Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2011/11/24
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
- File:Chevroletnova-loja-joao-dias.jpg
- File:Chevroletnova-lojas-bauru-pecas.jpg
- File:Chevroletnova-loja-ribeirao-preto.jpg
These images have been used only for advertisement on Wikipedia; not used anywhere. Francisco (talk) 00:10, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No source, no permission, possible copyvio and not used anywhere. Béria Lima msg 14:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
being used solely for vandalism. In addition, the policeman's image is copyrighted by the original photographer. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 04:19, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- A banned user on en-wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Joe_Circus) has been creating various socks using IP proxies, and using them to harass editors, vandalize pages, and generally disrupt a set of articles. He's also uploaded various nonsense/attack images on the Commons, including this one. The accounts/uploads are:
- http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Pepper_Spray_Dixx
- http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Group_Cirrcunciser
- http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Robo-Zircunciser
- They should all be deleted. Jayjg (talk) 04:51, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Obvious copyvio derivative (Speedy Deletion reason "File 1") of UC Davis image (see <http://www.televisioninternet.com/news/pictures/uc-davis-pepper-spray-2.jpg> Avi (talk) 18:00, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Photomontage that is not useful for any project. Not clear that uploader owns the copyright to the underlying works. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 12:56, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: speedied as derivative of coyrighted image. Túrelio (talk) 19:11, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Identical to File:Aircraft in the Beijing military museum.jpg Sven Manguard (talk) 16:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Thanks for finding it out but please use {{duplicate}} instead High Contrast (talk) 18:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
188.254.231.37 20:24, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Speedy-closed of this vandal-DR as keep, because perfect license on http://www.flickr.com/photos/49405355@N04/5770887336. Túrelio (talk) 21:09, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Bridgette B at Exxxotica Miami 2011 1.jpg 188.254.231.37 20:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep License is confirmed by bot, Exif data is intact and Flickr user has similar pictures from same event on his photostream. Doesn't look like flickrwashing to me. -- Herby (Vienna) (talk) 21:02, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Speedy-closed as perfectly correct license on http://www.flickr.com/photos/49405355@N04/5770465603. Túrelio (talk) 21:08, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
188.254.231.37 20:50, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Speedy-closed of this vandal-DR as keep due to perfectly correct license on http://www.flickr.com/photos/jerone2/5348081691/. Túrelio (talk) 21:11, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Bgwhite as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: http://quages.com/others/Bridgette-B..html -mattbuck (Talk) 09:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Comment Copyviol? This file was cropped from File:Bridgette B. at AVN Awards 2011.jpg! Maybe quages.com made copyviol. Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 08:32, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination -mattbuck (Talk) 17:50, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
less quality Wikipics 1988 (talk) 21:18, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio Denniss (talk) 21:42, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
less quality Wikipics 1988 (talk) 21:18, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio Denniss (talk) 21:44, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
less quality Wikipics 1988 (talk) 21:19, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio Denniss (talk) 21:43, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
less quality Wikipics 1988 (talk) 21:19, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio Denniss (talk) 21:43, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
less quality Wikipics 1988 (talk) 21:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio Denniss (talk) 21:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely own work, as there are earlier hits, such as http://s7.invisionfree.com/Source_of_Strength/ar/t62.htm Túrelio (talk) 22:08, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Obvious copyvio, screencap of Jensen Ackles in "Dark Angle" (see for example http://musiqueguy1.livejournal.com/19262.html). --Martin H. (talk) 22:28, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely own work as there are earlier hits of the uncropped image, http://tribalwrestling.com/the-silver-wrestling-report-september-26-%E2%80%93-october-4/ Túrelio (talk) 22:09, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation. Martin H. (talk) 22:22, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely own work as there are earlier hits, such as http://bleacherreport.com/articles/907393-wwe-vengeance-2011-results-match-by-match-breakdown#/articles/907393-wwe-vengeance-2011-results-match-by-match-breakdown/page/2 Túrelio (talk) 22:12, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation. Martin H. (talk) 22:22, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
OB by File:Al-Husayni1929.jpg - cannot see any improvements or changes Chesdovi (talk) 13:12, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep if you view the image at full resolution, you should see that dirt and scratches have been digitally removed from the image. --Xijky (talk) 16:47, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- Well the other one should be deleted then. Chesdovi (talk) 18:00, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- No, it's needed so that users can see what digital alterations have been made, and so that a user who wants to make a different digital restoration of the image has it ready-at-hand. --Xijky (talk) 22:52, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- Well the other one should be deleted then. Chesdovi (talk) 18:00, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Merged to File:Al-Husayni1929.jpg, minor editing, no new version required. Yes, this is a collaborative wiki, it works similar to article editing in Wikipedia. Martin H. (talk) 20:18, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
per Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag#This does not apply to photographs of 3D works of art, this image is non-free, as it was taken in 2004. In addition, the copyright notice on the site states "Archives are copyright and must not be published or reproduced without the written consent of the Director."[1] Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:16, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- Did you read the license???? I'm not using PD-art, I'm using PD-Irish GOV, which states the copyright has passed. As the Irish Government owns the seal and it's physical representation, their copyright law supercededs any attempt at private copyright (which isn't even the case here, as the National Archives is an Irish governmental agency), and no doubt any photographs of the seal itself are only allowed under their direction. It's PD for that reason. If you can't even pay attention to licenses when you nominate a file, perhaps you shouldn't be nominating files in the future. Keep Fry1989 eh? 01:19, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I did read the license. Did you read what I wrote ???!11!1eleven!one!! The photo was taken post-1961, and so the photo (not the original 3D artwork) is copyrighted. Works by the Irish government are copyrighted, even if no doubt any photographs of the seal itself are only allowed under their direction. It's not PD for that reason. If you can't pay attention to licenses when you uplaod a file, perhaps you shouldn't be uploading files in the future.
Delete. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:23, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- I pay more attention to the files I transfer than you do in a week. You're absolute incompetency when it comes to File:Seal of the New Jersey Turnpike Authority.jpg and others, speaks for itself. There's no proof the photo is a new work, the "National Archives of Ireland © 2004" is a standard tag that most websites place on their page design, it does not transfer to the images contained within. Fry1989 eh? 01:27, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- Is that so? So you're saying that any work by the government of Ireland, even post 1961, is public domain? Wow; does that apply to every country? Does that mean I can upload any government's works? Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- Again you have shown selective hearing. There is no proof the file was taken in 2004, that is a standard website design tag, it does not apply to images contained within, which carry their own rights depending on when they're made/taken. I just emailed the National Archives, they will tell us when the photograph of the Seal was taken. Fry1989 eh? 01:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for that action: the date of the photograph seems to be the key issue, so if it can be established via OTRS that it's old enough, we're good. PS Could we not have got to this point with fewer insults? Rd232 (talk) 01:42, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- Again you have shown selective hearing. There is no proof the file was taken in 2004, that is a standard website design tag, it does not apply to images contained within, which carry their own rights depending on when they're made/taken. I just emailed the National Archives, they will tell us when the photograph of the Seal was taken. Fry1989 eh? 01:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- It seems like a pretty big stretch to a) assume that it was taken before 1961 without any proof, and b) insult the intelligence of someone who would question that. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:50, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- There's no basis for any assumptions about the photo date, beyond it being sometime between 1937 and 2004. You both made assumptions without evidence, and insulted each other. Let it go, I'd say. Rd232 (talk) 01:56, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- Rd232, to answer your question, I want Magog to stop wiki-stalking me, to not threaten me, to not constantly question every file I transfer to Commons unless he has direct proof it may be copyrighted, and to try and assume good faith in a fellow Wikimedian. Fry1989 eh? 02:00, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- I'm quite aware that you two have a problematic relationship; my point is that in any individual DR, it brings no benefit to allow that background to affect a discussion which must always ultimately address the merits of the facts of the specific DR. Rd232 (talk) 02:11, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- A problematic relationship he started, and then he somehow expected me to be polite and gracious for. He started this entire dispute with the way he has attacked me. Fry1989 eh? 02:19, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- I'm quite aware that you two have a problematic relationship; my point is that in any individual DR, it brings no benefit to allow that background to affect a discussion which must always ultimately address the merits of the facts of the specific DR. Rd232 (talk) 02:11, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- Rd232, to answer your question, I want Magog to stop wiki-stalking me, to not threaten me, to not constantly question every file I transfer to Commons unless he has direct proof it may be copyrighted, and to try and assume good faith in a fellow Wikimedian. Fry1989 eh? 02:00, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- There's no basis for any assumptions about the photo date, beyond it being sometime between 1937 and 2004. You both made assumptions without evidence, and insulted each other. Let it go, I'd say. Rd232 (talk) 01:56, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I did read the license. Did you read what I wrote ???!11!1eleven!one!! The photo was taken post-1961, and so the photo (not the original 3D artwork) is copyrighted. Works by the Irish government are copyrighted, even if no doubt any photographs of the seal itself are only allowed under their direction. It's not PD for that reason. If you can't pay attention to licenses when you uplaod a file, perhaps you shouldn't be uploading files in the future.
