Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2011/12/10
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
Personal and promotional, out project scope. ■ MMXX talk 00:37, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- File:P-1-.jpg Personal logo? ■ MMXX talk 00:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: non-free content from facebook Denniss (talk) 01:12, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
That is not the file i wanted to upload Bondage (talk) 01:25, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: user request Denniss (talk) 02:11, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Not de-minimis, FOP is not applicable for 2D works in India. Kiran Gopi (talk) 05:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- DELETE --SuryaPrakash Talk... 07
- 54, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:DW: It is even inside a building (no FoP). And not de-minis. RE rillke questions? 10:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
showing uniproprate stuff 72.66.106.25 10:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep does not. Don't look at naked women if you don't like them. (I think they're yummy!) -Nard the Bard 10:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)- Keep. Artistic. Snowmanradio (talk) 14:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
Tamilnadu.2FL.jpg){kind=link}
Tamilnadu3.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![94 File:Amar_Moktan_"Lama.jpg](#File:Amar_Moktan_"Lama.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
._.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Kept. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 20:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Copyrighted trademarks/toys. FunkMonk (talk) 09:31, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep The toys inclusion is incidental and does not violate copyright. Put {{Trademark}} warning on the image description page if you think that's an issue. -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:30, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Comment Image nominated for deletion twice before for different reasons while file was under a different name; Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Monsters and Robots.jpg -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:30, 10 December 2011 (UTC)- Keep - presence of toys in images is not an issue as their copyrighted designs are covered by de minimis provisions. --Claritas (talk) 18:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- But how is it de minimis when they are the subject of the photo? FunkMonk (talk) 20:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep per above --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 20:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep But if somebody comes along and makes a Derivative Work out of it, showing just a toy, that would probably be a copyvio. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 08:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Very, very nice, though in spite of my love for tattoos I can't say that one suits her. Anyway, she can put her hands in my toybox any day. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 21:31, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - Still keep !!! -- Gddea - Daniel E. Als-Juliussen (talk) 10:56, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. Rosenzweig τ 22:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Only used in a speedily deleted page, en:Ben Logan's Costcutter Ahoghill (non-notable company?). Mike Rosoft (talk) 18:25, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- Also nominating File:C With Name.png. See the uploader's username - nominating for speedy deletion as spam. Uploader blocked on English Wikipedia (by me). - Mike Rosoft (talk) 18:31, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Spam / Fair use is not allowed on Commons / copyrighted Romaine (talk) 22:48, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Ningun uso Futuro Dittoduarte (talk) 19:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Fair use is not allowed on Commons Romaine (talk) 22:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Possible copyvio. here. Takabeg (talk) 07:22, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: copyright violation Polarlys (talk) 21:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Personal photo, unused, not notable. Uploader/depicted requested removal in ru.wp: [1]. ~ NVO (talk) 22:52, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, per uploader request. — putnik? 02:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Promotional image of some sort. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILY (TALK) 00:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
The pictures/photos of Composer John E. ZAMMITPACE are authentic and are of the person mentioned. I am that person and am the owner of those pictures. Sincerely, John E. ZAMMITPACE.
- Please send an email using the form given here to permissions-commons
wikimedia.org MorganKevinJ(talk) 00:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Violation of COM:ADVERT, therefore speedy. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:41, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Private image, unused, bad quality, small, sole upload from user Funfood ␌ 00:20, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 10:33, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Private picture, unused, small and bad quality, sole upload from user Funfood ␌ 00:35, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Probable Copyvio without COM:OTRS, per Precautionary principle Captain-tucker (talk) 10:40, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned vanity photo, low quality, out of scope, no foreseeable use. FASTILY (TALK) 00:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Probable Copyvio without COM:OTRS, per Precautionary principle Captain-tucker (talk) 10:41, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned, Low Quality, no foreseeable use. FASTILY (TALK) 00:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 10:41, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned vanity photo, low quality, out of scope, no foreseeable use. FASTILY (TALK) 00:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Agreed. The uploader flagrantly violated COM:ADVERT with another file description and a gallery page. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:43, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:31, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Website advertisement, out of scope Funfood ␌ 01:03, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:31, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
This is image from film: en:The_Tourist_(2010_film), which is copyrighted by "© 2011 Sony Pictures Home Entertainment" according to http://www.sonypictures.com/homevideo/thetourist/ NOT A FAL A5b (talk) 02:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 10:45, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
According to http://www.wiki-ecigarette.com/index.php?title=Fichier:HonLik.jpg it is copyrighted by Los Angeles Times (see at bottom) A5b (talk) 02:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Right link to original in LA Times: http://articles.latimes.com/2011/aug/26/news/la-heb-electronic-cigarettes-that-finds-other-ecig-users-20110826 "Copyright 2011 Los Angeles Times". photo credits "2009. (Barbara Demick / Los Angeles Times)" `A5b (talk) 02:14, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 10:48, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Promotional image of some sort. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILYs (TALK) 04:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
I am the copyright holder and creator of this image. It has been made available for free use as-is on Wikipedia.org and represents a portion of the book cover. (TALK) 07:37, 13 December 2011 (EST)
Deleted: Without COM:OTRS must assume copyvio. Captain-tucker (talk) 11:00, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned vanity photo, out of scope, no foreseeable use. FASTILYs (TALK) 04:01, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - Per nom. --Ceradon (talk) 16:33, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio and out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 11:02, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Promotional image of some sort. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder. FASTILYs (TALK) 04:03, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete -Per nom --Kiran Gopi (talk) 05:53, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 11:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned, used in a now deleted article on en.wikipedia. no foreseeable use. FASTILYs (TALK) 04:03, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom, possibly nonsense 99of9 (talk) 11:15, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned, used in a now deleted article on en.wikipedia. no foreseeable use. FASTILYs (TALK) 04:03, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom, possibly nonsense 99of9 (talk) 11:15, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned, used in a now deleted article on en.wikipedia. no foreseeable use. FASTILYs (TALK) 04:03, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom, possibly nonsense 99of9 (talk) 11:16, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned, used in a now deleted article on en.wikipedia. no foreseeable use. FASTILYs (TALK) 04:03, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom, possibly nonsense 99of9 (talk) 11:16, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned, used in a now deleted article on en.wikipedia. no foreseeable use. FASTILYs (TALK) 04:03, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom, possibly nonsense 99of9 (talk) 11:16, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned, used in a now deleted article on en.wikipedia. no foreseeable use. FASTILYs (TALK) 04:03, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:40, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned, blurry, used in a now deleted article on en.wikipedia. no foreseeable use. FASTILYs (TALK) 04:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:41, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
collage of non-free content (websites) DS (talk) 04:22, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 11:05, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
screenshot of nonfree content (website) DS (talk) 04:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by Fastily Captain-tucker (talk) 11:05, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
duplicate Crazypaco (talk) 05:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by Túrelio Captain-tucker (talk) 11:06, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
screenshot of nonfree content (website) DS (talk) 05:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by J.delanoy Captain-tucker (talk) 11:07, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
screenshot of nonfree content (website) DS (talk) 05:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted (not by me) 99of9 (talk) 11:17, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
screenshot of nonfree content (website) DS (talk) 05:08, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by J.delanoy Captain-tucker (talk) 11:07, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
screenshot of nonfree content (website) DS (talk) 05:22, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 11:12, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
screenshot of nonfree content (website) DS (talk) 05:22, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 11:12, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
screenshot of nonfree content (website) DS (talk) 05:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 11:12, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
screenshot of nonfree content (website) DS (talk) 05:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 11:13, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
screenshot of nonfree content (website) DS (talk) 05:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 11:13, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
screenshot of nonfree content (website) DS (talk) 05:24, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by J.delanoy Captain-tucker (talk) 11:11, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
screenshot of nonfree content (website) DS (talk) 05:30, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted (not by me) 99of9 (talk) 11:22, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
