Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2011/11/23
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_showing_Incident_Information.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
s 70.3.3.18 01:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: no reason for deletion russavia (talk) 08:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
s 70.3.3.18 01:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: no reason for deletion russavia (talk) 08:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
copyright infringement of http://www.pixiv.net/member_illust.php?mode=medium&illust_id=655888 Deadkid dk (talk) 05:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Speedy deleted by Túrelio (talk · contribs). Francisco (talk) 00:19, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
This file should be deleted cause I'm the person who uploaded this friend, and he doesnt want it on the web anymore. 187.140.192.120 17:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete - Per nom. --Dэя-Бøяg 17:02, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Cause I uploaded a friend by error. Tonydevil9 (talk) 17:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per uploader's request Ed (Edgar181) 20:03, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
This file should be deleted cause I'm the person who uploaded this friend, and he doesnt want it on the web anymore. 187.140.192.120 17:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - Per nom. --Dэя-Бøяg 17:02, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Cause I uploaded a friend by error. Tonydevil9 (talk) 17:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per uploader's request Ed (Edgar181) 20:03, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Copyvio from this site! THWZ (talk) 22:44, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Common Good (talk) 12:51, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
OB by File:Judean desert044.jpg Chesdovi (talk) 17:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: duplicate matanya • talk 11:42, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
OB by File:Judean desert024.jpg Chesdovi (talk) 17:17, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: duplicate matanya • talk 11:43, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
OB by File:Judean desert013.jpg Chesdovi (talk) 17:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: duplicated matanya • talk 11:43, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Logo for a company that was deleted from the French Wikipedia as non-notable. Out of the commons scope. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 00:50, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Logo for a non-notable organization. Out of the commons scope. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 00:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:17, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Certainly a copyrighted sculpture, and there is no freedom of panorama to photograph sculptures in the U.S., where this was apparently taken. Sculpture is too prominent in the picture for a de minimis argument. So unless I'm missing something, this should be deleted. Jmabel ! talk 01:26, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete per Jmabel --Jarekt (talk) 14:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: no FOP in the US for sculptures russavia (talk) 08:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Certainly a copyrighted sculpture, and there is no freedom of panorama to photograph sculptures in the U.S., where this was apparently taken. So unless I'm missing something, this should be deleted. Jmabel ! talk 01:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- migrate to en:wikipedia "non-free 3D art" Slowking4 (talk) 17:03, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- No problem with that. Do any of the other wikis that currently use this accept a similar rationale, so we can migrate to those, too? - Jmabel ! talk 22:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
According the the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO):
In some countries, you don’t need permission to photograph certain artistic works that are permanently displayed in a public place (for example, in a park or on the street). You can also publish and commercialize the photograph without infringing copyright.
However, this exception applies only:
To certain types of works: usually, only to three-dimensional works, such as sculptures and craft. So, you may still need prior permission to take a photo of a painting or a mural in a public place; If the work is displayed in public: to photograph a sculpture in a private house, a permission will usually be required; and If the work is displayed in public permanently: if you want to photograph a sculpture which is only temporarily sited in a public place, you would usually need permission.
This is a public-financed sculpture sitting on public space, therefore I do believe this photograph has every right to exist. Christopher Peterson User talk: Christopher Peterson/talk
- That is true "in some countries". However, the photo was taken in the U.S., where there is no freedom of panorama to photograph art, only buildings. See Commons:Freedom of Panorama. - Jmabel ! talk 18:02, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- right, since it is a single example in the US, you would have to take a photo, if it ever travels, wait until the artist croaks plus 70 years, or contact the artist for a licensed thumbnail.
- i see the argument made installed before 1978; Keep as PD-US-no_notice. too late here.
- however, if there are multiples, then we will be showing the examples of FoP countries, Germany, Netherlands; for example: [1]; [2]. the only sculpture that exists in commons is the sculpture of FoP countries. Slowking4 (talk) 22:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- Right. I didn't nominate photos of his work that were in countries with FOP for sculpture. But this DR is about the particular photo, not about whether a photo of his work is possible. - Jmabel ! talk 01:30, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No FOP in the US for statues. A couple of days will be given for the copying of the image to local projects under appropriate rationales, and then the image will be deleted from Commons. I think until 2 December will be enough time for editors to do this russavia (talk) 08:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
no good 65.8.40.220 14:08, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Not sure what nom. means but this looks like just another guy flashing his junk for the internetz. Out of COM:SCOPE. Wknight94 talk 03:31, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep Quality looks good. Beta M (talk) 18:59, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Could do with being cropped, but decent quality image. -mattbuck (Talk) 05:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Liliana-60 (talk) 06:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Liliana-60 (talk) 06:08, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
out of scope Liliana-60 (talk) 06:09, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
out of scope, we already have this very picture at File:CWL1914.JPG Liliana-60 (talk) 07:06, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Scaled down duplicate George Chernilevsky talk 07:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Personal image, out of scope Morning Sunshine (talk) 11:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:23, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Personal image, out of scope Morning Sunshine (talk) 11:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