- Did you read the license???? I'm not using PD-art, I'm using PD-Irish GOV, which states the copyright has passed. As the Irish Government owns the seal and it's physical representation, their copyright law supercededs any attempt at private copyright (which isn't even the case here, as the National Archives is an Irish governmental agency), and no doubt any photographs of the seal itself are only allowed under their direction. It's PD for that reason. If you can't even pay attention to licenses when you nominate a file, perhaps you shouldn't be nominating files in the future.
- Date of photograph not stated, and being a photograph of a 3D object it ha(d|s) copyright; without evidence to the contrary, we presume that it is copyright when taken from a website with a copyright notice, and the object dated from 1937 (2/3 of the 74 years are within copyright). The design itself is not subject to copyright. I hope that communications with NAS are successful, and they can confirm that the photo is out of copyright, or they grant rights for use. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:47, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- This idea isn't as obscure as it might sounds; the queen (or her office, probably) gave us rights to upload all images subject to her copyright in the US but not in the UK. It would be great if we could get a blanket authorization for some items but we probably won't get something that broad. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:02, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- I have recieved an email from an archivist of the National Archives. She has informed me that the photograph of the Presidential Seal was taken on 6 December 1937, as stated in the caption. I am prepared to forward this email to OTRS or whatever else as needed to confirm that this file is PD. Once the email is confirmed, this can be closed as a Keep. Please instruct me on how to forward this email to the relevant Commons authority for confirmation. Fry1989 eh? 23:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- Excellent, thanks. Good work. I think the standard instructions at Commons:OTRS apply - forward the email with all headers intact and that should suffice (or if it doesn't, a volunteer should clarify in response). Rd232 (talk) 23:42, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- Very well. I have forwarded the email, it should be confirmed soon. Fry1989 eh? 00:24, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- Excellent, thanks. Good work. I think the standard instructions at Commons:OTRS apply - forward the email with all headers intact and that should suffice (or if it doesn't, a volunteer should clarify in response). Rd232 (talk) 23:42, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept: OTRS received/confirmed russavia (talk) 15:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Image is copyrighted. It is figure 35 of doi: 10.1016/j.ccr.2010.10.038 . If the image is relevant, it should be recreated from fractional or cartesian coordinates. Rifleman 82 (talk) 07:14, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete I don't have access to the article to confirm, but assuming it's cut'n'pasted, it has to go per nom and likewise could be recreated by someone who could then release the image under a free license. Looking at the use-case, [2] there's nothing very important about this particular representation (vs a recreated one) that would make this image itself "iconic" or the 3D structure of critical importance to the article to merit even a fair-use claim to keep the image locally on en.wp. DMacks (talk) 17:00, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: It is indeed Fig. 35 from the given source. Ed (Edgar181) 21:40, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
User name and Author Name can't be changed. Privacy concerns are very important to me. Room237 (talk) 00:24, 24 November 2011 (UTC) attempted to replace previous image in order to change my author name for privacy - need to delete Room237 (talk) 04:08, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- Information removed. Should be OK now. --Foroa (talk) 06:36, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- It seems you forgot to suppress it in the edit summary of the original upload as well, so I did that for you. - Andre Engels (talk) 12:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
User name and Author Name can't be changed. Privacy concerns are very important to me. Room237 (talk) 00:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept: I don't understand the concern. The uploader (who is also the nom) is a pseudonym, so privacy should not be an issue. In any event. the license is irrevocable. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:02, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
User name and Author Name can't be changed. Privacy concerns are very important to me. Room237 (talk) 00:26, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
User name and Author Name can't be changed. Privacy concerns are very important to me. Room237 (talk) 00:26, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
User name and Author Name can't be changed. Privacy concerns are very important to me. Room237 (talk) 00:26, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
User name and Author Name can't be changed. Privacy concerns are very important to me. Room237 (talk) 00:26, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
User name and Author Name can't be changed. Privacy concerns are very important to me. Room237 (talk) 00:26, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
User name and Author Name can't be changed. Privacy concerns are very important to me. Room237 (talk) 00:26, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
User name and Author Name can't be changed. Privacy concerns are very important to me. Room237 (talk) 00:26, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
User name and Author Name can't be changed. Privacy concerns are very important to me. Room237 (talk) 00:26, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
User name and Author Name can't be changed. Privacy concerns are very important to me. Room237 (talk) 00:27, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
User name and Author Name can't be changed. Privacy concerns are very important to me. Room237 (talk) 00:27, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
User name and Author Name can't be changed. Privacy concerns are very important to me. Room237 (talk) 00:27, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
User name and Author Name can't be changed. Privacy concerns are very important to me. Room237 (talk) 00:27, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
User name and Author Name can't be changed. Privacy concerns are very important to me. Room237 (talk) 00:27, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
User name and Author Name can't be changed. Privacy concerns are very important to me. Room237 (talk) 00:27, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
User name and Author Name can't be changed. Privacy concerns are very important to me. Room237 (talk) 00:27, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
User name and Author Name can't be changed. Privacy concerns are very important to me. Room237 (talk) 00:27, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
User name and Author Name can't be changed. Privacy concerns are very important to me. Room237 (talk) 00:28, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
User name and Author Name can't be changed. Privacy concerns are very important to me. Room237 (talk) 00:28, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
User name and Author Name can't be changed. Privacy concerns are very important to me. Room237 (talk) 00:28, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
User name and Author Name can't be changed. Privacy concerns are very important to me. Room237 (talk) 00:28, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Map of some insufficiently precise defined region lacking a needed legend Andre Engels (talk) 00:43, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
portrait of an apparently non-notable person Andre Engels (talk) 00:47, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
File:US_Navy_070503-N-1525H-009_Electrician's_Mate_Seaman_Angela_Sampson_strips_and_spins_wire_on_the_number_seven_high-pressure_air_compressor_aboard_the_nuclear-powered_aircraft_carrier_USS_Nimitz_(CVN_68).jpg
[edit]Comments added by Brownlunchbag (talk · contribs) "i do NOT want my picture for all the public to see, take it down." and "i do not want my picture out in the public like this", also this one ■ MMXX talk 00:54, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - good photo. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:58, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Already on the USN website, really no reason to remove it from here. I've added a warning for personality rights to the file, I hope that be enough. ■ MMXX talk 01:31, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- Concur. She should doubtless complain to Seaman Matthew Haws for his releasing a photo of her without her permission, but the fact remains that he did, and given that the US Navy saw fit to release it, I can't think of any reason we shouldn't also feel free to use it. -Jmabel ! talk
- In our private lives we may be able to insist photographers get our permission before publishing images of us taken on private property, but I would be surprised if a sailor has an obligation to request permission to publish a picture taken of another sailor, who is on duty, when the photography was part of the photographer's official duties. Geo Swan (talk) 14:58, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete as a courtesy, the image isnt in use anywhere and its not being "lost" its still available at source. Even if its closed as keep the description is probably what is causing much of the discomfort. Suggest both desription and name be modified such that the phrase Angela_Sampson_strips is removed. Gnangarra 09:44, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep -- I took the sailor's name out of the description field. When this discussion closes as keep we can change the file name as well. Geo Swan (talk) 14:58, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
This is a derivative work of the screenshot within. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:55, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - yes, it's obviously derivative, and the screenshot isn't the photographer's copyright. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
out of scope? AtelierMonpli (talk) 02:01, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:07, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
out of scope - advertising AtelierMonpli (talk) 02:03, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:07, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Screenshot of a news program, copyvio. Bill william comptonTalk 02:11, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:07, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Screenshot of a news program, copyvio. Bill william comptonTalk 02:11, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:07, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Screenshot of a television program, copyvio. Bill william comptonTalk 02:11, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:07, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Screenshot of a news program, copyvio. Bill william comptonTalk 02:11, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:07, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
