Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2012/01/02
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
.gif){kind=link}
![58 File:RIAN_archive_761965_Drawing_"Vladimir_Ilyich_Lenin_near_GOELRO_map".jpg](#File:RIAN_archive_761965_Drawing_"Vladimir_Ilyich_Lenin_near_GOELRO_map".jpg){kind=link}
![77 File:RIAN_archive_561120_Reproduction_of_"V._Lenin's_Speech_on_GOELRO_plan"_painting_by_Leonid_Shmatko.jpg](#File:RIAN_archive_561120_Reproduction_of_"V._Lenin's_Speech_on_GOELRO_plan"_painting_by_Leonid_Shmatko.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
same image here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:%22Finally,_I_got_me_a_%60souvenir.%27_Somehow_the_Jerries_I_got_in_my_sights_always_seemed_to_have_bad_luck._Then_one_day..._-_NARA_-_535974.tif&page=1 91.57.86.224 01:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Keep 1. This schould not be the "delete" template (this is normally for copyright violations), but the "duplicate"! 2. This is the jpeg-version of the NARA-tif-file. There are always jpeg-duplicates of the tif-files! So, please see about the commons-deletion-policy before any further actions. 3. It would be nice to identify yourselves - just out of courtesy reasons. Thank you.Cobatfor (talk) 07:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: This image is no exact duplicate. And, as Cobatfor stated, this file is the jpg-version of the tif-file. High Contrast (talk) 09:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
from miraimages.photoshelter.com/image/I0000P7JeQ3dwkBs by www.wanderlustimages.com/gallery/page/bio/ 77.184.156.82 09:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: speedied as copyvio (Copyright:Howie Garber/Mira.com); even the NPS "source" page credits Garber Túrelio (talk) 10:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio LyingB (talk) 03:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Obvious copyright violation, image grabbed from imdb which is not a free content source. Martin H. (talk) 12:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Uploader claims own work but Exif shows the author to be a Lennart Månsson. Image looks like a typical web trawl, though tbh I can't find where it came from. Fred the Oyster (talk) 20:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation. Martin H. (talk) 22:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Highly doubtful that this is the own work of the uploader. It seems that this file is crop out of another map. High Contrast (talk) 17:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep from http://ptwc.weather.gov/?region=1&id=pacific.TIBPAC.2012.01.01.0536 /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: NOAA file; in the public domain; no need for a further discussion High Contrast (talk) 15:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
A derivative work of a collage of 4 previously copywrited images. Not enough originality to allow a re-license. Fred the Oyster (talk) 01:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- But the original images are all freely licensed, so why is it a problem? Michael Barera (talk) 01:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- Have I licensed the image incorrectly? If I have, please let me know so I can fix it. Michael Barera (talk) 01:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- Three of the iamges look good, but it also has File:CharlieWatts.jpg in it, which was a copyright violation. You'll need to change that. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, let me see what I can do... Michael Barera (talk) 22:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- Alright, I have cropped out the copyvio image and added a suitable replacement of Charlie. Is it okay now? Michael Barera (talk) 23:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- The proper license is cc-by-sa-2.0, for each image, so you can't release it as pd-self. --Yuval Y § Chat § 23:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, I've changed it to a cc-by-sa-2.0 license: is it okay now? Michael Barera (talk) 03:04, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- The proper license is cc-by-sa-2.0, for each image, so you can't release it as pd-self. --Yuval Y § Chat § 23:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- Alright, I have cropped out the copyvio image and added a suitable replacement of Charlie. Is it okay now? Michael Barera (talk) 23:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, let me see what I can do... Michael Barera (talk) 22:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - looks good to me (delete the old version) Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: All current components of the collage are apparently properly licensed, so no valid grounds for deletion. The original version with the copyvio image of Charlie has been deleted. Tabercil (talk) 00:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
unneeded Ramongab (talk) 09:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Delete, out of scope, uncertain source. Prof. Professorson (talk) 09:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Image available several times on google image (https://www.google.com/search?tbs=sbi:AMhZZivnGoU10Ab-pPCwxPEIUsv2--9feHj8DKCNKHE-3zNoFFXZOFrqqLoQ-lvzP-77sQHSqp-Dj5KtJS9IZys2dUUCdsL1wTWJqHzAXuhXqqvbVzN_1uY_1YmzsU_1puSktWBjNx9Q10cwZp_1d3fty2TmSUMYB7egtD4hQjoW6r-PmOyry-GUflCbmXTx3lvbn39WkPYjarAKgLSYjPbxvBcBk0ZosjnJJOGTc5CJWMV-JstjpR05r-R2ZneK5AkhvT5wDoJ243mySqCwYfZV9tKB4Bu6Wij9e1OVd-K1Vh9b9AZdbH5AkrLR1NLM-RbI01CYbj_1wufDt61QmxX1PBDbmjnAUDiOQpagDVuBvKsm3F7nyjXhvf45USdaWwIuRD-v33VWrMQed0dPilF9GY7T80QuiL2QaqlOZNzxO3SGhJeSR4NRuoDH_1du2Czy0Oldp1wrahMpt8DbAWKVXaZmJayr4ItvB-AwbyA-xu_1v1HsJMKeo1-s9K_1nxCeb94Tf9Tcmj9OR6yyzvApvGkz6rPvZdGVzceio14eqqTfWjuZH0Z3glUx0cMe19MPXXG6M9FtMoFr-IDfjoKSA5dI95G-unUTzys9g5hx_1_1azAWjAS2Nm7cplXnG8RB_1gZdCVA1PfaKITBrrBoVK3whSg1knYJ62d9R6C9bnKHozCHh5MKurq4tBNb2Qjddht_1RgHb9NrXXQleq2Vep5UGB6YiYIn_15gSdpoNV0crgHoCbcnDnRsW7lxFjbsDm8A7G07WkErpmyeWhkrcNMgm-2sSb6pjAU04XdKeSYZUw1mTA5tiuZ8Cvw5d9l_1aW5qsxxpkgwLnPWpmrE3tKhpj18hZFcynnjQSa1tGcX13r1RofKl67D8dEsmHz9Al45xkhQwAcwCkjy1PtmO0k7TxoX57yQTARIvDLqvWmZi5SIkhzTxYp7IEluOgvIfcnELXVbhl_1VCkpPxAV2FwQlqHgang1nJj-rNWRxsZ0slfFsIKXLUfDDJRgikFyT46nkgZfR9NwPmhXMZfg1lvESfN4PUKV0MHFSaenP9P6-UdG8_1tsYRgtu-imx-dXSnpoxoZi3H2dv-dS0bAgcig8DvQVy1Fj0U1unxPtvAywM1xTnS54XWOkH7E3yDT3Ocl9VGhRLY7JWOmjeXXNXIjjRWGB4-h8ZNXXCV4Rabt0buRyjtZ6c8QGRJYWY0UbkmJEsbAiLuYXFsT7GrtIXzmQHtoKCcTYdPmVEFTkq76zzYuD0c5faXUcHsFNlVze_1s497k1eKkxJK2DHNxTBxXjj5_1JR0ZX3gxm_1DYx2qgOW7LDTgkvTXpsQVGQ2t-39ppXH2SzeEDlk26KjkkPmk7SOsOeNaHmiEILkkY3oW8m_1w ) Neozoon (talk) 23:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
No valid EXIF information and typical low web resolution of the image: unlikely that this file is the uploader's own work High Contrast (talk) 17:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: http://www.estadio.com.py/?p=5499 for example, copyright violation. Martin H. (talk) 01:34, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Source is Flickr, but no exact URL has been given, so that license cannot be checked. ErikvanB (talk) 15:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: copyright violation, see http://beeldbank.nederlandmetro.nl/gallery3/index.php/nederland/Rotterdam/overige/huisstijl/S5030299 Polarlys (talk) 12:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
appears to be a copy of a newspaper; submitter probably does not control work 64.9.239.152 02:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted as copyvio. Rosenzweig τ 22:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
https://www.google.com/search?tbs=sbi:AMhZZit4-vI3yVXPJfTXDPRE7ZtRw-6B253n7Ts0MbD7rw6noal0wcSAubYVW0S4Env88rtX02eDIclhK-_1c9bY3y6Vbt9dqVsotX8y1Za_1_11AeGrcGa7cLl6Vd7OLxB6h7t7GyoJW8dy2_1l8Mmoj3WX2t8g4U0cZ33LxHrQNXycGi1KUhLrz9tjs2pnosxZ_1QSeOsnXRLmqbVWoYo0Hb6FnNu34kQsq4GBLra4E6fPq-OxK5bboOOhahUPbQI-z66RRMYfdo08pazZsOxQq6kyoTmW2NEpmeno5vrjCr6xT2W_1Zg9Z8o3GC6h-r4mhunxyK21901KJ9YDVn6PZw98Kvy3lwjbjbgwu6mlMTCodzl5i_1lCKXLViPLiPA2gnb1EeKPOP-ZByAIwywJ14ZG7z7UkA38VCfbXwlx0B1KYHewAiWxJmJb7O1_1GDdSxE_1woHn1xk8GctOK75eqQXIpa8W4NhejDYpt7QtJ2gqRjtx0Uh1NgXRo1LAQ_1GFOk0y3x2a1YbV1kXmQe-_1q0fD-CX2fR2esiGdzWOrSnMLHk5c2Y1B_1WRZvYtTige3jlzZI2SKcfe5wqabXNJxU-QQIBAgRl5MtnwxBO2Q9hwqBd9XfdnpQSgjeTCwnjnZ4a9FbiI1UIHIzcWzG7yZ5A5-9c-b6gjAg0Ivjp8angMhGMLZ1A6p2RxdcwEeH0WXsiYsdRK348cIC1pBdatOIYeYIUOUBW7PzLErmgdMmCE6GsDmfHZbF4V2285tYoTMyQEgahnATRTdirCdNHDRv1f1tKLYwvx7cKrBNYD0YZEMUl-GbRHWZ9eQu0sGZIWn49b-_1IpO00hmYqm25q7HZmX5YeW_15qn0Dq-x_1UIW4-S3S4tWz73q5OXBt5o1dt8M9rqDjd5AYlR_1L-fdBKt1Urn-zFSAorfDG64XuDaz_1gONrYYYrNIXv8MfdU3oL-C9cbaU-vLQ8C8yKj_1aJXmD7ggrwPNITl_1_13WwGIfsMf0gTTp55KeWzmm2bBaIVxZKY_1P8_1xq6CQhyPnAcnR_1kvZ7kgml0y4qN3bUt4mIyHdLJNqgatz55qHPpO-C1gScFz_1JViB5fum88fwKzzA9oBvm8bESCE6U5HcC6NztgkIvhvlkjQ2sjKjV_1XWG1pFBu7wsV3NH38o10jPI2fJgsPCuWaGN4FRU_1E4nyS3PGNbR7wlRPkw_1HYy3DmqerMqRAhe8Az1T3K3HUAjNTMfIpBpD9vEyImqdDKKbZ-taIFwptZNeqrIT4qLMA-cWNw-WBRnbKiwuGioi01HUgBQltq5gjFFkIwGuhVgPQMGa8QAgCyo9fyHpAkQx5yivaYkYdFNZYlydp4Gkzkb_13R Fred the Oyster (talk) 03:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- Half asleep, clicked wrong button, this should be a copyvio speedy request. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 03:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted as copyvio. Rosenzweig τ 22:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
No way this football helmet is PD-ineligible GrapedApe (talk) 06:36, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- Confirmed copyvio of http://www.mghelmets.com/high%20school%20helmets/west-charlotte-nc.gif --GrapedApe (talk) 02:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted as copyvio. Rosenzweig τ 22:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Eiffel + feu.jpg AMERICOPHILE 16:31, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
oh my God. why do you want to delete my beautiful eiffel? what's the problem? May I ask you to inform me?--Rmashhadi (talk) 18:19, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
My husband and I took that picture 2 years ago, what is the problem?--Rmashhadi (talk) 18:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
- Take the time and read COM:FOP#France carefully. Furthermore, this category may help you. AMERICOPHILE 20:08, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
