Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2011/12/03
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
unique/copyrighted design of the company; no EXIF data, etc. mabdul 01:33, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept: withdrawn DR per mabdul @ IRC. note on the bottle: see Commons:TOO#United_States. Saibo (Δ) 01:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
It is mine and it has copyright problems KF5LLG (talk) 03:56, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: good-faith DR filed by uploader on day of upload Túrelio (talk) 09:04, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
no source, clearly not self-made Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: blatant copyvio from http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_MoeC_bh6AtI/TIx_FZ7VVAI/AAAAAAAAASE/dYJ4EQ76nXo/s1600/RaajKaregaKhalsa-1024x768.jpg Martin H. (talk) 09:25, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Collage containing deleted image: File:Ahmet Kaya 1.jpg, File:Ehmed Xani.jpg - Takabeg (talk) 02:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio content, so this is a speedy Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Collage containing deleted image: File:Ahmet Kaya 1.jpg, File:Ehmed Xani.jpg -- Takabeg (talk) 02:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio content, so this is a speedy Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Cropped from deleted image: File:Ehmedê Xanî.jpg -- Takabeg (talk) 02:57, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Source was copyvio, so this is a speedy. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:54, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Copyvio. There is no evidence to prove it is free content. This image was uploaded on August 23, 2011. But same image was uploaded to listal on September 20, 2009 (Of course, this image is much older.) Takabeg (talk) 05:02, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Speedy -- source site has explicit copyright notice. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:52, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Copyvio. There is no evidence that this image is free content. This image was uploaded here in 2011. But here in 2008. Takabeg (talk) 05:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Speedy. Source site has explicit copyright notice. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Possiible copyvio. The file of same name was deleted with the reason of Copyright violation. Takabeg (talk) 06:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Info It is the same picture. --Leyo 11:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Speedy, copyvio. As noted, the same image was previously deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Beach volley at the Beijing Olympics - USA v. Brazil.jpg Traleni (talk) 12:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: duplicate; use {{duplicate|}} instead in future. Thank you. High Contrast (talk) 15:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Copyright holder has revoked permission for the image's use before completing the required declaration for a free licensing arrangement. Cloudbound (talk) 14:54, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: as per ticket:2011120110016296 russavia (talk) 14:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
this is not appropriated picture and not own Pratoprovincia 09:43, 3 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Massimilianogalardi (talk • contribs) 09:43, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Keep --
- As to "not own" -- It is my drawing. I drew the outlines and text in AutoCAD, saved it as a DWG, then exported it as a Windows MetaFile (WMF) to Corel Photopaint, where I filled in the colors and saved it as a PNG. I have all three files on my computer. My drawing uses information from US Coast Guard drawings, all of which are {{PD-USCG}}.
- As to "not appropriated picture" -- I am not sure what he means.
- If he means "not appropriate" i.e. out of scope, it is in use in two articles, illustrating the variety of daymarks used by the US Coast Guard. Although I drew it while editing the WP:EN article Leading Lights, it has been in that article for two years and 14 edits since I last touched it, so others also think it is appropriate. It is also in use at the WP:NL article Lichtlijn. Since I don't read Dutch, I had nothing to do with that.
- If he means "appropriated" i.e. stolen, I have answered that above.
- Finally, this may be retaliation for Commons:Deletion requests/File:Istituto Don Milani 6.jpg. It is the first DR ever against one of my 500+ images and happened nine hours after I tagged one of the nom's files. I note that the user has been blocked twice before for vandalism.
- Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept: source approved, nom indef blocked for vandalism. matanya • talk 18:45, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
This image was taken from this web page : http://www.iroadsystems.com/start/intelligent-road-systems/Our-services/Our-proposals-are which is copyrighted Pierre cb (talk) 00:01, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. The file does not even have a copyright status tag. -- Asclepias (talk) 00:56, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, along with File:Рисунок23.jpg, both explicitly marked as coming from www.iroadsystems.com. The source webpage doesn't appear to have any copyright policy, but I don't read Russian so perhaps the uploader can prove me wrong. Dcoetzee (talk) 04:02, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Delete per all above. -Pete F (talk) 15:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio 99of9 (talk) 12:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Copyvio. User cut the logo of this image. Takabeg (talk) 07:22, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Delete Agreed. Seems clear to me. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:21, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete copyvio. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: As above, would require OTRS. 99of9 (talk) 12:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Self-promotion. User self identifies as subject of photo at w:en:Prateek Singh Bazj (talk) 09:43, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete out of scope--Morning Sunshine (talk) 10:18, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Educational value unclear. In general it would be OK for a Wikipedia contributor to upload a picture of himself for use in his namespace; but in this case, I see only two edits by the user, both related to a COI article. -Pete F (talk) 15:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. OK for a userpage, but that is not what this was uploaded for. 99of9 (talk) 12:14, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Self-promotion. User self identifies as subject of photo at w:en:Prateek Singh Bazj (talk) 09:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Prateek singh.jpg 99of9 (talk) 12:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Useless personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 10:04, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete educational value unclear. Bad file name, no metadata to clarify potential use. -Pete F (talk) 15:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 15:22, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope: private photo. Hystrix (talk) 11:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 15:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope: private photo. Hystrix (talk) 11:30, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 15:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope: private photo. Hystrix (talk) 12:02, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 15:29, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
NC restriction is not allowed on Commons: Para ver una copia de esta licencia, visite http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/es/ Leyo 14:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete unacceptable license. DMacks (talk) 17:05, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: the NC restriction is on page 1 of the document 99of9 (talk) 12:20, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Copyright holder has revoked permission for images to be uploaded to Commons with a free licensing before completing a free licensing declaration as required by OTRS. Cloudbound (talk) 14:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted (not by me) 99of9 (talk) 12:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Non-free company / product logo Senator2029 | talk 16:31, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Por si sirve de algo, ayer recibí la autorización expresa de la división legal de Autodesk para usar sus logotipos en Wikipedia, en caso de usarlos con el fin de enlazarlos directamente con la web de Autodesk, no con motivos publicitarios, sino con el motivo de reconocer la autoría de la propia Autodesk enlazando al producto en su página web. Asimismo, la persona que contactó conmigo me dijo que podría hacer saber a los usuarios de Wikipedia que estoy familiarizado con los productos de Autodesk. En otras Wikipedias el uso de este logo lleva años usándose. Aquí el problema es que aún no he encontrado la forma de insertar el tipo de licencia en el archivo en Commons. No sé cómo se edita para poner que es un logo de un propietario y que no es libre sin autorización expresa. Si algún moderador/administrador pudiera ponerlo, me ayudaría.