derivative work, watch the copyright mark on the plastic glass UAwiki (talk) 02:11, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete clearly all copyrighted. Sigh. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:23, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - if any of these items were mass produced (i.e., published) in the United States and never given a copyright notice per {{PD-1978}} or {{PD-1989}}, they are free. Does anyone want to ask the uploader if any of these items are that old, and if they do not carry a copyright symbol? Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- The one literally has copyright notice in the image. The items are clearly copyrighted and not that old. The image was fine on Wikipedia under fair use, and it was from Wikipedia. And the actual Cookie Monster which these are derivatives of is copyrighted, so you can't get around that. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- I uploaded it. I don't recall if I moved it to commons or if the bot did. If there's a question about it, then zap it. It's not that important. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Cover art of a book, copyvio. Bill william comptonTalk 02:12, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Screenshot of a news program, copyvio. Bill william comptonTalk 02:12, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Screenshot of a news program, copyvio. Bill william comptonTalk 02:12, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
no evidence of permission from original creator BMRR (talk) 02:39, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Appears from EXIF this is by a commercial photographer and copyright (most material on website by the Army and PD, and copyright material is supposed to be marked, but it seems pretty clear this isn't) —innotata 02:40, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
out of scope AtelierMonpli (talk) 02:56, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
copyvio of http://www.fluevog.com/code/images/colour_image/0000006319/zoom.jpg, no evidence of permission Holyoke, mass (talk) 03:09, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: 00:58, 30 November 2011 by Fastily, closed by Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
persistent copyright violations from this user, image appears elsewhere (eg in a modified form http://www.law.edu/res/images/news/2011%20Winter%20Spring/April/Burton%20Awards%20logo-small.gif), no evidence of permission of being this user's "own work". Newest logo is a different colour, so having trouble finding an exact match (see http://www.burtonawards.com/images/logo2.gif) Holyoke, mass (talk) 03:16, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
User name and Author Name can't be changed. Privacy concerns are very important to me. Room237 (talk) 00:24, 24 November 2011 (UTC) attempted to replace previous image in order to change my author name for privacy - need to delete Room237 (talk) 04:08, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- Information removed. Should be OK now. --Foroa (talk) 06:36, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- It seems you forgot to suppress it in the edit summary of the original upload as well, so I did that for you. - Andre Engels (talk) 12:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
User name and Author Name can't be changed. Privacy concerns are very important to me. Room237 (talk) 04:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
User name and Author Name can't be changed. Privacy concerns are very important to me. Room237 (talk) 04:21, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I understand; is the concern that user name and/or author name are embedded in the file history? While I appreciate privacy concerns, the file was released to the public domain and I'm not sure how it would be possible to revoke this. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:11, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for responding, Gyrofrog. Is there any way I can remove Kevin D. Hartnell from the files I have uploaded? I do not know how to do this. Thank you again.
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
User name and Author Name can't be changed. Privacy concerns are very important to me. Room237 (talk) 00:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept: I don't understand the concern. The uploader (who is also the nom) is a pseudonym, so privacy should not be an issue. In any event. the license is irrevocable. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:02, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
My gut feeling says this is a copyright violation; odd resolution, no EXIF data, and an inexplicable advertisement bulit into the upper-left-hand side of the image. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:39, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Also, it is located here: [3], where it gives an entirely different attribution. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:44, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
City was founded in 2001, so the seal cannot be older than 50 years old. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 04:57, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Not PD-USER, seal is under copyright in the Philippines User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 04:58, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Seal is not older than 50 years, so still under copyright User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 04:59, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Seal is younger than 50 years old, so still under copyright in the Philippines User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:00, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
From a 1955 British movie; not public domain. They were in fact one point in the public domain in the US, but no longer are due to {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:06, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
City created in 1970; no way the seal can be older than 50 years. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:07, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Government works are PD 50 years after creation; also not a US Gov"t work User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:07, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Non free; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ph_seal_zamboanga_del_sur.png User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:28, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
"This work is a product of the government of the Republic of the Philippines. Republic Act 8293 forbids the use of government works for commercial purposes. This image therefore does not qualify for free use under the terms adopted by the Wikimedia Foundation, and is considered non-free on Wikipedia." Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:32, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- Per Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-PhilippineGov and Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-PhilippinesGov, the non-commercial restriction is a non-copyright restriction which doesn't affect Commons. If you disagree, you should nominate the template for deletion instead of individual files. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:58, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Apparently ok -FASTILY 20:53, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Founded in the 1970's, so the seal cannot be older than 50 years User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
From looking at the source, the stamp doesn't come from there. Looking at the stamp itself, it might not be public domain due to age. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
portrait of an as far as I can see non-notable person Andre Engels (talk) 06:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope. A piece of sky and a piece of land, with the latter totally black. Andre Engels (talk) 06:39, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
out of scope 77.184.47.29 07:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep as illustration of grimace. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 16:44, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: You find a use for any image, but that does not mean we keep them all. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Flow diagram, but of what? Andre Engels (talk) 07:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Flow diagram, but of what? Andre Engels (talk) 07:46, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Either copyright violation/fair use or out of scope (depending on whether the claim that this is 'own work' is correct) Andre Engels (talk) 07:47, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Portrait of a non-notable person Andre Engels (talk) 07:49, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Cannot find meta information neither from the description page nor flickr, cannot confirm flickr is the really source. Mys 721tx (talk) 07:57, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
This is obviously a printscreen of Google Maps: hence, it is under copyright. BrightRaven (talk) 08:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Advertisement Andre Engels (talk) 08:24, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Clearly a magazine cover, so I don't believe for one minute it really is 'own work'. Scanning something doesn't make one its maker! Andre Engels (talk) 08:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Nothing to be seen Andre Engels (talk) 08:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
A logo, but of what? As far as I can tell, a group of people who form a group on dailymotion, facebook and other social media Andre Engels (talk) 08:34, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
logo of some NN website Andre Engels (talk) 08:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
portrait of someone we know nothing more of than that her name is Barbára. Might well be the uploader herself. Andre Engels (talk) 08:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
logo from some school - not of the school itself, mind you, but of a cooperation project Andre Engels (talk) 08:39, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
No description, and usefulness cannot be seen from the picture without it Andre Engels (talk) 08:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Portrait of non-notable person Andre Engels (talk) 08:43, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Screen capture of a web site falsely claimed as 'own work' Andre Engels (talk) 08:44, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Logo of a website which is not only non-notable, but also now defunct Andre Engels (talk) 08:46, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
It seems that stamps of Malaysia are not in the public domain: Commons:Stamps/Public domain. BrightRaven (talk) 08:51, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Plain text, out of project scope. Also some sort of biography spam. Martin H. (talk) 09:11, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
A photo taken from the european parliament website is not PD-Italy just because it shows an Italian politician. There is some evidence missing that this is a work first published in Italy, otherwise I'd assume the photo is connected to the EU or predecessing organizations in some way and first published in France or Belgium or so. Martin H. (talk) 09:32, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:14, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Out of scope: picture of non notable person. BrightRaven (talk) 09:34, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: the number of files uploaded by this inactive user of Arab Wikipedia is beyond this project scope recommendation: "by custom the uploading of small numbers of images (eg of yourself) for bona fide use on a personal user page of another project is considered legitimate". BrightRaven (talk) 12:12, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Out of scope: picture of non notable person. BrightRaven (talk) 09:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Out of scope: picture of non notable person. BrightRaven (talk) 09:36, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Out of scope: picture of non notable person. BrightRaven (talk) 09:36, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Out of scope: picture of non notable person. BrightRaven (talk) 09:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Out of scope: picture of non notable person. BrightRaven (talk) 09:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Out of scope: picture of non notable person. BrightRaven (talk) 09:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Out of scope: picture of non notable person. BrightRaven (talk) 09:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Out of scope: picture of non notable person. BrightRaven (talk) 09:39, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Out of scope: picture of non notable person. BrightRaven (talk) 09:39, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Out of scope: picture of non notable person. BrightRaven (talk) 09:40, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Out of scope: picture of non notable person. BrightRaven (talk) 09:40, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Out of scope: picture of non notable person. BrightRaven (talk) 09:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Out of scope: picture of non notable people. BrightRaven (talk) 09:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Out of scope: picture of non notable people. BrightRaven (talk) 09:42, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Out of scope: picture of non notable person. BrightRaven (talk) 09:42, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Out of scope: picture of non notable person. BrightRaven (talk) 09:43, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Brazilian municipality founded in 1992, failing {{PD-BrazilGov}}. No trivial text logo, failing {{PD-textlogo}}. Unlikely to be own work, grabbed from internet via (example) http://www.itaipulandia.pr.gov.br/ (oficial site). Gunnex (talk) 09:53, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