screenshot of nonfree content (website) DS (talk) 05:30, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted (not by me) 99of9 (talk) 11:22, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
screenshot of nonfree content (website) DS (talk) 05:30, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted (not by me) 99of9 (talk) 11:23, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
screenshot of nonfree content (website) DS (talk) 05:54, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted (not by me) 99of9 (talk) 11:23, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Newspaper published on 24.8.2009 only, derivative work. Kiran Gopi (talk) 05:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted: per nom 99of9 (talk) 11:24, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Newspaper published on 24.8.2009 only, derivative work. Kiran Gopi (talk) 05:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted: per nom 99of9 (talk) 11:24, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Non free book cover, no source is provided for proving this book is in public domain or the uploader is the author of the book. Kiran Gopi (talk) 05:59, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:41, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Non free book cover, no source is provided for proving this book is in public domain or the uploader is the author of the book. Kiran Gopi (talk) 06:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:41, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Non free book cover, no source is provided for proving this book is in public domain or the uploader is the author of the book. Kiran Gopi (talk) 06:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:41, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
A college's advertisement poster, it contains college's logo. Kiran Gopi (talk) 06:01, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:41, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Tamilnadu.2FL.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Tamilnadu.2FL.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Dictionary published in 1986 not in PD. Kiran Gopi (talk) 06:02, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Tamilnadu.2FL.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:41, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Tamilnadu.2FL.jpg){kind=link}
Tamilnadu3.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Tamilnadu3.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Non free content's photo. The contents owned by either the publisher or the authours. Fall under derivative works. Kiran Gopi (talk) 06:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Tamilnadu3.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:41, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Tamilnadu3.jpg){kind=link}
- File:Murcia.ogg (exact duplicate)
The audio is "What Time Is It?" (U.S. copyright registration PA0001589551 / 2007-08-28) from the TV-movie musical High School Musical 2 and its soundtrack of the same name (U.S. copyright registration D000050732). Song and movie both first transmitted and sold in 2007 in multiple nations beginning with the United States. No opinion on origin of the visual part. Closeapple (talk) 06:11, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- Comment It would be very trivial for me to strip the audio stream from this and upload another copy. My guess is that the drawings were made by people related to some small language school in Murcia, Spain. However, since the uploader thought a Disney song could be converted into the public domain, the provenance of the drawings in the video is questionable, also. COM:OTRS needed for the visuals, and not a snowball's chance of the audio remaining. --Closeapple (talk) 06:24, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:42, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
COM:FOP#Russia. 84.62.204.7 08:31, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:49, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
COM:FOP#Russia. 84.62.204.7 08:31, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:49, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
All of them are considerably famous images and not own works of the uploader. We can see File:Leyla Gencer 2.jpg and some image which was uploaded by this uploader in this page. File:Leyla Gencer 4.jpg was used in the CD "Giuseppe Verdi's Gerusalemme" (1965, Golden Melodram, 2006), File:Leyla Gencer 3.jpg was in "Vincenzo Bellini's Beatrice di Tenda" (1964, MYTO records, 2000), File:Leyla Gencer 1.jpg was in "Leyla Gencer, Arias and Scenes Vol. 2" (Opera D'Oro, 2000). And This blog written on March 22, 2007 says that the image was taken from Ashua Haber (I think Ashua Haber is not original copyright holder). Takabeg (talk) 09:41, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- Note: Leyla Gencer made her debut in the early 1950s and Italian debut in 1953. Takabeg (talk) 06:42, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:54, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Out of Project scope, fail to see the educational purpose and not use nor foreseeable wiki project use Michaela den (talk) 09:58, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:54, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
This is a derivative work, and although it is in a public location, it is still a copyright violation per COM:FOP#Taiwan (Republic of China).The hospital was opened in 1986, so the painting isn't out of copyright. Magog the Ogre (talk) 10:51, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:54, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Unused logo with unclear copyright status of the photograph Funfood ␌ 10:53, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:55, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Out of project scope? Dubious source. RE rillke questions? 10:57, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 12:24, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Copyvio. Screenshot of a tv program. Abiyoyo (talk) 11:31, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 11:50, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Copyvio. Screenshot of a tv program. Abiyoyo (talk) 11:31, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 11:50, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't think this is own work because of some results on Google Morning Sunshine (talk) 11:45, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 12:22, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Quite obviously not the uploader's own work - looks like a scan from a book cover or similar Sitush (talk) 12:07, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:55, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Versehentlich dopplete Hochladung, sollte Datei File:Heckenhauer Tuebingen.jpg ersetzen und keine jpeg-Endung haben... Andel (talk) 12:08, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by Túrelio Captain-tucker (talk) 11:51, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
muss noch überarbeitet werden Schreiblaus (talk) 12:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by Túrelio Captain-tucker (talk) 11:51, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Copyvio. Screenshot of a tv program. Abiyoyo (talk) 13:03, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 11:51, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Copyvio. Screenshot of a tv program. Abiyoyo (talk) 13:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 11:51, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Copyvio. Screenshot of a tv program. Abiyoyo (talk) 13:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 11:52, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Was marked as copyvio by User:Kürschner, giving the reason "Probably no own work, low solution, first upload of new uploader, probably violation of personal rights, probably not a prostitute". It's not a clear copvio though, so I'm turning it into a regular DR. Rosenzweig τ 13:22, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Looks like somebody's attack on this person. I doubt that it was really a prostitute or even a sex worker. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 16:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete attack image, speedy. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:25, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 11:53, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Website advertisement Funfood ␌ 13:59, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:00, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Unknown person, bad quality, rights not clear Funfood ␌ 14:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Probable Copyvio, COM:PRP Captain-tucker (talk) 12:17, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Unused private user image. GeorgHH • talk 14:14, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 12:17, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Unused private user image. GeorgHH • talk 14:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 12:16, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Architect http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Jaspar died only in 1945 and there is no FOP exemption in Belgium. Threshold of originality needs some discussion. Túrelio (talk) 14:25, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - just a reidence. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:29, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: There is nothing in copyright law which suggests that residences are not architecture, and certainly there is a high level of creativity here. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:02, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Out of project scope personal drawing George Chernilevsky talk 14:28, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:02, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Out of project scope promotional banner George Chernilevsky talk 14:29, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:02, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
A non notable musical group. GeorgHH • talk 14:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- Well that's a bit rude! We were most notable in Cardiff in 2007. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.89.27.224 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 10. Dez. 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Need COM:OTRS permission from Max Howes assuming source is correct. Captain-tucker (talk) 12:21, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Unused private image. GeorgHH • talk 14:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:02, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Sgraffiti / Building by Maurice Devignée, who died only in 1969, and there is not FOP exemption in Belgium. Túrelio (talk) 15:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - this is not about the architecture, but the mosaic. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:33, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
- As I wrote above, the mosaic in by fr:Maurice Devignée, per http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_nouveau_%C3%A0_Li%C3%A8ge#Maurice_Devign.C3.A9e. --Túrelio (talk) 08:36, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
- Devignée was an architect; architects design buildings; the sculpture, carvings, door handles, glass windows, murals, etcetera are elements of applied art contributed by others. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:08, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
- As I wrote above, the mosaic in by fr:Maurice Devignée, per http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_nouveau_%C3%A0_Li%C3%A8ge#Maurice_Devign.C3.A9e. --Túrelio (talk) 08:36, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: The cited WP:FR article says that Devignee did the mosaic. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:09, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Work of Joseph Nusbaum, who died only in 1950, and there is not FOP exemption in Belgium. Túrelio (talk) 15:02, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - prinzipienreiterei - and in fact there is a FOP exception in Belgium for educational purposes etcetera. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:35, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
- Could you please refrain from personal attacks and from misleading comments (educational purposes).