all right, but I'm so sorry, it was full of beauty and passion.--Rmashhadi (talk) 21:16, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
- Rmashadi, I agree, this is a beautiful image! Unfortunately, it's the law in France, not Commons policy, that means it needs to be removed. It's specifically the illuminated Eiffel Tower at night that is a problem, which I agree is ridiculous, but I don't make French law! This article explains the situation. -Pete F (talk) 18:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: dynamic light display, per french law 99of9 (talk) 10:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Author=subject? Unsure about the copyright ownership. abf «Cabale!» 00:14, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- I believe that if you simply hand the camera to somebody, and it is you who controls what is being photographed and how, it is you, not the person who presses the button, who owns the copyright. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 04:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep per Beta M. There are many reasons to believe that a subject might own the copyright (including copyright transfer). In the absence of a claim to the contrary, I'm inclined to assume good faith and take such an ownership claim at face value. -Pete F (talk) 18:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: It is certainly a gray area. If the photo was clearly professionally posed, I would probably delete, but I think we can assume good faith here -- he may even be holding the camera in one hand. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope as unused and if there is an encyclopedic purpose, it isn't made clear. Rodhullandemu (talk) 00:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - also a copyright violation. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope - copyright violation (no federal court) Lymantria (talk) 12:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Commons is no personal file and image host 91.57.86.224 00:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 12:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Per Commons:Currency#The Netherlands: not yet 70 years old. Stefan4 (talk) 01:21, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Per Commons:Currency#Greece. Stefan4 (talk) 01:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Per Commons:Currency#Greece and COM:ART#Photograph of an old coin found on the Internet. Stefan4 (talk) 01:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Per COM:ART#Photograph of an old coin found on the Internet. Stefan4 (talk) 01:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Per COM:ART#Photograph of an old coin found on the Internet. Stefan4 (talk) 01:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete (speedy): National sides of Euro coins are copyrighted property of the respective issuing countries. See also Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Euro coins (UEM). Also, the uploader has erroneously tagged this image with the "{{money-EU}}" license, indicating this is a banknote. It's not a banknote. It's a coin. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Per COM:ART#Photograph of an old coin found on the Internet. Stefan4 (talk) 01:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio. According to the Mevlana Museum, this work was created in 2001 by Yusuf Coşkun Benefşe. He is still alive. According to the article 40 of the Turkish copyright law, works of fine arts permanently placed on public streets, avenues or squares may be reproduced by drawings, graphics, photographs and the like, distributed, shown by projection in public premises or broadcast by radio or similar means. But this article does not say OK for works of fine arts placed on museums. Takabeg (talk) 04:36, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Bonjour, ce n'est pas un copyvio, je l'ai photographié moi-même et les photographies sont permises dans ce musée. Il est visible que c'est en amateur que j'ai fait cette photo, mon appareil n'était pas adapté et je n'avais pas d'escabeau--Rosier (talk) 10:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- J'ai pris les photos en janvier 2007 avec mon Olympus et je les ai importées en septembre 2007.File:Konya02.JPG, File:Konya03.JPG,File:Konya05.JPG,et File:Konya06.JPG. Une autre a déjà été supprimée!--Rosier (talk) 10:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
At least the original copyright of File:Konya06.JPG (9th century) had expired. But we have to research File:Konya02.JPG, File:Konya03.JPG,File:Konya05.JPG. Maybe OK, maybe violation. Takabeg (talk) 10:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: The museum may permit photography, but it does not have the right to license the copyright to the work of art. The copyright belongs to the artist, not the museum. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
copyvio - modern recording of public domain song (arrangement may also be copyrighted) Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete "©2011 Kingsmen" /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:26, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
copyvio - modern recording, possibly copyrighted arrangement as well (underlying melody is PD) Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete "©2011 Kingsmen" /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:26, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
copyvio from http://books.google.com/books?id=8JAo--U-JBkC&printsec=frontcover --MGuf (d) 08:46, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by Fastily Morning Sunshine (talk) 07:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
No source provided, plus doubling the File:Wikiofm 1.png Sir Lothar (talk) 12:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by Fastily Morning Sunshine (talk) 08:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
copyrighted work. Forwhomthebelltolls (talk) 21:38, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete, a photo of "12345" from the source "dkjfd" -- Infrogmation (talk) 03:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: no credible info or author 99of9 (talk) 10:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I strongly doubt the validity of the license release for the separate frames of the animation. DS (talk) 06:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely own work by uploader as being dated at year 1924. Túrelio (talk) 08:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely own work of uploader, per prominent sponsor watermark. Túrelio (talk) 08:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
.gif&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.gif&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
According to http://zeljko-heimer-fame.from.hr/descr/about.html#discl the file is not in the public domain. Furthermore; there is lacking written permission from him to use "more than three images" from his site. The disclaimer also forbids commercial reuse and modification. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 09:14, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
.gif){kind=link}
- Also of note, the Wayback Machine notes in 2001 that there wasn't a change of license from the date of upload until now. I also checked OTRS and there was no permission filed with them. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 09:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
.gif){kind=link}
This page is not needed, as we have Category:The_Mother's_International_School. Kprateek88 (talk) 09:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Galleries can often be a useful way to show off the best images of a subject -- categories show them all. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Very low resolution, unlikely to be own work. Prof. Professorson (talk) 09:43, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Insufficient licensing. Own work claim but taken from LinkedIn (http://www.linkedin.com/pub/theo-olierook/2/987/1a) and different user name. Agora (talk) 10:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Insufficient licensing. Where is the consent of the soccer association of Tuvalu? Agora (talk) 10:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Derivative work of a copyrighted painting by Dali TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 10:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Fop in Spain doesn't apply for interior views TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 10:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted work. No FoP in France TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 10:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted works. No Fop in France. Works are not de minims here (well each work is de minims but the total of them aren't) TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 10:36, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted works. No Fop in France. Works are probably not de minimis here (each work is de minims but the total of them may not be de minims) TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 10:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Galleries should not be created if they merely duplicate the purpose of a category AMERICOPHILE 11:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: I agree that this is a gray area, but galleries are often useful when categories have many images. That is not the case here, but let's keep this for future use. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
no reason for PD-Iran according to information provided Polarlys (talk) 11:38, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Comment The IRDC.IR water mark on the file means "all rights reserved for Islamic Revolution Documentation Center (see: http://irdc.ir/en/default.aspx) --Wvk (talk) 07:29, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Useless for lack of description. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Useless personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Useless personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 12:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio. All images uploaded by User:Decadent Art are not the own work of the uploader.
