Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2012/01/04
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Zicht_op_Toledo_-_Madrid_Bellas_Artes_21-03-2010_11-54-27.jpg){kind=link}
_azide_3D.gif){kind=link}
Sending to DR to decide if this qualifies as simple logo Darwin Ahoy! 05:08, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: PD-textlogo Jcb (talk) 10:21, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Logo is com:TOO in the Netherlands. The logo as a whole is way to complicated and it looks carefully designed. In the Netherlands this would most likely have a copyright. Natuur12 (talk) 20:04, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:38, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
sorry for nominating that image, but I can't find anywhere the license information page on his site. He is L. Sanger adding anywhere on his page the copyrrights laws and he has - indeed - knowleged in copyright laws, but where is the information that he released the file into CC-BY-X. Really, I searched long... mabdul 00:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- Withdrawn: OTRS ticket found. mabdul 02:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- It says "Permission=© Larry Sanger". Not a good sign. On the website, the picture is listed under "Press Photos" but that doesn't really explain much. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- I just posted a link to the OTRS statement so people can connect the L Sanger image with the release. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Keep This file was extracted from File:Larry_Sanger.jpg, which is verified in OTRS. Addihockey10 (talk) 01:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
duplicate Raja Ravi Varma, Lord Garuda.jpg Praveen:talk 07:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: redirected as dupe Túrelio (talk) 15:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Too graphic; children can see this. Why go to porn sites when they can just come to Wikipedia. I've seen children looking at these images at libraries. Obsant (talk) 21:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: (speedy) - Commons is not censored, and we have things which may offend you - please read out disclaimer. If you are worried about your children, I suggest you install image filtering software. We will not censor ourselves: our task is to provide a resource of educational images, and like it or not, human anatomy and sexuality is part of that mission. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Too graphic; children can see this. Why go to porn sites when they can just come to Wikipedia. I've seen children looking at these images at libraries. Obsant (talk) 21:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: (speedy) - Commons is not censored, and we have things which may offend you - please read out disclaimer. If you are worried about your children, I suggest you install image filtering software. We will not censor ourselves: our task is to provide a resource of educational images, and like it or not, human anatomy and sexuality is part of that mission. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted image taken from publisher's website, only usable on en.wiki under fair use, which is not permissible on commons. Guillaume2303 (talk) 11:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted as copyvio. Rosenzweig τ 22:44, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
en:Antonio Cervantes born 1945, this photo is from ~1975 or so, its by far not public domain, especially not pd-old as claimed here Martin H. (talk) 19:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted as copyvio. Rosenzweig τ 22:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
The quality is too low, too blurry Poco a poco (talk) 16:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- After agreement with the author, I marked it for a speedydelete, Poco a poco (talk) 16:38, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Logan Talk Contributions 20:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
It's my upload and I don't want to have the picture up here anymore. Rsuvnaarrt (talk) 23:09, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Delete - Low quality/unused/authors request. Tiptoety talk 06:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC)- Delete Too low quality to be realistically useful. We need something similar however. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 16:09, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: I'm going to close this early, since as Pieter pointed out elsewhere, the photo has location data in the EXIF. Other than that, it's a low quality image which the uploader requests deletion of - I really don't see much controversial here. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Its my upload and I don't want to have the picture up here anymore. Rsuvnaarrt (talk) 23:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- KeepLuckily Wikimedia Commons is not a private webhost, your desire to host it here is not relevant. The only important factor is the educational value (which it has) and the licence (which is free). VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 14:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete delete in line with uploaders request which suspercedes "educational value". Chesdovi (talk) 17:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- Uploader's request has never superseded educational value on Commons. It if would then any prolific uploader can de facto sabotage the project. In fact if you were monitoring the deletion requests recently you would see that about a month ago there was an upsurge of trow away identities which were trolling exactly like that (upload - wait a short period of time - request deletion). The truth of the matter is that CC licences can't be recalled, so even if anybody were to delete the image anybody else could upload it right back without any copyright infringement. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 19:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- That is not in the spirit of commons. Chesdovi (talk) 21:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - considering subject of the photograph, and its poor quality, I believe we should respect Rsuvnaarrt's request. --Claritas (talk) 22:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - Low quality/unused/uploader's request. Tiptoety talk 06:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Comment - did uploader discover that the GPS tag leads to his address? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: I'm going to close this early, since as Pieter pointed out, the photo has location data in the EXIF. Other than that, it's a pretty awful low quality image which the uploader requests deletion of - I really don't see much controversial here. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
license problems Wurstverse (talk) 01:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Delete Copyvio. Yuken Teruya is still alive. Takabeg (talk) 07:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by Fastily Morning Sunshine (talk) 07:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. --ZooFari 01:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. --ZooFari 01:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Useless personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:22, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. --ZooFari 01:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Useless personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:22, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. --ZooFari 01:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Useless personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. --ZooFari 01:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Useless personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. --ZooFari 01:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Useless personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. --ZooFari 01:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Derivative of a model by R.P.Aldonina who is still alive. No details on permission ever given. A.Savin 22:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: OTRS permission received. Anatoliy (talk) 22:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Older, unused version of this image, much inferior so we can delete it. Yikrazuul (talk) 12:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: It is unused and replaced by a similar, but superior version Ed (Edgar181) 14:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Its my upload and I don't want to have the picture up here anymore. Rsuvnaarrt (talk) 23:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- KeepLuckily Wikimedia Commons is not a private webhost, your desire to host it here is not relevant. The only important factor is the educational value (which it has) and the licence (which is free). VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 14:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - such poor quality that it has no potential educational uses. --Claritas (talk) 23:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - Per authors request/unused. Tiptoety talk 00:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete i say if the uploader wants it removed, remove it. Besides there's tons of explicit photos of all sorts of genitalia here. Not like we need more.PumpkinSky talk 01:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete user request. Beta M's statement about about Commons not being a private webhost is why we should respect self-nom deletions. This not being a private webhost is a reason to delete and not to keep. Commons' philosophy is that we should never feel like we are forced into a situation with ethical concerns, and keeping images against the will of an individual really crosses into one. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
- That may be some "philosophy" but it surely isn't a policy. The policy doesn't allow people to stop commercial use or use to promote some cause they disagree with. And saying that because i said that Commons isn't a private webhost (which it isn't) and therefore we must become one because you found some philosophy page (could you provide a link please) really amazes me. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 16:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
- The Commons considers ethical concerns, and keeping an easily replaceable file just because would go against what would seem to be ethical. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
- That may be some "philosophy" but it surely isn't a policy. The policy doesn't allow people to stop commercial use or use to promote some cause they disagree with. And saying that because i said that Commons isn't a private webhost (which it isn't) and therefore we must become one because you found some philosophy page (could you provide a link please) really amazes me. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 16:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per consensus. --ZooFari 01:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Commons:Nudity#New uploads of penis photo, not special enough to be educationally useful A1Cafel (talk) 04:24, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 03:28, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
This jersey is a derivative work of several copyrights, including the logos at the top chest parts. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 00:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
This is a derivative work of a copyrighted poster. Also it is not a pernament feature. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 00:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Apparently, this logo is used on advertising purpose. I suggest to delete it Coekon (talk) 01:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by Jameslwoodward Captain-tucker (talk) 01:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
license problems Wurstverse (talk) 01:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Delete Copyvio. Yuken Teruya is still alive. Takabeg (talk) 07:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: 00:54, 10 January 2012 by Fastily; closed by Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
license problems Wurstverse (talk) 01:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Delete Copyvio. Yuken Teruya is still alive. Takabeg (talk) 07:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
license problems Wurstverse (talk) 01:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Delete Copyvio. Yuken Teruya is still alive. ^Takabeg (talk)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
license problems Wurstverse (talk) 01:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Delete Copyvio. Yuken Teruya is still alive. Takabeg (talk) 07:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
license problems Wurstverse (talk) 01:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Delete Copyvio. Yuken Teruya is still alive.