low quality picture of 'me with my fan'. Of the only person depicted who is of actual interest, we already have better pictures (see Category:Sasha (DJ)) Andre Engels (talk) 14:03, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Unusable poor quality. Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:26, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
personal logo of a non-notable musician (the DJ Lord who has an article on en:wp is someone different) Andre Engels (talk) 14:05, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:26, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Portrait of a non-notable person (when I google him, all I get are genealogy websites). If it does get kept,author and source information should be changed, since I do not really believe that it's the photographer himself who put it here 85 years after the fact Andre Engels (talk) 14:09, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:27, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Small unused user pic from an uploader with no further edits/uploads Funfood ␌ 14:44, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
some homepage picture of unknown persons no description, not used Motopark (talk) 14:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
other uploads by Gerardgeoffroyand (talk · contribs). Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. No evidence of permission. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:53, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio/per nom Lymantria (talk) 08:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
This is just a blatant advertisement for thedriedflowers.co.uk with a picture behind it. Ed (Edgar181) 20:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Advertisement. Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
A. Hate propaganda violating personal rights. B: Unsourced. C: Unused Nevit Dilmen (talk) 20:31, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. George Chernilevsky talk 07:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
No copyright information Lery007 (talk) 20:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Missing essential information Lymantria (talk) 08:26, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Out of project scope. Unknown non-notable band George Chernilevsky talk 20:52, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Lymantria (talk) 08:27, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Text contribution, out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 21:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:33, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
File:Wikipedia_1.png Wkerry (talk) 21:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Personal logo, not in use since 2010. Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:34, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
No idea what this pic can be, unused Funfood ␌ 21:07, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:34, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
too small for any use, out of scope Funfood ␌ 22:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 07:35, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Small and jagged; unused; have higher-resolution File:Ethylene diamine.png in same format and also File:Ethylenediamine.svg as replacements DMacks (talk) 22:53, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete I agree. --Leyo 23:52, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete I agree, too. --Mixtures (talk) 04:19, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Poor duplicate George Chernilevsky talk 07:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
This is manganese tricarbonate. Acetate would have methyl groups instead of oxygen atoms projecting off the gray trigonal-planar positions. DMacks (talk) 23:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- What about renaming the file? --Leyo 23:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- Not sure it exists (== would have educational worth) or would be related to this structure. Based on this structure, it would involve Mn(V) (carbonate is –2 vs acetate –1), a highly unstable thing that generally only seems to occur as simple poly-oxide clusters (which are generally considered to have tetrahedral geometry--see for example Category:Crystal structures of manganates). DMacks (talk) 01:51, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- OK, then probably better Delete. --Leyo 07:00, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- OK, then probably better
- Not sure it exists (== would have educational worth) or would be related to this structure. Based on this structure, it would involve Mn(V) (carbonate is –2 vs acetate –1), a highly unstable thing that generally only seems to occur as simple poly-oxide clusters (which are generally considered to have tetrahedral geometry--see for example Category:Crystal structures of manganates). DMacks (talk) 01:51, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: due to problems of chemical inaccuracy. Ed (Edgar181) 15:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
privacy concern chicodj (talk) 19:50, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Unused image. Out of commons scope. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 00:48, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Possible copyvio - found here, posted 9 days before the image was uploaded here. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
No copyright violation here. This is my own work, and the image posted at the Utah Scuba Blog is a copy. I suspect that the blog post didn't have an image when it went live on 16 October, and the image was added later when it became available on Wikipedia. -Sylverfysh
- Keep so keep it --Funfood ␌ 14:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept: AGF Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:44, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Certainly a copyrighted sculpture, and there is no freedom of panorama to photograph sculptures in the U.S., where this was apparently taken. So unless I'm missing something, this should be deleted. Jmabel ! talk 01:24, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete Sculptures put on display before 1978 may be PD-US-no_notice (or if before 1964, PD-US-not_renewed is another possibility). But this one dates from 1992 or 1993 apparently. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- comment France omitted? File:Musée de Grenoble 03.jpg. NVO (talk) 10:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- Not sure I understand your telegraphic message. FOP (or not) in France has no bearing on a sculpture in the U.S. I don't know much about French law on this; if you think that image should be nominated for deletion, please do. - Jmabel ! talk 16:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:48, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Certainly a copyrighted sculpture, and there is no freedom of panorama to photograph sculptures in the U.S., where this was apparently taken. Sculpture is too prominent in the picture for a de minimis argument. So unless I'm missing something, this should be deleted. Jmabel ! talk 01:25, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:48, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Not sure on this one, but I think we should discuss. Certainly copyrighted sculptures, and there is no freedom of panorama to photograph sculptures in the U.S., where this was apparently taken. Is the emphasis enough on the garden rather than the sculptures for a de minimis argument? Jmabel ! talk 01:27, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- I'm the photographer. I took this photo before I realized photos of sculptures were derivative works in the U.S. These are certainly copyrighted sculptures. I'm skeptical that a de minimis argument would apply, and I'm not enough other important information is conveyed (beyond the copyrighted sculptures) to make it worth keeping. It seems to only be used in galleries. – Quadell (talk) 02:05, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- Um, I'm actually the photographer. I don't think it's really possible to take a picture of this space in which the sculptures are less prominent. The sculptures that are the most visible are also relatively simple geometric forms, which lessens the creative expression copied (even if we presume them still copyrighted) compared to if they were paintings or some comparably rich visual form. I certainly think this photo is no more problematic than an average photo of Times Square, in which the copyrighted billboard images would be far more prominent and copied to a greater extent. Postdlf (talk) 02:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep I think because it is picture of the place more than of the sculptures it kan be kept. --Funfood ␌ 14:37, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: THe copyrighted sculptures are clearly the only reason this picture is in scope -- without them, it is silly. Therefore, they are not de minimis. