it go through DR. Thanks for paying attention. Geagea (talk) 03:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
- This picture was taken in 1946. The violation is very clear. Takabeg (talk) 03:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Kazim Karabekir (5 August 1946-26 January 1948) (Turkey Foreign Policy and Government Guide). Takabeg (talk) 03:57, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Geagea (talk) 04:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
- I asked from the user to change from speedy to DR (can be seen in the file talk page). I just bring it from the talk page. The file uploaded originally in 28 January 2007 to en.wiki and moved to Commons in August same year. No harm will be if sombody check the date or place of publication. According to this site the photo is from 1946 so Delete. Geagea (talk) 08:22, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Possible personality rights problem - this was the uploader's only contribution, people in the image are clearly identifiable, and I wonder whether the people in the image are aware their image is on Commons. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:41, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Agree, the women look not as we can assume the photographer has their consent to publish (maybe not even take) the photo. --Saibo (Δ) 10:57, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
- It is in a photo series http://www.randomnude.com/2010/04/02/nude-beach-pair/ So my comment above does not apply anymore - at least the consent of being photographed can be assumed. Nothing about publishing anyway - and no statement from the one-file-uploader here about publishing consent. But anyway, I even assume this to be a copyvio (although the series I've found has a lower res). Delete - copyvio danger and consent for publishing at least a bit doubtful (one-file-uploader and no statement). --Saibo (Δ) 11:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep I believe that there is an evidence (the resolution for example) that it is not a copyright violation. However, the personality issue must be looked into. Beta M (talk) 19:21, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: likely a copyvio, see [8] for the whole series in high resolution. Deleted per precautionary principle. Rosenzweig τ 22:19, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Falscher Dateiname Joergsam (talk) 22:42, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. Use {{Rename}} template to request a file name change. AMERICOPHILE 20:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept. – Kwj2772 (msg) 09:49, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Falscher Dateiname Joergsam (talk) 22:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. Use {{Rename}} template to request a file name change. AMERICOPHILE 20:12, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept. – Kwj2772 (msg) 09:49, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Falscher Dateiname Joergsam (talk) 22:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. Use {{Rename}} template to request a file name change. AMERICOPHILE 20:12, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept. – Kwj2772 (msg) 09:49, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Falscher Dateiname Joergsam (talk) 22:45, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Incorrect filename is not a deletion reason.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:29, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. Use {{Rename}} template to request a file name change. AMERICOPHILE 20:12, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept. – Kwj2772 (msg) 09:49, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- File:Top silouette.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Dubious claim of "own work": no exif, very high compression, strange vertical band on the left in the first one. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:06, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Probably not own work. AMERICOPHILE 19:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 13:49, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Falscher Dateiname Joergsam (talk) 21:29, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep use {{Rename}} to change the file name. AMERICOPHILE 19:57, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Per Americophile. Wknight94 talk 04:30, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Falscher Dateiname Joergsam (talk) 21:33, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Use {{Rename}} to change the file name. AMERICOPHILE 19:59, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Per Americophile. Wknight94 talk 04:30, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Lightning of the Eiffel tower is copyrighted Léna (talk) 21:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. Tower was built in 1889. -- Docu at 22:12, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep 1889 yes, but night-light display is under copyright. But in this case, de minimis may apply. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:45, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Per COM:DM. This page explains that the Eiffel Tower is copyrighted at night. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
there is not any meta data, suspect not own work Coekon (talk) 22:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
- Since it is said to be from 1377, the original work is PD-old and PD-Art applies, so I don't think we have a copyright problem. The 1377 date is three years before the 1380 birth of Gian Francesco Poggio Bracciolini, but I know nothing about Italian scholars, so I'm just grasping. If it is the Poggio in the WP:EN article then it is clearly in scope. If it is not, then I would consider deleting it as out of scope.
- @Coekon. As a general rule, mere lack of metadata is not enough to support a DR. If it were, you could go to work on my uploads, none of which have metadata. Lack of metadata together with web size (smaller than this image) might be a reason for a DR if you have reason to suspect that the uploader doesn't completely understand the rules or is deliberately breaking them. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - {{PD-Art}} anyway. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:53, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept: PD. Rosenzweig τ 20:36, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
I nominated this file for speedy deletion, but user Rosenzweig declined saying that image is is below the threshold of originality. But I'm not so sure, this is currect logo of the football club Boca Juniors. Oleola (talk) 17:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. It doesn't matter whether this logo is correct or incorrect, current or out of date, it is in any case no more than a bunch of simple geometrical shapes and a bit of lettering. Clearly below the threshold of originality, as shown by several examples there. --Rosenzweig τ 21:36, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept: PD-Ineligible Captain-tucker (talk) 02:02, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Photos uploaded by user Nicoxene
[edit]- File:Rata blanca2011.jpg
- File:Estadio bostero.jpg
- File:Tribuna natalio pescia.jpg
- File:Panoramica bombonera.jpg
- File:Superclasico en la bombonera.jpg
- File:CABJ.jpg
