Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2012/01/07
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
![24 File:"pantene"_girls.jpg](#File:"pantene"_girls.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
outdated picture Jealousgarcia (talk) 02:18, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio Denniss (talk) 04:05, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Numerous tineye hits. http://www.tbd.com/blogs/tbd-arts/2010/12/the-best-takedowns-of-the-kys-list--6657.html credits it to UMG. dave pape (talk) 05:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio Denniss (talk) 06:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
wrong size. Zabajacek (talk) 01:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: good-faith req by uploader on day of upload. Túrelio (talk) 09:21, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio. This image was posted to wowturkey on January 25, 2008 by Oğulhan. Takabeg (talk) 04:39, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: copyright violation Polarlys (talk) 12:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio. This image was posted to wowturkey on January 25, 2008 by Oğulhan. Takabeg (talk) 04:39, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: copyright violation Polarlys (talk) 12:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
created a page instead of a category Pietro (talk) 11:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Speedy, per nom Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
created a page instead of a category Pietro (talk) 11:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: speedy, per nom Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
See disclaimer on this site http://www.lestwinsonline.net/photoshoot/kertin-vasser/ Clearly protected by copyright. Letartean (talk) 20:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio ■ MMXX talk 22:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Non-free image of a pokemon Letartean (talk) 22:43, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. Rocket000 (talk) 23:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio. This image was Image posted to Wowturkey on January 11, 2008 by iyigünlerdenizli. Takabeg (talk) 04:03, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. / post on April 26th, 2009, 07:48 PM / http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=857994 / System_Halted / http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/11/iyigunlerdenizliforumme.jpg/ RE rillke questions? 13:52, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
I doubt this is an own work; I found similar and larger versions of of this image, such as http://news.walla.co.il/?w=/22/1094814/238140/5/@@/media User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 04:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: It was a copyvio. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 09:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio. This image was posted to skyscrapercity.com on November 23, 2007 by DU999. Takabeg (talk) 04:48, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. RE rillke questions? 14:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
black pic only, dont know how it works that there is in the thumb an other AtelierMonpli (talk) 14:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
On hold Full resolution works. Should be repairable. I left a request at COM:GL -- Common Good (talk) 18:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Fixed by User:McZusatz. -- Common Good (talk) 18:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- File:City Theatre in Herson.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
I am not convinced that this is a pre-1917 image. Could it be from the time of the German occupation? Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Keep I prefer to assume good faith and raise Deletion Requests based on evidence, just in case it turns out to be a massive waste of everyone's time. You may want to raise questions like this on the Discussion page. --Fæ (talk) 23:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- Do those fences look pre-1917 to you? The Flickr account is not reliable, it goes against all practice on commons to take such statements for granted. But I admit, I might have saved some precious time by tagging this as "no source". /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:26, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Comment This link may be helpful. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, they say pre-1917. And looking at that site, I remembered something. Russian had a spelling reform shortly after the Revolution. Now they write "Херсон", but on the postcard there is the extra silent character.
I withdraw my nomination. (Except that Commons does not need two nearly identical images.) /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep per Pieter Kuiper. From the Ukrainian article of the city: The Austrian-German occupation begun on 5 April 1918 and ended on 8 March 1919 when Bolshevik troops took over the city. It is unlikely that this postcard got published afterwards. The license, however, shall be fixed as it does not make sense to keep the {{Cc-by-sa-2.0}} from Flickr. (And this should be done for all other Faebot-uploads of supposedly PD material as well.) --AFBorchert (talk) 11:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Per User:Faebot, my recommended license for this batch upload is {{PD-RusEmpire}}. Some of these have been done, though I prefer to do these "by hand" rather than relying on one of my scripts to add the license en-mass. You are welcome to finish going through the backlog. --Fæ (talk) 20:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- But when I try to fix licenses, Fæ reverts. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:42, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Read the edit comment which explained the reason for the revert, or the talk page (for a similar image, but I'm not going to waste yet more time tracking it down right now) where I repeated this explanation along with the basic principle that you cannot expect others to tease out the difference between you blanking valid information and any other text you might add at the same time. Considering the sheer rapid volume of the results of your image stalking campaign, you can hardly expect me to write up a helpful treatise when an edit comment is sufficient. Using this deletion request as an opportunity to grief me about other unrelated images does not help your argument. --Fæ (talk) 20:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- But when I try to fix licenses, Fæ reverts. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:42, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Per User:Faebot, my recommended license for this batch upload is {{PD-RusEmpire}}. Some of these have been done, though I prefer to do these "by hand" rather than relying on one of my scripts to add the license en-mass. You are welcome to finish going through the backlog. --Fæ (talk) 20:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. Old Russian Orthography. This postcard cannot be published after 1917. --Pauk (talk) 21:08, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: User:Pieter Kuiper withdraw the nomination Jarekt (talk) 14:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Personal image, used on pt:Carolina Sá, out of project scope. ■ MMXX talk 23:37, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- File:PQAAAO5C-oxmR iaFzbWaUL3zZlQRsaXZ-rqNYJhVZCvXAGeq3TZTHTDX9obTIzfexJNiRGK7aD4zdx-q1WRNcZFThkAm1T1UPUxL8a1pn8sIPlFcM1EW71f-jkc.jpg
- File:Fazbeicinho.jpg
- File:Carolsa.jpg
- File:EEAR - TAY - CONGRESSO 216.JPG
- File:SAM 0387 - Cópia.JPG
- File:Arraial do Cabo 097.JPG
■ MMXX talk 23:54, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Denniss (talk) 04:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Personal picture, blurry and not in use anywhere, out of scope. Martin H. (talk) 04:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 18:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Screen shot of a TV program/ User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 06:53, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 18:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted book cover. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 06:53, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 18:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
somewhat suspect posting, i dont think that images of pedobear attached to real people should be posted here w/o id and release from the person in photo Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 18:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the photographs contain unlicensed two-dimensional derivative works that are not de minimis. --— Cheers, JackLee –talk– 07:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment A cropped version should be OK. -- Herby (Vienna) (talk) 21:19, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Sure, that would be fine with me. Or maybe the image of gamelan players can be blurred out, if that would look less odd. I've filed a request at "Commons:Graphic Lab/Photography workshop#Asian Civilisations Museum, Empress Place 19, Aug 06.JPG". — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 08:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Offending video screen has now been "masked out" so image is not longer non compliant. Centpacrr (talk) 14:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks! In that case, I withdraw my nomination. The original file needs to be removed from the file history. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 15:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: OK now. Yann (talk) 18:49, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the photographs contain unlicensed two-dimensional derivative works that are not de minimis. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 07:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Derivative. Yann (talk) 18:50, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Used solely on copyvio pages on en wiki. No encyclopedic use. Bazj (talk) 21:39, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 18:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
unused Bazj (talk) 07:37, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 18:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
einfach so 86.103.172.154 09:18, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
![09:18, 7 January 2012 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2012/01/07#c-86.103.172.154-2012-01-07T09:18:00.000Z-File:"pantene"_girls.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep Appears to be free licensed by the photographer and categories suggest in scope usefulness. "Just so" is not a reason for deletion. -- Infrogmation (talk) 14:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Image clearly in scope. Tm (talk) 15:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: No valid reason for deletion. Yann (talk) 18:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
![18:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2012/01/07#c-Yann-2012-01-13T18:57:00.000Z-File:"pantene"_girls.jpg){kind=link}
