Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2011/12/28
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
False claim of own work. Searching on Google Images with the file url reveals many copies on the web from 2010 and before –Krinkletalk 01:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Delete This should be a speedy delete as it's quite obviously a web-trawl copyvio. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 02:38, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, it's a duplicate of File:Gustavo francisco petro urrego1.png by the same uploader which I tagged as a speedy due to being a copyvio. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 02:41, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, –Krinkletalk 02:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
This photograph is most probably not the work of en:User:Fikri: he is a frequent copyvio uploader on the english wiki. Besides this image has only a low resolution as well as there is no reliable EXIF information given 91.57.74.74 01:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Probably a copyvio, see this larger-resolution photo (at palba.cz) from which the file was cropped. --Mormegil (talk) 12:25, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per request Raymond 07:27, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Doub own work claim on this web-resolution/professional photo GrapedApe (talk) 12:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, see for example http://www.movementforruleoflaw.com/profiles/, according to google similarity search the image was there in 2007 and is the same size (100x122). --Martin H. (talk) 15:14, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: copyright violation Polarlys (talk) 14:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Very dirty pictures Dealtsamsi (talk) 21:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Not a reason for deletion, though I do agree, it is a very dirty picture. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:50, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
I am the copyright holder of this picture to stop the distribution of the photo. Dealtsamsi (talk) 05:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Keep - Looks to me like you're just a vandal who downsized the image. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)- Keep speedily. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 15:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Non-admin closure Bulwersator (talk) 12:12, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
To stop the distribution of the photo. Siryusis (talk) 11:37, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Speedy kept -mattbuck (Talk) 15:07, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Comment 
I have previously raised concerns about the specific type of behaviour which appears to be happening here. People upload the photo and then leave, there is no identifiable information which links them to the photo, and they seem to have forgotten about their account. The style of their uploads is different from one another, for example we can look at how date field is presented, sometimes it's with '/' as the delimiter, sometimes it's '-', sometimes it's written out. Many times we have a rather good grasp of English language shown in the description field. Then all of the sudden they come back and start making demands to remove the image, without engaging in any discussion, but always stating their demand grammatically incorrectly. I honestly believe that we may be dealing with somebody who is just picking the passwords of the nudity/sexually explicit uploader profiles. I once again request that this is investigated by somebody who has access to logs or somesuch and report on the finding. This isn't the first time this has happened, but the pattern is too similar to be ignored. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 14:39, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- I've asked Herby to weigh in on this pattern. We might want to move the discussion elsewhere. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:07, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Herby says no, perhaps if you gather some more evidence we can do something about it. Anyway, I've closed this discussion, upload protected the image and semiprotected the image page, so should be OK for now. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:58, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- I've asked Herby to weigh in on this pattern. We might want to move the discussion elsewhere. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:07, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Info according to the block of both accounts it seems that user:Siryusis and user:Dealtsamsi are the same. Also note that Dealtsamsi uploaded probably a copyvio: File:Jigsaw Squirting Dildo-0.jpg --Saibo (Δ) 15:48, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted uploaded to [1] in 2007 --Denniss (talk) 18:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
accidentally uploaded wrong version. Poor colour Repromodel (talk) 14:54, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: image has already been speedied by Fastily Túrelio (talk) 19:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Likely copyvio from serial problematic uploader. Very similar in style and content to the uploader's other copyvios (File:Dividing the Floor.jpg, File:Merrick Medal.jpg, File:19th century fashion.jpg, File:Merrick2011Judges.jpg, File:2011 Seniors.jpg, File:President Iacono and the Merrick Debate Participants .jpg). I think this is just the only one from this uploader that I couldn't find on the internets to confirm speedy delete. GrapedApe (talk) 13:20, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by Polarlys Captain-tucker (talk) 21:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Copyright violation. Uploader is obviously not Groening and Groening doesn't own the copyright anyway (the Fox network does). Theleftorium (talk) 13:31, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by J Milburn Captain-tucker (talk) 21:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio from a website. And all other uploads of Yannikrock for being from the same website. MBisanz talk 03:23, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: All deleted. If the uploader reads this: please do not upload photographs that you have not taken unless there is an explicit free license on the source where you obtain them. 99of9 (talk) 11:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Unused poor quality, better alternatives given, e.g. this Yikrazuul (talk) 21:39, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Many higher-resolution/non-pixelated raster images available. DMacks (talk) 22:00, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Ed (Edgar181) 14:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Poor quality, unused, and superceded by high-res png. Yikrazuul (talk) 21:51, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. DMacks (talk) 22:16, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Ed (Edgar181) 14:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Poor quality in comparison to those alternatives. Yikrazuul (talk) 21:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. We don't have an exact alternative with this same set of drawing styles (level of detail, convention for non-bonded valence electrons) but the resolution and odd position of the negative make this one not particularly usable and a good one with its stylings could be trivially drawn if there were a use-case. DMacks (talk) 22:15, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Ed (Edgar181) 14:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 22:35, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 10:10, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Yesterday, I marked this as a copyvio because of this image. The uploader removed the copyvio tag but did not specify why it wouldn't be a copyvio. I still think that it is a copyvio, so I'm nominating it for deletion. Stefan4 (talk) 23:28, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete I was sure that it was the same image (but in a thumbnail size), but I now see that it is a different image. However, the uploader added two links, [2][3], to the source field which confirms the copyvio. Still a different resolution, but it looks as if it is the same image but resized. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:40, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 09:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
copyrighted works 太刻薄 (talk) 08:27, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Image that found on search engine might be copyrighted. Octahedron80 (talk) 14:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
It is highly doubtful that this image is the own work of the user who uploaded it here 91.57.74.74 01:04, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio. Recep Tezcan is still alive. According to Art 3 of the Turkish Copyright law, copyrights of sculptures are protected. Takabeg (talk) 01:32, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
While the artwork is clearly public domain, this photograph is not "a faithful photographic reproduction of an original two-dimensional work of art"- it s a photograph of part of a church, including much context and, clearly, a degree of craftspersonship. The photograph has been taken from a website which clearly claims copyright. J Milburn (talk) 02:30, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- Do you men the window? I have blanked that. --Mattes (talk) 03:52, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep
- The website from which it came takes its images from a variety of sources and clearly does not own the copyright to the vast majority, including this image.
- Apart from the window, which is in an ancient building and doesn't constitute a copyright problem, there is no craftsmanship in this image. The architectural mouldings that you see are not three-dimensional moulded architecture. They are all painted on the surface by the artist.
- Craftspersonship" is an inappropriate and unnecessary construction. The "....man" in this word comes from the Latin "mano" for "hand" and doesn't refer to a male person. A "craftsman" is a person who uses their hands for craft.