Recently I found evidences that dozens photos uploaded by him were copyvios, so I'm nominating these too --Oleola (talk) 00:04, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
- The first four were pretty obvious, so I deleted them. I'm not sure about the remaining two -- maybe yes, maybe no, so I left them for one of our colleagues. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:57, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: The fifth was deleted as copyvio by Turélio on November 9, and the last one is another copyvio available on the web several months before it was uploaded here, so I'll delete that one too. Rosenzweig τ 22:34, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Photos transferred from flickr user grahamwilliam
[edit]Recently I found evidences that two photos transferred from flickr user grahamwilliam:File:Glowing Buddha.jpg and File:Chinese horoscope.jpg were obvious copyvios with removed tags, so I doubt that he is the author of these photos--Oleola (talk) 02:30, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
The picture is ambiguous; no horoscope-related thing. --百家姓之四 (talk) 07:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Kept. In use. –Tryphon☂ 05:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
The picture is a comics illustration which contains no horoscope-related thing. This picture is not in use anymore. 百家姓之四 (talk) 02:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Only because *you* edited it out of several wikis where it was in use. -Nard the Bard 02:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Its a FlickrLickr image and was free at upload. Nard's comments are revealing about the nominator's crude and bad faith activities. I don't trust this nominator sadly. --Leoboudv (talk) 07:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep I take no position on whether the image is appropriate to use in an article, but it seems free license and at least of potential use in project scope. Infrogmation (talk) 13:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, I see... So, what about renaming it? Such as "File:Comics with Hanzi of Chinese Zodiac" or "File:Comics with Chinese characters of Chinese Zodiac"? 百家姓之四 (talk) 01:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comment The first name is a reasonable solution. But only the closing Admin can decide here, not me. --Leoboudv (talk) 01:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I apologize for nominating this file three times, but I didn't mean to bore people. I now have less time on Wikipedia and I found the things changed after the debate was closed: I sent a email to the picure uploder on Flickr, and I got this answer:
| “ | Hi Lee Bob Robert,
thanks for the questions, i wonder why my personal artwork from my personal album is posted, share and discuss on the wikimedia website? it is a personal artwork which i am paid and draw for the vogue magazine in 2006, and this artwork is under license of vogue magazine, and you should remove my artwork from your website! the artwork is about 12 chinese horoscope, which is also called as the 12 zodiac in china, chinese zodiac is different with the western horoscope, chinese horoscope used 12 animals as the zodiacs, (link: http://chinesecalligraphystore.com/chinese-zodiac-signs/index.html) , so may be thats makes the confusion discussions if it is related into horoscope. In my artwork, i use one girl represent for one zodiac, and behind the girl i draw the zodiac in form of chinese word: 鼠 (rat)，牛(cow)，虎(tiger)，兔(rabit)，龍(dragon)，蛇(Snake)，馬(Horse)，羊(sheep)，猴(monkey)，雞(chicken)，狗(dog)，豬(pig).. i hope this can help to solve the problems.. anyway u can feel free to contact me if there is an confusions~ Graham..
|
” |
So, it seems that the file need to be deleted. Thank you for taking your time reading this issue. 百家姓之四 (talk) 02:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep I don't trust this message. Why did you send a message to the author on Flikr? Even if that's his real response, he still posted it to Flikr under a free license, meaning that it's free for us to use. If it's copyright Vogue, then he should take it off Flikr now. Frankly, your actions here disturb me; you've engaged in a repeated attack against this image, which is damaging to the Commons.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you. Sorry for disturbing you, I didn't mean to. 百家姓之四 (talk) 05:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Despite this debate, I think it at least needs renaming, the name is mentioned above, in the second closed debate. 百家姓之四 (talk) 10:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Keep If we take the statement "this artwork is under license of vogue magazine", as true, it does not affect anything. The copyright belongs to the author and any other licenses they grant (including free ones) are valid. --Simonxag (talk) 13:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Kept Available on Flickr under a free license. Sv1xv (talk) 15:42, 28 November 2009 (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 speedy by User:Oleola for "copyvio from http://foomy.deviantart.com/#/d304ay", as it had been filed for deletion already twice. Túrelio (talk) 07:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
- Comment. The image was uploaded to deviantart.com on February 1, 2004, which is one full year before it was uploaded to Flickr. It might be of note that the same Flickr user grahamwilliam has another case of likely Flickr-washing File:Glowing Buddha.jpg of a deviantart image[9]. --Túrelio (talk) 07:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio/Flickrwashing, per nomination. --Rosenzweig τ 22:43, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
- File:Giuseppe_for_AMG.jpg - Taken using a Canon, also derivative of image in centre which is not de minimis
- File:Rose Collection.jpg - taken using Nikon 200D
- File:Andrea e Giuseppe.Jpeg - no camera metadata
- File:SANTONI Classic Collection.jpg - no camera metadata
- File:Giuseppe Santoni.JPG - no camera metadata
- File:Particolare Confezione Limited.jpg - taken with a Phase One
- File:Santoni limited edition shoes box.jpg - duplicate of previous image
- File:HCA sign.JPG - No metadata, but possibly ineligible anyway
- File:HCA.JPG - this one may actually be own work, Nikon Coolpix
Possible copyvios - several photos of a famous person, other (his?) shoes, taken in a professional manner with a variety of cameras (Canon, two different Nikons, Phase One, others without metadata) all around the world. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:30, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Hier der Grund. falscher Dateiname Joergsam
This file has already been re-uploaded with another name. Papatt (talk) 10:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Falscher Dateiname Joergsam (talk) 22:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Hier der Grund. falscher Dateiname Joergsam
This file has already been re-uploaded with another name. Papatt (talk) 10:12, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Falscher Dateiname Joergsam (talk) 22:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted:
It is a waste of Commons resources to do this. Please use {{Rename}} when you want a file name changed.
Also, do not open a second Deletion Request when one is already open. That is also a waste of our resources.
Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:16, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of Libya (2011).svg, there's no need for duplication. This file should be deleted and redirected to File:Flag of Libya.svg ~ Fry1989 eh? 19:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep we know this is the flag of Libya that has recently taken control of the government in Tripoli, but waiting for a few details to be taken care of before we know for sure yet (such as construction details). Plus, many versions of Wikipedia have it where this flag is used in specific template parameters. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
- In use isn't an excuse. Redirect and Commons Delinker can both take care of that, and it wont effect the template parameters at all. Fry1989 eh? 20:43, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete If we have really three identical flags with different names two of them are obsolet; or is there any other problem (their file history, with all the reverting wars)? -- sarang
사랑 21:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
-2.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
-2.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
-2.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
- Keep -- We don't know that the specification of the 2011 flag is exactly the same as the specification of the 1951 flag... AnonMoos (talk) 21:28, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
- Are you claiming that the description of this file (which shows that the dimensions are identical in both the 1951 and 2011 Constitutions) is false or incorrect? Fry1989 eh? 21:33, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
- DeleteThey are three identical flags with different names; one of them is obsolete! --just another user 14:09, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Unnecessary. AMERICOPHILE 19:42, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- Move this file to File:Flag of Libya.svg. Deleting this file will destroy the attribution chain that proves that Himasaram is the author of the file now at File:Flag of Libya.svg. This will create a situation that the proof that this file was released into the public domain was lost. Instead, File:Flag of Libya.svg should be the one deleted, and this file should be moved to File:Flag of Libya.svg. Jesse Viviano (talk) 01:36, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- Merging the two files is a better solution than moving this and deleting the other. However, public domain fears are nonsense, there's nothing complicated enough about this flag for it to be copyrighted. Fry1989 eh? 02:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- It is more of the Commons Attribution Path. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:32, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- Merging the two files is a better solution than moving this and deleting the other. However, public domain fears are nonsense, there's nothing complicated enough about this flag for it to be copyrighted. Fry1989 eh? 02:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete There are two images of exactly the same Flag. --Schenschun 16:45, 05 December 2011
- I'm now moving my vote to a merge rather than a delete. Fry1989 eh? 00:42, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- My mailing list has been getting emails from Benghazi (surprisingly enough) that are referencing this debate and how the construction of the various flags are. If you compare http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/images/l/ly%2751-69.gif with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Libya_Flag_Constitutional_Construction.svg the star seems to be closer to the crescent in the 2011 flag than in the 1951 flag. While it is subtle differences, these are the kind of details that are important to note and I feel more digging/investigations should be done before any kind of decision is made. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 20:48, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
- I'm now moving my vote to a merge rather than a delete. Fry1989 eh? 00:42, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept: for now, as it still seems to be unclear whether the current Lybian flag will be virtually identical to the flag from 1951. So even if the two files are identical at the moment, that may not stay that way. If it is clear beyond any doubt that the new flag will be totally identical to the 1951 flag, consider renomination for deletion. Rosenzweig τ 22:50, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Eiffel Tower lighting is copyrigted. No FOP in France. Léna (talk) 21:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Fireworks are also copyrighted shows. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:42, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per French FoP (or rather non-FoP) law. Rosenzweig τ 21:36, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Files of User:Raphael Saulus (Part 1)
[edit]- File:LauriPuntila.jpeg
- File:MikkoJuva.jpeg
- File:MarttiMiettunen.jpeg
- File:WoldemarErfurth.jpeg
- File:WarIranIraq.jpeg
- File:RudolfWalden.jpeg
- File:BrandPAC.jpeg
- File:Vasasenaten.jpeg
- File:ErnstLinder.jpeg
- File:ValkoinenSuomi.jpeg
- File:Carlmarks (bra).JPG
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
No source or author, "own work" unlikely --Kramer Associates (talk) 21:28, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Comment Some of these may be PD. - Kramer Associates (talk) 21:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Delete. The user has admitted (see his talk page) to making mistakes not understanding copyright when he started contributing to Commons. These are likely scans made by the uploader from other sources and should not be kept as "own work". It is not unlikely that some of these are free for other reasons, but unless such reasons are found and made clear on the file pages the files need to be deleted. /Ö 18:08, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
- Comment these may well qualify for {{PD-Finland50}}, but the photograph date would need to be established to confirm that these were taken before 1966. MKFI (talk) 19:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Comment
- File:Vasasenaten.jpeg and File:ValkoinenSuomi.jpeg are from 1918, so clearly PD.
- File:WoldemarErfurth.jpeg is from WW II, så clearly PD.
- Rudolf Walden died 1946, so File:RudolfWalden.jpeg is clearly PD.
- File:BrandPAC.jpeg is about a fire at P A Carlmarks repslageri. My impression is it was in the 1930s, but somebody could say for sure. Hardly not PD.
The "own work" in the descriptions must of course be removed or edited to reflect authorship.
--LPfi (talk) 11:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete File:WarIranIraq.jpeg (1970s) and File:Carlmarks (bra).JPG (1980s) as clear copyvios.
Does anyone want to fix all the clear cases of {{PD-Sweden}} and {{PD-Finland50}}? --Kramer Associates (talk) 07:16, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
- I asked the uploader to do it, let's see what he does. Source, photographer and year would be good to have, and if he still has the source, adding those would be much easier than for us. --LPfi (talk) 11:23, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- Please delete immidiatelly photos that violetes the rules. I admit that in the beginning i did many mistakes. I hope that these will be rectified now and for all. Raphael Saulus (talk) 13:01, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: most of the files because there wasn't sufficient info about time and place they were taken to establish whether these PD-Finland and PD-Sweden tags actually applied (one wasn't even a photograph, but a map), and kept only two with sufficient information. Rosenzweig τ 11:54, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Something is fishy here. Uploader requested deletion (Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:_Skyboard_001.jpg) of a near duplicate (just contained a phone numer of the company on the poster) and someone else claimed to be the photographer. This user deleted the author here. And: the uploader here had provided the author "Hartz" but his user name is Mascota. In addition: The artwork poster on the last pic could be a DW if it is not regarded as DM. Saibo (Δ) 21:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Ah - the second user is maybe "Hartz" (according to his second upload). If we assume this, we do not have a free license release from him. --Saibo (Δ) 21:47, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Delete maybe the "own work" from the uploader means only to put away the. tel. nr. and www.adress from the original pic.--AtelierMonpli (talk) 11:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: murky authorship situation, unclear who the real author of the file is and if the upload here was authorized. Rosenzweig τ 12:12, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Copyright problems with the owner of the advertising trailer Juan2x (talk) 18:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Kept. - just text - unblanked the author field - Jcb (talk) 16:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Skyboard 01.jpg (currently open). No release under a free license by "Hartz" (apparently the uploader isn't "Hartz" - see the other DR). Saibo (Δ) 21:51, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Here is a very similar photo: File:Skyboard360.JPG (uploaded by the assumed "Hartz"...). --Saibo (Δ) 21:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC) Deleted: murky authorship situation, unclear who the real author of the file is and if the upload here was authorized. --Rosenzweig τ 12:11, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