Deleted: 00:54, 10 January 2012 by Fastily, closed by Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
license problems Wurstverse (talk) 01:34, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Delete Copyvio. Yuken Teruya is still alive. Takabeg (talk) 07:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
license problems Wurstverse (talk) 01:34, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Delete Copyvio. Yuken Teruya is still alive. Takabeg (talk) 07:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
This Catholic church was only completed in 2005 but Lithuania has no FOP Leoboudv (talk) 02:10, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Delete FOP requirements are not fulfilled. --High Contrast (talk) 02:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Doubtfully own work, official band photo found on various sites, rights not clear Funfood ␌ 02:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
This Catholic church was only completed in 2005 but Lithuania has no FOP sadly for modern buildings. Leoboudv (talk) 02:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Delete FOP requirements are not fulfilled. --High Contrast (talk) 02:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Product photo, sure no own work, doubtfully free Funfood ␌ 02:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
This Catholic church was only completed in 2005 but Lithuania has no FOP for modern buildings. Leoboudv (talk) 02:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
It is unlikely that the new contributor with only two edits is the copyright owner. Bensin (talk) 02:52, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- ... but if that is the case, I'd like to tie an OTRS ticket to this image. --Bensin (talk) 22:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:50, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
OK, I know the uploader is already characterizing me as a "frequent complainer", but this sure looks to me like it is a picture of a presumably copyrighted sculpture, and there is no indication of any reason to think the sculpture would not be copyrighted. Jmabel ! talk 04:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Same as File:Jacques_Melly.jpg, and not shure for the license Nemoi a parlé le 05:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Same as File:Jacques_Melly.jpg, and not shure for the license Nemoi a parlé le 05:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
This is an album cover, uploaded by someone who claims to be the copyright holder; there's no solid evidence that the uploader really is the copyright holder. Of course, I'll happily withdraw if evidence is provided to prove the uploader's claim. Nyttend (talk) 05:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
This is an album cover, uploaded by someone who claims to be the copyright holder; there's no solid evidence that the uploader really is the copyright holder. Of course, I'll happily withdraw if evidence is provided to prove the uploader's claim. Nyttend (talk) 05:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
duplicate of File:Bheeshma oath by RRV.jpg Praveen:talk 07:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
No evidence that uploader is the copyright holder. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 07:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by Jameslwoodward Captain-tucker (talk) 01:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
There is a better version of this file. Rapsar (talk) 09:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Copyright violation. Rapsar (talk) 10:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:56, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
copyright violation (of the photographer's rights) FA2010 (talk) 10:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by Jameslwoodward Captain-tucker (talk) 01:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Useless personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:09, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:57, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Useless personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:10, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:57, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Useless personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by Jameslwoodward Captain-tucker (talk) 01:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Useless personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:57, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Useless personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:57, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Useless personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by Jameslwoodward Captain-tucker (talk) 01:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Useless personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by Jameslwoodward Captain-tucker (talk) 01:56, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Useless personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Fair use is not allowed at Commons. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Surely not own work and there is no evidence given for a PD-USGov license 91.57.82.98 11:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep as the author must have taken a snapshot of the picture in the museum. Please read this.--Ankit Maity (talk) 11:29, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader does not match author. Surely the image is not own work. If, as Ankit Maity suggests, it is a photo of a photo in a museum, then we need to know the copyright status of the original photo -- since it was presumably taken during WWII, it is probably not PD. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Has no proper source information and it is quite obvious scanned out of a book 91.57.82.98 11:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- I think it is a {{PD-trivial}}, but anyway I have already created an svg-copy of this image. Artem Korzhimanov (talk) 14:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: May or my not be eligible for copyright, but not very useful, particularly since we have an SVG. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Probably copyvio. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:26, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Delete I think we have to get the permission of the publisher: 草思社. Takabeg (talk) 14:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Useless personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:29, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
COM:FOP#United Arab Emirates. 84.61.131.15 11:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- IP idiocy. We have dozens of photos in Category:Airports in the United Arab Emirates. Either delete all buildings and structures in UAE, or stop trolling. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Unclear copyright. The statue was created in 1950 and freedom of panorama doesn't apply to statues in the United States. Armbrust (talk) 12:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, it wasn't created until 2006. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:06, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Also by this uploader:
- File:Matt-painted ephr.jpg
- File:Fringed pottery.jpg
- File:Pictoral.jpg
- File:Closed style.jpg
- File:Submycenaean octo.jpg
- File:Vapheio.jpg
- File:Piriform jar.jpg
- File:S-g cup.jpg
- File:Mycenaean Alabastron.jpg
- File:Dark on Light Ware.jpg
- File:Pattern pottery.jpg
- File:Pictorial pottery.jpg
- File:Stirrup jar.jpg
- File:Geometric pottery.jpg
- File:Carinated cup.jpg
All these are not PD-art and hence copyvios (of the photographer's rights) FA2010 (talk) 12:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Additionally: File:Minoan pottery example.jpg, also by this uploader: no permission. --FA2010 (talk) 12:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
available on various websites in smaller resolution (e.g. http://www.leganord.org/, http://prov-vallecamonica2.leganord.org/), most likely uploaded by "supporter" (see user name) Polarlys (talk) 12:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
photo of other photo f unknown source and licensing Polarlys (talk) 12:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
It seems to be the playbill of one of its exhibitions or something like. Probably a copyvio Jalo 12:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:09, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Is Christer T really the author of this work? Stigfinnare (talk) 13:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio. There is no proof for {{Own}}. Takabeg (talk) 13:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: While we generally assume good faith, there is a wide range of dates here and they are all very small, so it seems likely they are taken from elsewhere. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:23, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
I confused the name of the book. Should be La conquista de quince mil leguas.djvu Caronte10 (talk) 14:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Who is this? Out of scope unless it is shown that this is some notable person. Also looks like a copyvio. Rosenzweig τ 14:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
COM:FOP#United Arab Emirates. 84.61.131.15 14:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- IP idiocy. We have dozens of photos in Category:Airports in the United Arab Emirates. Either delete all buildings and structures in UAE, or stop trolling. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:01, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Out of project scope: personal picture. Leyo 15:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Out of project scope: personal picture. Leyo 15:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:29, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Image does not display correctly and is unused. Leyo 15:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:29, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Out of project scope, not used. Leyo 15:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:29, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Out of project scope: unused personal picture. Leyo 15:22, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:29, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Out of project scope: unused personal picture. Leyo 15:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:29, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Out of project scope: unused personal picture. Leyo 15:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:29, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Low-quality thumbnail duplicate of File:Flag of Palaeologus Dynasty.svg Constantine ✍ 15:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:29, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Out of project scope. Leyo 15:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:29, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Unused logo. Leyo 15:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:29, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Out of project scope: unused personal picture. Leyo 15:29, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
This work is not 2D. No info about photographers license. Jarekt (talk) 15:34, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Spam. Leyo 15:34, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:32, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Does not seem to be useful, might be copyvio. Leyo 15:36, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:32, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Preview version (800px-), badJPG, not used. Leyo 15:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete, 800px thumbnail version of File:SaudiArabiaWorldMap.png (hence the filename) in jpg. --Martin H. (talk) 17:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:32, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Only the preview version was edited (see 800px-). Better versions available, see de:Wikipedia:Fotowerkstatt/Archiv 3#Drehmaschine. Leyo 15:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:32, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Calcium bromide is not a covalent compound. This depiction is therefore misleading. ChemNerd (talk) 15:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- Image changed as it appears in PubChem--RicHard-59 (talk) 18:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Info This image is misleading, as it implicates that the bromide ions are positioned in a certain angle. --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)- Delete as incorrect. PubChem is not reliable at all for inorganic compounds. --Leyo 21:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:33, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Calcium fluoride is not a covalent compound. This depiction is therefore misleading. ChemNerd (talk) 15:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- Image changed as it is in PubChem--RicHard-59 (talk) 18:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- Info This image is misleading, as it implicates that the fluoride ions are positioned in a certain angle. --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete as incorrect. PubChem is not reliable at all for inorganic compounds. --Leyo 21:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:33, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Probably copied from official website, or derivative work of copyrighted images.