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Certainly a copyrighted sculpture, and there is no freedom of panorama to photograph sculptures in the U.S., where this was apparently taken. Sculpture is too prominent in the picture for a de minimis argument. So unless I'm missing something, this should be deleted. Jmabel ! talk 01:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Certainly a copyrighted sculpture, and there is no freedom of panorama to photograph sculptures in the U.S., where this was apparently taken. Sculpture is too prominent in the picture for a de minimis argument. So unless I'm missing something, this should be deleted. Jmabel ! talk 01:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Certainly a copyrighted sculpture, and there is no freedom of panorama to photograph sculptures in the U.S., where this was apparently taken. Sculpture is too prominent in the picture for a de minimis argument. So unless I'm missing something, this should be deleted. Jmabel ! talk 01:30, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- question is there any reason to delete this but keep Calder's "sculpture" (they call it sculpture these days, don't they?) from the same location (and other stuff from Category:Storm King Art Center)? NVO (talk) 10:48, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- I'm sure there are many images in that category that are a problem; please feel free to nominate them. I went through the Mark di Suvero images after someone raised the question on the Village Pump, and about a third of them looked problematic to me. It's a complicated interaction of copyright date, what country they are in, and (if they are in the US and before 1978) whether there was a copyright notice. - Jmabel ! talk 16:58, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Certainly a copyrighted sculpture, and there is no freedom of panorama to photograph sculptures in the U.S., where I believe this was taken (Indianapolis, if I've identified the sculpture correctly, but perhaps I'm wrong and the picture is OK under FOP of the country where it was snapped). Sculpture is too prominent in the picture for a de minimis argument. Jmabel ! talk 01:34, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- Looks like it has no copyright notice and was installed before 1978.[3] It appears to have moved around the city a bunch but is now at a museum. Keep as {{PD-US-no notice}} I think. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:27, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- Good, I'm glad to see a good basis for keeping. This slightly complicated rationale should be explained on the page, though; there was nothing there explaining why the work would be PD, just saying that the photo was released as PD. - Jmabel ! talk 08:05, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- keep or migrate to en:wikipedia as "non-free 3D art". Slowking4 (talk) 14:47, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- Not currently used in any article in en-wiki, so the latter would appear not to be an option. But I think Carl is right (he usually is) and we can keep this one. - Jmabel ! talk 17:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- keep or migrate to en:wikipedia as "non-free 3D art". Slowking4 (talk) 14:47, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- Good, I'm glad to see a good basis for keeping. This slightly complicated rationale should be explained on the page, though; there was nothing there explaining why the work would be PD, just saying that the photo was released as PD. - Jmabel ! talk 08:05, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept: SIRIS says the work is unsigned, so Carl is correct. I have edited the description accordingly. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:56, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Certainly a copyrighted sculpture, and there is no freedom of panorama to photograph sculptures in the U.S., where this was apparently taken. Sculpture is clearly the reason for the picture, so there is presumably no de minimis argument. So unless I'm missing something, this should be deleted. Jmabel ! talk 01:36, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:57, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Certainly a copyrighted sculpture, and there is no freedom of panorama to photograph sculptures in the U.S., where this was apparently taken. Sculpture is clearly the reason for the picture, so there is presumably no de minimis argument. So unless I'm missing something, this should be deleted. Jmabel ! talk 01:36, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:57, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Certainly a copyrighted sculpture, and there is no freedom of panorama to photograph sculptures in the U.S., where I believe this was taken (Indianapolis, if I've identified the sculpture correctly, but perhaps I'm wrong and the picture is OK under FOP of the country where it was snapped). Sculpture is too prominent in the picture for a de minimis argument. Jmabel ! talk 01:37, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep on the copyright issue; see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Snowplow1968.jpg. Not sure why we need this thumbnail though; they seem like the same photo. Although this one is in use. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:31, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
I assume that's "see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Snowplow1968.jpg." -- Jmabel ! talk 08:03, 23 November 2011 (UTC)Yep, thanks, fixed ;-) Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:53, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- migrate to en.wikipedia with "non-free 3D" tag. btw, this was migrated from en.wikipedia without the correct license put on it. Slowking4 (talk) 14:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No need for thumbnal -- I changed both uses to the larger image Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Unused logo for a non-notable organization. Out of the commons scope. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 02:58, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:01, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
No evidence that this logo is truly the creation of the uploader; it's the logo of a football club. Nyttend (talk) 04:34, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:01, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Such tables are not suitable for Commons, they should either be created as text on Wikipedia. -mattbuck (Talk) 05:39, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:01, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Such tables are not suitable for Commons, they should either be created as text on Wikipedia. -mattbuck (Talk) 05:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:01, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
