Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2012/01/05
 |
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}
_(Azerbaijan).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
copyrighted work Forwhomthebelltolls (talk) 01:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation. Martin H. (talk) 01:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
copyrighted work Forwhomthebelltolls (talk) 01:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation. Martin H. (talk) 01:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
copyrighted work Forwhomthebelltolls (talk) 01:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation. Martin H. (talk) 01:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
File is empty Id4abel (talk) 03:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: good-faith req by uploader Túrelio (talk) 08:10, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Нарушение авторских прав mamadjanov's (talk) 07:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: game screenshot + from © 2007 Ниеншанц-Хоум Веб-site Túrelio (talk) 08:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
A thumbnail has been uploaded due to some error. I, the owner of this file, am requesting this be deleted. Noopur28 (talk) 20:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: good-faith req by upl on day of upload; thumb-dupe of File:Jayanth Kaikini.jpg Túrelio (talk) 08:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
This is currently in use on a WP Featured Article candidate. Is this some sort of joke? Andy Dingley (talk) 02:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Keep:That's not a valid reason for deletion. Besides, it not at FAC yet, people are just thinking of and prepping for that. So your whole rationale is completely flawed.PumpkinSky talk 02:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)- Keep - I'm not nominating it for a quality image. It is a blurry photo because I took it with a cell phone camera with insufficient light. But what IS your deletion rationale? Trust me, when I feel I can get the equipment to take a better image, I will ask the nice people at the jewelry store to go to the trouble to bring it out again for a new image. Until then, last I checked, blurriness is not a valid deletion criteria. Montanabw (talk) 02:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - No real reason given for deletion. Tiptoety talk 02:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - It's a crummy photo, but if it's good enough to use, then keep it.--GrapedApe (talk) 02:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep:When you view the full image it's blurriness is obvious. But on its Wikipedia article it is much smaller and serves its illustrative purpose. Jessemv (talk) 03:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- This user currently has 4 edits on commons including this one. Tiptoety talk 03:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep No valid reason for deletion given. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- uh, something amiss User:Andy_Dingley says he has 15 THOUSAND edits. PumpkinSky talk 03:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- That's because he does, well actually 16,000. See [1]. Tiptoety talk 03:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - no valid reason for deletion given. Dreadstar (talk) 04:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - not going to say keep or delete, because it is embarrassing that: (a) Andy Dingley nominated it in the first place; (b) some of those above poured over here from the article talk page on en-wiki to carry on the argument here; and (c) that this image got uploaded in the first place. I've taken some bad pictures in my time too, but if I upload them here it is only if I don't think other images are possible (in this case, I think redoing the image is possible). I really hope a better image is obtained at some point, and then this can be quietly deleted by user request or as an image no longer in use. While it is still in use, save the arguments for its use or not for the projects it is used on. I do hope, though, at some point, that Commons gets a proper editorial policy in place as you would hope that certain minimum standards are met as regards image quality (if only because as time goes on and Commons gets larger it gets harder to find the good images among the mediocre and poor images). Carcharoth (Commons) (talk) 05:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - that an editor doesn't understand the difference between featured article vs. featured pictures is concerning when they start deletion submissions. Ched Davis (talk) 12:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete The image is so poor as to be useless. The Deletion policy says: "Redundant or low quality files only get deleted on a case by case basis after they are listed at Commons:Deletion requests. At deletion requests you will need to provide reasons why a particular file is inferior to the alternative version." Well, there are better alternatives, and even if the alternative were nothing, that would be better than this. Johnbod (talk) 15:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: What we have here is a technology bottleneck. At the time this image was uploaded, there were ZERO images of a Yogo Sapphire. I had no idea if I would even find a Yogo, let alone be allowed to photograph one, so when I found a jewelry store that had one, I took the shot with my cell phone, which was all I had with me at the time. I didn't realize that the images would be so unfocused (that was, believe it or not, the best one I got). My only other digital camera is a point and shoot, but it does have a macro setting, and THIS is a test shot of the best quality I can get with the equipment I have. Now if y'all think it will pass muster, I'm willing to go down and ask the nice people at the jewelry store if they'd be willing to once again drag out a $5000 gem that I am not going to buy, but I'm only going to bug them one more time. And if I get a better image I will be glad to replace this one, but it would be a kindness to keep it here for now and in the article as a placeholder. Montanabw (talk) 17:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Delete Obvious delete. This image does not show a Yogo Sapphire. It shows a unfocused blue spot. Better no image than to use this one, but we do have this. Chesdovi (talk) 17:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)- Delete. No offence Montanabw, but the image is useless. I know absolutely nothing about Yogo sapphires, and looking at this image, I