- To be sure, I would be glad if we could keep this image, but then it should based on rather solid evidence. --Túrelio (talk) 08:33, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
- This is a detail of a street designed by a local architect. Built more than 100 years ago, in the style of the period (Jugend). The elements in the façade are conventional. Details like the iron grill were either of the shelf back then or made by other anonymous local artisans. Of course Commons can keep the image, all what is needed is a more relaxed attitude, a bit more in touch with the real world. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:30, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: There is no evidence that the architect did not design the mosaic -- many architects of the period (and now, for that matter) pay attention to all details of exterior decoration. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:11, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Work of Joseph Nusbaum, who died only in 1950, and there is not FOP exemption in Belgium. Túrelio (talk) 15:02, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:11, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Unknown person, rights not clear, sole uplaod from user Funfood ␌ 15:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:11, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Unused diagram of unidentified purpose Funfood ␌ 15:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:12, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Work of either Victor Rogister (d. 1955) or Oscar Berchmans (d. 1950) and regrettably there is no FOP exemption in Belgium. Túrelio (talk) 15:22, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:12, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Work of either Victor Rogister (d. 1955) or Oscar Berchmans (d. 1950) and regrettably there is no FOP exemption in Belgium. Túrelio (talk) 15:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - just a door handle! Anonymous, those alternatives are just guesswork. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:37, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:12, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Work of either Victor Rogister (d. 1955) or Oscar Berchmans (d. 1950) and regrettably there is no FOP exemption in Belgium. Túrelio (talk) 15:24, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - anonymous work. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:39, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:12, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Likely work of Victor Rogister (died 1955) and regrettably there is no FOP exemption in Belgium. Túrelio (talk) 15:25, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - anonymous Jugend glass design. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:40, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:12, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned file for non-notable organization. AND: the org doesn't even use it on their website. Senator2029 | talk 16:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:13, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
and File:Jorgerivera.jpg. Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:13, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
because i like a new history 79.155.138.38 16:48, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: I;m not sure what the nom means, but the work is out of scope. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:13, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Cover of a book by Philip Van Doren Stern, who died only in 1984, likely copyrighted. Túrelio (talk) 17:08, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:13, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
converted to DR by me from a copyvio-speedy by User:Banfield for Commons:Currency#Bosnia_and_Herzegovina, as this is more appropriate IMO for an image uploaded >5 years ago. Túrelio (talk) 17:26, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:14, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Unused image of an inactive user. GeorgHH • talk 17:58, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
![17:58, 10 December 2011 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2011/12/10#c-GeorgHH-2011-12-10T17:58:00.000Z-File:Amar_Moktan_"Lama.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:14, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
![15:14, 17 December 2011 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2011/12/10#c-Jameslwoodward-2011-12-17T15:14:00.000Z-File:Amar_Moktan_"Lama.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Bad quality, lack of description. Ices2Csharp (talk) 18:03, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:14, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Useless personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 18:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 12:13, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
I am the artist and wish to replace this picture with one of my choosing please Seegrape (talk) 18:19, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- Look, we explained, in depth, how you do that. You need to assign a Creative Commons license to an image. Put it on your web site with a Creative Commons copyright declaration that we can link to to verify that the image can be freely copied. See the talk page on the article for a very through discussion. 64.151.38.109 21:43, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- Also, why should this picture be deleted? I took the photo and I assigned a Creative Commons license to it. It is exactly as described - a photograph of singer/songwriter Karla Bonoff after a concert at Knucklehead's Saloon in Kansas City, Missouri. There is no reason to delete this one. If Ms. Bonoff wishes to add a better image to the Wikipedia article, she is free, as has been pointed out several times, to place an image on her web site with an explicit declaration that the image is either Public Domain or has some other copyright assignment that allows free copying. 64.151.38.109 04:37, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept: We do not usually respond to this sort of request -- as the IP says, we can keep this and any other that are supplied to us. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:17, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Contiene Errores (No se Muestran los Negros) Dittoduarte (talk) 19:11, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Contiene errores muchos errores Dittoduarte (talk) 22:44, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:27, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Only used in a speedily deleted article, en:RAZOR Auto Works (non-notable company) Mike Rosoft (talk) 20:45, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:27, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
No Freedom of panorama in Saudi Arabia WhisperToMe (talk) 20:53, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:27, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
No evidence on the source website {http://www.jorgederosyvalverde.es/biografias%20familia/Mariano%20de%20Ricafort%20y%20Palacin.htm},that this image is copyleft Jezhotwells (talk) 20:53, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:27, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
This flag was designed by me, but it owns to a contest. So I shouldn't upload this file. It was a mistake. Josansa (talk) 20:55, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:27, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
to small and low quality, unused AtelierMonpli (talk) 21:13, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:28, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
COM:FOP#Slovenia. 84.62.204.7 22:25, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:28, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
License is obviously phony. Image is all over the web with watermark and copyright notice. Just look at the metadata on the file. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (talk) 22:28, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 12:11, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Private birth announcement, out of scope Funfood ␌ 22:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope, probable copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 12:10, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Simple text, no need for a jpg Funfood ␌ 23:01, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:28, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Looks like TV screenshot, bad quality, unused logo Funfood ␌ 23:31, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Probable Copyvio, COM:PRP Captain-tucker (talk) 12:08, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
