Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2011/12/06
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.jpg){kind=link}
_and_King_Vittorio_Emanuele_II_(1820-78)_on_the_26th.jpg){kind=link}
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
dummy test image Jenith Michael Raj talk 14:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per uploader's request. Just a test. Ed (Edgar181) 20:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
license changed, no longer available for sharing on wikimedia 82.93.76.201 16:42, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Keep Cc-by-sa was confirmed by FlickreviewR bot, and since CC licenses cannot be revoked, a change of license by the creator does not affect any previous cc-licensed version, sorry. I'm going to add {{Flickr-change-of-license}} template to point out the situation. Lobo (howl?) 13:19, 7 December 2011 (UTC)- Keep No reason for deletion. -- Herby (Vienna) (talk) 14:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept: I contacted the Flickr-user. We have to agree that the user can request proper attribution and the Flickr-user has to accept that cc is not revocable and that he cannot remove the source link. The image is now available under a cc-license again. RE rillke questions? 13:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
probably copyvio from http://ukan.co.in/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/Inorbit-Mall.jpg Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:28, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 10:19, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
watermarked, probably copyvio, as other upload by this user appears to be Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 10:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
probably copyvio, as other upload by this user appears to be Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio http://hyderabad.burrp.com/listing/shoppers-stop_begumpet_hyderabad_shopping-centresmalls/1216994188__PH__photos Captain-tucker (talk) 11:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
probably copyvio, as other upload by this user appears to be Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:33, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:41, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Including NBA logos, not sutiable for commons. -Flamelai (talk) 15:10, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Delete per nom, copyright violation. File could be recreated without logos and re-uploaded. -Pete F (talk) 17:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:41, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
the logo includes geometry which applies copyright laws Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 01:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:41, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
there are plenty of good photos in the category Category:Dock jumping, so this image with two vanity watermarks really isn't necessary and should be deleted Biker Biker (talk) 02:48, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:41, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
This image is not the own work of this uploader. It was taken by Original image of this Luis Díaz-Bedia Astor and I uploaded it as File:Karadeniz F255.jpg. Takabeg (talk) 03:43, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Not own work, book scan of image 1942 year. 79.173.85.160 03:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Looks like this was taken from a website for the organization GrapedApe (talk) 04:20, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Since the photo is so specifically of the Dale Chihuly sculpture, I don't think it can pass muster under US freedom of panorama (FOP) for architecture, nor on a de minimis basis. There is no FOP for works of art in the US. Jmabel ! talk 04:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- No, the photograph is about symmetry inside Union Station. Notice how the ceiling lights are presented, and notice how the newel caps on the handrails complement the shape of each individual light fixture. Notice the shade of white, a color named "brilliant white," often applied to magnify the light inside public spaces, and notice how shadow defines each area within the photo save the negative space at the center. Notice the use of the Roman coffer design and the Roman arch to support it. If the photograph reminds you of the Roman Pantheon, you're not alone. The architects, Reed and Stem, also designed Grand Central Terminal in New York City. You may be relieved to learn that no one has objected to a photograph of that building. Now consider the other photographs in this photo shoot. You should notice that the building is itself a work of art. Unfortunately, no way exists to capture this unique view of the Union Station walls and ceiling without including the object in the middle. And there exists no greater view of perfect symmetry inside the building without including the object. To quote the wiki on Union Station (Tacoma, Washington), "The Tacoma Daily Ledger praised it as 'the largest, the most modern and in all ways the most beautiful and best equipped passenger station in the Pacific Northwest.'" Visitor7 (talk) 05:59, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps it is possible to take a wider shot of the same (wider than 34mm @ DX) to make this spaghetti less prominent? Or maybe just wait till the end of shopping season - until they remove all this stale stuff. Please don't tell me they won't :(( NVO (talk) 07:05, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- The object sculptor has seen the photograph but has not yet had time to formally address the concerns of the administrator. Visitor7 (talk) 17:33, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Studio style photo of an individual. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder FASTILY (TALK) 04:37, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - I wholeheartedly agree. This image was obviously taken by a "professional" photographer. Granted, I know that some professional photogs do occasionally upload their own "original work" here on Commons, but this uploader has no history of uploading their "own work" here before (this is the first and only image uploaded under this username), and there has been a history of quite a few "fans" of this new teen "heart-throb" removing the valid Commons images from his Wikipedia bio page recently (which I repeatedly reverted), just prior to to this flawless professional image "coincidentally" being uploaded here. It just seems like a big stretch to believe the photographer who took this professional image suddenly decided to release this one and only example of their work into the "public domain" out of sheer generosity. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 10:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:39, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
because i did put this up. it was a friend. please take off Dexterosa10 (talk) 06:20, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:39, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
No metadata, question own work, cropped version of http://jeynoname.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/e-v-e-x-jey-noname-jey-taltaud.jpg Wouter (talk) 07:08, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:39, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Question own work. No metadata, only contribution of user, may hits on Google images, see e.g. http://www.clubbrugge.be/oudspelers/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=225:cgermain&catid=1:spelers&directory=25 Wouter (talk) 07:16, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:38, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Scanned image from music album. See also Google image earch. No OTRS Wouter (talk) 07:50, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:38, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope, non encyclopedic person; used on one user page of nl-wiki account; no permission from photographer also MoiraMoira (talk) 07:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:38, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
The file is used to advertise a website and is not used anywhere else. —Bruce1eetalk 08:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Advert and nothing else. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 07:59, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 05:43, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