per Commons:Deletion requests/Image:GeneralRelativityTheoryManuscript.jpg RE rillke questions? 10:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
simple photo of a 2D map Liangent (talk) 10:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- If this is not considered an artistic work (see COM:FOP#China, People's Republic of), then it should be Delete. --Bencmq (talk) 14:46, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: I think it does fall within "artistic works", so it would be OK if it were in an outdoor public place. Unfortunately, I think it is probably indoors. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
out of scope Lucas 11:06, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
contains no encyclopedic purpose for christmas AtelierMonpli (talk) 11:55, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: The reason given is a little strange, but the image is stranger still -- I see no use for it. Also it has two parts and I would guess that both are copyvios. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Personal picture of user, not in use anywhere. Out of project scope Martin H. (talk) 13:08, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Promotional homepage material, out of scope Motopark (talk) 13:18, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
This appears to be a modern work, and I see nothing to make me think that the user who released it actually created it. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
llvcc 217.93.255.232 13:49, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep No reason given. -- Herby (Vienna) (talk) 16:58, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep No reason given. --GDK (talk) 17:22, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept: I can see no reason to delete. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
The photo was made in 1966 by an unknown person and it appears that Doc Kazi found this somewhere and uploaded it to his Flickr account. The description in Flickr doesn't mention that Kazi took the photo so it should be deleted as possible copyvio. Anyone can creat a Flickr account and upload coyrighted images there. Officer (talk) 14:22, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Out of project scope : logo of a (still) unexisting website. Moreover, maybe there is a copyright problem (imitation of Facebook logo). BrightRaven (talk) 14:59, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
not in scope 80.187.208.28 15:12, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: 15:13, 24 November 2011 by Beria, closed by Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:45, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
probably not own work, see border 80.187.208.28 15:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Any reason to have a doubt ? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 16:26, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Only upload by now inactive user. Image is post-processed with rounded border, which suggests it was taken from the web, particularly given the size. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:47, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
not in scope 80.187.208.28 15:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep like all files in Category:Drinking --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 15:38, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: If this image were sharp, it might be useful, but as it is blurry, I see no reason to keep it. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
not notable people 80.187.208.28 15:24, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Promotional and probable copyright violation —DoRD (talk) 15:46, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
There is no evidence to prove User:Erk is the copyright holder of this work. User:Erk uploaded this image in Turkish Wikipedia on June 1, 2007. But same image (larger versions) were uploaded in this website on November 19, 2006, in this website on January 20, 2006. Takabeg (talk) 15:46, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- ...and here in September 2005 (hosted at Imageshack). Delete. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:07, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
For a new version Moisès (talk) 15:55, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Please simply upload the new version over this one, provided that they are very similar. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work of copyrighted product Morning Sunshine (talk) 16:01, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - same like Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Chocolate. --Saibo (Δ) 23:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Likely the screenshot of TV program, may be copyrighted Morning Sunshine (talk) 16:03, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
No commercial freedom of panorama for anything in Russia (Commons:Freedom of panorama#Russia) Kazakhstan (Commons:Freedom of panorama#Former Soviet Union). Jappalang (talk) 16:21, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- The building is in Kazakhstan, not Russia. In Kazakhstan there is freedom of panorama. --Mheidegger (talk) 16:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- Ah, sorry, but it is still the same. Kazakhstan's freedom of panorama laws permit only non-commercial purposes; Commons require allowance for commercial purposes as well. Jappalang (talk) 23:00, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, but you are not right. Please see Kazakhstani Author Rights Law. There is no prohibition of purposes of using such images. --Mheidegger (talk) 21:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- I would ask you to read what you have linked, as well as the Unesco document provided in the FoP section. Article 21 of said Kazakhstani law said:
The reproduction, broadcasting or communication to the public by cable of architectural works, photographic works or works of fine art permanently located in a public place shall be permissible ... except ... if used for commercial purposes.
Commons requires usage for all purposes. Jappalang (talk) 01:37, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- I would ask you to read what you have linked, as well as the Unesco document provided in the FoP section. Article 21 of said Kazakhstani law said:
- Sorry, but you are not right. Please see Kazakhstani Author Rights Law. There is no prohibition of purposes of using such images. --Mheidegger (talk) 21:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- Ah, sorry, but it is still the same. Kazakhstan's freedom of panorama laws permit only non-commercial purposes; Commons require allowance for commercial purposes as well. Jappalang (talk) 23:00, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 16:59, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
There is no evidence to prove that this file is free content. We can see the logo mark of "Defence Talk.com" in this version. However, there is "logoless" version in imageshack.us. I think that if it were his/her work, he/she could upload "logoless" version. Takabeg (talk) 16:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Used solely to disparage the subject at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mounir_boustany —DoRD (talk) 16:31, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
this looks like the official map used by the Zaragoza Transportation Agency. I strongly doubt that the uploader had permission to release its copyright. DS (talk) 16:40, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
It looks like this was photographed off of a wall, which means it's not own work, it's theft. Sven Manguard (talk) 16:51, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- based on this picture: http://vi.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%E1%BA%ADp_tin:Chongquannguyenlan2.jpg --서공／Tây Cống／セイコゥ (talk) 06:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom (derivative work). Also delete File:Chongquannguyenlan2.jpg --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 17:02, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
The stamp is under copyright still in Turkey; it was released in 1983 and the cut-off for PD-Turkey is 1941. Takabeg (talk) 16:52, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
This image circulated already, even in low res and cropped, in 2009 at the oficial site of "Faculdades EST" (est.edu.br) and can be founded in an even more cropped version at (example) here (blog, 2008) and again at est.edu.br. The uploader published at Flickr an all rights reserved, derivated image, 2 days before upload in Commons. So, higly suspicious, unlikely to be own work. Gunnex (talk) 17:27, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
out of scope, unknown man, bad quality, useless Dutch description "behind the scenes" Ras67 (talk) 17:36, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
out of scope, unknown man, bad quality, useless Dutch description "behind the scenes" Ras67 (talk) 17:40, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
out of scope, unknown man, bad quality, useless Dutch description "behind the scenes" Ras67 (talk) 17:40, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
out of scope, unknown man, bad quality, useless Dutch description "behind the scenes" Ras67 (talk) 17:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
simple user name text, out of scope Funfood ␌ 18:04, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Looks like a screenshot from a game (see upper right), so the 'own work' claim seems spurious Andre Engels (talk) 18:07, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete Gears of war, from epic games and microsoft --Funfood ␌ 18:24, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Product photo, derivative work, no own. Funfood ␌ 19:06, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
I transform the speedy into a DR after the comment on the talkpage here. All images of verax ( http://www.flickr.com/photos/veraxsystems/ ) are nonfree and moreover this image contains the GUI of Google Chrome. This image a) should at least be cropped and b) I still doubt that the company allows me to steal their design (although these image seem to be uploaded at flickr..) mabdul 19:24, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - I posted the following comment on the image's talk page, but I'm copying it here as well:
--Rockfang (talk) 00:25, 25 November 2011 (UTC)I think that if this file is actually non-free, it is only because of Google Chrome. The file that was on Flickr was under a proper license at the time. The uploader on Flickr appears to be the author of the software. It appears to me that they switched licenses for all their images at some point between July and today, and deleted all of the old licensed ones. As far as I know, the CC licenses are non retractable, unless switched to a less restrictive license. So, I think the older less restrictive license still applies. I think that if we just crop out the outer part of the image that shows Chrome, we should be fine to keep the image.