- File:Art Deco style Ankara Train Station.jpg: Image posted on July 28, 2007 by ytugcu.
- File:Edirne Train Station.jpg: Image posted on October 13, 2008 by selimer.
- File:Kayseri Train Station.jpg: Image posted on June 8, 2008 by Zafer.
- File:Eskisehir Train Station.jpg: Image posted on April 10, 2009 by Cumhur Güdücü.
- File:Alsancak Train Station.jpg: Image posted on September 8, 2007 by TurkerH.
Takabeg (talk) 12:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- Speedy delete. Unfortunately, I have to concur. It appears to be a clear copyright violation. While the "originals" are a much lower resolution, the ones here are cropped on the bottom, as if to remove the logo.
- The good news is, they can probably be replaced, though possibly with less nice images. I can personally take a new picture of the Alsancak station (though probably not as nice, alas; I have a pretty awful digital camera, and a phone camera that doesn't like night photos), and with luck, we can find free versions of the others as well. I'll add both to my to-do list. --Quintucket (talk) 20:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Useless personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 12:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio. Ices2Csharp (talk) 12:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Useless personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 12:18, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Useless personal logo. Ices2Csharp (talk) 12:18, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Useless personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 12:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Useless personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 12:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Useless personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 12:21, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 12:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Perhaps in scope, but almost certainly a copyvio of the complex logo. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 12:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
unused personal image, out of scope AMERICOPHILE 13:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Derivative of a drawing by N.N.Zhukov who died in 1973. I don't think that the CC-BY-SA license by RIAN concerns the original work as well. A.Savin 14:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
![14:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2012/01/02#c-A.Savin-2012-01-02T14:08:00.000Z-File:RIAN_archive_761965_Drawing_"Vladimir_Ilyich_Lenin_near_GOELRO_map".jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
![16:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2012/01/02#c-Jameslwoodward-2012-01-09T16:41:00.000Z-File:RIAN_archive_761965_Drawing_"Vladimir_Ilyich_Lenin_near_GOELRO_map".jpg){kind=link}
I do not believe that this software screenshot qualifies for PD-ineligible. Sven Manguard (talk) 14:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- I think that unoriginal text, with single misspelling qualifies for PD-text. Even text created by employee of Microsoft. But I may be wrong (AFAIK file with the same name was deleted on the commons) Bulwersator (talk) 15:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotus_Dev._Corp._v._Borland_Int%27l,_Inc. - "Lotus Development Corporation v. Borland International, Inc., 516 U.S. 233 (1996), is a United States Supreme Court case that tested the extent of software copyright. This case established that copyright does not extend to the text or layout of a program's menus." Bulwersator (talk) 07:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
The Wikipedia article linking to this image has been refused. Therefore, I do not authorize Wikimedia Commons to keep my work on its severs. Hugheschandonnet (talk) 14:36, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: For the record, the CC-BY-SA license which you gave to Commons cannot be revoked, so your reason for deletion is not valid. With that said, it is out of scope, so we will not keep it. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
empty folder Cycn (talk) 14:44, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
The photo itself might be free, but the contents of the poster is someone else's original composition, and there is no evidence that the ad is not copyrighted. Sven Manguard (talk) 15:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- There is no tag on the advertisement itself that it's copyrighted, and it's in public, thus not copyrighted. Go see File:Publicidad_sobre_ruedas_en_Cuenca_Spain_540.JPG and Maylande's site. As the ad is not on the site, that is explicitly all is copyrighted, the ad is not. Ebe123 (talk) 17:21, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Essentially everything in Hong Knog has a copyright unless it has expired. Being in public makes it OK for most 3D works, but not 2D works, see Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Hong_Kong Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:48, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
second image version has no source (is for other file version) and is a derivative of the screen content. --Túrelio (talk) 15:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Yes, and the other image is DW of the photograph on the box Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
aircraft obstructed by wing Biggerben (talk) 16:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: None of the three images of this aricraft are very good, so I think we should keep this for now. If we get a better one, all three in the category should go. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
and File:ABSER shoot.jpg. Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Said to be and appears to be by the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, not the U.S. federal government. —innotata 17:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal image, the only article linked to it on Wikipedia-fr was deleted in 2009 Milena (talk) 17:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
text-only article, out of project scope of Wikimedia Commons. Martin H. (talk) 18:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
unused and unusable text - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 18:18, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Simple text contribution, out of project scope of Wikimedia Commons. Commons:Project scope#Excluded educational content. Martin H. (talk) 18:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Because part of the figure does not show up. It will be reloaded as .png Trassiorf (talk) 20:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Blurred, out of focus personal image that looks, based on the description, likes a sad promotion of a guy trying to get his big break. Out of scope. Fred the Oyster (talk) 21:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
copyvio, from the newspaper "L'Entreprise" n° 2, 15 avril 1953, pp. 30 --MGuf (d) 21:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
text contribution, out of project scope. Commons:Project scope#excluded educational content. Martin H. (talk) 21:21, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
poetry book written by uploader, simple text contribution and out of scope of Wikimedia Commons. Commons:Project scope#Excluded educational content. Martin H. (talk) 21:24, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
File:RIAN_archive_561120_Reproduction_of_"V._Lenin's_Speech_on_GOELRO_plan"_painting_by_Leonid_Shmatko.jpg
[edit]
1968 derivative of a 1957 painting by Leonid Shmatko who died in 1981. I suppose that the CC-BY-SA license by RIAN concerns only the photograph by S.Kogan (as given in file description) but not the original work by Shmatko. A.Savin 22:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
The uploader on flickr has no rights. He is only a collector. No source, wrong licence 91.66.136.120 23:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete unless more info on source/copyright can be established. (Many US works from this era have become PD, but there currently is not enough information to determine actual copyright status.) -- Infrogmation (talk) 03:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment There is some info in the exif. Photographer was Ernest Bachrach who died in 1973. --99of9 (talk) 10:48, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
It's a trademarked company logo Eeekster (talk) 23:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: The fact that it is trademarked is irrelevant. Many logos are trademarked, but are too simple for copyright. This one, however, is complex enough and therefore deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Main template has been deleted. Ices2Csharp (talk) 23:38, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Main template has been deleted. Ices2Csharp (talk) 23:38, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Main template has been deleted. Ices2Csharp (talk) 23:38, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Main template has been deleted. Ices2Csharp (talk) 23:38, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Unnecessary image. I (Weatherman1126 on Wikipedia) originally uploaded this image, but it serves no purpose on Commons. I request that it be deleted. Weatherman1126 (talk) 06:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Logan Talk Contributions 17:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Falscher Dateiname Joergsam (talk) 20:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep no reason to delete, use {{Rename}} to request renaming. MKFI (talk) 21:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 21:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Kept: No valid reason for deletion. Yann (talk) 18:11, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