- Amandajm (talk) 05:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep
- I just redid the blocking out of the architectural details. Amandajm (talk) 06:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Amandajm, while at first I thought it was a good idea, I unfortunately just reverted your blocking of the window. By blocking the window, you make the image no longer a faithful reproduction, and therefore make it ineligible for any PD tag. Thanks, Magister Scienta (talk) 01:12, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- maybe we erase the window with transparency likewise, that way we'll crop the window away. That would be entirely legal. --Mattes (talk) 06:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Amandajm, while at first I thought it was a good idea, I unfortunately just reverted your blocking of the window. By blocking the window, you make the image no longer a faithful reproduction, and therefore make it ineligible for any PD tag. Thanks, Magister Scienta (talk) 01:12, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- I just redid the blocking out of the architectural details. Amandajm (talk) 06:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: The issue with the window is not that it somehow has a copyright, but that our policy applies only to 2D works and the window surround makes it 3D. Notwithstanding that, this is an absolutely perpendicular image with absolutely even, flat light, so that argue that there is no artistic craftsmanship in the image itself and therefore I think that PD-Art is OK. The window should stay as in the original version. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
The image has no benefit over the original File:001-Cav-RegtCOA.png as it is no vector graphic, but just the original PNG embedded within a SVG file. Mps2 (talk) 04:20, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
The image has no benefit over the original File:143rd Infantry Regiment COA.png as it is no vector graphic, but just the original PNG embedded within a SVG file. Mps2 (talk) 04:31, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Corporate logo with a claimed Self-CC. No evidence that the uploader is authorized to make such a release. Further, the logo itself says in giant bold letters "Copyright 2011". GrapedApe (talk) 04:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Promotional image of some sort. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder FASTILY (TALK) 05:08, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Orphaned vanity photo, low quality, out of scope, no foreseeable use FASTILY (TALK) 05:08, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Educational value unclear. -Pete F (talk) 19:11, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
It is a copyrighted document Daniel Christensen (talk) 05:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Daniel, I'm curious why you uploaded it to begin with? educational value unclear, copyright status unclear. -Pete F (talk) 19:11, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: There's no copyright here -- Florida government docs are PD. I agree that it doesn't have a clear educational use and there is also a privacy issue. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
copyrighted works 太刻薄 (talk) 08:26, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
copyrighted works 太刻薄 (talk) 08:26, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
copyrighted works 太刻薄 (talk) 08:26, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
copyrighted works 太刻薄 (talk) 08:27, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
copyrighted works 太刻薄 (talk) 08:28, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
copyrighted works 太刻薄 (talk) 08:28, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
copyrighted works 太刻薄 (talk) 08:28, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
copyrighted works 太刻薄 (talk) 08:28, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
copyrighted works 太刻薄 (talk) 08:28, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
copyrighted works 太刻薄 (talk) 08:28, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
copyrighted works 太刻薄 (talk) 08:30, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
copyrighted works 太刻薄 (talk) 08:30, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Logo of some sort, used in a now deleted advert on en.wikipedia. no foreseeable use FASTILY (TALK) 08:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Scan of a newspaper as PD-self. No way GrapedApe (talk) 12:49, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
1) Unused logo of organization. Out of scope. 2) No evidence of official organizational release of this logo GrapedApe (talk) 12:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
No evidence uploader is authorized to make release of this official organization logo GrapedApe (talk) 12:52, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Doubt own work claim on this official logo of an organization GrapedApe (talk) 12:59, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
uploader identifies self as Henry de Leon and is thus not creator of work and does not have the right to release it DS (talk) 13:30, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Either a copyright problem, or an authenticity problem (if somebody besides EP Reyes drew the signature, then it's inaccurate to describe it as his signature). -Pete F (talk) 23:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Personal unused logo, related enwp article deleted Funfood ␌ 13:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, blurry image. Jarekt (talk) 13:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Doubtfully free Album cover, see http://www.amazon.com/Desatormentandonos-Rabioso-Pescado/dp/B00009Y2L0/ref=ntt_mus_ep_dpi_2 Funfood ␌ 13:53, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete The Argentinian PD tag used says: "Use this template exclusively for photos and NOT for drawings or other pieces of art." I'm no expert in Argentinian IP law, but this seems to clearly fall outside that category. -Pete F (talk) 19:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Very small and not used picture, maybe a copyright violation from http://www.angelfire.com/un/primeroelhatillo/ (on the left side) Martin H. (talk) 13:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --AtelierMonpli (talk) 16:25, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Similar file DSCF2653.JPG was used in June already in this blog. Upload here was Augus 26 and the uploader says the photo was created on August 1. Martin H. (talk) 14:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - No valid reason for deletion given, and I cannot understand your objection to this image. Are you saying the date is wrong, or that blogspot owns the copyright? Fanx (talk) 20:38, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete unless confirmation of valid license given. I believe Martin's position is that since the image was first published elsewhere, we shouldn't assume that the uploader owns the copyright. (If they do, they should confirm this through the OTRS process.) I agree with Martin; based on the information we have so far, we should delete this image. The date isn't conclusive, but tends to shed further doubt on the idea that the uploader was the photographer. --Avenue (talk) 22:16, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
File:Tzedakah_(charity)_box,_Charleston,_1820,_silver,_National_Museum_of_American_Jewish_History.JPG
[edit]This artifact is on loan to the National Museum of American Jewish History and is on loan from a very private collection. The Museum does not have rights to publish photographs of this object, and neither does the person who posted it. Furthermore, photographs are not to be used in the gallery. Please take down this photograph as soon as possible. Thank you. 4.59.138.227 16:19, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
The owner of a work of art is not the owner of the copyright on that work of art. In any event, the original copyright has expired. Wmpearl (talk) 15:40, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Wmpearl --
It's not a matter of copyright. We borrowed it from a donor who did not give us permission to publish the image, and we did not give you permission, either. I assume you bought a ticket to the Museum, which states quite explicitly, "No photography/recording."
Putting all that aside, I just want to politely ask you to take it down.
Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.59.138.227 (talk • contribs) 20:25, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept:
1. The image is of an 1820 work, so there is no question of this being an infringement of an underlying copyright.
2. Commons policy on photography in museums is very clear, see Commons:Image_casebook#Museum_and_interior_photography. The museum may or may not have a cause of action against the photographer for violating the terms of admission, but it has no standing to force us to take the image down.
3. Aside from that, I note that all we have here asserting these facts are two posts (one not signed) from an IP user in Baltimore. The museum is in Philadelphia.
Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
For maps, more is required than a declaration of "own work". Where do the details in the coastline come from? Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:17, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- I created this map in Inkscape. The coastline was roughly based on a Google satellite photo and in practice is points from the coastline connected by thick lines rather than a detailed tracing. --Fæ (talk) 22:29, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- I’m afraid that this cannot be the case. Here is google’s satellite photo; Here is your map. Now compare this tourist-oriented map. While not identical to yours, both share idiosyncrasies in (e.g.) the shape of the coastline not present in the satellite photo. Ergo, your immediate source can only have been a document in the lineage represented by the tourist map.67.168.135.107 20:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- I am not at all convinced; here is a map that on mouse-over switches between google and the Roland.Themis-Chabloz map; where there are discrepancies, Fæ's version follows Google. But Google is not free. So Delete. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:11, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- Looking at your mouseover right now - it still looks like a version of the tourist map to me. To take just two of many points of resemblance, look at the shapes of 1) Gialova lagoon and 2) the isthmus to its southwest. Both are almost the same in Fæ's and the tourist map, but completely different from the contours in the satellite photo.67.168.135.107 21:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- I will also point out that the labeling schemes of the tourist map and Fæ's are essentially identical, whereas the google satellite photo has no labels at all. The chance that these would have been developed independently would seem to me vanishingly small.67.168.135.107
- I am not at all convinced; here is a map that on mouse-over switches between google and the Roland.Themis-Chabloz map; where there are discrepancies, Fæ's version follows Google. But Google is not free. So
- If created in Inkscape why was it not outputted in SVG which is the whole point of Inkscape. In any case I !vote Delete as a copyvio by being a very, very close derivative of the Voidokilia graphic. This is very naughty of you Fae, not to mention very badly timed. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 05:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- If created in Inkscape why was it not outputted in SVG which is the whole point of Inkscape. In any case I !vote