- Comment Google Chrome is proprietary, but Chromium is not. Does the image show anything which appears in Chrome but not in Chromium? I just checked Chromium for Linux and it seems to be mostly the same. I can't find the paper icon to the right of the location bar, but it could mean that it's just the version number which differs. The arrows might be a bit different, but I'm not sure. Again, the version number probably differs, and the operating system differs too. Wouldn't {{BSD|The Chromium Projects}} be enough for the browser part? The Chrome/Chromium part of the image is so small. Maybe it's even de minimis? --Stefan4 (talk) 01:00, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: The copyright issue is moot -- the image is not usable because nothing on it is readable. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
The uploader does not claim to be the author and there is no proof that the image is "free to use". Orlodrim (talk) 19:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
My Logo was deleted from this file and this pic is used without my permission 82.235.125.40 19:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: 00:44, 26 November 2011 by Fastily, closed by Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
text should not be provided in jpgs Funfood ␌ 19:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Portrait of an unspecified person Andre Engels (talk) 19:42, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope Andre Engels (talk) 19:44, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: probably copyvio as well Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
6x3 pixels, no clear meaning, not in use Andre Engels (talk) 19:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Not specified who this is (last name missing) Andre Engels (talk) 19:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
logo of - yes of what actually? Andre Engels (talk) 20:06, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: probably copyvio Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Stupid pseudo-fun image. Not positive for encyclopedic goals of the Commons collection 80.187.103.14 20:32, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
i doubt own work because of http://www.warszawa1939.pl/index.php?r1=palac_staszica&r3=0 AtelierMonpli (talk) 20:39, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Apparent copy from newspaper: http://www.deccanherald.com/content/171359/yezdi-beat-past.html Brianhe (talk) 20:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
no author, wrong license Funfood ␌ 21:00, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
less quality Wikipics 1988 (talk) 21:17, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: 21:45, 24 November 2011 by Denniss, closed by Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:58, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
because yes El7000 (talk) 21:42, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Text, not readable Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:58, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Maybe free - but no description, no Source and no author given Funfood ␌ 22:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Appears to be a modern commercial recreation (I see it's being sold as a metal sign, for example), and it's not just a direct copy of a WWII era US government poster, so not PD Afiler (talk) 23:19, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- Comment What is your reason for saying this is a "modern commercial reproduction"? Selling reproductions of PD material is not uncommon; that does not remove the original work from the public domain. -- Infrogmation (talk) 23:24, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- I did not say "reproduction", I said "recreation". I'm guessing that someone looked at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Enemy%27s_language.jpg and created a wholly new image. - Afiler (talk) 11:15, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
- To maybe slightly better answer your question, the typeface used is a modern computer typeface, and the caricatures seen there are an entirely different drawing as in the blurry image above. The bottom line is that there's no evidence at all that this is a US government work, only that it uses the same "Speak American" text as a poster reproduced in book that claims it's a US government work. - Afiler (talk) 11:22, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep 2D copying does not generate any new copyright. The copyright of the original work applies. BrightRaven (talk) 14:13, 25 November 2011 (UTC) Delete, as it seems not to be a simple copy. BrightRaven (talk) 17:02, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
- It's not a copy, see my comments above. - Afiler (talk) 11:15, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned vanity photo, low quality, out of scope, possibly copyrighted, no foreseeable use. FASTILY (TALK) 23:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope--Morning Sunshine (talk) 10:40, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
useless copy of now cropped Fahrrad mit monogonalen Fluegelrotoren als Windantrieb 2 Ras67 (talk) 14:39, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: unused scaled down duplicate George Chernilevsky talk 21:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Ernsthafte zweifel an der richtigkeit der Angaben tox (talk) 00:09, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyrighted souce, no evidence of permission Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:14, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
User name and Author Name can't be changed. Privacy concerns are very important to me. Room237 (talk) 00:24, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:12, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
User name and Author Name can't be changed. Privacy concerns are very important to me. Room237 (talk) 00:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:12, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
User name and Author Name can't be changed. Privacy concerns are very important to me. Room237 (talk) 00:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:12, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
User name and Author Name can't be changed. Privacy concerns are very important to me. Room237 (talk) 00:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- English: Why can't you change your user name? Have you tried asking at Commons:Changing username? Stefan4 (talk) 00:56, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
- Svenska: Varför kan du inte byta användarnamn? Har du försökt att fråga på Commons:Changing username? Stefan4 (talk) 00:56, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:12, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Looks like a random frame from a silent movie; I see no connection between the image and its description Andre Engels (talk) 00:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:15, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
child porn 80.187.208.28 15:08, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep immediately. Not child porn. Abuse of DR. No valid reason. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 16:26, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep immediately per TwoWings. -Pete F (talk) 15:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept: no reason for deletion Denniss (talk) 18:27, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- File:Curta metragem (33).JPG
- File:Curta metragem (36).JPG
- File:Curta metragem (40).JPG
- File:Curta metragem (44).JPG
- File:Curta metragem (67).JPG
- File:Curta metragem (71).JPG
- File:Curta metragem (74).JPG
These images were used in an article that was deleted in a deletion discussion. They were listed in this page. Francisco (talk) 00:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope and without permission Béria Lima msg 15:17, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
File:Danoldcalthrop.gif
[edit]From British movies by Alfred Hitchcock; not public domain. They were in fact one point in the public domain in the US, but no longer are due to {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:54, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
There is no FoP in France. Construction started in 1981. (I tried to select only files showing the building)
PierreSelim (talk) 10:44, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- No FOP en France, même si une de mes photos est dans le lot.--Thesupermat (talk) 11:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by Jameslwoodward on 1 December. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 16:11, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
pedophilia 178.176.146.22 21:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Speedy keep Mass bad faith nomination by since-blocked anon IP - see Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#User:178.176.146.22. Argument given confuses simple nudity with sexual content and per COM:SEX: "Except for images prominently featuring genitalia or sexual activity, mere partial or total nudity are generally not considered sexual content." Tabercil (talk) 02:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Probably illegal in the US, and the subjects depicted were unaware of the picture being taken, so consent was not given. Epoch Fail (talk) 13:19, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep immediately. I'm sick of people who see pedophilia everytime they see child nudity. I prefer not to comment more about it... --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 17:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Were you there when the picture was taken ? How can you say they were not aware ? Just because they don't look at the camera ?!! Can you be even more simplistic than that?... --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 17:26, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- East Asia is a common destination for a specific category of tourists in search of a category of mostly illegal entertainment. Nothing to say about Hans, but i believe that, if the kids' parents were to understand how Commons and Wikipedia worked, they would strongly object about the presence of these pictures. One member from Flickr was displeased about the picture of the daughter on the beach being here, and being copied to the Spanking Art Wikia. 8) Epoch Fail (talk) 23:33, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- Well there are several things I have to answer :
- The fact that East Asia is a pedophile destination doesn't mean that all pictures from that region should be interpreted as pedophilic.