no longer required 94.8.122.39 06:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- Can you explain how it's "no longer required" - it's used in twenty one different Wikipedias across the languages? Miyagawa (talk) 15:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:01, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
not-suitable-for-wikicommons P. Sridhar Babu (talk) 08:06, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept: not a valid reason to delete Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
watermark http://www.worldhealingday.org/ 217.186.28.102 08:44, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work of copyrighted product Morning Sunshine (talk) 10:47, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete DW: copyrighted design (especially the photo of the fruit) of the packaging. See Commons:Image_casebook#Product_packaging, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Almdudler2l033l.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Soft drink bottles. --Saibo (Δ) 14:30, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Really "own work"? If so, it is probably not in scope. If not, then it is wrong license. Note that [4] has a different logo. This, that and the other (talk) 10:49, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete I say delete because the image is non-free as logos fall under the non-free criteria. So, it should have a non free rationale. As well non-free images shouldn't be on commons, but should remain on a local wiki where that image is for. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 18:03, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work of copyrighted product Morning Sunshine (talk) 10:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete DW: copyrighted design (especially the photo of the fruit) of the packaging. See Commons:Image_casebook#Product_packaging, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Almdudler2l033l.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Soft drink bottles. --Saibo (Δ) 14:30, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:10, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
I got the facts wrong in this draft. I need to edit it an upload a revised one. Dies irae011 (talk) 11:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Please just upload the new one over this one. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
The photograph was obviously taken in 1978, not 2011, probably by a professional Vatican photographer who would be unlikely to release it anonymously into public domain. A fair number of other uploads by User:Sibode1 have been deleted as possible copyright violations as well. — Kpalion(talk) 11:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Artist died in 1966, no reason for exception given. FA2010 (talk) 13:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:11, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Utilisation du mots "Creads" qui est un nom d'un service web d'une entreprise a outrance (Nom de l'image, copyright, login utilisateur, source...) Ou comment faire du SEO sur Wikipedia G.vacher (talk) 13:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
EXIF tag says the author is Paul Buciuta, not the uploader (en:User:ES Vic). Razvan Socol (talk) 13:59, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, probably copyvio.Ionutzmovie (talk) 20:13, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Self portrait (?) of a 'Wikipedian', whose single edit except for his own user page and user discussion page constituted vandalism Andre Engels (talk) 14:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
DW: copyrighted design (especially the photo/drawing) of the packaging. See Commons:Image_casebook#Product_packaging, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Almdudler2l033l.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Soft drink bottles. Saibo (Δ) 14:32, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
DW: copyrighted design (especially the drawing in the center) of the packaging. See Commons:Image_casebook#Product_packaging, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Almdudler2l033l.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Soft drink bottles. Is there some reason why the design is public domain? How old is this box? The no.wp article did not tell me. Saibo (Δ) 14:47, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Organization logo. Unlikely to be the work of Samar Saeed Akhtar who is employed by the Institute of Rural Management. At the very least this is lacking evidence of permission. Pichpich (talk) 15:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep with {{PD-textlogo}}{{Trademarked}} (see COM:TOO); that is only text and a underline - although a free license would be better. --Saibo (Δ) 18:07, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Claim of authorship is very much in doubt. Samar Saeed Akhtar is employed by the Institute of Rural Management in Pakistan whereas this was taken at the United Nations General Assembly from a fairly typical camera angle used by official UN photographers (for instance this). Pichpich (talk) 15:06, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
This file is based on File:Beijing-Subway-Plan.png (nearly the same as a certain history version) , which is GFDL/CC-BY-SA, but the uploader claimed PD for this file. DS-fax 15:34, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:17, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work of copyrighted figure Lymantria (talk) 15:45, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - The subject is a 3D art, so this is not a derivative work. --Sreejith K (talk) 08:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: The subject is a sculpture, so this is clearly DW. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
I doubt own work... this is an official logo of Accor. The drawing of the brids is highly probably not conforming to {{PD-textlogo}}. Commons does not accept fair use files. Saibo (Δ) 16:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:22, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete clear copyvio --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 17:08, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
_showing_Incident_Information.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_showing_Incident_Information.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:24, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
_showing_Incident_Information.png){kind=link}
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
_showing_Incident_Information.png){kind=link}
Such a condition (Inform the photographer before any use of this image.) is not allowed IMHO. There is also a watermark that should be removed if kept. Leyo 16:31, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - For all the above reasons, plus it is really a poor quality photo, has a highly generic description, and a meaningless title. —Willscrlt ( “Talk” • “w:en” • “m” ) 13:47, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
and File:Dagoberto1.JPG. Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:39, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