still don't. I could even end up being misinformed about them if I were to only refer to this image and be rendered helpless as my brain sub-consciously filled in the gaps in information for me, as is its wont. About the only thing this particular image could have conveyed was basic size, but there's no frame of reference included for that, so it doesn't even do that (and again, you're going to be a victim to your own sub-conscious which might have pre-conceived ideas about how big that container is and make some deductions for you). These are all valid reasons for deletion at Commons as far as I can see, we surely don't need to close and re-open this with a new rationale before people will deign to discuss it. Ultra7 (talk) 00:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - image has been removed from the article it was in use on at en-wiki (en:Yogo sapphire). Not sure if it will be restored to that article or not (current discussion seems to have moved on to the lead image), but it is in use on several discussion pages over there where it is being discussed. Not sure how that affects this discussion, but thought people should be aware of this. Carcharoth (Commons) (talk) 01:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept, Withdrawn
No evidence provided that this is a free image. The image appears in a number of online sources dating back to 2004 and given the current age of the uploader this makes it certain that the image is not in fact his own work. Pichpich (talk) 02:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- I will delete the image if someone instructs me how to do so. Thank you, Lumastan (talk) 03:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted per above. No free license; uploader does not challenge. Commons:Licenciamento -- Infrogmation (talk) 12:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
The license in flickr is BY-NC-SA which is incompatible with Commons. Sreejith K (talk) 08:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, not under free license; no evidence it ever was. (Hequals2henry-- please pay attention to making sure license info (and other details like photo date which you also had wrong) are correct when uploading other people's work. For flickr images, the Flickr to Commons Upload tool may be of assistance.) -- Infrogmation (talk) 13:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
The license in Flickr is BY-NC which is incompatible with Commons Sreejith K (talk) 08:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, unacceptable license -- Infrogmation (talk) 13:10, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Although the license in Flickr is compatible with Commons; it is not evident that the flickr uploader holds the rights to the source image. Sreejith K (talk) 08:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: The Flickr account has several very old pictures under same free license as own works that it can be assumed that we can not upload the file to commons. Neozoon (talk) 21:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Poor quality Email10 (talk) 09:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Comment This is a photo of "Unjkhjglkhj" you say? What an interesting name she has. What country is Ms. Unjkhjglkhj from? I don't see any problem with the image quality. Who is this? Did you take the photo, and if not, where is it from? -- Infrogmation (talk) 13:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio, shows a certain Rachel Aldana, many Google Images hits. Rosenzweig τ 23:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
File is the copyrighted logo of a Warren High School (Downey, California). Armbrust (talk) 14:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 16:30, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio: http://www.zkapitel.ru/works_view_ar.php?id=416 78.25.180.222 18:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted as copyvio. Rosenzweig τ 22:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
There is no evidence for PD-USGov. Recently I saw the exact same picture in a WW2 chronicle with the annotation that this picture is from the British Royal Navy. Thus, PD-USGov would not fit because the USA and the UK are not the same 79.221.104.232 21:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep -does not matter, in that case {{PD-UKGov}}; ship sank 1943. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Per Pieters argument, either PD-UKGov or PD-USGov, depending on who's the real source Denniss (talk) 02:36, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Unuser userpage image and near-duplicate of File:TERMININJA.svg. Túrelio (talk) 12:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete it!:) --Termininja (talk) 13:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. →Spiritia 13:33, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Likely a copyvio, as being a professional shot, low-res and credit in EXIF "Copyright Alan Stanley Skyrme". Túrelio (talk) 12:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Obvious stock photography, hence copyright violation. →Spiritia 13:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Likely copyvio, as being a high-professional camera shot, credit in EXIF to "Volodimir Khomiakov" and low-res upload. Túrelio (talk) 12:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Obvious stock photography, hence copyright violation. →Spiritia 13:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Promotion of pirated music as per the cd sleeve in the lower right corner of the picture. Disgusting. 197.169.66.4 17:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- that's not a valid reason for nominating the image for deletion. Kaini (talk) 17:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep per Kaini. I see no evidence that the inclusion of these CDs in the image is a violation of copyright law, and it's currently being used, so it's definitely in scope. Nyttend (talk) 02:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
- comment: AGF be damned, this is a pretty blatant attempt at trolling IMO. Kaini (talk) 03:36, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
- It is so obvious that I closed this request Bulwersator (talk) 10:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Non-admin closure: Kept Bulwersator (talk) 10:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
i AM Mary Anne Hobbs.. this is NOT pirated work.. if you knew anything about DJ culture, you'd know that young artists will send DJs mp3 files of their music to be burned on CD-R for play on radio and in clubs. I've never downloaded one illegal file IN MY LIFE.
