Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2011/11/28
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
_на_площадь_дома_культуры_"Юбилейный".jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
possible copyvio from http://www.geckogo.com/Guide/Sweden/Gothenburg-and-Surroundings/Fjallbacka-1/ Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:05, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: file from unfree websource. Commons:Image casebook#Internet images. Martin H. (talk) 13:35, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Dubidous claims of own work and licensing per http://www.tineye.com/search/79103cabfaa9e559c7795786489e46cab9fdb67c - Same problem in other user's uploads. --Marco Aurelio (disputatio) 15:03, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: speedy, clear copyvio Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:14, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Unclear copyright. The EXIF metadata contradicts the content of the picture. An 1969 event couldn't be photographed with a camera, which was first introduced in 2008. Other option is that he photographed an image. In this case it's a derivative work of a photo, which's copyright is unknown. Armbrust (talk) 06:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: copyright violation Polarlys (talk) 15:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
I, the owner and copyright holder, Dennis Hipp, want that this image will be deleted. -85.180.123.44 22:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- Why? --Túrelio (talk) 22:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- And, if you are actually the uploader, User:Dennis H., please log in and sign your request. We have no way of knowing that User:85.180.123.44 has any legitimate interest in this image. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted as this is an unused personal image per COM:SCOPE. BTW, the uploader once asked already for its removal and subsequently removed this request. This account is otherwise inactive since 2009 and it is not unlikely that this request came indeed from the uploader as the IP address fits to the city given in the user's homepage. --AFBorchert (talk) 10:44, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
It's unlikely that this photo was uploaded by original photographer. The photo in lower resolution appeared in August on Galatasaray official website with statement that the copyright holder is Tuncay ŞEN from Galatasaray Dergisi[1]. I found other photo from the same photoshoot in original resolution with EXIF on file hosting website[2], therefore it is possible that the entire set in original resolution is somewhere on the web. -Oleola (talk) 13:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Has already been speedily deleted by Polarlys as copyvio. --AFBorchert (talk) 10:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
It is not clear if the author of this photo (who owns the rights on it) was dead more than 70 ago. Aʁsenjyʁdəgaljɔm11671 00:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Changed to copyvio fast delete. --Aʁsenjyʁdəgaljɔm11671 00:35, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Has been speedily deleted by ~Pyb. --AFBorchert (talk) 11:03, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
I did not realize I could not upload a fair use rationale logo to Wikimedia. Please delete this file that I just uploaded so I can upload it at Wikipedia. Thanks. Ebikeguy (talk) 01:52, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Has been speedily deleted by Morgankevinj. In my opinion, that logo can be restored as it is ineligible for copyright. {{PD-textlogo}} can be used as license tag. Submit this to COM:UDEL, if interested, and refer to this deletion request. --AFBorchert (talk) 11:11, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Copyvio of http://www.modelvolume.com/rachel_leigh_cook/rachel_leigh_cook_photos.jpg Dismas (talk) 03:35, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted as this is an apparent copyvio. License tag is missing and source insufficient. --AFBorchert (talk) 11:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
violation of copyrights- this photo belongs to another author Pmborges (talk) 03:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete Copyvio from http://www.sethsolo.com/pagez/about/. Razvan Socol (talk) 05:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted as copyvio. --AFBorchert (talk) 12:41, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Post-1963 U.S. publication: only public domain if there is no copyright notice in this issue. No evidence of CC-BY-2.5 license in any case. Closeapple (talk) 04:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete unless there is evidence that copyright notices were missing from the newspaper during this period. This is the front page of a 1968 issue of The Harvard Crimson (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University). It's copyright through the end of 2063 (1968 + 95 years) if a copyright notice appears in the publication; and, it being a long-standing Harvard newspaper, it would be reasonable to assume that the publication was professional enough to include a copyright notice. This copy is suspiciously close to other copies floating around on the web, rather than directly from the Harvard archives: see 29-29.jpg on http://www.sportsvideodaily.com/wp/index.php/2011/11/23/nov-23-1968-harvard-beats-yale-29-29/ for example. --Closeapple (talk) 04:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep At this point, I'm willing to assume good faith that it actually does meet the licensing requirements as posted, rather than assuming that whoever uploaded it lied. However, if evidence can be shown that the issue in question does have a copyright then I would of course change my position.--Paulmcdonald (talk) 12:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per Closeapple. @Paulmcdonald: The obligation to provide a proof of that this image has been put under a CC-BY license is with the uploader. Given that this is a work by someone else, i.e. Harvard Crimson, this would have to be processed through OTRS. Otherwise, as indicated by Closeapple, we need a proof of its PD status. This, however, was neither claimed by the uploader nor was a rationale provided why this should be the case. However, it should be possible to move this file to en-wp under a non-free rationale, i.e. as fair-use image. --AFBorchert (talk) 13:00, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
nalanda-bose-died-in-1966 P. Sridhar Babu (talk) 04:42, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
This has already been speedily deleted by Herbythyme. --AFBorchert (talk) 13:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Can be write to wome wikipedia or homepage, out of scope Motopark (talk) 07:02, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per COM:SCOPE. --AFBorchert (talk) 13:10, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
http://stproxy.afreeca.com/DATA/PHOTO_BBS/3/3656583/%B8%C5%C1%F7%BF%F8GIF_2.gif Many results on Google, did you create all by yourself? or is derivative work of someone else's work?<<< User:Mmxx
Keep - I used the website PhotoFunia [3] and added my own image to create this work. I believe that PhotoFunia owns all rights to the image with the TVs and has allowed me free usage to upload my image into it, and we both allow redistribution and derivation.
- "PhotoFunia is an online photo editing tool that gives you a fun filled experience. You upload any photo and just wait to see the magic...PhotoFunia is free... Just select an effect you like from over 100 different effects, upload your photo, and PhotoFunia will handle the rest for you..." [4]
- "You retain all intellectual property rights, including copyright, in those images that you have uploaded to the Website where you already own such rights. We are the owner (or the licensee) of all intellectual property rights in the Website."[5]--Officer (talk) 02:15, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- With regard to that, however, the Terms of Use say "You are not allowed to ... transmit or re-circulate any material obtained from this Website to any third party except where expressly permitted on this Website." Where is it expressly permitted?