Deleted: already deleted (not by me) 99of9 (talk) 12:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Out of project scope, per COM:SCOPE. --95.247.169.190 16:42, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - Per nom. Angelus (talk) 09:37, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: possibly a copyvio of the studio's copyright 99of9 (talk) 12:22, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Non-free album cover. The cover art copyright is believed to belong to the label, w:Musketeer Records / w:Sony BMG, or the graphic artist(s). Senator2029 | talk 19:00, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted (not by me) 99of9 (talk) 12:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
No FOP in Iran + the building was apparently built recently Petrus Adamus (talk) 19:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Not every building is protected by copyright. Just buildings that their utilitarian aspects are overshadowed by their artistic aspects may meet the criteria for copyright protection. AMERICOPHILE 19:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Could you please mention some rule describing the necessity of overshadowing artistic aspects? Unfortunately, I don't understand Persian, but in the English translation of the Iranian Copyright Law from January 12, 1970, there is written in the Part I Article 2 (paragraph 7): Works protected by copyright law are as follows: Architectural works, designs, sketches and buildings. I don't see any dependency on an artistic content or value taught there. Probably, we are not allowed to place photos of recent Iranian buildings here on Commons without explicite permission according the prescription. --Petrus Adamus (talk) 19:53, 3 December 2011 (UTC) Contribuition [1] copied from [2]. --Petrus Adamus (talk) 20:36, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- The law may have changed drastically since the 1979 revolution. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:42, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- According to the Wikipedia article it is still valid, just the protection term was prolonged up to 50 years. --Petrus Adamus (talk) 19:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- The law may have changed drastically since the 1979 revolution. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:42, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Could you please mention some rule describing the necessity of overshadowing artistic aspects? Unfortunately, I don't understand Persian, but in the English translation of the Iranian Copyright Law from January 12, 1970, there is written in the Part I Article 2 (paragraph 7): Works protected by copyright law are as follows: Architectural works, designs, sketches and buildings. I don't see any dependency on an artistic content or value taught there. Probably, we are not allowed to place photos of recent Iranian buildings here on Commons without explicite permission according the prescription. --Petrus Adamus (talk) 19:53, 3 December 2011 (UTC) Contribuition [1] copied from [2]. --Petrus Adamus (talk) 20:36, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Unfortunately, per discussion. Architectural merit is evident. 99of9 (talk) 12:26, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, respecting literally the Iranian copyright rules, no pictures of newer buildings in Iran can stay on Commons without explicit author's permission, all of them should be deleted analogically. --Petrus Adamus (talk) 14:08, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Unknown person, no decription, small image, out of project scope Funfood ␌ 20:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete as a very low-quality, orphaned photo of an unidentified person. Logan Talk Contributions 19:00, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Educational value unclear. -Pete F (talk) 17:02, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Not realistically useful for an educational purpose 99of9 (talk) 12:27, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Does not apply to pd-textlogo 85.68.5.119 17:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete To me, this logo does not apply to pdtextlogo. It more than a simple text and simple forms. 85.68.5.119 17:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete but a weak delete, it is a text, but text written in a copyrighted font. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 20:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Too stylish to be PD. – Kwj2772 (msg) 16:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Concern was expressed on my enwiki page , that this logo may have incorrect attribution, and be beyond the threshold of originality. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:34, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:30, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Copyright violation. Image has been lifted from a news website Pasicles (talk) 02:34, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:30, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Clearly not a 2011 photo, clearly not creation by uploader. Bogus source, bogus authorship claim, bogus license. Uploader asked to correct info back in October. Infrogmation (talk) 03:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Delete of course, since no-one did act on my mild info about this. --Saibo (Δ) 01:56, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Comment - Source is indicated as a postcard collection; the image says "prop aseg 1923" in the bottom left corner; googling suggests Mexican origin; unfortunately, Mexico has a 100 year copyright term. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:30, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
no source Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:50, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:30, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Copyvio. There is no evidence to prove that this image is free content. Same image was uploaded in flickr on May 3, 2007 and uploader claims " All Rights Reserved" (I don't think this uploader in flickr also is not original copyright holder.)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:30, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
no source Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:59, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:30, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
appears to be a photo of a contemporary artwork Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:59, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:30, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Advertisement. Chaojoker (talk) 06:41, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. – Kwj2772 (msg) 16:01, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Wrong aspect ratio, see the persons in picture, perhaps screenshot from TV, low resolution, without EXIF-data Motopark (talk) 07:12, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:52, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Does not look like own photo, in any way out of project scope (non-notable band). Blacklake (talk) 07:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:53, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Flickr uploader is not the author. Image is from accordionguy.blogware.com. Copyright unclear. 217.186.24.196 07:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - and it infringes on the copyright of the sculpture... /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:01, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete speedily -- two copyvios, as per nom and Pieter. -Pete F (talk) 01:12, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:53, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
I think this map and that one are the same. Via null (talk) 08:02, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete "aviso legal" says:"Los derechos de todos los contenidos de este portal pertenecen a la Junta de Castilla y León, por lo que quedan prohibida la reproducción total o parcial de los contenidos de esta Web sin autorización previa." /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:08, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:53, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag map of Georgia.png
Source is a dead link, no information about licensing. Léna (talk) 09:56, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -Pete F (talk) 15:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:54, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work with copyrighted works of art, no FOP in Italy Trixt (talk) 10:13, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:54, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope, used for promotion and possibly copyvio Trijnstel (talk) 10:42, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:55, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope, used for promotion and possibly copyvio Trijnstel (talk) 10:42, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:55, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
false license, not own work by uploader. see metadata. GeorgHH • talk 11:12, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - metadata says: "by Bassano and Vandyk Studios, half-plate film negative, 6 October 1969". /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:10, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- delete Kittybrewster (talk) 16:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Text design passes the threshold of creativity (clearly not a simple computer font, designs and little specks of colour), Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - see Threshold of originality#United States. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:57, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by IllaZilla as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Clearly not simple text and/or shapes. Copyrighted artwork or ligature taken from an album cover. Sreejith K (talk) 10:12, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Text, even a very creative and unusual font, is always PD-Text, so the only thing here that might have a copyright is the tiny hearts and I think they are far below TOO. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:36, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - this renomination is a waste of time. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:31, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete: This is not a font and it clearly doesn't qualify as pd-text. It's an original, creative design incorporating multiple points of originality that clearly do not "only consist of simple geometric shapes and/or text". --IllaZilla (talk) 18:56, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Clearly you need to study some of the examples in COM:TOO#United States. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:19, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- I have plenty of experience with this, thank you. The images on that page have been judged ineligible for copyright protection by a court or similar authority. This image has not, so unless you are a judge or some other sort of legal authority the comparison is irrelevant. --IllaZilla (talk) 14:24, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- The purpose of a court is to rule in case of disputes (it's not a TV-show or your all-day's decision-helper). You can't expect a decision for everything. Please point out why this text is more creative than the examples mentioned. If you are a lawyer, let us know. -- RE rillke questions? 20:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
- I have plenty of experience with this, thank you. The images on that page have been judged ineligible for copyright protection by a court or similar authority. This image has not, so unless you are a judge or some other sort of legal authority the comparison is irrelevant. --IllaZilla (talk) 14:24, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- Clearly you need to study some of the examples in COM:TOO#United States. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:19, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
IllaZilla says:
- "This is not a font and it clearly doesn't qualify as pd-text".