I suspect that almost all the pictures uploaded by the user are copyvio. File:Vigo-y-su-puerto.jpg is copyvio. File:Plaza america.jpg is copyvio. File:Climograma vigo.png is copyvio... . HombreDHojalata.talk 22:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: copyright violation Polarlys (talk) 19:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I suspect that almost all the pictures uploaded by the user are copyvio. File:Vigo-y-su-puerto.jpg is copyvio. File:Plaza america.jpg is copyvio. File:Climograma vigo.png is copyvio... . HombreDHojalata.talk 22:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: copyright violation Polarlys (talk) 20:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I suspect that almost all the pictures uploaded by the user are copyvio. File:Vigo-y-su-puerto.jpg is copyvio. File:Plaza america.jpg is copyvio. File:Climograma vigo.png is copyvio... . HombreDHojalata.talk 22:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: most likely copyvio Polarlys (talk) 20:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
I suspect that almost all the pictures uploaded by the user are copyvio. File:Vigo-y-su-puerto.jpg is copyvio. File:Plaza america.jpg is copyvio. File:Climograma vigo.png is copyvio... . HombreDHojalata.talk 22:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: most likely copyvio Polarlys (talk) 20:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
I suspect that almost all the pictures uploaded by the user are copyvio. File:Vigo-y-su-puerto.jpg is copyvio. File:Plaza america.jpg is copyvio. File:Climograma vigo.png is copyvio... . HombreDHojalata.talk 22:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: copyright violation Polarlys (talk) 20:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I suspect that almost all the pictures uploaded by the user are copyvio. File:Vigo-y-su-puerto.jpg is copyvio. File:Plaza america.jpg is copyvio. File:Climograma vigo.png is copyvio... . HombreDHojalata.talk 22:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: copyright violation Polarlys (talk) 20:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
This is non free photo of 3D object (see discution here - [2]). In that case all photos from category [3] are not free. --Cemenarist (talk) 12:08, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
- under such a pretext we can remove all reproductions of paintings by Van Gogh, because they are not perfectly flat --Sasha Krotov (talk) 17:48, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
- There is division between paintings and relief (high relief). Such object is at least relief.--Cemenarist (talk) 19:57, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
- New arguments - here - Coins are essentially 3D articles, and there is likely to be sufficient creativity in the lighting arrangements for the photographer to obtain a new copyright on the image. The WMF General Counsel has indicated that in his view coin images do not fall under Bridgeman v. Corel and hence are copyrighted - yeah, not coins, but labors, the same thing from the point of view of 3D object. --Cemenarist (talk) 21:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per the coins analogue. The order itself is exempt from copyright, but a photograph of it is not. So if that photograph was not taken by the uploader, but taken from the web, we need the photographer's permission. Rosenzweig τ 11:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Penis flopped on a keyboard. Other than I really hope the guy doesn't intend to sell his keyboard, I don't see this as being within scope. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:30, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom; vanity upload Infrogmation (talk) 02:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete --Claritas (talk) 23:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- Speedy delete as outside of project scope. Tiptoety talk 06:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom and comments above Morning Sunshine (talk) 07:50, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
_(Azerbaijan).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(Azerbaijan).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
copyright violation, taken from a book, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:In 1988 as the Armenians in Nagorny Karabakh began realisation of right of the nation for self-determination inscription on the memorial Maraga - 150 immediately disappeared.jpg, wrong claims on authorship Polarlys (talk) 23:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
_(Azerbaijan).jpg){kind=link}
Delete per nom. Takabeg (talk) 08:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
_(Azerbaijan).jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Deleted by Jameslwoodward Morning Sunshine (talk) 07:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
_(Azerbaijan).jpg){kind=link}
This image was taken by the Barack Obama campaign, which is not a work of the US government (it's not part of his official function as senator). Thus the non-commercial restriction is valid. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete--Agreed. This is no evidence that the image was taken by a Federal employee doing work as a Federal employee. The image could have been taken by anyone at the rally.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 18:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete The image actually has a license incompatible with Commons: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0) as noted on the page of the original image at Flickr. Hazmat2 (talk) 23:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: No evidence of PD-USGov so mus assume NC is valid Captain-tucker (talk) 00:07, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
low quality, unused, likely either a copyright violation or out of project scope (i.e., userpage image). Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Probable copyvio, COM:PRP Captain-tucker (talk) 00:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
