Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2011/11/06
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
![6 File:"Buran"_launch_at_Baikonur.JPEG](#File:"Buran"_launch_at_Baikonur.JPEG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![46 File:Ancien magasin Old England 2008.jpg (previously under "File:Ancien magasin Old England.jpg")](#File:Ancien_magasin_Old_England_2008.jpg_(previously_under_"File:Ancien_magasin_Old_England.jpg")){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
,_Brussel.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
![106 File:Ester_Dean_in_"Pitch_Perfect"_movie_set.jpg](#File:Ester_Dean_in_"Pitch_Perfect"_movie_set.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
lol Lucifer569 (talk) 04:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Yann (talk) 06:10, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
There is no evidence of permission Lucifer569 (talk) 04:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept: No valid reason for deletion. Revenge. Yann (talk) 06:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Might not be PD-EU sadly Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:23, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- Although some further checks, indicate the above might be a hasty viewpoint. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- Speedy, Not even PD-US(per Renewal 25483(415) ) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:06, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Sfan00 IMG (the uploader) found out the file was not free yet. MGA73 (talk) 15:25, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Undeleted. Uploader found new info. --MGA73 (talk) 20:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
per Mr Cavada's views that Wikipedia is "“to the detriment of the entire European cultural sector”. (quoted here -https://juliareda.eu/2015/06/who-is-behind-the-attack-on-freedom-of-panorama/ ) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:07, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Keep We shouldn't care about Cavada's nonsense, and he is wrong anyway. It is Cavada who is 'to the detriment of the entire European cultural sector'. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:38, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
- Withdrawn - per advice offwiki.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:13, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Withdrawn by nominator. FDMS 4 14:42, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
The reason for requesting deletion is partly a user request, and partly for technical reasons. This arrangment was developed before the scoring extension for music was present on Wikimedia projects, and a better version could now be made by working from the original score. The instrumentation used is not ideal, and although passable a transposed piccolo for a fife is not ideal, I am also of the view that the tempo may be wrong, something that as I no longer have the original Musescore file is not easy to remedy ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:24, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Comment. How does this deletion rationale relate to Commons policies ? — Racconish 💬 19:56, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- Commons generally does not retain low quality material. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:57, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- Is there a better option ? — Racconish 💬 20:30, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
There's a c. 1910's archival recording, IIRC. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:30, 9 June 2018 (UTC)- Better there's this File:British Grenadiers.ogg, which is direct recording of an actual performance.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:32, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- Fine. So why don't you simply use {{Superseded}} ? Do we really need to delete this version ? — Racconish 💬 20:36, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- Commons generally does not retain low quality material. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:57, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Kept: as per User:Racconish, no valid reason for deletion. P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:39, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
This is stated as a PD USGov thing, but the website doesn't seem to say it's a US gov operation, and the image in question has author/source unknown. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:05, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
![20:05, 6 November 2011 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2011/11/06#c-Mattbuck-2011-11-06T20:05:00.000Z-File:"Buran"_launch_at_Baikonur.JPEG){kind=link}
- Well, defenceimagery.mil is a website that hosts all US Military-produced images. This exact image was posted in «Soviet Military Power» magazine made by DIA. It's definetely an US goverment work. James R. Nockson (talk) 20:10, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Speedy keeping this. The website states it is from en:Soviet Military Power, which is a US Defence Department publication, and hence is PD-USGov. russavia (talk) 20:10, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
![20:10, 6 November 2011 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2011/11/06#c-Russavia-2011-11-06T20:10:00.000Z-File:"Buran"_launch_at_Baikonur.JPEG){kind=link}
The image at the flickr source has a watermark and according to the filename "Brazils-Shelda-Bede-hugs-teammate-Adriana-Behar-0000002017" the flickr user simply copied from http://news.dipag.com/photo-Brazils-Shelda-Bede-hugs-teammate-Adriana-Behar-0000002017.html Martin H. (talk) 04:06, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Speedied as copyvio. Rosenzweig τ 20:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Possible copyvio? Smaller version found here. Image metadata says MS Photo Gallery, -mattbuck (Talk) 20:08, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, it is here http://konarskakrystyna.pl/data/mp/_admin800x600/445/konarska_sesja_2_001.jpg since Di 03 Mai 2011 14:32:46 CEST (according to the webserver). I'd say that we need permission from the artist (whoever it is) as it seems to have been published externally first (our file is from 2011-11-06). Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 20:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- Plik jest skanem mojego obrazu - WYKONAŁEM GO WŁASNYMI RĘKOMA! - przedstawiającego moją znajomą, Panią Krystynę Konarską. Obraz został podarowany Pani Krystynie i zaakceptowany przez Nią do dowolnych publikacji związanych z jej osobą. Mam nadzieję, że nie każecie mi prosić Pani Krystyny o świstek papieru potwierdzający moje słowa.
The file is a scanned my paintings - executed it with his own hands! - showing my friend, Ms. Krystyna Konarska. The painting was given to Mrs. Krystyna and accepted by her to any publication associated with the person. I hope that you bid me not to ask Ms. Krystyna about a piece of paper confirming my words.
Lemarx , artist :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lemarx (talk • contribs) 2011-11-06T21:18:42 (UTC)- Thank you for your comment Lemarx! :-) Usually I would say it is okay then... But: Can you comment on the many apparent copyright violations you had uploaded? (All the red links here in your log) Were those wrong deletions? Thank you! --Saibo (Δ) 23:08, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello Saibo :)
All of these collections come from the Internet, open, non-commercial movie databases that promote Polish and Czechoslovakian films - does not therefore infringe any copyrights (http://www.filmpolski.pl/fp/index.php/122235 , http://www.uloz.to/5893496/prazske-noci-cssr-1968-cb-barevny-mpg and other). Others are my paintings or photographs. Ms. Teresa Tuszyńska no longer alive, but her family have agreed to promote her memory. I am the author of her tombstone, and her painting portraits. SHOW magazine cover photo of March 1963 is simply a quote.
Regards and thanks, Lemarx :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lemarx (talk • contribs) 2011-11-07T00:22:48 (UTC)
- Hi again Lemarx! Oh, good that we spoke about - you do have some misunderstanding about what Commons is. Please read the intro of COM:L. You will notice that "non-commercial" only is not allowed at Commons. Neither is copyrighted content which is a "quote". Please do not upload quotes or content which is not available for everybody, for every use (including commercial). If there are still files with a blue link in your log which are quotes or non-commercial only, please tell us/me. We need to delete them, sorry.
- If you are the painter of this portrait and she / her heirs have agreed that a portrait of her will be published it is fine. Feel free to comment again - this whole page is for us. ;-) --Saibo (Δ) 02:30, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi Saibo :)
Thank you for the interpretations of the rules. So they just understand. My publications are purely for promotion of Polish culture and do not violate any laws in force in Poland. Please, therefore, to restore my "red" files because they satisfy the conditions of publication. Of course I supplement descriptions associated with authors, dates, etc.
I greet and thank you, Lemarx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lemarx (talk • contribs) 2011-11-07T23:06:49 (UTC)
The painting is an own work of the uploader, kept. odder (talk) 14:37, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
These deformed file cannot be PD-TR. Because, 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) 14:13, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: by Denniss. Yann (talk) 22:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
siwx porno 196.206.9.248 16:20, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- Excuse me? This doesn't make any sense as a rationale for deletion. Please expand/explain... Tabercil (talk) 16:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept: No reason for deletion. Yann (talk) 22:07, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Bad name, typo Kusurija (talk) 16:30, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: by Romaine. Yann (talk) 22:08, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
- File:Nursultan Nazarbayev ve Cumhurbaşkanı Abdullah Gül.jpg
- File:Barack Obama and Abdullah Gül.jpg
- File:Cristina Fernández de Kirchner and Abdullah Gül.jpg
- File:Asif Ali Zardari and Abdullah Gül(2011).jpg
- File:K-20101019-almanya-25-karsilama.jpg
- File:11.President Repuclic Of Turkey.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Copyvio. But Uploader said to me that he got permission of Kurumsal İletişim Başkanlığı. Their permission have to be proven. As long as I understand, we need tickets of OTRS. Otherwise, these images must be deleted. Thank you.