W zasobach są dwie flagi, ta jest zła, posiada niepotrzebną pustą przestrzeń Qlimmax (talk) 09:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- Translation, there was a problem with the margins. I have now fixed it, so I'd say it's a Keep. Fry1989 eh? 00:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- Oh nevermind, it's a dupe of File:POL Jelenia Góra flag.svg Fry1989 eh? 01:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:38, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Richard_Estes.jpg - free use not on commons Funfood ␌ 09:10, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:38, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Product photo, copyright not clear Funfood ␌ 09:12, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:38, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Product photo, copyright not clear Funfood ␌ 09:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:38, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Product photo, copyright not clear Funfood ␌ 09:17, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:38, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Quality out of question, alternatives in Category:Arsenous acid. Leyo 09:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. George Chernilevsky talk 05:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Poor quality, replaced by File:Gd DTPA rxn (2).PNG. Leyo 09:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
.PNG){kind=link}
Deleted: Per nom. George Chernilevsky talk 05:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Low resolution, no EXIF, likely copyvio Morning Sunshine (talk) 09:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:38, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Detail of the Crimean falconer depicting Agha Dedesh File:Daniel Schultz d. J. 003.jpg BurgererSF (talk) 10:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. Poorly described, blurry, low-resolution duplicate of a file which has been hosted on Commons since 2005. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:12, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- Without stating what it is a duplicate of, it means nothing. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 08:02, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- Good thing it was stated, then, yeah? :) File:Self-portraits of daniel schultz.jpg is a blurry, low-resolution duplicate of File:Daniel Schultz d. J. 003.jpg (which shows a part of File:Daniel Schultz d. J. 004.jpg). —LX (talk, contribs) 09:09, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Thanks, i should have my eyes checked again. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 11:37, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- Good thing it was stated, then, yeah? :) File:Self-portraits of daniel schultz.jpg is a blurry, low-resolution duplicate of File:Daniel Schultz d. J. 003.jpg (which shows a part of File:Daniel Schultz d. J. 004.jpg). —LX (talk, contribs) 09:09, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- Without stating what it is a duplicate of, it means nothing. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 08:02, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. George Chernilevsky talk 05:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Product photo, copyright not clear Funfood ␌ 10:48, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:10, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Bad quality, lack of description. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:10, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
I uploaded it by mistake Fabricio.menna (talk) 11:44, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:10, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
unused, useless Chesdovi (talk) 12:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 05:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
personal photo, unused since April 2010 Chesdovi (talk) 12:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 05:47, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Out of scope: table graphics has been replaced by wikitable in FC Südtirol. Leyo 13:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, superfluous. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 14:55, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 05:48, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
File:Red-blue stripes.svg is a vector version of this image. Ricordisamoa (talk) 13:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Delete Ricordisamoa (talk) 13:05, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Normally i like to keep the original non-svg per COM:SVG, but i think that this image becomes completely redundant. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 08:05, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:12, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
copyvio, evidence of permission required Chesdovi (talk) 13:08, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Per nomination. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 08:06, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:12, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
personal image? Chesdovi (talk) 13:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 05:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Spam, article del. on de Nolispanmo 15:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 05:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
COM:FOP#Russia. 84.62.204.7 16:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- Who cares? Keep. --Amga (talk) 09:00, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- She does, Amga, trust me. The "duralex nominator", a sockpuppeteer banned from de-wp, always cleans up her turf. It may take weeks or months, but these other files will burn too. NVO (talk) 13:07, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:22, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Poor quality, better alternatives in Category:Ethylbenzene. Leyo 16:46, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. George Chernilevsky talk 05:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
On uploader's request, this is a picture of a wikieditior. No future use, out of scope. Kiran Gopi (talk) 17:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - Speedy - Uploader request --Sreejith K (talk) 17:50, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 05:51, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Suspected copyright violation. Low resolution. Own work asserted but not EXIF data provided; see also tineye. Thanks. --Marco Aurelio (disputatio) 18:48, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Doubtful own work. Looks like a scan of a paper (noisy). No EXIF data. Other uploads deleted or DR'd. --Marco Aurelio (disputatio) 18:51, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
not used Utolotu (talk) 18:55, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- but could be used--Gorigori (talk) 01:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Low resolution copy of File:Deportes Tolima.svg.png, which is on DR now because it was nominated for speedy deletion ({{logo}}) but I think PD-textlogo may apply. Thanks. --Marco Aurelio (disputatio) 19:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:24, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
The autor requires that "quien autoriza expresamente a Wikipedia a utilizarla cuanta veces quiera y de la forma que mas le convenga, mientras no sea alterada." (Trans: Authorizes Wikipedia to use the image in any way as long as it's not altered.). In other words, its not compatible with commons. Zeroth (talk) 19:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- En cuanto a la nominación de dos archivos: besito.mid y puntodp.jpg:
- Hola, soy Heber y también soy uruguayo. Considero que las imágenes y archivos que Zeroth está nominando a borrarse han sido sin investigarse suficientemente sus raíces, entorno, historia o autores.
- La foto puntodp.jpg fue sacada por mi en el año 1986 y publicada en un trabajo discográfico cuyo grupo musical es histórico y ya no existe, no vende copias en lo absoluto y ya no se escucha por las radios. El tema musical besito.mid es totalmente obra in telectual mía.
- Si Zeroth hablara español entendería que -en su debido momento- he aceptado todo lo que Wikipedia pretende. Pero no lo entiende y pone cargas incomprensibles para mantener este material.
- No hay interés económico en el material cuestionado, sino un interés histórico y alguna de las personas que intervinieron es esta etapa ya han fallecido.
- Sucede que además, en alguna sección de Wikipedia se la alude erróneamente o en forma parcial (y por ende desacertada) acerca de personas que han intervenido en el año 1986 y nadie cuestiona ese material, que a la postre termina cambiando el sentido de la verdadera historia que se preternde demostrar.
- Así, lamentablemente la historia de la música uruguaya no está fielmente representada porque "vigilantes" de wikipedia obligan a efectuar un esfuerzo a los colaboradores desinteresados, quienes no hablan inglés y no tienen -como yo- la mas mínima idea de que puede hacerse para evitar estos atropellos históricos.