- File:Ohsawa (10).jpg
- File:Ohsawa (21).jpg
- File:Ohsawa (24).jpg
- File:Ohsawa (11).jpg
- File:Ohsawa (9).jpg
- File:Ohsawa (19).jpg
- File:Ohsawa (26).jpg
- File:Ohsawa (4).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Copyvio. These photographs were taken in 1960s. And images were taken from published magazines. There is no proof to prove these are free content. Takabeg (talk) 23:59, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:28, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Logo of some sort, used in a now deleted advert on en.wikipedia. no foreseeable use. FASTILYs (TALK) 04:02, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 20:26, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
eliminar 201.220.233.81 19:55, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
rename 201.220.233.81 20:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
eliminar Luciaxdx (talk) 20:18, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
{{Copyvio}} 201.220.233.81 20:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: gone Denniss (talk) 07:05, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Unused image (link at en.wp is for a deleted article in 2010) and not in scope or have any forseeable use. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 01:54, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Maxim(talk) 22:38, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Indian coins and currencies are copyrighted. Kiran Gopi (talk) 04:51, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Maxim(talk) 22:39, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- Restored: {{GODL-India}} Yann (talk) 19:36, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
|Indian coins and currencies are copyrighted. Kiran Gopi (talk) 04:53, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Maxim(talk) 22:39, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Indian coins and currencies are copyrighted. Kiran Gopi (talk) 04:54, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Maxim(talk) 22:39, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Vodafone's Toys fall under Derivative_works Kiran Gopi (talk) 05:29, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- the toy which i purchased from the local market is look like vodafone advertisement toy. This file name may be wrong.But the toy never comes under any copy right law. ..tha-uzhavan (talk) 17:21, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: The toy is a copyrightable 3D work -- nothing has been presented to suggested that it has been released into the public domain or under an acceptable free license. Maxim(talk) 22:40, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Vodafone's Toys fall under Derivative_works. Kiran Gopi (talk) 05:30, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- the toy which i purchased from the local market is look like vodafone advertisement toy. This file name may be wrong.But the toy never comes under any copy right law. ..tha-uzhavan (talk) 17:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: The toy is a copyrightable 3D work -- nothing has been presented to suggested that it has been released into the public domain or under an acceptable free license. Maxim(talk) 22:40, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Copyvio, user Annaiur is not the autor: https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/HhaVBje6Jv8T0AhdaYRB2A http://www.pueblos-espana.org/comunidad+valenciana/valencia/xativa/Escudo/ ... . HombreDHojalata.talk 09:12, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Maxim(talk) 22:41, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
converted to DR by me from a "db-copyvio-G12"-speedy for "Specifically, the person who took the picture has not released it into the public domain. Schumin did not take the picture, and there is no evidence that the copyright was relinguished to him" by User:Baseball Bugs.. Túrelio (talk) 10:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- Withdraw - Consensus seems to be that the natural copyright belongs to the subject when it's his camera and he asks someone to snap it for him. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- Withdraw is good. Though I would add to your reasons. You might suggest that attempting to counter a juvenile action with yet another juvenile action is supremely counter-productive and was a mistake. Jbarta (talk) 13:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for your
personal attackvaluable input. Instead, I would add that "fair is fair, and if Centpacrr's photo has to go, then so does this one and many others like it." Since consensus came down in favor of retaining photos taken under this scenario, both of these test cases have been resolved. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for your
- Actually, a personal attack is an attack on a person, not an attack on an action. If I were to say "you are juvenile", then that is an attack on you and therefore a personal attack. Suggesting that what someone did was juvenile is an attack on an action. Big difference. And you're right... it's valuable input... though as you've shown, it may not be valuable to everyone. Jbarta (talk) 19:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- Until we got consensus on the Centpacrr picture, it was not at all clear whether this kind of picture was allowed. Now we have some precedents. I assure you, if his photo had remained deleted, this one would have been too. You can't have it both ways. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- You, like most others, saw no reason to delete Centpacrr's picture. The idea that handing someone your camera to take a picture of you results in the copyright belonging to that person who pushed the button is absurd. I believe you know it's absurd. Yet, under the pretext of "fairness" you proceeded to exact the same absurdity on someone else's picture. I believe you did it for no other reason than a juvenile tit-for-tat. And I can prove this assertion by simply asking if you also nominated any other images for deletion for this same absurd reason? I'm guessing Schuminwebs was the only one. At any rate, we all make mistakes and there is great honor in owning up to them. But first you have to recognize it. Jbarta (talk) 23:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- In that discussion, the issue was raised about nominating hundreds for deletion. I could have done that - and intended to do so, if necessary. Instead, I went after just 1 of them... the most obvious one. When Schumin and Fastily own up to their own mistakes and apologize to Centpacrr for their actions, get back to me. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Maxim(talk) 22:41, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
bad jpg duplicate of File:Midway chicago.png 93.132.68.241 10:51, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- keep. This is not a duplicate. Its a {{Compressed version}} --McZusatz (talk) 16:47, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Maxim(talk) 22:42, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
doubts that it is own work of uploader; no EXIF data and small resolution; but even if no copyvio, also a violation of personality rights of the depicted woman as it's an indoor shot. Túrelio (talk) 10:52, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Maxim(talk) 22:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Although there is a source, there is nothing to verify that this meets PD-OLD-100 or any other valid criteria. And it appears not to load on the sourced url now either. Sitush (talk) 11:53, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete-no evidence of PD..--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 14:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Maxim(talk) 22:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't think this is un-origional enough for PD-textlogo Sven Manguard (talk) 19:43, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Its a triangle made up of lines and then some text below. Is this complex enough to qualify for copyright? --Sreejith K (talk) 17:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Per above. Tbhotch™ 20:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete I agree with Sven. In the US,where the servers are, this would most likely be deemed original due to the triangle as it's not a "simple geometric shape" due to its composition of lines and broken lines of varying colors and directions.