Takabeg (talk) 16:53, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: by Denniss. Yann (talk) 22:08, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Out of scope personal image. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete +File:Copia de 27-07-11 081924.jpg ■ MMXX talk 00:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)- Delete Not Facebook. --Onewhohelps (talk) 18:23, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 22:09, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm not certain the interface is copyrightable or if it falls under COM:TOO →AzaToth 22:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: by Mattbuck. Yann (talk) 22:10, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
By request of the author GaiJin (talk) 06:34, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 13:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
copyvio? . HombreDHojalata.talk 09:10, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No source, no permission. Yann (talk) 13:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
small unused pic, possibly out of scope AtelierMonpli (talk) 10:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 13:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
pic from website http://www.claracampese.it/clara/curriculum.htm , no evidence that it is free Funfood Funtalk 18:35, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. Yann (talk) 13:44, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
not own work, author died 1999 Avron (talk) 20:05, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: DW. Yann (talk) 13:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Unreasonable redirect Palnatoke (talk) 20:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete: redirect from now-unused filename. --Closeapple (talk) 04:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 13:49, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
unused private image. JuTa 21:24, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 13:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
not in use, low quality, no conceivable educational use smial (talk) 21:46, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No source, no permission. Yann (talk) 13:40, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
not in use, low quality, no conceivable educational use smial (talk) 21:47, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No source, no permission. Yann (talk) 13:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
This building has been designed by Serge Zoppi in 1954, less than 70 years ago. That meens it's still copyrighted. As there is no FOP in France, this picture should be deleted. Pymouss Let’s talk - 00:22, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:05, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Copyvio extremely likely: http://www.ufa.de/allgemeines/impressum/ Sitacuisses (talk) 00:30, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:05, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Copyvio extremely likely: http://www.ufa.de/allgemeines/impressum/ Sitacuisses (talk) 00:31, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:05, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Copyvio extremely likely. Sitacuisses (talk) 00:31, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:05, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Author appears to be subject of a clearly not-self-taken photograph. No metadata makes me suspect a copyvio. Please don't bite the newbie, but his other upload was a copyvio. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:35, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:06, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
(Warning: disturbing medical images). Almost certainly a copyvio. Taken from http://www.rmj.ru/articles_2689.htm . Kramer Associates (talk) 02:34, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
suspecting not own work, there is not any meta data Coekon (talk) 04:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio, multiple Google Images hits available prior to Commons upload. Rosenzweig τ 20:48, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
There is no evidence that Paul Harkin, author of the photo, has given permission for its use. Diannaa (talk) 05:35, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Not own work. Probably reupload of slightly modified version of File:Missionary style.svg in a "friend's" name. MagnusA (talk) 05:44, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- See also previosly (speedy?) deleted File:Dubbelmacka.jpg probably uploaded by the same user. --MagnusA (talk) 05:53, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
With regret; but sculptor Theo Akkermann died only in 1982 and FOP of Germany does not cover in-house views. -- Túrelio (talk) 09:15, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:17, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
With regret; but sculptor Theo Akkermann died only in 1982 and FOP of Germany does not cover in-house views. -- Túrelio (talk) 09:17, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:17, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
No COM:FOP#France. According to French law, it is not allowed to publish picture whose the main subject is an original building (or original creation) until 70 years after the death of its author. Unless prior authorization by the author or his heirs. The "colonnes de Buren" are an original object achieved in 1985. Tangopaso (talk) 10:33, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:17, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
No COM:FOP#France. According to French law, it is not allowed to publish picture whose the main subject is an original building (or original creation) until 70 years after the death of its author. Unless prior authorization by the author or his heirs. The "colonnes de Buren" are an original object achieved in 1985. Tangopaso (talk) 10:33, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:18, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
No COM:FOP#France. According to French law, it is not allowed to publish picture whose the main subject is an original building (or original creation) until 70 years after the death of its author. Unless prior authorization by the author or his heirs. The "colonnes de Buren" are an original object achieved in 1985. Tangopaso (talk) 10:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:18, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
No COM:FOP#France. According to French law, it is not allowed to publish picture whose the main subject is an original building (or original creation) until 70 years after the death of its author. Unless prior authorization by the author or his heirs. The "colonnes de Buren" are an original object achieved in 1985. Tangopaso (talk) 10:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:18, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
all other images by uploader where obvious copyvios. I don't see why this one is not a copyvio too (no exif, size ..) Amada44 talk to me 11:17, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:18, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
no source and author, texture can be found on various websites, copyright not clear Funfood Funtalk 12:23, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:19, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
No FOP in France. Architect Pierre Chirol died in 1953, so this building will be freely pictured only in 2024. Pymouss Let’s talk - 13:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:19, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
This looks like a screenshot. -- Deadstar (msg) 13:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- No info to the uploader was made with the request. Please keep the file for some time longer if he wants to prove legality. --Funfood (talk) 09:47, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:19, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Copyright belongs to Taiwan R.O.C. government 124.244.189.247 14:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:19, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
The architects, André Lurçat, Gustave and Auguste Perret are dead in 1970, 1952 and 1954. Their buildings are protected by copyright because there isn't FoP in France. Miniwark (talk) 11:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:19, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
The architect is dead in 1952. No FOP in Belgium. M0tty (talk) 19:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete agree with nom. No FoP in Belgium and within 70 year copyright of death of architect. Warfieldian (talk) 01:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:20, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
File:Ancien magasin Old England 2008.jpg (previously under "File:Ancien magasin Old England.jpg")
[edit]
The architect is dead in 1952. No FOP in Belgium. M0tty (talk) 19:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Could you point us to the legal text in Belgium that would need the removal of this page? As droit d'auteur/"copyright" applies for architect on plans and sketches not on a photography of the performed/executed work by the builder. AlexandreDulaunoy (talk) 21:44, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: You will find a reference in the Belgium section at COM:FOP Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:20, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
no FOP in Belgium Agramonte48 (talk) 16:35, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:12, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
The architect is dead in 1952. No FOP in Belgium. M0tty (talk) 19:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete agree with nom, no FoP in Belgium and building within 70 year copyright of architect's death. Warfieldian (talk) 01:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:21, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
The architect is dead in 1952. No FOP in Belgium. M0tty (talk) 19:43, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:21, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
The architect is dead in 1952. No FOP in Belgium. M0tty (talk) 19:46, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:21, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
,_Brussel.jpg){kind=link}
,_Brussel.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
The architect is dead in 1952. No FOP in Belgium. M0tty (talk) 19:43, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
,_Brussel.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete agree with nom. No FoP in Belgium. Warfieldian (talk) 01:04, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, indeed, no freedom of panorama in Belgium. Kameraad Pjotr 13:05, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:21, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
,_Brussel.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No FOP in France. The architects of this building died less than 70 years ago : Joseph Marrast (1881-1971) and Jacques Droz (1882-1955). Pymouss Let’s talk - 14:23, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:21, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
The original author of the drawing take by the photographer is not cited and/or unknown, therefore this work may not be free. Miniwark (talk) 12:08, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:22, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
The original author of the drawing take by the photographer is not cited and/or unknown, therefore this work may not be free. Miniwark (talk) 12:03, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:22, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
The original author of the drawing take by the photographer is not cited and/or unknown, therefore this work may not be free. Miniwark (talk) 12:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:22, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