- Additionally, "You are not allowed to use the Website (or to copy or use any material from the Website) for any commercial purpose other than to conduct a commercial transaction with us unless you have our permission." sounds like a non-commercial use restriction on any license that may exist on their TVs image unless expressly permitted elsewhere. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 20:37, 28 November 2011 (UTC) Ed. 20:44 (UTC) --Philosopher Let us reason together. 20:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- I believe that these are refering to other things. We are not using PhotoFunia here for any commercial purpose. What PhotoFunia is trying to say by that is that we're not allowed to make money from using its website. For example, suppose someone decides to open a separate website where they charge customers $.05 to create their image with PhotoFunia's effects, or, someone uses PhotoFunia website and charges customers money to make their image with PhotoFunia's effects, and etc. PhotoFunia is free to everyone in the world and it allowes usage of its images to be circulated, the website obviously doesn't care if File:Officer2009.gif is sold, tranmitted or re-circulated.--Officer (talk) 01:57, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- Evidence that they don't enforce their copyrights isn't the same as evidence that their works aren't copyrighted. As for commercial use, we may not be using the image for a commercial use, but we don't allow images with non-commercial restrictions here on Commons. Based on the discussion thus far, I'd have to say Delete. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 05:44, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Evidence that they don't enforce their copyrights isn't the same as evidence that their works aren't copyrighted. As for commercial use, we may not be using the image for a commercial use, but we don't allow images with non-commercial restrictions here on Commons. Based on the discussion thus far, I'd have to say
- I believe that these are refering to other things. We are not using PhotoFunia here for any commercial purpose. What PhotoFunia is trying to say by that is that we're not allowed to make money from using its website. For example, suppose someone decides to open a separate website where they charge customers $.05 to create their image with PhotoFunia's effects, or, someone uses PhotoFunia website and charges customers money to make their image with PhotoFunia's effects, and etc. PhotoFunia is free to everyone in the world and it allowes usage of its images to be circulated, the website obviously doesn't care if File:Officer2009.gif is sold, tranmitted or re-circulated.--Officer (talk) 01:57, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete. "PhotoFunia is free" obviously means free of charge, not content freely licensed to permit any use. See en:Gratis versus libre. Licenses prohibiting commercial use are not permitted on Commons. Commons:Licensing#Acceptable licenses clearly states that "Commercial use of the work must be allowed." (Original emphasis.) The website's prohibition on commercial use covers use of the website and of any material from the website. Using the website and its provided contents to produce a derivative image to be used for commercial purposes obviously constitutes using the website and its contents for commercial purposes. —LX (talk, contribs) 06:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Since their statement says that you retain all the copyright of the photo, then they do not have any way to tell you later what you do or don't do with that image. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 16:35, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- That simply means that you retain your rights to your part of the resulting image, just as they retain their rights to their parts. The result cannot be used freely by either party without the consent of the other. See Commons:Derivative works for further reading. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:15, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- I disagree with LX's radical interpretation. We are only focusing on this image here with the TVs and NOT other things relating to the website (PhotoFunia). The website clearly explains in plain language that this image with the TVs is allowed to everyone for free, [6] and obviously in regards to that the "commercial purpose" argument automatically becomes irrelevant and void because something given for free can always be sold to others. Let's analyze and try to understand the term "You are not allowed to [use the Website] (or to copy or use any material from the Website) for any commercial purpose... Such forbidden commercial transactions include allowing access to your photo album in return for payment or for any other commercial purpose."
- That is specifically explaining not to use the website (PhotoFunia) for any form of money making schemes, it is NOT talking about the effects (images) that are offered to everyone for free or what we can do with them after we are done adding our image. I'm led to believe that PhotoFunia's intention in this is to prevent people from running its website as a source of income when everything is free of charge to everyone. This is similar to the notices posted on US government website regarding w:Diversity Immigrant Visa, which is free but some scam artists charge applicants money and that is prohibited. When something is offered for free it makes no sense for someone to go and pay for it.--Officer (talk) 20:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- You're still confusing free of charge with free as in free culture, and characterising the distinction between the two isn't going to make it go away. The claim that "something given for free can always be sold to others" is patently false. If you receive a music album free of charge as part of a promotion, you are usually not entitled to sell copies of it. Likewise, the fact that access to PhotoFunia is free of charge does not mean that you are allowed to redistribute any part of their material for commercial purposes. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:58, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, I see your point. I have contacted the website and recieved a good news message.
- In my email I wrote:
Hi, I want to promote your website in Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons by uploading some samples of your free effects with self image in it. Is this allowed on your part? If you don't allow this can you give me permission that only I can upload some of your effect samples with my own picture in it? Thank you
- In my email I wrote:
- Ok, I see your point. I have contacted the website and recieved a good news message.
- I disagree with LX's radical interpretation. We are only focusing on this image here with the TVs and NOT other things relating to the website (PhotoFunia). The website clearly explains in plain language that this image with the TVs is allowed to everyone for free, [6] and obviously in regards to that the "commercial purpose" argument automatically becomes irrelevant and void because something given for free can always be sold to others. Let's analyze and try to understand the term "You are not allowed to [use the Website] (or to copy or use any material from the Website) for any commercial purpose... Such forbidden commercial transactions include allowing access to your photo album in return for payment or for any other commercial purpose."
- Alexey Ivanov (PhotoFunia team) replied and wrote to me:
Thank you for your message and for taking interest in PhotoFunia. Sure, please feel free to upload them!