This may not qualify as free at this time. Look at the whole image; this is a portion of the cover magazine, El Gráfico, and PD-AR-Photo does not apply for magazine covers, does it? The whole separate photo was derived into a magazine cover, and it may count as a portion of it. Therefore, it is still copyrighted under law of Argentina. If anonymous, its copyright will not expire until December 31, 2016; otherwise, an author is required and must confirm copyright status of this image. George Ho (talk) 05:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- You are wrong, George. First, this is not a portion of the cover, this is the entire cover itself. And although the cover was cropped, the photograph was taken in 1966 (when this issue of El Grafico was published) so more than 20 years have passed since it was published and therefore does not apply copyright. According with the reasons you are giving, all the covers in Category:El Grafico should be deleted too? Second, Law 11.723, art. 1, refers to "...any method of reproduction of science, literature, didactic or artistic expressions" (including photographies, of course) - source: 11.723. Fma12 (talk) 06:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- The link that you gave me is either dead or wrong. I'll wait for you to give a correct one, while I find the law myself. --George Ho (talk) 06:48, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- found it: http://www.infoleg.gov.ar/infolegInternet/anexos/40000-44999/42755/texact.htm. This is Spanish, though. --George Ho (talk) 06:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- (Edit conflict) Your logic: I'm wrong about my reasons for deletion! My logic: unless you have the actual photo that has no derivative materials on the magazine cover, I can't accept this as a stand-alone photo. This image is beyond limits to qualify as a photo; there should be an actually separate lab- or printed photo of this person that was used later in a magazine. --George Ho (talk) 10:38, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- The link I gave you is in Spanish, I don't know if there is an English text for this law, but you can search it on the web. You should read the law first to know what it exactly says about copyright before tagging free images. About the photo information, I have added further data (although I have been previosly clear enough about the information provided), and the image does not infringe copyright law, sorry but I don't understand what sort of obsession you seem to have with a simple magazine photo taken in 1966. So please remove the tag or I'll do it myself. Thanks. Fma12 (talk) 14:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- If it is copyrighted and not considered a photo, then it may have grounds of deletion. Also, please do not remove the nomination tag until it is officially closed. Also, please do not close this nomination page; I have no plans to withdraw this nomination, and let the administrators decide. --George Ho (talk) 18:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- This issue is closed for me. I'm sure enough about the image because of the reasons I explained above. I don't want to continue discussing with a person who has not provided a consistent argument for deletion, although I saw on your talk page you tend to tag files everywhere. Unfortunately you have not read Law 11.723 (not even an English version) and therefore you can't discuss any point about it. Your mistake, not mine. Fma12 (talk) 23:39, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- If it is copyrighted and not considered a photo, then it may have grounds of deletion. Also, please do not remove the nomination tag until it is officially closed. Also, please do not close this nomination page; I have no plans to withdraw this nomination, and let the administrators decide. --George Ho (talk) 18:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- The link I gave you is in Spanish, I don't know if there is an English text for this law, but you can search it on the web. You should read the law first to know what it exactly says about copyright before tagging free images. About the photo information, I have added further data (although I have been previosly clear enough about the information provided), and the image does not infringe copyright law, sorry but I don't understand what sort of obsession you seem to have with a simple magazine photo taken in 1966. So please remove the tag or I'll do it myself. Thanks. Fma12 (talk) 14:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- The link that you gave me is either dead or wrong. I'll wait for you to give a correct one, while I find the law myself. --George Ho (talk) 06:48, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- You are wrong, George. First, this is not a portion of the cover, this is the entire cover itself. And although the cover was cropped, the photograph was taken in 1966 (when this issue of El Grafico was published) so more than 20 years have passed since it was published and therefore does not apply copyright. According with the reasons you are giving, all the covers in Category:El Grafico should be deleted too? Second, Law 11.723, art. 1, refers to "...any method of reproduction of science, literature, didactic or artistic expressions" (including photographies, of course) - source: 11.723. Fma12 (talk) 06:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- Art. 34 (original Spanish): "Para las obras fotográficas la duración del derecho de propiedad es de VEINTE (20) años a partir de la fecha de la primera publicación". (into English): "For photographic work, the copyright will be expire after TWENTY (20) years since the date it was first published". In other words: The photo of Basile is 46 years old so any permission from him is not necessary to reproduce the cover. Under your point of view, all images contained in Category:Diego Maradona or Category:Hugo Porta or Category:Guillermo Vilas should be tagged for deletion because they are living persons. Why only Basile counts for you?... So go ahead and make free to tag all those images because all of them would be "unacceptable" according to your reasons. In fact, I have not heard Diego Maradona or Hugo Porta giving their consent to see their old photos published on Commons. Have you? PD: I cited Art. 34 because this is what refers the PD-AR-Photo tag.
- Well, you can read Commons:Personality rights. I wonder: does using an original source for reproduction into Commons require consent? If the person is dead, according to law, permission is required from surviving descendents or ascendents until 20 years after death. If living and missing, then publication is free, right? Even the 20-year-old photo does not nullify pictured person's rights to be publicized. Basile gave permission to have picture of himself published into magazine cover, and that was long ago. Does this person, in any way, give you permission to use the mag cover of Basile for Commons? --George Ho (talk) 02:04, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- I ask you the same question than before: Why Basile and not Maradona, Porta, Vilas or whoever? Go ahead with the tags on the pictures of all of them whose photos are published on Commons. I think you have something personal with Basile so your position is difficult to understand, clearly. And it seems to be guided by a caprice, sorry. Fma12 (talk) 04:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Done, but there are some with valid OTRS ticket. {{Personality rights}} can apply to Argentine people. --George Ho (talk) 21:34, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- As User:Wikiwatcher1 said about Richard Burton file, "PD is the default. Unless there is proof that something is copyrighted, it is PD. It is not necessary to prove PD status for something to be PD, but it is necessary to prove something has a valid copyright for it to be protected by copyright". This resumes all I thing about the file, you and your request. Moreover, if someone nominates a photo for deletion, that person (in this case, YOU) should support the request with clear evidence of copyright. Otherwise, the image is PD by default according to Argentine Law. You can nominate as much files as you wish, or put a lot of templates but Law is clear. If you want to continue tagging files, go ahead! Fma12 (talk) 18:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- I ask you the same question than before: Why Basile and not Maradona, Porta, Vilas or whoever? Go ahead with the tags on the pictures of all of them whose photos are published on Commons. I think you have something personal with Basile so your position is difficult to understand, clearly. And it seems to be guided by a caprice, sorry. Fma12 (talk) 04:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- Well, you can read Commons:Personality rights. I wonder: does using an original source for reproduction into Commons require consent? If the person is dead, according to law, permission is required from surviving descendents or ascendents until 20 years after death. If living and missing, then publication is free, right? Even the 20-year-old photo does not nullify pictured person's rights to be publicized. Basile gave permission to have picture of himself published into magazine cover, and that was long ago. Does this person, in any way, give you permission to use the mag cover of Basile for Commons? --George Ho (talk) 02:04, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- Art. 34 (original Spanish): "Para las obras fotográficas la duración del derecho de propiedad es de VEINTE (20) años a partir de la fecha de la primera publicación". (into English): "For photographic work, the copyright will be expire after TWENTY (20) years since the date it was first published". In other words: The photo of Basile is 46 years old so any permission from him is not necessary to reproduce the cover. Under your point of view, all images contained in Category:Diego Maradona or Category:Hugo Porta or Category:Guillermo Vilas should be tagged for deletion because they are living persons. Why only Basile counts for you?... So go ahead and make free to tag all those images because all of them would be "unacceptable" according to your reasons. In fact, I have not heard Diego Maradona or Hugo Porta giving their consent to see their old photos published on Commons. Have you? PD: I cited Art. 34 because this is what refers the PD-AR-Photo tag.
Deleted: This is not a photograph, it is a magazine cover. Only photographs have the shorter term. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
One of the men in the picture has contacted OTRS (ticket 2011110810019353) requesting the image be removed as he is concerned that reuse of the image is an unreasonable breach into his private life. See Commons:Photographs of identifiable people#Moral issues. —Tom Morris (talk) 01:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- keep This is very obviously a large public event, where the skinheads photographed are aware of the camera and posing for it - assuming the complainant isn't the guy in the kilt behind.