- If we start wondering about those children's parents' consent, why wouldn't we delete all pictures we have of children (even those with clothes)? Come on ! Let's be coherent !
- If the member you talk about has released himself a picture of his daughter on a website without any precaution, it's very hypocrit to complain after ! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 11:30, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- 1 - Of course! But in general parents don't like having pictures of their naked kids plastered on the web.
- 2 - Under the personality rights clause, there has to be explicit consent. Most parents and people add tags with CC-BY-SA without even understanding what it means. When they wish to revoke the CC license because of potential misuse (such as Spanking Art Wiki) they find they can't. This is exploitation of ignorance.
- 3 - "Hey Mr. Parent, you posted your pictures of your kids because you had nothing better to do while sitting on the couch? HAHA! Now you can't delete them anymore, and will be used by any person who can add creativity to your photos and republish them later, for others to modify! Not to mention it will be added to the gallery for Boylover.net and Girllover.net!" More exploitation of laziness and ignorance.
- Epoch Fail (talk) 11:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- So what do you suggest ? That we delete all pictures of children we have ? (since we may have no picture with explicit consent...) --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 16:54, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- Ideally yes, but the proposal would be met with high resistance. Since there is the possibility of self correction, why not do this? How many images and what kind of images of kids are needed? Kids with bubbles, with soap, pulling teeth, spraying water, laughing, jumping from a 50 story building, using a fire extinguisher against other kids, with cutters, etc. etc. ? Epoch Fail (talk) 23:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- Your philosophy is clearly not constructive for Commons. Commons needs to offer a variety of choice. That's its role. So we can't say "well one smiling child is enough" (and actually which one would we keep ? with which criterias ?). I also clearly oppose an extremist solution (deleting all files each time we don't have explicit consent from the parents). And I am clearly against every form of injustice and incoherence (including deleting this one while many other files are saved). So I repeat : Keep immediately. There's no valid reason to delete this picture. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 19:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- Your philosophy is clearly not constructive for Commons. Commons needs to offer a variety of choice. That's its role. So we can't say "well one smiling child is enough" (and actually which one would we keep ? with which criterias ?). I also clearly oppose an extremist solution (deleting all files each time we don't have explicit consent from the parents). And I am clearly against every form of injustice and incoherence (including deleting this one while many other files are saved). So I repeat :
- Ideally yes, but the proposal would be met with high resistance. Since there is the possibility of self correction, why not do this? How many images and what kind of images of kids are needed? Kids with bubbles, with soap, pulling teeth, spraying water, laughing, jumping from a 50 story building, using a fire extinguisher against other kids, with cutters, etc. etc. ? Epoch Fail (talk) 23:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- So what do you suggest ? That we delete all pictures of children we have ? (since we may have no picture with explicit consent...) --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 16:54, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- Well there are several things I have to answer :
- East Asia is a common destination for a specific category of tourists in search of a category of mostly illegal entertainment. Nothing to say about Hans, but i believe that, if the kids' parents were to understand how Commons and Wikipedia worked, they would strongly object about the presence of these pictures. One member from Flickr was displeased about the picture of the daughter on the beach being here, and being copied to the Spanking Art Wikia. 8) Epoch Fail (talk) 23:33, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept as before. --Rosenzweig τ 09:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
it so Nene1000 (talk) 17:58, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete and ban the user. it becomes a new joke now, upload an image of nudity and then right away propose its deletion. Beta M (talk) 19:12, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
it is so obscene. Nene1000 (talk) 18:02, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: User requested deletion. -mattbuck (Talk) 05:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
http://biogeodb.stri.si.edu/sftep/taxon_mod_largepic.php?id=1555 says non-commercial use. Where comes the cc-by-sa-3.0 from? Martin H. (talk) 10:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- I emailed the copyright holder some time ago, If he could release the image under that license. As for use by the WikiPedia, I got the permission from the copyright holder as soon as I uploaded the image. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 15:03, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- Then we'll need you to follow the process at COM:OTRS. As much as we'd like to take your word for it, we only take the word right from the mouth of the copyright holder.
Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:53, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
- Then we'll need you to follow the process at COM:OTRS. As much as we'd like to take your word for it, we only take the word right from the mouth of the copyright holder.
- I have emailed the copyright holder and asked him to fill out the declaration form, so that way I can foward it to COM:OTRS. I permission from him in an email today, but to be sure there are now questions I asked him if he could fill out the declaration form that is on the COM:OTRS page. So, then there are no questions if it is true or not. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 19:35, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- Just forwarded it to the permission to OTRS. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 14:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Please understand that the following is not directed at you personally, but is in place because a few of our uploaders do not tell the truth. Please note that the permission must come directly from the copyright holder to OTRS -- we do not accept a permission which you have forwarded. The whole point of the OTRS process is to make it hard for the uploader to forge a permission, which you could do easily if you forwarded it to us. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:14, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Oh okay, I will ask the copyright holder to send the form to the OTRS team. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 17:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- I asked the copyright holder to send it to you. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 16:05, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
4(Cl)2(H2O)4(SO4)2.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
4(Cl)2(H2O)4(SO4)2.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
4(Cl)2(H2O)4(SO4)2.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
4(Cl)2(H2O)4(SO4)2.jpg){kind=link}
4(Cl)2(H2O)4(SO4)2.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg&diff=62951344&oldid=62941101){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG&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}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
Kept: Permission from the copyright holder Ross Robertson from stri.org is indicated at the file description. Martin H. (talk) 14:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
This image has been used in only one article on Portuguese Wikipedia, which was deleted in a deletion discussion. Since then, it has not been used anywhere, unless a user subpage in German Wikipedia. Francisco (talk) 00:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep I don't see a valid reason for deletion. Francisco, are you implying that there is no educational value to this image? -Pete F (talk) 16:26, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- Comment The picture doesn't seem out of scope to me, but I'm concerned about copyright. Who drew this coat of arms? It it in the public domain? Jastrow (Λέγετε) 16:16, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- The image is credited to "Marcos Botucatu", while the uploader was User:Rodrigo.btu, who hasn't been active anywhere since 2009. Therefore, a permission is missing. Though the drawing looks like it is old, this effect may have been created artificially; no idea whether it is already PD. --Túrelio (talk) 14:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: no proper source/permission Denniss (talk) 23:39, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Not actually an Image by Turner - this files is a dupe of http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bakhuizen,_Ludolf_-_Ships_on_a_Stormy_Sea_c1672_.jpg - which is the correctly identified version of this image. The source is the same but this copy is lower resolution so no reason not to delete Ajbpearce (talk) 20:24, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination. Mix up with File:Joseph Mallord William Turner - Dutch Boats in a Gale - WGA23163.jpg Jarekt (talk) 03:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