The letters are part of a font -- under USA law, any letter shape, even if very elaborate, and even if specially designed for a single purpose and not part of a complete font, falls under the {{PD-textlogo}} rule. Thus the two words here are definitely PD. As I said above, the only question can be whether the hearts are above the threshold of originality and I cannot imagine that they are. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- Please direct me to the text of the law that says "any letter shape, even if very elaborate, and even if specially designed for a single purpose and not part of a complete font, falls under the {{PD-textlogo}} rule." I have never seen such, but I have seen several logos of this nature (that consisted of elaborate lettering designed for a single purpose) deleted from Commons or at the least determined not to be pd-text. The logos of many metal bands, for example, which consist of the band's name written in very elaborate lettering and arranged in elaborate ways (examples: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ensiferum.svg, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Darkthrone_Logo.png, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EvLogo.svg) have been deemed non-free in past discussions. By your criteria, a great many musical artist logos and brands would be considered free, when in reality that is not the case. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Kept From the USCO Circular 32, Blank Forms and Other Works Not Protected by Copyright: "Furthermore, the format, layout, and typography of a work is not protected..." Fancy typography does not give rise to a copyright in the USA. It may in the UK.
Also please keep in mind that trademark protection is much stronger than copyright, so that there is very little case law on the copyright of logos. I would be very surprised if you can point to any case law to support, "By your criteria, a great many musical artist logos and brands would be considered free, when in reality that is not the case," simply because people in the USA do not litigate copyright infringement on logos, they litigate trademark infringement, which is much easier to prove and defend. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:38, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Dublicate (File:Dana Reizniece 2010.jpg). Edgars2007 (talk) 12:13, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- And please delete these files, too (dublicates):
--Edgars2007 (talk) 12:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: All files are unused exact duplicates George Chernilevsky talk 16:07, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Promotional image of some sort, used in a now deleted advert on en.wikipedia. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 12:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:08, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Promotional image of some sort, used in a now deleted advert on en.wikipedia. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder FASTILY (TALK) 12:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:08, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Promotional image of some sort, used in a now deleted advert on en.wikipedia. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder FASTILY (TALK) 12:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
the permission is only for "own personal or research use", that does not make it PD. ELEKHHT 12:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:58, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
As noted in a removed copyvio tag, the rights are managed by Corbis http://www.corbisimages.com/stock-photo/rights-managed/BE021814/israeli-tank-firing-from-the-golan-heights No author is indicated, but if this was made and published by the Israeli "defense" forces, it would be copyrighted until 2023 in Israel and most of the world. . Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:56, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Comment IF THIS WAS MADE from them, yes, but the mentioned source is The Online Museum of Syrian History. --Roxanna (talk) 12:59, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- That's a source that you mentioned when you created the file. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 02:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Pretty clear this is a copyrighted image with rights managed by Corbis. --Wgfinley (talk) 18:36, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Obvious copyright violation, clear delete. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 00:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- Comment I saw this picture in Zeev Schiff's History of the Israeli Army, 1870-1974 (Straight Arrow Books, 1974) @ page 300. The photo is attributed to United Press International (UPI)--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 06:38, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope: private photo. Hystrix (talk) 13:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:12, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope: private photo. Hystrix (talk) 13:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:12, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Copyvio - taken from the cited source web site, but that's commercial, claims copyright and there's no indication that it's free. License added here is a fabrication. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:24, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't think this is own work because of the results on Google Morning Sunshine (talk) 13:36, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
No metadata. Identical to http://www.panoramio.com/photo/32664167 with copyrights of epleyer Wouter (talk) 13:42, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
no metadata. Identical to http://www.panoramio.com/photo/32664195 and copyright of epleyer Wouter (talk) 13:44, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
no metadata. Identical to http://www.panoramio.com/photo/32664185 and copyright of epleyer Wouter (talk) 13:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Poor quality, unused, seems to have been uploaded for testing purposes only. Leyo 13:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Poor quality, badGIF, replaced by slightly better version: File:Six membered TS for the Hofmann-Löffler-Freytag reaction.png. Leyo 14:01, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Poor quality, badGIF, replaced by slightly better version: File:Example 8- Steroids H abstraction.png. Leyo 14:02, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Scaled down duplicate George Chernilevsky talk 16:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
There are some copyrighted images from TV Morning Sunshine (talk) 14:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Comment I don't think that this photo is copyvio because this photo itself is licenced by the original creator(LG Electronics) of the smart tv application. --Puramyun31 (talk) 14:24, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Out of project scope: replacable by text and TeX. Leyo 14:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. 137k of graphics would be portably and reusably replaceable by <1k of text. DMacks (talk) 13:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
This image has low resolution, no properly source which is likely a copyright violation Morning Sunshine (talk) 14:22, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
This image has low resolution, no properly source which is likely a copyright violation Morning Sunshine (talk) 14:25, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
This image has low resolution, no properly source which is likely a copyright violation Morning Sunshine (talk) 14:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
This image has low resolution, no properly source which is likely a copyright violation Morning Sunshine (talk) 14:27, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
This image has low resolution, no properly source which is likely a copyright violation Morning Sunshine (talk) 14:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
This image has low resolution, no properly source which is likely a copyright violation Morning Sunshine (talk) 14:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
I am afraid I no longer have evidence of permission, as the original copyright holder no longer exists. MikeLynch (talk) 14:34, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
subject too far/small and several better photos of HB-IXU Biggerben (talk) 14:42, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep perspective different from others. -- Docu at 17:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Quality has never been a reason for deletion on Wikimedia! Simisa (talk) 00:03, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Wrong name (File is PNG, but named as bmp and jpeg) // Out of scope?... 77.2.40.123 15:04, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Unused personal image, out of project scope ■ MMXX talk 15:36, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
■ MMXX talk 15:37, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
browser screenshot of some search engine in (what looks to me like) Korean language. Even if it is found to be ineligible for copyright, I doubt that it is in project scope. Rosenzweig τ 15:50, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope and copyvio George Chernilevsky talk 16:19, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope; Commons is no private image host (image is not used on any Wikimedia project) High Contrast (talk) 15:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:20, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