low quality, out of project scope, possible copyright violation. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 00:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Useless personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 00:53, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Useless personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Infrogmation (talk) 13:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete promotional, see User:Start Right International. Chesdovi (talk) 17:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 00:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Useless personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 01:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Useless personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 01:25, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Useless personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 01:25, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Useless personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 01:25, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Useless personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 01:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Useless personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:10, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 01:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Useless personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:10, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 01:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Default filename used by error, description of the CoA differ from the picture. Will do further research and then upload again. SchwarzerKater(BLN) (talk) 08:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
-2012-01-05T08:12:00.000Z-File:Wappen_wittenau_wiki.svg){kind=link}
Deleted: Per uploaders request Captain-tucker (talk) 01:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Useless personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 01:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Useless personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 01:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Poor Quality Email10 (talk) 09:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete I don't see anything wrong with the "quality" per se. Commons certainly has no need for photos of "Fsdfsfsdfdsfsdf", which is what the uploader says is shown here (not how I would have described it). Prompt request for deletion by uploader, I suspect there may be other problems such as source/copyright. -- Infrogmation (talk) 13:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per uploaders request Captain-tucker (talk) 01:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Incorrect licence, most likely copyvio derivate works - this is a cut out of a photo published on the site http://www.ijsvoornieuwthialf.nl/. Photo: http://www.ijsvoornieuwthialf.nl/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Luchtfoto-Abe-Lenstrastadion2.jpg Miho (talk) 09:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 01:35, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Image exists at a company site [4] (www.saferoller.com). There is no explicit copyright note at the bottom, but no release tag either, thus should be copyrighted. Materialscientist (talk) 10:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
![[4]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f7/Saferoller-adventure-parks-trolley-bracket-2.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 01:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope personal artwork. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 01:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
duplicate Thiru gingee (talk) 10:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: You can use the {{Duplicate}} tag in the future. Captain-tucker (talk) 01:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Bad quality personal photo, unused, out of scope, source myspace, rights not clear Funfood ␌ 10:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom Infrogmation (talk) 13:44, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 01:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Unused userpage image, allegedly of uploader. Túrelio (talk) 12:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 01:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Appears to be a screenshot/publicity photograph from a recent film. I can't find it at the source given [5]. January (talk) 22:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:33, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
The file page says: Note: Probably not eligible for Commons due to the copyright status of the Beerlao logos. That might be the case. Leyo 22:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:33, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Advertisement, out of scope. Jafeluv (talk) 22:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:33, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio. Even if en:User:System Halted claimed Released under permission of the photographer, Onur Dongel and workshop artist, Ahmet Bozdemir, there is no evidence to prove it. Moreover, trekearth says The material on this Site is protected by copyright, trademark, and other applicable laws. You may not modify, copy, reproduce, republish, upload, post, transmit, publicly display, prepare derivative works based on, or distribute in any way any material from the Site...... Takabeg (talk) 23:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:33, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Incorrect: the second substitution position is para, not meta. Correct alternative: File:Friedel-Crafts reaction benzene to Toluene.svg. Leyo 23:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Methyl is an ortho/para director for F–C reactions. DMacks (talk) 07:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
This is pretty obviously a derivative work, and from what we probably know about Canada, it is high enough to reach the threshold of originality. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Magog -- why Canada? It is a certificate from a municipality in the Netherlands issued to a soldier. I would think Netherlands law would apply -- "In principle all works communicated to the public by or on behalf of the public authorities (government) are not copyright protected in the Netherlands" Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
This medal is Danish government created, 1988 (en:Peace Prize Medal (Denmark)). Not public domain. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
The uploader, User:Toilet, did not provide a permission of the photographer, Mister Peter van der Sluijs. 91.57.92.62 01:44, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
See COM:MONEY#India Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Although the license in Flickr is compatible with Commons; it is not evident that the flickr uploader holds the rights to the source image. Sreejith K (talk) 08:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- The user may well have scanned their own photograph. However with no claims made on the image page or on Flickr as to the source and the uploader account name not even matching the author name, we would need a little more. A OTRS ticket would clear this up, as might as sensible explanation in the infobox, in the meantime Delete. --Fæ (talk) 09:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Copy File:Circuit_Yas-Island.svg with wrong license. (Not own work) Rodejong (talk) 10:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Uploaded new with correct file name & description ~Anton~ 12:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Next time, please use {{Rename}} -- uploading again wastes time and resources. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:57, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