The original author of the drawing take by the photographer is not cited and/or unknown, therefore this work may not be free. Miniwark (talk) 12:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:22, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Copyright violation. Work of art by Arnold Haukeland (1920-1983). The monument is the main object of the photo and the title of the file says so too. 46.15.5.52 15:07, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:23, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
File:Ancien Musée National des Arts Africains et Océaniens, devenu Cité nationale de l'histoire de l'Immigration.jpg
[edit]
The sculptor, Alfred Janniot is dead in 1969. His creationss are protected by copyright because there isn't FoP in France. Miniwark (talk) 10:26, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Source unknown, non-authorized reproduction of a poster Yanguas (talk) 15:22, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Simple text, out of Commons:Project scope. Martin H. (talk) 15:47, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Looks to be a photo of a copyrighted image. Perhaps I'm wrong? Themightyquill (talk) 16:14, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Copyright violation. A side-view of one DVD itself isn't copyrightable, since it's just typeface, but all the DVDs put together make the 007 gun symbol, which is copyrightable and copyrighted. Albacore (talk) 16:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:25, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
At least one of the architects isn't dead since 70 years ( René Levavasseur) . As there's no-fop in France, this picture can"t be free. Symac (talk) 16:28, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- and File:GareMaritime-Cherbourg03.jpg, File:GareMaritime-Cherbourg02.jpg Symac (talk) 16:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:25, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
for me it seems to be a small resolution of a professional photo. The uploader has claimed other picture as his own work which istn't true, so I don't know if we can trust him here. Avron (talk) 17:33, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:26, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
personal image for user page that i no longer use Evan-Amos (talk) 19:20, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:26, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
personal image for user page that i no longer use Evan-Amos (talk) 19:20, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:26, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
personal image for user page that i no longer use Evan-Amos (talk) 19:21, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:26, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
personal image for user page that i no longer use Evan-Amos (talk) 19:21, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:26, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
personal image for user page that i no longer use Evan-Amos (talk) 19:21, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:26, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
personal image for user page that i no longer use Evan-Amos (talk) 19:22, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Delete per image nom and owner. Missvain (talk) 15:43, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:26, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
not own work, author died 1981 Avron (talk) 19:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:27, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
not own work, author died 1981 Avron (talk) 19:51, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:27, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
not own work, author died 1968 Avron (talk) 20:02, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:27, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
not useful already upload as "Mauritius (+dependencies).svg" Kingroyos (talk) 20:22, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:27, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
no notabilityi copyright violation Reality006 (talk) 03:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
delete Ertu is not the copyright holder of this work. Takabeg (talk) 22:19, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope. Article was deleted too George Chernilevsky talk 09:17, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
no notability Reality006 (talk) 03:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
delete Out of scope. Takabeg (talk) 22:35, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 09:17, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
no notability Reality006 (talk) 03:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
delete Out of scope. Takabeg (talk) 22:34, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 09:17, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Pointless personal graffiti. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 09:22, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
error Nathalie Vidal (talk) 20:51, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- Speedy delete. Like the uploader's request says, upload mistake. -- Asclepias (talk) 00:54, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- Without OTRS-permission delete--Motopark (talk) 11:25, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- DeleteMissing permission and the uploader states that he made a mistake. --Onewhohelps (talk) 18:28, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: uploader's request, out of scope, copyvio George Chernilevsky talk 09:25, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
File:La fontaine des Jacobins pendant la fête des lumières 2010 à Lyon (2ème arrondissement).JPG
[edit].JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
.JPG&action=edit){kind=link}
.JPG&diff=0){kind=link}
.JPG&action=history){kind=link}
.JPG&action=watch){kind=link}
.JPG&action=unwatch){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=purge){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&preload=Commons:Deletion_requests/preload){kind=link}
.JPG&action=delete){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
Copyvio. No Fop in France. Per Commons:Deletion requests/Fête des lumières. TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 09:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Old monument. No copyright on light. Yann (talk) 22:11, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
The argument for Category:Fête des lumières is wrong. 1. There is no copyright on light. 2. Even on the Eiffel tower, there is a copyright only for the show La Mode en Images, which is a complex show with sound, animations, and fireworks. No such thing here, these are just some colored light. Yann (talk) 13:54, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Copyvio. No Fop in France. Per Commons:Deletion requests/Fête des lumières. TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 09:08, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Old monument. No copyright on light. Yann (talk) 22:11, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
The argument for Category:Fête des lumières is wrong. 1. There is no copyright on light. 2. Even on the Eiffel tower, there is a copyright only for the show La Mode en Images, which is a complex show with sound, animations, and fireworks. No such thing here, these are just some colored light. Yann (talk) 13:54, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Copyvio. No Fop in France. Per Commons:Deletion requests/Fête des lumières. TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 09:06, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Old monument. Yann (talk) 22:08, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Больше не нужен для моего проэкта. Соков Антон (talk) 12:06, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 22:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
The architect of the Louvre pyramid (and fontains), Ieoh Ming Pei is alive. As there is no freedom of panorama in France, this image is a copyvio. Miniwark (talk) 10:30, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Pyramid can't be seen on this picture and the fountain can't be considered as the main subject of the picture. Pymouss Let’s talk - 11:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep General overview. The perspective was taken from a low camera location but the subject (and the name of the file) is the whole yard. We can crop a part of the fountain if needed, because it's not the main subject depicted here. Jeriby (talk) 15:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept: De minimis. Yann (talk) 22:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
The architect of the Louvre pyramid, Ieoh Ming Pei is alive. As there is no freedom of panorama in France, this image is a copyvio. Miniwark (talk) 10:21, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - De minimis, and this little thing in the corner is just a sky light anyway. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:30, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep, the pyramid is De minimis. Jeriby (talk) 15:34, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep clear case of de minimis. --ELEKHHT 07:25, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept: De minimis. Yann (talk) 22:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
suspecting it is not own work, because there is not any meta data Coekon (talk) 20:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: no source, no permission, and out of scope. Yann (talk) 22:17, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Completing an incomplete DR. --JuTa 21:10, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- Quote: Das Bild war bereits eingestellt, wurde aber mangels URV bereits schon einmal gelöscht; siehe hier. Hildesia (Diskussion) 19:24, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- Well, there is an {{OTRS pending}} on the description page. We should wait for the results of it. --JuTa 21:11, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep OTRS permission received. --Krd (talk) 13:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept. – Kwj2772 (msg) 15:33, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
There's no evidence that the text in this file is in the public domain or available under anything that qualifies as a free license on Commons. Nyttend (talk) 22:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted as per nom - there is also no FOP in the US for non-buildings russavia (talk) 03:24, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
copyright violation Reality006 (talk) 00:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom, possibly pd-textlogo, but IMHO it's got sufficient artistic merit 99of9 (talk) 10:08, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work Kramer Associates (talk) 02:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Not available at supposed source. Own work license doesn't make much sense given that it was from elsewhere. User only uploaded one other image. 99of9 (talk) 10:12, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
I uploaded it with the wrong title/description, it's actually a different statue in a different hall. Will re-upload with right description. Please nuke this. TimBray (talk) 11:33, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- Please use {{Rename}} instead, and then edit the description as usual. --99of9 (talk) 10:16, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept: per my comment 99of9 (talk) 10:16, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
suspecting it is not own work, there is not any meta data Coekon (talk) 20:35, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: found on http://digilander.libero.it/uda/Illorai/Foto%201.html Túrelio (talk) 10:30, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
author is listed as someone other than the uploader Eeekster (talk) 04:30, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Kindly email OTRS to verify the copyright status Bencmq (talk) 08:55, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Request by the author. ~ GaiJin (talk) 06:30, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, speedy. Jorgenev (talk) 03:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Bencmq (talk) 08:56, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