What use is this photo? We have File:Judean Desert IMG 1902.JPG and other similar? Chesdovi (talk) 17:21, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- Images are not the same. I do not understand the rush to delete images. commons is a repository of images - and is ment to hold free images for future use by the users. Once an image can be used for educational purpose and it is free - it can and should be here. Who know what image the user would prefare some day. Deror avi (talk) 14:53, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Indeed a not so good quality image (framing, blur, etc) with much better options available. I think it serves our educational scope to not let the better images become harder to find among a sea of poor quality ones. --ELEKHHT 15:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: I have left the two above, but this one is silly -- only the back end of the truck. Elekhh is correct -- we do not need a sea of marginally useful images. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:26, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
OB by File:Judean Desert IMG 1727.JPG - this image has more ground showing Chesdovi (talk) 17:25, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- Images are not the same. I do not understand the rush to delete images. commons is a repository of images - and is ment to hold free images for future use by the users. Once an image can be used for educational purpose and it is free - it can and should be here. Who know what image the user would prefare some day. Deror avi (talk) 14:54, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- They are practically the same. There is no difference vis-a-vis "education" between these two images. One has more sky, one has more ground. Expensive server space should not be used up in such a manner. Please be more careful in future to avoid needless duplication by picking the best image to demonstrate the subject. Commons is not a personal vaction photo album. Chesdovi (talk) 18:06, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- Commons is not a personal vacation albom. None of the images are images of me. They are all taken for the purpose of the commons - even many defferent images of same subject have value for future users who can choose the one they need. Deror avi (talk) 16:29, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- They are practically the same. There is no difference vis-a-vis "education" between these two images. One has more sky, one has more ground. Expensive server space should not be used up in such a manner. Please be more careful in future to avoid needless duplication by picking the best image to demonstrate the subject. Commons is not a personal vaction photo album. Chesdovi (talk) 18:06, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:27, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
IMHO out of scope {{PD-textlogo}} (not a trivial text logo), with no evidence of any release into the public domain --> "Permission": "Copyright © 1999-2009 The Harbour Project" and "legal notes": "Any trademarks and logos displayed on this website are the property of their owners". The software itself is released unter "GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation"... Gunnex (talk) 18:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No FOP in Iran AMERICOPHILE 19:52, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- I oppose, it's nonsense. Should we also delete photos of Milad Tower and wait 30 years? --Orijentolog (talk) 22:37, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- IMHO yes. AMERICOPHILE 06:04, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
- That also includes few thousand photos of modern buildings and artworks in France, Italy and Greece (similar law)? I don't see any sense. --Orijentolog (talk) 11:56, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not sure about France, Italy or Greece, but I'm sure that in Iranian copyright law there is nothing about freedom of panorama that means artistic and architectural works are automatically protected by copyright law and any photographs of them is considered as a derivative work. I think not all of the buildings are protected but those have not a utilitarian function and are just works of fine art (or their utilitarian function is overshadowed by their artistic aspects such as Milad Tower). AMERICOPHILE 12:16, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
- That also includes few thousand photos of modern buildings and artworks in France, Italy and Greece (similar law)? I don't see any sense. --Orijentolog (talk) 11:56, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
- IMHO yes. AMERICOPHILE 06:04, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
I am the creator of this file and I would like to delete it Flozu (talk) 20:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept: It is in use. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Mirrored Pic from website http://www.cristianbadilita.ro/ doubtfully own work Funfood ␌ 21:13, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Uloaded it twice! Sorry. Alfvanbeem (talk) 21:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Pic on various websites in better resolution, e.g. here http://grupopapeando.wordpress.com/2011/05/23/evolucao-infantil-independe-de-familia-heterossexual/ , doubtfully own work Funfood ␌ 22:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
No FOP for sculpture in US. Possibly OK on some basis, but if so that needs to be explained. Calder was usually careful with his copyrights, and his estate is pretty tight with those rights, so we should try to be very sure of any particular claim why this image would be OK. Jmabel ! talk 22:28, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
No FOP for sculpture in US. Possibly OK on some basis, but if so that needs to be explained. Calder was usually careful with his copyrights, and his estate is pretty tight with those rights, so we should try to be very sure of any particular claim why this image would be OK. Jmabel ! talk 22:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
No FOP for sculpture in US. Possibly OK on some basis, but if so that needs to be explained. Calder was usually careful with his copyrights, and his estate is pretty tight with those rights, so we should try to be very sure of any particular claim why this image would be OK. Jmabel ! talk 22:37, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Restored: as per [5] and [6]. Yann (talk) 15:38, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
![[5]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&oldid=243649351#File:Storm_King_Calder.jpg){kind=link}
Copyvio of nonfree recent sculpture in the US ɱ (talk) 18:48, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Ɱ: This was previously kept as PD-US no notice. Has anything changed? - Jmabel ! talk 19:35, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- The link provided is dead, so there's no apparently valid rationale now... As well, the sculpture is a work of art by Calder, and as noted on his category, most works of art are still under his copyright. ɱ (talk) 19:43, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- Apparently, the sculpture was installed in 1999, and thus still is under copyright, regardless of notice. ɱ (talk) 19:43, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 15:38, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Personal picture, not in use. Only use was es:Luis Miguel Espinoza. Martin H. (talk) 22:52, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