the uploader seems to be related to the manufacturer of the billlboard. But they probably do not have the rights on the advert. → DW. Saibo (Δ) 22:01, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: derivative work. Rosenzweig τ 12:09, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
and also File:Logo-Disney-Junior.jpg
I do not think this is PD-textlogo; the font isn't simple (it is artisitic in this case), and there is art regarding shadows and 3D-lettering. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
- Comment. On 7 June an admin saved it from deletion. 117Avenue (talk) 13:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete I agree fully with the nom. This is clearly "Disney" style text not just any text and easily identifiable as such. --Herby talk thyme 13:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. That the font is artistic is irrelevant to U.S. copyright law (we easily and freely keep files using the same "artistic" font, such as File:TWDC Logo.svg. The 3-D effect is simple and does not pass the threshold of originality, in my opinion. Powers (talk) 14:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
- Comment There's no such rule about the font being simple. Calligraphy does not get copyright protection in the US.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
- Good point. {{PD-text}} says "Facts, data, and unoriginal information in a general typeface or basic handwriting... are not protected by copyright." Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:43, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
- comment - The Disney text graphics had already been ruled acceptable, cf. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Disney Channel wordmark.svg. The only thing that makes this case different is the small Mickey outline. NVO (talk) 08:59, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep, contains only simple geometric shapes, and the Disney logo is on here many times. 117Avenue (talk) 13:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: The font is not a problem -- it does not matter how complex the font is here. The Mickey outline, though, is a problem as Disney aggressively protects it. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Reopened for further discussion at the request of Powers. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:12, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
- Hi, Jim. I feel that the U.S. copyright office would reject any attempt to copyright the very simple triple circle "Mickey" icon. Trademark is Disney's only protection there, not copyright. Powers (talk) 15:47, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
- Note to closing admin: Please restore the {{NowCommons}} tag on en:File:Disney Junior Logo.png if this discussion is closed as 'keep'. Powers (talk) 15:49, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
- Note that the {{NowCommons}} tag currently is on English Wikipedia, so it would be the other way around. Regardless of the outcome, it would be useful if the closing admin checks whether the tag is there or not and adds/removes it as necessary. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- Effectively, the Mickey outline is too simple, but I wonder about the 3D shape of "Junior" and the shadow effect... Yann (talk) 17:18, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
- Other 3-D effects have been rejected as too simple for copyright protection: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hercules 1998 Intertitle.png, Commons:Deletion requests/File:WDW New Fantasyland logo.jpg. I can't imagine a shadow would be any different. Powers (talk) 13:06, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete I think there's enough going on here to cast doubt on pd by way of simple. Perhaps someone should contact Disney and see what their stance is on the copyright status of the image? Barring that, assuming it's PD would likely not be a good idea. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:55, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- Somehow I doubt Disney -- of all companies -- would happily grant that some of their intellectual property was in fact uncopyrightable. Powers (talk) 02:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I think that might be the definitive solution: either we receive shortly a take-down notice, or we don't get anything answer, which would probably mean that Disney also thinks that it is too simple to get a copyright. Yann (talk) 17:05, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- Given the number of Disney logos we already host, I highly doubt a take-down notice is coming anytime soon. Powers (talk) 20:59, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I think that might be the definitive solution: either we receive shortly a take-down notice, or we don't get anything answer, which would probably mean that Disney also thinks that it is too simple to get a copyright. Yann (talk) 17:05, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- Somehow I doubt Disney -- of all companies -- would happily grant that some of their intellectual property was in fact uncopyrightable. Powers (talk) 02:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- Question If I've understood this discussion correctly, a logo containing only the name of the product (in any font) isn't copyrightable in the US. Could the Mickey head be seen as a part of the font, since it makes up a part of the letter "i", and thus not be copyrightable in this image? Sometimes, people use a small heart instead of a dot, and that's considered a part of the font. A Mickey head doesn't sound too different. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:10, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- The question is moot because the tri-circle "Mickey head" icon is too simple to be copyrightable. Powers (talk) 15:30, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - I still stand by my assertion that it is copyrightable. Yes, it is only text, and yes the text has only some shadow, and yes the text is only somewhat 3D, and yes the text has only a somewhat creative curvative in the third dimension, and yes the text is only in a somewhat artistic script (cursive). But taken together, it is creativity. After all, any creativity is composed of only this or that shape. If in doubt, the image should be deleted. We are not the copyright office, and we should err on the side of conservative; I'm worried we are using our own judgments and creating our own precedents which are not based on US law on what is ineligible. After all, people have been dinged for infringing on far less creative material (e.g., Vanilla Ice [10]). Magog the Ogre (talk) 15:52, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- It is not erring on the conservative side to believe this image is uncopyrightable. We have numerous examples of similar text being kept, some of it based on actual denials of copyright protection from the U.S. Copyright Office. Powers (talk) 20:59, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- Conservative here means that you reject something for which the copyright status is uncertain, so using the stuff might not be safe. If the U.S. Copyright Office has denied copyright, the copyright status is certain, so using the stuff is safe. --Stefan4 (talk) 00:27, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
- Apologies, I must have misread. At any rate, though, we can't rely on the Copyright Office for everything, because they only issue rulings on items that are submitted to them. We have to use our own judgement to extrapolate from the official rulings. Given the other examples at Commons:Image casebook, it is in no way a stretch to find this image uncopyrightable: it contains only text and simple geometric shapes. Powers (talk) 19:45, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, I agree with you on that. The problem for me, though, is that it's also not a stretch to find this image copyrightable, and unless we are 100% sure, I'm not sure it's a good idea to keep it. Better safe than sorry, as they say. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:19, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- Welcome to Commons, where we can never be 100% sure about anything, due to the complexity of copyright law. But I'm as sure about this logo being uncopyrightable as I am about just about any PD-textlogo case that comes before us. I once argued against keeping files like File:Klingon Empire Flag.svg, but that and several similar cases convinced me that "simple geometric shapes" actually encompass a much wider array of possibilities than I originally understood. If 100% surety is our metric, we should delete the Klingon flag for the same reason. Powers (talk) 18:52, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- That's not a good argument at all. Since when have we used the argument that "it could go either way so let's keep"? If that were the case, then {{Nsd}} and {{Npd}} would be useless, because "maybe the uploader is telling the truth, maybe not." That's the way Youtube handles its copyrights, and it's never been our standard, and thank God. I have trouble believing I'm actually hearing that.