- Also if indeed the file was created in Inkscape I'd like to see the SVG output, at least then I could be assuaged that it was trace rather than a straight-forward rip. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 05:37, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- I just overlaid them in photoshop. They are pixel for pixel the exact same scale, and even the exact same orientation! Check for yourself.[4][5]67.168.135.107 05:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Ahem, people, map data is not copyrightable, just as facts are not copyrightable. As long as none of the creative content was copied, there is no problem. Using an svg program to copy coastlines is not a problem. On the other hand, copying an entire map with layout and labeling and color choice is a problem. Also, lying about how you made a map might be a problem, as far as Commons is concerned. There is no copyright violation by this image. regards. --PumknPi (talk) 07:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- The data isn't being questioned, it's the presentation that's the problem. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 07:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- No, most of the comments refer to the "shape" - that is not a problem. Only one comment refers to "labeling schemes". The quality of review here illustrates Commons' incompetence with regards to copyright. --PumknPi (talk) 07:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- I answered the question because I'm the only one who has overtly stated that it's a copyvio, and my statement is based on the presentation with it being an obvious derivation of the copyrighted Voidokilia graphic. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 08:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- And I referred to Fæ's claim that he had traced the google image, which would have made this a COM:DW of the satellite image. Btw, there was a first upload that was larger - why did Fæ reduce the size? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:21, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- No, Pieter, tracing the boundaries of a copyrighted map is Not a copyright violation. Data cannot be copyrighted, just as facts cannot be copyrighted. A coastline boundary cannot be copyrighted. If you take a Google map and run it through a processor to extract the boundaries and then make a map from those boundaries, it is not a copyright violation. On the other hand, if you copy a google map's labeling and layout - things that involve creative content - then that would be a copyright violation. --PumknPi (talk) 08:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- At the OpenStreetMap project, the FAQ says not to use Google. The coastline is reality and reality cannot be copyrighted, one may draw the same coastline as in a satellite view. But a commercial cartographer is likely to get in legal trouble for admitting to use proprietary satellite imagery. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- I guess they are incompetent nincompoops too. --PumknPi (talk) 09:08, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- At the OpenStreetMap project, the FAQ says not to use Google. The coastline is reality and reality cannot be copyrighted, one may draw the same coastline as in a satellite view. But a commercial cartographer is likely to get in legal trouble for admitting to use proprietary satellite imagery. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- No, Pieter, tracing the boundaries of a copyrighted map is Not a copyright violation. Data cannot be copyrighted, just as facts cannot be copyrighted. A coastline boundary cannot be copyrighted. If you take a Google map and run it through a processor to extract the boundaries and then make a map from those boundaries, it is not a copyright violation. On the other hand, if you copy a google map's labeling and layout - things that involve creative content - then that would be a copyright violation. --PumknPi (talk) 08:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- No, most of the comments refer to the "shape" - that is not a problem. Only one comment refers to "labeling schemes". The quality of review here illustrates Commons' incompetence with regards to copyright. --PumknPi (talk) 07:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Delete - this "map" doesn't match satellite photos, its origins was lied about, and there are many other things that make it seem like it is more fraudulent than real. I don't see any justification for a fake map regardless of the copyright status. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:21, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Striking because the map has changed. The concerns about the origins are still there but that doesn't matter as much to the end result. I would like the earlier versions possibly RevDel'd but that isn't too much of a concern to me and is mostly just clean up. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - obviously a trace of the tourist map instead of Google, and a trace of Google would have been just as questionable. (Wait a second, did I just agree with Ottava on something? That can't be right...) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Comment with regard to lying - meh, so I misremembered exactly where I took some of the coastal points from, this was uploaded 15 months ago. I have made thousands of great contributions to Wikimedia Commons over the last year (counting Faebot), I am human and had an RfA to respond to rather than this DR amongst several raised by Pieter Kuiper during his apparent detailed search through all my uploads while my RfA was continuing. To make allegations that I am lying is quite a jump. This was not a direct tracing but points were taken from some map or other, possibly the one that 67.168.135.107 (a user banned on Wikipedia according to the block there) took time to research and point out. I have checked my copy of Inkscape for this file but there is nothing in the recent files, so it was probably deleted shortly after uploading. As for svg vs. png, well png is a lot smaller, and you will note from my user talk page that Pieter Kuiper has raised
somesvg files of mine for deletion on the basis of being larger that the png versions, so I guess he would agree with that choice. Thanks, and a Happy New Year. --Fæ (talk) 20:25, 31 December 2011 (UTC)- This was not a direct tracing? What about the placement of text, the arrows to Hora and Pylos, the circle around Voidokilia?67.168.135.107 20:43, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
- Hello again banned user on Wikipedia, your contributions to Wikimedia Commons seem to be for the single purpose of hounding me as anyone that checks your contribution history can see. Answering your questions seems to be pointless as this only seems to encourage you. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 20:51, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
- You have been told multiple times that a ban/block on en.wp is not relevant to accounts on Commons, and I'd suggest that it was harassment for you to keep bringing it up every time you have an interaction with this IP user. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 21:44, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
- Hello again banned user on Wikipedia, your contributions to Wikimedia Commons seem to be for the single purpose of hounding me as anyone that checks your contribution history can see. Answering your questions seems to be pointless as this only seems to encourage you. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 20:51, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
- Rubbish about the file sizes, most times SVG are smaller than their equivalent PNG, if done right. The filesize of this file should be about 15k max. And being a larger filesize is not a reason for deletion. I shall hunt out the SVGs of yours for deletion and put Pieter straight.
- Strange, but not surprising. I went back two months in Pieter's contrib history, not only has he not nominated any svg files for deletion because they were too large, he not nominated svg files for deletion full stop! Not been telling more porkies have we young man? --21:13, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
- Look on my user talk page. I probably did do something strange in Inkscape as the svg was large. --Fæ (talk) 21:19, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
- Firstly the chart was done in Illustrator not Inkscape, secondly you did do something wrong, you chose to use software you didn't know how to drive. You didn't do a vector illustration, you merely autotraced the existing png...and very badly too. May I suggest that you don't have a clue how to do vector work, so I find it quite difficult to believe that you did this map from scratch. It certainly isn't an autotrace, whoever did it would have to know bezier curves, stroking, layering, typography and how to get round the Inkscape arrow rendering problem etc. You obviously don't otherwise you'd have done a very straight-forward manual trace of the ISO chart. Sorry young man, my trust in you is heading down at a fast rate of knots. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 21:38, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
- What does "Harassment by Fae" mean in your edit comment? Bad faith much?
- With regard to the other svg, I was talking off the top of my head, I am not surprised that when you checked the details it was not done in Inkscape, hence my use of the word "probably".
- Anyway it's New Year's Eve and I have things to do rather than be a free Aunt Sally for you to repeatedly accuse of lying every time I write something here. Perhaps you can have a good gripe about me at AN? Hopefully you will feel better about life in general in the New Year. --Fæ (talk) 21:50, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
- Top of your head? I was thinking a lot further south. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 21:57, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
- I assume you are thinking about my penis. You seem to find it fascinating. --Fæ (talk) 22:04, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
- You may have a predilection with penises, but I was referring to you talking out of your arse. It seems we now know where your thoughts are though. In any case, I've never seen a talking penis before, I would have thought that it sounded a tad nasally to be honest. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 22:11, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
- I assume you are thinking about my penis. You seem to find it fascinating. --Fæ (talk) 22:04, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
- With regard to the harassment bit, if you read the post instead of just the edit summary, I was referring to my message above about you harassing 67.168.135.107 by continually mentioning his ban/block on en.wp. And there is no good faith to be had on that point. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 22:01, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
- Top of your head? I was thinking a lot further south. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 21:57, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
- Firstly the chart was done in Illustrator not Inkscape, secondly you did do something wrong, you chose to use software you didn't know how to drive. You didn't do a vector illustration, you merely autotraced the existing png...and very badly too. May I suggest that you don't have a clue how to do vector work, so I find it quite difficult to believe that you did this map from scratch. It certainly isn't an autotrace, whoever did it would have to know bezier curves, stroking, layering, typography and how to get round the Inkscape arrow rendering problem etc. You obviously don't otherwise you'd have done a very straight-forward manual trace of the ISO chart. Sorry young man, my trust in you is heading down at a fast rate of knots. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 21:38, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
- Look on my user talk page. I probably did do something strange in Inkscape as the svg was large. --Fæ (talk) 21:19, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
- Strange, but not surprising. I went back two months in Pieter's contrib history, not only has he not nominated any svg files for deletion because they were too large, he not nominated svg files for deletion full stop! Not been telling more porkies have we young man? --21:13, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
- Of course I do not agree with Fæ's suggestion that I would agree with him about the relative sizes of svg versus png (unless one does something really stupid). Fæ's account is not credible. Time for another "clean start"? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
- This was not a direct tracing? What about the placement of text, the arrows to Hora and Pylos, the circle around Voidokilia?67.168.135.107 20:43, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
- Hello "pietkuip", I see you are live commenting on this discussion in Wikipedia Review as the same time as writing here. Exactly how much were you involved in off-wiki discussions during my RfA that attracted so much blatant tag-teaming? Are you intending to attract users such as the above banned user on Wikipedia to this discussion? You would think that on New Year's Eve you might have more fun things to do. --Fæ (talk) 22:04, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
- And the relevance to this DR is what? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 22:13, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Less problematic version loaded using fewer data points for the coastline. My vector version eventually tracked down in an archive. --Fæ (talk) 06:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
| This discussion has been archived. Please do not modify it. |
|---|
| The following is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. |
|