OB by File:100-palestinian-pounds.jpg Chesdovi (talk) 12:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep This one has a better resolution than the other one. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 16:46, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- You are right. I haved cropped & saved the larger version and will upload it if both are deleted, reason-being it will be easier to re-name the better file into English. Chesdovi (talk) 23:08, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
OB by File:Interior of the House of a Christian Family in Jerusalem.jpg Chesdovi (talk) 19:11, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep smaller resolution, but not manually colored, therefore keep --Funfood ␌ 19:18, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
I strongly suppose the pictures on the wall are copyright protected because they come from tv sketches. And there is no Panoramafreiheit indoors. Miss-Sophie (talk) 12:07, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Addition: The Loriot sketch is called "Der Lottogewinner" as written on the wall above the pictures. Left: image from the sketch, right: seems to be an image from the production of the sketch.--Miss-Sophie (talk) 14:56, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- Hallo Miss Sophie, you are right. I think this could be solved if we could "blur" the pictures on the wall so that they are not recognizable anymore. Unfortunately I don't have such a tool - do you? Kind regards --Schlaier (talk) 12:13, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- Hallo Schlair, ich schreibe dir mal auf deutsch. Ich könnte die Bilder bestimmt mit einem Programm unkenntlich machen und versuche das gerade. Ich nehme an, dass die Requisiten, die ja wohl nicht für den Sketch angefertigt wurden, sondern Gebrauchsgegenstände sind, keinen Urheberschutz haben. Aber ich bin keine Juristin, weiß nicht wie es mit anderen Rechten aussieht. Hat das Museum einen Urheberanspruch auf die neue Anordnung der Dinge als Ausstellungsstücke? Keine Ahnung. Ich probiere zunächst einmal, wie es mit Retusche überhaupt aussieht. Grüße --Miss-Sophie (talk) 15:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- Ich habe jetzt eine retuschierte Version hochgeladen. Nun würde ich gerne nochmal auf dem Urheberrechtsforum nachfragen, ob das reicht und ob der Rest des Bildes problematisch ist. Im Zweifelsfall sollte das Museum gefragt werden, was vielleicht sogar das Beste wäre, um sicher zu sein. Die alten Versionen des Bildes müssten gelöscht werden, falls das geht, weil sie immer noch anschaubar sind. Weißt du, ob das möglich ist? Alternativ diese Datei löschen und dann neu die richtige Version hochladen.--Miss-Sophie (talk) 09:13, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- Hallo Sophie, vielen Dank für Deine Mühe. Ich hab gerade eine E-Mail an das Filmmuseum mit dem Link zum Bild geschickt, damit die sich das nochmals kritisch anschauen. Werde dann berichten, was deren Meinung ist. Herzliche Grüße --Schlaier (talk) 08:31, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Es wäre gut, wenn das Museum/die Stiftung das Bild per OTRS freigeben würde, sollten sie das Bild genehmigen. Denn dann hätte man was Schriftliches und die Diskussion deswegen könnte nicht später irgendwann wieder anfangen. Es gibt ja auch mehrere Möglichkeiten von freien Lizenzen, über die ich jetzt auch gerade keinen Überblick habe, Commons, GDFL und so. Vielleicht gefällt dem Museum eine Variante davon besser als die andere, nur so als Anregung, weiß ja nicht, was du geschrieben hast. Vielleicht kennst du dich damit ja auch besser aus als ich, ich weiß noch wenig über GDFL. Im Urheberrechtsrichtlinienforum der Wikipedia habe ich das Problem auch angesprochen. Zwei Antworten gibt es momentan schon.--Miss-Sophie (talk) 09:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Hallo Sophie, ich hab schon mit der zuständigen Person des Filmmuseums gemailt. Die hat zuerst mit dem Link zum Bild nichts anfangen können. Nun hab ich ihr den Link erneut geschickt. Sie ist aber erst wieder ab Donnerstag im Büro, so dass ich mich noch etwas gedulden muss. Ich melde mich, sobald ich mehr weiß. Herzliche Grüße --Schlaier (talk) 19:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- Hallo Schlaier, danke für die Info. Wenn du schon mit den entsprechenden Personen in Kontakt bist, könntest du vielleicht noch etwas herausfinden? Oder vielleicht weißt du es selbst, da du ja in der Ausstellung warst. Ich habe die ausgestellten Gegenstände und das rechte Bild an der Wand aus der unretuschierten Version verglichen und denke, dass die Ausstellungsstücke vielleicht nur an die Originalrequisiten aus dem Sketch angelehnt sein könnten, also nicht die tatsächlich verwendeten Requisiten sind. Denn ich finde, der Tisch und vielleicht auch die Tischdecke sehen ganz anders aus. Nun habe ich in der Beschreibung aber angegeben, dass es sich um Requisiten aus dem Sketch handelt. Es wäre gut das genau zu wissen, falls uns das Bild hier erhalten bleibt, damit die Beschreibung stimmt.--Miss-Sophie (talk) 09:27, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- Hallo Sohpie, das kann ich gerne nochmals abklären. Ich bin mir fast sicher, dass es nicht die Original-Requistien sind, da die Ausstellung damit zurechkommen musste, dass hiervon (fast) nichts mehr erhalten war – wenn ich mich recht erinnere. Herzliche Grüße und vielen Dank für Deine Tipps! --Schlaier (talk) 07:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- Hallo Sophie, jetzt habe ich das Einverständnis vom Filmmuseum Berlin der Deutschen Kinemathek – Museum für Film und Fernsehen und diese an permissions-commons-de@wikimedia.org weitergeleitet. Ich befürchte, dass das OK des Filmmuseums noch konkretisiert werden muss. Dafür warte ich aber noch das Feedback von den Wikipedia-Leuten ab, damit das in einem Schritt gemacht werden kann. Herzliche Grüße --Schlaier (talk) 22:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, schön! Wie sieht's aus mit den fraglichen Requisiten, wurde sich auch dazu geäußert, ob sie Originale sind?--Miss-Sophie (talk) 15:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- Wegen der Requisiten hab ich nochmals nachgefragt und schreib hier, wenn ich Antwort bekomme :) --Schlaier (talk) 20:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, schön! Wie sieht's aus mit den fraglichen Requisiten, wurde sich auch dazu geäußert, ob sie Originale sind?--Miss-Sophie (talk) 15:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- Hallo Sophie, jetzt habe ich das Einverständnis vom Filmmuseum Berlin der Deutschen Kinemathek – Museum für Film und Fernsehen und diese an permissions-commons-de@wikimedia.org weitergeleitet. Ich befürchte, dass das OK des Filmmuseums noch konkretisiert werden muss. Dafür warte ich aber noch das Feedback von den Wikipedia-Leuten ab, damit das in einem Schritt gemacht werden kann. Herzliche Grüße --Schlaier (talk) 22:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- Hallo Sohpie, das kann ich gerne nochmals abklären. Ich bin mir fast sicher, dass es nicht die Original-Requistien sind, da die Ausstellung damit zurechkommen musste, dass hiervon (fast) nichts mehr erhalten war – wenn ich mich recht erinnere. Herzliche Grüße und vielen Dank für Deine Tipps! --Schlaier (talk) 07:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- Hallo Schlaier, danke für die Info. Wenn du schon mit den entsprechenden Personen in Kontakt bist, könntest du vielleicht noch etwas herausfinden? Oder vielleicht weißt du es selbst, da du ja in der Ausstellung warst. Ich habe die ausgestellten Gegenstände und das rechte Bild an der Wand aus der unretuschierten Version verglichen und denke, dass die Ausstellungsstücke vielleicht nur an die Originalrequisiten aus dem Sketch angelehnt sein könnten, also nicht die tatsächlich verwendeten Requisiten sind. Denn ich finde, der Tisch und vielleicht auch die Tischdecke sehen ganz anders aus. Nun habe ich in der Beschreibung aber angegeben, dass es sich um Requisiten aus dem Sketch handelt. Es wäre gut das genau zu wissen, falls uns das Bild hier erhalten bleibt, damit die Beschreibung stimmt.--Miss-Sophie (talk) 09:27, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- Hallo Sophie, ich hab schon mit der zuständigen Person des Filmmuseums gemailt. Die hat zuerst mit dem Link zum Bild nichts anfangen können. Nun hab ich ihr den Link erneut geschickt. Sie ist aber erst wieder ab Donnerstag im Büro, so dass ich mich noch etwas gedulden muss. Ich melde mich, sobald ich mehr weiß. Herzliche Grüße --Schlaier (talk) 19:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- Es wäre gut, wenn das Museum/die Stiftung das Bild per OTRS freigeben würde, sollten sie das Bild genehmigen. Denn dann hätte man was Schriftliches und die Diskussion deswegen könnte nicht später irgendwann wieder anfangen. Es gibt ja auch mehrere Möglichkeiten von freien Lizenzen, über die ich jetzt auch gerade keinen Überblick habe, Commons, GDFL und so. Vielleicht gefällt dem Museum eine Variante davon besser als die andere, nur so als Anregung, weiß ja nicht, was du geschrieben hast. Vielleicht kennst du dich damit ja auch besser aus als ich, ich weiß noch wenig über GDFL. Im Urheberrechtsrichtlinienforum der Wikipedia habe ich das Problem auch angesprochen. Zwei Antworten gibt es momentan schon.