- Keep - see COM:TOO#United States (this group is owned by News Corporation). Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Read a good statement... "minor variations [on geometric shapes]" are not eligible. Changed my opinion. Hazmat2 (talk) 03:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: PD-textlogo, per consensus 99of9 (talk) 06:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Wie kann Version vom 00:56, 10. Dez. 2011 u. 19:47, 9. Dez. 2011 gelöscht werden? Chgaa (talk) 01:36, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- Why should this image be deleted ? --Denniss (talk) 03:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: No reason for deletion stated PierreSelim (talk) 00:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
screenshot of nonfree content (website) DS (talk) 05:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
screenshot of nonfree content (website) DS (talk) 05:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by J.delanoy Captain-tucker (talk) 11:07, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Images by syriana2011
[edit]- File:Maher al-Assad and Bashar al-Assad.jpg
- File:Free Syrian Army & Syrian National Council.jpg
- File:Riyad al-Asad.jpg
- File:Syrian Army in Daraa 9 April 2011.jpg
- File:Hama Al-Assy Square 2011-07-22.jpg
- File:Syria Daraa 17 april 2011 - 01.jpg
- File:Burnt car 17 April 2011 Banias Syria.jpg
- File:Syria Damascus Douma Protests 2011 - 30.jpg
- File:Homs Syria Protests 2011 - 03.jpg
- File:Syria Damascus Douma Protests 2011 - 22.jpg
- File:Hafez Assad Statue 15 april 2011 - 01.jpg
- File:Dr. Burhan Ghalioun.jpg
- File:Combination of the Syrian revolution.jpg
It appears very unlikely that a single person took these images, which wary wildly both geographically, chronologically and in content. The uploader is most likely simply a compiler of images from many different sources without actual ownership of their copyright. FunkMonk (talk) 08:08, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- Most likely. But till you provide a proof of it, ie images beeing copyrighted and used by someone else, it is nothing more than a mere speculation. EllsworthSK (talk) 09:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- Using "TinyEye" on the images show them cropped differently and in different resolutions in many other websites.[2][3][4][5][6] They are clear copyvios. FunkMonk (talk) 09:48, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- They are not necessarily taken by a single person, because Syriana is most likely a revolutionary society inside Syria. Many groups of activists now makes groups on Facebook to report the revolution news in Syria, and they may involve dozens of people transporting the news from the whole of Syria, even the small villages and towns, and it is enough to know that the main page of the Syrian revolution on facebook publish news and videos from more than 300 cities and town in the Fridays. So, it seems very possible that a revolutionary news group makes a page on flickr and upload files, especially that most of their images is in a high resolution and not widely seen on internet (the revolution videos have a very low resolution and taking pictures from them is not useful, and there is just a few high quality images for the protests and security forces that is used widely by the media, but none of those exists among the group files) --عباد ديرانية (talk) 13:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC).
- The problem is then that we have no idea what the copyright status of each image is, or who the authors are, which is a requirement for inclusion on Commons. It also means they're impossible to verify. FunkMonk (talk) 13:31, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- They are not necessarily taken by a single person, because Syriana is most likely a revolutionary society inside Syria. Many groups of activists now makes groups on Facebook to report the revolution news in Syria, and they may involve dozens of people transporting the news from the whole of Syria, even the small villages and towns, and it is enough to know that the main page of the Syrian revolution on facebook publish news and videos from more than 300 cities and town in the Fridays. So, it seems very possible that a revolutionary news group makes a page on flickr and upload files, especially that most of their images is in a high resolution and not widely seen on internet (the revolution videos have a very low resolution and taking pictures from them is not useful, and there is just a few high quality images for the protests and security forces that is used widely by the media, but none of those exists among the group files) --عباد ديرانية (talk) 13:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC).
- That's a problem for aggrieved copyright holders, if they exist at all, to take up with the Flickr user. Deleting these images would be assuming that the Flickr user applied the license incorrectly; I don't think it's our job to decide that. -User:Kudzu1 05:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- That's exactly our job. Such images are routinely deleted from here. FunkMonk (talk) 20:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- That's a problem for aggrieved copyright holders, if they exist at all, to take up with the Flickr user. Deleting these images would be assuming that the Flickr user applied the license incorrectly; I don't think it's our job to decide that. -User:Kudzu1 05:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- Tiny Eye is a neat tool, thanks for introducing me to it. Any rate, I'm not sure what links you referred to since yours expired, but I just tried about half of them. The majority turned up no other results, and those that did turned up no results in a higher resolution. Based on this I'm inclined to believe that Ibad Diraniya's interpretation makes a good deal of sense. It probably is a compilation, but it's probably a collaboration. As ID said, most of the images are internally consistent. Most images seem to be clearly taken by one of three different cameras; the remainder seem to have been cropped from larger photos (such as the Assad Brothers and the council). I can find nothing to suggest that any of these images originate elsewhere, let alone the bulk of them. --Quintucket (talk) 18:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- As I said, some of Syriana's were cropped versions of images used on other pages, indicating that they originated there. And in any case, the precautionary principle points toward deletion. FunkMonk (talk) 23:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- Can you show me some of these examples. Like I said, I tried more than half of them, including the ones that I considered most important to the project. (The ones of the council and individuals associated with it, and the statue head.) I found no such examples. And I strongly disagree about the precautionary principle. I can understand deleting images that come under mild suspicion if they're fairly easily replaceble but these are invaluable. Which doesn't mean we shouldn't delete them if there's clear doubt, but right now I still don't feel you've demonstrated that. Your argument seems to be two parts: 1. These images seem to be taken by multiple individuals, and 2. there's higher-quality versions of a couple of these images elsewhere. Ibad Diraniya provided a very plausible explanation for the first, indeed the fact that the images of rebel leadership would be hard to take and don't appear elsewhere would seem to support the notion that it is an effort by the Council or Army to gain publicity; I still haven't confirmed the second. (Could you tell me exactly which images you've found uncropped or in higher quality elsewhere?) My personal opinion is that if there's one or two images where there's clearly serious doubt, we should delete those, and only delete the rest if there's doubt about a fair number of images that come into doubt. --Quintucket (talk) 17:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
- You cannot "disagree" with the precautionary principle, it is a Commons policy. Nothing indicates that they are ot copyright vilations, and that's what counts here. There simply is no proof that the various people who took these pictures have released them under the licences used on that Flickr page. As for tinyeye, here are some examples: [7][8][9][10][11] FunkMonk (talk) 15:35, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
- Can you show me some of these examples. Like I said, I tried more than half of them, including the ones that I considered most important to the project. (The ones of the council and individuals associated with it, and the statue head.) I found no such examples. And I strongly disagree about the precautionary principle. I can understand deleting images that come under mild suspicion if they're fairly easily replaceble but these are invaluable. Which doesn't mean we shouldn't delete them if there's clear doubt, but right now I still don't feel you've demonstrated that. Your argument seems to be two parts: 1. These images seem to be taken by multiple individuals, and 2. there's higher-quality versions of a couple of these images elsewhere. Ibad Diraniya provided a very plausible explanation for the first, indeed the fact that the images of rebel leadership would be hard to take and don't appear elsewhere would seem to support the notion that it is an effort by the Council or Army to gain publicity; I still haven't confirmed the second. (Could you tell me exactly which images you've found uncropped or in higher quality elsewhere?) My personal opinion is that if there's one or two images where there's clearly serious doubt, we should delete those, and only delete the rest if there's doubt about a fair number of images that come into doubt. --Quintucket (talk) 17:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
- As I said, some of Syriana's were cropped versions of images used on other pages, indicating that they originated there. And in any case, the precautionary principle points toward deletion. FunkMonk (talk) 23:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- I don't disagree with the policy. I disagree with your interpretation of it. The project page on the pp states:
- "The precautionary principle is that where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file it should be deleted."
- I still don't see any reason to have significant doubt over any of these images. I looked over the examples you linked. Not one of them is at as high a resolution as the original; and for every example that is cropped, they're cropped from the original image. The evidence of usage would seem to indicate that they originated on Flickr. Your original argument amounted to "these are taken with multiple cameras and in several places." That argument could apply to my own Flickr account (if any of the images were worth uploading to WC). I'm an American but I've got images from all over Eurasia, taken with a cheap digital camera and my phone. And while I understand that it's much harder to move around in Syria, it's hardly impossible. I'm inclined to believe that it could be a group uploading the images, as Ibad D. said, but what matters is that this site seems to be the first publication of these images, and there is nothing to indicate they were stolen.