- Google at this zoom uses TerraMetrics -- it's basically processed Landsat, so there should not be any problems from this direction. Trycatch (talk) 14:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted as all variants of this map are based on non-free original material, see COM:CB#Maps & satellite imagery. In particular Google Maps is not an acceptable source. In general it does not work out to redraw maps from non-free material even if you attempt to simplify things or to change some of the elements (like color schemes). I wonder why such sources were taken where free alternatives exist. I want to refer to the excellent collection of free sources for maps at de-wp: de:Hilfe:Karten#Quellen (in German language but you do not need to know German to follow the links and understand the copyright hints) and a local list which is quite brief: Commons:Free media resources/Map. As we have these alternatives, I simply chose to follow our precautionary principle and cut the challenging question short if the latest upload is sufficiently free from its non-free source. OSM handles this similarly for the same good reasons. --AFBorchert (talk) 17:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Authors for the photos on the cover are not mentioned, and I doubt the OTRS contains evidence of permission for all of these. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 01:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- Fae is a member of OTRS, so it would be good to check and see if he didn't approve his own image or had a friend perform a special favor. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- It is not his own image; someone (likely the author) sent this to permissions, and then Fæ uploaded it. But permission by the book author is not enough. Even if the publisher gave permission, it would need to be very explicit about the rights of the included photos. But some OTRS agents are very easygoing about verification of permission (example). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- Comment OTRS shows a CC-BY-SA license in an e-mail signed by Joel McIver, the author of the book. The e-mail is from a web site that is apparently McIver's, so as best I can tell, the permission is authentic. Pieter's question of whether it is sufficient is certainly valid. When a publisher clears copyrights on photos for a book, usually the licenses cover only use in that book, both in print and electronic versions, as well as in advertising and promotion of the book. A license here goes beyond that. So, if McIver is business savvy and knows all that, then this is probably all right -- he's not going to sub-license something that he doesn't have rights to. But many authors are not business savvy, hence my not taking a position -- too close to call without more input. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs)
Kept as this cover which came by email through our address for photo submissions and has been put under a CC-BY-SA-3.0 license by its author. He has clearly stated that he is himself the copyright holder and, in cases like this, that is good enough for us. The genuineness of the email address has been confirmed (and now checked again by me). --AFBorchert (talk) 12:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
- Renomination #1
I still believe that permission by the publisher should be required for the cover. McIver did not design it, and he did not make the photos that are shown there. According to the copyright notice in the book (Amazon, look inside, click on "copyright"), McIver only owns rights on the text, but there is an explicit notice "Volume copyright © 2008 Outline Press Ltd, all rights reserved" and "no part of this book may be reproduced [...] without permission by the publisher". (my emphasis) Renominating by Jim's suggestion. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- Raising Deletion review immediately after the last one closes, in a discussion where I have been accused of lying and misusing my role as an OTRS volunteer, yet again, seems a strong case for misuse of process intended to blatantly image stalk. Pieter Kuiper, do you not feel this might be seen as a problem? --Fæ (talk) 15:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- No. The problem is your generosity with OTRS tickets. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- I am spending the weekend at at OTRS workshop, which I was part of organizing, with the purpose of training new OTRS agents and discussing future processes and policy with WMF representatives. If you believe you have a case that I am incompetent to do this sort of unpaid voluntary work, I suggest you raise the matter formally rather than making a series of defamatory allegations in deletion requests being raised as part of your image stalking campaign. I suggest you contact an OTRS admin, I'm in the middle of a discussion of OTRS governance, so that seems quite relevant. --Fæ (talk) 16:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- No. The problem is your generosity with OTRS tickets. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
![17 File:Michelangelo_-_Sistine_Chapel_ceiling_-_Lunette_"Hezekiah_-_Manasseh_-_Amon".jpg](#File:Michelangelo_-_Sistine_Chapel_ceiling_-_Lunette_"Hezekiah_-_Manasseh_-_Amon".jpg){kind=link}
_box,_Charleston,_1820,_silver,_National_Museum_of_American_Jewish_History.JPG){kind=link}
![[3]](http://20102.kitkanpur.com/colleges/photos/home/banner_copy1.jpg){kind=link}
_box,_Charleston,_1820,_silver,_National_Museum_of_American_Jewish_History.JPG){kind=link}
_box,_Charleston,_1820,_silver,_National_Museum_of_American_Jewish_History.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
![[5]](http://www.voidokilia.com/voidokilia/00_Voidokilia-Area-Access.jpg){kind=link}
Delete I actually suggested to Pieter that he reopen this image, see the talk page. I have no axe to grind with Fae, and I believe that the OTRS e-mail was correctly and honestly reported, but was not sufficient. That is not an issue with Fae's work as an OTRS volunteer, but with the decision above.
I was on the fence the first time around. After Pieter did additional research and determined that the book has two copyrights -- text (McIver) and everything else (Outline Press Ltd), it became clear to me that we decided it incorrectly, because McIver does not own the copyright to the cover and therefore has no right to give a license to Commons. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- I have written back to Joel McIver asking him to confirm the copyright situation with his publisher, or to provide a free release from the publisher. The email is available on the same OTRS ticket number. --Fæ (talk) 00:12, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Keep The publisher as well as the author have confirmed the release of this image on Template:OTRS ticket. As Pieter Kuiper has previously accused me of lying as an OTRS volunteer, I suggest another volunteer with access confirms these details so that he can hear this from someone he might trust. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:21, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep I congratulate Fae on persistence. The first response from the publisher reads, in part:
- "This is to confirm that you have our permission to use the cover image for 100 Metal Guitarists on the Wikipedia page for the book."
- That is, of course, not sufficient. Fae wrote back:
- "Could you confirm that as well as permission for Wikipedia, you support the release on a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike license as can be seen on the link above?"
- And the publisher responded:
- "Yes, that's fine."
- In both cases the e-mail came from an address at the publisher's domain.
- I can close this, but it might be better if one of our colleague's did. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:35, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept I was reluctant to close this in January because I was heavily involved in the discussion, but it's been more than two months with no further comment. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:56, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
COM:DW. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:49, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted as we have no freedom of panorama in Greece. --AFBorchert (talk) 12:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
- File:Essay Blake.svg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
The original png was 63 kB, the lower-quality svg is 2.66 MB. And the Blake image just is not suitable for vector graphics (from File:William Blake, a critical essay (page 9).png). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:04, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
- Delete Really badly done autotraces. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 21:28, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted as the diagram is not used as it is indeed of low quality per COM:SCOPE#File not legitimately in use. The original PNG is not far better due to its low resolution and was obviously not a suitable source for autotracing. It would probably be best to redraw this diagram from scratch as SVG. --AFBorchert (talk) 12:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Not below the threshold of originality. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps, it may be more appropriate to recognize that the GLF was a movement rather than an organization and logos such as this creation were freely distributed on badges and leaflets without any claim of copyright. As the creating movement is long gone, there is nobody to challenge such images, hence the London School of Economics releases similar images from its archives relating to the GLF as no copyright known. --Fæ (talk) 22:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete It also infringes on the rights of the photographer (probably from Minnesota Historical Society, not LSE). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- I would doubt there is enough creative content by the photographer to introduce a new copyright. Even though this is in the form of a badge, in essence this is a laminated 2D object and the photograph only faithful reproduction thereof. --Fæ (talk) 16:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - clearly a copyrighted drawing / logo --Cholo Aleman (talk) 13:31, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted as this photograph and the depicted object go far beyond {{PD-textlogo}} and are eligible for copyright. --AFBorchert (talk) 13:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
PD-old claim doesn't apply to this collage of old photos. Sure, the photos are PD-old, but not the collage GrapedApe (talk) 03:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - the collage lacks the originality to be copyrightable. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- I'm sure the creator of this complex arrangement of this collage, with its strategic placement of a dozen (admittedly PD) images, with text labels on each, would be surprised to hear that copyright doesn't accrue to the creator of a collage. Especially since the source website claims "© 2010 Pi Beta Phi Fraternity for Women." --GrapedApe (talk) 03:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep I too believe that the collage is too simple to merit copyright protection. And anybody can put copyright sign no anything, even on telephone book. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 09:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete We've discussed collages before, and the usual result has been deletion. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted as collages can have a copyright of their own. This has some kind of originality by selecting and arranging a couple of photographs that are put on framed cards. --AFBorchert (talk) 16:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
According to the Abkhazian SSR Constitution of 1978, the name used on the flag was not abbreviated https://www.fotw.info/flags/su-ab.html#1978 The correct image is at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_Abkhazian_ASSR.svg User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 06:22, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept as this is still used. Commons is not the ground to have content disputes to the point that an admin shall decide by deletion whether a file is incorrect or not. We delete such cases only if the file is unused and if their appears to be wide consensus that a file is incorrect. --AFBorchert (talk) 17:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
File was originally uploaded on ENWP by a user who was evading an indefinate block. The image is out of the commons project scope. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 05:14, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Statistical census information and graphical representations are clearly within scope. enwp is irrelevant here on Commons. All other files by this user should be transferred to Commons where they can be used. russavia (talk) 08:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Higer resolution version available: File:Ukrainian 100 hryvnia's note of the People's repub.jlic of Ukraine (1918) front side.jpg Very trivial (talk) 06:25, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
_front_side.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
small copy of File:Razval (Evgraf Sorokin).jpg -- Shakko (talk) 07:59, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Logo; copyrighted Sumurai8 (talk) 09:32, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio (Elder is not the author), low quality, unnecessary, ... . HombreDHojalata.talk 09:58, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
No evidence it is the work of the uploader appears to be a crop of image at http://www.basemilitar.com.br/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2134&start=943 with web address chopped out MilborneOne (talk) 10:06, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Doubtfully free, Harry Potter movie image Funfood ␌ 10:20, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
No Commons:Freedom of panorama in Russia. Subject died in 1988. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:25, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted cover, cannot be released under CC by anonymous editor Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- Now that I understand the policy better, I agree that it should be taken down. But perhaps you could help me answer a very specific question. If we wanted to clear specific visual materials for a free liscence (like an image gallery, for instance) are there prefabricated templates we could look at? Surely there must be such a resource for publishers. We're a small non-profit publication and want to expand access.