Image may be on FlickR, but as the file description page says, it's a private photo and license verification unlikely ever happen. Armbrust (talk) 10:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Delete: There are no pictures on Brian Hatton's flickr account after March 27, 2011 and this photo was taken afterwards. Its likely not from his flickr account. Besides Hatton seems to license his images as 'All Rights Reserved.' --Leoboudv (talk) 08:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)- Delete: licence is unverifiable. I would appreciate a word from the original uploader, which may help solve out this DR. --PierreSelim (talk) 12:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 19:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Photo introduite par erreur dans la galerie Audibert et Lavirotte Michel Audibert (talk) 10:15, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep - that is not a reason for deleting the image. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:29, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- I don't understand what argument is given against deletion here. It was accidentily placed in a gallery? Then remove it from that gallery rather than from the site, no? - Andre Engels (talk) 11:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep As far as I can tell, the image has never been in the Commons gallery Audibert et Lavirotte. It also has never been in the articles in WP:FR or WP:EN. It appears to be a legitimately licensed Flickr image and no other issues should apply. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:28, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: No valid reason for deletion. Yann (talk) 18:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Smaller dupe of File:Feybug.jpg, two uploaders, both claim own work. See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Feybug.jpg. Funfood ␌ 10:43, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 18:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Screenshot of personal website, out of scope. Possible copvio of shown Windows logos. Funfood ␌ 10:53, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 18:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
COM:SCOPE Polarlys (talk) 14:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 19:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
COM:SCOPE, unused private image Polarlys (talk) 14:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 19:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Useless personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 16:26, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 19:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Useless personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 16:37, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 19:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Useless personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 16:39, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 19:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Already exists here: File:1962 Deep Sanderson 301 Coupe.jpg Mr.choppers (talk) 18:15, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. The other is just a crop missing the context. -- Docu at 07:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Per Docu -- Herby (Vienna) (talk) 21:38, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Both versions have its own merits. Tm (talk) 11:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Withdrawn. Mr.choppers (talk) 19:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept. Yann (talk) 19:09, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Already available here: File:Lancia LC2.jpg Mr.choppers (talk) 18:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. The other is just a crop missing the context. -- Docu at 07:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Per Docu -- Herby (Vienna) (talk) 21:38, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Well, File:Lancia LC2.jpg was cropped precisely to remove the "context". Nonetheless, having two versions of the same photo can't hurt that badly, I suppose. Mr.choppers (talk) 11:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Both versions have its own merits. Tm (talk) 11:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Deletion request withdrawn, as per other editors. Cheers, Mr.choppers (talk) 19:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept. Yann (talk) 19:09, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
This image is from http://www.flickr.com/photos/evilmacro/3252277445/ which currently says "All Rights Reserved" and there's no indication that it ever was freely licensed. Other factors that make me think the CC license is invalid: mismatch of author's names, the © symbol in the flicker username, and the later removal of the watermark. Rocket000 (talk) 22:27, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: by Matanya. Yann (talk) 19:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Non free image of a pokemon Letartean (talk) 22:43, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Deleted: by Common Good. Yann (talk) 19:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
low quality self shot, no surplus for the respective category. Elya (talk) 22:57, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- no educational value --PierreSelim (talk) 11:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 19:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Very low res. Looks like it was grabbed off the web and not "own work". Rocket000 (talk) 23:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 19:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Very low res. Looks like it was grabbed off the web and not "own work". Rocket000 (talk) 23:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 19:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Low res logo taken from the web. Doesn't look like "own work". See uploader's other images Rocket000 (talk) 23:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator, doesn't looks like uploaders' work, i.e. can't be put under free licence without an authorization. (should we list all the uploaders import here ?) PierreSelim (talk) 06:54, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 19:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
This logo may meet the threshold of originality AMERICOPHILE 17:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
This logo may meet the threshold of originality AMERICOPHILE 17:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
This logo may meet the threshold of originality AMERICOPHILE 17:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
No license, out of COM:SCOPE theMONO 00:26, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: by Fastily. Yann (talk) 11:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
wrong size. Zabajacek (talk) 01:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope: use wikitables. Leyo 02:06, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
The license given in the source website is by-nc-sa/2.5/br. NC is not allowed on Commons. Leyo 02:09, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
The license given in the source website is by-nc-sa/2.5/br. NC is not allowed on Commons. Leyo 02:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
clearly a cut and copy - the user has uploaded three or four pics related to this company and evidence of permission is required. Off2riorob (talk) 03:01, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
I have 100% permission from the file owner Kris Herzog.
You can confirm by emailing him directly: KrisHerzog@TheBodyguardGroup.com
- Well thanks for that - but who is the owner of the copyrights? You have permission from him to do what? Have you got written perversion for whatever it is? I suggest you ask the owner ot contact the project and clearly explaim what permission they are releasing. Off2riorob (talk) 01:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
company promo - evidence of permission required Off2riorob (talk) 03:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
I have 100% permission from the file owner Kris Herzog.
You can confirm by emailing him directly: KrisHerzog@TheBodyguardGroup.com
- Well thanks for that - but who is the owner of the copyrights? You have permission from him to do what? Have you got written perversion for whatever it is? I suggest you ask the owner of the rights to contact the project and clearly explain what permission they are releasing. Off2riorob (talk) 01:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: It also violates COM:Advert, so even with permission, it cannot stay here. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Way too complex to qualify as PD-textlogo. I mean, it has hands and a map. GrapedApe (talk) 03:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Really, really crappy quality image of Blossoming Almond Tree while much highter quality pictures are already in Commons in Category:Blossoming_Almond_Tree_by_Vincent_van_Gogh Léna (talk) 03:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio. This image is not "own work" of User:Askimizdan vazgecmicez. It was taken from the official website of the Ministry of Culture and Tourism in Mersin. Takabeg (talk) 04:12, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
File's metadata includes author & copyright info different from that given by uploader. dave pape (talk) 05:37, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- Author information was updated while I was posting this. The metadata's "Usage terms" nonetheless say "Only for editorial use" (per google translate). Should have OTRS confirmation of licensing. --dave pape (talk) 05:39, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- Tagged with no permission. Let's wait and see what happens. --Denniss (talk) 06:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Image found here and elsewhere on the web, predating the Flickr upload. This Flickr user has uploaded many copyrighted photos and claimed them as self-made. Ytoyoda (talk) 05:39, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. Yann (talk) 11:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
From speedy with reason "Datenschutz in google, Foto wird auch nicht mehr im Artikel verwendet --93.195.214.75 13:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)" I don't quite understand this request. Google translates this as "Privacy in google, photo is no longer used in the article". It's a photo of a town, about what kind of privacy the user is talking about? I think it should be kept without additional explanations. Trycatch (talk) 07:03, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
please remove at least my E-Mail and Name for data security reasons . I took the picture. It can be deleted Tho~enwiki (talk) 11:40, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- Can you please login to the account that originally uploaded these images (it was renamed to Tho~dewiki as part of SUL finalization) and make an edit confirming this request, so it can be verified that you are actually the original uploader? Revent (talk) 13:06, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- If you are the actual uploader, then just upload a version of this file without the watermark name and web site over this one. One of us will then hide the original. Jameslwoodward (talk) 13:52, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- After verifying the identify of this person by email contact, removed real name and email address from public history and log entries. The watermark in the files is still there (I couldn't clean it effectively) but points at the usurped dewiki account. Revent (talk) 03:06, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Kept: personal info has been removed, there's no other deletion rationale here. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:40, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
This looks too complex to be PD-ineligible in most countries. Granted, we don't know Greece's standards (COM:TOO), but the precautionary principle states it should be deleted if in doubt. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:12, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
unused Bazj (talk) 07:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete unused on the wikimedia project cannot be a valid reason. Commons is a project on its own. However I do think it's a copyvio of an undead author. Without proof the uploader is the authors, we should delete thoses files [1]. PierreSelim (talk) 11:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Please consider grouping all the files of Asif uploaded by the uploader. PierreSelim (talk) 11:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: No permission. Yann (talk) 11:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
unused Bazj (talk) 07:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete unused on the wikimedia project cannot be a valid reason. Commons is a project on its own. However I do think it's a copyvio of an undead author. Without proof the uploader is the author, we should delete thoses files [2].