- The difference with a Klingon empire flag is not a good example because, in fact, there are similar examples wherein the US copyright office has ruled them uncopyrightable (notably the fleur de lis from the New Orleans Saints). One can, with the preponderance of evidence leaving no reasonable doubt, state that the Klingon flag is not copyrightable. The argument that "well, technically one can never be 100% sure about anything" fits the reductio ad absurdum logical fallacy perfectly.
- The fleur de lis was an image which was based on a long-existing design and which showed basically no creativity against that design; it was just a matter of coloring and an outline. This image, on the other hand, has creative handwriting in "Disney" (calligraphy, as stated above, is copyrightable in the US; signatures are not because they do not show creativity), and at a given angle against the lower text. The lower text is set in 3D lettering which goes through at a set depth, and is at a very close angle to the metaphorical camera. It also has a shadow, and two differently colored buttons on the i, with mickey mouse ears as the dot of the i. As one piece, any of these one might claim "isn't copyrightable", but as a compendium, they quite possibly are. As stated above, any piece of work can be broken down into individual parts; it's when they're combined that they become creative. One way we might go about this is to ask "might another person have drawn this logo almost exactly alike, had we never seen it before?" For the fleur-de-lis, the answer is "yes" (if you ask me); for this image, it's almost certainly "no", barring a very unusual circumstance. That is, in essence, the definition of creativity.
- But enough with the philosophy of the issue; what's more important is the legal aspect. Can you, or anyone else, show something which has been ruled in US court or by the copyright office to be uncopyrightable? If you can show me such an image, I will acquiesce. Not something which some admin on Commons (not a judge or US government worker) has ruled is uncopyrightable; Commons seems to be creating its own legal culture and precedent which is based far more on the opinions of what Commons users think should be copyrightable than on US law. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:26, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- Calligraphy does not get copyright protection in the U.S. Who do you think stated otherwise? Powers (talk) 13:19, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- Read what I wrote above. Where are you getting your facts? 15:43, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- I wanted to clear up the calligraphy issue first, especially since your contention (that "calligraphy, as stated above, is copyrightable in the US") would affect a number of existing files. Powers (talk) 16:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- Well look at my text way above; you'll see that it's copyrightable. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:19, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- What text above?!? The Copyright Office Compendium says "like typography, calligraphy is not copyrightable as such, notwithstanding the effect achieved by calligraphic brush strokes across a striated surface".--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:38, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- I misread your comment then. Sorry. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, then; given that the text "Disney" is not copyrightable, and the text "Junior" is not copyrightable, and the tri-circle Mickey logo is not copyrightable... what's left in the image to be copyrightable? Powers (talk) 20:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- I guess nothing. My primary line of thought was that Disney was the most copyrightable thing there, but if the law itself says calligraphy doesn't count, then it doesn't count. Now there are shadowing and 3D effects, but they're borderline Mind you, I find it to be 100 times more creative than a photo taken in someone's backyard on a cell phone camera. But I have to concede it looks uncopyrightable with that piece of information. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, then; given that the text "Disney" is not copyrightable, and the text "Junior" is not copyrightable, and the tri-circle Mickey logo is not copyrightable... what's left in the image to be copyrightable? Powers (talk) 20:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- I misread your comment then. Sorry. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- What text above?!? The Copyright Office Compendium says "like typography, calligraphy is not copyrightable as such, notwithstanding the effect achieved by calligraphic brush strokes across a striated surface".--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:38, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- Well look at my text way above; you'll see that it's copyrightable. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:19, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- I wanted to clear up the calligraphy issue first, especially since your contention (that "calligraphy, as stated above, is copyrightable in the US") would affect a number of existing files. Powers (talk) 16:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- Read what I wrote above. Where are you getting your facts? 15:43, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- Calligraphy does not get copyright protection in the U.S. Who do you think stated otherwise? Powers (talk) 13:19, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- Welcome to Commons, where we can never be 100% sure about anything, due to the complexity of copyright law. But I'm as sure about this logo being uncopyrightable as I am about just about any PD-textlogo case that comes before us. I once argued against keeping files like File:Klingon Empire Flag.svg, but that and several similar cases convinced me that "simple geometric shapes" actually encompass a much wider array of possibilities than I originally understood. If 100% surety is our metric, we should delete the Klingon flag for the same reason. Powers (talk) 18:52, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, I agree with you on that. The problem for me, though, is that it's also not a stretch to find this image copyrightable, and unless we are 100% sure, I'm not sure it's a good idea to keep it. Better safe than sorry, as they say. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:19, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- Apologies, I must have misread. At any rate, though, we can't rely on the Copyright Office for everything, because they only issue rulings on items that are submitted to them. We have to use our own judgement to extrapolate from the official rulings. Given the other examples at Commons:Image casebook, it is in no way a stretch to find this image uncopyrightable: it contains only text and simple geometric shapes. Powers (talk) 19:45, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
- Conservative here means that you reject something for which the copyright status is uncertain, so using the stuff might not be safe. If the U.S. Copyright Office has denied copyright, the copyright status is certain, so using the stuff is safe. --Stefan4 (talk) 00:27, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
- It is not erring on the conservative side to believe this image is uncopyrightable. We have numerous examples of similar text being kept, some of it based on actual denials of copyright protection from the U.S. Copyright Office. Powers (talk) 20:59, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