I think this image is not the work of this uploader. According to flickr, All Rights Reserved. Takabeg (talk) 16:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:05, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
I think this image is not uploaders own work. This was uploaded in 2009 and uploader claims that it was taken after 2008. However sane image was uploaded here on May 27, 2007. Takabeg (talk) 16:27, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:05, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Unused private image. GeorgHH • talk 17:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Not notable people. GeorgHH • talk 17:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Unused hoax Bazj (talk) 18:41, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:22, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Unused hoax Bazj (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
unidentifyable object, date wrong, out of project scope Funfood ␌ 18:53, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:24, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Self promotion Bazj (talk) 20:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, apparently uploaded only for the purpose of adding to the now-deleted . Nyttend (talk) 20:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:24, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
No description other than the name Michael Gertsen. A fast Google search does not suggest that this is a notable person, so without more information, this should be deleted as a personal image. Commons is not Flickr. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:39, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:25, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Book not from 1888; Worldcat says 1957 Prosfilaes (talk) 23:44, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Worldcat turns up library entries for this book listed as 1957. There are several different people by the name Margaret Laing in Worldcat, but the books ascribed to her on the page facing the title page in the Internet Archive book (see ahead) are dated at earliest to the 1940s. http://www.archive.org/stream/physicaleducatio00lainuoft#page/n11/mode/2up is a copy of this book. It's not dated, but page 8 says "Since the publication of Syllabus of Physical Training in 1933", and I find nothing to imply that it's an updated version of an older book. It'd be unlikely this book is an updated version of an 1888 copy; only M. Laing is mentioned, and she would be extremely old to be updating a book written in 1888 after 1933.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:54, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Comment It looks like you're right that the book is not so old. However [3] lists the book as "Not in Copyright". Some more research is needed to get accurate info and update the description accordingly, but looks like it might be PD for some reason. -- Infrogmation (talk) 00:29, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- I think they were just careless. There is no way a 1957 British work is going to be PD in the US or UK. I suppose assuming it was printed in the US within 30 days--I see no evidence of a US printing at all--it probably would be PD in the US, but the UK would still the source nation for us, and still in copyright there.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- Good points. Unless some new info showing a reason why it is PD is produced, Delete. -- Infrogmation (talk) 16:20, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- Good points. Unless some new info showing a reason why it is PD is produced,
- I think they were just careless. There is no way a 1957 British work is going to be PD in the US or UK. I suppose assuming it was printed in the US within 30 days--I see no evidence of a US printing at all--it probably would be PD in the US, but the UK would still the source nation for us, and still in copyright there.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Here's a thought experiment for you: if this were a photograph taken in 1888, would it look like this? Hints: it was taken indoors, and there is fast movement. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per discussion. British book from 1957, photograph is highly unlikely to be PD. Rosenzweig τ 19:07, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
The rest uploads from user Radic90 were copyvios, this also seem to be as is in very low resolution. Oleola (talk) 20:04, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- This is an interesting case. The "rest" of Radic90's uploads is only one file, which was deleted without discussion as a copyvio; it's difficult to assess what happened with that, since there is no discussion to look back at. This file is used on a number of Wikipedias, so deletion should not be undertaken lightly. However, since the original notification was made on December 3, and it's now December 22, I think plenty of time has passed to permit the uploader (or any knowledgeable editor from the various Wikipedia articles) to come and explain what happened. Since nobody has offered any explanation, I think the time has come to Delete. -Pete F (talk) 23:26, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Tiptoety talk 06:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
(Completing incorrect DR started on 3 December) -- This does not look like own work. Where did the base map come from? Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- http://www.kolbiel.pl/asp/pl_start.asp?typ=14&sub=1&subsub=14&menu=15&strona=1 - official website of community Kołbiel. Map licensed to map1. Elvino (talk) 23:54, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Masur (talk) 10:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Crop from a flickr image, no free license http://www.flickr.com/photos/canago/5434279327/in/photostream Funfood ␌ 23:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: crop of a non free flickr image, without flickr licence review PierreSelim (talk) 22:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Iterrohit90 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope: private photos.
- File:Rohitdudi8.jpg
- File:Rohitdudi7.jpg
- File:Rohitdudi6.jpg
- File:Rohitdudi4.jpg
- File:Rohitdudi5.jpg
- File:Rohitdudi3.jpg
- File:Rohitdudi2.jpg
- File:Rohitdudi1.jpg
- File:Duddi1.jpg
- File:Dudi.jpg
Hystrix (talk) 11:52, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Educational value unclear. Some have descriptions like "my frndssssssss" and "aaaaaaaaa". -Pete F (talk) 16:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. All out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 15:28, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope: private photos.
Hystrix (talk) 13:31, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:13, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
No indication that this is an unfree image. Brooke Bond corporate logo is copyrighted, making derivative works unsuitable for a free license. 99.27.138.106 22:24, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 17:23, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
The watermark ("Alpha Kappa Omega Banquet 2011") indicates that this is a professional photo. Typically professional photographers retain the copyright to their work. No evidence that uploader is authorized to release copyright GrapedApe (talk) 22:42, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - does not look that professional; probably just made by a volunteering member of the fraternatity. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:32, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- In my experience, amateur photoeditors never use such demure text on their photos: they generally quite loud fonts. Professionals, on the other hand, use exactly that type of font.--GrapedApe (talk) 12:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete AKOmegaSJSU needs to say a little bit more about how they claim to own the copyright of this photo, in light of the deletion of File:AKOmegaCrest.png along with the lack of EXIF data and low resolution for the image, it seems likely to have been taken from an Alpha Kappa Omega Beta Chapter member's website rather than an original upload. In this case, I can see a rationale to delete as a precaution. --Fæ (talk) 20:00, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Probable copyvio, COM:PRP Captain-tucker (talk) 17:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Derivative work of a 2008 plaque. GrapedApe (talk) 23:02, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - Not derivative work of a plaque but an original picture of the plaque. miranda 18:41, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry if that was unclear. See Commons:Derivative works for an explanation about why the photo is a copyvio.--GrapedApe (talk) 19:11, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - Not derivative work of a plaque but an original picture of the plaque. miranda 18:41, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Commons:Derivative works Captain-tucker (talk) 17:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Photo no longer resembles the subject. Thank you. Fanger222 (talk) 10:41, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- That's not a reason for deletion, but since there's no article about James Plumridge in any Wikipedia, it seems out of scope. A.J. (talk) 07:17, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 10:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Repeatedly and solely used for vandalism on en wiki. Bazj (talk) 18:39, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- I think that if we clean up the description it could be useful. But if nobody can, i guess it should be deleted as a copyvio (unlikely own work). VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 20:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- See http://lb.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:Zehent.jpg (found using tineye) Bulwersator (talk) 12:31, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio see: http://www.themoralliberal.com/2011/08/12/the-feudal-states-of-america/ Captain-tucker (talk) 10:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