- Los uruguayos -sean del estilo musical o cultural que sea- creemos en nuestras raíces y no estamos comunmente interesados -como otros pueblos- a reivindicar derechos de autor susceptibles de ser evaluados económicamente. :Nuestro orgullo es haber colaborado con la cultura nacional uruguaya, en cualquiera de sus ámbitos.
- Los uruguayos, tampoco tenemos tiempo para dedicarnos a vigilar que no nos borren material de wikipedia.
- Es lamentable pero la "vigilancia" de este material uruguayo, como otro material del mismo tenor, debería ser cuestionado - o no- por gente de nuestro propio país o al menos de nuestra propia lengua nativa.
- No se puede creer que quieran borrar material importante, bajo reglas incomprensibles o con la carga de demostrar algo que ningún inglés-parlante podría entender cabalmente.
- Esto es ,reitero, lamentable.
- Finalmente creo que Zeroth debería aprender español antes de gastar su tiempo en impedir que se documente la verdadera historia, pues no entiende la aceptación de los términos que he efectuado en mi lengua nativa.—El comentario anterior es obra de Hjmelgar (discusión • contribuciones), quien olvidó u omitió firmarlo.
Deleted: The permission line on this image restricts use to Wikipedia only and requires that it not be altered. Both of those requirements are not allowed on Commons. If the uploader wishes to change them, then we can restore this. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:29, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
The autor specifies "La versión midi es absolutamente libre de distribuirse, mientras no sea modificada." (Trans: The midi version is absolutely free to distribute, as long as it's not modified.). In other words, its not compatible with commons. Zeroth (talk) 19:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- En cuanto a la nominación de dos archivos: besito.mid y puntodp.jpg:
- Hola, soy Heber y también soy uruguayo. Considero que las imágenes y archivos que Zeroth está nominando a borrarse han sido sin investigarse suficientemente sus raíces, entorno, historia o autores.
- La foto puntodp.jpg fue sacada por mi en el año 1986 y publicada en un trabajo discográfico cuyo grupo musical es histórico y ya no existe, no vende copias en lo absoluto y ya no se escucha por las radios. El tema musical besito.mid es totalmente obra in telectual mía.
- Si Zeroth hablara español entendería que -en su debido momento- he aceptado todo lo que Wikipedia pretende. Pero no lo entiende y pone cargas incomprensibles para mantener este material.
- No hay interés económico en el material cuestionado, sino un interés histórico y alguna de las personas que intervinieron es esta etapa ya han fallecido.
- Sucede que además, en alguna sección de Wikipedia se la alude erróneamente o en forma parcial (y por ende desacertada) acerca de personas que han intervenido en el año 1986 y nadie cuestiona ese material, que a la postre termina cambiando el sentido de la verdadera historia que se preternde demostrar.
- Así, lamentablemente la historia de la música uruguaya no está fielmente representada porque "vigilantes" de wikipedia obligan a efectuar un esfuerzo a los colaboradores desinteresados, quienes no hablan inglés y no tienen -como yo- la mas mínima idea de que puede hacerse para evitar estos atropellos históricos.
- Los uruguayos -sean del estilo musical o cultural que sea- creemos en nuestras raíces y no estamos comunmente interesados -como otros pueblos- a reivindicar derechos de autor susceptibles de ser evaluados económicamente. :Nuestro orgullo es haber colaborado con la cultura nacional uruguaya, en cualquiera de sus ámbitos.
- Los uruguayos, tampoco tenemos tiempo para dedicarnos a vigilar que no nos borren material de wikipedia.
- Es lamentable pero la "vigilancia" de este material uruguayo, como otro material del mismo tenor, debería ser cuestionado - o no- por gente de nuestro propio país o al menos de nuestra propia lengua nativa.
- No se puede creer que quieran borrar material importante, bajo reglas incomprensibles o con la carga de demostrar algo que ningún inglés-parlante podría entender cabalmente.
- Esto es ,reitero, lamentable.
- Finalmente creo que Zeroth debería aprender español antes de gastar su tiempo en impedir que se documente la verdadera historia, pues no entiende la aceptación de los términos que he efectuado en mi lengua nativa.—El comentario anterior es obra de Hjmelgar (discusión • contribuciones), quien olvidó u omitió firmarlo.
- Soy el único titular de los derechos de autor de esta imagen (al igual que "besito.mid") y cedo todos mis derechos a Wikipedia y la nominación para borrarla ha sido efectuada en forma imprudente y sin evaluar que hace años que ha sido publicada y nunca cuestionada.—El comentario anterior es obra de 190.133.111.241 (discusión • contribuciones), quien olvidó u omitió firmarlo.
Deleted: The permission line on this image restricts use to Wikipedia only and requires that it not be altered. Both of those requirements are not allowed on Commons. If the uploader wishes to change them, then we can restore this. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:29, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
The substitution pattern in the phenyl ring (second from right) should be meta, not para. Also, the nitrile is depicted with incorrect geometry and stereochemistry of the cyclopropane ring is missing. See File:Acrinathrin.svg for comparison. Ed (Edgar181) 19:44, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. Leyo 08:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Pure vandalism - what use is there for this picture? I have just had to remove it from en:Philip Larsen after it was used for vandalism. Picture title sugests that was its intended purpose Oddbodz (talk) 19:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. George Chernilevsky talk 05:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
I declined a speedy deletion request for this file, as I feel it may not meet the threshhold of originality needed for copyright protection. Powers (talk) 19:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- Not too sure what it is, but it's heavily derivative of the traditional US shield (see File:Arms_of_the_United_States_of_America.jpg, File:CampCusterMI-HumanUSShield30000Men.jpg, File:US_Senate_Eagle_and_Shield_gilded_wood.jpg, etc. AnonMoos (talk) 20:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- Only in concept, not in the specifics, I daresay. At any rate, the traditional U.S. shield is clearly public-domain. Powers (talk) 21:45, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:29, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
not artistic, not educational — Pierpao 20:31, 6 December 2011.