I wrote to Disney. We will see... It was not so easy to find the contact form, and they don't have an edit button. ;o) Yann (talk) 20:56, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not holding my breath; this is the company who lobbied so intensively that it got copyrights extended on all content in the entire United States to be extended for 20 years. But hey, someone on the projects was able to get the Queen to state she wasn't going to pursue her rights in the United States that were out of copyrights in the UK. So I suppose weirder has happened. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:55, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Not original enough. Ignoring Disney logo (PD-text), and Mickey Mouse's face (three circles only), the word "Junior" written in a 3D red font with a "shadow" is ewhat should be discussed. The most original here is the letter "i", and it is not original either. This is original, Disney Junior Logo.png is not. Tbhotch™ 21:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - 100% original in the Mickey Mouse ears. "simple" has a very clear definition that a lot of people have been ignoring lately, which puts Commons and the WMF at serious jeopardy. The "Disney" part is further a signature, which can never be seen as "simple" text as simple requires it to be a set font type. Signatures have never qualified for public domain. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:36, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Fortunately, the DMCA provides an absolute shield for the WMF, such that none of our decisions could really put the WMF into jeopardy. This allows us to conduct our discussions calmly without hyperbole. See Commons:When to use the PD-signature tag, which reminds us that the Copyright Office has said "like typography, calligraphy is not copyrightable as such". No set font type is required.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:54, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- 1. Wrong. 2. You are not a lawyer nor are users allowed to give legal advice. 3. Commons policies makes it clear that we cannot promote any violation of copyright, which this clearly is and your comments should reflect our community consensus and standards. A signature is not calligraphy and that should have been obvious. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- It is amazing how you will officiously tell everyone that the legal consequences of what they're doing is dire, and then toss out "You are not a lawyer nor are users allowed to give legal advice" when someone responds to that.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:18, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- A lawyer is for the defense. Telling people of possible legal ramifications is not saying that it is legal. I don't think you understand how it works. On Commons, we need to assume everything is not legal or allowable by default. That is part of our policy and our traditions. To argue that something is legal and we are not responsible is something you are unqualified to do as you are not Wikimedia's legal counsel nor a judge that would handle such a case. Even the legal counsel would merely say that something is "unlikely" and never provide a definite answer as no lawyer could be definite in such a case until after there is a ruling by a court of law. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:43, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- It is amazing how you will officiously tell everyone that the legal consequences of what they're doing is dire, and then toss out "You are not a lawyer nor are users allowed to give legal advice" when someone responds to that.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:18, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- 1. Wrong. 2. You are not a lawyer nor are users allowed to give legal advice. 3. Commons policies makes it clear that we cannot promote any violation of copyright, which this clearly is and your comments should reflect our community consensus and standards. A signature is not calligraphy and that should have been obvious. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Where is your evidence for the copyrightablility of signatures in the United States? (Furthermore, it's not a true signature, but a wordmark using calligraphic characters, which only further solidifies the lack of copyright on that particular pattern.) Powers (talk) 19:57, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- 1. We have a policy that gives the information and says that only generic signatures are uncopyrightable. 2. Calligraphy is something very different. That image is a copy of Disney's original signature. It was how he signed some of his artistic name plates and has most of the markers here (if you think his signature never differed, see [11] and [12]. The signature contains many unique alterations to letters, and there are multiple other changes to the images as a whole. The US courts have ruled that even if individually the parts could be seen as not copyrightable that their arrangement can be. This is one such case. Disney is extremely litigious and stands by their copyright on many issues, and have gotten copyright laws changed solely to protect them. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:15, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- You said, and I quote: "Signatures have never qualified for public domain." Now you say "only generic signatures are uncopyrightable." I cannot see how these two statements can be reconciled. Powers (talk) 19:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- "Signatures" is the category. You would need another rationale to qualify it. Being a signature is not a qualification. I don't see how that is so complex. o.O Ottava Rima (talk) 02:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- "Another rationale"? What's the first rationale? "To qualify it" for what? Powers (talk) 21:46, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not sure where your question is coming from as the statement was rather simple and straight forward. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:57, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but I didn't find it straightforward at all. Powers (talk) 21:06, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- Then I don't think there is a possible way for you to understand. I said "Signatures". You were using the fact it was a signature as a rationale. I pointed out that being a signature does not make something automatically PD. Thus, you would need another rationale. That was rather clearly put in the sentence. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:55, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- What you actually said was that signatures are "never" PD, which is patently untrue. Powers (talk) 01:11, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
- Making false claims about what others say is a blockable offense, and you have crossed the line pushing a view that has no basis here. I clearly said "only generic signatures are uncopyrightable", and your attitude will lead to you being removed if you don't cut it out It is one thing to be wrong, but you are being disruptive and wrong, which ends up only one way. The clear difference is that "signature" and "generic signature" are two very different words. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
- For all the bystanders, I will point out W:Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ottava Rima restrictions. Ottava Rima telilng you something is a blockable offense is a non-event.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:53, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, point out a case where only 6 of 18 people said I was guilty of non-offenses and put me on a one year ban 2 years ago. It also points out that I had many, many FAs, GAs, DYK, and was one of the top contributors to Wikipedia. What were you? Even when I was banned, an Arbitrator and a Board Member were both willing to move my pages over to Wikipedia because of how good they were. Looking at your work, I don't think anyone would ever do the same. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
- "Signatures have never qualified for public domain." -- Ottava Rima, December 3 Feel free to try to have me blocked; I am confident I have done nothing remotely wrong. Powers (talk) 03:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- You said I said "signatures are never PD". The quote right there clearly says "qualified". There is a huge difference and you know it, and your tendentiousness is absolutely inappropriate. It is 100% clear that being a signature does not qualify something as public domain. You need other evidence to make it so. There are copyrighted signatures and thus, being a "signature" is not a qualification. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- The plain meaning of your statement "Signatures have never qualified for public domain" is clear: that never in the history of mankind has a signature qualified -- that is, been deemed to be appropriate for -- public domain. If you meant to say that "merely being a signature has never been sufficient to qualify a work as public domain", it's hardly my fault for not reading your mind. Powers (talk) 03:18, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