No Freedom of panorama: Commons:FOP#Tajikistan Brackenheim (talk) 19:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- (as we also had just discussed in IRC) Yes, DW of the sculpture. Some former_Soviet_Union copyright laws would probably only help us if we would know how old sculpture is... --Saibo (Δ) 19:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per the nominator. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 12:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
French island, no freedom of panorama for sculptures. FunkMonk (talk) 20:01, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- You're right, I can't set a date to the author death for these sculptures. These four photos are in the same case :
- Mirgolth (talk) 09:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Derivative works of sculptures whose date or author is unknown, and which don't look very old. No FOP in France. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 13:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
A new version File:EKD Segnungen gleichgeschlechtlicher Paare.png was created, this map was replaced by it. This is map which needs be maintained and updated regularly. This task is easier if there is only one version Antemister (talk) 21:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Since when is being outdated a valid ground for deletion? I'm strongly opposed, as old revisions of the respective article point to this very file and deleting it would mean deletion history needlessly. --217.186.104.38 01:52, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Per IP 217.186.104.38: even an outdated map has an historical interest. It should however be dated to avoid confusion. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 13:22, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Unused and replaced by superior File:EKD Segnungen gleichgeschlechtlicher Paare.png; not up to date. - TalkingToTurtles (talk) 20:11, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- Keep per previous DR. The newer map does not show the same information that has been available in 2007. --Amitie 10g (talk) 01:48, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Information is available in oldest version of the map, see here. - TalkingToTurtles (talk) 02:11, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Kept It is well established policy that we keep intermediate versions of charts and maps whose content changes over time. You may use {{Rename}} to add a date to the file name, but the file cannot be deleted. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:53, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Really? User:Wnajar is the author of this image? That Wnajar painted a portrait of a man who died in 1842, photographed it, shrunk it to web-resolution, and uploaded it? Really? GrapedApe (talk) 22:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - so change it to {{PD-Art}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- What would you speculate as the correct companion tag? PD-1923, PD-old, PD-no notice, PD-not renewed? Who is the author? When did the author die? Was it 70+ years ago? Was the work ever registered? In what county was it created? In what country was the photo taken?--GrapedApe (talk) 13:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- Can you think of more nonsense questions? Sitter lived and died in the US, and nobody outside the US could give a damn about this person. The term of 70 years is totally irrelevant, why would you even ask that. You are trolling. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- 70+ years from death is from {{PD-old}}, you guff-speaking copyright slacker.--GrapedApe (talk) 01:28, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- Then change it to {{PD-Art-100}}, you ape. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:01, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- Did I miss something? Did we figure out that that the author died 100+ years ago?--GrapedApe (talk) 15:24, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- Then change it to {{PD-Art-100}}, you ape. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:01, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- 70+ years from death is from {{PD-old}}, you guff-speaking copyright slacker.--GrapedApe (talk) 01:28, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- Can you think of more nonsense questions? Sitter lived and died in the US, and nobody outside the US could give a damn about this person. The term of 70 years is totally irrelevant, why would you even ask that. You are trolling. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- What would you speculate as the correct companion tag? PD-1923, PD-old, PD-no notice, PD-not renewed? Who is the author? When did the author die? Was it 70+ years ago? Was the work ever registered? In what county was it created? In what country was the photo taken?--GrapedApe (talk) 13:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept: PD-Art/PD-1923: the painting was reproduced in engraving by J.N. Gimbrede, who was active in 1840-1860s, so we know it was published before 1923. Also please stay civil when expressing your position. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 13:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- Also: File:Founders Window.jpg
- Derivative work. There is no indication that this stained glass work, which appears to be relatively recent, is PD or freely licensed. The year of "1908" indicates the year of the sorority founding, not the date of the work. GrapedApe (talk) 22:57, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - This is stained glass work in a church. Official website says: The stained glass installation is located at Rankin Chapel, Howard University. miranda 18:37, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- So, because it is located in a church, the author of the stained glass has no copyright? Please direct me to a source for that.--GrapedApe (talk) 18:40, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - This is stained glass work in a church. Official website says: The stained glass installation is located at Rankin Chapel, Howard University. miranda 18:37, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - unveiled 1978; it has a copyright mark, but no year or name. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:41, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- Where is the year 1978 credited? The official website says it was created by Lois Mailou Jones (1905–1998). --GrapedApe (talk) 12:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- It says so in en:Alpha Kappa Alpha, with a reference. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- Where is the year 1978 credited? The official website says it was created by Lois Mailou Jones (1905–1998). --GrapedApe (talk) 12:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: The copyright notice appears to be defective, but copyright has been registered before the Copyright Office in November 1979. There is no freedom of panorama in the US for artworks. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 14:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Uploader claims PD-Philippines. Huh? This from a American fraternity (founded at Yale). Doubtful that this English language document was first published in the Phillipines. GrapedApe (talk) 23:07, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. This document could have been first published in the Philippines indeed, as it establishes the International Council of Alpha Sigma Phi between Yale fraternity Alpha Sigma Phi and en:Alpha Sigma Phi Philippines. However this agreement was signed in 1984, so PD-Philippines doesn't apply. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 13:49, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
No evidence that this is a work of the US Federal Government - unlikely to be so. Kelly (talk) 06:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- The origin tag on the photo explains that it comes from the Warren Comission online archives, and the link says specifically that is comes from, "Warren Commission Hearings, Volume XXV"
- Doesn't this mean that this is a photo that is on the public domain? I don't understand what the rationale would be for a deletion request such as the one above. 76.204.6.100 23:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- I was logged in in WP before I came here, and the login explanation page explicitly says that having an account in WP should automatically log me in here. Well, not only is the page accepting me as a recognized user above, it also does not me allow to login into Wikimedida. 76.204.6.100 00:01, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with the above statement. It was published in PD by the Warren Commission. Evrik (talk) 20:49, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - published without notice in the US. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete The fact that it was published in a government document does not mean that it is free of copyright. Many government documents contain copyrighted material. Federal works are automatically PD only if they were created by government employees in the course of their work. Since this image was taken in Russia, that seems very unlikely. The copyright is owned by the photographer, who may have been Lee Harvey Oswald.
- From the USCO's booklet on Copyright Notice:
- "Under [the law before 1978], if a work was published under the copyright owner’s authority without a proper notice of copyright, all copyright protection for that work was permanently lost in the United States."