Comment fixed deletion request.
Info also nominated File:Pecavi logo2.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 05:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
File:Pietro_Aldi_-_The_Meeting_Between_Giuseppe_Garibaldi_(1807-82)_and_King_Vittorio_Emanuele_II_(1820-78)_on_the_26th.jpg
[edit]_and_King_Vittorio_Emanuele_II_(1820-78)_on_the_26th.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_and_King_Vittorio_Emanuele_II_(1820-78)_on_the_26th.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
It looks like this photo from the internet is not free. We would need a free photo taken in the Palazzo pubblico (or perhaps crop this one in an odd way). -- Asclepias (talk) 20:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Unused file, replaced by http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_Oguchi,_Aichi.svg (which also conforms to a spec sheet that this GIF file does not). User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 21:48, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. JPG is not a good format for an image like this anyway. -Pete F (talk) 20:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Unused poor duplicate George Chernilevsky talk 05:55, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
It's not being used for anything. T c951 (talk) 23:12, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept: That is not a reason to delete -- we have many images that are kept for possible future use or are in use off-WMF. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
It's not being used for anything. T c951 (talk) 23:20, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept: That is not a reason to delete -- we have many images that are kept for possible future use or are in use off-WMF. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
This uploader already has one copyright violation; I seriously doubt he took this photo 45 years ago. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Score author: Percy Grainger, died 1961. Not free in Australia until 2032. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- I assume this was first published in the United Kingdom, not Australia, or the United States like some of his other compositions. I will replace the usages of this file on enwiki with the local duplicate, and request that any admins deleting this file replace any new usages there. —innotata 15:51, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
1950 work by artist who died in 1987 cannot be PD-Art; has clear copyright so not PD-US no notice Infrogmation (talk) 23:32, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept: There is no renewal at cocatalog.loc.gov Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Copyright violation from w:File:Ragnarok Online Official Logo.PNG; I believe the texture gives this too much creativity to qualify for {{PD-textlogo}}. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:57, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Fonts, however fancy, do not give rise to copyrights. This is only one word, so the text has no copyright. Therefore it is PD-text-logo Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:47, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Uploaded by user Duneband solely for use in es:DUNE, which was deleted as self-promotion. J.M.Domingo (talk) 15:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:48, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation? It seems to me that almost every pixel of this image is made up of copyrighted works, and so cannot possibly pass de minimis. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Derivative works of this file: File:Hentai manga in Japan 002.jpg Takabeg (talk) 14:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - of course this is de minimis for every work in this photo; nobody can claim that this is an infringement. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:42, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep a good example of de minimis. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 08:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete The visible covers with nudity appeal to prurient interests, an issue being that lolicon, by definition, depictions underage persons.68.195.21.220 22:02, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- A perfect example of why you should always the factual accuracy of the things which are posted by people who can't even bother to get an account on Commons, and only want to delete content. Lolicon by definition is the depiction of drawings, not a single person can be depicted there. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 05:33, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- "A perfect example of why you should always the factual accuracy..." I cannot parse your poorly constructed sentence. Despite my not having an account, you need to assume good faith. Depicting underaged illustrated persons erotically is an issue, just as valid as the copyvio isssue. I have not shown a propensity to delete images wholesale just for the heck of it. I do believe their are several issues with this particular image. Wiki must adhere to Obscenity laws, and graphic illustrations of minors are very much a part of these laws. Lolicon assumes underage persons. I fail to see any reason to keep the image for this reason, as well as the fact that it almost certainly violates copyright. Thanks. 68.195.21.220 22:43, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- Lolicon wouldn't be or isn't an issue itself. Firstly there isn't any real depiction of child pornography inside this image. Sencodly it is legal in any jurisdiction that matters for commons in this case. All of them don't consider Lolicon as child pornography, especially Japan. Therefore it is an factual depiction on what to expect and nothing dirty that wouldn't belong on commons. It fulfills it's illustrative task and is therefore valuable for commons, used in articles and in scope. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 23:20, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- "A perfect example of why you should always the factual accuracy..." I cannot parse your poorly constructed sentence. Despite my not having an account, you need to assume good faith. Depicting underaged illustrated persons erotically is an issue, just as valid as the copyvio isssue. I have not shown a propensity to delete images wholesale just for the heck of it. I do believe their are several issues with this particular image. Wiki must adhere to Obscenity laws, and graphic illustrations of minors are very much a part of these laws. Lolicon assumes underage persons. I fail to see any reason to keep the image for this reason, as well as the fact that it almost certainly violates copyright. Thanks. 68.195.21.220 22:43, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- A perfect example of why you should always the factual accuracy of the things which are posted by people who can't even bother to get an account on Commons, and only want to delete content. Lolicon by definition is the depiction of drawings, not a single person can be depicted there. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 05:33, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Can't see a real reason for deletion. The subject isn't a single protected work and every work itself inside this constellation (a comic stand as the actual subject) is de minimis. That is like if it would be impossible to depict a business street, just because more space is covered by different advertisements as the actual buildings. But thats simply how it looks like. Every part is de minimis. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 23:15, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - pure de minimis. --Claritas (talk) 18:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - the nominator does not understand how copyright works. Yes, there almost certainly are works copyrighted here, but they picture itself is not about any specific work itself.Jinnai (talk) 16:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Actually quite educational I would have thought, if only to demonstrate to the uninitiated just how popular the genre is. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 21:20, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept: per consensus, it's an example of DM Ezarateesteban 21:09, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by 1989 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Copyrighted characters; this is not de minimis at all. 1989 19:07, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - I still agree with my original nomination. It makes no sense to me at all that by adding lots of copyrighted works together you somehow achieve something where those copyrights are irrelevant. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:42, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Kept: as previously. Yann (talk) 14:14, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
It's not being used for anything. T c951 (talk) 23:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Ezarateesteban 21:12, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Text spoken in a weird tone with mistakes in words spoken, weird suggestive intonation, strange and meant to be comical but this is not at all comical but does not do justice to the person narrated about at all but harms him MoiraMoira (talk) 12:48, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete: see Commons:Deletion requests/Spoken Wikipedia in Dutch: Bart De Wever and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Loft (Belgische film) article.ogg for related DR's. Mathonius (talk) 16:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Trijnstel (talk) 22:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Clearly not meant to be a serious spoken file but done in a weird tone and intonation with mistakes and unrealistic way of telling the story - leans towards a prank try MoiraMoira (talk) 13:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete: see Commons:Deletion requests/Spoken Wikipedia in Dutch: Bart De Wever and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gunter Lamoot.ogg for related DR's. Mathonius (talk) 16:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Trijnstel (talk) 22:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Café Magazine
[edit]- images in Category:Magazine Café
- images in Category:Anine Bing
- images in Category:Elsa Hosk
- File:Alex Schulman.jpg
- Any other images transferred from the Flickr account Magazine Café
These images appeared likely to be Flickrwashed as they are high quality commercial magazine images of celebrities posted by a Flickr account that has since been deleted. I emailed the editor of the magazine to confirm that they had been uploaded to Flickr by an authorized representative. His response is below:
Hello Ryan, thank you for the heads up. These photos has not been uploaded by us and should not be available as creative commons. Could you please delete them from Wikimedia commons? Many thanks, Johan Hurtig
An OTRS Ticket of the email exchange is available for verification. I have not yet added deletion notices to the individual images, as there are about 50 or so. If anyone could help with this, it would be appreciated. --Kaldari (talk) 19:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- Info previous DR Commons:Deletion requests/File:SofiF.jpg. --ELEKHHT 02:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep This is totally irregular! Files MUST be marked! I uploaded several of these, but I was not notified, and I only happen to see this by chance. Keep per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Carmenelectra1.jpg. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:44, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- As I wrote above, I would like help adding notices to all the images as there are a very large number. Thanks! Kaldari (talk) 19:48, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- The first priority is to notify uploaders, and those are just a few. You failed to do that. And that is YOUR job. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- All photos will be tagged and all uploaders will be notified by the end of the day. I just created this deletion discussion a few minutes ago, so please have some patience. Kaldari (talk) 20:05, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- I have added deletion notices to all of the images, and notified all of the uploaders that I could find. Kaldari (talk) 09:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- All photos will be tagged and all uploaders will be notified by the end of the day. I just created this deletion discussion a few minutes ago, so please have some patience. Kaldari (talk) 20:05, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- The first priority is to notify uploaders, and those are just a few. You failed to do that. And that is YOUR job. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- As I wrote above, I would like help adding notices to all the images as there are a very large number. Thanks! Kaldari (talk) 19:48, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete all. Despite the "irregularity" of the debate, this should be a clear case for deletion. Asking someone to manually add tags photographs is excessive. Someone should run a script for that. --Claritas (talk) 20:01, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- Licenses are not revocable. And from previous correspondence with the magazine, it is clear that the Flickr account was theirs. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:08, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- It looks like there is a previous discussion regarding this issue at the Swedish Wikipedia. Could anyone provide translation? Kaldari (talk) 20:09, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- In particular, if there are any emails from Café Magazine verifying the CC licensing, these should be forwarded to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Kaldari (talk) 20:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- sv:User:Wanpe had mailed the editor-in-chief 16 January 2009, and received as an answer on January 22: "Vår Flickr-närvaro är ett steg i ledet att helt enkelt utforska och lära av nya kanaler. Vi vill inte agera “gammelmedialt” protektionistisk utan ser snarare ett värde i att vårt innehåll sprids för vinden. Vi är ett modernt magasin och vet att det kanske finns hundra siter där ute som är viktigare för oss och vårt innehåll än vår egen. Creative Commons-biten däremot är ett misstag. Eller i alla fall ett just nu, lite förhastat steg. Vi utforskar möjligheterna att delge delar av vårt material (som mycket som möjligt, om jag får bestämma) under creative commons-licens men vi är inte riktigt där än och alla bilder kommer under kvällen att “märkas om”.