- I note that on the Flickr source page there are comments for "Nazis" and "gays", either of which descriptions they might reasonably object to. Commons has made no such comment. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - personality rights. Obviously used to make a claim about the individuals without any real basis. These are private figures and merely being out in public does not override personality concerns. There is a difference between posing for a picture and knowing that the picture will be posted on Wikipedia as about skinheads. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- keep It's a large public event; there's no privacy right violations here.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- Context Considering our international community, not everyone will be aware of the history in Britain of Skinheads as a group term as well as a fashion description (see en:Skinhead#Racism.2C_anti-racism_and_politics). "Skinheads" have a long history of being controversially linked with racist groups and it is this connotation that seems to be the basis of intrusion into private life. The fact the image is described as "Nazis?" on Flickr should not be overlooked either, though this defamatory term is not used on the Commons image page, it is directly linked to. If the image was described as "obese men" then this would be a violation of COM:IDENT, being described as a skinhead (and for that reason the image is reused in multiple language Wikipedia articles with descriptions of racist groups) may be at least as bad, whilst being described as a Nazi may be considered a crime in some countries. These are both good reasons to consider this a policy violation. --Fæ (talk) 07:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- File:Childhood Obesity.JPG still exists. Naziism just isn't relevant here, so long as we leave it clearly out of the conversation. I can't read what they're wearing; is there any question that this is an inaccurate description? If not, then I don't see where the fact that there is some generalization of skinheads being racist matters, as long we're careful not to make that (inaccurate) generalization.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- If describing skinheads as nazis is a problem (I agree, many aren't doing it for any political reason), then it's a good job we aren't doing that (and if some other article at WP does so, it should stop it). OTOH, I see no problem in describing skinheads as skinheads. It's self-evidently correct, it's not a derogatory term. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:36, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- With regard to the Childhood Obesity image, it is a good comparison. You will note that the image has the face pixelated out in order to comply with COM:IDENT. In this case we are informed that at least one model is identifiable to their legal identity and we have a complaint from that person who does not self-identify as a skinhead (or a Nazi, if one takes into account the direct link to Flickr) and yet finds their image being used across many Wikipedia language articles and his image being reused with this title by the image being kept on Commons. The rationale "skinheads as skinheads" is dubious, as is dismissing the historic record of association with racist groups. The argument here is "Fred is a skinhead" when "Fred" (a name I just made up by the way) does not, and has never been published, identify themselves as a skinhead. Of course we can comply with COM:IDENT by pixelating/anonymizing this image, but that would seem of little value compared to finding an image which does not have these problems of identity and therefore has no danger of representing a potential breach of Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 12, which COM:IDENT references and attempts to comply with. --Fæ (talk) 12:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- Would we by policy delete this (or any) image if the request was "I was having a bad hair day" / "I don't like my left-side profile" / "I just don't want to be pictured on a public web site"?
- With regard to the Childhood Obesity image, it is a good comparison. You will note that the image has the face pixelated out in order to comply with COM:IDENT. In this case we are informed that at least one model is identifiable to their legal identity and we have a complaint from that person who does not self-identify as a skinhead (or a Nazi, if one takes into account the direct link to Flickr) and yet finds their image being used across many Wikipedia language articles and his image being reused with this title by the image being kept on Commons. The rationale "skinheads as skinheads" is dubious, as is dismissing the historic record of association with racist groups. The argument here is "Fred is a skinhead" when "Fred" (a name I just made up by the way) does not, and has never been published, identify themselves as a skinhead. Of course we can comply with COM:IDENT by pixelating/anonymizing this image, but that would seem of little value compared to finding an image which does not have these problems of identity and therefore has no danger of representing a potential breach of Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 12, which COM:IDENT references and attempts to comply with. --Fæ (talk) 12:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- AFAICS, this is the only reason, on this weakest basis, to delete such an image. The drawback with that is that potentially huge number of images on Commons, potentially valuable ones, become exposed to deletion on the flimsiest of grounds.
- I see no derogatory or privacy issues to this image. They're not only in public, they're posing for the camera. "Skinhead" is hardly derogatory and is clearly demonstrated by their hair and clothing. These people either are skinheads, were skinheads, or have chosen to dress as skinheads when photographed. It's nowhere near UK privacy law, and I don't believe it's even near the far stronger French privacy law.
- If adults want to maintain their privacy beyond this level, it's their responsibility to not pose in front of cameras in public. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- Use on WP I've just removed this from en:WP's article on Punk fashion. In the UK at least, there is pretty much zero cross-over between the skin and punk scenes. It might warrant a text mention at the very most, but images of UK skins just don't belong under articles on punk. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- You should likely remove the entire section "Punk_fashion#Oi.21_and_Ska-punk" in that case (although don't be surprised when someone replaces it). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:52, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- That's why I didn't go that far. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- You should likely remove the entire section "Punk_fashion#Oi.21_and_Ska-punk" in that case (although don't be surprised when someone replaces it). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:52, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. I think we should respect his request. InverseHypercube 22:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete for the reasons given by Fæ above. Have the people personally identified themselves as skinheads or is their shaved heads merely an attempt to avoid obvious signs of male pattern baldness? Looking at the four, three of them obviously fit this latter category and the second man from the right probably also fits this category. A person who chooses to shave their head and agrees to have their picture taken shouldn't suddenly find themselves being displayed on Wikipedia pages as the "posterchild" of skinheads, linked with racist groups and Nazis, unless they actually identify themselves as skinheads (and at least one person has categorically identified himself as not a skinhead and his request to take the picture down should be agreed to). Banaticus (talk) 22:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Male pattern baldness doesn't usually make men rush out and buy Fred Perry shirts, boots, braces, and splash-bleached jeans. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- It appears to be a fancy dress. There is no indication that the person in a kilt is really Scottish or carrying a real gun, and it would be a jump to assume these hairless people wearing jeans are really Skinheads or for that matter members of a racist group or "Nazis?" and therefore suitable for illustrating articles about such groups. It should be noted that the Flickr image has been deleted at source since this request was started. --Fæ (talk) 23:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- They're white males; can't we reasonably assume from that that they're members of a racist group or Nazis? No? Then I agree, we shouldn't describe them as such. Can we take that as resolved now?--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- It appears to be a fancy dress. There is no indication that the person in a kilt is really Scottish or carrying a real gun, and it would be a jump to assume these hairless people wearing jeans are really Skinheads or for that matter members of a racist group or "Nazis?" and therefore suitable for illustrating articles about such groups. It should be noted that the Flickr image has been deleted at source since this request was started. --Fæ (talk) 23:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Male pattern baldness doesn't usually make men rush out and buy Fred Perry shirts, boots, braces, and splash-bleached jeans. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Comment If I recall the description on Flickr, this was taken at the 2006 Brighton Pride, so there is a possibility that the issue here is multifaceted. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:35, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- Probably was, but even then, lots of people go to Pride and some are even straight. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete, the term "skinheads" has quite a nasty connotation in most English-speaking societies (and yes, I know that there are some 'good', anti-racist skinheads, but they're generally not as well known as the knuckle-dragging neo-nazi skinheads). Labeling these four private individuals as such, when there is no context or explanation behind their mode of dress on that particular day, is borderline defamatory, in my opinion. Lankiveil (talk) 01:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC).
- If the term (and merely the term) is so inherently and unavoidably defamatory, then surely we have to delete the entire category for Skinheads? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
- Except for cases where the subject clearly and unambiguously identifies as a skinhead, then yes. Lankiveil (talk) 04:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC).