ชื่อซ้ำครับ อยากเปลี่ยชื่อใหม่ สมภพ เจ้าเก่า (talk) 14:12, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Done renamed file. Papatt (talk) 14:43, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- Kept redirects if appropriate; otherwise Delete --G(x) (talk) 14:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. FASTILY (TALK) 10:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
suspecting it is not own work, because there is not any meta data Coekon (talk) 20:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Bencmq (talk) 08:57, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
suspecting it is not own work, because there is not any meta data Coekon (talk) 20:02, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Bencmq (talk) 08:57, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
suspecting it is not own work, because there is not any meta data Coekon (talk) 20:02, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Bencmq (talk) 08:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure the logo is simple enough to be PD, meaning this lacks permission. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Not used anywhere. Probably falls outside the scope of the project. Bencmq (talk) 08:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
suspecting it is not own work, because there is not any meta data Coekon (talk) 20:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Bencmq (talk) 08:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Completing an incomplete DR. --JuTa 00:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- Quote: I want to delete this personal picture of me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Palatinatian (talk • contribs) 2011-11-04T22:13:35 (UTC)
- Comment I now added the template {{Recht am eigenen Bild}}. --JuTa 00:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. Respect personal wish. No explicit need or educational value in photo, so will not be missed. --P199 (talk) 16:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 19:15, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
I did some digging and this unused file is not correct according to Mexican law. In 2000 regulations issued http://compilacion.ordenjuridico.gob.mx/fichaOrdenamiento.php?idArchivo=3755&ambito=FEDERAL the correct pattern is http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bandera_Presidencial_Mexico-comandante_supremo_buques.svg where the national arms is replaced by that of the Mexican Navy Emblem. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 07:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Deleted. MBisanz talk 19:15, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
not own work as stated, author died 1989 Avron (talk) 19:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 19:16, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
not own work, author died 1965 Avron (talk) 20:04, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 19:17, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Photograph of a 2007 drawing taken in Scotland, as a graphic work it is not covered by UK freedom of panorama. January (talk) 22:12, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 19:41, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Uploader has previously uploaded a copyright violation and claimed it as his/her own work. Current image is of web resolution and taken in a place where access would be difficult, so it is suspect. Have been unable to find a source image. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:34, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
![23:34, 6 November 2011 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2011/11/06#c-Crisco_1492-2011-11-06T23:34:00.000Z-File:Ester_Dean_in_"Pitch_Perfect"_movie_set.jpg){kind=link}
- Agree - Sauloviegas (talk) 11:14, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Looks like it's cropped from this, which pre-dates the upload to Commons. January (talk) 19:39, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Delete per January. PancakeMistake (talk) 14:18, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 19:17, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
![19:17, 18 December 2011 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2011/11/06#c-MBisanz-2011-12-18T19:17:00.000Z-File:Ester_Dean_in_"Pitch_Perfect"_movie_set.jpg){kind=link}
Completing an incomplete DR. --JuTa 00:02, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- Quote: request of file uploader — Preceding unsigned comment added by U.Steele (talk • contribs) 2011-11-05T18:40:55 (UTC)
- Image is in use but seems to be a cpvio from http://vkontakte.ru/album-1749752_93395346. Delete until OTRS-release provided. --JuTa 00:02, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- It's not copyvio, but I want to delete this image because I want to upload own files. This picture don't use now. Delete, please.--U.Steele (talk) 07:12, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. shizhao (talk) 14:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
The logo is a fair use logo. Not suitable in common. You draw an idenical svg logo, it still copyrighted. Matthew hk (talk) 08:46, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- Despite it is somewhat better than this one en:file:Nejmeh Club Beirut.jpg. Matthew hk (talk) 08:47, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. shizhao (talk) 14:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
The architects, André Lurçat, Gustave and Auguste Perret are dead in 1970, 1952 and 1954. Their buildings are protected by copyright because there isn't FoP in France. Miniwark (talk) 11:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- Comment The different villas on the "Villa Seurat" lot were designed by distinct architects, not by the three together. Please identify which villa is this one, as that would affect copyright status / undelete date.--ELEKHHT 03:55, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Neutral but the originality of the building is a little limited here... Jeriby (talk) 15:23, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:19, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Église Saint-Louis de Vincennes
[edit]No FOP in France. The architects of this building died less than 70 years ago : Joseph Marrast (1881-1971) and Jacques Droz (1882-1955).
- File:Eglise Saint-Louis (entrée principale).jpg
- File:Eglise Saint-Louis (façade).jpg
- File:Eglise Saint-Louis (fresque murale latérale droite).jpg
- File:Eglise Saint-Louis (fresque murale latérale gauche).jpg
- File:Eglise Saint-Louis (fresque plafond du parvis).jpg
- File:Eglise Saint-Louis (plafond).jpg
- File:Eglise Saint-Louis (statue du gardien).jpg
- File:Eglise Saint-Louis fresque.jpg
- File:Eglise Saint-Louis.jpg
- File:Vincennes Saint-Louis364.JPG
- File:Vincennes Saint-Louis366.JPG
- File:Vincennes Saint-Louis367.jpg
- File:Vincennes Saint-Louis368.JPG
- File:Vincennes Saint-Louis371.JPG
- File:Vincennes Saint-Louis373.JPG
- File:Vincennes Saint-Louis375.JPG
- File:Vincennes Saint-Louis377.JPG
- File:Vincennes Saint-Louis84.JPG
- File:Vincennes Saint-Louis85.JPG
- File:Vincennes Saint-Louis86.JPG
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
--Pymouss Let’s talk - 14:56, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:22, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
File contains a derivative work of the Eiffel Tower lights in a non de minimis setting in France which has no freedom of panorama exception meaning the uploader cannot issue a valid license without the consent of the SETE ("Société d’Exploitation de la Tour Eiffel" - the Eiffel Tower’s operating company) who adorned the Tower with lights in 2003 and copyrighted the overall spectacle. Although daytime views from the Eiffel Tower are rights-free, its various illuminations are subject to author’s rights as well as brand rights. Usage of these images is subject to prior request from the SETE. Therefore, the light display is protected under copyright, except in a wide panoramic view of Paris. In a seperate case regarding lightong on the Eiffel Tower, the SNTE installed a special sound and light show on the tower in 1989 for the tower's 100th anniversary; the Court of Cassation, France's judicial court of last resort, decided that the lights on the Eiffel Tower constituted an "original visual creation" and upheld the protection by copyright. Therefore, photos that clearly display elements of the lights are copyright violations. It doesn't matter what time of day the photo is taken, if the lights are visible, it's a copyvio. Also see c.f. Newell, Freedom of Panorama. A Comparative Look at International Restrictions on Public Photography. Creighton Law Review, 44(2), p. 405-27, p. 412: "The tower remains in the public domain and photographers can freely photograph the tower during the day, but any images taken after the lighting installation is lit up at dusk are subject to copyright restrictions and licensing requirements." --~ Grcampbell (talk) 05:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- Same as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Eiffel Tower Lighting up Paris.jpg -- Docu at 06:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- It is the same text as the same text applies. Commons practice is to nominate individually, not ensemble. Plus your undeletion request that you have posted has no merit. The company claims copyright and we abide by Commons:PRP. --Grcampbell (talk) 06:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- Please disclose any links you may have with SETE or EdF. -- Docu at 06:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- Wrong direction. CU, perhaps. NVO (talk) 06:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- It's not a CU issue, but I think it's something we can expect Grcampbell to disclose in this type of DR. -- Docu at 04:47, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- I have nothing to disclose. Bringing up this type of thing stinks of attacking the user, not the arguments. Please refrain from attacking users and casting doubt on good faith edits by a smear campaign. Bloody disgusting behavior. --Grcampbell (talk) 04:54, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
- Please disclose any links you may have with SETE or EdF. -- Docu at 06:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- It is the same text as the same text applies. Commons practice is to nominate individually, not ensemble. Plus your undeletion request that you have posted has no merit. The company claims copyright and we abide by Commons:PRP. --Grcampbell (talk) 06:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept: just ordinary electric light is not eligible for copyright Jcb (talk) 10:13, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
The night-time light display of their sound and light show is protected under copyright Symac (talk) 16:19, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- How is that related to this image? -- Docu at 16:55, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: 1. This image does not picture the (LMEI) sound and light show. 2. It never was their (SNTE/SETE) show. 3. The original nomination tried to cover its argument under a varnish of respectability by quoting a review, but when you look at the chain of sources you realize that this review merely borrowed a comment from a Wikipedia article, which in turn merely borrowed that comment from some internet blogger [1] who was reporting SNTE's view. So the nomination ends up presenting as authority what is actually nothing more than a blogger's report of SNTE's claim. Stripped of its fancy packaging, the argument boils down to "SETE claims that it is so". Which we already knew and which only brings us back to the starting point and the same old debate. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:13, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept as per Asclepias and Jcb. Yann (talk) 07:01, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
(applies to the system message itself, all translations and all talk pages) Seems to have been superseded by MediaWiki:Wikimedia-copyright. Got deleted in https://translatewiki.net/wiki/MediaWiki:Copyright at 5. Jan. 2007. Search results seem to show only links from 2006. E.g this: Commons:Help_page_maintenance/Wikimedia_Commons_interface#MediaWiki:Copyright. There are also subpages with translations which can go: [2].