Deleted: No permission. Yann (talk) 11:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
unused Bazj (talk) 07:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete unused on the wikimedia project cannot be a valid reason. Commons is a project on its own. However I do think it's a copyvio of an undead author. Without proof the uploader is the author, we should delete thoses files [3]. + watermarks. PierreSelim (talk) 11:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: No permission. Yann (talk) 11:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
unused Bazj (talk) 07:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: No permission. Yann (talk) 11:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
unused Bazj (talk) 07:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: No permission. Yann (talk) 11:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
unused Bazj (talk) 07:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: No permission. Yann (talk) 11:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
unused Bazj (talk) 07:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: No permission. Yann (talk) 11:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
unused Bazj (talk) 07:26, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: No permission. Yann (talk) 11:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
unused Bazj (talk) 07:26, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: No permission. Yann (talk) 11:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
unused Bazj (talk) 07:26, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: No permission. Yann (talk) 11:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
unused Bazj (talk) 07:27, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: No permission. Yann (talk) 11:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
unused Bazj (talk) 07:27, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: No permission. Yann (talk) 11:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
unused Bazj (talk) 07:27, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: No permission. Yann (talk) 11:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
unused Bazj (talk) 07:28, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: No permission. Yann (talk) 11:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
unused Bazj (talk) 07:28, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: No permission. Yann (talk) 11:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
unused Bazj (talk) 07:28, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: No permission. Yann (talk) 11:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
unused Bazj (talk) 07:29, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: No permission. Yann (talk) 11:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
unused Bazj (talk) 07:29, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: No permission. Yann (talk) 11:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
unused Bazj (talk) 07:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: No permission. Yann (talk) 11:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
unused Bazj (talk) 07:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: No permission. Yann (talk) 11:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
unused Bazj (talk) 07:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: No permission. Yann (talk) 11:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
unused Bazj (talk) 07:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: No permission. Yann (talk) 11:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
unused, watermarked, unwatermarked version exists Bazj (talk) 07:35, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: No permission. Yann (talk) 11:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
unused Bazj (talk) 07:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: No permission. Yann (talk) 11:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
unused Bazj (talk) 07:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: No permission. Yann (talk) 11:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
This appears to be a photograph of a reproduction of Whistler's Mother rather than the actual painting. Compare with File:Whistlers Mother, James Abbott McNeill Whistler cropped.jpg. The most notable differences can be seen in the head and neck as well the area over the knee. Also keep in mind that Whistler's Mother is a huge painting. This image appears to be a photograph of a very small reproduction judging by the grain of the canvas. Kaldari (talk) 08:51, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
This would also affect File:WhistlersMother.jpeg which is just a lower-res version of the reproduction. Kaldari (talk) 08:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- Support - What a cock-up, just like us using a later reproduction of The Great Wave off Kanagawa for so long. Obviously this completely throws out the copyright situation as the image is very probably recent. These images are (mis)used on about 20 language WPs, and they should just be deleted, probably with the best real image we have given the same name later, with a note explaining the situation. Johnbod (talk) 21:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- I've replaced all the uses of these 2 images with a high res version of the real painting. Kaldari (talk) 00:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Please! SarahStierch (talk) 00:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Both images are within project scope. The images should be properly annotated and labeled to remind us why we want properly sourced high resolution reproductions from institutions. It's funny that this happens with this painting. You guys never saw Bean? Multichill (talk) 21:38, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Unfortunately we don't know enough about this reproduction to be able to properly annotate and label it. Kaldari (talk) 02:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Im concerned about the copyright status of the reproduction. We dont know where it came from, who did it, where they live, and therefore dont know the copyright jurisdiction we need to comply with. I think we need to delete it until the provenance is provided. John Vandenberg (chat) 22:52, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: No copyright as it is a faithful reproduction of PD work. Yann (talk) 18:54, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Unused and unlikely to be used, no educational purpose. This image pertains to an imaginary micronation whose article on en.wp was deleted at en:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aryavart Empire. Sandstein (talk) 09:05, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 14:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Unused and unlikely to be used, no educational purpose. This image pertains to an imaginary micronation whose article on en.wp was deleted at en:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aryavart Empire. Sandstein (talk) 09:06, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 14:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
wrong name, not in use anymore Vunz (talk) 11:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 11:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
this file is not notable Reality006 (talk) 13:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 14:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
obvious copyvio http://www.tineye.com/search/d425de56fb6b5405d9526effd6f8af86220bb088/ Von Restorff (talk) 13:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 11:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
This is a very low quality file, no encyclopedic value MaxBioHazard (talk) 14:01, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep This is a non-reproducible event, an unauthorized rally against election fraud in St. Petersburg. More high-quality photos can hardly expect - a meeting took place at a time when the press was not interested in the situation and go with a decent photo equipment was dangerous for the equipment. Here we can see the key parameters of the meeting: dispersal of riot police, paddy wagons, crowd of people, the place of action (Gostiny yard). "no encyclopedic value" in relation to such pictures is a lie. See also: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Митинг Гостиный двор СПб автобус №5.JPG, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Митинг Гостиный двор 5 декабря 2011.JPG, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Митинг Гостиный двор СПб 7 декабря 2011.JPG - MaxBioHazard nominated all photos from the event; it is very unconstructive. Анастасия Львоваru (ru-n, en-2) 16:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep per Анастасия Львова. --Insider (talk) 21:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Due to the fact that the event cannot be repeated without it being a different event, we should not delete any photo unless there is a better copy available (for example if a thumbnail is uploaded when we already have a full size). The image is definitely educational. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 14:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: No valid reason for deletion. Yann (talk) 11:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
No evidence of licensing by copyright owner (name in lower right of image). Bbb23 (talk) 17:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Professional-style fish eye lens photo from the roof of an NFL stadium uploaded by a serial copyright scofflay (User talk:MarvG4). I'm calling shenanigans on this one. GrapedApe (talk) 17:08, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Same image deleted previously as File:Reliant houston stadium.jpg Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Vraag van de aanmelder. Terwinsel (talk) 17:18, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Google translates the nomination as "Question of the submitter." -- that is not enough of a reason to delete. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
not educationally relevant, blurry Japs 88 (talk) 17:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