- Alexey Ivanov (PhotoFunia team) replied and wrote to me:
Re: photofunia.com - Ask a question From: PhotoFunia Team <info@photofunia.com> Add to: To Do, Calendar To: *************** <***************@aim.com>Date:Sat, Dec 3, 2011 7:02 am--Officer (talk) 04:54, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, your permission request didn't follow the standard format, and as a consequence, the permission is insufficient in several ways (Wikimedia-only permission, permission limited to you personally, permission limited to promotional purposes only, no free license specified, no assertion of authorisation to speak on behalf of the company on copyright matters, etc). Please use the standard request e-mail template and send the reply to OTRS. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
This is a derived work of the uploader's photograph where the derivation in itself is also eligible for copyright. As outlined above, the derivation is not free as it does not include commercial usage. Hence we have to delete it. This can be undeleted as soon as we get a declaration of consent through OTRS by PhotoFunia for their derived work. --AFBorchert (talk) 11:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely own work of uploader; obviously a promotional shot. Túrelio (talk) 08:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per Túrelio. That the uploader does not know or care much about copyright is also demonstrated by the other uploads. The uploader had also the opportunity to react here as three files were uploaded on 1 December. --AFBorchert (talk) 19:03, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely own work of uploader; no EXIF, no description; more likely a promo shot. Túrelio (talk) 08:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per Túrelio. --AFBorchert (talk) 19:08, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Enough artistic work to be copyright unless a version was published prior to 1963. No evidence of artist or copyright holder (school district?) licensing it for free use. Closeapple (talk) 08:39, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete or move to en.wiki where a basic logo for a school usually passes as fair use under en:WP:NFCC and en:WP:FUR. (This image is currently used for en:Eastern Wayne High School.) Appears to be based on crestspear.JPG from http://www.waynecountyschools.org/site/default.aspx?domainid=728 (requires JavaScript). Still in copyright unless something substantially similar was published prior to 1963 without a copyright notice, or published prior to 1923. Wikipedia says the school opened in 1969, but the crest itself has "1885" or "1886" in the middle of it, so I'm guessing the subtleties of copyright dates are not this school's strong suit. --Closeapple (talk) 08:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep why 1963? {{PD-US-no notice}} says 1977. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:11, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- I should have said "1964" there. Anything published before January 1, 1964 in the United States, and not renewed with the copyright office, is in the public domain (see Commons:Licensing#United States); so there would be a better chance of the crest being OK for Commons if something before 1964 existed, since it is unlikely that a high school filed a renewal request on a crest, no matter when they published it. But since the school claims to have been established in 1969, a pre-1964 claim becomes much harder. There's not much evidence that this crest itself is before 1978 either; it could have been drawn after 1977. (Schools in the U.S. make up these crests themselves, if and when they'd like; they don't receive heraldry from any official source when they are established, so it's not clear that this drawing is from when the school opened.) --Closeapple (talk) 18:14, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- It looks like a 1960's design, which fits with the school having been established in 1969. And this is not the kind of thing one puts copyright marks on. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:19, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- I should have said "1964" there. Anything published before January 1, 1964 in the United States, and not renewed with the copyright office, is in the public domain (see Commons:Licensing#United States); so there would be a better chance of the crest being OK for Commons if something before 1964 existed, since it is unlikely that a high school filed a renewal request on a crest, no matter when they published it. But since the school claims to have been established in 1969, a pre-1964 claim becomes much harder. There's not much evidence that this crest itself is before 1978 either; it could have been drawn after 1977. (Schools in the U.S. make up these crests themselves, if and when they'd like; they don't receive heraldry from any official source when they are established, so it's not clear that this drawing is from when the school opened.) --Closeapple (talk) 18:14, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted as this is eligible for copyright and its status remains unclear. That {{FAL}} was given as license tag is an indication that the uploader wasn't very much concerned about this point. --AFBorchert (talk) 19:11, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Claimed as {PD-old} by uploader, though image (per uploader) only from 1978; and unclear authorship. Túrelio (talk) 09:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Has already been speedily deleted by Fastily. --AFBorchert (talk) 19:13, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Request to license ellenm1's photos via Getty Images P. Sridhar Babu (talk) 10:18, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, maybe I don't understand how the Getty Images at Flickr works. A lot of the photographers adding photos to the Creative Commons on Flickr are also members of a Getty Images licensing service, but I took that to mean, that if I use the photo for non-profit uses with a copyright requiring "attribution", and therefore it's appropriate for Wikipedia; but that if I were to want to use the photo for a commercial purpose, then it would be licensed through Getty? OttawaAC (talk) 00:06, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: It is indeed somewhat puzzling to see both a free licence offer and a pay-for-a-license offer for the same photo on Flickr. Perhaps that for those of her photos that are under this dual offer, the lucrative license remains an option for users who would want to get a license for using the photo without the attribution? The author's page on Flickr does not really explain how this situation should be understood, but it seems to say that the CC license was a later addition and that she offers those photos under the CC license: http://www.flickr.com/people/ellenm1/ Ideally someone could ask her by e-mail for clarification. -- Asclepias (talk) 00:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep This is a perfectly valid CC-BY license and the only thing that counts when taking pictures from Flickr. It is confirmed by the Bot for posterity and it is irrevocable, even if Getty should take it or the Flickr user changes the license to a more restrictive one. This whole Getty thing can be ignored. -- Herby (Vienna) (talk) 21:53, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep I strongly agree. The CC-BY license is valid for this image. Charvex (talk) 09:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep I'm Ellen - I just saw this page and removed the Getty thing. I never got any requests anyway, and would rather people could use my photos. --Ellenm1 (talk) 09:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. Per the above comment from the author. (The information on the Flickr page has indeed been thus modified.) -- Asclepias (talk) 19:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept as this file is free under a CC-BY license. --AFBorchert (talk) 19:29, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Clearly not own work. Copied from KapanLagi.com (visible from watermark), which has a copyright license on the bottom Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:39, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted as a copyvio per Crisco 1492. --AFBorchert (talk) 19:50, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
hoax photoshop, part of a hoax article removed on nl-wiki MoiraMoira (talk) 12:48, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- A cool photo, but I suspect it falls outside of our scope here. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 06:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted as this is out of COM:SCOPE. And in case of derived works (background image) the copyright status needs to be cleared as well. --AFBorchert (talk) 19:53, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
hoax photoshopped picture, part of a hoax article on nl-wiki which has been removed MoiraMoira (talk) 12:49, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- A cool photo, but I suspect it falls outside of our scope here. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 06:11, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted as it is out of COM:SCOPE. --AFBorchert (talk) 19:55, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
OB by File:Har hazeitim IMG 3372.JPG Chesdovi (talk) 12:50, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- Images are not the same. commons is a repository of useful images. both are useful. Deror avi (talk) 12:52, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- Please explain how both are useful. Chesdovi (talk) 12:55, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Although I normally would not keep two very similar images, in one of these the man is not identifiable, while in the other, he is. Therefore, I might choose the one for a commercial use and the second for a non-commercial one. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Non-free in the country of origin per Commons:When to use the PD-signature tag#UK. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - For reasons stated. --Sreejith K (talk) 19:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