- http://www.bike-shop.de/shop/bulls-copperhead-3-2009-mtb-hardtail.html
- http://www.mtb-forum.eu/bulls-copperhead-3-disc-t-1077-1.html 丁 (talk) 16:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:33, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Uploader is not Copyright Holder of the Art work (see Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag}. This Art work's Author is unknown and a publication Date is unknown. Even if we assume the painting was made during Wells lifetime the painting isn't old enough to pass the 120 years needed for a copyright expiration of a unknown Authors with no publication date. However, there is no evidence that painting was actually made during Wells lifetime. It could have been painted recently. While it is possible that the image is PD, there no evidence of this was given by uploader, and a photo (File:Daniel H. Wells2.jpg) has been uploaded that can pass copyright rules, so image is replaceable. --ARTEST4ECHO talk 16:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- I don't know where you got your information, but Daniel H. Wells died in 1891, which was over 120 years ago using my Mormon math. Leads me to believe this photo is of someone else or the date is in error. Either way it's not a suitable replacement. Cool Hand Luke (talk) 19:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- The photo that is a replacement is from a book written by the Offical LDS "Assistant Church Historian" Andrew Jenson from 1897 to 1941. (see source) The photo is of Daniel H. Wells ca 1901, making it a more then suitable replacement. I would dare to say it's a better replacement since "Art" is subject to the painters interpretations and a photo isn't.
- As for my math you are correct. I was going by the old {{PD-US-unpublished}} tag which, until the first of the year read "before 1891". I just hadn't moved my year forward. However, the math issue is moot. {{Wikipedia:Public_domain#Artworks|Wikipedia:Public domain}} policy on photographs of "Artworks" reads
- Proof of publication is mandatory; uploaders making a "public domain" claim on (a reproduction of) an artwork are required to prove with verifiable details that the work was first published before 1923, or first published after 2003 with an artist who died more than 70 years ago. "
- Therefore {{PD-US-unpublished}} doesn't apply in this case. So the "Authors death date (not Wells death date) or a date of publication (not creation) is required, making my 120 years math mistake moot. The fact is the required information is missing, and since the author is unknown and there is no evidence of publication the image is not Pubic Domain.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 19:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Unused, irrelevant school project. Also : File:Coque iso.jpg, File:Organigrammee1.jpg and File:Specs.jpg UncivilFire (talk) 16:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
unused private image - out of scope (unusable without a description) Cholo Aleman (talk) 16:29, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:34, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - uploader did make a misguided attempt at a userpage, or a vanity page (en:Atul Krishna). Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
and File:PCS Sports.jpg, File:Patnacentralschool.jpg. Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:38, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
unused private image without description - unusable in the commons, out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 16:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:38, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope: spam. Leyo 16:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:38, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely own work. Leyo 17:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:38, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
I uploaded this because it was tagged under a free license on Flickr, but I just noticed the original author wroted (c) in the summary, which means they might still claim the copyright. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 17:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Author may at the same time claim copyright and give us a license,which he has done -- CC-BY. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Not PD-old: the date on the right corner gives: 9.6.93. All in all in its appearance the drawing seems not to be from the 19th century 91.57.82.98 17:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Artist died in 1945, therefore not yet public domain Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 17:49, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Artist died in 1945, therefore not yet public domain Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 17:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Artist died in 1945, therefore not yet public domain Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 17:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
File:Ignacio_Zuloaga_Zabaleta_(1870-1945)_-_Zicht_op_Toledo_-_Madrid_Bellas_Artes_21-03-2010_11-54-27.jpg
[edit]_-_Zicht_op_Toledo_-_Madrid_Bellas_Artes_21-03-2010_11-54-27.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_Zicht_op_Toledo_-_Madrid_Bellas_Artes_21-03-2010_11-54-27.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Artist died in 1945, therefore not yet public domain Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 17:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- yes, my mistake... the uploader Paul Hermans (talk) 18:26, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Artist died in 1945, therefore not yet public domain Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 17:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Artist died in 1945, therefore not yet public domain Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 17:52, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Useless personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 18:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Useless personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 18:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio. Ices2Csharp (talk) 18:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio. Ices2Csharp (talk) 18:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Useless personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 18:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Useless personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 18:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Useless personal picture (person is out of scope). Ices2Csharp (talk) 18:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Useless personal picture (person is out of scope). Ices2Csharp (talk) 18:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:42, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Not in the PD until 2014. FA2010 (talk) 19:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- PD now. Yann (talk) 19:00, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Not in the PD until 2014. FA2010 (talk) 19:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- PD now. Yann (talk) 19:00, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Has no valid source information. We do not know whose work this photo is and if Mister Grimberg gave his ok for the upload here 91.57.92.62 22:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
No indication why this should be GFDL. The photograph is a derivative work of a copyrighted painting. FA2010 (talk) 22:22, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- Well, who is the owner of the copyright? The artist died in 1958. The owner of this art work is the Ruth Smith Art Museum in Vágur, Faroe Islands, and they don't mind that the a photo of this art work is here on commons. EileenSanda (talk) 10:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- In that case you could ask the museum for permission. They could either clearly state their policy on their web site or send an e-mail to OTRS, saying they indeed own the copyright and license the work (or accept licensing photos of it) under GFDL and/or some other licence(s) they choose. There are e-mail templates that can be used to avoid ambiguous language. --LPfi (talk) 14:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- To answer the question: In European law systems, the owner(s) of the copyright is/are the heir(s) of the artist, until 70 years after the death of the artist. The painting will become part of the Public Domain on 1 Jan 2029. In very rare cases, the heir(s) may have ceded all rights to some society or museum, but if this is the case, it should be clearly documented. --FA2010 (talk) 09:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
I doubt that the pic is a work by uploader; the depicted person is born 1928. A.Savin 22:42, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
The photograph must have been taken somewhere in the 1990s and not in 2011 as declared by uploader. Thus I don't think that it's an own work by the uploader since many of her further uploads are almost obvious copyvios and nominated for deletion as well. A.Savin 22:52, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: OTRS permission received. Anatoliy (talk) 22:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Bad quality. Eduardo P (talk) 23:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: In use. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Bad quality. Eduardo P (talk) 16:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment While i want to keep, but i think that since the image was replaced, we can allow author's request to be granted. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 04:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Low quality. Digital noise. Eduardo P (talk) 16:12, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Appears to be a studio photo and a smaller version is at http://open-houston.org/Home/PanelistsandSpeakers/SaminaFarid.aspx Eeekster (talk) 23:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
image is not of encyclopedic value. And the encyclopedic value is an important criterion of the Commons scope 91.57.82.98 11:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Keep No, "encyclopedic value" is not mentioned anywhere in COM:SCOPE. The image provides knowledge on Event listeners in fun and sexy way, which means it satisfies COM:SCOPE criteria of "providing knowledge; instructional or informative" . --M5 (talk) 12:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - the kind of images that students will remember. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. Rosenzweig τ 05:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
While most of the logo is a regular font, if you add the US flag pattern at the left of the logo, I believe it is no longer PD-text. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 00:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Keep I would keep it on the grounds that the addition to the capital "N" is simply part of the font, but I don't feel strongly enough to close it as a keep. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: per comment above Morning Sunshine (talk) 09:24, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Copyright http://www.as.com/futbol/foto/pablo-sarabia/20110314dasdasftb_9/Ies;Heradiom (talk) 22:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
The given license ({{PD-old}}) certainly doesn't apply, 27 Sept 1967 is written on the map. Prof. Professorson (talk) 09:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - so there is a recent note on an old map, why should that matter? Does this work as a deep source link? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Ziet er goed uit niets mis mee. De auteursrechten zijn verlopen. Mvg Bakel123 (talk) 13:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Map is clearly from the first half of the 19th century. A short, factual note on that from 1967 does not imply protection as if the entire map were a new work. Moreover, this note is not included in the actual file. Pbech (talk) 12:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Old map. Yann (talk) 17:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
_azide_3D.gif&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_azide_3D.gif&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