- So the editor recognized their ownerhip of the Fickr account, it was a marketing strategy, but they seemed to regret the CC license, which they said they would change immediately. But that is something they never did. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. Could you ask Wanpe to forward his email exchange to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org? Kaldari (talk) 20:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- I have notified the IRL-person behind User:Wanpe. (The useraccount is not in use anymore, but the person is still a Wikimedian.) -- Lavallen (talk) 09:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- Unfortunatly I have deleted this e-mail (i regulary do that för mails older them 15 months). I can veryfy though this dialogoe and mailexchange with this content. They recognized they had uploaded with free licnese but did not bother to change when I recommended, asked, them to do that.Anders Wennersten (talk) 09:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC) (using the nick Wanpe at the time)
- That's unfortunate. The editor is currently claiming that they did not upload the content to Flickr and we have no way to prove otherwise. Do you at least have the name of the editor you corresponded with? Kaldari (talk) 18:16, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- Unfortunatly I have deleted this e-mail (i regulary do that för mails older them 15 months). I can veryfy though this dialogoe and mailexchange with this content. They recognized they had uploaded with free licnese but did not bother to change when I recommended, asked, them to do that.Anders Wennersten (talk) 09:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC) (using the nick Wanpe at the time)
- I have notified the IRL-person behind User:Wanpe. (The useraccount is not in use anymore, but the person is still a Wikimedian.) -- Lavallen (talk) 09:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. Could you ask Wanpe to forward his email exchange to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org? Kaldari (talk) 20:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- Licenses are not revocable. And from previous correspondence with the magazine, it is clear that the Flickr account was theirs. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:08, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep The previous mail received by Wanpe means that they did open and manage this flickr account. The fact that they made a mistake with the licences is their problem, not ours. Licences are not revocable. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 10:00, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- In this case, it appears likely that the magazine did not actually own the copyrights to these images, and thus did not have the authority to freely license them in the first place. See discussion below. Kaldari (talk) 23:41, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- Comment If we consider that the magazine doesn't own the pictures but only published it (that has to be checked), can we consider that the Flickr account was Flickrwashing ? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 10:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- It is quite common for magazines to buy licenses to the photography they publish (especially celebrity photography) rather than owning the photography outright, so this could be an issue. Kaldari (talk) 18:16, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- All of these were photos for feature articles, the photographers worked for Café. Highly unlikely that the photographers would have retained the right to license these photos to others. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:29, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- The main indicator would be if the photographers are freelance or staff. Unfortunately, none of our copies list the photographer, in fact most of them don't even have a basic description for the image. If you could add the photographer information that will help us verify the ownership. Kaldari (talk) 23:58, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- We can find some few informations by using TinEye. The photographer of this picture, for instance, seems to be Jimmy Backius according to the file name of this (larger) alternative of the same picture found on the web. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 12:21, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, that photo is definitely by Jimmy Backius, as listed here. It looks like Jimmy Backius is a well known Swedish freelance fashion photographer whose work has been featured in Elle, Tush, Cover, Above, Bon, Glamour, and L'Officiel, including some covers for Elle.[1][2][3] A sentence in his biography mentions his work for Café specifically: "He also works extensively and highly creatively with editorials, for magazines such as Elle, Tush magazine, Cover, Glamour and Café."[4] This makes it extremely unlikely that he is a staff photographer for Café or that Café magazine owns the copyrights to these images. Unless at least one of these 50 or so images can be shown to actually belong to Café magazine, I think it's a reasonable conclusion that Café magazine did not have the legal authority to freely license them. Kaldari (talk) 23:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- That is not a reasonable conclusion. Such magazines know about copyright, and so do the photographers. And in case Café uploaded these photos to Flickr without having secured the rights beforehand, the situation would have been cleared up afterward. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- It appears they have tried to clear it up. Whoever Wanpe talked to stated that it was a mistake, and the Flickr account has been deleted. If you don't have any evidence that the copyrights for these images actually belong to the magazine, I think we should carefully consider the evidence to the contrary. Kaldari (talk) 06:23, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, but this seems to be done by Marketing... -- Lavallen (talk) 10:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- The Flickr account was closed only recently. As the FlickrBot notices show, many of these photos were available on Flickr on a free license long after Wanpe's correspondence with the Café editor-in-chief in January 2009. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- That is not a reasonable conclusion. Such magazines know about copyright, and so do the photographers. And in case Café uploaded these photos to Flickr without having secured the rights beforehand, the situation would have been cleared up afterward. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, that photo is definitely by Jimmy Backius, as listed here. It looks like Jimmy Backius is a well known Swedish freelance fashion photographer whose work has been featured in Elle, Tush, Cover, Above, Bon, Glamour, and L'Officiel, including some covers for Elle.[1][2][3] A sentence in his biography mentions his work for Café specifically: "He also works extensively and highly creatively with editorials, for magazines such as Elle, Tush magazine, Cover, Glamour and Café."[4] This makes it extremely unlikely that he is a staff photographer for Café or that Café magazine owns the copyrights to these images. Unless at least one of these 50 or so images can be shown to actually belong to Café magazine, I think it's a reasonable conclusion that Café magazine did not have the legal authority to freely license them. Kaldari (talk) 23:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- We can find some few informations by using TinEye. The photographer of this picture, for instance, seems to be Jimmy Backius according to the file name of this (larger) alternative of the same picture found on the web. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 12:21, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- The main indicator would be if the photographers are freelance or staff. Unfortunately, none of our copies list the photographer, in fact most of them don't even have a basic description for the image. If you could add the photographer information that will help us verify the ownership. Kaldari (talk) 23:58, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- All of these were photos for feature articles, the photographers worked for Café. Highly unlikely that the photographers would have retained the right to license these photos to others. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:29, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- It is quite common for magazines to buy licenses to the photography they publish (especially celebrity photography) rather than owning the photography outright, so this could be an issue. Kaldari (talk) 18:16, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete With Wanpe's e-mail lost, and the magazine in denial, we have no legal proof that these works were ever uploaded by them, even if they are the copyright holder (or had a license from the copyright holder to do so). It does us no good to know the work was released under a CC license if we can never prove it actually happened. To clarify what I mean: if Café issued a DMCA takedown for these images, none of us would feel confident issuing a DMCA counter-notice, because we'd be effectively unable to defend against the potential resulting lawsuit. Dcoetzee (talk) 02:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- We have FlickrBot. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- And they claim they had no affiliation with the Flickr account. Dcoetzee (talk) 17:19, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- A statement by Anders Wennersten does count as legal evidence. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:46, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- Anders hasn't even told us who he talked to. Does it say in the Swedish thread anywhere? Kaldari (talk) 21:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- He wrote that he mailed the chief editor, but did not mention his name. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 01:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- Anders hasn't even told us who he talked to. Does it say in the Swedish thread anywhere? Kaldari (talk) 21:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- A statement by Anders Wennersten does count as legal evidence. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:46, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- And they claim they had no affiliation with the Flickr account. Dcoetzee (talk) 17:19, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- We have FlickrBot. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Much of this discussion is moot. We have received a takedown request, so we must takedown first and investigate second. Since the images are apparently copyvios, their status here is "delete on sight" -- no notice is required to anyone.