File:Jilly's,_a_bar_that_has_been_advertizing_exotic_dancers_for_at_least_four_decades,_on_Queen_Street_and_Broadview_Avenue_-b.jpg
[edit]
Freedom-of-panorama in Canada is not valid for 2d works (Commons:FOP#Canada); therefore, IMHO, this image violates the copyright of the photographer(s) of the 6 advertisement photographies. --Túrelio (talk) 16:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- question I was not aware of this restriction on images that contain a 2d image. So, if the 2d image is small enough, it would be considered de minimus, correct? I imagine that is a judgment call. How do we decide what is or isn't de minimus? This bar is a little more than a kilometer from my home. If I returned, and stood farther away, so the individual images were smaller, at what point would they be considered de minimus? Geo Swan (talk) 11:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- In my experience that is often not an easy decision; therefore I opened this DR instead of a speedy. If you really consider to re-shoot the image, why not asking the owner whether the original images were shot by him and he wants to give you permission? --Túrelio (talk) 14:19, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- I tried to keep my description of these images neutral. I first took the streetcar past this sleazy bar decades ago, when I was 16. As a matter of principle I have never been to a stripper bar. I don't want to go in to this one, even if it is just to ask about the promotional pictures. Geo Swan (talk) 17:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- Oops, I didn't really realize what I was suggesting. Never mind, I think the image is not that important, in case the DR is closed with a Delete. --Túrelio (talk) 17:46, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- In my experience that is often not an easy decision; therefore I opened this DR instead of a speedy. If you really consider to re-shoot the image, why not asking the owner whether the original images were shot by him and he wants to give you permission? --Túrelio (talk) 14:19, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- comment -- if this image lapses from FOP, then File:Jilly's, a bar that has been advertizing exotic dancers for at least four decades, on Queen Street and Broadview Avenue -a.jpg would as well. Geo Swan (talk) 11:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- Sure. --Túrelio (talk) 14:19, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Derivative of a copyright work. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 16:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete I was the uploader and I agree, for the reasons stated above, these two images should be deleted. Geo Swan (talk) 04:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Private CV, out of scope Motopark (talk) 20:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Seems to be from the w:6abc Dunkin' Donuts Thanksgiving Day Parade in the United States in 2007. No freedom of panorama for artworks in the United States. Stefan4 (talk) 21:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
How is this possibly {{PD-ineligible}}? Looks very PD-eligible to me. Also note that the history shows two very different images. Stefan4 (talk) 21:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - Per reasons stated. --Sreejith K (talk) 05:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
No copyright information The Mark of the Beast (talk) 23:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Clearly a copyvio Ionutzmovie (talk) 23:53, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:17, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Possibly copyvio per COM:DW. Songtaste's website claims "© 2006 - 2011 SongTaste.com", but this seems to be some kind of user page belonging to the user "cindyliyanyan". The user name is a bit similar to the user name of the uploader: User:NNU-11-liyanyan. Thus, it is possible that the users are the same and that some of the contents are copyrighted by the uploader. In that case, the Creative Commons licence might be true for those parts of the image. The rest of the image consists of copyrighted stuff, but maybe it can be seen as de minimis. I don't see how this image fits within the scope of Commons. It is currently used in en:Songtaste which is currently a candidate for speedy deletion. Delete, I'd say. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Screen shot non free Ezarateesteban 18:39, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Copyrighted image, canot be released under CC by anonymous editor. Guillaume233 (talk) 14:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- Hello. I am not anonymous, but as you say I am not the one who drew the image. I did, however get the permission of the board of editors of the journal, and the permission of the artist to upload it. If I get a written permission to prove that the image isn't a break of copyright, where should I send it? --84.215.48.86 15:11, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- Whoops. I forgot to sign the last entry. I wrote it. --Marthe Glad (talk) 00:30, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- As Wikipedia has no way to check your identity, that makes everybody here effectively anonymous (it's not that I don't believe you, this is a legal matter and we need certainty). You should either upload the image to the en.wikipedia separately (under a "fair use" license), or go through the OTRS system. I'm not familiar with that, but one of the admins here will certainly be able and willing to help you with that. --Guillaume233 (talk) 15:44, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- Whoops. I forgot to sign the last entry. I wrote it. --Marthe Glad (talk) 00:30, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Please first send an email to COM:OTRS and we go to undelete it Ezarateesteban 18:40, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Picture uploaded at http://img160.imageshack.us/img160/2428/12714664174427a7a18bvl1.jpg before December 15th, 2007. (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/archive/index.php/t-558400.html). No metadata and the others picture from this uploader don't corroborated to confirm the authorship. Giro720 (talk) 14:28, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. (see also http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=374328, 2006). Gunnex (talk) 22:39, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio Ezarateesteban 18:41, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
© en:Nanjing Normal University, I'd assume. Stefan4 (talk) 14:36, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- Or by the student group. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 21:05, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Ezarateesteban 18:43, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely own work per http://www.tineye.com/search/76d7aea3ebb280f662b3bac2127f81ee84fab45d/ --Marco Aurelio (disputatio) 15:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
this file is not notability Reality006 (talk) 16:06, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- The page it was used on, en:Ll2okell2o llvllaTi (by this same User:Pipoballestero) was deleted as unambiguous copyvio of http://www.scribd.com/doc/73929017/Hacker-in-Argentina; the image seems to be more of the same. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 21:11, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio Ezarateesteban 18:50, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Ezarateesteban 18:51, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
20minutos not created this photo, the license is not valid. Martin H. (talk) 20:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: 20minutes.es doesn't take the photo, http://www.tineye.com/search/80d2bbdaa47008afe3af66f2fc2a367ee95b4edf/ Ezarateesteban 19:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
The description ('Called' Music Video Shoot) suggests copyvio. Stefan4 (talk) 20:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Probale copyright violation. Crop of http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_5Yt1hXhzUGI/SUADJnpqScI/AAAAAAAAABE/ywo_kjR1EO8/s400/laura_acuna%5B1%5D.jpg Jacopo Werther (talk) 21:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Ezarateesteban 19:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Copyrighted magazine cover Jacopo Werther (talk) 21:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Copyrighted magazine cover Jacopo Werther (talk) 21:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Copyrighted magazine cover Jacopo Werther (talk) 21:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Afbeelding werd waarschijnlijk gekopieerd vanaf facebook - copy from facebook (zie:http://nl-nl.facebook.com/karintemmerman) Ziyalistix (talk) 22:12, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Out of COM:PS, advertising image (product line) for pt:Döhler, obviously grabbed from their site. Gunnex (talk) 23:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 17:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
If this picture was taken by Lewis Porter, as claimed, then it is not PD-70 because Porter is still alive. If it was taken by someone else, than the authorship info is incorrect. Either way, it is not likely to be freely licensed. Chick Bowen (talk) 23:14, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- migrate to en: wikipedia "non-free" historical image. what's it gonna take to get more than a mugshot of coltrane? Slowking4 (talk) 15:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Ezarateesteban 19:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Google Translate suggests that this is a screensaver from the 2000s. If so, it is a copyvio. I'm using a normal deletion request instead of a {{Copyvio}} one since I don't trust Google Translate completely. It would be good if someone who speaks Russian can check the description page. Stefan4 (talk) 20:41, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- Speedy. TV screenshot - Russian clone of the Wheel of Fortune. Lots of graphics beyond plain text. NVO (talk) 00:59, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 22:38, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