Deleted: I'm not sure I understand the question. Why don't you go to my talk page and try a different phrasing and I will try to be helpful. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:37, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:18, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:37, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:18, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:38, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 12:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 12:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:18, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:18, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Text only file. Could be replaced with wiki-markup. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 12:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
and File:Lidia Reghini di Pontremoli.png. Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:51, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:18, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Looks like a photo taken from a TV broadcast Wizardist (talk) 16:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:18, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
This is a stamp printed in the UAE and no information about publication date has been provided. According to the UAE copyright law it might be still protected. AMERICOPHILE 17:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:18, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
While image is identified as being from an old book, the source given is labeled "Copyright © Berfrois.com". Possible COM:COPYVIO. Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:00, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Kept: PD-Art. Yann (talk) 05:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
No source has been provided on the description page but an author and a source is available at the bottom of the image itself. Unfortunately the original license (cc-by-nc-nd 3.0) is not appropriate for Commons.
Note: the source has a smaller size in comparison to the uploaded one on Commons. AMERICOPHILE 18:06, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:18, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Copyright violation, see here - not is own work, not taken in 2011. Someone should check the other uploads of this user.. D.W. (talk) 18:20, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- File:RD Sun.JPG is from [6].--D.W. (talk) 18:59, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- File:MV BBC Maine.jpg from [7]..--D.W. (talk) 19:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- File:BBC GEORGIA.jpg from [8]
- File:BBC GREENLAND.jpg2.jpg from [9]
- File:BBC AFRICA.jpg from [10]
![[7]](http://www.boatnerd.com/news/newsthumbs/images-08-4/8-BBC-Maine-11-07-08-jm.jpg){kind=link}
- I am now sure that
mostall of his uploads are copyvios - better delete all of them to be save..--D.W. (talk) 19:54, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- I agree that these should generally be Delete, as they appear to be copyright violations; however, the last one File:BBC AFRICA.jpg is in use on German Wikipedia, so I don't believe it should be deleted without a tag on the file. I agree that it's unlikely any of these are legitimate uploads, but without a link (as is provided for the initial nomination) or some further opportunity for discussion, I don't think the last one (in use on a project) should be deleted. -Pete F (talk) 00:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: by Polarys, closed by Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Not simple enough to be hosted on Commons AMERICOPHILE 18:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:15, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Looks like promotion for this site. I don't see why the site is notable, so the screenshot probably fails COM:SCOPE. Probably not copyvio: the (highly promotional) description in Spanish tells that the site was created by someone called Leandro Tomassini, and this is also the name of the Commons account used for uploading the image. Stefan4 (talk) 19:06, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:14, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
COM:FOP#France. 84.61.131.15 19:51, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
slow resolution, no metadata, own work? Ezarateesteban 20:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
No links to the image and individual is not a notable person 66.108.76.159 20:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Keep Not a valid reason for deletion. -84user (talk) 05:44, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. The reason given is certainly valid -- we do not generally keep images of non-notable people. This person is marginally notable, see Marie Warder, so I would keep it if it were PD.
It is, however, taken from a family album and, therefore, probably not published until it was uploaded here in 2010. Unfortunately, South African law grants copyright for photographs for fifty years from their first publication, so it will be under copyright until 2060. Since the uploader does not know who the photographer was, there is no way to get permission to keep it.
Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
COM:DW. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:35, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- I have added FoP which applies in the British Museum. This is more than a simple 2D poster as this map would make no sense without the coins in it, making it a 3D creation. --Fæ (talk) 21:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete It is still a photo of a map with some coins on it, the map is not accidental background. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
unused private promo image - out of scope, unknown band Cholo Aleman (talk) 22:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 12:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
unused private image - no description, no value for the commons Cholo Aleman (talk) 22:26, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:01, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 22:27, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 12:48, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
unused promo image for a yoga-teacher - out of scope, unknown person - deep knowledge of yoga, but little knowledge of the wikipedia Cholo Aleman (talk) 22:30, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --AtelierMonpli (talk) 12:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 12:48, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 22:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 12:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Lots of brand logos, doubtfully free Funfood ␌ 22:46, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
77.177.21.180 23:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept: No reason given. Apparently validly licensed. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
No FOP in Japan for statues. MGA73 (talk) 23:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:57, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Stop the deployment Dealtsamsi (talk) 21:49, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep In use and not out of scope. --Funfood ␌ 21:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- Note - nominator is original uploader. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - In use means in scope, although I am sympathetic to someone wanting their image deleted, I see no compelling reason to here. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept: This own work/upload deletion request is quite a bit too late - free licenses are not revocable. Please think about your image release on upload. See http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ#What_if_I_change_my_mind.3F for info on this. This image is currently even in use on en:Sex-machine. Saibo (Δ) 17:45, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Photos stolen from somewhere else, please deletion. http://acidkasumi.blog8.fc2.com/blog-entry-616.html --Bordoolol
- Delete EXIF date matches blog entry date (2011年06月25日 20:32). This version here seems to be a edit of the image there. Note: there seems to be some technical error with the deletion request script. --Saibo (Δ) 15:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- That image link is a 404. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- Works for me. Try this: http://blog-imgs-47-origin.fc2.com.nyud.net/a/c/i/acidkasumi/20110625195245f59.jpg . The original jpeg link is taken from inside the blog entry. --Saibo (Δ) 20:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- Quoth the server, 404. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- Works for me. Try this: http://blog-imgs-47-origin.fc2.com.nyud.net/a/c/i/acidkasumi/20110625195245f59.jpg . The original jpeg link is taken from inside the blog entry. --Saibo (Δ) 20:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- That image link is a 404. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- Delete, per astute analysis by Saibo (talk · contribs), above. -- Cirt (talk) 17:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- Well, every date except the upload date here could be faked, but, well, unlikely. This is the "HTTP modified" date of the image: Sa 25 Jun 2011 12:52:46 CEST (which could also be faked ...) The additional object could have been edited-in but one can see the edit-out traces in our image here. --Saibo (Δ) 20:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Something like this would definitely be welcome here... if it'd be free. However, it is too likely to be a copyvio. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 07:31, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted - while I cannot see the full-size image (why it 404s for me but no one else I don't know), I accept the analysis by those commenting here. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:39, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Organization created 1984... this does not appear to be a textlogo, especially in another common law country (given recent revelations on wiki about how the UK, on whose law Canada is based, handles very simple logos). Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 23:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
dieses Foto wurde unter Verletzung von Eigentumsrechten gemacht 91.115.55.181 11:28, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- Bist du der Eigentümer? —Pill (talk) 20:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, 
dieses Foto wurde unter Verletzung von Eigentumsrechten erstellt 91.115.55.181 11:39, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, 
dieses Foto wurde unter Verletzung von Eigentumsrechten, versehen mit unrichtigen Informationen erstellt 91.115.55.181 11:41, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Was stimmt nicht? -- Herby (Vienna) (talk) 19:59, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted, 
Files uploaded by Sheilahilton (talk · contribs)
[edit]User uploaded a lot of copyvios which I tagged as such. I couldn't find these three anywhere using a simple Google search, but I still believe that they have been copied from somewhere. Also note that one of the photos is a duplicate.