A previous discussion was at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#HTTPS security Saibo (Δ) 19:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete it. Nothing worth saving. Rocket000 (talk) 01:17, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Ok I'll do it. :) Rocket000 (talk) 03:14, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
User did not allow picture to be uploaded Michroze (talk) 15:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
- But you were the person who uploaded it... I say Delete anyway on grounds of unused personal image. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:19, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
- I think you can manually delete it Mike, but will the bots take care of it? -Robertzhu (Talk) 17:18, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
- Users cannot delete their own photos, or anyone else's - it has to be done by an admin. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
- I just nominated it for speedy deletion, it is quite urgent for the picture owner for this to be removed -Robertzhu (Talk) 21:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- I fail to see how this is urgent, given it's been here for 3 years. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:46, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Innapropriate Material Michroze (talk) 22:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Fine, deleted, good riddance. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- Reverted to the previous unencumbered image. No person is now pictured. Possible non-free image in background is now gone, so deletion reason no longer applies.
- 'Admin: please delete the uploaded image dated 13:26, 3 May 2011, 596 × 338 (48 KB), by ELeschev. Thank you. --Lexein (talk) 04:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Done Can be archived now. --McZusatz (talk) 11:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: The version in question deleted by User:George Chernilevsky. / Версия удалена. / La versio forigitas. AVRS (talk) 13:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Die Bezeichnung "Zollingerdach" im Dateinamen ist von mir falsch gewählt worden, es muss heißen "Bohlendach" Klein Schneen" 2. JPG. Bitte umbenennen. Presse03 (talk) 22:17, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep, no reason to delete. Presse03, you can use {{Rename}} to request file renaming. MKFI (talk) 15:47, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
No FOP in France, Architects are Lucien Lefort (died in 1916) and Pierre Chirol (died in 1952). Pierre Chirol finished the building after the death of Lucien Lefort who only achieved the fundament of the building. PierreSelim (talk) 10:47, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- Comment An architect had a double role: they design the building, and provide engineering assistance during the construction phase. In this case, we must check whether Pierre Chirol only carried on with Lefort's design, in which case there is no new copyright, or whether he changed the initial plans. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 11:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- I Agree with that. PierreSelim (talk) 11:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- I agree too... --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 13:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: apparently nobody actually checked, so per the precautionary principle I'll assume the second option is true. Rosenzweig τ 21:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be PD-US, per http://imslp.org/wiki/Bol%C3%A9ro_(Ravel,_Maurice). Work was first performed in 1928 and first published in 1929. Ravel died in 1937. There's an excellent case to be made for fair use, IMO, but that's not valid here. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:04, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep, Ravel dies more than 70 years, no? (but sure the author of Bolero is not LITTLEJAZZMAN, this file is a composite file, authors are Ravel first, LITTEJAZZMAN only for drawing) --MGuf (d) 11:05, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- What the nomination says is that it is copyrighted per notice at the time of publication in the United States. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- Added dates of publication and author's death to nomination for clarity. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- What the nomination says is that it is copyrighted per notice at the time of publication in the United States. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept: PD. See http://www.les-infostrateges.com/article/1201392/le-casse-tete-du-calcul-de-la-duree-du-droit-d-auteur Yann (talk) 17:12, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2023 (95 years after publication). JuTa 22:34, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted URAA . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be PD-US, per http://imslp.org/wiki/Bol%C3%A9ro_(Ravel,_Maurice). Work was first performed in 1928 and first published in 1929. Ravel died in 1937. There's an excellent case to be made for fair use, IMO, but that's not valid here. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep, Ravel dies more than 70 years, no? (but sure the author of Bolero is not LITTLEJAZZMAN, this file is a composite file, authors are Ravel first, LITTEJAZZMAN only for drawing) --MGuf (d) 11:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept: PD. See http://www.les-infostrateges.com/article/1201392/le-casse-tete-du-calcul-de-la-duree-du-droit-d-auteur Yann (talk) 17:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2023 (95 years after publication). JuTa 22:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Ravel died in 1937, his work should have been PD 50 years later on 1/1/1988 (plus war prolongations), but three years before the 85-660 law switched the rights to 70 years for musical compositions, so it was still not PD until 2008 in France. The file (and the likes) should be transferred to the French wikipedia. Biem (talk) 07:17, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted URAA . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:13, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be PD-US, per http://imslp.org/wiki/Bol%C3%A9ro_(Ravel,_Maurice). Work was first performed in 1928 and first published in 1929. Ravel died in 1937. There's an excellent case to be made for fair use, IMO, but that's not valid here. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep, Ravel dies more than 70 years, no? (but sure the author of Bolero is not LITTLEJAZZMAN, this file is a composite file, authors are Ravel first, LITTEJAZZMAN only for drawing) ----MGuf (d) 10:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, see Commons:Deletion requests/Music of Ravel. Graham87 (talk) 01:30, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept: PD. See http://www.les-infostrateges.com/article/1201392/le-casse-tete-du-calcul-de-la-duree-du-droit-d-auteur Yann (talk) 17:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
</noinclude> This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2023 (95 years after publication). JuTa 22:31, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted URAA . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:15, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Contains a derivative of the photograph of John Paul II on the banner that is not de minimis, and there is insufficient evidence to show that it is in the public domain. There is no freedom of panorama in the Vatican City: see "Commons:Freedom of panorama#Vatican City (Holy See)". — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 20:44, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- If it was showing the entire plaza during the ceremony, with the photo of John Paul II as an unavoidable element, I think it would have been OK -- but I can't say that about this, which seems focused on the displayed photo in particular. The only other chance is that the underlying photo itself is PD. The Vatican mostly applies Italian copyright law, and if so, the copyright term on that type of photo would be 20 years from creation (not just publication). If so, this may be OK in Italy (the presumed country of origin of the uploaded photo) if it was taken in 1990 or earlier. That does seem to be a photo from earlier in John Paul II's career, so that is fairly likely, but I have not found the actual date it is from (it is probably a photo of the pope giving mass, but not completely sure when). The new Vatican copyright law (from March 2011) is here; from Google Translate it appears to explicitly apply Italian copyright law plus any future amendments, unless overridden by other provisions in that law or other Vatican laws. They are trying to protect the Pope's image, and it does appear that they claim strong moral rights and personality rights to the Pope's image and voice (perfectly in line with European law), and do explicitly state that the Vatican owns the copyright on all works published under their name or executed on their behalf, and gives a copyright term of 70pma or 70 years from publication on those works. Of course, under Italian copyright law, these snapshot-like photos are not "works" but rather just photographs. I don't see anything which obviously overrides the 20-year term for snapshot photos in Italian law, but the situation is a bit fuzzy. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:58, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: The title makes clear that this image must be from the May 1, 2011 ceremony of beatification of the late Pope John Paul II. A TV news report zeroes in on the same image here. (See "Fast Track to Sainthood.") I have reservations about the decorative border on the image as submitted. — Alarob (talk) 21:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
- The uploaded photo is fine -- that was licensed (including whatever border is there, which can be removed if desired), and yes the date it was taken is clear. The question is the photo which was put up in the square -- that was taken when Pope John Paul II was alive, I'm pretty sure ;-), so that was not 2011 - my question is when. The uploaded photo would be considered a derivative work of that photo, and thus subject to its copyright, unless the copyright on that underlying photo has expired. Any idea of when that was from? Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: as derivative work, since we do not have enough information about the featured image in question. Rosenzweig τ 21:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