blurred image, OB by other similar images in Category:Mohammad Said Kalash Chesdovi (talk) 16:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - not blured. more emotional. the person is an artist and the image, in my opinion, shows his enthuseasm as he speaks about is work. Commons is a repository of images, and similar but different images, of educational value, or possible useful value may be kept. Chesdovi behaviour appears more and more as harrasment. Deror avi (talk) 09:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- A low quality image with 4 similar other versions?! Chesdovi (talk) 11:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- Kept in scope. Multichill (talk) 23:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
OB by File:Kafr Qara P1070787.JPG Chesdovi (talk) 16:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - images are not the same. Commons is a repository of useful images - and all may be of educational and possible use. Chesdovi behaviour appears more and more to be a harrasement. Deror avi (talk) 08:58, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- Two nearly identical images, one should go. Chesdovi (talk) 11:46, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Comment Deror avi should be more selective in his uploads. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:59, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete The lower quality duplicate (top cropped) is extremely unlikely to ever be educationally more useful than the other one. --99of9 (talk) 01:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Kept in scope. Multichill (talk) 23:12, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
not-from-real-source P. Sridhar Babu (talk) 10:16, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- The image was cropped from a full-paged scan of the source- Page 352 of the 1971 Naval Academy Lucky Bag. New to wikimedia, so please forgive me if I missed something. Ayoh40 (talk) 15:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- Edited description to clarify original ("real") sourceAyoh40 (talk) 17:06, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - published by the US military without copyright notice. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:12, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: The Flickr user claims that because no copyright notice appears anywhere in the yearbook and it was published before 1978, these photos are in the public domain. But I wonder if the pictures were credited. The Flickr page neither credits this to a photographer nor does it tell that a credit was not to be found in the year book. --AFBorchert (talk) 19:21, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Published in a yearbook 1971 without copyright notice, according to US law the image is now in the public domain Neozoon (talk) 22:38, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
and other non-trivial logos by Griser (talk · contribs): Commons:Derivative works from sport club logos. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: no permission Polarlys (talk) 21:59, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Not simple enough to be hosted on Commons AMERICOPHILE 17:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- I don't see any difference to other party flags like File:Arf_logo.jpg or File:Flag of the Progressive Socialist Party.svg or File:PartidoRadicalSocialdemocrata.jpg or File:Ringstrut röd.jpg or File:Logo-SocialistPartyAlbania.png or ... hosted on commons. --Wvk (talk) 18:15, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- I withdraw my request. It seems that {{PD-Iran}} applies here. Sorry for wasting your time. AMERICOPHILE 04:22, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for withdrawing your request. I'm aware of "threshold of originality". --Wvk (talk) 10:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- @Wvk: Please read Threshold of originality. AMERICOPHILE 04:30, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- I withdraw my request. It seems that {{PD-Iran}} applies here. Sorry for wasting your time. AMERICOPHILE 04:22, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept: apparently {{PD-Iran}} High Contrast (talk) 15:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Copyrighted British document from 1961? See w:South Camden Community School. Stefan4 (talk) 20:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - will be {{PD-UKGov}} a month from now. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - It confirms significant parts of the text; it is not available anywhere else except (perhaps) in the old archive of the defunct London County Council and unlikely to see the light of day again if deleted Cj1340 (talk) 19:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept: In DP since 1st Jan. 12 Pymouss Let’s talk - 12:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Publication source and date missing. --Wvk (talk) 18:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- If the community decides to delete this image because of missing publication date and source (despite the fact that all of us know that this image is in public domain but cannot come up with any solutions to prove it), somebody can nominate most of PD-Iran files for the same reason. AMERICOPHILE 07:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Perhaps the source can tell you where they got it, but we do need evidence that it has been published before 1981. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Publication source and date missing. --Wvk (talk) 18:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- If the community decides to delete this image because of missing publication date and source (despite the fact that all of us know that this image is in public domain but cannot come up with any solutions to prove it), somebody can nominate most of PD-Iran files for the same reason. AMERICOPHILE 07:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Perhaps the source can tell you where it was published, but PD status requires knowing that it has been published and did not just come out of an album or a newspaper's files of unused images. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:18, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Publication source and date missing. --Wvk (talk) 18:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- Execution of Gol Mohammad and his followers took place when Tudeh Party was officially active and allowed in Iran. Tudeh Party was banned after the first attempt to assassinate Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, last king of Iran, in 1949. This photo was taken to frighten the people of Sabzevar that were supporting Gol Mohammad against the then Iranian regime. It's absolutely ridiculous to assume that this image wan not published at that time because its nature or philosophy was to be widely published to stop uprising against Pahlavi dynasty. All of the events are available in the longest Persian novel, Kalidar.
- There is famous poem among people of Sabzevar that is fully published in Kalidar. This poem that adores Gol Mohammad's bravery is:
وصف شما د ایرونس ننه گل ممد (وصف شما در ایران است)»
- that can be translated:
- "Your picture is in Tehran now.
- Currently all Iranians are talking about your courage."
- I will ask Mmxx to confirm my statements. AMERICOPHILE 05:58, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- If so it will be easy to find a newspaper, book or journal and come up with an exact date of publication. Just to be in line with rules and regulations. Regards --Wvk (talk) 10:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- Unfortunately I don't have access to old newspapers or books, but I guarantee that there is no problem with its publication date. AMERICOPHILE 20:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- If so it will be easy to find a newspaper, book or journal and come up with an exact date of publication. Just to be in line with rules and regulations. Regards --Wvk (talk) 10:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Comment According to some blogs and online newspapers, this photo was created in 1944-45 as a memento, probably it was made to be published to set an example for others, unfortunately I can't confirm any publication date but IMO, as Americophile said, it is very unlikely that it was not published before 1982. ■ MMXX talk 20:26, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Perhaps the source can tell you where it was published, but PD status requires knowing that it has been published and did not just come out of an album or a newspaper's files of unused images. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Publication source and date missing. --Wvk (talk) 18:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- That's absolute nonsense. How can anybody assume that an image of the most famous and beloved Iranian pop star hasn't been published when there were lots of paparazzi and tabloids in Iran before 1979 revolution?
- As I had explained in the description page: Googoosh, the little girl in the image, was born in 1951 and the photo must be taken when she was 3 or 4 years old (i.e. 1954 or 1955). AMERICOPHILE 04:55, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- This picture could have been part of a private collection and never be published. Sorry, but you should provide a source and date of publication. Regards --Wvk (talk) 10:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - the raster indicates a print publication. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:20, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Per pieter Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:14, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Formulasantander images from Picasa Web
[edit]I and other users have downloaded a lot of Formula 1 photos from the site https://picasaweb.google.com/formulasantander. More than 250 photos. I'm having serious doubts about their legality. All these photos were taken by professional photographers for Sutton Image photo agency http://www.sutton-images.com/. On all the photographs show car or a Ferrari or McLaren drivers whose sponsor is the Bank of Santander. It would seem that this proves that this is their official page.