Stefan4 (talk) 18:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: copyright violation Polarlys (talk) 19:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
不要なファイル Gp0017 (talk) 12:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Gallery created by mistake. Gp0017 (talk) 07:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per Uploader's request George Chernilevsky talk 19:36, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
几乎不可能被现在或未来的维基计划使用 一个 (talk) 11:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- The statement above seems to state that it cannot be useful for any Wikimedia project. I tend to agree that there are better quality educational images. But i want to raise the point that Commons exists for educational purposes, and not only for Wikipedia and other Wikimedia sites. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 09:43, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 17:47, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
There are too many failed files. I want upload a new file with better quality. Sepultura (talk) 06:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- That is not a reason to delete. Wrong revisions can simply be deleted from the list. FunkMonk (talk) 02:18, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept: No reason to delete the file (we are not saving space) PierreSelim (talk) 23:02, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
I would guess that this logo is too complex to be used without OTRS permission. Stefan4 (talk) 18:37, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
As marketing and communications manager at Cobo Center, I own and administer the rights to this logo that we recently developed and are beginning to roll out. No other logo is authorized for use by Cobo Center. --MaryKlida (talk) 18:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC)Mary Klida
- In that case, please follow the instructions at COM:OTRS. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:58, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
I have now done so. Thanks for your help. --MaryKlida (talk) 19:27, 28 December 2011 (UTC)Mary Klida
- Keep OTRS permission received. SarahStierch (talk) 05:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
description line indicates its connected with an ad campaign. and doesnt appear to be taken by the uploader (view history). spelling is suspicious of a nonprofessional uploader Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:58, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation Sreejith K (talk) 18:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Higher resolution version available: File:Ukrainian 100 hryvnia's note of the People's republic of Ukraine (1918) back side.jpg. Very trivial (talk) 07:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
_back_side.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Deleted and redirected to second file. Sreejith K (talk) 18:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
copyrighted works 124.244.189.247 12:09, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: From http://www.worldjournal.com/ as per http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:%E6%98%9F%E9%9B%B2%E9%96%8B%E7%A4%BA%E4%BD%9B%E9%99%80%E7%B4%80%E5%BF%B5%E9%A4%A8%E7%82%BA%E3%80%8C%E9%A6%AC%E8%8B%B1%E4%B9%9D%E9%80%A3%E4%BB%BB%E7%8D%BB%E7%A6%AE%E3%80%8D.jpg&oldid=64457725 Sreejith K (talk) 18:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Doesn't this show too much copyrighted software to be used here? Stefan4 (talk) 18:39, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Not a free software screenshot Sreejith K (talk) 18:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
This was reverted by the uploader from the file page - so this is a DR now: Permission from photographer missing (see file page history) --Saibo (Δ) 18:04, 27 December 2011 (UTC) {{no permission since|month=December|day=27|year=2011}} Saibo (Δ) 22:37, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
I am unable to understand , why every time i am getting these messages , as I have taken these photographs, and doing a noble cause to share information about the college(kanpur Institute of technology), if I am doing it wrong , please suggest me a way , how to upload a photo graps that I have taken ( which license I have to provide) or what exact information I have to provide — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mparvez85 (talk • contribs) 2011-12-29T06:12:31 (UTC)
- Hello, thank you for trying to make Commons a better place. If somebody doesn't believe that the photo is your work, the easiest way to deal with that is to follow COM:OTRS process, that will resolve everything. Thanks for your time. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 09:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comment Mparvez85! You had mentioned "kit.ac.in" as source and another person as author. Who is this person? Is it you? Are you the photographer? Or did you download this image from the website of the college? Don't you have a bigger resolution of the images? Thanks for your help! --Saibo (Δ) 14:40, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No OTRS permission Sreejith K (talk) 18:11, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Belongs to someone else Yarchie (talk) 12:01, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per uploader request. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:12, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
i dont need it Colejohnson66 (talk) 04:03, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep "I don't need it" isn't a valid reason to delete any file on Wikimedia Commons. --Sdrtirs (talk) 13:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
the logo has been changed to Computer.svg. If you do keep it (which I object to), please move it to File:iSim logo.png. --Colejohnson66 (talk) 00:44, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
iPhoneEmu was never released and will not be Colejohnson66 (talk) 01:33, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. - {{Out of scope}} --Sreejith K (talk) 18:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Based on the source, I'd guess that they are copyvios from somewhere, although I don't know where. Also note that the photos were taken using different cameras.
Stefan4 (talk) 19:00, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. Sreejith K (talk) 18:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- File:Pebbles Harikalar Diyari Flintstones 06029 nevit.jpg
- File:Wilma Flintstone Harikalar Diyari Flintstones 06018 nevit.jpg
- File:Wilma Flintstone Harikalar Diyari Flintstones 06020 nevit.jpg
- File:Harikalar Diyari Flintstones 06029 nevit.jpg
- File:Harikalar Diyari Flintstones 06028 nevit.jpg
- File:Harikalar Diyari Flintstones 06027 nevit.jpg
- File:Harikalar Diyari Flintstones 06020 nevit.jpg
- File:Harikalar Diyari Flintstones 06019 nevit.jpg
- File:Harikalar Diyari Flintstones 06018 nevit.jpg
- File:Fred Flintstone Harikalar Diyari Flintstones 06020 nevit.jpg
- File:Fred Flintstone Harikalar Diyari Flintstones 06018 nevit.jpg
- File:Dino Harikalar Diyari Flintstones 06029 nevit.jpg
- File:Dino Harikalar Diyari Flintstones 06028 nevit.jpg
- File:Betty Rubble Harikalar Diyari Flintstones 06019 nevit.jpg
- File:Barney Rubble Harikalar Diyari Flintstones 06019 nevit.jpg
Copyvio. The Flintstones was published in 1960. Even this image is considered as a copyrighted work. Takabeg (talk) 10:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Discussed & closed here Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Harikalar_Diyari_Smurfs_gargamel_06050_nevit.jpg and here Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Harikalar Diyari Smurfs 06048 nevit.jpg
The images in Harikalar Diyari Public amusement park, Sincan, Ankara, are taken with FOP Law. Law No. 5846 of 5 December 1951, on Intellectual and Artistic Works, as last amended on 7 June 1995 by Law No. 4110, section 40, says: The duplication through illustrations, graphics, photographs, etc., promulgation, demonstration by projection at public places and broadcasting through radio and similar media of the works of fine arts stationarily placed on the public roads, streets and avenues are allowed. This authority is exclusive only to the outer shape in the works of architecture. Unless a prohibitory record is clearly placed on them by their owners, the works of fine arts can be demonstrated at public places by their possessors or by others upon their approval. The law has had a few more amendments since then, but I don't see any that changed that section.
--Nevit Dilmen (talk) 11:37, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
The article 40 of the Turkish copyright law (No. 5846 of 5 December 1951, English text), is related with works settled on umumi yollar (public roads), caddeler (streets) ve meydanlar (squares). But Harikalar Diyarı is neither public road, nor street, square. It's an amusement park. Takabeg (talk) 12:11, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- Comment The park is open to public, no admission fee or registration ticket is needed. There is not any law prohibiting 2D captures of 3D work. No signs prohibiting photography. Article 40 speaks of photos, prints and graphics. No mention of 3D works like buildings or sculptures. There is no article about special public places likes parks, gardens, etc.
You are opening several DR's on same issue. Another one here Commons:Deletion requests/File:Harikalar Diyari Smurfs 06048 nevit.jpg I guess all discussions should had be done under already one of the closed discussions, instead of opening numerous new DR's.