low res BW copy of color bigger File:MendeleevaMD.jpg Shakko (talk) 17:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Unused, unidentified logo Bulwersator (talk) 18:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope. Unused personal logo George Chernilevsky talk 14:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Derivative work of copyrighted image - see http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/YetJPt8P9zFBNWKVjnrvUg Bulwersator (talk) 18:12, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: DW. Yann (talk) 11:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Superseded by File:Zuidplas flag.svg, a superior version - the font is clearer. Compare to the PNG version: Flag zuidplas.png. Cycn (talk) 18:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- I'm agree with this nomination, so this file can be deleted.--Arch (talk) 05:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Widely in use. WP editors apparently prefer this one. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
I do not think this is a simple geometic shape. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Blured, poor quality. Mlpearc powwow 20:03, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Sorry, But this is my first time so I do some mistakes in uploading this 2 files. SanamPatel (talk) 20:21, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete Uploader request shortly after upload. No evidence of foul play but an honest mistake. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 14:29, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Sorry, But this is my first time so I do some mistakes in uploading this 2 files. SanamPatel (talk) 20:35, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Uploader request shortly after upload. No evidence of foul play but an honest mistake. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 14:29, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Bigger version here: http://www.ksyx.net/Files/news8396.htm. Doubtfully own work. Funfood ␌ 21:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 11:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Appears to have a background texture possibly making it eligible for copyright protection. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:14, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: O don't think copyright is a problem, but scope is -- related article has been deleted from WP:EN Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
copyvio, Jo Spence and Terry Dennett. All rights reserved. Svajcr (talk) 21:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: No permission. Yann (talk) 11:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
redundant Egonist (talk) 10:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Kept: Unless it is identical, this is not a reason to delete. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
redundant 31.16.18.139 22:03, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Not a valid reason for deletion. We often keep multiple images of notable people, which Godzik is. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept as per Jameslwoodward. Yann (talk) 12:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Non-free logo Letartean (talk) 22:39, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Uploader asserts ownership but image is similar to photo streams at Getty Images and Wireimage. Low resolution file was uploaded with no EXIF data. Couldn't find exact photo on a quick net search but based on posing, quality of image and point of view of the image from a likely press red carpet photographer area doubt that the uploader is the pro that likely took the picture. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- Found a large version of image uploaded to a fan site Feb 13, 2011 [4]. Image here was uploaded Sep 2, 2011. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete looks like copyvio (no exif, low res, and picture on the net). PierreSelim (talk) 11:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope I think. Rocket000 (talk) 23:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 14:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Out of project scope, possible non-free derivative work with no source, used to promote uploader's blog. ■ MMXX talk 00:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- File:David bowie.JPG
- File:Pete townshend.JPG
- File:Hendrix.JPG
- File:Joy divisionBLOG2.JPG
- File:John lennon LB22.JPG
- File:The Who.jpg
- File:John Peel.JPG
■ MMXX talk 00:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Similar to UK, no freedom of panorama for "graphic works" in Bangladesh A1Cafel (talk) 04:42, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 12:26, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
Fichier hors sujet introduit par erreur Michel Audibert (talk) 10:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- What makes you think/believe/know that this was 'par erreur'? What was the erreur? - Andre Engels (talk) 11:12, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: This is a signed article from 1896. We do not know if the author dies before 1942, so we must delete it. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Wrong name file Jeffrey Lew (talk) 10:01, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: renamed -- please do not use {{Delete}} when {{Rename}} is what is needed. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope Cameta (talk) 11:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
File:Internet_Search_Optimization_Quito_Tourism_Poster_at_the_Museum_of_Medicine_in_Quito_founded_by_Dr._Eduardo_Estrella_Aguirre.jpg
[edit]
Derivative work of copyrighted poster. Claritas (talk) 12:21, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- Not much there to copyright. In the U.S., I'd say there's an argument for {{PD-textlogo}}, but I'm not sure of the rules in Ecuador. Powers (talk) 15:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- The complex background design of the poster is certainly copyrightable, although the logo may not be. --Claritas (talk) 16:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- The background is most definitely copyrightable in the U.S. Not sure about the actual logo part... maybe. Also no clue about Ecuador rules. Carl Lindberg (talk)
Hi. Just a little more information: File is use in es:WP to spamming the Museum of Medicine in Quito and his creator, Dr. Eduardo Estrella Aguirre, even when the picture is about a poster saying "Calidad turística", "Tourist quality". You can note this in the description of the file. It talks about the biography of Aguirre and the inventory of the musem. The file is added massively by the user and an IP eveywhere, including categories. Also, the user, Internet Search Optimization it´s clearly a SPA: all pictures includes name of user and it´s making spam. Just read his UP. Thanks. --Andrea (talk) 12:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete for two reasons:
- Derivative of copyright work per Carl Lindberg above: Even if the "distintivo Q" mark was judged to be simple and unoriginal shapes in both Ecuador and the USA, the background of the poster is made up of complex combinations of those shapes, and is probably too complex for {{PD-textlogo}} in the United States. Commons content Sign art appears to be the work of the Metropolitana de Gestión de Destino Turístico – Ecuador (Quito Visitors' Bureau) and the uploader has not shown evidence that he has permission to relicense derivative works of that sign.
- Fails COM:SCOPE because it is very clear that it is just an advertising attempt. Commons:Project scope#Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose: "any use that is not made in good faith does not count"; Commons:Project scope#Examples: "Advertising or self-promotion." --Closeapple (talk) 10:11, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Greece. Claritas (talk) 12:29, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: No FOP in Greece Captain-tucker (talk) 03:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Greece. Claritas (talk) 12:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: No FOP in Greece Captain-tucker (talk) 03:39, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
This is a very low quality file, no encyclopedic value MaxBioHazard (talk) 14:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep This is a non-reproducible event, an unauthorized rally against election fraud in St. Petersburg. More high-quality photos can hardly expect - a meeting took place at a time when the press was not interested in the situation and go with a decent photo equipment was dangerous for the equipment. Here we can see the key parameters of the meeting: dispersal of riot police, paddy wagons, crowd of people, the place of action (Gostiny yard). "no encyclopedic value" in relation to such pictures is a lie. See also: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Митинг Гостиный двор СПб автобус №5.JPG, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Митинг Гостиный двор СПб 7 дек 2011.JPG, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Митинг Гостиный двор СПб 7 декабря 2011.JPG - MaxBioHazard nominated all photos from the event; it is very unconstructive. Анастасия Львоваru (ru-n, en-2) 16:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep per Анастасия Львова. --Insider (talk) 21:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- I was nominated not all photos (all are in the Category:2011 Russian protests), but only those that can not see anything. In this photo can be seen only a few heads in the dark, I do not see anything in the photo associated with the protests. Sorry for the google-translate. MaxBioHazard (talk) 14:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Due to the fact that the event cannot be repeated without it being a different event, we should not delete any photo unless there is a better copy available (for example if a thumbnail is uploaded when we already have a full size). The image is definitely educational. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 14:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Прежде удаления аналогичную замену найдите. Аффтар.
- The statement above means "Find the analogous substitute prior to deletion".