- If the term (and merely the term) is so inherently and unavoidably defamatory, then surely we have to delete the entire category for Skinheads? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Discussion above favours deletion. Legally we are allowed to keep it (public event), but our policy suggests that we go easy on intrusion into personal lives of non-notable people especially if they are not clearly self-identifying with the group to which we are connecting them for potential educational use. 99of9 (talk) 05:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
This image is not in the public domain and is not expired 91.57.86.224 00:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Australian War Memorial says "Image copyright: Copyright expired - public domain". There is no evidence to overturn it. Takabeg (talk) 06:27, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Is not in the public domain in Spain (75 years from publication). It is attributed to be published in 1939 in "La Vanguardia Nacional", newspaper publicated in Spain Bestiasonica (talk) 07:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 23:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
No FOP in France or in Italy. - Zil (d) 12:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 23:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
and other uploads by LIMO 5 (talk · contribs). Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Taken from Flickr where image licensed as by-nc-sa. Same for other images by this users:File:Tercer_Cielo_Concert.jpg[1], File:Juancarlosconcierto.jpg[2], File:JuanCarlosRodriguez.jpg[3], File:Tercercielo3.jpeg[4], File:EvelynHerrera.jpg,File:EvelynHerrera2.jpg,File:EvelynHerrera1.jpg from persons myspace[5]. Justass (talk) 00:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 23:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
UK logo, certainly more complex than the copyrighted Edge logo (see COM:Deletion requests/Two British logos). Stefan4 (talk) 00:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete, per nomination. Cloudbound (talk) 20:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Too simple. Yann (talk) 07:00, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 17:14, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
COM:SCOPE#Examples: image inferior to other examples on Commons (File:Logotipo de Cuatro.svg) Closeapple (talk) 05:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per my own nomination: This is an old attempt at the logo for Cuatro (television channel 4 in Spain). The font is of a visibly different shape from the real logo, which now exists on Commons as File:Logotipo de Cuatro.svg and could be changed to white if such a version was required. As such, this file has been superseded and no longer meets the scope of Commons, per COM:SCOPE#Examples ("Files that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject, especially if ... mediocre quality.") The only place the file is used on Wikipedia is on the author's own user page as an example of his work. --Closeapple (talk) 05:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 17:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Authors didn't die more than 70 years ago. No proof of free rights. TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 10:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Comment There might be other cases like this one in Category:Surrealist drawings --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 10:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 17:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Uploader may not have the rights on all the shown logos. Funfood ␌ 00:36, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 04:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Very doubtful why this video which was made by some Axis camera operator is in the public domain. This is a classical example of license laundering and violation of copyrights 91.57.86.224 00:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Comment This video was cut off from Die Deutsche Wochenschau, No. 736 (October 11, 1944) At least in the United States, the copyright of Die Deutsche Wochenschau had expired. Takabeg (talk) 07:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
The file on the page http://www.archive.org/details/gov.archives.arc.44362 is uploaded by Public.Resource.Org--Sepultura (talk) 11:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Just because it was uploaded on archive.org does not matter with this file. Nevertheless, in Germany it is not in the public domain. --High Contrast (talk) 18:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
This part of Die Deutsche Wochenschau copied by Nick Stoller. Series: Motion Picture Films From G-2 Army Military Intelligence Division, compiled 1918 - ca. 1947 Therefore, this video is work of the U.S goverment.--Sepultura (talk) 07:12, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- Copying a video by a US emplyoee does not make it a US governmental work. --High Contrast (talk) 15:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: No evidence of the underlying German work being in PD in Germany russavia (talk) 19:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
This pornographic image is not suitable for WIKI. R. Engelhardt (Diskussion) 15:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC) --R. Engelhardt (talk) 15:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- As an atheist, I got offended by religious images. May the closing admin please delete everything under Category:Religion as well? (don't forget the sub-cats, of course). --Damiens.rf 17:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- Keep "I don't like it" is not a suitable argument for deletion. Tabercil (talk) 22:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Kept. No valid reason for deletion. –Tryphon☂ 09:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
- Renomination #1
There's no educational purpose to this The Cleaner (talk) 18:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, nothing wrong with it. –Tryphon☂ 18:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Speedy keep Invalid reason as Commons is not censored. Tabercil (talk) 03:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- Renomination #2
No educational use, simply porn Common-Man (talk) 16:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Kept. See the two DRs above. (non-admin closure) –Tryphon☂ 18:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- Renomination #3
porno 92.161.48.254 18:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Uh. Invalid reason. See 3 DRs above. Trycatch (talk) 18:15, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
- Renomination #4
I noticed that this file was already nominated for deletion twice and in both was kept, and the problem I felt with this is that both the reasons presented for deletion as well as the reasons for kepting it were bad. My new proposal is made under the following claims:
- The image contains explicit nude body parts of a specific brazillian porn actress in a unofficial (by unofficial I mean it's not an real porn work, such a Playboy magazine photobook or a scene of a professional porn movie) but rather a (probably) intimate, private moment of the actress (as is suggested by the other scene's correlative picture, File:Bruna Ferraz with Photographer.jpg), containing no indication whatsoever that she autorized her nudity (i.e. private image) to be exposed in this context (i.e. Wikimedia Commons/Wikipedia).
- The image also doesn't show her nudity in any usefull way for encyclopedia standarts, specially when compared to other images related to what is relevant of the picture (i.e.: her nudity is not shown in a way that would be fine to be shown in an article related to female genital parts, such as the article on vagina, vulva, anus or clitoris, specially given the fact that there are lots of other images already in Wikimedia Commons that show shuch parts in much more details, quality and clear way; it's not needed to show her naked in her article in Wikipedia [6] as, in fact, is what's happening, but quite the contrary is at least respectable, given the fact that Wikipedia is a free website with underage pepople visiting all the time and as such there is no rational justification for allowing such kind of photo to be here or disposed there - what is totally different from an inscructional image about female genital organs such as those displaied in the correspondent articles, but what is cleary not the case of this image).
- It's not being used anyway.
- Taking what was previously sad plus some rationalistics perspectives, we can conclude that there is no rational justification for accepting this image in Wikimedia Commons/Wikipedia (its not useful, it's not good for any of the possible utilities this image may have specially when compared to other already avaliable images) and there are good rational reasons for not allowing it at Wikimedia Commons/Wikipedia (its almost useless for encyclopedian/instructional purpose, it's not a good image in all the possible useful uses for it, it's not being used, there is apparently no specific authorization for showing here nudity in this context).
So my conclusion is this file must be deleted.
In order for someone to refute my claims above, one would have to demonstrate ether one of the following clames:
- This image is actually being used for a good purpose in which it's one of the best images avaliable to the point it would be bad if deleted and replaced by other correspondent;
What is certanly not the case, btw.
Momergil (talk) 16:18, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep If I follow what you're saying correctly, you argue that the image might be "private" so a violation of personality rights, and that the image is out of project scope. I counter the first point by directing you to the uncropped source image on Flickr, on the stream of a professional photographer, and the image is still there under a free license as it has been since 2008. It is shown to be one of a series of photos taken at the session (another shared under a free license is also on Commons, File:Bruna_Ferraz_with_Photographer.jpg, described as taken "during shooting for a cover". As to project scope, the person shown has articles about them in wikipedias in 2 languages, thus images of the person are inherently withing project scope. Part of the person's notability is apparently posing nude, so an illustration of that seems relevant. -- Infrogmation (talk) 18:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep I agree with all that Infrogmation said.--MisterSanderson (talk) 01:12, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - if she's a pornstar, I would have to say that her genitals are fairly relevant. Also, this was taken at a photoshoot, and is of someone who is accustomed to being seen naked. I really don't see there being any expectation of privacy with these images, and so no real issues. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Probably speedily. "Private moment" argument has been debunked. The person is notable. "Save the children" is not a reason for deletion. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 05:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Everything said above. --Leyo 13:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Speedy Keep. Argument for deletion has been thoroughly debunked by Infrogmation. Tabercil (talk) 00:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
It was proposed for deletion 4 times, but the main argument was that Wikipedia isn't censored. Somebody missed the point, here are the references:
- Commons:PS#Must_be_realistically_useful_for_an_educational_purpose (last example: "Files that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject, especially if they are of poor or mediocre quality")
- Commons:PORN ("If the quality is bad, we may keep the file if we have no better file on a subject it can illustrate" - we have better picture)
- Commons:PS#Censorship ("(...) the statement "Commons is not censored" is not a valid argument for keeping a file that falls outside Commons' defined scope, as set out above")
We have better images of her (Bruna Ferraz), that one has low quality, it's obvious porn without educational use (well, you could learn how looks vulva of that madame), it's used only in English userpage (looks like a spam) and in pt.wiki in del req of that woman who kindly gave her genitalia pictures for us. So past "keep" arguments are invalid.