no longer used and desired Luxusfrosch (talk) 12:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:56, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
no longer used and desired Luxusfrosch (talk) 12:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:56, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
File:PIA02224 Neptune's rings.jpg and File:PIA02224-browse.jpg are better. Source is no problem per [6]. Stefan4 (talk) 12:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I don't understand is this of higher resolution or simply cut and stretch job. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 16:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Our colleagues on various WPs cannot agree on which one to use, so I am keeping this. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:56, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio. Olaf Jordan died in 1968. {{PD-old}} is not valid. There is no evidence to proof for works first published in Ukraine. Takabeg (talk) 12:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I was told that I had misinterpreted the meaning of no copyright notice, so this image probably has to go away. See Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#.7B.7BPD-US-no notice.7D.7D. I tried deleting {{NowCommons}} tags everywhere, but it seems that it was nevertheless deleted from the Indonesian, Vietnamese and Chinese Wikipedias. Do you know if they have any undeletion requests pages anywhere? They probably want their local copy back. Stefan4 (talk) 13:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Delete According to the 332nd page of Patrick Hagopian's The Vietnam War in American Memory: Veterans, Memorials, and the Politics of Healing, Figure 66. Nine-Year-Old Kim Phuc Running Down Route 1 Near Trang Bang after a South Vietnamese Napalm Attack, June 8, 1972. Photo by Nick Ut. Copyright © AP Photo/Nick Ut. Takabeg (talk) 13:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- The situation was made explicit for works published after 1978 in the 1976 Copyright Act, section 405: if the notice was only missing on "no more than a relatively small number of copies", or the notice was "omitted in violation of an express requirement in writing" that notices should have been present, then copyright was not lost. I would think that a relatively small number of newspapers forgetting an overall copyright notice (which you'd think would have been required by any AP distribution agreement) would not result in a loss of copyright. Granted, this photo is from before that law went into effect, but I think there were some court cases which did allow some exceptions along those lines under the 1909 law. The 1909 law did say: where the copyright proprietor has sought to comply with the provisions of this Act with respect to notice, the omission by accident or mistake of the prescribed notice from a particular copy or copies shall not invalidate the copyright (section 20). This study by the Copyright Office in 1960 goes into a lot of detail on some of the early cases, and subsequent law revisions up to that point. While the lack of notice in the small newspapers would have meant the loss of copyright for all material authored by that newspaper (or first published there), I would not want to use that fact to assume copyright was lost for a photo like this, which undoubtedly had many copyright notices in other papers distributed at the same time, at least without some court decision backing it up (and that study noted that courts had become more forgiving of mistakes with copyright notices over time). Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete it was published with sufficient notice, per CL. Magog the Ogre (talk) 15:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
There is a better version of this file Rapsar (talk) 13:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I have move the additional information provided on the page of the new file to the existing better copy. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 16:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks :)--Rapsar (talk) 12:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
As this is a logo, it would be a candidate for speedy deletion, but the uploader added new info: it is a logo made by Fernando Pimentel in 1927.Surely it is not the current minister of Dilma Ruseff, who was born in 1951; but we need to know when did this specific Pimentel died (1927 is too close to the 70 years limit), or if there is another regulation that may allow this logo to be in PD just by date of creation Cambalachero (talk) 13:30, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm afraid that Fernando Pimentel died in August 1994... Being so, I can't really further defend the maintenance of the logo at wikimedia commons. http://penedosaudade.blogspot.com/2010/09/historia-de-um-emblema.html (in portuguese). Google translation to english here. Tiagodovale (talk)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Photo is a derivative work of a copyrighted charakter from Dragonball GT. Armbrust (talk) 14:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- I think that this could be deleted speedily because of the {{Copyvio}} status. --Stefan4 (talk) 00:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:48, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Disputed (see file page), orphaned image. Leyo 14:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:48, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Photo is a screenshot of a copyrighted videogame (Mario's Tennis). Armbrust (talk) 14:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:48, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Promotiola poster of the copyrighted television series Legend of the Seeker. Almost certainly copyrighted. Armbrust (talk) 14:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:47, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
This file uploaded purpose of advertisement. It is not notable Reality006 (talk) 15:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Delete It's very clear that the uploader uploaded it an File:Ankara Doğançay Nakliyat.jpg for the purpose of promotion. Out of scope. Takabeg (talk) 15:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:47, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Most likely copyright violation. de:Erwin Offeney died 1966, this photo can't be taken in 2012 Liesbeth Lass (talk) 15:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:47, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