this person is not notable Andrei Romanenko (talk) 20:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Rosenzweig τ 21:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Lots of 3dimensional elements, photographer not stated, not OTRS, PD-Art not applicable to the entire image. Mattes (talk) 05:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- We could crop it more... it's a wga file, lots of them include minor 3d parts. --Sailko (talk) 08:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- Yes cropping could be a solution (cut-out the 3D parts). --Mattes (talk) 17:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. A.Savin 19:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Completing an incomplete DR. --JuTa 10:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Нет доказательства того, что загрузивший участник действительно обладает авторским правом на фотографию. Нужно OTRS.Redboston (talk) 13:04, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
- Фотография с сайта: [3]. Из имени загрузившего участника следует, что он является администратором сайта АЮР. Но нет доказательств того, что он является автором фотографии или уполномочен распоряжаться ею. Кроме того, нет доказательств того, что данный учстник действительно является администратором сайта АЮР. Необходимо OTRS.Redboston (talk) 08:14, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- Так же как и не доказано обратное. Абсурдная номинация! Росюрправо (talk) 06:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- Сатья о персоне удалена, смысла хранить фотографию на складе нет.Redboston (talk) 15:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- Так же как и не доказано обратное. Абсурдная номинация! Росюрправо (talk) 06:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. A.Savin 19:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
and other uploads by R.srinivaas (talk · contribs). Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete They also have the boarder around them, making it too likely that it's not a personal photo scan, but actually a lift from a site. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 10:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. A.Savin 20:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
suspecting it is not own work, because there is not any meta data Coekon (talk) 20:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep It's used on the user page on WP, although it's a very strange user page written like a broken article. Maybe somebody should alert them there, if they will find something wrong with that user, then this file can be deleted here. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 10:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: User pics are allowed and there are no indices on possible copyvio. A.Savin 20:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Unused user portrait 91.66.153.214 10:08, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted Now unused. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:12, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
suspecting it is not own work, because there is not any meta data Coekon (talk) 20:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Besides it's too small to be useful. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 10:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. A.Savin 20:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
suspecting it is not own work, because there is not any meta data Coekon (talk) 20:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Probably correct suspicions. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 10:51, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. A.Savin 20:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
suspecting it is not own work, because there is not any meta data Coekon (talk) 20:04, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete probably a copyvio. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 10:52, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. A.Savin 20:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
suspecting it is not own work, because there is not any meta data Coekon (talk) 20:05, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete size and lack of exif indicate that, like other user uploads, this one is a copyvio. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 10:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. A.Savin 20:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
suspecting it is not own work, because there is not any meta data Coekon (talk) 20:12, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. A.Savin 20:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
It represents an idiosyncratic and misinformed view of a subject. It contains factual errors. No files link to it. — Alarob (talk) 20:25, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
More details about the request: The image is an attractive world map highlighting nation-states with the color red in their flags. A color key indicates the file creator's views as to the origins of the red in those flags, e.g., as a pan-African color, a holdover from the British Union Jack, etc. No sources support these conclusions, and the creator has not responded to questions raised by editors over many months about inaccuracies and dubious assertions. Meanwhile, usage of the file on wikis has declined to zero. It's my belief that the file can't be improved. — Alarob (talk) 20:33, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
P.S. I made the initial request while unaware that I was not logged in to Commons. Replaced my IP address sig with my actual identity. Hope that's OK. — Alarob (talk) 20:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
- Comment I think that the "reasons" is quite weird way to approach this, but if there would be a map categorising countries by the use of colours, and then subcategorising those by proportions to the total area of the flag, that can be quite useful. I don't think that "no original research" applies here, though. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 10:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. A.Savin 20:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted logo in Turkey, doesn't qualifiy for PD-Text. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 22:20, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Is this textlogo or not ? (cf. Commons:Deletion requests/File:AKUT Logo.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:HOCAPASA LOGO 1.jpg) Takabeg (talk) 00:27, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- If the BO! was not colored the way that it is, sure. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 00:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- Hmm. Delete. Takabeg (talk) 00:04, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep Image is certainly PD-text. Color does not stop it from being PD-text. A four-years old kid knows how to apply colors. Fleet Command (talk) 13:53, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept: See no originality in some colored letters, I'm going to replace the license template by PD-Textlogo. A.Savin 20:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
copyright violation Reality006 (talk) 23:32, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, as discussed in the previous nomination, this image is too simple to be copyright-protected. If you have nothing new to say, why do you re-nominate the file in the first place? Fleet Command (talk) 08:47, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
- That user wasn't the same one that nominated it the first time. C3F2k (Questions, comments, complaints?) 21:30, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Way too much texture for pd-textlogo. C3F2k (Questions, comments, complaints?) 21:29, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Per Reality and C3F2k.--Rapsar (talk) 09:23, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Kept The texture is part of the font and does not change the PD-textlogo status. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:49, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
unused logo file, out of scope. Should be SVG if useful Jon Kolbert (talk) 15:03, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, no educational value. P 1 9 9 ✉ 21:25, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Commons:Licensing#France photo by night Otourly (talk) 17:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Kept: architect died in 1888, this way of lighting is not eligible for copyright Jcb (talk) 10:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Renomination
Copyvio for light art. No Fop in France. Per Commons:Deletion requests/Fête des lumières. TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 09:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - this is not 'light art', this is ordinary electric light --> not eligible for copyright - Jcb (talk) 12:20, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- Comment FOP in France, and some other European countries is counter-intuitive. Same with light art. I hope further individuals who understand the issue can weigh in prior to closure. Geo Swan (talk) 12:58, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- Comment I'm from this city (Lyon) and I know that this monument is not lit like that during the whole year. This is a "light art festival" that happens every year (early December). Lights are designed to be presented on monuments (not only this one) for a very short period and that light art changes every year. Also, those light arts are generally "in movement". Therefore, what you have on this picture is like a snapshot. It's exactly like taking an image from a motion picture. It's a part of an artistic show, therefore copyrighted. See that equivalent DR for which the file will probably be easier for you to understand. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 12:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- Aren't there a lot of similar cases in Category:Fête des lumières, despite Commons:Deletion requests/Fête des lumières? Does something distinguish them, or does the same apply to them? Rd232 (talk) 18:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- Some years ago some of them have been deleted. Normally almost all pictures taken during the festival light are copyvios because they have been sponsored and made by artists. There's still no FOP in France Otourly (talk) 19:50, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- OK. I don't understand the category notice, which says The night-time light display is protected under copyright, except in a panoramic view. How does that fit with France having no FOP? Rd232 (talk) 19:59, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- I suppose these light shows are outdoor shows, so that's why we speak about the absence of FoP. Was it your question ? Apart from that, I launched separate DR for several files because I think each one has to be discussed separately. Other files have been added after I launched the 4 DRs. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 09:14, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- No, it's not quite what I meant. What I meant was, if France has no FOP, then surely these images need deleting for that reason, and the issue of light display is irrelevant (though it may well be an additional reason for deletion). The word "except" somehow makes it sound like two reasons for deletion cancel each other out! Rd232 (talk) 10:24, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- It IS relevant because the monument is PD. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 12:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- OK, the building being PD can overcome the "no FOP" issue, but it still doesn't make the phrasing of the category note any less confusing or contradictory. How about "The night-time light display is protected under copyright. In addition, France has no Freedom of Panorama, so that buildings will normally be copyright until 70 years after the death of the creator. (A de minimis exception exists if the building is an "accessory compared to the main represented or handled subject".)" Rd232 (talk) 15:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- It would be better indeed. But the absence of FoP also concerns outdoor artwork, not only architecture. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 20:31, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