Kept: As per SCOPE A media file that is in use on one of the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation is considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose Captain-tucker (talk) 03:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
This is a very low quality file, no encyclopedic value MaxBioHazard (talk) 14:03, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep This is a non-reproducible event, an unauthorized rally against election fraud in St. Petersburg. More high-quality photos can hardly expect - a meeting took place at a time when the press was not interested in the situation and go with a decent photo equipment was dangerous for the equipment. Here we can see the key parameters of the meeting: dispersal of riot police, paddy wagons, crowd of people, the place of action (Gostiny yard). "no encyclopedic value" in relation to such pictures is a lie. See also: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Митинг Гостиный двор СПб автобус №5.JPG, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Митинг Гостиный двор СПб 7 дек 2011.JPG, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Митинг Гостиный двор 5 декабря 2011.JPG - MaxBioHazard nominated all photos from the event; it is very unconstructive. Анастасия Львоваru (ru-n, en-2) 16:08, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep per Анастасия Львова. --Insider (talk) 21:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Due to the fact that the event cannot be repeated without it being a different event, we should not delete any photo unless there is a better copy available (for example if a thumbnail is uploaded when we already have a full size). The image is definitely educational. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 14:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Info In my point of view, the image could be done much better from raw. Maybe the photographer has the raw file and can improve the image?--PereslavlFoto (talk) 12:35, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: As per SCOPE A media file that is in use on one of the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation is considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose Captain-tucker (talk) 03:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
unused promotional image, compare with http://www.isadoralibros.com.uy/shop/img/p/6566-5004-large.jpg, most likely copyright violation Polarlys (talk) 14:27, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
no Freedom of panorama: Commons:FOP#Albania Brackenheim (talk) 14:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- Restored per {{FoP-Albania}} / change in Albanian law, following up on [5], see also [6]. Gestumblindi (talk) 00:43, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- File:Giannello Strinario In The Tub.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Gerbino and the Saracens.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
en:Thomas Derrick (artist) was British and died in 1954. Not PD in the country of origin. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete The en-wp article about the artist gives a bibliographic reference of the work where this has apparently been taken from: Giovanni Boccaccio, The Decameron. London: Chatto & Windus, 1920. 11 full-page illustrations. Hence it is not a an US publication and {{PD-1923}} does not apply. This DR should be put into Category:Undelete in 2025 after deleting the images. --AFBorchert (talk) 15:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per AFBorchert - this does seem quite clear I think. --Herby talk thyme 16:21, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Likely not the own work of the uploader and no permission for a "free" release provided High Contrast (talk) 16:09, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
This is no US Air Force image: the source explicitely does not mark it as such. Instead, it is filed as a "Courtesy graphic" - thus not PD 91.57.83.214 16:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Derivative work of the Williams College seal, which is still in copyright. One cannot escape copyright by simply photographing something and calling it your own. Note that the seal is "non-free" on en.wiki at File:Williams College Seal.png. GrapedApe (talk) 16:41, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
replaced with File:Nucleotide nucleoside general bg.svg Gabby8228 (talk) 14:27, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- Deleted per author's request due to duplication. →Spiritia 16:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
DW of copyrighted product packaging Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 02:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- It's not copyrighted. Nor trademarked. --HighKing (talk) 14:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- Any substantial artwork is automatically copyright "the author". For more information, see {{Packaging}}. And because the artwork on that pack of cheese is original enough and the image itself doesn't qualify as de minimis we'll have to delete it. De728631 (talk) 19:42, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 00:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
it is my opinion that the splash effect in the background, which is unrelated to the lettering in the image, is itself complex enough to warrant copyright protection. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 00:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Unused and unlikely to be used, no educational purpose. This image pertains to an imaginary micronation whose article on en.wp was deleted at en:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aryavart Empire. Sandstein (talk) 09:06, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 00:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
This is a very low quality file, no encyclopedic value MaxBioHazard (talk) 14:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep This is a non-reproducible event, an unauthorized rally against election fraud in St. Petersburg. More high-quality photos can hardly expect - a meeting took place at a time when the press was not interested in the situation and go with a decent photo equipment was dangerous for the equipment. Here we can see the key parameters of the meeting: dispersal of riot police, paddy wagons, crowd of people, the place of action (Gostiny yard). "no encyclopedic value" in relation to such pictures is a lie. See also: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Митинг Гостиный двор СПб 7 дек 2011.JPG, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Митинг Гостиный двор 5 декабря 2011.JPG, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Митинг Гостиный двор СПб 7 декабря 2011.JPG - MaxBioHazard nominated all photos from the event; it is very unconstructive. Анастасия Львоваru (ru-n, en-2) 16:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep per Анастасия Львова. --Insider (talk) 21:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- I was nominated not all photos (all are in the Category:2011 Russian protests), but only those that can not see anything. In this picture, ordinary bus, which can be photographed at night in any town, I do not see anything in the photo associated with the protests. (sorry for the google-translate) MaxBioHazard (talk) 14:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Due to the fact that the event cannot be repeated without it being a different event, we should not delete any photo unless there is a better copy available (for example if a thumbnail is uploaded when we already have a full size). The image is definitely educational. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 14:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
DW of copyrighted product packaging Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 02:26, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- Not copyrighted (no visible (C) mark) nor trademarked (searched the Irish trade mark database. I also doubt that a photo of multiple packages (esp. in a public place) that shows a logo is a breach of copyright. Under those circumstances, would you not have to delete photos of people wearing Nike trainers, or Adidas football shirts, etc? --HighKing (talk) 15:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- Any substantial artwork is automatically copyright "the author". For more information, see {{Packaging}}. And because the artwork on that pack of cheese is original enough and the image itself doesn't qualify as de minimis we'll have to delete it. De728631 (talk) 19:42, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 17:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
DW of copyrighted product packaging Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 02:26, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- Not copyrighted (no visible (C) mark) nor trademarked (searched the Irish trade mark database. I also doubt that a photo of multiple packages (esp. in a public place) that shows a logo is a breach of copyright. Under those circumstances, would you not have to delete photos of people wearing Nike trainers, or Adidas football shirts, etc? --HighKing (talk) 15:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- Any substantial artwork is automatically copyright "the author". For more information, see {{Packaging}}. And because the artwork on that pack of cheese is original enough and the image itself doesn't qualify as de minimis we'll have to delete it. De728631 (talk) 19:42, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 17:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Off-topic here; if this is surely out of copyright, it should be moved to Wikisource and explained, with individual images hosted here. But as it stands, I don't see how it belongs on Commons, Rodhullandemu (talk) 03:06, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Keep. Such gallery pages are a widely-used feature on Commons to display images belonging to the same topic. See Charlemagne, Vincent van Gogh or Scotland. De728631 (talk) 19:49, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- My fault for editing in the "wee small hours" of the morning; I just didn't realise it's a gallery, so I'll withdraw the nomination. Rodhullandemu (talk) 20:05, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
No FOP in USA. This is a derivative of work of the "Ironic Columns" by Charles Moore. They were constructed between 1983 and 1986.(source) GrapedApe (talk) 16:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - part of the building. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- It's a work of art attached to a building, not subject to the FOP exception for buildings.--GrapedApe (talk) 02:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep created simultaneously with the rest of the building by the same architect -> part of the building. Otherwise, It would be very easy to call an art random decorative elements of buildings to completely disable FOP. See also Leicester v. Warner Bros., 232 F.3d 1212 (9th Cir. 2000). Trycatch (talk) 18:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Purpose for creating this file seems to be soapboxing, which falls outside the scope of Wikimedia's educational mission. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:12, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep in use in a userbox. Not sure how promoting a nationality is "soapboxing". Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Just to be clear, this deletion request is not concerned whether or not promoting a nationality is "soapboxing" per se, nor whether that it is used in a