No evidence of Gnu or CC licence at source page http://china.notspecial.org/gallery/album30/DSCN2266 and home page http://china.notspecial.org/ states "All content (C)2006 THE OPPOSITE END OF CHINA MICHAEL D. MANNING" MPF (talk) 15:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- Image states "Author=Original uploader was Michaeldmanning at en.wikipedia", but what evidence is there that this is the same Michael D. Manning who owns the copyright? MPF (talk) 16:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I copied the file from the English Wikipedia because they published the image under the free license. If you question their right to do so, better ask them (or Michaeldmanning). --Zeman (talk) 17:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
en:File:Karakul panorama wiki.jpg and en:File:Korla Xinjiang day panorama.jpg were uploaded by same user. Takabeg (talk) 09:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Source has an explicit (c), Without OTRS, we must delete. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't think the person uploading this signature is Lung Ying-tai -- Johnson Lau (talk) 16:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:44, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
corrupted image (flag?), big black box makes it unusable Funfood ␌ 17:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
promotional advert Chesdovi (talk) 17:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation? There was a talk page argument which was never completed, after which uploader just removed the npd tag. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: I am persuaded by the extended discussion on the talk page that we should assume good faith on the part of the uploader. Certainly there is no obvious alternate source. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
copyrighted art, the author fr:Robert Lesbounit dies in 1989, no FOP in France --MGuf (d) 18:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:35, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
copyrighted art, the author fr:Robert Lesbounit dies in 1989, no FOP in France --MGuf (d) 18:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:35, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
copyrighted art, the author fr:Robert Lesbounit dies in 1989, no FOP in France --MGuf (d) 18:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:35, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
copyrighted art, the author fr:Robert Lesbounit dies in 1989, no FOP in France --MGuf (d) 18:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
il n'y a pas de copyrighted alors il faut supprimer toutes les photos des Picasso, chagall, etc
exemple http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Picasso.jpg
Deleted: Most Picasso's work is still under copyright -- the example given is a very special case. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:35, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
no author or source specified 78.25.180.222 18:44, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:33, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Specified author doesn't match the file uploader. Also the source doesn't make any sense. 78.25.180.222 18:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:33, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
The specified author doesn't match the uploader. The source is unverifiable. 78.25.180.222 18:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:33, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Copyright violation: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=17358947&postcount=1 78.25.180.222 18:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: 20:31, 6 January 2012 by Túrelio, closed by Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Tiny icon possibly out of scope, with invalid license (not a photograph published befor 1994) Jarekt (talk) 19:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Tiny icon possibly out of scope, with invalid license (not a photograph published befor 1994) Jarekt (talk) 19:44, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Not an own work according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Team_Leopard-Trek_Jersey_2011.gif User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:44, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Not an own work according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Team_RadioShack_Jersey_2011.gif User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:44, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Contrary to uploader's claim, it's rather unlikely "own work". Túrelio (talk) 19:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- this photo was never copyrighted and existed in its original state as common property. i added to it and adjusted it which is why it is my own and given back as common property.
- Please explain why this photo "was never copyrighted" and why you claim to be the author of a photo from 1932. --Túrelio (talk) 22:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Article deleted from WP:EN. If not published until now, this has a long copyright to run. If published before, it probably has a long copyright. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
This is a Non-Free company/group logo Mlpearc powwow 20:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Forgive me if I'm wrong on this. However, it is my understanding that the please prayer is a poem written by an author. Therefore taking a photo of the prayer written out is akin to taking a photo of a poem and attempting to claim the copyright of the text of that poem. Isn't the copyright held by the "Pryers author"? Isn't that a case that where a photo fails COM:DM? --ARTEST4ECHO talk 20:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Two text tables presenting several physical properties of the chemical compounds NaCl and KCl. Out of project scope, such tables shouldn't be uploaded to Commons as images, but presented as text directly at the projects. Rosenzweig τ 21:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:21, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
This skull is designed by the Third Reich Waffen SS and is no work of some US governmental employee . Thus PD-USGov cannot fit 79.221.104.232 21:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:21, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
The national anthem of Indonesia, was tagged as copyvio. According to en:Indonesia Raya, the copyright is owned by the state of Indonesia, but our file is tagged as PD-Indonesian government. Which is true? Rosenzweig τ 22:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: I think the question is moot. It's author died in 1938 and Indonesia is 50 years pma, so it would ordinarily be PD. However, as noted at {{PD-IDGov}}, the national anthem is specifically free of copyright restrictions. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:19, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Low quality (badGIF), replaced by File:HexabenzocoroneneRXN.svg. Leyo 11:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Keep per Commons:Superseded images policy. --M5 (talk) 11:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