--Nevit Dilmen (talk) 20:27, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
It's not important whether the admission fee and/or registration ticket is needed or not. (cf. the article 41 of the law says: Girişi ücretli veya ücretsiz umuma açık mahaller; eser, icra, fonogram, yapım ve yayınların kullanım ve/veya iletimine ilişkin 52 nci maddeye uygun sözleşme yaparak hak sahiplerinden veya üyesi oldukları meslek birliklerinden izin alır ve sözleşmelerde yazılı malî hak ödemelerini bu madde hükümlerine göre yaparlar. (Public premises where the entrance may or may not be subject to a fee, shall conclude a contract in accordance with article 52 with right holders or collecting societies to which the right holders are members, in order to obtain permission for the use and/or communication of works, performances, phonograms, productions and broadcasts and make the payments for economic rights stated in such contracts in accordance with this article.) The important is that the Turkish copyright law clearly lists and indicates objects of exemption. Takabeg (talk) 00:30, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
In conclusion, there is no legal basis for us to make them free content. Takabeg (talk) 00:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- Comment see also Commons talk:Licensing/Archive 28#Statues in Turkey. -84user (talk) 05:11, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- Comment It is not as clear as water! as claimed by Takabeg.
Takabeg has opened a new and seperate DR. It is abusive at best. All DR's should had be opened under the already closed DR instead of multiple ones.
There is no clear law prohibiting capturing photos 3D objects placed on public places. There are laws for other countries but not for Turkey. Parks may not be specifically be mentioned but they are not excluded as well. Copyright law is in place to protect poets, writers etc. My stance as a photographer is against deletionist policies when there is not a clear LAW prohibiting 2D reproduction of 3D works uploaded. 2D reproduction of 2D pictures is specially different from 2D reproductions of 3D objects.
The the law is not as clear as Takbeg suggests. Takbeg says here users misread and misunderstood articles of law.
--Nevit Dilmen (talk) 23:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Another DR opened here:
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Harikalar Diyari 05984 nevit.jpg
--Nevit Dilmen (talk) 23:23, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep The FoP law is very clear. These pictures are allowed. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 17:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Please read Commons talk:Freedom of panorama#Turkey. The Turkish copyright law doesn't permit for all works of fine art permanently displayed outdoors. It permit for all works of fine art permanently displayed on public streets, (public) avenues or (public) squares. Takabeg (talk) 17:52, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Kept: There's freedom of panorama in Turkey. A park is a public place, free to access of the public Cambalachero (talk) 14:20, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Inaccurate image. Actually a "Photo of Kawaihae grass house, attributed to Brigham, 1889" according to this book KAVEBEAR (talk) 10:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept: If the description is not completely accurate, fix it. The copyright status is not disputed Cambalachero (talk) 14:11, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Die alte version der Datei verstoßt gegen Lizenzauflagen, da sie nur Personen des Industriearbeitskreis Weihenstephaner Standards zugänglich ist. Gründe: Nur die Mitglieder sollen mit dem Logo werben können. Die neue Version des Bildes ist unbedenklich! Diese kann wegen der Qualität nicht für Werbezwecke geeignet und ist auch auf der homepage www.weihenstephaner-standards.de verfügbar. WS Pack Food (talk) 15:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Mit alter Version meine ich die Version http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/2/21/20111228092051!WS_Double_Logo_FOOD_PACK.jpg (talk) 16:22, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 02:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
erreur dans le nom commise lors du téléversement. Althiphika (talk) 15:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I guess that this in principle is software owned by SONY but maybe it is too simple to be eligible for copyright in the first place? Stefan4 (talk) 18:38, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps this page (with its images) is a precedent: en:Electronic program guide -- in particular, this image: en:File:TV Guide Interactive.jpg DeeperThought (talk) 19:08, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
The Wikipedia TiVo page also shows a simple screenshot, to demonstrate an innovative feature of the product: en:File:TiVOThumpsUp.jpg DeeperThought (talk) 19:18, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
I think this image is similar to the two examples above -- if so, does the type of license need to be changed? Any pointers or examples? This is all kind of new to me. Thanks. DeeperThought (talk) 20:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
- I took the liberty to change your links from full URLs into interwiki links above. Your examples are completely different in that they show photos of people (which are obviously non-free). Those two images are hosted as fair use images on English Wikipedia (although one of them lacks a fair use rationale, so I tagged that image about it). This image is instead hosted on Wikimedia Commons where no fair use is allowed. Generally, a screenshot of some piece of software belongs to the one who made the software that the screenshot shows. This screenshot shows some software made by SONY, so by that logic, this screenshot would belong to SONY, but there is one important thing here: the screenshot is very simple, so it might not meet the threshold of originality. In that case, there is no copyright at all, but I'm not sure really where the screenshot stands regarding the threshold of originality, so I would need a comment from someone else. --Stefan4 (talk) 00:13, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
It would be a shame to delete this simple screenshot, since it vividly illustrates the most important aspect of the equipment it pertains to. And it is extremely difficult to imagine Sony objecting...-96.237.7.195 11:18, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Possibly unfree file FASTILY (TALK) 20:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- File:Harikalar Diyari Smarfs gargamel 06047 nevit.jpg
- File:Harikalar Diyari Smurfs gargamel 06050 nevit.jpg
- File:Harikalar Diyari Smurfs 06048 nevit.jpg
Copyvio. The Smurfs was published in 1958. The article 40 of the Turkish copyright law (English text) is related with works settled on umumi yollar (public roads), caddeler (streets) ve meydanlar (squares). However Harikalar Diyarı is neither public road, nor street, square. It's an amusement park. Takabeg (talk) 12:22, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep FOP. 2D reproduction of 3D objects. Already closed DR is being reopened at multiple locations! Commons:Deletion requests/File:Barney Rubble Harikalar Diyari Flintstones 06019 nevit.jpg I suggest all DR's to be merged. --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 20:51, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Already closed DR's here Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Harikalar_Diyari_Smurfs_gargamel_06050_nevit.jpg and here Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Harikalar Diyari Smurfs 06048 nevit.jpg --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 20:53, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- Comment In Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Harikalar_Diyari_Smurfs_gargamel_06050_nevit.jpg and here Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Harikalar Diyari Smurfs 06048 nevit.jpg, users misread and misunderstood articles of law. There is no legal basis for us to make them free content. Takabeg (talk) 00:32, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep The FoP law is plain as day. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 17:23, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Please read Commons talk:Freedom of panorama#Turkey. The Turkish copyright law doesn't permit for all works of fine art permanently displayed outdoors. It permit for all works of fine art permanently displayed on public streets, (public) avenues or (public) squares. Takabeg (talk) 17:51, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- Copy of a comment given in a related DR. I wonder if this theme park wouldn't qualify as a public street. In Belgium, the new Région Wallonne's Forest code considers private paths openly accessible to public, without any indication it's private by a sign or a barrier, as public paths for the code application. Doing so, the legislator put in the law a doctrine analysis. Similarly, the road code is applicable to any private property (like a supermarket parking) where anybody can access without a barrier. Could you make some inquiries on how Turkey law, jurisprudence and doctrine treat the private estate openly accessible by all? --Dereckson (talk) 19:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC) Added here --Dereckson (talk) 15:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Kept: As in similar DR about FOP in Turkey Cambalachero (talk) 13:42, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Derivative work of Hello Kitty? MGA73 (talk) 23:27, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete cute, but copyvio. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 09:49, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete copyright violation. Comment Same file on enwiki nominated for deletion here. Ebe123 (talk) 16:13, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
- Comment There is a lot of spare area with trees etc around the bus. HK does not cover the back of bus entirely too. It just a snapshot with HK in 10% of photo area. --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 17:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