- The Warren Commission subpoenaed the photographs in the report, so they were taken from the copyright holder and published without his authority by force majeure. The lack of notice is therefore irrelevant. The photograph is still under copyright, which is probably owned by Oswald's heirs. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep as per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lho-133A.jpg discussion (although keep argument admittedly less strong here), that is to say, re-tag as Pieter suggests above (PD-US-no notice)--Brian Dell (talk) 20:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be a work of the US Federal Government. Kelly (talk) 06:12, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - published without notice in the US. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:57, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete See File:CE2595.jpg , above. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:52, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
unknown date of creation, subject on image dies in 1943, impossible to determine the validity of the license template without more info Denniss (talk) 18:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Taken from an unknown source, see http://www.war2hobby.cl/foro/viewtopic.php?start=105&t=757, they uploaded the same drawing some years ago, although in different resolution. Polarlys (talk) 23:00, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Derivative work. The photograph has OTRS permission, but there is no indication that the flag design which is the subject of the photo is PD or is freely licensed. GrapedApe (talk) 22:56, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - have you read the OTRS? Anyway, it does not have a copyright mark. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:35, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- If it was created recently then it does not need a copyright mark. What is the date, then, of its creation?--GrapedApe (talk) 23:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- The sorority is about a century old, the shield would have been one the first things they made. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- Cite?--GrapedApe (talk) 02:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- The sorority is about a century old, the shield would have been one the first things they made. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- If it was created recently then it does not need a copyright mark. What is the date, then, of its creation?--GrapedApe (talk) 23:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- Note - The OTRS ticket only talks about the photo and not about the shield. If the shield is not out of copyright, then this picture is a derivative work and should be deleted. --Sreejith K (talk) 13:39, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- ...and there is no evidence that the shield is out of copyright.--GrapedApe (talk) 01:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- ...It lacks the copyright mark! /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- ...and you have evidence that the flag created before 1989? The coat of arms before 1989? ({{PD-US-1978-89}}).--GrapedApe (talk) 12:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- ...It lacks the copyright mark! /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- ...and there is no evidence that the shield is out of copyright.--GrapedApe (talk) 01:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: The OTRS ticket talks only about Wikipedia -- there is no mention of a broader license. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
This images infringes on the copyright of the creator of the mural. There is no FOP exception in Italy Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:08, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- It's not a mural, it's graffiti --Sailko (talk) 11:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- For it to be "graffiti", in the English sense, requires that it be unauthorized. This does not look like that. In order to keep it, we would need to have some sort of proof that it was not authorized by the building owner -- perhaps a later image showing that it had been removed. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:50, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- I think this is just a kind of pedantisme... Of course I cannot go to any single owner of a building asking if he authorized or not a graffiti on his wall, just the regular common-sense should be enough. --Sailko (talk) 06:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
- Generally we do use common sense. We keep cases which are small, and on one level, that look like they could have been done relatively quickly without someone objecting. We delete cases that are big enough to have taken several days or high enough to have required scaffolding or a cherry-picker. This looks to me like it clearly falls in the latter group, which is why I nominated it. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:53, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
- I did not need any scaffolding, since it is along a staircase... --Sailko (talk) 12:13, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps you and I misunderstand each other. Did you do the painting/mural/grafiti yourself? Or did you just take the photograph? Or both? Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:01, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
- No, wanted to say "it".. just the shot.- --Sailko (talk) 19:51, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps you and I misunderstand each other. Did you do the painting/mural/grafiti yourself? Or did you just take the photograph? Or both? Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:01, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
- I did not need any scaffolding, since it is along a staircase... --Sailko (talk) 12:13, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
- Generally we do use common sense. We keep cases which are small, and on one level, that look like they could have been done relatively quickly without someone objecting. We delete cases that are big enough to have taken several days or high enough to have required scaffolding or a cherry-picker. This looks to me like it clearly falls in the latter group, which is why I nominated it. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:53, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. Essentially "I couldn't be bothered to ask, so I assume it's free" doesn't rhyme very well with COM:PRP. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
- Delete The graffiti policy is on shaky ground already - there's no reason to believe a graffiti artist might not succeed in upholding their copyright. With a work that looks very much like a detailed mural that took days to complete, the risk is even greater. We must assume this is a derivative work, unless new evidence can be offered. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: No FOP, no permission from artist, and not a clear case of {{Non-free graffiti}}. Jafeluv (talk) 09:47, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
This images infringes on the copyright of the creator of the mural. There is no FOP exception in Italy Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:07, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Also:
that are:
*Image:Arte industriale a Il Pino 3.jpg,
- Image:Graffiti Castellina 3.jpg],
- Image:Graffiti in prato 02.JPG,
- Image:Istituto Don Milani 6.jpg,
- Image:Mural in Prato 01.jpg,
- Image:Mural in Prato 08.jpg,
- Image:Murals in Prato 11.jpg,
- Image:Murals in Prato 18.jpg,
- Image:Prato, graffito evoluzione 04.JPG,
- Image:Prato, graffito scuole gescal 03.JPG,
- Image:Prato, graffito evoluzione 33.JPG,
- Image:Prato, graffito evoluzione 25.JPG,
- Image:Prato, graffito evoluzione 13.JPG,
Image:Prato, graffiti via nam dihn 01.JPG
There are no evidences that they are illegally created.--Trixt (talk) 10:18, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- I have removed 14 images displayed above and struck through the links. You cannot add items from multiple contributors to a DR after the fact without notifying all of the contributors and tagging all of the images with {{Delete}}. I did not nominate all of these for deletion because many of them may be Graffiti (in the English sense of the word), which we allow. If you want to nominate all of these for deletion, please do so separately. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Of course it was only a warning for the user who opened this DR (in this case, you), not a mass deletion request. Actually I'm not interested in nominate for deletion those files (I'm for keep this one, but this is another history).--Trixt (talk) 10:30, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- My apologies for the misunderstanding. Adding "Also..." and a list of files to a DR is almost always a request to add the whole list to the DR. The fact that there may be more problems is not relevant to this particular discussion. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:17, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No FOP in Italy. This is a mural; and not "Grafitti." Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 05:10, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
apparently a copyvio, but I think someone more versed in Russian should take a look at the history of this file and the correspondence about it. Rosenzweig τ 15:57, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- From the original speedy deletion request: В оригинале (Русской Википедии) не был указан ни источник, ни автор. Косвенное подтверждение нарушений лицензионного статуса приведено здесь. (only copied here by --Rosenzweig τ 15:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC))
Deleted: Original source invalid. Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 02:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Original research, out of scope. FunkMonk (talk) 16:36, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Oppose If anything, if this becomes a "Rebels vs. Loyalist" war, this is a good map, and it is like the Libyan Civil War map used on many pages. If anything, we need to figure out what towns are under SNC/FSA or the Government's control, blue could mean protests, and Red means that the rebels have full or most control. Keep it for a future happening. --Spesh531, My talk, and External links 22:53, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- "We" do not need to figure anything out, we need to reflect specific sources, not just make stuff up. FunkMonk (talk) 23:01, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Oppose: Irrespective of the title this image is useful in reflecting the approximate level of de-facto control enjoyed by the internationally recognized (Bashar al-Assad) government in these cities, as defined in terms of resident cooperation or lack thereof with government organs and the ability of government military and police forces to operate in the furtherance of government policy without being engaged by the opposition militia.
While the file description page doesn't currently list the sources of information or definitions used (i.e. what set of reported facts a given coloration or set thereof represents) to compile the map, many of the source documents cited in the Syrian Uprising article (and probably many others not cited there) provide what I would say is sufficient information about "facts on the ground" to construct a map of this sort.
But yes there should be reliable sources justifying the depiction of each city, and a reasonably consistent operational definition corresponding to each symbolic depiction.
Currently (as in this map's model-family File:Libyan_Uprising.svg et al.) there are essentially five different state-indicating symbols : Green (overall gov't control), Red (overall opposition control), Blue (thoroughly contested / situation unclear), Green-with-Blue-Circle (gov't control but somewhat contested or besieged), and Red-with-Blue-Circle (opposition control but somewhat contested or besieged).