1) I have twice tried to contact through the site Santander http://www.santander.com, whether is the page to them something to do, and both times was told that the only official to official sites and are www.bancosantander.es www.santander.com
2) I tried to contact Sutton Image, gave a permit Santander to publish his photos under a free license, but received no reply
Based on this I think we should remove all the photos. Full list
This text is written using the google translate --Sasha Krotov (talk) 13:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
.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}
_cropped.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}
Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Files uploaded by User:Ry0807
[edit]
- File:View of Vancouver.jpg
- File:Int'l1.jpg
- File:Intl2.jpg
- File:Int'l4.jpg
- File:Int'l3.jpg
- File:Int'l5.jpg
- File:The International aspect of Vancouver.jpg
- File:Int'l6.jpg
The meta information cannot prove the uploader holds copyrights of those files. Also, some images seems to be photoshopped. Mys 721tx (talk) 07:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
We do not need a final proof but I agree that this set is suspicious: With the exception of the panoramic view, the photographs were photoshopped by putting a student in foreground and some other photo of Vancouver in the background where each student has a shield telling from where he or she came to Vancouver. None of the file descriptions tell anything about the copyright status of the background images and there is nowhere an indication how this set fits into COM:SCOPE. All images are unused and these are all uploads and edits by this user who cannot be contacted by email. Given all this it appears best to delete the set per COM:PRP. --AFBorchert (talk) 18:44, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Photos uploaded by user TBKers
[edit]
Obvious copyvio uploader, today I found evidences that 4 other photos uploaded by him were taken from web--Oleola (talk) 14:42, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Clip-ons by Ksana555
[edit]- File:Темный клипон.jpg
- File:Желтый клипон.jpg
- File:Клипон на очках - 1.jpg
- File:Клипон на очках - 2.jpg
- File:Ассортимент.jpg
All other files uploaded by user Ksana555 you can found in web. I've marked them as copyvio. For these photos I can't find the same in web, but I think these photos were published here illegitimately. All of them were used in spam/PR article in ru-wiki that was speedy deleted by ru-wiki sysops. --Dmitry89 (talk) 15:39, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: copyright violation Polarlys (talk) 15:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
poor quality NatanFlayer (talk) 09:03, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
- Poor quality with 3,008 × 2,000 resolution? This is either the only image of the subject or this is part of a series of images of the subject so any other quality issues aren't that important. Given the perhaps political nature of the image I fear this may lead to political statementing one after another, I'd cation visitors whose home wiki is from other wikis to keep in mind that political arguments will be disregarded here on commons. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 02:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept: not a valid reason for deletion when we don't have many photos of the subject (i. e. Israeli controls at that mosque). Rosenzweig τ 09:48, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
too dark and OB by File:Israeli soldier at Abraham mosque2.jpg Chesdovi (talk) 17:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- Comment File:Israeli_soldier_at_Abraham_mosque.jpg is the original file, File:Israeli soldier at Abraham mosque2.jpg is a derivative of it. We cannot delete the original file and keep the derivative. --Rosenzweig τ 17:11, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- I see. Well spotted. What we'll have to do is upload the newer version onto the original page? Chesdovi (talk) 18:49, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- Why should we do that? I don't see any need for it. --Rosenzweig τ 19:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- To keep the original and do away with the useless image, thereby freeing up space. Chesdovi (talk) 23:53, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- No space at all will be “freed up”, a file that gets “deleted” is only inaccessible to normal users, but it is still there. And I don't find any of the two files “useless”: one is the original, the other is a brightened version where one can discern the details better. --Rosenzweig τ 00:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- I am aware that files recently deleted are saved out of sight for undeletion requests, but I would have thought and hoped that over time, such files would be permanently deleted. There is also something to be said for efficient use of space in the categories themselves. The original is low quality and once a better version has been provided, bye bye. Chesdovi (talk) 01:14, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Nope, there is no permanent deletion, not since 2006 or so, apart from a few technical mistakes where files were deleted by accident. Originals are not deleted because derivatives are based on them, and in many cases it is legally necessary to keep them (license attribution path). Even if it is not legally necessary, the original on which other versions are based should still be around, e. g. in case someone else wants to make another (perhaps better) derivative version. --Rosenzweig τ 14:26, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- So I'll just upload the newer version over the original then. Thanks. Chesdovi (talk) 14:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Nope, there is no permanent deletion, not since 2006 or so, apart from a few technical mistakes where files were deleted by accident. Originals are not deleted because derivatives are based on them, and in many cases it is legally necessary to keep them (license attribution path). Even if it is not legally necessary, the original on which other versions are based should still be around, e. g. in case someone else wants to make another (perhaps better) derivative version. --Rosenzweig τ 14:26, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- I am aware that files recently deleted are saved out of sight for undeletion requests, but I would have thought and hoped that over time, such files would be permanently deleted. There is also something to be said for efficient use of space in the categories themselves. The original is low quality and once a better version has been provided, bye bye. Chesdovi (talk) 01:14, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- No space at all will be “freed up”, a file that gets “deleted” is only inaccessible to normal users, but it is still there. And I don't find any of the two files “useless”: one is the original, the other is a brightened version where one can discern the details better. --Rosenzweig τ 00:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- To keep the original and do away with the useless image, thereby freeing up space. Chesdovi (talk) 23:53, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- Why should we do that? I don't see any need for it. --Rosenzweig τ 19:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- I see. Well spotted. What we'll have to do is upload the newer version onto the original page? Chesdovi (talk) 18:49, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Nom withdrawn. Chesdovi (talk) 14:51, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Withdrawn by nominator. --Rosenzweig τ 19:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
_%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D0%BF%D0%BB%D0%BE%D1%89%D0%B0%D0%B4%D1%8C_%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%B0_%D0%BA%D1%83%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%82%D1%83%D1%80%D1%8B_%22%D0%AE%D0%B1%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%B9%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9%22.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D0%BF%D0%BB%D0%BE%D1%89%D0%B0%D0%B4%D1%8C_%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%B0_%D0%BA%D1%83%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%82%D1%83%D1%80%D1%8B_%22%D0%AE%D0%B1%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%B9%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9%22.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
The file description says these are ice sculptures of Santa Claus. Unfortunately, there is no freedom of panorama in Russia. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 17:39, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- There's more at Category:Ледяные скульптуры and 100x more elsewhere ;) NVO (talk) 01:00, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, dear. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 07:22, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
_%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D0%BF%D0%BB%D0%BE%D1%89%D0%B0%D0%B4%D1%8C_%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%B0_%D0%BA%D1%83%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%82%D1%83%D1%80%D1%8B_%22%D0%AE%D0%B1%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%B9%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9%22.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
No freedom of panorama in Russia, unfortunately. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 07:23, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Low resolution picture; appears to be a non-notable porn actress, educational value unclear. Pete F (talk) 17:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete --NaBUru38 (talk) 16:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept: may not be notable for en.wp, but perhaps for other projects. Rosenzweig τ 12:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Low resolution image; subject appears to be non-notable porn actress, educational value unclear. Pete F (talk) 17:50, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete --NaBUru38 (talk) 16:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept: may not be notable for en.wp, but perhaps for other projects. Rosenzweig τ 12:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Images uploaded by the Duke of Geography
[edit]- File:Woman_with_hirsutism.jpg
- File:Hyper1.jpg
- File:Hyper2.jpg
- File:Hyper3.jpg
- File:Hyper4.jpg
- File:Hyper5.jpg
After reading a WR post by Delicious_carbuncle, I feel that we need reopen the case started at Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Woman_with_hirsutism.jpg. A copy of a full-size, uncropped version of File:Woman_with_hirsutism.jpg can be found at this location. Expanding on what Delicious_carbuncle says, it appears to be a photo of a photo (or a page cut out of magazine) tacked onto a bulletin board. It seems that we were too quick in dismissing Peteforsyth's magazine observation from the previous deletion discussion.