thecreator's userbox. This discussion is about whether Commons should be used as a web-hosting site for self-made content whose only use is the promotion of political causes, rather than for educational purposes. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)- If you get the userbox deleted from WIkipedia as out of scope, that may be different, but as long as it's in use Commons should not be dictating policy like that to projects. If it's in scope on en-wiki, it's in scope here. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:27, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- That is not strictly true, for if I were to upload my portrait and use it to embellish a user box, such content would clearly be out of scope, regardless of use. Such designs do not magically become educational by arguing that “it could be used to illustrate a Wikipedia article on X" or “it could be used to illustrate a Wikipedia user box". That would be an example of the tail wagging the dog. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- As I have said elsewhere, I had no intention of promoting political causes. The image was intended as illustration for British Israelism, but I decided to make another version for that use. Apart from the userbox, I think it is useful for anyone wishing to illustrate Great Britain. --Jonund (talk) 18:08, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- That is not strictly true, for if I were to upload my portrait and use it to embellish a user box, such content would clearly be out of scope, regardless of use. Such designs do not magically become educational by arguing that “it could be used to illustrate a Wikipedia article on X" or “it could be used to illustrate a Wikipedia user box". That would be an example of the tail wagging the dog. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- If you get the userbox deleted from WIkipedia as out of scope, that may be different, but as long as it's in use Commons should not be dictating policy like that to projects. If it's in scope on en-wiki, it's in scope here. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:27, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Images must be realistically useful for an educational purpose. If they could be used to illustrate a Wikipedia article, or could be used in a userbox (even more when they are) , then yes they are useful for an educational purpose. In short, if they are in legitimate use on a subproject, they are in scope here, without further discussion. Commons is not the dog in your analogy. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Clearly my understanding of allowable images for userboxes is different. For an image to be useful in this context, it would have to have a dual use, i.e. education (illustration of an article, say) and embelishment (such as a userbox). This image could not be realistically useful for an educational purpose, for this composite image does not illustrate anything that exists in the real world other than the original parts it is made up from. The only dual use that can be realistically put is embelishment and personal indulgance (such as uploading a self-portrait or creating political banners), which combined together fall outside of the scope of Wikimedia's educational mission. --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:09, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- Basically -- wikipedia is considered an educational project. If they have use for an image, for whatever reason (even if only on non-article pages), then it's in scope here and we don't delete it -- otherwise that is imposing a policy on them from outside their project, which is something we do not do (unless it is for copyright reasons). What makes an image good in a userbox, or even cover art, is not always what makes a good article illustration -- so use on articles is not the only criteria. Embellishment-only images may not be useful on articles, but they could be useful in userboxes, WIkiProject logos, stub article template icons, Wikinews, Wikibooks, etc., etc., so there are educational uses for them. The simple fact that something is in use on any Wikimedia project (outside of perhaps user pages but we allow users a couple of those even) is enough to automatically mean the image is in scope on Commons. From COM:SCOPE: A media file that is in use on one of the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation is considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose, as is a file in use for some operational reason such as within a template or the like. Such a file is not liable to deletion simply because it may be of poor quality: if it is in use, that is enough. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:12, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- Since the userbox in question is being used to assert or declare a politcal affiliation, I would argue that it falls outside of scope to which a Wikimedia project could be expected to use it for, as soapboxing falls outside their scope as well. This would be the same argument that would be used to delete a file that is being used to endorse an extremist or offensive viewpoint: if it cannot be used by a Wikimedia project, then it not actually "in use" per se. However, having look at the outcome of a deletion discusion for a more overtly nationalistic user box, it appears that some soapboxing is allowable, even if it is not encouraged. I therefore wish this deletion nominiation to be withdrawn on the grounds that my interpretation of what falls within the scope of educational activity appears to be more narrow that community at large, and to thank Carl Lindberg for taking time to explain this to me. --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Basically -- wikipedia is considered an educational project. If they have use for an image, for whatever reason (even if only on non-article pages), then it's in scope here and we don't delete it -- otherwise that is imposing a policy on them from outside their project, which is something we do not do (unless it is for copyright reasons). What makes an image good in a userbox, or even cover art, is not always what makes a good article illustration -- so use on articles is not the only criteria. Embellishment-only images may not be useful on articles, but they could be useful in userboxes, WIkiProject logos, stub article template icons, Wikinews, Wikibooks, etc., etc., so there are educational uses for them. The simple fact that something is in use on any Wikimedia project (outside of perhaps user pages but we allow users a couple of those even) is enough to automatically mean the image is in scope on Commons. From COM:SCOPE: A media file that is in use on one of the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation is considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose, as is a file in use for some operational reason such as within a template or the like. Such a file is not liable to deletion simply because it may be of poor quality: if it is in use, that is enough. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:12, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- Clearly my understanding of allowable images for userboxes is different. For an image to be useful in this context, it would have to have a dual use, i.e. education (illustration of an article, say) and embelishment (such as a userbox). This image could not be realistically useful for an educational purpose, for this composite image does not illustrate anything that exists in the real world other than the original parts it is made up from. The only dual use that can be realistically put is embelishment and personal indulgance (such as uploading a self-portrait or creating political banners), which combined together fall outside of the scope of Wikimedia's educational mission. --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:09, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- Images must be realistically useful for an educational purpose. If they could be used to illustrate a Wikipedia article, or could be used in a userbox (even more when they are) , then yes they are useful for an educational purpose. In short, if they are in legitimate use on a subproject, they are in scope here, without further discussion. Commons is not the dog in your analogy. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - no copyright problem, in use; and yes, it is allright to upload a portrait for one's user page. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:19, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep File clearly in scope. Tm (talk) 12:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: No valid reason for deletion. Yann (talk) 10:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Reopening discussion:
Delete Actually, this has a serious copyright problem, which can be solved easily by the creator changing the license -- but until he does that, this is a copyvio. The two files from which this is derived are by CC-BY. The creator has made this file PD. That is not possible. In addition, the description page should attribute, by name and not just link, both of the creators on whose work this is based. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- I don't see the point reopening the DR for that. You could just change the license. Yann (talk) 12:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- As far as I know, we don't ever change licenses -- the only person who can do it legally is the person who gave the license in the first place. If he or she is unwilling to do it, then we must delete the image. Since he or she commented above, that should not be a problem. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- The current license is technically OK -- the derivative work itself (combining the base images in this manner) is not bound to be CC-BY (only CC-BY-SA does that), so that can be PD. However, the authorship of the components must be noted, as well the fact they are CC-BY. We don't technically need to change the license, but rather just conform to the other ones. And yes, if there was a CC-BY-SA derivative mistake, we typically just fix it, since usually the author had given all the necessary permissions, just went a bit too far. Unless maybe it was an author who only wants to use the Free Art License and they made use of a CC-BY-SA work, or something like that -- but I have no issues changing a CC-BY to a CC-BY-SA if it's derivative of another CC-BY-SA work. Which, in this case, is not necessary (but we do have to comply with the CC-BY licenses). Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- I on the contrary object to changing a license to CC-BY-SA, on the grounds that the author may not have been aware that they were compelled to release their work under CC-BY-SA, and may find some of its terms unsavory (I for one would sooner recreate one of my works than see it released under CC-BY-SA). But that's not at issue with this image - as you say, it is sufficient to note the license for each portion of the image derived from original sources, and the license of any new contributions. Dcoetzee (talk) 02:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- If the author expressed a desire to delete in that case, that may change things ;-) In most cases though, you'd have to think that someone willing to give up enough rights to give a CC-BY license, would also be willing to give up fewer rights for CC-BY-SA. Additionally, if there was a way to separate out the contributions to the derivative work such that they would no longer be derivative (entirely possible with things like additions to SVGs), then those separate additions could still be used under CC-BY I'd think given the initial declaration. CC-BY-SA for the overall work would only be forced when used in conjunction with the CC-BY-SA portions. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- I on the contrary object to changing a license to CC-BY-SA, on the grounds that the author may not have been aware that they were compelled to release their work under CC-BY-SA, and may find some of its terms unsavory (I for one would sooner recreate one of my works than see it released under CC-BY-SA). But that's not at issue with this image - as you say, it is sufficient to note the license for each portion of the image derived from original sources, and the license of any new contributions. Dcoetzee (talk) 02:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- The current license is technically OK -- the derivative work itself (combining the base images in this manner) is not bound to be CC-BY (only CC-BY-SA does that), so that can be PD. However, the authorship of the components must be noted, as well the fact they are CC-BY. We don't technically need to change the license, but rather just conform to the other ones. And yes, if there was a CC-BY-SA derivative mistake, we typically just fix it, since usually the author had given all the necessary permissions, just went a bit too far. Unless maybe it was an author who only wants to use the Free Art License and they made use of a CC-BY-SA work, or something like that -- but I have no issues changing a CC-BY to a CC-BY-SA if it's derivative of another CC-BY-SA work. Which, in this case, is not necessary (but we do have to comply with the CC-BY licenses). Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep per Carl Lindberg. De728631 (talk) 19:21, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, creative artwork and appropriately licensed with a free-use license that is acceptable for usage on this project. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 21:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I do not believe this is an own image from the Hebrew Wikipedia. I found a similar image uploaded in 2008 at http://communabuilder.tapuz.co.il/UsersFolders/zal/images/0906200786397.jpg User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 04:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - the {{FoP-Israel}} template does not apply, see argument on File talk:IDF insignia.png. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 04:53, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- I am still at a toss-up over the FOP issue, but my focus is that this image is not an own work at all and as we are discussing at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Important:_Transfers_from_he.wikipedia.org many images coming from he.wikipedia are having severe copyright/sourcing problems. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 04:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. The question was raised on 2009, on the discussion page Pieter linked. the answer there is clear and I see no point in re-cycling this question over and over. matanya • talk 08:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. This insignia is considered as legislation which is PD is Israel. Tomer A. (talk) 09:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep—Tomer's argument should be enough, but even if we look at Israeli copyright law separately—the image was owned by the state and created over 50 years ago, which makes it PD. Example of use in 1949. Case closed. —Ynhockey (talk) 19:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- I agree that the overall design is public domain, however the policies we have at COM:COA says each representation has their own copyright. We have versions of the emblem that we either self-drawn or extracted from IDF documents or Isaeli law. This was just copied from a clipart website. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 20:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Comment: The uploader at the above website could have taken it from here. User:Yanivreg at he.wiki was active before 2008. Maybe Yanivreg can enlighten us to its source. (It is too crude to be a clipart in my opinion). Chesdovi (talk) 13:52, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Wappen versehentlich doppelt aufgenommen. Ich habe bereits eine neuere Datei mit einer besseren Auflösung und der Abkürzung "FeSpäKdoKp-" hochgeladen Wappensammler (talk) 09:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Delete, diese Datei ist jetzt überflüssig. Aber in Zukunft solltest Du bitte bei solchen Aktionen keine neuen Dateien hochladen, sondern auf der vorhandenen Seite im Abschnitt "Dateiversionen" den Link "Eine neue Version dieser Datei hochladen" benutzen. Genau dafür ist der nämlich gedacht. De728631 (talk) 20:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 01:06, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
This painting looks very pristine, I doubt the dating "16th or 17th century". No source given. What does it say in the left bottom corner? Also, does not it say that this is Saint Benedict? Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 01:06, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
COM:DW, stickers are not made to be permanently located, {{FoP-Nederland}} does not apply. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:01, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- Your interpretation is needlessly narrow. Commons:Freedom_of_Panorama#The_Netherlands states "Taking these guidelines and the few court cases into consideration, we interpret "public place" (openbare plaats) in article 18 to cover works on open-air roads and squares as well as works visible from there (as long as they're outside)". This would seem to include publicly displayed stickers, that are intended to be on display in public locations. --Fæ (talk) 00:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- This seems to be on a car window. But even if it was sitting on a fixed object, it was not put there by the copyright holder. Stickers are not magically free. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:21, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- Car window stickers are by definition made to be seen outside in car windows in public spaces, by the public, consequently "visible from there" per the guideline. --Fæ (talk) 00:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- The whole purpose of copyright law is to protect the rights of authors that make their work visible for the public. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:35, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- Not arguing against that. However if the artwork is stuck on the side of a building or is otherwise visible from a public space in the Nederlands, it falls under FoP. Even if the artwork is reasonably transient (such as chalk graffiti) then this principle applies. I would not suggest that a oil painting being transported on the street would count, but artwork designed to be displayed to be visible from or in a public location seems entirely within this principle. --Fæ (talk) 00:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- The whole purpose of copyright law is to protect the rights of authors that make their work visible for the public. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:35, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- Car window stickers are by definition made to be seen outside in car windows in public spaces, by the public, consequently "visible from there" per the guideline. --Fæ (talk) 00:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- This seems to be on a car window. But even if it was sitting on a fixed object, it was not put there by the copyright holder. Stickers are not magically free. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:21, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete I am not sure it is smart to wade into a discussion between you two, but I probably do one dumb thing every day, so I'll get today's out of the way early.
- I think that Fae is raising a new interpretation of our FoP policy. In English, "permanently located in public places" suggests that a given thing be in one place, not attached to a moving vehicle. We regularly delete murals located on vehicles. It is certainly possible that this vehicle is in a private garage every night, which means that it is not permanently in a public place. Point for delete.
- Being attached to a vehicle is different from being "stuck on the side of a building" -- the latter is permanent (within the life of the artwork -- the chalk graffiti example is correct), but the former is not. Point for delete.
- Pieter raises the point that being placed in a public setting does not necessarily free the image from copyright. If I buy a properly licensed poster of a Picasso painting which is still under copyright and hang that poster in a public place, the copyright to the painting does not go away. Against that, Fae argues that stickers, particularly stickers with the glue on the image side, are meant to be stuck to windows. I call this point even.
- Also, I note the last sentences of Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#The_Netherlands:
- "Furthermore, the picture must show the work as it appears in the public place. (A photograph showing a sculpture in its surroundings is OK. Cutting out the sculpture and using only the image of the sculpture is not covered by article 18.) Dutch legislature seems to favor a strict interpretation of the Berne three-step test; parliament mentioned that creating and selling a postcard from a close-up photo of a copyrighted sculpture (i.e., without the surroundings, not showing the sculpture in context) was not allowed."
- which suggests to me that a photo of the whole car would be OK, but the detail is not. Point for delete.
- (Please note that I am not dumb enough to close the DR -- I'll leave that to someone even braver than I.) Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for thinking it through. --Fæ (talk) 13:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- You're welcome. Your comment sounds like you agree with my reasoning -- are you withdrawing your objection? Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I think so. Unless there is case law to refer to, this is going to stay a debate on interpretation. For the NL I have no appreciation of case law to reference. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 17:44, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per my comments above. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:43, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Though the helmet picture is free it contains the logo of Gijón Mariners and as such is derivative work and cant be released totally freely. Mtking (edits) 01:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- Really, because if so there are a LOT of pictures to delete from commons. There are thousands of pictures which have logos in them somewhere. --Jayron32 (talk) 04:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
That logo (the anchor) is not registered--Banderas (talk) 19:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:45, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