- This policy is not relevant here. --Leyo 12:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
- Why not? Also, File:Hexabenzocoronene.gif is a good quality 1-bit image and HexabenzocoroneneRXN.svg converted to 1-bit with the same resolution would be inferior. --M5 (talk) 12:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep per policy, i also think that it is superior image at the given depth of colour. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 16:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
- Have you ever watched it at standard thumb size? You hardly recognize anything. --Leyo 16:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
- It goes without saying that SVG scales better, but raster image is better in its native bit depth and resolution. Therefore we should keep both. --M5 (talk) 18:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:57, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
The club was founded in 1931. I question if the author died within 10 years so that in 2011 the author is already 70 years dead. Who was this author? Miho (talk) 12:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- My guess is that logo is not from 1931 but more recent. It is then copyrighted and must be deleted. Udufruduhu (talk) 10:56, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by Jamelwoodward Morning Sunshine (talk) 09:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Although the license in Flickr is compatible with Commons; it is not evident that the flickr uploader holds the rights to the source image. Armbrust (talk) 16:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Photos by Trondheim byarkiv (City Archive of Trondheim) on Flickr are without limitations for usage, as they are "free" or donated. This image can safely be kept on Commons. Erik F (talk) 17:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. It's {{PD-Norway50}} anyway, so even if the archive never acquired the rights there is no problem. Peter Alberti (talk) 07:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination Armbrust (talk) 09:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:44, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Another German user ask at the discussion page: Do the woman know about this image? Has the uploader really the rights? Stöhrfall (talk) 21:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep She knows that was being photografed. See File:Peeing outdoors 1.jpg, File:Peeing outdoors 2.jpg and File:Peeing outdoors 3.jpeg. And if she doesn't knows, what's the problem? --MisterSanderson (talk) 14:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment It is a big deal if it's a candid shot without the person knowing that one is being photographed. But judging from shifting angles of the camera in a short period of time we can conclude that she knew at least that she was being photographed. I am unsure about how to go about figuring out if she has consented to having these published. Would we have to use COM:OTRS for this? VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 13:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Delete Possible copyvio. This image was posted on May 31 2009. There is no proof for {{Own work}} of User:Quiroztu. File:Peeing outdoors 2.jpg, File:Peeing outdoors 3.jpeg are under the similar situation. Takabeg (talk) 08:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: as likely copyvio. Rosenzweig τ 21:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
copyrighted art, the author fr:Robert Lesbounit dies in 1989, no FOP in France --MGuf (d) 18:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: by Jameslwoodward. Yann (talk) 17:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Image uploaded by author for personal purposes only as if she is using Wikipedia as Facebook. No use in any Wikipedia projects. --WayKurat (talk) 13:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I have added this image to en:Preschool education and i believe it does make that article better. I won't claim that it's in scope as i have done it myself. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 16:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep in use. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept. --ZooFari 06:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
The author of the text died no earlier than 1991 - the text is copyrighted. See here --KnightMove (talk) 20:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- correct * Delete dontworry (talk) 04:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
- The table-like part in the middle (actually listing the "taxes") is likely from an old source and might therefore be free. So, instead of deleting the whole image we might crop the middle part. --Túrelio (talk) 13:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
- dann besser diesen teil textlich im artikel einbauen, eventuell mit verweis auf diesen "aushang" im museum. dies halte ich für die sauberere lösung! 84.176.214.173 15:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted as derived work. I agree with Túrelio that a crop would be acceptable and with 84.176.214.173 that this part can also be included in an article. Best, however, would it be to find the original source of this interesting table of taxes and to wikisource it. --AFBorchert (talk) 10:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
copyrighted art, the author fr:Robert Lesbounit dies in 1989, no FOP in France --MGuf (d) 18:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 23:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
I do not think this is a simple logo at all. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I agree the design is a bit more complex than simple PD-Text. However the crescent moon & stars design is clearly (to locals) adapted from the century + old design on New Orleans city water meter covers; Examples: File:NOLASWBCrescentBoxOldNew.jpg, File:New Orleans Water Meter Crescent.jpg. This radio logo seems to have added musical notes to the stars. As to if this modification of an old PD design qualifies as a copyrightable new work, I'll let others decide. -- Infrogmation (talk) 20:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- I saw this claimed at en.wikipedia as fair use and that is how I came across this image. Just wanted to be sure if it was public domain, I would remove the en.wikipedia copy. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 20:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 23:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