Krzysiu (talk) 03:22, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, as per previous 4 DR arguments, that the genitalia of a famous pornstar are clearly within scope. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:35, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- Keep The quality of the photo is really quite good and the pose, in the context of Category:Naked female buttocks is quite unique. That should make it a very usable image. --Simonxag (talk) 13:25, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, high quality and unique value. -- Cirt (talk) 15:48, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Speedy kept, for the reasons stated and also from the previous DR. Denniss (talk) 16:04, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
There are too many other images of Cocker Spaniels, and this is a home, private picture, uploaded for being used in the "Coquinardi" arcticle, deleted for being spam. Plus, the file was uploaded by me, I'm not messing with any other person. Aceshigh09 (talk) 08:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Also, I don't think it's a Cocker -- too big and the nose is too long. I think it's a Golden Retreiver. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:28, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
The author send an email to OTRS (https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketID=6399975, in the info-fr queue) indicating that this image is not free. Given the lack of source, and the fact that the uploader is not the author, this image is very likely not usable under a free licence. 212.109.69.52 13:14, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:29, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Files in Category:Euro coins (UEM)
[edit]Deletion for several reasons:
- Per COM:ART#Photograph of an old coin found on the Internet, the photographer and his licensing terms need to be known. Many of these photos have unknown photograpers.
- Per COM:Currency, the national side of many coins are unfree. Note that this is the national side despite all of them looking the same.
- Most have improper licences (they are coins, not notes).
- Some seem to be dupes of the same image in different resolutions.
- File:€2 commemorative coin Eurozone 2009.jpg
- File:€2 commemorative coin UEM 2009 General.png
- File:Austria 2009 uem.JPG
- File:Finlandia 2009 uem.JPG
- File:Finlandia 2009 uem.png
- File:€2 Commemorative Coin Finland 2009 EMU.jpg
- File:€2 Commemorative Coin France 2009 EMU.jpg
- File:€2 commemorative coin France 2009 EMU.jpg
- File:€2 Commemorative Coin Germany 2009 EMU.jpg
- File:Alemania 2009 uem.JPG
- File:Alemania 2009 uem.png
- File:Grecia 2009 uem.JPG
- File:Grecia 2009 uem.png
- File:€2 Commemorative Coin Greece 2009 EMU.jpg
- File:€2 Commemorative Coin Ireland 2009 EMU.jpg
- File:Irlanda 2009 uem.JPG
- File:Irlanda 2009 uem.png
- File:Italia 2009 uem.JPG
- File:Italia 2009 uem.png
- File:€2 Commemorative Coin Italy 2009 EMU.jpg
- File:€2 Commemorative Coin Luxembourg 2009 EMU.jpg
- File:Luxemburgo 2009 uem.JPG
- File:Luxemburgo 2009 uem.png
- File:€2 Commemorative Coin Malta 2009 EMU.jpg
- File:€2 commemorative coin Malta 2009 EMU.jpg
- File:€2 Commemorative Coin Netherlands 2009 EMU.jpg
- File:€2 Commemorative Coin Portugal 2009 EMU.jpg
- File:Portugal 2009 uem.JPG
- File:Portugal 2009 uem.png
- File:Eslovaquia 2009 uem.JPG
- File:Eslovaquia 2009 uem.png
- File:€2 Commemorative Coin Slovakia 2009 EMU.jpg
- File:€2 Commemorative Coin Slovenia 2009 EMU.jpg
- File:España 2009 uem.JPG
Stefan4 (talk) 01:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- The problem with the French ones is that there does not seem to be any permission from the photograper(s) which is needed per COM:ART. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- Good point. Delete for the French ones too then, with of course no objection to free licensed replacements. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- Good point.
- The problem with the French ones is that there does not seem to be any permission from the photograper(s) which is needed per COM:ART. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: unfree picture Otourly (talk) 20:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- Re-opened
Reopening since I think that something went wrong. Several images were proposed for deletion, but the closing admin deleted one and kept the other ones. The other images also kept their {{Delete}} templates, so if you go to their file information pages, it still says that they have been proposed for deletion, which looks wrong. I still think that all of the images in the request should be deleted, as explained above. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed. Closing admin has been notified by someone else. I still vote Delete. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, I souldn't begin a deletion before sleeping ;) Otourly (talk) 17:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
- <hands administrator a cup of coffee, double> --Hammersoft (talk) 19:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Uploads by SYRYNX
[edit]- File:Toyota carina 40632.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:TCGT1.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:TCGT2.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Most of the uploads of this user have already been deleted or submitted for speedy deletion as copyright violations. These are the remaining three pictures which are likely to be copyvios as well but where I was so far unable to find a web page where it could have been taken from. --AFBorchert (talk) 17:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment The uploader has been blocked for a week. Hence his talk page should be checked for possible comments. --AFBorchert (talk) 17:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: because of the many copyvio uploads of the user we can not assume this is not a copyvio Neozoon (talk) 19:46, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Zbysek.nemec (talk · contribs)
[edit]Derivatives of non-free images.
- File:Donald - Deriche filter (alpha=1.5, low treshold=60, high treshold=120).jpg
- File:Angelina - Deriche filter (alpha=1, low treshold=15, high treshold=25).jpg
- File:Bender - Deriche filter (alpha=1.5, low treshold=60, high treshold=120).jpg
- File:Zebra - Deriche filter (alpha=0.4, low treshold=40, high treshold=80).jpg
- File:F18 - Deriche filter (alpha=4, low treshold=25, high treshold=60).jpg
- File:Lena - Deriche filter (alpha=2, low treshold=20, high treshold=50).jpg
- File:Lena deriche alpha = 1.jpg
- File:Lena deriche alpha = 0.5.jpg
- File:Lena deriche alpha = 2.jpg
- File:Lena deriche alpha = 0.25.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}
—Ruud 19:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 23:57, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Claimed to be PD-Old as dating from 1927- but that does not deal with the date of death of its author, if relevant, but certainly the Exide Corporation are still using the logo or its close derivative on their website and claiming copyright for it. This needs some clarification but it shouldn't be assumed that it is out of copyright merely on a bare assertion of its age, and particularly since the source is stated to be from Exide's website. Even so, it's unused and arguably out of scope, whatever its copyright status. Rodhullandemu (talk) 01:14, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - the company using this logo just means that one might want to add {{Trademark}}; the design is old, likely anonymous, and {{PD-ineligible}} according to German standards (kleine Münze, Gebrauchsgrafik). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 01:21, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment This is missing a US public domain tag; however, the design appears to be ineligible for copyright. Does anybody believe that it passes the threshold of originality? The sun image may be considered a simple geometric shape. If it does pass the threshold of originality, it should be deleted as copyrighted in the US. It is not out of scope, because a logo of this sort can be used in an educational manner. Ryan Vesey Review me! 15:03, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Pieter Kuiper claims that it is likely anonymous, but this is art. According to German law, artworks are never anonymous if created (or possibly published or made available to the public) before 1 July 1995. However, this is a simple logo (compare with the examples at COM:TOO#Germany) and thus unlikely copyrightable in Germany. In the United States, the logo might be sufficiently complex for copyright protection. However, as the logo is ineligible for copyright in Germany, it means that it was in the public domain in Germany on the URAA date, so for this to be copyrighted in the United States, it would need to comply with United States copyright notice & copyright renewal formalities, which is unlikely for an ancient German logo. Thus, {{PD-textlogo}} as a German licence, and {{PD-1996}} as a US licence. --Stefan4 (talk) 09:16, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- Keep If a file like File:SED-Logo.png is okay under German law, then this one is perfectly acceptable, though the tag should be changed to PD-ineligible. Wizardman 15:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Per above. PD-ineligible. MGA73 (talk) 20:07, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Out of project scope: poor quality; picture without content or purpose Hystrix (talk) 22:49, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 23:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Out of project scope: poor quality; picture without content or purpose Hystrix (talk) 23:09, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 23:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Out of project scope: unused personal photo Hystrix (talk) 00:27, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 23:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope: personal photo; unused, uncategorized; educational value unclear. Hystrix (talk) 18:38, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. INeverCry 22:53, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope: personal photo; unused, uncategorized; educational value unclear. Hystrix (talk) 18:41, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. INeverCry 20:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
The photograph itself may fall under ``Ottoman Empire``-PD regulations but not the plaque on the bottom - not the text but the strange drawing with the anchor around it. This is not PD because it was inserted newly 79.221.106.111 15:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- if you remove that plaque, it should be no problem anymore (Contributions/79.221.106.111|79.221.106.111)