--Miss-Sophie (talk) 09:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Hallo Sophie, vielen Dank für Deine Mühe. Ich hab gerade eine E-Mail an das Filmmuseum mit dem Link zum Bild geschickt, damit die sich das nochmals kritisch anschauen. Werde dann berichten, was deren Meinung ist. Herzliche Grüße --Schlaier (talk) 08:31, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Ich habe jetzt eine retuschierte Version hochgeladen. Nun würde ich gerne nochmal auf dem Urheberrechtsforum nachfragen, ob das reicht und ob der Rest des Bildes problematisch ist. Im Zweifelsfall sollte das Museum gefragt werden, was vielleicht sogar das Beste wäre, um sicher zu sein. Die alten Versionen des Bildes müssten gelöscht werden, falls das geht, weil sie immer noch anschaubar sind. Weißt du, ob das möglich ist? Alternativ diese Datei löschen und dann neu die richtige Version hochladen.--Miss-Sophie (talk) 09:13, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- Hallo Schlair, ich schreibe dir mal auf deutsch. Ich könnte die Bilder bestimmt mit einem Programm unkenntlich machen und versuche das gerade. Ich nehme an, dass die Requisiten, die ja wohl nicht für den Sketch angefertigt wurden, sondern Gebrauchsgegenstände sind, keinen Urheberschutz haben. Aber ich bin keine Juristin, weiß nicht wie es mit anderen Rechten aussieht. Hat das Museum einen Urheberanspruch auf die neue Anordnung der Dinge als Ausstellungsstücke? Keine Ahnung. Ich probiere zunächst einmal, wie es mit Retusche überhaupt aussieht. Grüße --Miss-Sophie (talk) 15:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Noch was: Ich habe den Namen der Ausstellung und anderes in der Beschreibung ergänzt. Die Angaben dazu habe ich aus dem deutschen Wikipedia-Artikel zum Filmmuseum Berlin, in dem das Bild integriert ist. Dort steht auch, von wann bis wann die Loriot-Sonderausstellung ging, was aber nicht mit dem beim Bild angegebenen Aufnahmedatum 2010.12.28. zusammenpasst. Stammt das Bild nicht aus der Sonderausstellung zu Loriots 85sten (im Artikel steht das so unter dem Bild) oder ging sie länger als geplant weiter? Ich will nicht versehentlich eine falsche Beschreibung angeben.--Miss-Sophie (talk) 16:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- Liebe Sophie, vielen Dank für Deine Mühe und Unterstützung! Die Jahreszahl beim Aufnahmedatum stimmt leider nicht, denn ich war da am 28. Dezember 2008 in der Ausstellung. Da muss wohl die Kamera falsch programmiert gewesen sein. Viele Grüße --Schlaier (talk) 20:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
ticket:2011120910019582 states that permission for the photograph and the exhibiton might be obtainable (but is not complete yet), but not for the shown pictures. To my opinion the bluring is not sufficient, so I'd suggest to Delete. --Krd (talk) 21:31, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- You mean the pictures on the wall are not blured enough? You seem to relate to the left one. I see a person without face sitting in probably an armchair somewhere infront of a blear, darkish background without details and opposite something that is probably another person without face. A scene that could be taken from anything. But I can blur it more.--Miss-Sophie (talk) 10:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- Hello, I have now the permission from this museums and from the curator of this particular exhibition which I forwarded to "permissions-commons@wikimedia.org". To Miss Sophie: It would be great if you blured the pictures even more. Thank your very much for your support! Kind regards --Schlaier (talk) 08:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
- Hi, new update: The admin from permission-commons wrote back to tell me what additional agreement he needs from the museum. I forwarded this to the museum but because now is the holiday season it can take till middle of January till we get a propper reply here. All the best --Schlaier (talk) 09:02, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- To Schlaier: Do you think it is not blured enough? Next step would be to totaly make the figure in the chair unrecognizable as a human being, just a multicolored image without any shapes, similar to the right one. Would be possible, too.--Miss-Sophie (talk) 12:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- For me it is blurred enough. My comment was just a reaction to the opinion of "Krd" (see above) – I just wanted to avoid that this pic will be deleted. I still want that the picture can remain on wikimedia. But if I knew before how much work this means I would have just accepted the deletion. Kind regards --Schlaier (talk) 08:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- To Schlaier: Do you think it is not blured enough? Next step would be to totaly make the figure in the chair unrecognizable as a human being, just a multicolored image without any shapes, similar to the right one. Would be possible, too.--Miss-Sophie (talk) 12:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Hi, new update: The admin from permission-commons wrote back to tell me what additional agreement he needs from the museum. I forwarded this to the museum but because now is the holiday season it can take till middle of January till we get a propper reply here. All the best --Schlaier (talk) 09:02, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Hello, I have now the permission from this museums and from the curator of this particular exhibition which I forwarded to "permissions-commons@wikimedia.org". To Miss Sophie: It would be great if you blured the pictures even more. Thank your very much for your support! Kind regards --Schlaier (talk) 08:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept: unfree content blurred. Martin H. (talk) 22:12, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Имеется уже улучшенная версия в статье Уральский федеральный университет Skyboy103 (talk) 16:17, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept: In scope Captain-tucker (talk) 12:18, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
OB by File:Hand in Hand – Bridge over the Wadi P1070781.JPG Chesdovi (talk) 18:26, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- not the same image, shows the same person but from different angle (one is profile, the other is not). 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) 16:29, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- Images are indeed not the same, but one will do the job. Chesdovi (talk) 12:06, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept: In scope Captain-tucker (talk) 12:21, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope; seems like the setup for a soccer match, but gives names nor match nor teams Andre Engels (talk) 00:55, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- It was the FC Rapid București - FC Vaslui match, on July 23 2010. See [4] and [5]. Razvan Socol (talk) 07:14, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Razvan, it's unclear how you know that. Unless sufficient information is added to the Description, so that the reader can properly understand what the image represents, I don't see how this is in Commons' scope. -Pete F (talk) 16:28, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- The file name and the upload date gave me some hints, and the similarity with the image in the first link above confirmed it. However, I don't object to the deletion of the file, because it's not very useful without the players' names. Razvan Socol (talk) 18:07, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope, unclear usage value Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 17:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
OB by File:1 Palestine Pound 1939 Obverse.jpg Chesdovi (talk) 12:32, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Not the same bill (different date on it, etc) --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 16:43, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- One example good and clear is quite enough, especially with the all relevant copyright limitations. Chesdovi (talk) 23:14, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept: No reason not to have two versions, and having an Arabic file name could be useful as well. I will recommend this be uploaded as a png and replaced, thereafter, however. Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 17:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
OB by File:1 Palestine Pound 1939 Obverse.jpg Chesdovi (talk) 12:33, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept: See File:جنيه_فلسطيني.tif above Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 17:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
There is no evidence to prove User:Erk is the copyright holder of this work. User:Erk uploaded this image in Turkish Wikipedia on September 25, 2007. But same image (larger versions) were uploaded in this website on June 22, 2006, in this website on January 20, 2006. Or tr:Kullanıcı:Erk = [TR] AHMET ? Takabeg (talk) 15:58, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Copyright ownership of uploader highly doubtful, larger prior versions exist without copyright release. Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 17:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}