- "s clear: that never in the history of mankind has a signature qualified -- that is, been deemed to be appropriate for" Then you don't understand English and I think you need to stop. It has already been pointed out over and over and over that you are flat out wrong. I said that being a signature is not a qualification. This is the same as being an oil is not a qualification for being gasoline. There are plenty of oils that aren't gasoline just as there are plenty of signatures that are not PD. How you fail to get that is beyond anyone's ability to understand, but it is why you are wrong on this and keep pushing directly false claims about what others say. You should stop. Ottava Rima (talk) 12:39, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
- The plain meaning of your statement "Signatures have never qualified for public domain" is clear: that never in the history of mankind has a signature qualified -- that is, been deemed to be appropriate for -- public domain. If you meant to say that "merely being a signature has never been sufficient to qualify a work as public domain", it's hardly my fault for not reading your mind. Powers (talk) 03:18, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
- You said I said "signatures are never PD". The quote right there clearly says "qualified". There is a huge difference and you know it, and your tendentiousness is absolutely inappropriate. It is 100% clear that being a signature does not qualify something as public domain. You need other evidence to make it so. There are copyrighted signatures and thus, being a "signature" is not a qualification. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- "Signatures have never qualified for public domain." -- Ottava Rima, December 3 Feel free to try to have me blocked; I am confident I have done nothing remotely wrong. Powers (talk) 03:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, point out a case where only 6 of 18 people said I was guilty of non-offenses and put me on a one year ban 2 years ago. It also points out that I had many, many FAs, GAs, DYK, and was one of the top contributors to Wikipedia. What were you? Even when I was banned, an Arbitrator and a Board Member were both willing to move my pages over to Wikipedia because of how good they were. Looking at your work, I don't think anyone would ever do the same. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
- For all the bystanders, I will point out W:Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ottava Rima restrictions. Ottava Rima telilng you something is a blockable offense is a non-event.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:53, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
- Making false claims about what others say is a blockable offense, and you have crossed the line pushing a view that has no basis here. I clearly said "only generic signatures are uncopyrightable", and your attitude will lead to you being removed if you don't cut it out It is one thing to be wrong, but you are being disruptive and wrong, which ends up only one way. The clear difference is that "signature" and "generic signature" are two very different words. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
- What you actually said was that signatures are "never" PD, which is patently untrue. Powers (talk) 01:11, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
- Then I don't think there is a possible way for you to understand. I said "Signatures". You were using the fact it was a signature as a rationale. I pointed out that being a signature does not make something automatically PD. Thus, you would need another rationale. That was rather clearly put in the sentence. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:55, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but I didn't find it straightforward at all. Powers (talk) 21:06, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not sure where your question is coming from as the statement was rather simple and straight forward. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:57, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- "Another rationale"? What's the first rationale? "To qualify it" for what? Powers (talk) 21:46, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- "Signatures" is the category. You would need another rationale to qualify it. Being a signature is not a qualification. I don't see how that is so complex. o.O Ottava Rima (talk) 02:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- You said, and I quote: "Signatures have never qualified for public domain." Now you say "only generic signatures are uncopyrightable." I cannot see how these two statements can be reconciled. Powers (talk) 19:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- 1. We have a policy that gives the information and says that only generic signatures are uncopyrightable. 2. Calligraphy is something very different. That image is a copy of Disney's original signature. It was how he signed some of his artistic name plates and has most of the markers here (if you think his signature never differed, see [11] and [12]. The signature contains many unique alterations to letters, and there are multiple other changes to the images as a whole. The US courts have ruled that even if individually the parts could be seen as not copyrightable that their arrangement can be. This is one such case. Disney is extremely litigious and stands by their copyright on many issues, and have gotten copyright laws changed solely to protect them. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:15, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- Fortunately, the DMCA provides an absolute shield for the WMF, such that none of our decisions could really put the WMF into jeopardy. This allows us to conduct our discussions calmly without hyperbole. See Commons:When to use the PD-signature tag, which reminds us that the Copyright Office has said "like typography, calligraphy is not copyrightable as such". No set font type is required.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:54, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
![[11]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f5/Walt_Disney_Signature_2.svg/2000px-Walt_Disney_Signature_2.svg.png){kind=link}
![[12]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_mJ4lc_Q9Q6k/TBrdXVZzeuI/AAAAAAAApgw/u_VC2h3w_kw/s1600/walt+disney+signature.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete. While I don't think the Disney portion is copyrightable (it is just typeface, which is not copyrightable in either standard fonts or custom ones -- see File:NY Arrows logo.png for example), nor do I think the basic word "Junior" is copyrightable, nor do I think the three circles by themselves would qualify -- I think there is too much else present to assume this is below the threshold. The combination of the circles and the ornamentation on the "i" might be enough creative arrangement by itself, not sure, and primarily I think the 3D effect and shading is probably enough. I'm not sure I've seen a case or Copyright Office decision which denied copyright to something like that. Decisions on perspective, how far back to make the 3D effect, the shadows on the ground, etc. (all of which go further than typographic ornamentation) are enough for me to guess this would be copyrightable as a drawing. Carl Lindberg (talk) 09:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Local images on various Wikipedia sites
[edit]
Several different Wikipedia sites have local copies of this image. If the Commons decision is "keep", I guess that all of the Wikipedia copies should be deleted. If the Commons decision is "delete", it would still be nice to add interwiki links between all of the local copies:
- en:File:Disney Junior Logo.png
- fr:Fichier:Disney Junior.png
- it:File:Disney Junior-hd-.png
- ru:Файл:Disney junior.png
Similar image:
- Because this was deleted, (then undeleted), its use on several other Wikipedias were removed by a bot, this will have to be undone as well. 117Avenue (talk) 05:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete The knockout reason why Commons should respect Disney's copyright claim is because the artwork can only be used for the same purpose as a non-free image would be used. Since the whole context of this discussion is whether this logo is non-free or not, and we are discussing whether this artwork can only be used to identify a specific product or organisational division of Walt Disney, then that clearly indicates that we are all talking about a non-free image.