The File has been tagged for deletion by User:Flying Saucer per "This image doesn't meet Wikimedia Commons FOP criteria." and has already been copied to :et Wikipedia(et:File:Järve jaamahoone 2011-05-19.JPG). However, I doubt that such a simple house design is copyrightable at all. Opinions? Túrelio (talk) 10:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
A nearly identical case is File:Elamu Vana-Pärnu mnt 18-2.jpg. --Túrelio (talk) 10:29, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
A similar case is File:2011.08. Vabadussõja monument Puhjas.jpg. --Túrelio (talk) 10:29, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - old railway station, simple design. Let us just disregard copyright on all buildings that are more than 70 year old. Because next there will be nominations of Jugendstil "because we do not know when the architect died". /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:06, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Delete Architect died in 1965. This building would certainly have a copyright in the USA except for its age (pre-1991, no copyright on architecture in USA). I'm inclined toward delete, but not strongly enough to do the deed. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 17:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure, but maybe this logo is over the threshold of originality. Armbrust (talk) 14:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 17:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Was tagged as copyvio. If this were from the US or Germany I'd say keep as below the threshold of originality, but what abuot this British logo? Rosenzweig τ 20:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 17:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
copyrighted art, fr:Robert Lesbounit dies in 1989 --MGuf (d) 18:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 05:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
This is not {PD-textlogo} . HombreDHojalata.talk 22:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- As there is a logo? Jardel Alves (talk) 05:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- Galego: Non tódolos logos están no Dominio Público. --. HombreDHojalata.talk 15:27, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep To be consistent with my usual position, I will say that these are just the letters "C", "Q", and "C" rendered in a very fancy font -- and, yes, I see that the two "C"s are different -- there is nothing to require a font to have only a single representation of each letter. With that said, then it follows that the logo is, in fact, PD-text-logo because fonts are not subject to copyright. I'm not closing this as a keep because I recognize that this is an extreme case and my colleagues may disagree. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- "very fancy font" - font so fancy that it is rather art than font (font includes images that may be unfree) Bulwersator (talk) 17:36, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete What?? It is the most obvious creative, complex, original work I've seen on a logo... Just because we recognize three letters doesn't mean we can call it a font. There's no way this can ever be a font unless someone is crazy o.o I'm pretty sure its work of art. --ZooFari 06:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Português: Concordo com o comentário de Jameslwoodward e endosso que é um Pd-text-logo (uma logotipo), por isto deve ser mantida. Jardel @lves talk 18:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- What? it is "simple geometric shapes and/or text" not "shapes and/or anything related to text" Bulwersator (talk) 12:08, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete--. HombreDHojalata.talk 16:38, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep is just a simple logo (CQC). Truu (talk) 16:51, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per Bulwersator and Zoofari: if this is a font, it's a very creative one, and thus eligible to copyright. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 12:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Possible copyvio of http://www.facebook.com/sebastiensalinguelapageofficielle?v=info Trizek here or on fr:wp 13:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
{{OTRS pending}} --mel27
voila, je crois que j'ai tout bien fait, j'ai envoyé le mail d'accord de l'auteur et placé le message qui correspond dans cette discussion, en espérant avoir procédé comme il faut. --mel27
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 01:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Richkahn
[edit]
Pretty much just vanity shots of a non-notable college professor (User:Richkahn) who created his own wikipedia article: Richard V. Kahn. Consensus for deletion of the article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard V. Kahn is petty strong, so they are not likely to be used in the future. Therefore, out of scope as unused personal photos.--GrapedApe (talk) 13:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Images of Zachrichardcb
[edit]Zachrichardcb (talk · contribs) appears to be a habitual commons copyright scofflaw. Why do I think that?
Confirmed copyvios
These copyvios were difficult to locate among the Oberlin College photo gallery. I suspect that the following are also copyright violations, but I can't find them among the hundreds of photos in the gallery. They are similar photos of similar subjects taken during the same general time frame. It's difficult to find these images among the photo gallery, because it's impossible to identify the other team.
Because the user can't be trusted to obey the copyright rules at commons, and the similarities of these unconfirmed copyvios to confirmed copyvios, they should be delete under Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle.--GrapedApe (talk) 02:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:06, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
CHST-FM is located in London, Ontario not in the US. Therefore the Licensing cannot claim to be Pubic Domain since it is "Typeface" under a US copyright claim when Canadian copyright laws apply. Additionally Wikipedia's version is Marked "Do not move to commons" for this reason. --ARTEST4ECHO talk 21:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Was tagged as copyvio. Does the text (in Bulgarian, I presume, I cannot read it) have enough originality to warrant a deletion? Rosenzweig τ 20:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep I can't read it either, but it looks like a standard government form. Such works have standardized text that is used from one document to the next. The employee is required to create them, there is no spark of creativity required for copyright. {{PD-BulgarianGov}} also possibly applies. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 12:40, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Per Nard MGA73 (talk) 20:16, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