It might be helpful to introduce alternate or additional symbols to indicate the state of affairs with greater precision; for example numbers of reported attacks and demonstrations and known (or at least officially claimed) force dispositions in given areas could be specified.
While the title obviously implies that the situation in Syria is that of a Civil War, I think that characterization has become increasingly accurate over the past several months:
- In 11 months over 5000 people have been killed according to the UN Commission on Human Rights, of which the Assad government claims about 1,100 are security forces (though it's unclear whether they're counting defected security force members in that total): http://in.reuters.com/article/2011/12/13/syria-idINDEE7BC00720111213
As these have been combat and quasi-combat/massacre deaths the number of substantially injured is likely at least two to three times the number of fatalities.
Plenty of modern conflicts now referred to as "wars" both in the vernacular and in scholarly literature have involved comparable or lower numbers of casualties, for example the Sino Indian War, Falklands War, 2006 Lebanon War, and 2008 South Ossetia War. - The opposition elements have formed shadow governments, now under the umbrella of the Syrian National Council and militia groups including and led by defectors from government forces have organized into the opposition Free Syrian Army, which claims affiliation with the Syrian National Council: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-15984682.
- The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay has described the situation as a civil war, first making a statement to this effect on November 30 or December 1: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45514855/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/un-syria-now-civil-war/#.TutqHbIk6dA
Riyuky (talk) 19:28, 16 December 2011 (UTC) Riyuky's Talk on en.wikipedia.org
- The opinions of individual editors are irrelevant, only reliable sources count. FunkMonk (talk) 19:42, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Oppose per others.User:81.157.192.42 13:51, 04 February 2012 (UTC)
Conditional Oppose - the map is good, but for some reason it shows as of Golan Heights are under Syrian rule, which is only partially truth. It should show that the Quneitra Governorate is partially under Israeli control/occupation, in accordance with 73' cease-fire accords.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose deletion. This is clearly not w:WP:original research#Original_images - the information is overall more or less credible given the main (intensively sourced) Syrian uprising articles. The image does not (overall) "illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments". The immediate problem is "citation needed" on Commons for the details, but since people will not click on the map to check the reliability of the claimed information, AFAIR (easy to check), the sourcing method in that case was more or less: (1) references in the "main" or timeline article + (2) detailed discussion on the talk page of the map for any disputed cases, with editors pasting in URLs (including some not used in (1)). The filename title should not be a major issue. Firstly, there are clearly many sources that call the events a civil war, so this is one of the main sourced POVs, even though not unique. Secondly, the only readers who discover the filename will be those who click on the image to get more information. At this step, the reader will presumably have already developed his/her own opinion on whether it's an uprising or civil war. If s/he finds cognitive dissonance between a "civil war" image being used for an "uprising" article, then someone could guide him/her to the debate. IMHO it would be good to put the main (latest) references in the description section of the image. In any case, a "move" debate for the Commons name of the image could be justified, but a possible NPOV problem in the image filename (military POV as opposed to civil disobedience POV) is not an argument for deletion. Boud (talk) 01:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose per arguments presented by Riyuky and Boud. EllsworthSK (talk) 18:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Support deletion. There's zero verifiable sources of what's going on in Syria. Remember that foreign journalist aren't allowed in the country and the Arab League has withdrawn its mission. This map is therefore completely based on rebels' accounts, which are, by definition, POV. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 15:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- comment. You forgot another source of information: the Syrian government. Also, the "rebels" are not a single political group. Foreign journalists reporting legally from Syria are not the only source of online information. Even if there's only "rebel military" information + govt info, when the government says that it's "removing the last remnants of criminals/terrorists from town X" and the "rebel military" say that they "are in full control of town X", then the conservative interpretation is that the town is militarily disputed. In the Libyan revolution, testimony from Western mainstream media journalists present in a town "fully under rebel control" was generally accepted as giving sourced verifiability to the claim that it was under rebel control. Also, AFAIR, the Libyan govt rarely claimed that it was still in control of a town once it had really lost control, instead it typically claimed that it would "quickly regain control" - or said nothing. Since the map does not predict future political/military control, this meant that there was often consensus between "rebels" and "government" (or the weasel word "regime") on the info needed for the map.
- In fact, it seems to me that your argument is really an argument for deleting all (or nearly all) of the 2011–2012 Syrian uprising articles, since in your words, "there's zero verifiable sources" for any of these encyclopedia articles. Boud (talk) 22:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose : commons is not wikipedia --Loreleil (talk) 03:56, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose : The uprising in syria is a major news story worldwide. As such it has extensive coverage. There are plenty of reliable sources to get this information. As a matter of fact there are independent mainstream media journalists in major syrian cities. Many sneak in risking their lives to tell the world what is happening. If anyone noticed several journalists have been died because of this.Meitme (talk)
Please do not use Support and Oppose in DRs. It is unclear whether you mean "support the image" or "support the deletion" and vice versa -- some people use them one way and some the other. There are two templates available for DRs:
Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Not out of scope. Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 02:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Copyright-Verletzung / Eilig / Der Urheber der Datei hat mich gebeten, die Löschung zu veranlassen, da er wegen Verwendung des geschützten Namens "True Balance" abgemahnt wird. "True Balance" erscheint im Dateinamen, sowie unter "Dateiversionen" im Kommentar. Das Bild an sich kann bleiben, Urheber ist Detlef Romeike. Nur die beiden (alle) Nennungen von "True Balance" müssen raus. Sollte das nicht gehen, muss die gesamte Datei gelöscht werden. Vielen Dank. 80.171.214.156 20:37, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - of course one could rename, but those demands by "True Balance" have no legal basis. I can write "True Balance" as often as I want. Freedom of expression even allows me to say that "True Balance" is acting in a very silly way and that it reflects poorly on their business. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: I agree with Pieter as far as trademark is concerned. I have some issues about copyright, though. Is user Animalday the author of the picture and Detlef Romeike the designer of the kettlebell, or is Detlef Romeike the author of the picture? The file description is confusing. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 13:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Kept: No such thing as a trademark infringement on a filename. Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 02:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
File:Bumpak.jpg and two derivatives
[edit]File:Bumpak.jpg is the source file of both others.
According to uploader (who has 1 edit) this was "{{self2|GFDL|cc-by-3.0}}" by author="Pavel M". However, the file has no {{LicenseReview}} and: Do you see here a mention of any free license of the paper bag image which was at this source (archive version→) http://web.archive.org/web/20080614031015/http://printfolio.ru/portfolio/14/319.html (doesn't display for me - maybe the frequent problem of wayback machine - according to source code there was: http://printfolio.ru/files/userfiles/Image/portfolio/7/Printfolio.JPG below "Бумажный пакет Printfolio"). I do not see. Instead there is on bottom "© ООО «Компания Принтфолио»".