- I don't disagree with the policy. I disagree with your interpretation of it. The project page on the pp states:
- To consider, though: your use of Tiny Eye seems to demonstrate that the highest quality versions of these images do come from Flickr. We can thus assume that they originated there. Your argument as I understand it then becomes: At least three cameras seem to have been used (not counting portraits of individuals, which are clearly cropped), we can thus assume at least three photographers. For the sake of argument, I'll grant you that. It still remains that the Flickr account it the place where they first appear to have been uploaded to the internet. It therefore seems reasonable to assume that if there are more than one owner, they gave the photos to the uploader to distribute.
- As I understand it, the precautionary principle is intended to deal with cases of apparent plagiarism, when the images are found elsewhere on the internet, or appear to be derived from a previously published work. The precautionary principle doesn't dictate that we delete images from any account that might have multiple photographers, unless there's reason to doubt that the photographers gave permission for the distribution of their images. We shouldn't assume serious doubt unless there's reason to believe the uploader could have obtained the image without the photographer's consent. There are plenty of appropriate applications of the precautionary principle. I've seen famous pictures and screenshots of movies on Flickr. This is not one of those cases. --Quintucket (talk) 19:47, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
- The Tinyeye examples were just an afterthought, the main problem is that the span in time and geography, not to mention subjects, is very implausible for one person. So since "Syriana" is probably not one person, we can have no idea of what the actual copyright status of each image is, since the Flickr page gives absolutely no source information. FunkMonk (talk) 20:55, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
- "Nothing indicates that they are ot copyright violations", The default status when you talk about image regarded as free copyright is that the image is free, not The contrary, so if the image uploader says that it is under creative commons license, you are the one who have to introduce a conclusive evidence that it is a copyright violation. Anyway, i can suggests a solution for the problem, i am native Arabic speaker, so i can talk with the original uploaders of the images to have some clarifications about their copyrights and sources. By the way, my name's exact pronunciation in English is "Abbad Diraneyyah", even Arabs do not pronounce it well! --عباد ديرانية (talk) 03:07, 17 December 2011 (UTC).
- As I understand it, the precautionary principle is intended to deal with cases of apparent plagiarism, when the images are found elsewhere on the internet, or appear to be derived from a previously published work. The precautionary principle doesn't dictate that we delete images from any account that might have multiple photographers, unless there's reason to doubt that the photographers gave permission for the distribution of their images. We shouldn't assume serious doubt unless there's reason to believe the uploader could have obtained the image without the photographer's consent. There are plenty of appropriate applications of the precautionary principle. I've seen famous pictures and screenshots of movies on Flickr. This is not one of those cases. --Quintucket (talk) 19:47, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: As noted above, these are almost certainly a compilation of images taken by more than one person. It is very unlikely that the contributors of the images gave any thought to copyright when they were doing so, so the compiler is in the position of one who owns a print of a photograph,and the right to display it to others, but not the right to license it to others. Commons policy is that we pay attention to copyright issues even where the owners of the images have not done so. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:49, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Images by syriana2011 (2nd round)
[edit]Same reason as above. The following files were uploaded after the previous deletion of all files from this Flickr account:
- File:Abdul Basset Sayda.png – found in higher resolution with intact EXIF at http://the-syrian.com/archives/55266/snc-fsa-28-11-2011-2
- File:Syrian military forces april 2011 6.jpg
- File:Syrian military forces april 2011 5.jpg – http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Mideast-Syria/9ea032ed9c9c49548be43bd8deea4d1e
- File:Banias.jpg – http://blogs.reuters.com/fullfocus/2011/11/15/revealing-syrias-revolt/#a=17
—LX (talk, contribs) 14:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 22:48, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't believe this is own work. No metadata. Many files that I checked with Google image search showed a source with copyright for example by Richard Bofill. In March 2010 I asked the user about the license for these photos. No answer.
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Wouter (talk) 09:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:52, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
unclear copyright tag/situation. Why is this public domain?
Quote from the copyright tag: "This tag can be used only when the author cannot be ascertained by reasonable enquiry. If you wish to rely on it, please specify in the image description the research you have carried out to find who the author was." And: which of the three bullet points applies here? When was a publication? Saibo (Δ) 03:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. A.Savin 18:57, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
This dialog should be considered a component of Windows and is copyrighted work of Microsoft. Liangent (talk) 07:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Denniss (talk) 21:38, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
According to the source, © Copyright 2005 - 2007 Dmitriy Page. All rights reserved. No images from PAGETOUR CD or website may be reproduced without prior written consent. Takabeg (talk) 09:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- Fails COM:FOP anyway. Where's Fernrohr when we need her most ;) NVO (talk) 23:07, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. A.Savin 18:58, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
As much as I'd like to retain this image, there's too many questions for my liking to be able to just assume good faith that this is the uploader's own work, based on the lack of any description detail about the date & location of the image, the lack of meta data, and based on a look at his other images, which are sparse, includes a clear copyvio screenshot marked as own work - File:Mike Neville.gif, and don't really indicate how or why they might have come about taking this photo in this random place. Ultra7 (talk) 18:51, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- Note. The uploader has explained on the talk page of this deletion request that the reason for the lack of location details is security. While understandable, I can't really see how that helps establish that the uploader owns the copyright, although I presume it means the uploader is the bus owner. If he is, perhaps he can send an email through the Commons OTRS system with some form of proof of that, to back up the own work release. We also still need to know the date it was taken. An explanation for the lack of meta data would also be helpful. If those things are done, I'd be happy to withdraw the deletion request, but I'd also like to know at least the vague location (ie down to the town level), if not just for categorisation/basic description purposes (if the bus is now preserved, there's no real reason why it can be presumed by the reader that it would still be in the North East). Ultra7 (talk) 15:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
It would be a pity if this photo were deleted. I live in the area covered by Northern General and there are so few photos of their vehicles on the web. I can remember one of thes beauties (Service 107 from South Shields to Sunderland) used to stop outside my house!
- I couldn't agree more, but there's no point hosting files that we cannot prove are free to use. We do actually have a 360 degree set of images of another preserved Northern Routemaster, 2099 (PCN 762), which I took at the Metrocentre rally (see right for the profile pic it's not there any longer - see below). I also intend to catch this year's Tees - Tyne Historic Commerical Vehicle Rally run, which I hope will have 2105 in attendance too, as it attended last year according to this. If the uploader really is the person who took the photo, I don't know why they can't just send an email to prove it, and provide the date of the photograph and the vague location as well. That's all it would take to prevent deletion as far as I know. As it is now, without this info, and without a history of uploads attached to this user, and without any metadata on the image, it's simply not worth the risk to the project that it's not their photo to give. Ultra7 (talk) 20:29, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- Note The image I referred to in the above post is here. It was removed for some reason in this edit, without any note being left on this page. Ultra7 (talk) 19:11, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: No evidence it was taken from other sites Denniss (talk) 21:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
No such evidence was asked for. Had it been, I would have looked for it. If I come across it on another site, then presumably this can be re-opened, if none of the other evidence is going to be considered. Ultra7 (talk) 00:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Paul Jaspar died only in 1945 and there is not FOP exemption in Belgium. Túrelio (talk) 14:06, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - does not infringe on anything copyrightable. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:27, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Denniss (talk) 00:57, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
There is no evidence that this picture is in the Public Domain. Source website says "tous droits réservés" all rights reserved. Teofilo (talk) 13:52, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Non ! C'est uniquement le texte du site est les photographies prisent récement qui sont "tout droit reservé" les phototgraphies anciennes n'ont pas de copyright.(Bourgeois.A (talk) 16:25, 10 December 2011 (UTC))
De tout façon je connais Alain BANACH et je fait parti de son association, je crois bien faire...