User:DMacks has stated it well in this edit: "Unlikely that the N–N–N of an azide would be so severely bent. Known x-ray and other structures of various Cu(II) complexes with this ligand have nearly linear geometry there (as expected for the electronic structure of azide), for example, doi:10.1016/j.poly.2008.04.028" ChemNerd (talk) 16:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
_azide_3D.gif){kind=link}
Deleted: Incorrect structure. Leyo 21:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
_azide_3D.gif){kind=link}
I named wrong file name. Twingle600 (talk) 06:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Comment You can use {{Rename}}. Takabeg (talk) 07:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Comment I suggested rename correcting number of unit, should be OK now? Oxyman (talk) 03:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept, Use {{Rename}} template next time. Techman224Talk 06:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Duplikat Carl Friedrich Simon Söhne (talk) 11:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Exact or scaled down duplicate: File:Sammellinse leicht gewölbt.svg. -- Common Good (talk) 19:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted Rangilo Gujarati (talk) 18:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 23:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted Rangilo Gujarati (talk) 18:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- Yes but it appears to be copyright to the uploader (watermarked © JSB Photography), i.e. Jaskirat Singh Bawa. Note also that the file contains full EXIF information. Visible watermarks inside images are strongly discouraged at Commons, but I'm not sure that's enough to delete the image. Is there any evidence that it has been previously published elsewhere? Voceditenore (talk) 18:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Hmmm. It's at http://www.flickr.com/photos/jzsinr/5776947551/ with "All rights reserved". Voceditenore (talk) 18:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- It clearly states that "All rights reserved" and a copyright symbol watermarked on file itself is I guess enough to remove it from commons. Rangilo Gujarati (talk) 19:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 23:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
We had to delete the image of Urho Kekkonen ( in OTRS ticket 2012010310012715 The Finnish Broadcasting Company Yleisradio states that the photo was taken in 1969, not 1965, and is thus not PD.) - deletion or new version needed Polarlys (talk) 18:26, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 23:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
This Catholic church was only completed in 2005 but Lithuania has no FOP sadly for modern buildings Leoboudv (talk) 19:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 23:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
No FoP in Lithuania, architect Kārlis Reisons died in 1981 A1Cafel (talk) 09:17, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 16:55, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
should be a copyvio. A photo from 1936, uploaded by an russian, such a license... Antemister (talk) 19:42, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 23:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
no valid source given that could proof that it is a NASA satellite photograph 91.57.92.62 21:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep this was uploaded 2004 to enwp; there is no reason to doubt a NASA origin. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
No solid evidence that the uploader is really the author of this image. Nyttend (talk) 05:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- I Uploaded on behalf of its owner, whom I wrote that article on his group for. A Dirty Watermelon (talk) 00:19, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- You need to provide evidence of that. Nyttend (talk) 14:27, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 17:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Possible non-free logo. Banfield - Amenazas aquí 10:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 17:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
It is not my photo DouwevdG (talk) 14:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 17:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
A photo of a work by Mikhail Mikhaylovich Gerasimov, died 1970 Prosfilaes (talk) 03:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- Please state rationale for deletion request.Leutha (talk) 09:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- It's someone else's work that you're copying by photographing it, and you don't have the rights to the statue.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 04:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
A photo of a work by Mikhail Mikhaylovich Gerasimov, died 1970 Prosfilaes (talk) 03:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- Please state rationale for deletion request.Leutha (talk) 09:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- It's someone else's work that you're copying by photographing it, and you don't have the rights to the statue.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 04:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted Rangilo Gujarati (talk) 18:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Question Why do you think so? This applies to several noms below, as well. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- Note also that the file contains full EXIF information listing the uploader as the copyright holder. I don't see how this qualifies for deletion. Is there any evidence that it has been previously published elsewhere? Voceditenore (talk) 18:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Oh dear! It's at http://www.flickr.com/photos/jzsinr/5770521797/in/set-72157626148115337 with "All Rights Reserved". Voceditenore (talk) 18:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Yes, but the Flickr user and our uploader have the same username. Note also that the version here is much larger than the largest version on Flickr -- 3,264×4,928 vs 678×1,024. I think this is OK. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 02:43, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep I agree that the Flickr user and the uploader are almost surely the same person. Given the size differential, I'd also say to keep it. Voceditenore (talk) 12:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- It seems that author is unaware about licensing, I suggest we remove this file from commons for now or contact the author to change the licensing on flickr too. Rangilo Gujarati (talk) 19:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted Rangilo Gujarati (talk) 18:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- It seems that it was the photographer who uploaded it but it's at his Flickr page (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jzsinr/5527097256/) with "All rights reserved". Voceditenore (talk) 18:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- It clearly states that "All rights reserved" and a copyright symbol watermarked on file itself is I guess enough to remove it from commons. Rangilo Gujarati (talk) 19:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 05:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
This Catholic church was only completed in 2005 but Lithuania has no FOP for modern buildings Leoboudv (talk) 19:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- oppose church design was made back in 1928 actually...更迅速 (talk) 18:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- oppose: That's a vandalism act. These photos are made by trusted wikipedia users, are widely used and the building is a public place. Hugo.arg (talk) 21:50, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Misguided keeps and closure. The building may date to 1930s, yet its original architect, w:lt:Kārlis Reisons, lived long enough to ensure that his artwork cannot be exploited by anyone even in new media/digital media age. Since he died in 1981, his œuvre will remain protected until January 1, 2052, the 70th anniversary of his death (or unless Lithuania reforms their copyright law to allow commercial uses of architecture and permanent public art). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:59, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:05, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
This Catholic church was only completed in 2005 but Lithuania has no FOP for modern buildings Leoboudv (talk) 19:42, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- oppose church design was made back in 1928 actually...更迅速 (talk) 18:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Could you please provide reference which supports this claim? --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- here briefly described the process. after initial design submission in '28 it was finally approved by commission in '33. Hope it helps. 更迅速 (talk) 17:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Could you please provide reference which supports this claim? --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Again misguided keep defense. The design may date to almost a hundred years ago, yet its author, Architect w:lt:Kārlis Reisons, died in 1981. Thus it is still copyrighted until January 1, 2052, or 70+1 years after he died. Unless an early undeletion comes if Lithuania's freedom of panorama becomes progressive and fit to the new media/digital media age. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:04, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:06, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Useless personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Comment I don't think this is a personal picture. He is ja:木村義志 (Yoshiyuki Kimura). Not so famous but notable. Takabeg (talk) 11:29, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- If the article would have been written by a regular contributor, I would have revoked my nomination for that reason, but looking at the history I found out that uploader, probably the person at the picture, wrote the article himself. Ices2Csharp (talk) 18:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- If you have any doubt on his notability, (I think) your correct address is ja:Wikipedia:削除依頼. Takabeg (talk) 13:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- I hope you forgive me that I'm not going to fight self-promotion at the Japanese Wikipedia without any Japanese skills. Ices2Csharp (talk) 21:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- If you have any doubt on his notability, (I think) your correct address is ja:Wikipedia:削除依頼. Takabeg (talk) 13:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Useless personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Comment I don't think this is a personal picture. He is ja:木村義志 (Yoshiyuki Kimura). Not so famous but notable. Takabeg (talk) 11:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- If the article would have been written by a regular contributor, I would have revoked my nomination for that reason, but looking at the history I found out that uploader, probably the person at the picture, wrote the article himself. Ices2Csharp (talk) 18:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- If you have any doubt on his notability, (I think) your correct address is ja:Wikipedia:削除依頼. Takabeg (talk) 13:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- I hope you forgive me that I'm not going to fight self-promotion at the Japanese Wikipedia without any Japanese skills. Ices2Csharp (talk) 21:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- If you have any doubt on his notability, (I think) your correct address is ja:Wikipedia:削除依頼. Takabeg (talk) 13:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
A photo of a work by Mikhail Mikhaylovich Gerasimov, died 1970, created 1939 Prosfilaes (talk) 03:22, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- Please state rationale for deletion request.Leutha (talk) 09:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- I did; it's someone else's work that you're copying by photographing it, and you don't have the rights to the statue.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- Actually I am not copying or photographing anything, or asserting any rights as regards any statue. I am just asking for your rationale.