What do you think of File:LUIS 005.jpg, File:Luis Miguel Espinoza.jpg ? Takabeg (talk) 22:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- I'd include it here, same reason and Delete. --Martin H. (talk) 00:31, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:34, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Copyvio. This file is popular on internet and there is no proof it's belong to User:Aniosgel. For example, User:Aniosgel uploaded this file December 2008, same file was uploaded on August 4, 2008. User claimed "move approved by: User:Deadstar". However, such application is not valid in Wikimedia commons. Furthermore, FAL is not appropriate for this image. Takabeg (talk) 02:25, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- The "move approved by" relates to the rename of the file rather than anything else, and I don't have any information on this file. -- Deadstar (msg) 08:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:16, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Source website says "Everything on the site is provided for free; if you like what you see and hear, please consider contributing to the project". That sounds like "no cost" free not "freely licensed for arbitrary reuse" and in particular no evidence of CC specific release DMacks (talk) 10:51, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- The image was transfered from en.wp; I've asked the original uploader (User:Viriditas) on his talk-page there for clarification of the licensing he used. DMacks (talk) 10:56, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Free as in "no cost", not free as in CC-0 Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:19, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
OB by File:Judean Desert IMG 1899.JPG Chesdovi (talk) 17:05, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- Images are not the same. I do not understand the rush to delete images. commons is a repository of images - and is ment to hold free images for future use by the users. Once an image can be used for educational purpose and it is free - it can and should be here. Who know what image the user would prefare some day. Deror avi (talk) 14:53, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- The difference between these two is that one shows the front of an undescript lorry in the desert, while the other shows the more worthy passenger trailer in the desert. I know which one I would select as being more "educational". Chesdovi (talk) 17:56, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Deror avi should be more selective in his uploads. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- kept. In scope. Multichill (talk) 23:06, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Blurred, OB by File:Judean Desert IMG 1902.JPG Chesdovi (talk) 17:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- Images are not the same. I do not understand the rush to delete images. commons is a repository of images - and is ment to hold free images for future use by the users. Once an image can be used for educational purpose and it is free - it can and should be here. Who know what image the user would prefare some day. Deror avi (talk) 14:53, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- We should not encourage the addition of blurred iamges; who would ever use them? Chesdovi (talk) 17:58, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - poor quality, not useful, out of scope. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Kept in scope. Multichill (talk) 23:08, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Some(!) DW product packaging photos in Category:Chocolate
[edit]- File:6. Bitter 78percent 100g.jpg
- File:ChocolateCow.jpg
- File:DurianChocolateBoxes.jpg
- File:Freia Smil.JPG
- File:Jielbeaumadier ourson bouquet dor vda 2010.jpg
- File:Kinder Maxi King Extra Chocolate.jpg
- File:Kinder Maxi king.jpg
- File:Milka Joghurt-Orangen Genuss.jpg
- File:Ritter Sport Vollnuss.jpg
- File:Smash chocolate.JPG
DW: copyrighted design (especially the photo/drawing) of the packaging as a central part (not DM) of the photos. See Commons:Image_casebook#Product_packaging, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Almdudler2l033l.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Soft drink bottles.
I looked at all talk pages, file pages and file histories but couldn't find justifications or claims why/that the photos shouldn't be DWs.
Note at the closing admin: Do not delete yourself - just close this DR, please: I will then try to make crops which do not show the drawing/photo on the packaging as a central part of the photo to keep most photos at least partly (will still be useful to illustrate the articles).
--Saibo (Δ) 14:52, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per Saibo. Also some images look to me like something a chocolate company would produce for their adds, making it likely that the uploader was not the photographer. --Jarekt (talk) 17:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep / Andrzej 22 (talk) 18:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for participating - however, please note that this is not a vote. So please explain your reasoning / arguments against mine. You can also comment in Polish if you like. --Saibo (Δ) 22:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- Move to respective Wikis and add fair use template; No need to damage Wikipedia entries.Marokwitz (talk) 09:35, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
- Feel free to do so - I do not support fair use which is against our philosphy. --Saibo (Δ) 00:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per Saibo, I have not deleted the images -- but I am very skeptical that any of these can be cropped so that they are both useful and not copyvios. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Okay, will process them now:
- File:6. Bitter 78percent 100g.jpg cropped
- File:ChocolateCow.jpg deleted - unusable - just the logo in 50 px width would survive
- File:DurianChocolateBoxes.jpg cropped and kept for transparency/archival purposes - derivative made: File:DurianChocolateBox logo.jpg (shouldn't be under same file name since the content is too different and name doesn't match).
and tomorrow:
- File:Freia Smil.JPG cropped
- File:Jielbeaumadier ourson bouquet dor vda 2010.jpg cropped
- File:Kinder Maxi King Extra Chocolate.jpg deleted
- File:Kinder Maxi king.jpg deleted, logo extracted, renamed to File:Kinder Maxi king - Logo auf Packung.jpg (name should reflect the significant content change)
- File:Milka Joghurt-Orangen Genuss.jpg deleted. If someone needs the logo: de:Datei:Milka_Logo.svg - {{PD-textlogo}} could be possible.
- File:Ritter Sport Vollnuss.jpg deleted. See Category:Ritter Sport for replacements. A logo is here: de:Datei:Ritter Sport logo.svg.
- File:Smash chocolate.JPG deleted
--Saibo (Δ) 03:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
done. At least some could be saved. --Saibo (Δ) 01:42, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Uploads by User:Mosiomflori
[edit]
Obvious copyvios. Originals can be found here. ---- Orionist ★ talk 15:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Files in Category:LaM
[edit]There is no Freedom of Panorama in France. The main building was designed by fr:Roland Simounet, who died in 1996 ; the extension was designedby Manuelle Gautrand. The statues in the park are modern art. Some files depict no controversial element ; and other may be De minimis; Mass-deletion per convenience and caution. Jean-Fred (talk) 23:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
OK (No controversial elements) :
Not OK
- Sculptures by Alexander Calder
- Various collections :
- De Minimis ?
- Delete everything but File:20111022 lam55.jpg and File:20111022 lam54.jpg. All other files show copyrighted elements that are the main subjects of the picture. (as long as we don't have FoP yet in France) --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 17:09, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Avis de Jean Housen
[edit]Je suis l'auteur de 3 des images incriminées :
que j'ai publiées sur Wikimedia Commons sur un total d'une soixantaine de photos réalisées au LAM lors d'une visite le 22 octobre 2011. Pas de problème quant à leur suppression si elles provoquent des difficultés légales. J'aimerais cependant pointer la nécessité de provoquer une certaine prise de conscience quant aux chemins absurdes où mènent ces concepts de propriété intellectuelles, quand il s'agit d'objets, bâtiments etc dans l'espace public, visibles par tous en tous moments, et qui sont simplement redupliqués et diffusés pour des usages d'informations non lucratifs.