Although the artwork contains simple text and not very original graphics, it still serves the purpose of identifying Disney Junior in a recognisable way, and there is no other use to which the image of this artwork could be put other than illustrate this particular brand. Since this image cannot be used for any other purpose other than as visual identification of Disney Junior, then that is the killer argument as to why it is copyrightable, and why it should be treated as a non-free image in the same way that it has been treated as such on Wikipedia. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:49, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
- It sounds as if you are arguing about trademark protection whereas this discussion is about copyright protection. Images without copyright protection, but with trademark protection, are allowed with the {{Trademarked}} template. --Stefan4 (talk) 11:16, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, if I was arguing about trademark protection, I would have said so. What makes you think that this artwork does not have copyright protection? Has Disney said this, or is there some third party evidence to suggest this? --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:57, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
- From your arguing, it sounded as if you were talking about trademarks. I'm not sure about the copyright status of this image, so I have no opinion. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry if I was not clear. I am looking at this image in terms of artwork, which I believe Disney claims copyright under their terms of use and their fair use policies.--Gavin Collins (talk) 13:16, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
- That Disney blanketly claims copyright over every shred of data on their web sites is not evidence that it actually is copyrighted. It certainly doesn't override established U.S. law regarding the threshhold of originality. That blanket notice doesn't allow them to copyright something that isn't copyrightable, and that includes simple letterforms and basic shapes. Powers (talk) 01:13, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
- Sadly, nothing you or I can say can determine whether the artwork is "copyrightable" or not, as our opinions about legal matters are just heresay.
- Regardless of what think of their the terms of use Disney's website, it is made clear that no user should download their logo and then upload it into Commons. Their terms state:
- "Except as we specifically agree in writing, no Content from any Site may be used other than as part of the Site, reproduced, transmitted, distributed or otherwise exploited in any way..."
- What this means is that the uploader broke the terms of use of Disney's website, even before the matter of copyright came into play ("Ex turpi causa non oritur actio)". If this is the case, I would recomend speedy deletion as the only remedy open to us. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:11, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
- "[...] it is sufficiently distinctive to identify Disney Junior in a recognisable way." This doesn't affect the copyright status, though. Check COM:TOO#United States for logos determined by the copyright office or a court to be in the public domain. Take the Best Western logo, for example. It is sufficiently distinctive to identify Best Western in a recognisable way, yet it isn't copyrighted in the United States. (By the way, it seems that the sentence I'm quoting might have been deleted while I was writing my reply...) --Stefan4 (talk) 12:19, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
- The issue here is that neither the copyright office nor a court has determined this logo to be beneath the threshold of originality - there is no third party evidence to support this view in this case. Secondly, I do not know whether this artwork has been registered as a logo, nor, thirdly, whether not COM:TOO can be applied to this image, as there isn't a reasonably objective test that could be applied. If there was some sort of test that we could use to identify this artwork as being beneath the threshold of reality, then we would not have to rely on hearsay alone to make this judgement.
- The only evidence we do have before us is that (a) the artwork was uploaded against the the terms of use of Disney's website, (b) Disney claims copyright over their work and (c) the image of the artwork is being used to identify Disney Junior ("fair use") in any case.
- The evidence is not very strong, I will admit, but in the absence of a third party ruling to the contrary, we have no alternative but to accept their claim at face value and delete this non-free image.--Gavin Collins (talk) 13:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
- Most of the images on COM:TOO are not those decided by courts and represent a really dangerous claim that Commons is not supposed to make. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:09, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
- COM:TOO includes File:Hercules 1998 Intertitle.png, which to me seems more original than this one. 117Avenue (talk) 02:14, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
- Decided by people mobbing up on it and not a court of law. That decision should have been overturned and people who are pushing the TOO there should have been considered to be blocked for disruption. Copyright is a serious matter and we are supposed to be overly cautious, not reckless. It is also used as a "decision" when there was only one vote, which is really, really problematic. The issue of the signature alone showed that people were not considering our policies properly. CC-BY-SA 3.0 needs to be met. The claims of PD are really bad. And Most TOO is only an argument for fair use or for a defense of something being "similar" but still mostly original. Not for clear commercial use of a work that is a 100% copy. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
- COM:TOO includes File:Hercules 1998 Intertitle.png, which to me seems more original than this one. 117Avenue (talk) 02:14, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
- "[...] it is sufficiently distinctive to identify Disney Junior in a recognisable way." This doesn't affect the copyright status, though. Check COM:TOO#United States for logos determined by the copyright office or a court to be in the public domain. Take the Best Western logo, for example. It is sufficiently distinctive to identify Best Western in a recognisable way, yet it isn't copyrighted in the United States. (By the way, it seems that the sentence I'm quoting might have been deleted while I was writing my reply...) --Stefan4 (talk) 12:19, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
- That Disney blanketly claims copyright over every shred of data on their web sites is not evidence that it actually is copyrighted. It certainly doesn't override established U.S. law regarding the threshhold of originality. That blanket notice doesn't allow them to copyright something that isn't copyrightable, and that includes simple letterforms and basic shapes. Powers (talk) 01:13, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry if I was not clear. I am looking at this image in terms of artwork, which I believe Disney claims copyright under their terms of use and their fair use policies.--Gavin Collins (talk) 13:16, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
- From your arguing, it sounded as if you were talking about trademarks. I'm not sure about the copyright status of this image, so I have no opinion. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, if I was arguing about trademark protection, I would have said so. What makes you think that this artwork does not have copyright protection? Has Disney said this, or is there some third party evidence to suggest this? --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:57, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Note: Someone uploaded a different version of the same logo today. I'm adding it to the deletion request since it's really the same logo. --Stefan4 (talk) 00:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per Carl Lindberg and precautionary principle. Not the easiest decision, but somebody finally had to make it. Rosenzweig τ 12:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
- Undeletion request: Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2012-01#File:Disney_Junior_Logo.png. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