Generally when magazines use an image from a freelance photographer, they buy the rights to publish the image once in the magazine and any reprints, and, perhaps, to publish it on their web site. They rarely buy all rights to the image, so they do not have the right to license the image more broadly -- I say this as someone who has sold things from time to time to magazines in the USA since the middle 70s. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Images of Zebraman
[edit]
copyrighted images from 2000s film Zebraman. --Vantey (talk) 09:35, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
This file has been superceded by File:Caleb2.jpg Chesdovi (talk) 12:12, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept: In use. 99of9 (talk) 11:41, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
This file has been superceded by File:Caleb2.jpg Chesdovi (talk) 11:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete It should have been uploaded over the original, rather than making a second copy and then lightening it. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 08:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
low quality, blurred image, superceded by File:Cenotaph of Abraham - northwestern view.JPG Chesdovi (talk) 12:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept: In use, so automatically satisfies COM:SCOPE 99of9 (talk) 11:40, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
low quality, blurred image, superceded by File:Cenotaph of Abraham - northwestern view.JPG Chesdovi (talk) 11:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. per nom. Not used -- George Chernilevsky talk 17:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
This "Gallery" has only had one image of James Strang in the Gallery (or on Commons) for over 7 years. I see no reason for a Gallery of ONE image to exist while there are hundreds of "Latter Day Saint leaders" who don't have individual galleries but have several images. If more image of Strang are someday uploaded then it can be recreated if needed, but at this time it should be deleted.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 13:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:13, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Spoken Wikipedia in Dutch: Bart De Wever
[edit]Very poor quality: pronunciation mistakes and a distracting accent, which makes it seem like an attempt at humour. These files are unfit for educational purposes and should therefore be deleted. Mathonius (talk) 16:16, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Loft (Belgische film) article.ogg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gunter Lamoot.ogg for related DR's. Mathonius (talk) 16:16, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Trijnstel (talk) 22:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
There should be no covalent bond between the sodium atom and the neighboring oxygen atom. It should be an ionic pair (Na+ and O-). Suitable replacements exist in Category:Methyl orange such as File:Methyl-orange-2D-skeletal.png Ed (Edgar181) 19:50, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. Leyo 08:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Similar to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Juan Galea Arpista.jpg: Doubtfully own work since the uploader himself (Juan Galea) is depicted. Andrea and I tried for half a year to communicate (also via email - see my talk page) with the uploader - with no result.
- File:Juan Galea y Juancito.jpg
- File:Juan Galea Jurado en Cuanto Vale el Show.jpg
- File:Juan y su arpa venezolana.jpg
- File:Juan Galea Primer lugar de Fantastico.jpg
- File:Juan Galea y Guillermo Gonzalea.jpg
- File:Enrique Hidalgo Gualberto y Juan Galea.jpg
- File:Juancito Y juan Galea jpeg.jpg
- File:Actuaciòn de Julio Iglesias y Juan Galea.jpg
- File:Actuacion Camilo Sesto y Juan Galea.jpg
Saibo (Δ) 23:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. I doubt own work claims too & I agree on the comunication issues pointed by Saibo. I've just blocked the account for his insistent advert on Talk:Portada in spite of warnings. --Marco Aurelio (disputatio) 20:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. George Chernilevsky talk 05:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
More self photographs (television shows)
[edit]Sorry, forgot some (technical problem) ... Same problem.
- File:JUan Galea y Reyna Lucero en la entrega del premio Ronda.jpg
- File:Guillermo Gonzalez y Juan Galea en Fantastico.jpg
- File:Juan Galea , Juancito y Guillermo Gonzalez en el dia del Padre.jpg
- File:Olgat Guillot y Juan Galea en la entrega del premio Guacaipuro de Oro.jpg
- File:Juan Galea en Fantastico.jpg
--Saibo (Δ) 14:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:39, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
I declined a speedy nomination because I couldn't actually find this cartoon elsewhere on the web. (I did see it on Twitter, but it looks to be a copy of our image, rather than vice versa.) Powers (talk) 20:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. shizhao (talk) 14:09, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- see [5], [6],copyvio--shizhao (talk) 00:36, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
- File:Gyldenloeve Samsoe COA.jpg
- File:Stieglitz-Brockdorff Baron Wappen coat of arms.jpg
- File:Juel-Brockdorff Baron Wappen coat of arms.jpg
- File:Gyldenloeve Laurvig COA.jpg
- File:Gyntelberg Güntelberg COA.jpg
This file is tagged for speedy-deltion since october for the following reason: not 70 years PMA, see author RE rillke questions? 18:41, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Das liegt mir auf. Es sind ganz offensichtlich alte Wappenzeichnungen, deren Urheberrechte in Bezug auf Abbildung -falls die auf alte Wappen (ich meine nicht die Wappengrafik, sondern das Wappen an sich) überhaupt anwendbar sind- natürlich längst abgelaufen sind.
— de.wp
-- RE rillke questions? 11:27, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- This file, and the other coats of arms nominated for deletion, are designed by modern heraldic artists and are not merely reproductions of old designs. Only the contributions by Anders Thiset to Danmarks Adels Aarbog are in public domain, all the rest are still subject to copyright. The most recent heraldic contributor to DAA, Aage Wulff, died in 2003. LeoDavid is welcome to upload older versions of these coats of arms that are in public domain. --Urbandweller (talk) 11:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Morning Sunshine (talk) 02:07, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Converted from speedy deletion ({{logo}}) into regular deletion request. IMHO this file may be {{PD-textlogo}}. Thanks. --Marco Aurelio (disputatio) 18:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- Comment The file extension
.svg.pngshould be fixed as well. Or png. or svg. Thanks. --Marco Aurelio (disputatio) 18:59, 6 December 2011 (UTC) - Keep - {{PD-textlogo}} for me. I think it does not pass COM:TOO. Thanks. --Marco Aurelio (disputatio) 21:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Does not pass COM:TOO, PD-ineligible should apply. →Nagy 17:42, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
I moved the file from lb-wiki to Commons to get an opinion if a written statement from a trusted local admin (lb:Benotzer:Cornischong) is enough documentation for an old permission.