Merci de comprendre votre erreur ! (Bourgeois.A (talk) 16:35, 10 December 2011 (UTC))
- Si cette photo a été prise en 1950, l'auteur n'est pas mort depuis plus de 70 ans. Par ailleurs en tant qu'image posthume, une durée de protection de 25 ans court à compter de la divulgation. Soit vous réussissez à déterminer qui détient les droits d'auteurs sur cette image, en le prouvant, et en obtenant la permission de cette personne, ce qui nécessite un lourd travail. Soit, c'est le plus simple, cette image sera effacée. Teofilo (talk) 17:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Alain BANACH Si je lui demande, je vous montre comment sa réponse ?(Bourgeois.A (talk) 18:13, 11 December 2011 (UTC))
- Vous êtes sûr ? C'est lui qui a pris la photo ? Si c'est le cas il serait bien qu'il indique en quelle année. Il n'est pas trop jeune pour avoir pu prendre une photo en 1950 ou avant ? C'est là que vous allez voir que c'est compliqué. Il est demandé à l'ayant droit d'envoyer par E-mail à l'adresse indiquée le formulaire "déclaration de consentement" donné sur Commons:Messages_type. Voir aussi Commons:OTRS/fr. Teofilo (talk) 17:33, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: When ? Who ? the COM:EI must be clear thoses postcards are not all PD (generally it'snot anonymous work) PierreSelim (talk) 05:54, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Useless for lack of description. Ices2Csharp (talk) 18:07, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- The description is written right there. Leaning to delete as a personality rights vio. I have no issue with Mr. Ronny Stiffel publishing his own papers on flickr, but this is someone else's boarding pass. NVO (talk) 23:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per NVO PierreSelim (talk) 05:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
._.jpg){kind=link}
._.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This image is from a French postcard published some time in the 20s, so it is not PD Syria, and it is unknown whether it is PD. FunkMonk (talk) 08:35, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep see above, PD-Syria. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:19, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: French postcards are generally not anonymous work. It's probable the author of the photo died after 1942 PierreSelim (talk) 05:40, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
This image is from a French postcard published some time in the 20s, so it is not PD Syria, and it is unknown whether it is PD. FunkMonk (talk) 08:36, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - see above, PD-Syria. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:21, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: French postcards are generally not anonymous work. It's probable the author of the photo died after 1942 PierreSelim (talk) 05:42, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
This image is from a French postcard published some time in the 20s, so it is not PD Syria, and it is unknown whether it is PD. FunkMonk (talk) 08:35, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - apply Syrian law to images from the time of the French mandate. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:19, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- French postcards taken in the colonies were published in Europe, not the colonies. If not, why would French law not apply anyway? FunkMonk (talk) 09:29, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- Postcards are sold to travelers in the colonies; typically, the publisher would be a local enterprise, but texts would be in the language of the customer. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:51, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- If so, wouldn't French law apply? FunkMonk (talk) 10:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- Colonialism is so passé... /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:20, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
- That is not an argument. FunkMonk (talk) 01:16, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
- Colonialism is so passé... /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:20, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
- If so, wouldn't French law apply? FunkMonk (talk) 10:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- Postcards are sold to travelers in the colonies; typically, the publisher would be a local enterprise, but texts would be in the language of the customer. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:51, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- French postcards taken in the colonies were published in Europe, not the colonies. If not, why would French law not apply anyway? FunkMonk (talk) 09:29, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- If it was sold in the colonies, it was published there, and no, French law would not necessarily apply. Territories are usually not intrinsically part of the colonizer's country, and there is usually separate local law, with the law being updated separately. If sold there, it would probably be considered published there (and not in France). At the very least, it would be simultaneously published in the modern-day countries of France and Syria, and the country with the shorter term would be the country of origin. If merely taken in Syria, and only published in the territory of modern-day France (or a different country), then the situation would be different. Are there any pointers to the postcard itself anywhere? Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:58, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
- Unlike for example Algeria, Syria was never considered a part of France. It was a former part of the Ottoman Empire, administered by France on behalf of the League of Nations. There is no reason to suspect that the legal fiction of simultaneous publication was applied. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:13, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
- If it was sold in the colonies, it was published there, and no, French law would not necessarily apply. Territories are usually not intrinsically part of the colonizer's country, and there is usually separate local law, with the law being updated separately. If sold there, it would probably be considered published there (and not in France). At the very least, it would be simultaneously published in the modern-day countries of France and Syria, and the country with the shorter term would be the country of origin. If merely taken in Syria, and only published in the territory of modern-day France (or a different country), then the situation would be different. Are there any pointers to the postcard itself anywhere? Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:58, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
kept, we apply PD-Syria --PierreSelim (talk) 08:40, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
These files showing Israel around 1950 were all uploaded as "own work" with cc licenses, but obviously they were all taken from some photo archives. I don't see any reason why they should be in the public domain, either.