- Please see this, (discussion) which states that copying of photo of showcase is not creation of 3D-object in 2 dimensions.
Article 1276 of Part IV of Civil Code of the Russian Federation:
Free Use of Work Permanently Situated in Place of Public Resort
Reproduction, broadcasting to the air or via cable shall be allowed, without the author's or other copyrightholder consent or payment of royalties, of photographic work, work of architecture or visual art, that permanently standing in places of public resort, except where portrayal of the work by such method is the basic object of that reproduction, broadcasting to the air or via cable or where portrayal of the work is used in commercial purposes.
If the legal constraints mean that the image is unsuitable for Wikicommons, it does not (necessarily) mean that the image cannot be used on sister projects. In these circumstances, it would be appreciated if you could indicate the rationale for removing an item from Commons and also to assume good faith, thanks Leutha (talk) 14:29, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- I have assumed good faith; I have never accused you of intentionally uploading copyrighted works or intentionally violating Commons policy. Please see Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Russia, where it says Not OK at the top. Wikimedia Commons requires works to be useable for commercial purposes.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:35, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete The problem lies within "commercial purpose". Our licenses (on Wikimedia Commons) require that commercial (re)use has to be allowed. Thats why you can't release this image under CC-BY-SA or GFDL (they allow commercial use). You could release the image under CC-BY-NC (non commercial), but this kind of licenses aren't accepted by this project. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ どこに見てもオッパイばかり 10:36, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Probably the same problem with: File:Yaroslav recontruccion.png, File:Yaroslav reconstruction edit.jpg, File:Yaroslav reconstruction03.jpg, File:Skiluros Archaeological Museum of Odessa.JPG and File:Yaroslav reconstruction02.jpg. --Túrelio (talk) 16:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
- Delete, it is copyright protected till 2040 (=1970 + 70).--Ymblanter (talk) 16:21, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 22:33, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Strong doubts in license given by uploader. File File:Aimi Kobayashi.jpg by the same uploader has clear attribution to some Ichiro Takahashi but no valid permission and is tagged as "GD-self" while the uploader is active in ru-wiki and seems to be a native Russian while Ichiro Takahashi is clearly Japanese (at least judging by his name). Ari Linn (talk) 14:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 22:35, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
unused screenshot of a program for selling houses (?) - does not look relevant for the commons Cholo Aleman (talk) 16:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- All the users uploads seem to have the same topic: Uploaders files
Deleted. MBisanz talk 22:50, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
The file description says in Spanish that the author died more than 70 years ago, but it is a vague claim, there's no specific authorship info Cambalachero (talk) 03:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Keep Martín Rodríguez died in 1845, it seems close to impossible to paint picture before 1845 and be alive in 1941. --M5 (talk) 12:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
- Remember that a picture is not a photo, it can be made anytime, the subject may pose for it or it may be long dead. The death date of Martín Rodríguez says little here Cambalachero (talk) 14:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: No source or author information Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:56, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
This Catholic church was only completed in 2005 but Lithuania has no FOP for modern buildings Leoboudv (talk) 19:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- Should be unfortunately deleted.--Ymblanter (talk) 03:47, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Design is very simple, but I believe still copyrightable. Dcoetzee (talk) 06:27, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:57, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
This is a modern statue of De Gaulle in Moscow so there should be COM:OTRS permission for it but there is nothing here and Russian COM:FOP would not normally allow it on Commons. . Leoboudv (talk) 19:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- Russian copyright - the picture and the statue fall under the Russian law. www.kremlin.ru is the source site and everything there is supposed to be available to us for use. See this document for more details (it is the equivalent of OTRS permission). Ottava Rima (talk) 21:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- Does kremlin.ru own copyrights for statue? I doubt so. Anyway if kremlin.ru's photographers will learn about absence of freedom of panorama, their complains may be heard faster then regular falks :-) --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- Your proposal of using deletion for purpose of some intricate lobbying would be "destructive action to illustrate the w:WP:POINT". Also it would be totally ineffective: I don't think anyone from kremlin.ru would care about the deletion of some picture from Commons, especially 6 years old photo from the previous president office. The president office staff is competent enough to know the law and clear all rights on pictures it publishes. --M5 (talk) 11:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: It looks like the image is OK and can be kept by Commons. If Admin/Bureaucrat EugeneZelenko agrees, then please consider this DR withdrawn by me and close this DR. Thank You for the reference Ottava Rima, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: After EugeneZelenko's comments, I have decided to keep this DR active and let the closing Admin decide whether to keep or delete this image. I am unsure what are the rules here now. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. I don't think we should be "holier than the Pope". It is completely safe to assume that president office staff cleared respective rights before publishing the picture. --M5 (talk) 11:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: I agree with Eugene -- I don't believe any government official can be depended on to understand the issue of DW Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:00, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
COM:FOP. There is no FOP in France, and the eiffel tower by night is protected. -- Cecil (talk) 01:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- Are fireworks protected in France?? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- Don't know, but the eiffel tower by night. So unless you can remove it from the firework, the question about protection of firework is rather secundary. And considering the copyright laws of France, I would bet on a protection of fireworks, too ;-) -- Cecil (talk) 07:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'd agree if there was some special lighting of the eiffel tower visible on this image (i.e. like in blue color as it was recently for a few months, or some text), but on this image, it is "only" lighted. If this was really enough to have a copyright on it, you wouldn't be able to depict any building at night. Obviously, there's a claim that images at night are copyrighted, but this would IMHO require a proof that the first illumination has been added less than about a hundred years ago. After the french article on the eiffel tower, the tower was illuminated from the very beginning. Also, since even the french wikipedia has very similar images in it's article, I suggest keep, as this copyright thing seems nothing but copyfraud. --PaterMcFly (talk) 21:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- The lightning was changed in 2003 and SNTE (the company who claims this copyright) has told that they don't request compensation from private uses, but for commercial one they do it (and have already done so). So it is against Commons rules as being non-commercial. And considering Frances copyright laws you will loose at court, there are already enough sentences to proof that. I for one will not expose users who don't know about that special law to that kind of experience, even if you are willing to let them run into a trap. -- Cecil (talk) 00:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'd agree if there was some special lighting of the eiffel tower visible on this image (i.e. like in blue color as it was recently for a few months, or some text), but on this image, it is "only" lighted. If this was really enough to have a copyright on it, you wouldn't be able to depict any building at night. Obviously, there's a claim that images at night are copyrighted, but this would IMHO require a proof that the first illumination has been added less than about a hundred years ago. After the french article on the eiffel tower, the tower was