As Delicious_carbuncle notes, File:Hyper1.jpg, File:Hyper2.jpg, File:Hyper3.jpg, File:Hyper4.jpg, and File:Hyper5.jpg were originally from a medical journal. The article in that journal doesn't mention any photographer named "John Parker". The article also contains the following:
Acknowledgment: The authors are very grateful to the patient who gave them written consent for this publication.
Did Wikimedia receive the same written consent from this patient to use these images? The HyperX.jpg images don't link to or mention the dermatology.cdlib.org article.
Delicious_carbuncle also noted that all of Duke of Geography's football-related uploads have been deleted as copyright violations (eg. [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]). Duke of Geography lists him or herself as the author in these deleted images, and he also lists the HyperX.jpg images as "Own work". Given his or her history, can we really trust what this person says when it comes to attribution? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:16, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
![[7]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&page=File%3AProd221.gif){kind=link}
![[8]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&page=File%3AP1_orton.jpg){kind=link}
![[10]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&page=File%3A413da83b0b586-58-1.jpg){kind=link}
![[11]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&page=File%3AAdrianpeterson.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete per nom. Good research. The journal issue was published in 2006 -- definitely, before the upload to Commons. Trycatch (talk) 21:32, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. Clearly copyvios / see previous Duke of Geography uploads / likely patient consent issues re. medical journal copies Alison ❤ 19:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
copyvio [12] diba (talk) 20:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Rosenzweig τ 12:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
http://www.yogaseva.org/mother-maya-stroud copyvio JFHJr (talk) 21:08, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio, http://www.wombyoga.org/blog/. Rosenzweig τ 12:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
per Commons:Deletion requests/2011/11/27#File:Wikipedians P1070730.JPG, image violates individual personality rights. Chesdovi (talk) 16:28, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. This is realy not important picture. in this tour, after I asked deror not to take my pictures. I tried to stay away from the grup. I was very sorry to see all the picture that includes me. Hanay (talk) 04:35, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Taken against explicit wish of one of the people in the picture and uploaded to Commons. Very rude. Commons should no cooperate with this behavior. Kooritza (talk) 05:12, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Hanay specificlay said that her face would not appear with a certain person. That other person is not in that picture. Deror avi (talk) 09:07, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- This is true, so why did you take 3 pictures of mine with this certain person and uploaded them to commons, and try to keep tham against my specific request? this is a picture of me eating, and it is realy not important picture to keep. Hanay (talk) 02:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - in general, I do not quite understand why this kind of photos is considered in scope on commons. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:55, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per Kooritza and Pieter. Deror, regardless of whether she objected before, she is objecting now; I think that is enough. -Pete F (talk) 21:45, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. A.Savin 19:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
This just doesn't seem like own work, very likely copied/scanned from somewhere else. Hopefully Im wrong, but more proof is needed in this case. P199 (talk) 19:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete --NaBUru38 (talk) 16:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. A.Savin 19:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
This just doesn't seem like own work, very likely copied/scanned from somewhere else. Hopefully I'm wrong, but more proof is needed in this case. P199 (talk) 19:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
=== I don't think it should be deleted, of course I don't know what the EXACT rules are, but the picture may be in the Commons Domain and publishable. It is a very beutiful rendition of the area.====ONB
Deleted. A.Savin 19:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Some plan which place are on homepage, not used Motopark (talk) 20:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope, possibly copyvio. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 18:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. A.Savin 19:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
It's not simple AMERICOPHILE 17:23, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete --NaBUru38 (talk) 16:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 23:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Not simple enough to be hosted on Commons AMERICOPHILE 17:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 23:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
copy of File:Sverige e-pass.jpg androl (talk) 18:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete --NaBUru38 (talk) 16:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 23:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Watermarked picture, promotional material WEB-address, out of scope Motopark (talk) 19:48, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete --NaBUru38 (talk) 16:35, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 23:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
no logo on commons TaraO (talk) 19:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 23:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
"never published elsewhere" doesn't make it free Rafy (talk) 20:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - I do not understand the nomination. Or is Rafy disputing "own work"? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:29, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
seems to be a scan or similiar, I doubt it is own work Avron (talk) 20:12, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Likely taken from internet Cambalachero (talk) 22:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Focus of the photo is a copyrighted ad for CNBC Ytoyoda (talk) 20:48, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyrighted Pruneautalk 11:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
.svg&action=edit){kind=link}
.svg&diff=0){kind=link}
.svg&action=history){kind=link}
.svg&action=watch){kind=link}
.svg&action=unwatch){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=purge){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit&preload=Commons:Deletion_requests/preload){kind=link}
.svg&action=delete){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
This is not translated into Traditional Chinese, this one is. Derekleungtszhei (talk) 02:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
- Is there a Simplified version that this is a duplicate of? Or is there a reason not to keep a Simplified version? --Philosopher Let us reason together. 20:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: "File:生物化学、遗传学和分子生物学关系简图 (zh-cn).svg" already exists shizhao (talk) 14:03, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
Looks like a copyvio (not own work). http://www.book2net.net/de/buchscanner/book2net-flash.html → jpg. The uploader's only edit here. Saibo (Δ) 21:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. shizhao (talk) 14:05, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Derivative work; no freedom of panorama in France. dave pape (talk) 14:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
This is tricky. The artwork in the photo was displayed inside the building's gallery -- which I would sort of equate with taking a photo of an artwork inside a gallery, which I think is allowed in France. Panorama applies to outdoors views -- I think.