- I do not think that en:de minimis would apply here... The name of the file is HelloKitty... and the Hello Kitty is the motive of the photo. If we cut out the Hello Kitty would the photo still be as usefull as before? --MGA73 (talk) 20:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment According to this precedent, the copyright of original work (character) is not protected. File:Ana.b747.pokemon.arp.750pix.jpg, File:Pokemon Jets.jpg are also uploaded. Takabeg (talk) 05:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep per precedent: the defendant used the photograph of a fine art that was drawn by the plaintiff on public bus for commercial usage and won the case (cf. ja:File:Hatobus 794-hellokitty01 ver2005.jpg, ja:File:Hatobus 793-hellokitty02 ver2005.jpg, ja:File:Hatobus 794-hellokitty01 ver2007.jpg, ja:File:Hatobus 793-hellokitty02 ver2007.jpg, File:Hatobus 794 hellokittybus-01 ver2009.jpg, File:Hatobus 793 hellokittybus-02 ver2009.jpg, File:Hatobus 793 Hello Kitty Bus-02 version2011.jpg and ja:ファイル:PB051101.JPG). Takabeg (talk) 05:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I have no chance to read the precedent because I do not understand the language. But the excistence of other photos is not a good argument to keep this photo. So I hope someone can read it and close this DR. --MGA73 (talk) 20:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I shew other Kittys not as an argument for justifying the existence of File:HelloKittyBus.jpg, but for avoiding from double standard. If File:HelloKittyBus.jpg would be deleted, other Kittys will have to be investigated. As to Japanese text, User:Zscout370, User:とある白い猫 understand Japanese language. Takabeg (talk) 22:36, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- All the Japanese texts from the pages that you linked were just when each design of the bus was used and where it was at when it was taken. I also checked ja.wikipedia to see if there was a deletion request for the images. Plus some are tagged with GFDL and others with a license that prevents moving to Commons. The only precedent I found was http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Ana.b747.pokemon.arp.750pix.jpg from 2008 where it is a similar situation. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- They decided on their local exemption doctrine policy and "recommend" not to move to Commons to keep images in Japanese Wikipedia, to prepare for the worst case that images would be deleted in Commons. Did you read this precedent ? Takabeg (talk) 23:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- I'll look at that; the page you liked deals with the FOP issues because ja.wikipedia does not allow fair use (but they also do not allow PD-US-Gov). User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 02:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- To summarize the case, a photographer was sued by a train company located in Yokohama because of photographs of the trains that he took in the 1970's. Later on, the photographer published these photos in a book that was sold, thus the creation of the lawsuit due to unpaid royalties. The trains themselves consisted of mostly basic colors and shapes instead of a work of art. Also, because the work of art is on a plane or a bus that is parked in a hanger or garage, respectively, doesn't mean it is not accessible to the public in the terms of putting works out in the public. The lawsuit was thrown out and the photographer was within his rights according to Article 47 of the Japanese copyright law. However, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:FOP#Japan says these images are not supposed to be used commercially, which will be a violation of our policies. Plus, the main focus of this image is for Hello Kitty (the zoom, the file name and the use) so it is not just a public shot somewhere in Japan; the focus is on the photo. Plus Hello Kitty is not a simple shape or design, if we went by that court ruling. I put the ruling through Google Translate, but I cannot vouch for the absolute accuracy of the translation User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 03:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- I'll look at that; the page you liked deals with the FOP issues because ja.wikipedia does not allow fair use (but they also do not allow PD-US-Gov). User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 02:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- They decided on their local exemption doctrine policy and "recommend" not to move to Commons to keep images in Japanese Wikipedia, to prepare for the worst case that images would be deleted in Commons. Did you read this precedent ? Takabeg (talk) 23:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
According to the Supreme Court of Japan, "Copyrighted work of art" means those exclusively beeing subject of aesthetic appreciation as a complete artistic work apart from its practical and functional aspects. NiChair and Furby (Category:Furby) were not accepted as Copyrighted work of art. And they are protected not with copyright but with design right (Lecture of a sectional manager of the Japanese Patent Office. I think this is only legal basis (apart from some personal expedients on articles of laws) to keep most symbols of the local authority in Japan. As you know, even if many local authorities claim their copyrights of their symbols (), Wikimedia Commons permits upload of such symbols. Takabeg (talk) 04:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Only if those symbols are presented in Japanese legislation, as described by Article 13. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 04:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- It's your personal expedient. Because as you known, many of them indicate in their website, who is the copyright holder of symbols (for example: File talk:Tochigi Tochigi chapter.JPG, File talk:Sano Tochigi chapter.JPG, File talk:Nikko Tochigi chapter.JPG, File talk:Sakura Tochigi chapter.JPG, File talk:Shimotsuke Tochigi chapter.JPG, File talk:Nasukarasuyama Tochigi chapter.JPG, File talk:Nasushiobara Tochigi chapter.JPG). Takabeg (talk) 04:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- It isn't just my own personal view, but this is neither the time nor place to discuss that. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 04:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- I know here is not the place to discuss on copyright violations of symbols of local authorities in Japan. However, we must avoid double standard. Takabeg (talk) 04:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Back to this image about the bus; if the bus was just randomly in a shot I would have had the same view as Mattbuck. But with the focus of this image being on Hello Kitty, I am just not sure yet about keep or delete. But I do thank you for bringing the case laws forward to us; this was something we have not seen before. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 04:50, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- I know here is not the place to discuss on copyright violations of symbols of local authorities in Japan. However, we must avoid double standard. Takabeg (talk) 04:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- It isn't just my own personal view, but this is neither the time nor place to discuss that. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 04:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- It's your personal expedient. Because as you known, many of them indicate in their website, who is the copyright holder of symbols (for example: File talk:Tochigi Tochigi chapter.JPG, File talk:Sano Tochigi chapter.JPG, File talk:Nikko Tochigi chapter.JPG, File talk:Sakura Tochigi chapter.JPG, File talk:Shimotsuke Tochigi chapter.JPG, File talk:Nasukarasuyama Tochigi chapter.JPG, File talk:Nasushiobara Tochigi chapter.JPG). Takabeg (talk) 04:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - our policy in general seems to be that if we have something utilitarian (eg a bus, car, train) then we accept what's painted on it as simply being part of the picture - a de minimis argument really. It should have {{Trademark}} on it, and yes, if you just took the back it might well be a copyvio, but a bus is a utilitarian object and so is not eligible for copyright. If we did decide we had to delete this, we should also delete pretty much every image of a bus or train that doesn't have a very simple livery, and almost certainly all photos of racing cars. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- Not allowed on commons per similar case: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Remscheid Lüttringhausen - Bauernmarkt 13 ies.jpg -- 77.184.172.132 09:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- That is a German image; this is a Japanese image. The FOP rules are different. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 09:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete This is a tough one, it's borderline either way. I somewhat agree with Mattbuck – it could easily be argued that it's a photo of a bus' rear end. However, the intended subject is clear and the result is that Hello Kitty logos take up about a quarter of the frame. It could only really be used for an article on Hello Kitty. I'm not sure what the history of this file is, but it's not being used anywhere as of this timestamp. I would just delete it. Osiris (talk) 17:03, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: The Hello Kitty image is clearly the primary focus of the photo - straight on shot, occupies most of the frame, title and description reinforce this. Photo has no apparent education purpose in the absence of the Hello Kitty image. This is not a photo of the bus or the street. No FOP for 2D works in Japan (and a bus is not a permanent installation). Zscout370 effectively refuted the applicability of the cited case. Dcoetzee (talk) 07:28, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
File:Cytotoxic_T_cell.jpg
[edit]
See Commons:Village pump/Archive/2011/11#Copyrighted work licensed for use by a US Government publication. I'm not entirely following the history, because the PDF source is no longer available, but it appears that these works may have been created on contract for the NIAID, not created by a NIAID employee. Even so, the page doesn't prove that the work is in the public domain, as the NIAID states is necessary for any page coming from their site (see http://www.niaid.nih.gov/links_policies/Pages/copyright.aspx).
I'm also listing the vector image, because it's a derivative of this one, although it may be different enough to garner its own copyright. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:28, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. Wayback machine is a wonderful tool (when operational :-). The source document [11] reads as a NIAID educational brochure. It comes from NIAD site and is sourced to NIAID with no sign of third parties. Materialscientist (talk) 23:21, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Notwithstanding the presence of the diagram in the older document with no credit, there is no reason to believe the credit to Jeanne Kelly on the modern site, attached directly to the diagram, is incorrect. She is a commercial contractor (see [12]) and the diagrams are consistent with her style. The notice itself is not required by post-1978 rules to avoid releasing the work into the public domain. NIAID may possess the copyright (obtained by transfer via contract) and be able to release it under a free license upon request, but the work is currently not free. There is a small possibility that Kelly used to be employed by NIAID as a full-time employee but I find this unlikely. Dcoetzee (talk) 07:41, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
- Is 'on' a typo of no or one? Changes my interpretation of the above completely, though I think I know which it is. Wizardman 04:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry fixed :-) Dcoetzee (talk) 09:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per Dcoetzee's comments Denniss (talk) 05:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