illuminated from the very beginning. Also, since even the french wikipedia has very similar images in it's article, I suggest keep, as this copyright thing seems nothing but copyfraud. --PaterMcFly (talk) 21:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- Don't know, but the eiffel tower by night. So unless you can remove it from the firework, the question about protection of firework is rather secundary. And considering the copyright laws of France, I would bet on a protection of fireworks, too ;-) -- Cecil (talk) 07:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- Hmmmm... One thing here: Is the eiffel tower actually lit in this image or does it only seem to be due to the fireworks? I don't want that anybody runs into a trap, but this seems to be a bit overcautious here. --PaterMcFly (talk) 07:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete. I think caution is the name of the game here. I would be surprised if that fireworks display weren't copyrighted — in France or any other country. It's original expression that attracts copyright, not the medium. I participated in a similar deletion discussion about a parade float composed of flowers. The flowers per se aren't copyrighted, but they were assembled into a work of original expression; the float was therefore a copyrighted work. Same here: those fireworks are a highly unique and original expressive display. In any event, the whole of la République would rise up to defend the proprietariness of this national symbol; it's a losing argument for the Commons community. —Werewombat (talk) 21:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
- Keep I think this is the same photo as in Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Photo 417.jpg (which was kept). I don't think the tower is lit by anything else than the fireworks, and according to the Image casebook, photos of fireworks are fine. Pruneautalk 15:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Hadn't seen that one. But now that I see it, the only one except you who voted for keep was the admin who then decided the deletion request weeks later. That's not a neutral thing to do. You are either voting or deciding, not both of them. I hate that kind of action. We are maybe low on admins, but never that low. -- Cecil (talk) 16:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- On the other hand (and slightly besides the point, sorry), the only person to vote for delete was the nominator, and four months elapsed between MichaelMaggs' vote and his closing of the DR. Pruneautalk 17:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- No, there was a second user who added an extra reason. Not everybody uses voting-templates. -- Cecil (talk) 17:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Errr.... Are deletion discussions votations on Commons? *confused* --PaterMcFly (talk) 09:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
- what? They're talking about admins closing deletion requests they voted in. I hate that too (although the 4 months in between makes it slightly less wrong). Rocket000 (talk) 09:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yea, I got that, but I was confused about the word "voting" in that context. "Argue" or something would be more appropriate. I'm being pedantic, am I?--PaterMcFly (talk) 11:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
- what? They're talking about admins closing deletion requests they voted in. I hate that too (although the 4 months in between makes it slightly less wrong). Rocket000 (talk) 09:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
- Errr.... Are deletion discussions votations on Commons? *confused* --PaterMcFly (talk) 09:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
- No, there was a second user who added an extra reason. Not everybody uses voting-templates. -- Cecil (talk) 17:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- On the other hand (and slightly besides the point, sorry), the only person to vote for delete was the nominator, and four months elapsed between MichaelMaggs' vote and his closing of the DR. Pruneautalk 17:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Hadn't seen that one. But now that I see it, the only one except you who voted for keep was the admin who then decided the deletion request weeks later. That's not a neutral thing to do. You are either voting or deciding, not both of them. I hate that kind of action. We are maybe low on admins, but never that low. -- Cecil (talk) 16:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Keep I'd say keep - Eiffel_Tower#Image_copyright_claims, while partly unsourced, seems to suggest that it is the lighting display and not the tower that is protected. Since this is a photograph of a firework display, and not the lighting display as normally seen, I'm not certain it should be deleted. If the photograph showed a wider view of the tower, encompassing the lighting in its entirety, I'd say it could be deleted. Mind you - were the lights actually on while the fireworks were lit? If they were off, then there isn't a problem. Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- Keep The lighting display is not on. Fireworks are not a fixed medium, per above. IronGargoyle (talk) 19:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Kept COM:FOP#France Says "...the company operating the Eiffel Tower claims copyright of images of the tower when lighted at night". IronGargoyle says the light is off and as Parrot of Doom says "If they were off, then there isn't a problem". Even if the lights were on it would be de minimis as it is the lights can't be seen. Has been kept before as Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Photo 417.jpg. --MGA73 (talk) 18:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- The rest in Commons:Deletion_requests/Eiffel_Tower_by_night. JackPotte (talk) 17:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
- Renomination #1
No FOP in france+ fireworks is protected by copyright AMERICOPHILE 14:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- Any evidence for fireworks copyright? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- Excuse me. I withdraw my deletion request. I didn't pay attention that this file has been nominated for deletion before. AMERICOPHILE 17:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept Because fireworks are never written or recorded in a fixed medium, they never have a copyright, see Commons:Image_casebook#Fireworks_displays. Whatever the status of the Tower's lighting, it is not visible in this image. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Obvious amator. Best alternatives. Commons isn't a porn blog : COM:NUDE. ~ FAP (talk) 14:09, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep No valid reason for deletion request (COM:PORN, In Use). Together with the others edits from this user i assume vandalism. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 15:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep No valid reason for deletion request. --Tbmurray (talk) 15:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Did you not bother to check to see if they were in use? It's use, and thus it can not be deleted for scope reasons.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:28, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep "not censored"; nominator is engaged in mass deletion of sexual content, including longstanding items, without regard for commons policy. rationales given for deletion are cut & paste repeats, with no consideration of the individual merits of the files; deletion rationales also show a lack of understanding/misunderstanding of relevant commons policies Lx 121 (talk) 08:21, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept: in use automatically satisfies scope 99of9 (talk) 11:58, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Renomination #1
Too graphic; children can see this. Why go to porn sites when they can just come to Wikipedia. I've seen children looking at these images at libraries. Obsant (talk) 21:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Speedy kept - Commons is not censored, and we have things which may offend you - please read out disclaimer. If you are worried about your children, I suggest you install image filtering software. We will not censor ourselves: our task is to provide a resource of educational images, and like it or not, human anatomy and sexuality is part of that mission. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
All images that were uploaded by User:Emporis Editor
[edit]
Most of images that were uploaded by this user had been posted to Wow Turkey before he/she posted to Commons. I couln't find concrete evidence for several images, but there is no proof of his own work.
For example:
- File:Nisantasi Istanbul night.jpg: image posted on January 3, 2005 by MeRek.
- File:Levent financial district in Istanbul.jpg: image posted on September 6, 2005 by Kazandibi.
- File:Assicurazioni Generali on Bankalar Caddesi in Galata.jpg: Image posted on August 10, 2005 by Kazandibi.
- File:Facade detail from Bankalar Caddesi.jpg: Image posted on August 10, 2005 by Kazandibi.
- File:Bankalar Caddesi.jpg: Image posted on March 5, 2005 by MeRek.
- File:Chiesa di Santi Pietro e Paolo in Galata.jpg: Image posted on October 16, 2003 by MeRek.