The Flickr poster wrote in the description (http://www.flickr.com/photos/oh-paris/6093146403/in/set-72157627423443947) :
- Ten Lizes by Andy Warhol
- The Pompidou Centre, located in the 4th arrondissement of Paris, houses a large public library, the Musée National d'Art Moderne, the largest museum :for modern art in Europe and a centre for music and acoustic research.The building, opened in 1977, is named after Georges Pompidou and is build in :the high-tech architecture style.
- This image shows Andy Warhol's iconic work, 'Ten Lizes'. At the time this photo was taken, the piece was located at the entrance to the second floor of :the gallery. It is a striking start to an impressive floor of art.
That's my argument for keeping it, but I'm definitely not a lawyer. OttawaAC (talk) 00:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- I did some looking at Web sites to check the copyright status of the painting, and whether or not the Centre Pompidou allows photos. It does allow photos to be taken of the permanent exhibits
:::(http://www.centrepompidou.fr/Pompidou/Communication.nsf/0/3590D3A7D1BDB820C125707C004512D4?OpenDocument&sessionM=3.10.1&L=2)
- I did some looking at Web sites to check the copyright status of the painting, and whether or not the Centre Pompidou allows photos. It does allow photos to be taken of the permanent exhibits
:::and this painting is part of the permanent collection, so it's OK to take a photo for personal use. However, other than personal use, I think that the copyright rule of "70 years after the author's date of death" will apply, but that is for "professional use" -- so is Wikipedia "professional" use? Professional use of images in the collections of France's museums are directed through this French government agency, and they cite the "date of author's death plus 70 years":
:::http://www.photo.rmn.fr/cf/htm/StaticPage2.aspx?page=Presentation
:::It looks like this Warhol image will have to be deleted. OttawaAC (talk) 02:00, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. Warhol died almost 25 years ago, so at least this image will be re-uploaded in the year 2057. Dhe Zerohander (talk) 06:01, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Artwork published between 1924 and 1978 in the US are protected 95 years after publications. This was published in 1963, it's not PD before 2059 (almost the same date as 70 years p.m.a. PierreSelim (talk) 07:15, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted logo? Has fair use rationale at w:File:Winehq logo glass.png. Stefan4 (talk) 21:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- Comment I suppose it's ok, it's included in the WINE LGPL-licensed software package -- http://source.winehq.org/git/wine.git/blob/HEAD:/programs/winecfg/logo.svg Trycatch (talk) 23:16, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, I see. Logos for "free licence" stuff (e.g. Wikimedia logos) are sometimes non-free, so I wasn't sure. So keep, then? I changed licence from "GPL" to "LGPL" and removed the statement that it is a screenshot. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- Comment sometimes non-free logos are included in the software packages, wherein the addendum to the licensing will state that the logo itself isn't free (e.g., Firefox). Really there's no way for us to know unless someone combs through the license statement. Magog the Ogre (talk) 10:46, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
KEEP: part of LGPL software, no separate restrictions found. A.J. (talk) 14:01, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Nanjing Normal University Model United Nations Association
[edit]- File:The seal of Nanjing Normal University Model United Nations Association.jpg
- File:The sign.jpg
- File:The team members.jpg
The first is the seal of the organization - I actually am unsure about this first one, since it seems to be just characters and so may be {{PD-text}}. The second one is an organizational logo, copyright presumably by the organization, and the third a compilation composed entirely of (presumably) copyrighted work, as there is no indication that the other photos are by the photographer of the compilation. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 21:45, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted A.J. (talk) 08:53, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Photo appears to be from the Middleburgh High School website: http://blunderwood.xeran.com/id9.html Ytoyoda (talk) 20:15, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted A.J. (talk) 13:14, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
No way to assess authenticity of photo/veracity of caption. Person named appears to have been a candidate for local office. Educational value not clear. Pete F (talk) 19:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep The candidate for office is this person's grandson. (See https://www.myspace.com/butlerforassessor2010.) Senator2029║talk 22:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
- Keep The Bike Dude (talk) 01:54, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: We have at least three sculptures and a photograph and no evidence of their copyright status. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:46, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
User known for uploading copyvio images. Unclear EXIF data Rafy (talk) 20:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Thumbnail resolution, no EXIF data loss of trust in uploader claims of own work. Dcoetzee (talk) 09:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
I doubt that the image comes from the specified source and that signature is true. --Bulka UA (talk) 08:57, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
- Check the source specified.Picture reprinted many times after. Thanks--Jo0doe (talk) 16:37, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. FASTILY (TALK) 02:40, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
- Renomination #1
Nominated on behalf of User:Russavia. Reason given was: "you can't licence under CC/GFDL if it is PD -- but still need to show evidence of it being published in Ukraine prior to 1 January 1951" FASTILY (TALK) 20:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- http://www.archives.gov.ua/Sections/1941-1945/I/index.php?103 is all I could find on this photo. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 20:45, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- There no full portion of July 1941 newspaper preserved. Per Ukrainian legislation ( see 2nd para of Article 8 from http://zakon.rada.gov.ua/cgi-bin/laws/main.cgi?nreg=3814-12&p=1316201560854023) it's a public document - it was kept at Ukrainian SSR public authority file since 1944. It was kept at "Extraordinary State Commission for ascertaining and investigating crimes perpetrated by the German–Fascist invaders and their accomplices, and the damage inflicted by them on citizens, collective farms, social organisations" w:Extraordinary State Commission file for Lvivska region in addition to Photo-archive file. Jo0doe (talk) 16:22, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- So - now we've an evidence for image as taken July 7, 1941 at w:Peremysl ([13]) and which was printed at the newspaper (see specific lines on it). It's self evident. Or not?Jo0doe (talk) 16:28, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- There no full portion of July 1941 newspaper preserved. Per Ukrainian legislation ( see 2nd para of Article 8 from http://zakon.rada.gov.ua/cgi-bin/laws/main.cgi?nreg=3814-12&p=1316201560854023) it's a public document - it was kept at Ukrainian SSR public authority file since 1944. It was kept at "Extraordinary State Commission for ascertaining and investigating crimes perpetrated by the German–Fascist invaders and their accomplices, and the damage inflicted by them on citizens, collective farms, social organisations" w:Extraordinary State Commission file for Lvivska region in addition to Photo-archive file. Jo0doe (talk) 16:22, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
![[13]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Przemy%C5%9Bl_-_Kamienice_na_przemyskim_rynku.jpg){kind=link}