Un trait d'humour : pour mettre fin à tous ces problèmes d'images, il serait plus simple que tout le monde circule voilé et que l'on demande à Christo d'emballer l'entierté de l'espace public, sur lequel il serait dès lors le seul à toucher des droits !!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeanhousen (talk • contribs)
- C'est peut-être stupide mais la loi est comme ça (du moins pour l'instant) et Commons doit s'y soumettre. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 17:09, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: I also deleted File:Jielbeaumadier gare lille-f pub lam lille 2010.jpg as it has clear creative elements.
Note to Jeanhousen -- You speak of "non-profit" (non lucratifs) use. In fact Commons requires that all images here be available for all commercial uses. An architect is as much entitled to profit from his work as a sculptor, painter, or writer -- the fact that buildings are more public does not make them any less creative. And, of course, you could ask your representatives to change the law -- perhaps not now, however, as they have other things on their minds -- th€ futur€ of th€ €?.
Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
{{PD-old}} is not valid.
Is "Bonanza" in public domain !? . HombreDHojalata.talk 12:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Comment - Changed license to {{PD-US-not renewed}}. Many screenshots from Bonaza is already uploaded in Commons, so we might have to file a mass DR if this DR result is a delete --Sreejith K (talk) 12:19, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
and other uploads by Edgar Feria (talk · contribs). Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF. Source for maps is unclear. Historical photos may be in public domain but relevant info must be provided. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 22:00, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Three old photos of Eissporthalle Category:Rödermark
[edit]Permision from photographer missing. Photographer is not mentioned. Just "Quelle = eigene Urheber = eigene Fotosommlung" or "Quelle = eigene Fotosammlung Urheber = eigene Fotosammlung". I suspect the uploader isn't the photographer (see here and compare with date of the photos - not mentioned here due to anon).
Saibo (Δ) 18:50, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- Did you ask the uploader to de.wikipedia.org for the source? --217.10.60.85 08:14, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- I did notify him of this deletion request, yes: de:Benutzer_Diskussion:Maybeneo#Deine_Datei_musste_leider_gel.C3.B6scht_werden_4. I just saw that he has email switched on so I now also wrote him an email (since he is not really active at Wikipedia). Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 13:21, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: missing author information. A.J. (talk) 09:27, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Previous nominations
|
|---|
|
This image infringes the copyright of the sculptor, Richard Serra. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC) Kept: what we see in the picture is too simple to be an issue of copyright Jcb (talk) 19:28, 22 October 2011 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
No FOP for sculpture in US, and date of piece is late enough that it is inherently copyrighted. Possibly OK on some basis, but if so that needs to be explained. Not de minimis because given its title the picture is clearly intended to show the sculpture, not the landscape. Jmabel ! talk 22:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep: below threshold of originality. A.J. (talk) 15:13, 1 March 2012 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Copyvio of nonfree recent sculpture in the US ɱ (talk) 18:48, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Kept: per Jmabel. Ruthven (msg) 16:02, 9 January 2018 (UTC) |
There's very low threshold of originality for American sculptures. Even simple sculptures depicting daily objects by Claes Oldenburg are copyrighted (evidenced by 2012 takedown action by the camp of Oldenburg against Wikimedia Foundation). See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dark Star Park.jpg. Even the permission field implies some uncertainty ("In October 2011 discussion, Jcb concluded, with reference to Serra's sculpture 'what we see in the picture is too simple to be an issue of copyright'..., however, this is just a conclusion by an administrator of this site, and should not be taken as legal advice. Reusers may want to consider whether they need further clearances.). This uncertainty runs counter to Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle. As long as U.S. doesn't have FOP for all copyrighted public art, images with uncertain level of freeness because they bear sculptures or other public art cannot be permitted here. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:50, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Sorry but per the second archived discussion this is below COM:TOO US, see what @Claritas: said above. Delete It's better to reword the COM:TOO US based on this case. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:02, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. Simple geometrical figure, not copyrightable. US has quite high threshold of originality anyway. Taivo (talk) 13:14, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Taivo: but not for public art. The TOO is mostly for things like logos and symbols, but U.S. courts tend to favor sculptors or their heirs over the general public (ex. Mr. Davidson and USPS case over the Vegas replica of the Lady Liberty). See the case of 2012 Oldenburg DMCA take down notice, some of Oldenburg's works are simple, yet their images here were also taken down due to that. Unless a great change will come in the U.S. that will finally favor the general public - the introduction of commercial FOP for all U.S. public art. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:23, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- I have not seen any evidence for that so far. Only link to dark star sculpture DR – the dark star sculpture is really more complex. Taivo (talk) 13:28, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Taivo: but not for public art. The TOO is mostly for things like logos and symbols, but U.S. courts tend to favor sculptors or their heirs over the general public (ex. Mr. Davidson and USPS case over the Vegas replica of the Lady Liberty). See the case of 2012 Oldenburg DMCA take down notice, some of Oldenburg's works are simple, yet their images here were also taken down due to that. Unless a great change will come in the U.S. that will finally favor the general public - the introduction of commercial FOP for all U.S. public art. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:23, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Info @Taivo: found one passage at w:Copyright law of the United States#Useful articles. While it is intended for things like printed décors on useful articles (e.g. T-shirts), the court interpretation here seems to confirm the "relatively low threshold for pictorial, graphic, or sculptural features on useful articles to be eligible for copyright protection". It contrasts sharply with the US TOO for logos and trademark symbols. Thus there is low TOO for artistic objects like artistic works and artistic features on useful articles. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:54, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