Takabeg (talk) 06:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Files in Category:Gare_de_Lyon-Saint_Exupéry
[edit]No FOP in France (see COM:FOP#France). The architect is Santiago Calatrava and is still alive. The station is therefore copyrighted for at least 71 years.
I have excluded some files of the category because they seemed to be COM:DM or does not show an original work.
- File:385941444 ff7c54450d o Gare Lyon TGV Aeroport St exupery.jpg
- File:385941450 afeb59b769 o gare Lyon TGV Aéroport.jpg
- File:385941454 08bc78ca23 o interieur gare lyon TGV aeroport.jpg
- File:385946243 af61f75ca9 o gare TGV Lyon aeroport .jpg
- File:Gare de Lyon St Exupéry vue du nord.JPG
- File:Gare de Lyon-Saint-Exupéry - Pub Rhonexpress.jpg
- File:Gare de Lyon-Saint-Exupéry - Terminus Rhonexpress .JPG
- File:Gare TGV St Exupéry vue coté.jpg
- File:La gare de Lyon Saint Exupéry en forme d'oiseau..jpg
- File:La station terminus "Aéroport Lyon - Saint-Exupéry" du tramway Rhônexpress.jpg
- File:Lyon-Saint-Exupéry TGV-Facade batiment central.JPG
- File:Lyon-Saint-Exupéry TGV-Hall.JPG
- File:Rame Rhônexpress décoré pour la fêtes des lumières 2011 arrivant à la station "Aéroport Lyon - Saint Exupéry".jpg
- File:Rhonexpress - Approche de Satolas.JPG
- File:Rhônexpress - Arrivée à la gare de Lyon Saint-Exupéry.JPG
- File:Saint-Exupéry-TGV.jpg
- File:Terminus "Aéroport Lyon - Saint Exupéry" du tramway Rhônexpress.jpg
- File:Un TGV en direction du sud, passant sous le "Tube 300" de Saint-Exupéry (10).jpg
- File:Un TGV en direction du sud, passant sous le "Tube 300" de Saint-Exupéry (11).jpg
- File:Un TGV en direction du sud, passant sous le "Tube 300" de Saint-Exupéry (7).jpg
- File:Un TGV en direction du sud, passant sous le "Tube 300" de Saint-Exupéry (8).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}
PierreSelim (talk) 12:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
I understand the problem of respect the copyright for such building and piece of artwork. that's a pity and I guess a lot of pictures are concerned in wiki commons...http://vincent.ruf.free.fr (talk) 18:36, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- You should put your comment on Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Gare de Lyon-Saint Exupéry, otherwise nobody will read it. --Túrelio (talk) 20:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
(Thread by Rvince moved here from "Commons talk:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Gare de Lyon-Saint Exupéry" by _ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:16, 9 April 2024 (UTC))
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Files in Category:Gare de Lyon-Saint Exupéry
[edit]There is no COM:FOP in France.
- File:Gare de Lyon Saint-Exupery (2517753305).jpg
- File:Gare de Lyon Saint-Exupery (2517757389).jpg
- File:Gare de Lyon Saint-Exupery (2518570180).jpg
- File:Lyon - Gare de Lyon-Saint-Exupéry TGV (7473865898).jpg
- File:Lyon - Gare de Lyon-Saint-Exupéry TGV (7473897108).jpg
- File:Lyon - Gare de Lyon-Saint-Exupéry TGV (7473901682).jpg
- File:Lyon - Gare de Lyon-Saint-Exupéry TGV (7473907010).jpg
- File:Lyon - Gare de Lyon-Saint-Exupéry TGV (7473912908).jpg
- File:Lyon - Gare de Lyon-Saint-Exupéry TGV (7473936796).jpg
- File:Lyon - Gare de Lyon-Saint-Exupéry TGV (7473941608).jpg
- File:Lyon - Gare de Lyon-Saint-Exupéry TGV (7473946180).jpg
- File:Lyon - Gare de Lyon-Saint-Exupéry TGV (7473952382).jpg
- File:Lyon - Gare de Lyon-Saint-Exupéry TGV (7473956598).jpg
- File:Lyon - Gare de Lyon-Saint-Exupéry TGV (7473961922).jpg
- File:Lyon - Gare de Lyon-Saint-Exupéry TGV (7473967640).jpg
- File:Lyon - Gare de Lyon-Saint-Exupéry TGV (7473972628).jpg
- File:Lyon - Gare de Lyon-Saint-Exupéry TGV (7473977018).jpg
- File:Lyon - Gare de Lyon-Saint-Exupéry TGV (7473982304).jpg
- File:Lyon - Gare de Lyon-Saint-Exupéry TGV (7473987984).jpg
- File:Lyon - Gare de Lyon-Saint-Exupéry TGV (7473993416).jpg
- File:Lyon - Gare de Lyon-Saint-Exupéry TGV (7473999318).jpg
- File:Lyon - Gare de Lyon-Saint-Exupéry TGV (7474004618).jpg
- File:Lyon - Gare de Lyon-Saint-Exupéry TGV (7474010322).jpg
- File:Lyon - Gare de Lyon-Saint-Exupéry TGV (7474016404).jpg
- File:Lyon - Gare de Lyon-Saint-Exupéry TGV (7474022546).jpg
- File:Lyon - Gare de Lyon-Saint-Exupéry TGV (7474027832).jpg
- File:Lyon - Gare de Lyon-Saint-Exupéry TGV (7474032142).jpg
- File:Lyon - Gare de Lyon-Saint-Exupéry TGV (7474038072).jpg
- File:Lyon - Gare de Lyon-Saint-Exupéry TGV (7474043542).jpg
- File:Lyon - Gare de Lyon-Saint-Exupéry TGV (7474049286).jpg
- File:Lyon - Gare de Lyon-Saint-Exupéry TGV (7474054484).jpg
- File:Lyon - Gare de Lyon-Saint-Exupéry TGV (7474059834).jpg
- File:Lyon - Gare de Lyon-Saint-Exupéry TGV (7474066556).jpg
- File:Lyon - Gare de Lyon-Saint-Exupéry TGV (7474074388).jpg
- File:Lyon - Gare de Lyon-Saint-Exupéry TGV (7474080438).jpg
- File:Lyon - Gare de Lyon-Saint-Exupéry TGV (7474086464).jpg
- File:Lyon - Gare de Lyon-Saint-Exupéry TGV (7474091610).jpg
- File:Lyon - Gare de Lyon-Saint-Exupéry TGV (7474097682).jpg
- File:Lyon - Gare de Lyon-Saint-Exupéry TGV (7474103712).jpg
- File:Lyon - Gare de Lyon-Saint-Exupéry TGV (7474109690).jpg
- File:Lyon - Gare de Lyon-Saint-Exupéry TGV (7474116306).jpg
- File:Lyon - Gare de Lyon-Saint-Exupéry TGV (7474123214).jpg
- File:Lyon - Gare de Lyon-Saint-Exupéry TGV (7474129556).jpg
- File:Lyon - Gare de Lyon-Saint-Exupéry TGV (7474136186).jpg
- File:Lyon - Gare de Lyon-Saint-Exupéry TGV (7474141866).jpg
- File:Lyon - Gare de Lyon-Saint-Exupéry TGV (7474148336).jpg
- File:Lyon - Gare de Lyon-Saint-Exupéry TGV (7474154634).jpg
- File:Lyon - Gare de Lyon-Saint-Exupéry TGV (7474161172).jpg
- File:Lyon - Gare de Lyon-Saint-Exupéry TGV (7474166856).jpg
- File:Lyon - Gare de Lyon-Saint-Exupéry TGV (7474171520).jpg
- File:Lyon - Gare de Lyon-Saint-Exupéry TGV (7474177010).jpg
- File:Lyon - Gare de Lyon-Saint-Exupéry TGV (7474185954).jpg
- File:Lyon - Gare de Lyon-Saint-Exupéry TGV (7474192386).jpg
- File:Lyon - Gare de Lyon-Saint-Exupéry TGV (7474200594).jpg
- File:Lyon - Gare de Lyon-Saint-Exupéry TGV (7474205286).jpg
- File:Lyon - Gare de Lyon-Saint-Exupéry TGV (7474210628).jpg
- File:Lyon - Gare de Lyon-Saint-Exupéry TGV (7474216190).jpg
- File:Lyon - Gare de Lyon-Saint-Exupéry TGV (7474223458).jpg
- File:Rhônexpress TGV 2.jpg
- File:Rhônexpress TGV 3.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
- Main subject is the tram, certainly for TGV 3, The tramstop is a later addition and not a artistic creation. The TGV 3 stop was a temporary stop and no longer exist. Smiley.toerist (talk) 06:42, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- File:Rhônexpress au départ de la station "Aéroport Lyon - Saint Exupéry".jpg
- File:Station Saint-Exupéry 2.jpg
- File:Station Saint-Exupéry 5.jpg
russavia (talk) 07:03, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- I would say Keep COM:DM for File:Lyon - Gare de Lyon-Saint-Exupéry TGV (7473967640).jpg (subject is the railway), File:Lyon - Gare de Lyon-Saint-Exupéry TGV (7474080438).jpg (subject is the little yellow character), File:Lyon - Gare de Lyon-Saint-Exupéry TGV (7474086464).jpg (subject is the information board), File:Lyon - Gare de Lyon-Saint-Exupéry TGV (7474123214).jpg , File:Lyon - Gare de Lyon-Saint-Exupéry TGV (7474161172).jpg (subjects are the stairs), File:Rhônexpress TGV 2.jpg (subject is the railway and the train), File:Rhônexpress TGV 3.jpg (subject is the railway and the train) and File:Rhônexpress au départ de la station "Aéroport Lyon - Saint Exupéry".jpg (subject is the railway, the train and the snow). And some other ones are below threshold of originality, when we can just see grey concrete walls... Jeriby (talk) 17:48, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Some kept as DM, rest deleted as there is no FOP in France. -FASTILY 08:02, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