I suspect this file never was GFDL + cc-by-3.0 licensed (dual licensing would be strange for external websites anyway).
The image cannot be found somewhere else by GI or TE so I assume it could really be made by this company. I have not tagged it copyvio to get a bit more time to ask for permission (which doesn't seem to be impossible) since the derivatives are in heavy use.
I have written the a email to printfolio.ru asking if it would be possible to freely license the image.
Saibo (Δ) 18:34, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Just had a look at http://web.archive.org/web/20080614031015/http://printfolio.ru/portfolio/14/319.html – no display of the image file either... :-( --Aschmidt (talk) 01:16, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- As I (tried to) said this frequently occurs with the Internet Archive. But it is not a problem here - it doesn't matter if we assume if the file was there (which could well be if we look in the source code → Printfolio.JPG in 500 px × 500 px) or not: in both cases we need the permission from the photographer. --Saibo (Δ) 01:41, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- You should never trust an upload that you did not make yourself. Thanks Saibo for the alternative File:Gray paper bag with sad smiley over head.jpg Sargoth (talk) 09:03, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- As I (tried to) said this frequently occurs with the Internet Archive. But it is not a problem here - it doesn't matter if we assume if the file was there (which could well be if we look in the source code → Printfolio.JPG in 500 px × 500 px) or not: in both cases we need the permission from the photographer. --Saibo (Δ) 01:41, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Info No answer (nor error message - also not in my junk mail folder) to my email sent to the company:
-------- Original-Nachricht -------- Betreff: Wikimedia Commons: File:Bumpak.jpg - paperbag photo Datum: Sat, 03 Dec 2011 21:13:45 +0100 Von: Saibo An: info@pri......ru
Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 22:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- Checked spam folder's again - no answer. Please delete --Saibo (Δ) 20:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
-
a possible replacement as SVG
![64 File:LG_smart_TV_with_the_smart_TV_application_"WeFeedBack".jpg](#File:LG_smart_TV_with_the_smart_TV_application_"WeFeedBack".jpg){kind=link}
.bmp.jpg){kind=link}
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File_talk%3AIran_University_of_Science_and_Technology_Mathematics_School_06.JPG&action=historysubmit&diff=63349391&oldid=63348515){kind=link}
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File_talk:Iran_University_of_Science_and_Technology_Mathematics_School_06.JPG&oldid=63349552){kind=link}
![14:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2011/12/03#c-Morning_Sunshine-2011-12-03T14:03:00.000Z-File:LG_smart_TV_with_the_smart_TV_application_"WeFeedBack".jpg){kind=link}
![00:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2011/12/03#c-Jameslwoodward-2011-12-11T00:01:00.000Z-File:LG_smart_TV_with_the_smart_TV_application_"WeFeedBack".jpg){kind=link}
.bmp.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.bmp.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.bmp.jpg){kind=link}
.bmp.jpg){kind=link}
--Imalipusram 10:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- That one might have to be deleted too since it looks like a derivative work of the other three paper bags. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- So what's the progress now? Two months and the files are still online... mabdul 11:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- I guess that no admin simply dares to remove an image which is used at hundreds of places... --Stefan4 (talk) 15:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- So what's the progress now? Two months and the files are still online... mabdul 11:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- Jim does. Chaddy (talk) 01:28, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Fair use. PD-Simple doesn´t apply, it´s a copyrighted logo. Banfield - Amenazas aquí 12:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Russia - Здравствуйте, Ваш администратор --Saibo (Δ) 16:47, 20 November 2011 (UTC) в переписке сомной написал мне что логотип Коммунистической партии России , простой и не требует авторства. Так же указана с сылка на Официальный сайт партии. Если этого не достаточно, покажите шаблон лицензии который ставится в таких случиях ?
Удалять файлы легко, загружать и искать нужные шаблоны лицензии трудно. Пожалуйста помогите.
- English - Hello, your administrator --Saibo (Δ) 16:47, 20 November 2011 (UTC) in correspondence with me wrote to me that the logo of the Communist Party of Russia, simple and does not require the authorship. The same is with reference to the official site of the party. If that's not enough, show the template license that is in such cases ?
Delete files easily search hard, show and license templates. Please help. --Дмитрий Третьяков (Δ) 18:35, 03 December 2011 (UTC)
- The only thing that i see that is elidgeable for copyright protection in my opinion is the Hammer and Cycle image, but it's such an overdone one, that it even exists in the unicode font as a character. Thus i vote Keep because it's simple and inelidgeable. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 20:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- The hammer and sickle by itself is not an issue, but the arrangement of text and also how the hammer and sickle are used, I don't believe it is PD simple to me. Delete User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 01:16, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- The hammer and sickle by itself is not an issue, but the arrangement of text and also how the hammer and sickle are used, I don't believe it is PD simple to me.
- (I am here since User:Сергей Стрелецкий asked me to do so on my talk page.) First of all - here is what I wrote about the logo in the past at User talk:Дмитрий_Третьяков: "This is probably okay: File:Comintern logo.gif The logo is simple enough not to be copyright eligible. Maybe the same for File:КПРФ Logo.png."
Note that I said probably and maybe. I think it depends on the book(?) in the background. The h+s is a common symbol or whatever and the text is simply in circle shape (which is totally common).
Neutral on this - I cannot proof the opposite so I am not for keep. However, I might suggest to watch at JEFF HO ("... familiar symbols and designs, and basic geometric shapes ... arragement ..." (end of page 6)).
@Banfield: please note that "fair use" is not a reason for deletion. And could you please tell us how you know that "it´s a copyrighted logo"? --Saibo (Δ) 22:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- According to what I know, fair use is not allowed on Commons, therefore, it is cause for deletion. The boundary between a simple and a more elaborate logo is thin. For the provision of the hammer and sickle, the book, the initials of the party and the theme, I find it difficult to understand that PD-Simple apply in this case. Banfield - Amenazas aquí 00:27, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- Fair use is a exception in US copyright - not a property/fact for a work. So we do not need to discuss if this is "fair use" or not - rather we need to discuss if this is ineligible for copyright protection or not. Fair use is also not claimed by anyone here - so you do not need to tell that fair use is not allowed on Commons. --Saibo (Δ) 18:43, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- migrate to en "non free logo" here [4] Slowking4 (talk) 17:37, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Fair use is a exception in US copyright - not a property/fact for a work. So we do not need to discuss if this is "fair use" or not - rather we need to discuss if this is ineligible for copyright protection or not. Fair use is also not claimed by anyone here - so you do not need to tell that fair use is not allowed on Commons. --Saibo (Δ) 18:43, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
![[4]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:KPRF.svg){kind=link}
- Delete I believe that this passes the threshhold of originality, but it's very close. Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 02:36, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Special originality in the logo No, the hammer and sickle, the book paints a simple lines, around plain text. --CPI-RUS (Δ) 17:36, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Doesn' reach the threshold of originality. Pymouss Let’s talk - 21:08, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