- Well can you suggest something to cover that? Rd232 (talk) 22:27, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
- In fact there's another problem in your suggestion. Not ALL night-time displays are under copyright. But in this case (the fête des Lumières), they are artistic light shows (still or in movement, it depends) and that's why it's copyrightable. I'd simply suggest : "The night-time light shows displayed during the "fête des Lumières" are generally protected under copyright. In addition, France has no Freedom of Panorama, so that buildings and artworks will normally be copyrighted until 70 years after the death of the creator. (A de minimis exception exists if the building or the artwork is an "accessory compared to the main represented or handled subject".)" --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:41, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- It's more complicated, some light works can be protected for years. The example of the Eiffel Tower is not alone. The light on the Category:Collégiale Notre-Dame de Dole or the one Place Saint-André (called Moonlight) could be good exemples. Otourly (talk) 09:34, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- Well I've added TwoWings' suggestion, as better than the previous version. Further improvements welcome. Perhaps a template would be appropriate for this? Rd232 (talk) 13:02, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- As Otourly said it, it's far more complicated than that if we consider other light displays so this only concerns the fête des Lumières. Therefore I suppose a template is useless. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 16:32, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- Well I've added TwoWings' suggestion, as better than the previous version. Further improvements welcome. Perhaps a template would be appropriate for this? Rd232 (talk) 13:02, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- It's more complicated, some light works can be protected for years. The example of the Eiffel Tower is not alone. The light on the Category:Collégiale Notre-Dame de Dole or the one Place Saint-André (called Moonlight) could be good exemples. Otourly (talk) 09:34, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- In fact there's another problem in your suggestion. Not ALL night-time displays are under copyright. But in this case (the fête des Lumières), they are artistic light shows (still or in movement, it depends) and that's why it's copyrightable. I'd simply suggest : "The night-time light shows displayed during the "fête des Lumières" are generally protected under copyright. In addition, France has no Freedom of Panorama, so that buildings and artworks will normally be copyrighted until 70 years after the death of the creator. (A de minimis exception exists if the building or the artwork is an "accessory compared to the main represented or handled subject".)" --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:41, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- Well can you suggest something to cover that? Rd232 (talk) 22:27, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
- It would be better indeed. But the absence of FoP also concerns outdoor artwork, not only architecture. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 20:31, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
- OK, the building being PD can overcome the "no FOP" issue, but it still doesn't make the phrasing of the category note any less confusing or contradictory. How about "The night-time light display is protected under copyright. In addition, France has no Freedom of Panorama, so that buildings will normally be copyright until 70 years after the death of the creator. (A de minimis exception exists if the building is an "accessory compared to the main represented or handled subject".)" Rd232 (talk) 15:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- It IS relevant because the monument is PD. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 12:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- No, it's not quite what I meant. What I meant was, if France has no FOP, then surely these images need deleting for that reason, and the issue of light display is irrelevant (though it may well be an additional reason for deletion). The word "except" somehow makes it sound like two reasons for deletion cancel each other out! Rd232 (talk) 10:24, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- I suppose these light shows are outdoor shows, so that's why we speak about the absence of FoP. Was it your question ? Apart from that, I launched separate DR for several files because I think each one has to be discussed separately. Other files have been added after I launched the 4 DRs. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 09:14, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- OK. I don't understand the category notice, which says The night-time light display is protected under copyright, except in a panoramic view. How does that fit with France having no FOP? Rd232 (talk) 19:59, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- Some years ago some of them have been deleted. Normally almost all pictures taken during the festival light are copyvios because they have been sponsored and made by artists. There's still no FOP in France Otourly (talk) 19:50, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- Aren't there a lot of similar cases in Category:Fête des lumières, despite Commons:Deletion requests/Fête des lumières? Does something distinguish them, or does the same apply to them? Rd232 (talk) 18:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - copyrighted lighting. --Simone 17:20, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- Comment issue is quite complex, we have to determine based on this picture if the lightning is original i.e. something different than usual lightning. I can't answer to that question for sure. My opinion is that it's not, all monuments are displayed like this at night. Regarding the Eiffel tower, I'd like to say copyright is not registrable in France, the SETE is making a fuss about their patents which are irrelevant for copyrights (it's industrial property and no photograph want to reproduce their complex lightning system). I really should edit the Eiffel tower thing in COM:FOP#France --PierreSelim (talk) 07:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- Just a part of the answer : this lighting is not permanent. It's only displayed during the "Fête des Lumières" in Lyon (around December 8) and it changes every year for this event (moreover the lighting is generally in motion, not still). During the rest of the year, there's indeed a normal white lighting on this monument. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 12:13, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- Then, you might be right. PierreSelim (talk) 13:26, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- Just a part of the answer : this lighting is not permanent. It's only displayed during the "Fête des Lumières" in Lyon (around December 8) and it changes every year for this event (moreover the lighting is generally in motion, not still). During the rest of the year, there's indeed a normal white lighting on this monument. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 12:13, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted per TwoWings. --Rosenzweig τ 21:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
- Restored: No copyright on light. Yann (talk) 19:12, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
I am looking at the website of the Turkish presidency and I don't see the permission statement that is given here on this image description page. We have an SVG file of this flag. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 07:25, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
This was accepted in 1985. However, this is one of the variation of old pennant used by Mustafa Kemal in September 1922. It's very clear that old pennant can be uploaded as "PD-old". But it's not clear whether newer variations are accepted as "PD-old" or not.
And what do you think of:
- File:Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Cumhurbaşkanlığı forsu.svg
- File:Standard President of Turkey as Military Chief.png
- File:Cumhurbaskanligiforsu.jpg
- File:Presidential Seal of the Republic of Turkey.png
- File:Presidential Seal of the Republic of Turkey.svg
- File:Presidential Seal of Turkey.png
- File:Seal of the President of Turkey.png ? Takabeg (talk) 10:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- There is a construction sheet that could be considered legislation, which is public domain in Turkey I believe. But my focus for this image is not whether or not it is PD-Old or not, but do we have permission to have images at the Wikimedia Commons from this website. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 16:46, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete this one, the SVG is superior (and completely PD). As for the other files Takabeg listed, they're all PD-ineligible. Fry1989 eh? 03:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- There are also legal specs for the top emblem pattern so they are PD under Turkish law too. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 07:00, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete this one, the SVG is superior (and completely PD). As for the other files Takabeg listed, they're all PD-ineligible. Fry1989 eh? 03:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- There is a construction sheet that could be considered legislation, which is public domain in Turkey I believe. But my focus for this image is not whether or not it is PD-Old or not, but do we have permission to have images at the Wikimedia Commons from this website. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 16:46, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. A.Savin 00:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Hitechled
[edit]PS - advert, unusable due to bad watermark