copyright violation. sculptor w:Mikhail Gerasimov (anthropologist) died 1970, so not yet {{PD-Russia}} 24.61.11.153 15:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- Also nominating File:Timur reconstruction02.jpg (same sculpture), File:Timur reconstruction01.jpg (same sculpture), and File:Timur Exhumed.gif (appears to be the same sculpture, unsourced, says "exhumed" so it's probably referring to this reconstruction)
- Probably most images in Category:Forensic facial reconstruction (Russian school) are also copyvios. 24.61.11.153 15:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- merging deletion discussion for File:Samuil_of_bolgaria_reconstruction.jpg here. -- Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- All these heads are museum pieces (and property), and pictures are made by myself. Not PD-Russia, but PD-self. The shooting in this museum is free. According to russian law there is not prohibition to make this pictures. Gerasimov's heirs also made no prohibition noticions. --Shakko (talk) 16:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- Please, see COM:FOP. --Panther (talk) 07:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- Judging by that article, the pictures is okay if I understand correctly, as this is what is stated for Russia: "images of architectural works, photographic works, or works of fine art (which includes sculptures and statues) that are permanently located in publicly accessible places may be published only if the depicted copyrighted base work is not the main subject of the image and the image is for non-commercial purposes". I would also say that Gerasimov's work ought to be classified as primarily scientific, rather than art. (Natsymir (talk) 03:16, 24th August 2009 (UTC+1)
- You evidently overlooked the clause "only ... if the depicted copyrighted base work is not the main subject", and "..."for non-commercial purposes". Our use here breaks the first provision, and even if it didn't, the second clause would make the images "non-commercial-only", hence not free enough for us. Also, the difference between scientific works and artworks is immaterial; both are copyrighted. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- Judging by that article, the pictures is okay if I understand correctly, as this is what is stated for Russia: "images of architectural works, photographic works, or works of fine art (which includes sculptures and statues) that are permanently located in publicly accessible places may be published only if the depicted copyrighted base work is not the main subject of the image and the image is for non-commercial purposes". I would also say that Gerasimov's work ought to be classified as primarily scientific, rather than art. (Natsymir (talk) 03:16, 24th August 2009 (UTC+1)
- Please, see COM:FOP. --Panther (talk) 07:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- All these heads are museum pieces (and property), and pictures are made by myself. Not PD-Russia, but PD-self. The shooting in this museum is free. According to russian law there is not prohibition to make this pictures. Gerasimov's heirs also made no prohibition noticions. --Shakko (talk) 16:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- There are two kinds of heads in this category: Gerasimov's (from bronze), who is dead and I try to find his heirs; and Nikitin's (from white plaster), who is alive but not in Moscow now, and I have his phone number. Please not rush in deleting, this question will be solve.--Shakko (talk) 08:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- I've just talked with Nikitin and he agree to write OTRS, let's see how quickly he will do it. I'm still looking for Gerasimov's heirs, it's harder, but I will do it.--Shakko (talk) 11:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- There are two kinds of heads in this category: Gerasimov's (from bronze), who is dead and I try to find his heirs; and Nikitin's (from white plaster), who is alive but not in Moscow now, and I have his phone number. Please not rush in deleting, this question will be solve.--Shakko (talk) 08:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, unless clearance from the artists or their heirs can be obtained. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- Delete /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Please wait until the research of the possibility of obtaining permission grants (see bellow). --Kaganer (talk) 11:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Permission from Nikitin
- OTRS:2009111410001819 --Shakko (talk) 11:32, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- I've found Gerasimov's daughter, an old ill lady, unable to have guests now. I should wait.--Shakko (talk) 11:32, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Keep since permission has been received. Harej (talk) 18:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
This is not own work; it's clearly a photograph of a sculpture, one by Mikhail Mikhaylovich Gerasimov who died in 1970 and apparently created in 1941. Prosfilaes (talk) 03:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- There is an OTRS Permission for this at 2009111410001819. Can someone who reads Russian check this out? User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- I'm sorry; I wouldn't have nominated it if I had noticed that.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- It is alright, but my Russian isn't good enough for reading this permissions. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 09:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- I'm sorry; I wouldn't have nominated it if I had noticed that.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: as the permission was given by the daughter of the creator, see here. Trijnsteltalk 22:33, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
According to http://www.posta.md/UserFiles/docs/post%20law.doc stamps are not an actual work of the Government of Moldova and not covered under Article 7 1.a. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- Please see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Stamp of Moldova md389.jpg --Butko (talk) 19:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- If I am looking at that DR, it went based off an old wording of the template in the beginning. Here is the statements about the postal stamps I found in that law:
"Article 13. - (1) The ministry has the exclusive right to issue, introduce stamps and withdraw them out of circulation. It prepares annual programs of their release, establishing their structure and subjects.
Article 21. - (1) Mail items received by "Posta Moldovei" may be franked only with the official stamps of the Republic of Moldova."
Maybe I am just detailed, but it is missing a statement similar to what the Belarusians have where it declares in that law that "почтовая марка – государственный знак почтовой оплаты" or that a postal state is a government postal symbol. If we can find that, then the template can be modified and previous stamps could be restored. Yet I am just not certain yet with the searching that I have done. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 20:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 20:48, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