- cut out file description - hope all happy now--Gonzosft (talk) 14:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- The description isn't the problem, the problem is there is no proof this image is PD in the US. Commons requires all images hosted here to be demonstrably PD in the US. Parsecboy (talk) 20:42, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
This includes also the following files:
--High Contrast (talk) 18:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- {PD-ineligible} – for works too trivial to be copyrighted for 2 words and 2 dates, it is just a description text, also you might not read trürkish
--Gonzosft (talk) 15:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Comment Of course {{PD-Ottoman}} is wrong tag. There is no proof for the work of Turkish Navy. The uploader have to provide precise source. Takabeg (talk) 15:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- pictures of the Leader Attatürk are a national heritage in Turkey and PD.--Gonzosft (talk) 20:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- i downloaded it here, but you should know the source http://www.dzkk.tsk.tr/images/multimedya/engine/swf/player.swf?url=../../data/video/klip/yavuz.flv --Gonzosft (talk) 15:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- shall we take {PD-TR}, like the other foto of this floating dock ?--Gonzosft (talk) 22:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete all - no indication these photos are in the public domain in the United States. Images hosted on Commons have to be PD in both the country of origin and the US, where the servers are located. Parsecboy (talk) 23:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment According to 17 USC 104(c) and 17 USC 104A, if work is public domain in the "source country" on the "date of restoration", the copyright cannot be restored in the United States. Takabeg (talk) 23:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- That applies only to works in the public domain outside of the US before 1996, when the URAA came into effect. If this photo was PD in Turkey on 1 January 1996, then it will be PD in the US. If not, it will probably still be copyrighted in the US. See Jappalang's comments here, which explain the issue (specifically bullet number 5). We need the date of publication in Turkey to determine when exactly it goes out of copyright in the US. Parsecboy (talk) 23:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- {PD-TR} – for works whose author died more than 70 years ago, and anonymous works published more than 70 years ago. if i clculate right : 2012 - 70 = 1942 and that foto is from 1927. sp where is the problem ? Parceboy needs a calculator.--Gonzosft (talk) 13:24, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- Where is the proof this image was published in 1927? Regardless, even if it was, that means it would enter the public domain in Turkey in 1997, and would thus still be under copyright in the US, because its copyright would have been extended with the URAA. Presumably the photo was published sometime between 1927 and 1978, which would put the copyright in the US as date of publication +95 years. At the very earliest, this photo won't be PD in the US until 2022. Please acquire even a basic grasp of copyright law if you're going to upload photos like this. Parsecboy (talk) 16:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- sure i think : i have a tag and use that. basta. would you say the tag is wrong ? then delete the tag. i know you do all this just because it is not found by you! next time i use tag {PD-anon-1923} and you will for sure find again something against it--Gonzosft (talk) 17:33, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- If you use {{PD-anon-1923}} you should provide evidence (reliable sources) that the authorship is really unknown. Not just speculations. --High Contrast (talk) 18:24, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- That, and given that the photo was taken in 1927, it's quite impossible for it to be PD-US-23. Parsecboy (talk) 22:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- If you use {{PD-anon-1923}} you should provide evidence (reliable sources) that the authorship is really unknown. Not just speculations. --High Contrast (talk) 18:24, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- sure i think : i have a tag and use that. basta. would you say the tag is wrong ? then delete the tag. i know you do all this just because it is not found by you! next time i use tag {PD-anon-1923} and you will for sure find again something against it--Gonzosft (talk) 17:33, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- Where is the proof this image was published in 1927? Regardless, even if it was, that means it would enter the public domain in Turkey in 1997, and would thus still be under copyright in the US, because its copyright would have been extended with the URAA. Presumably the photo was published sometime between 1927 and 1978, which would put the copyright in the US as date of publication +95 years. At the very earliest, this photo won't be PD in the US until 2022. Please acquire even a basic grasp of copyright law if you're going to upload photos like this. Parsecboy (talk) 16:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- {PD-TR} – for works whose author died more than 70 years ago, and anonymous works published more than 70 years ago. if i clculate right : 2012 - 70 = 1942 and that foto is from 1927. sp where is the problem ? Parceboy needs a calculator.--Gonzosft (talk) 13:24, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- That applies only to works in the public domain outside of the US before 1996, when the URAA came into effect. If this photo was PD in Turkey on 1 January 1996, then it will be PD in the US. If not, it will probably still be copyrighted in the US. See Jappalang's comments here, which explain the issue (specifically bullet number 5). We need the date of publication in Turkey to determine when exactly it goes out of copyright in the US. Parsecboy (talk) 23:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- was kann ich beweisen, mit nichts als dem foto ? steht ja meist nichts dran. alles anders geht nur über die bildinhalte. sieht so aus, als das es eine upload pause gibt bis praktikable regeln eingeführt sind.
Comment added 3 other files with the same problems. --High Contrast (talk) 18:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- And one of them deleted because Turkey was not involved there and no proof given it was published in the USA or made by Ottoman Empire/turkish citizens or was published anonymously. --Denniss (talk) 14:10, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- In Turkey, File:Yavuz Atatürk Coffin.jpg is one of the most famous shots of Ataturk's funeral ([7], [8]). They were used in newspapers at the time. We can find File:Yavuz_Schwimmdock.jpg Gölcük Tersanesi Komutanlığı Tarihçesi 1926-1999 and it was probably used in newspapers at the time, but I didn't investigate in detail. I've seen File:SMS Goeben Seeflieger.jpg in the website of for the first time. If need, we can put {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}. When the original copyright holder claims and prove his/her propriety, we will delete it. (If you are the copyright holder of this image, and do not wish to have it hosted on Commons, please contact our designated agent or nominate the image for deletion, explaining the situation.). I think the problem is another point, and I don't know how it is dealt under the Turkish copyright law. When this documentary is considered as an independent work, can we cut and edit the documentary ? Takabeg (talk) 02:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
![[7]](http://www.dzkk.tsk.tr/images/ataturkdeniz/YavuzZirhlisininGuvertesinde(19%20Kasim%201938)_2.jpg){kind=link}
![[8]](http://www.dzkk.tsk.tr/images/ataturkdeniz/YavuzZirhlisininGuvertesinde(19%20Kasim%201938)_1.jpg){kind=link}
- By the way, 79.221.106 and Parsecboy is same person ? The tendency of their approaches ans arguments on summaries and comments in DRs are very similar. Maybe / 80.187.103.72 and /79.237.171.3 are also same. If so, his/her behavior in this DR is considered as sockpuppetry. Takabeg (talk) 02:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- No, I am not any of those IPs. You'll note I said nothing about the text that has since been removed from the images (which was actually fine by itself, text/font cannot be copyrighted) - our arguments are nothing alike. That and our English is radically different - I'd be surprised if the IP(s) are native English speakers (though I suppose you might not notice that). I'm an admin on en.wiki, you don't need to explain sock-puppetry to me. Parsecboy (talk) 04:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- Hmm. 79.221.106, / 80.187.103.72 and /79.237.171.3 are from Germany. I assume Parsecboy is from the United States. OK. Takabeg (talk) 04:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Anyway I think your approach is "radical", when we take cognizance of information provided in existing files. For example, most of images related with World War I, the date of first publication is not given with source. If we apply this scheme to all images, we will lose majority of our images. Takabeg (talk) 09:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- The only thing radical about me is that I have a halfway decent understanding of US copyright law (and bits and pieces of other countries' laws) and see the value in adhering to it. Yes, there are quite a few images uploaded to Commons that shouldn't be here; that doesn't make the effort to get rid of them "radical". Many of them can, however, be uploaded to local wikis, where they need only meet that country's copyright laws, which are probably less restrictive than the US law. You don't necessarily need a date of first publication, which is nearly impossible to find in most cases. You just need a pre-1923 date of publication for it to be PD in the US. Parsecboy (talk) 13:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete except possibly File:SMS Goeben Seeflieger.jpg. For {{PD-1996}}, it is required that a Turkish work was in the public domain in Turkey on 1 January 1996. The minimum copyright term in Turkey at that time appears to have been creation+70 years. The file File:SMS Goeben Seeflieger.jpg is from 1915 (according to the file information page), and if it was also published in 1915 (as opposed to just taken in 1915), it is in the public domain in the United States, although it might still be copyrighted in Turkey. The other two images were created after 1925, which means that they were copyrighted in Turkey on 1 January 1996, so they are copyrighted in the United States for 95 years from the date of publication. --Stefan4 (talk) 09:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 20:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