- The passage applies only for useful objects. This sculpture is not a useful object. Taivo (talk) 16:13, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Taivo: To me, I can sit down on it, so I doubt if it's not useful. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
- Please also note that Commons:Deletion requests/File:Richard-Serra-Schunnemunk-Fork2.jpg was closed as deleted, so that won't be below TOO US. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:34, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
- This was incorrect closure. Liuxinyu, you can sit on almost everything enough big, this does not make the object useful. Taivo (talk) 07:07, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Ellin Beltz: What's your think of the Taivo's "not beyond TOO" comment, as the deletion was decided by you? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:28, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- This was incorrect closure. Liuxinyu, you can sit on almost everything enough big, this does not make the object useful. Taivo (talk) 07:07, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
- The passage applies only for useful objects. This sculpture is not a useful object. Taivo (talk) 16:13, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
- I think if it's uploaded as public art in the US, and the US has no FOP, it's really not up to us to decide if it's art or not art, but to apply the COM:FOP for US and also COM:PRP. Both pictures are clearly labeled as art and the artist was cited. Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:26, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Ellin Beltz: It's not up to us to decide if it's art or not art, but it is up to us to decide if it's (1) copyrightable, (2) de minimis. - Jmabel ! talk 14:47, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Jmabel: As far as I looked up that sculpture, it has some complex enough figures, though their colors are grey and hence finding them can be hard, but not really impossible, I don't see why Taivo's "not beyond TOO" claim can work, as for DM, this can only be and must be answered by the uploader @Tilted Spheres: (likely but not absolutely, the author of this image) even though inactive for 13 years. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 08:58, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Ellin Beltz: It's not up to us to decide if it's art or not art, but it is up to us to decide if it's (1) copyrightable, (2) de minimis. - Jmabel ! talk 14:47, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Taivo, Ellin Beltz, Jmabel, and Liuxinyu970226: I found an article that relates to the Statue of Liberty replica case. Under "Three Lessons You Need to Take Away from USPS’s accidental copyright-infringement case.", the number two is "To be original, a work does not have to be completely unique: Originality can be subtle and still be recognized. This is because most copyright laws only require some degree of creativity. The United States Supreme Court has once held that the required degree of creativity is “extremely low”. In Nigeria, an artistic, literary, or musical work enjoys copyright protection once sufficient effort is expended on it to give it an original character. This is irrespective of literary quality." This seems to imply the TOO for artistic works in the United States is very low (contrasting with high bar of TOO for things like logos). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:02, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Richard Serra (born 1938) is a minimalistic land artist. His work can be photographed with a free licence in countries with FOP, but not in US. This work can not be compared to a simple geometric form such as a simple logo. It is placed at a certain point and a certain orientation in the landscape, determined by the artist. The combination of design and location are copyrighted and therefore the image must be deleted. Nor is this a detail of a bigger sculpture, as can be noted from the other deleted image, per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Richard-Serra-Schunnemunk-Fork2.jpg. --Ellywa (talk) 15:23, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
- I'dont understand the Problem. Lohages lives until 1872. A Porträt of him, must made before this date! --Machahn (talk) 13:20, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
- Well, portraits can also be made post-mortem - after death. Don't you have any information on the date of production? Is there any information (date or/and author) available at the "Südwestfalenarchiv"? Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ) 16:36, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
- ich denke wir können das auch auf deutsch verhandeln. Ich halte es für höchst unwahrscheinlich, dass jemand, wie du als Beispiel annimmst, um 1895 ein Gemälde in einem Stil malen sollte, der zu dieser Zeit doch schon altväterlich zu nennen ist. Für mich macht es den Eindruck, dass es eher älter als 1870 ist als jünger. --Machahn (talk) 19:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
- Wenn es Anhaltspunkte für ein Alter von vor ca. 1870 (dann hätte der Künstler nach dem Malen schon immerhin 70 Jahre Zeit zu sterben) gibt, dann soll es gerne hier bleiben. Ich verstehe leider nicht viel von der Stilistik der Gemälde. Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ) 00:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- ich denke wir können das auch auf deutsch verhandeln. Ich halte es für höchst unwahrscheinlich, dass jemand, wie du als Beispiel annimmst, um 1895 ein Gemälde in einem Stil malen sollte, der zu dieser Zeit doch schon altväterlich zu nennen ist. Für mich macht es den Eindruck, dass es eher älter als 1870 ist als jünger. --Machahn (talk) 19:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
- Well, portraits can also be made post-mortem - after death. Don't you have any information on the date of production? Is there any information (date or/and author) available at the "Südwestfalenarchiv"? Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ) 16:36, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept: decided as "keep" by Bastique. -- Túrelio (talk) 07:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
The OTRS-Ticket seems to be only for the prior Version which I transfered separatly to File:Feldkapelle Denkenreuth 1.jpg. Ticket date is 2007-06-21, upload date of the version is 2007-11-29, half a year later. Its the same uploader but its unclear who is the fotografer. I'll leave the de: uploader a note. JuTa 23:53, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Andrea (talk) 18:33, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Unclear permissibility. Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 06:40, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