File:Margaliot.jpg- File:Sasa.jpg
- File:BonimMoshav.jpg
- File:MalhaArbs.jpg
- File:KibutzRegavim.jpg
File:Eilat58.jpgFile:Lod60.jpg -- date given is "1960s"(hence Category:Undelete in 2020)File:EynCarem.jpg- File:None1994.jpg -- date given is "1994" (hence Category:Undelete in 2045)
File:Gilboaview.jpg -- date given is "1962"(hence Category:Undelete in 2013)File:Glil.jpg- File:ZihronMara.jpg
- File:She'arYashuv.jpg
- File:KibuzYiftah.jpg
- File:ChahalArchiveNof.jpg
- File:BetweenEygptToEilat.jpg
File:NofEilat.jpg- File:Negev Sight.jpg -- no date given
- File:Vadizoaira.jpg -- no date given
Rosenzweig τ 13:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep The Israel museum, as part of its glam cooperation with Wikimeida Israel, has allows volunteers to upload images from its database that are in the public domain. In Israel, all images become Public Domain 50 years after it is taken (see Template:PD-Israel, therefore, the many images you tagged for deletion should not be deleted. Deror avi (talk) 15:42, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
- In that case, we need proper sources and dates (at least years) of creation, which are essential to determine copyright status; preferably the authors too. "Scanner: Own work" or something like that, which is now stated in the image descriptions, and a stated date of "November 3, 2011" is not enough. --Rosenzweig τ 16:41, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
- We are aware of that. The person who usually deals with images from the IMJ is sick, so please remove the deletion request. We will take care of that and add descriptions, categories and any other info needed, like with other media files from this project. We appreciate your patience. Shani Evenstine, GLAM IMJ Project coordinator. Shani. (talk) 16:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
- I'll take care of these photos as soon as I'll be able too. RoyTek (talk) 13:29, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
- We are aware of that. The person who usually deals with images from the IMJ is sick, so please remove the deletion request. We will take care of that and add descriptions, categories and any other info needed, like with other media files from this project. We appreciate your patience. Shani Evenstine, GLAM IMJ Project coordinator. Shani. (talk) 16:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
- Rather than close this DR as a keep, I think we should keep it open for a while -- say until the end of the year -- as a reminder to all that these need to be looked at and fixed, one by one. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:57, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
- The Hebrew description of all images (and for most - the english as well - lists the date the photograph was taken. There is only a problem with one photo - None1994. All are Deletion requests should be closed. For the last image - we need to await the museum to provide the OTRS with the permission. Deror avi (talk) 17:06, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps I am missing something, but that does not appear to be correct. There are actually five images, as noted above, that appear to be problems. I have closed all of those with
strike-throughsas keep. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:10, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps I am missing something, but that does not appear to be correct. There are actually five images, as noted above, that appear to be problems. I have closed all of those with
- The Hebrew description of all images (and for most - the english as well - lists the date the photograph was taken. There is only a problem with one photo - None1994. All are Deletion requests should be closed. For the last image - we need to await the museum to provide the OTRS with the permission. Deror avi (talk) 17:06, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
- Rather than close this DR as a keep, I think we should keep it open for a while -- say until the end of the year -- as a reminder to all that these need to be looked at and fixed, one by one. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:57, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept: and deleted few with date that are not OK PierreSelim (talk) 08:49, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Poster, so this is a derivative work Kiran Gopi (talk) 05:14, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- This was taken in a public exhibition. I explicitly asked the owner permission to take this photo. This can be considered derivative work, then perhaps changing the license type may be appropriate. --Natkeeran2 (talk) 05:31, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Derivative work. Sreejith K (talk) 20:44, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Non free logo, not only a {{Textlogo}}, had a threshold of orginality. Kiran Gopi (talk) 05:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. --SuryaPrakash Talk... 07
- 53, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Question: When this logo was designed? (year) -- RE rillke questions? 10:42, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- I am not sure Rillke. I captured it from a copyrighted book. It's a Government organization's logo. See here. (Top left) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Surya Prakash.S.A. (talk • contribs)
InfoSahitya Akademi is founded in 1954, no idea about when the logo is first published.--Kiran Gopi (talk) 12:31, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- Its best we move this to local projects and use under FUR. Sahitya Akademy was in the making for a few years from 50-54, so cant say for sure it is in PD-India (pre 51).--Sodabottle (talk) 14:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Non free logo Sreejith K (talk) 20:44, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Not de-minimis, FOP is not applicable for 2D works in India. Kiran Gopi (talk) 05:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nominator Sreejith K (talk) 20:45, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Not de-minimis, FOP is not applicable for 2D works in India. Kiran Gopi (talk) 05:48, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nominator Sreejith K (talk) 20:46, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Apparently a scaled down version (with bogus licensing) of File:ArmsBilbao.jpg → redundant. - I have no clue why this is in use so much... Saibo (Δ) 23:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- The use should probably be replaced manually partly - not sure if Delinker does good with templates - eg: fr:Modèle:Palette Bilbao --Saibo (Δ) 23:41, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. There File:Escudo de Bilbao (ovalado).svg and it isn't of bad quality. --Metrónomo (talk) 06:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Deleted: Deleted and redirected to File:ArmsBilbao.jpg Sreejith K (talk) 18:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Useless for lack of description. Ices2Csharp (talk) 18:07, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- The description is written on that boarding pass. Including the name of the passenger. But it was the choice of Ronny Stiffel from flickr, so there's no personality rights vio, keep. NVO (talk) 22:57, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep I see no reason to delete this. It badly needs renaming, however, and should be tagged as "low quality". Delete when we have a boarding pass scanned with a flatbed (i.e., without some guy's thumb in the shot). —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 02:28, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Not really an {{Out of scope}} image. Sreejith K (talk) 18:08, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Submitting this as a test case. Source: http://www.euforgen.org/fileadmin/www.euforgen.org/Documents/Maps/PDF/Abies_alba.pdf License documentation: http://www.euforgen.org/distribution_maps.html "Individuals may use the distribution maps for personal, educational, scientific or other non-commercial purposes without prior permission from the EUFORGEN Secretariat but they must acknowledge EUFORGEN as the source of information" equates to CC:BY:NC, not valid on Commons. Most of their other maps are also uploaded on Commons. MPF (talk) 00:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete if it's not valid on Commons. I did got the permission from EUFORGEN Secretariat, but had not much experience with correct licensing policy. --Iifar (talk) 08:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- My other EUFORGEN uploads: File:EUFORGEN Larix decidua.png, File:EUFORGEN Pinus cembra.png, File:EUFORGEN Pinus nigra.png, File:EUFORGEN Tilia cordata.png and File:EUFORGEN Pinus pinea.png. --Iifar (talk) 08:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- Was this permission less strict also allowing commercial use? If so the issue could be solved by forwarding the permission to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. 90.190.114.172 10:37, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- There was no mention of allowing commercial use. Excact words were: we do encourage the use of our maps in Wikipedia, please kindly mention the source, by providing the link to www.euforgen.org, since we continuously update the maps and release new ones. --Iifar (talk) 10:51, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete And move to Wikipedia. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 16:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- There was no mention of allowing commercial use. Excact words were: we do encourage the use of our maps in Wikipedia, please kindly mention the source, by providing the link to www.euforgen.org, since we continuously update the maps and release new ones. --Iifar (talk) 10:51, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete License only covers non-commerical use. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 02:16, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete License is not compatible with the project. Werieth (talk) 03:39, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Site does not explicitly release copyright for free use. Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 21:45, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
This dialog should be considered a component of Windows and is copyrighted work of Microsoft. Liangent (talk) 07:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete The icons are copyrighted. I think we also need to take a look at the following:
- File:Wamp_install_01.PNG
- File:Wamp_install_02.png
- File:Wamp_install_03.png
- File:Wamp_install_04.png
- File:Wamp_install_05.png
- File:Wamp_install_06.png
- File:Wamp_install_07.png
- File:Wamp_install_08.png
- File:Wamp_install_09.png
- File:Wamp_install_10.png
- File:Wamp_install_12.png
- File:Wamp_install_13.png
- File:Wamp install default webpage.png
- These files are all part of a series used to guide the installation of... something. I don't think any qualify for Commons. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 02:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete all. They are all part of a copyrighted User Interface. Werieth (talk) 03:40, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: copyrighted icons Denniss (talk) 11:29, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