File:RGB croix de famarcie.gif- File:RGB full color LED cross sign.gif
- File:Blue led pharmacy cross.gif
- File:Red green LED cross.gif
Saibo (Δ) 01:20, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep on the one i've removed the watermark on. Maybe somebody can do some work on others. I believe we must take everything from people who upload in bad faith, that teaches them more of a lesson and benefits the Commons. Beta M (talk) 17:22, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- umm, well, I already had removed watermarks on the most usable ones. ;-) Those are not listed here (see Special:Log/Hitechled - 9 files in total, 5 dewatermarked by me, 1 by you → 3 for deletion). K, you have removed from File:RGB croix de famarcie.gif. Yes, then we can keep this, too. Personal message to Beta M: please use png the next time. :D Gif transparency supports no anti-aliasing. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 02:36, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete all. Commons is not for promotion/advertising. --P199 (talk) 16:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Can't see any encyclopedic use of the three graphics. A.Savin 19:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- Note: I have also deleted File:Blue green double color led cross.gif (had forgot to list that) - it had a watermark all over the display, right in the middle. Note2: I hope the sun shown at File:RGB croix de famarcie.gif is a PD sun or work by the uploader... --Saibo (Δ) 21:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Completing an incomplete DR. --JuTa 10:28, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Нет доказательства того, что загрузивший участник действительно обладает авторским правом на фотографию. Нужно OTRS.Redboston (talk) 13:04, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
- Фотография с сайта: [4] (там она в худшем качестве). Из имени загрузившего участника следует, что он является администратором сайта, с которого взята фотография. Но нет доказательств того, что он является автором фотографии или уполномочен распоряжаться ею. Кроме того, нет доказательств того, что данный учстник действительно является администратором указанного сайта. Необходимо OTRS.Redboston (talk) 08:03, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- It is right on the boarder of being believable that he may have the copyright. But due to precautionary principle, it's probably a Delete, but COM:OTRS would resolve all the issues. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 10:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. A.Savin 19:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Uploads of User:Gfcproductionz
[edit]- File:Da Fella of GFC - GRID Magazine.jpg
- File:Lil Z of GFC - GRID Magazine.jpg
- File:1G.jpg
- File:FREE LIL Z - REST.IN.PARADISE 1G.jpg
- File:Da Young Mista LT of GFC - "LIFE'S THEORY".jpg
- File:Da Young Mista LT of GFC - "1MMA G".jpg
- File:Da Fella of GFC - "DA SEXTAPE".jpg
- File:A.C. Green of GFC - "ON & READY".jpg
- File:Hold.My.Own of GFC - "FAST LIFE LIVIN".jpg
- File:Tr3 Thugga & J-Street of GFC - "FEEL WE" Cover front.jpg
- File:Tr3 Thugga & J-Street of GFC - "FEEL WE" Cover back.jpg
- File:Lil Z "THA TRUTH" Cover back.jpg
- File:Lil Z "THA TRUTH" Cover front.jpg
- File:GoodFella Camp's Claybois AC Green, J-Street, & Tr3 Thugga.jpg
- File:Tr3 Thugga, Da Young Mista LT, J-Street, & Da Fella of GFC.jpg
- File:Chloe McFadden.jpg
- File:GoodFella Camp's LT & Tr3 Thugga.jpg
- File:GoodFella Camp.jpg
- File:GFC Productionz Logo.jpg
self promotion and IMHO out of COM:SCOPE. None of the images are in use on any Project. A lot of CD-covers, where the authorship should be proved by COM:OTRS if they would be kept. --JuTa 21:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- I deleted CD covers, posters, and the like. Yann (talk) 13:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: non-copyvio images are out of scope Denniss (talk) 03:33, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
wrong license. When was the painting produced? When did the painter die (approx.)? Saibo (Δ) 01:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Note: The signature is maybe the depicted person's name
شیر شاہ سوری
--Saibo (Δ) 02:11, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- This is an Afghan art work, which haven't any copy right licence at all and this piece of art is published by many other websites as well.
- Note: The signature of the art work is written in Pashto language.
شیر شاہ سوری
There is written Sher Shah Suri in Pashto. Which is the name of The Lion King (the person who is painted).Tofaan (talk) 07:18, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- You can also even find it on flickr click here please.Tofaan (talk) 07:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Info the license template was changed.- Thanks for your helpful comment! Yes, I know - the image is elsewhere on the web and we should upload a higher res version if this can be kept. However: The image is in "Paintings of men from India" - not "Afghanistan". A age of the painting would be nice.. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 02:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- The Pashtun inscription in the painting does indeed suggest that it is an Afghan work as claimed above, so I'm inclined towards a Keep regardless of the age of this painting. If more data could be provided about it, it would be best, of course.-- Darwin Ahoy! 06:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept. – Adrignola talk 16:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
the Afghan license only applies if the work is made by Afghanistan and it has to be first published in Afghanistan; this is a work of non-Afghan and it's copyvio http://www.flickr.com/photos/danyalgilani/2373616235/ 2011-08-24T18:14:16 Officer (converted from copyvio to DR by Saibo (Δ) 20:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC))
- do you think the flickr account owner (who has marked the image as copyrighted) is the artist? Please do not use copyvio tag if the images was already discussed and kept in a DR (see above) regarding this matter. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 21:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Delete - The above kept is inadequate. Darwin wrote "The Pashtun inscription in the painting does indeed suggest that it is an Afghan work as claimed above...". First, we are not sure if that is Pashto, Urdu or Farsi. Second, the Pashtuns or Pashto-speakers are not limited to Afghanistan because there are 28 million of them in Pakistan and only about half of that in Afghanistan. So that argument makes no sense. Third, the flickr account owner being the artist or not is irrelevant, it was taken from there and according to that site it is a copyrighted image so it has to be tagged as copyvio because that's exactly what this is. In flickr you may upload copyrighted images as long as you mark them the same way but here we cannot do that. The main point is that we cannot use the Afghanistan license. My educated guess is that this is a contemporary painting by an Indian artist.--Officer (talk) 03:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comment. My question regarding the flickr account = artist was related to your initial copyvio tag comment: "copyvio http://www.flickr.com/photos/danyalgilani/2373616235/". So it could mean that you think it is a copyvio because it is marked as copyrighted at flickr. Good if this was a mis-assumption. I also would rather deleted than keep this image (see my question for the age in the last DR). Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 22:45, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept - Jcb (talk) 22:18, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
tagged no license by 2011-11-05T04:49:14 Officer "PD-Afghanistan does not apply to this Indian painting because 1) it is not a work of Afghanistan, 2) it was not first published in Afghanistan, and 3) the author is not an Afghan citizen". Converted to DR since there was a previous DR. Saibo (Δ) 22:13, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted A.Savin 20:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No FOP in France. Michel Marot, the architect of this building, is still alive. Pymouss Let’s talk - 21:25, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Extrait de la discussion visible sur ma page perso :
- Désolé mais je ne parle pas anglais et j'ai du mal à comprendre tous ces articles. Ok, je comprends qu'il s'agit d'une histoire de droit - or cette église classée monument historique a été photographiée depuis la route - un espace public donc. Et il s'agit d'une vue d'ensemble. J'ai posté cette photo suite à l'appel de Wikipédia concernant les monuments historiques - loin de moi l'idée d'entrer en conflit avec une réglementation qui manque de clarté. De plus des vues de ce bâtiment ont été très souvent publiées dans la presse locale ou des ouvrages (architecture de l'Aube; églises de l'Aube; brochures touristiques) voire sur des sites Internet et je crois savoir qu'à aucun moment quelqu'un s'est soucié du droit à l'image... Si ce droit doit être respecté, de nombreuses images devraient être supprimées (de wikipedia ou d'autres sites) à commencer par la médiathèque de Troyes pour l'Aube. Cordialement User:hg_marigny --- 6 November 2011
- En France c'est interdit de télécharger vers l'internet photos de bâtiments qui sont bâti après 1941. C'est un loi français et pas le faute de Wikimedia. Voir Commons:Liberté de panorama pour meilleurs informations en français correct. Et oui, c'est complètement fou. Cordialement, --Stanzilla (talk) 10:44, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- Bonsoir, dans ce cas de très nombreuses photos sont à "revoir" comme :
- File:Troyes, médiathèque.jpg
- File:Mediatheque lisieux-01.jpg
- File:SL380833.JPG (Monument aux armées de l'Orient à Marseille)
- etc.
- Bonsoir, dans ce cas de très nombreuses photos sont à "revoir" comme :
- Si je comprends bien cette loi, je prends une photo du village où une partie ou l'ensemble de l'église est visible mais si cette église n'est pas le sujet principal, cette photo est autorisée. Complètement hypocrite. De plus cette loi va à l'encontre de la création artistique : un photographe peut "magnifier" une œuvre. Il est propriétaire des droits de son image... même si cette image représente une autre oeuvre d'art. Bonne soirée - User:hg_marigny --- 7 November 2011
- Oui je sais qu'il y à beaucoup des fichiers qui sont illégal. Et c'est parfois difficile de savoir l'année d'origine. C'est par exemple illégal de faire des photos de la Tour Eiffel dans la nuit. Dans le jour ce n'est pas un problème. De nuit l'éclairage est soumis au droit d'auteur des concepteurs. Un auteur peut porter plainte contre une site web avec un photo illégal, ça peut coût une amende. Confused.png Bonne nuit, --Stanzilla (talk) 00:25, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Tranfert to french wikipedia PierreSelim (talk) 23:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}