Lb-wiki have not been using OTRS and they have some files with a statement refering to a permission. I'm not sure that OTRS even excisted at that time. Cornischong was very active for long time but is not active anymore so it is not possible to get proof of his permission anymore. MGA73 (talk) 18:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept as we had no established OTRS procedure for these cases at that time (OTRS was in its very early stages). As long as it is connected with editors in good standing we should proceed with AGF in these old cases. --AFBorchert (talk) 20:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
The information provided by original uploader en:User:Primetime is untrue, this file is not a courtesy of the library of Congress. Its from Corbis (See EXIF), it is likely not taken by a white house photographer, it is possibly in copyright. Martin H. (talk) 19:20, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm puzzled. How can an image of a living Eleanor Roosevelt be copyrighted 2000? --Yaush (talk) 20:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- Maybe the date of digitalization or inclusion in their archive. I not started the discussion to talk about the validity of Corbis claims, the question is what the copyright status of the photo is and why. The claim "Farm Security Administration - Office of War Information Photograph Collection (Library of Congress)" (which makes it {{PD-USGov}}, or more specific {{PD-USGov-FSA}} or {{PD-USGov-OWI}}) is not true. --Martin H. (talk) 20:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- These types of services (Corbis, Getty, etc.) are somewhat notorious for attaching copyright claims to public domain images that they've snarfed up. The fact that no specific photographer or wire service (AP, UPI etc.) is credited is certainly rather suspicious for any copyright claims... AnonMoos (talk) 22:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
- A side note, to answer Yaush's question: Copyright rules are crazy. Copyright is mostly based on the year a work is "published": made available to the public. In the time between creation and publication, it is an "unpublished" work, which has special copyright rules. It could remain unpublished for a long time. I don't know what the copyright on this photo is, but here is an example of how a photo could get a 2000 copyright:
- A photographer takes a photograph in 1943. So it is an unpublished photo, starting in 1943.
- Maybe the photographer works for a newspaper or magazine, but the newspaper or magazine never ends up using the photo in any issue. Or maybe the photographer is independent and nobody pays him to use the photo. Later, the photographer's work (and the rights to the work) is bought as part of some large collection.
- Eventually, some company like Corbis gets it, and distributes copies of it, or actually sells a license to use in a magazine or something, in 2000. Now it becomes "published", and the year it is published is important for copyright, especially if the name of the photographer was anonymous or pseudoymous. (If the human creator is known, then copyrights are often based on the creator's death year. But if the human creator isn't known, then it is based on years since publication.)
- If it was published in the U.S. in 2000, and the photographer isn't known, then the photograph is copyrighted until 95 years from publication (2000+95 = 2095), or 120 years from creation (1943+120 = 2063), whichever comes first: so copyright lasts until the end of 2063. Now, if the artist is known, and it wasn't "work for hire" (employee's job) for a company, it's 70 years after the artist's death; so if the photographer happened to die in 1943 after taking this photo, 1943+70 = 2013, so the copyright would expire at the end of 2013.
- If it was first distributed in 2000, Corbis could legitimately claim a 2000 copyright. On the other hand, some of these photo "collection" companies just plain lie about copyright, so that 2000 copyright might not be true in this case. Also, you can see why these photo "warehouses", with copyright notices on everything whether they have a right or not, happen to "forget" the legitimate photographers' names and legitimate credit lines all the time: if someone can figure out who a photographer is, and there's no evidence he wanted to be anonymous or pseudonymous, then someone might inconventiently point out that he's been dead for 70 years, and that a copyright claim can't possibly be legitimate anymore. --Closeapple (talk) 09:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
This photo, apparently the same arrangement, is from the library of Congress. → [7] --Kürschner (talk) 20:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete because its origin is not yet verified, and the uploader is Primetime (talk · contribs), who has the dubious honor of being blocked by Jimbo Wales himself for persistent copyvios with fraudulent sourcing: see en:Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Primetime. I cannot find this color picture at the Library of Congress: I've tried a search for madame chaing and a search for Chiang, May-ling Soong,--1897-2003. on the LoC collections site. Obviously this copy of the photo came through Corbis, per the EXIF data embedded in the file. For whatever it's worth, it appears in the Corbis Bettmann Archive as Bettmann photo BE048049 with the title "Eleanor Roosevelt and Mei-ling Chiang" and caption "First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt and wife of Chiang Kai Shek, Mei-ling Chiang, at the White House." at 3380×2806. Corbis now owns Bettmann, which claims itself as the credit line instead of whoever actually did the work — modus operandi for a company owned by Bill Gates. Kürschner (talk · contribs) mentions LoC catalog image 93503451 (LC-USZ62-107008) as possibly being from the same session; but that image has the notation "Notes: J38008 U.S. Copyright Office." However, there are 4 black & white photos that were obviously taken at the same time, and from the FSA/OWI collection, so are not copyright: see http://www.loc.gov/pictures/related/?fi=name&q=Roberts (or, if that doesn't work, the individual photos owi2001019393, owi2001019394, owi2001019395, owi2001019396). But those 4 B&W photos are not exactly the same head positions, and they are directly from B&W negatives, so none are the color photo in this nomination, and it is quite possible that commercial photojournalists and government photographers were both taking color photos at the same time. --Closeapple (talk) 08:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- Very good research, thank you very much!!! --Kürschner (talk) 09:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- Deleted as a copyright violation; thank you Closeapple (talk · contribs) for such a great and deep research into the picture's copyright status. odder (talk) 22:13, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Not self created, taken from w:File:St. Francis Xavier University coat of arms.png. Document is down... can't tell if this was published before 1978/1989 and thus not eligible for copyright protection. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Introduced in the early 1930s according to the pdf (available via archive.org) Denniss (talk) 01:12, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