This image was created using copyrighted software from http://mapul.com/ . IMHO, such images are also copyrighted by creators of software. Dmitry89 (talk) 11:26, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- By http://mapul.com/Terms.aspx - "You have no right to transfer, copy, broadcast, dispatch, license a content created by means of service Mapul, exceeding incorporated in Mapul functional and conditions of use and restriction on the given content." I think, it is not free. Dmitry89 (talk) 11:29, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Perhaps one of our Russian speaking colleagues would look at the license in the original Russian. The English translation which the web site provides is almost incomprehensible and does not, for me at least, distinguish between works that are made using the product (such as the image) and the product itself. I have left a request at Commons:Форум -- the Russian Village pump. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- It's an example of a very poor, almost unreadable pseudo legalese. It's quite hard to understand the authors, but it seems in a nutshell they forbade everything they can. "You have no right to [...] automated devices and the software for work with service Mapul, besides licensed for Windows and Mac platforms a web-browsers." -- lol, so you need to have a "licensed" (what the heck is it?) Win or Mac browser just to browse their site. So it seems that Linux/Android users violate their mad ToS just using their service. There is absolutely no sign of a free license or something. However, it's almost certainly that the software was created by the uploader himself, but it needs OTRS confirmation in this case. --Trycatch (talk) 17:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- The last section: “Third-party agreements” “Mapul uses clip art and graphics from the OpenClipart library distributed under Creative Commons Public Domain License.” --AVRS (talk) 10:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:52, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Wrong image name and wrong image description. Please delete in order to avoid any confusion. Thanks. Bullenwächter ↑ 23:58, 7 January 2012 (UTC) Bullenwächter ↑ 23:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Not a reason to delete. Please use {{Rename}} Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:06, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Image uploaded with wrong file name, the identical file has been uploaded File:Terracotta German at British Museum.jpg under its correct name. Please delete in order to avoid any cofusioins. Thanks! Bullenwächter (talk) 08:34, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Speedy delete -- duplicate Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:43, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
No freedom of Panorama in Greece 77.49.26.65 07:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
- Building has little, if any, originality. --Túrelio (talk) 08:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Greece. Claritas (talk) 12:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- Did you read the comment above? -- RE rillke questions? 12:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- There is obviously some originality in the design. --Claritas (talk) 15:39, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept. No originality. Yann (talk) 19:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
No FOP in Greece. Greek copyright expires 70 years after architect's death. Elisfkc (talk) 20:15, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination, missed the fact that it was already nominated and kept Elisfkc (talk) 20:16, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Authors for the photos on the cover are not mentioned, and I doubt the OTRS contains evidence of permission for all of these. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 01:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- Fae is a member of OTRS, so it would be good to check and see if he didn't approve his own image or had a friend perform a special favor. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- It is not his own image; someone (likely the author) sent this to permissions, and then Fæ uploaded it. But permission by the book author is not enough. Even if the publisher gave permission, it would need to be very explicit about the rights of the included photos. But some OTRS agents are very easygoing about verification of permission (example). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- Comment OTRS shows a CC-BY-SA license in an e-mail signed by Joel McIver, the author of the book. The e-mail is from a web site that is apparently McIver's, so as best I can tell, the permission is authentic. Pieter's question of whether it is sufficient is certainly valid. When a publisher clears copyrights on photos for a book, usually the licenses cover only use in that book, both in print and electronic versions, as well as in advertising and promotion of the book. A license here goes beyond that. So, if McIver is business savvy and knows all that, then this is probably all right -- he's not going to sub-license something that he doesn't have rights to. But many authors are not business savvy, hence my not taking a position -- too close to call without more input. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs)
Kept as this cover which came by email through our address for photo submissions and has been put under a CC-BY-SA-3.0 license by its author. He has clearly stated that he is himself the copyright holder and, in cases like this, that is good enough for us. The genuineness of the email address has been confirmed (and now checked again by me). --AFBorchert (talk) 12:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
- Renomination #1
I still believe that permission by the publisher should be required for the cover. McIver did not design it, and he did not make the photos that are shown there. According to the copyright notice in the book (Amazon, look inside, click on "copyright"), McIver only owns rights on the text, but there is an explicit notice "Volume copyright © 2008 Outline Press Ltd, all rights reserved" and "no part of this book may be reproduced [...] without permission by the publisher". (my emphasis) Renominating by Jim's suggestion. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- Raising Deletion review immediately after the last one closes, in a discussion where I have been accused of lying and misusing my role as an OTRS volunteer, yet again, seems a strong case for misuse of process intended to blatantly image stalk. Pieter Kuiper, do you not feel this might be seen as a problem? --Fæ (talk) 15:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- No. The problem is your generosity with OTRS tickets. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- I am spending the weekend at at OTRS workshop, which I was part of organizing, with the purpose of training new OTRS agents and discussing future processes and policy with WMF representatives. If you believe you have a case that I am incompetent to do this sort of unpaid voluntary work, I suggest you raise the matter formally rather than making a series of defamatory allegations in deletion requests being raised as part of your image stalking campaign. I suggest you contact an OTRS admin, I'm in the middle of a discussion of OTRS governance, so that seems quite relevant. --Fæ (talk) 16:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- No. The problem is your generosity with OTRS tickets. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Delete I actually suggested to Pieter that he reopen this image, see the talk page. I have no axe to grind with Fae, and I believe that the OTRS e-mail was correctly and honestly reported, but was not sufficient. That is not an issue with Fae's work as an OTRS volunteer, but with the decision above.
I was on the fence the first time around. After Pieter did additional research and determined that the book has two copyrights -- text (McIver) and everything else (Outline Press Ltd), it became clear to me that we decided it incorrectly, because McIver does not own the copyright to the cover and therefore has no right to give a license to Commons. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- I have written back to Joel McIver asking him to confirm the copyright situation with his publisher, or to provide a free release from the publisher. The email is available on the same OTRS ticket number. --Fæ (talk) 00:12, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Keep The publisher as well as the author have confirmed the release of this image on Template:OTRS ticket. As Pieter Kuiper has previously accused me of lying as an OTRS volunteer, I suggest another volunteer with access confirms these details so that he can hear this from someone he might trust. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:21, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep I congratulate Fae on persistence. The first response from the publisher reads, in part:
- "This is to confirm that you have our permission to use the cover image for 100 Metal Guitarists on the Wikipedia page for the book."
- That is, of course, not sufficient. Fae wrote back:
- "Could you confirm that as well as permission for Wikipedia, you support the release on a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike license as can be seen on the link above?"
- And the publisher responded:
- "Yes, that's fine."
- In both cases the e-mail came from an address at the publisher's domain.
- I can close this, but it might be better if one of our colleague's did. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:35, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept I was reluctant to close this in January because I was heavily involved in the discussion, but it's been more than two months with no further comment. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:56, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
4 random files + article + vandalism older than 2 years. Maybe redirect to this small category (18 files) will be better? Bulwersator (talk) 07:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept: In scope Captain-tucker (talk) 11:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
I nominated this as "4 random files + article + vandalism older than 2 years. Maybe redirect to this small category (18 files) will be better? Bulwersator (talk) 07:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC)". Result of discussion was "kept, in scope". I know that it is in scope, but now it is worse than category so I see no reason for keeping this. Bulwersator (talk) 21:57, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted This was an article, not a gallery. Articles belong on WP. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Some files in Category:PD_Vietnam_Government
[edit]Article 21 of the decree No. 100/2006/NP-CD refered to in the license template says "Administrative documents specified in Clause 2, Article 15 of the Intellectual Property Law include documents issued by state agencies, political organizations, socio-political organizations, sociopolitical-professional organizations, social organizations, socio-professional organizations, economic organizations, people’s armed forces units and other organizations defined by law." The template is poorly worded, because it not explicitely says that a document must still be a "legal documents, administrative documents and other documents in the judicial domain".
From the template {{PD-VietnamGov}} you can get the impression that all documents released by such organizations are not protected by copyright, but thats untrue because the words I underlined above are not mentioned in the template.
The following photos, all recently uploaded by one user who got this wrong impression I think, not fall inside this category, it is not documents as specified in the copyright law Article 15.
- File:041209dungvmhu1-4.jpg
- File:B-52 Stratofortress shot down in Operation Linebacker II.jpg
- File:Flying Pilots Aces in Vietnam People's Air Force 2.jpg
- File:Flying Pilots Aces in Vietnam People's Air Force.jpg
- File:HQ-012 Ly Thai To.jpg
- File:Nguyen Dynasty warships.jpg
- File:Parade in Millennial Anniversary of Hanoi in 2010.jpg
- File:Radar of S-300 missile system in Vietnamese Air Force.jpg
- File:SA-3 anti-aircraft missile in Vietnam.jpg
- File:The 1975 Spring Offensive attack Tan Son Nhat airport.jpg
- File:Vietnam Anti-ship missile P-15.jpg
- File:Vietnam Anti-ship missile Shaddock.jpg
- File:Vietnam Border Defense Force helping local fishermen.jpg
- File:Vietnam Border Defense Force helping local people.jpg
- File:Vietnam Border Defense Force march.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Air Force.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Army march.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Army march2.jpg
- File:Vietnamese troops training.jpg
- File:Woman soldiers in Vietnamese Navy.jpg
- File:Vietnam Marine Police ship named CSB 001.jpg
- File:Vietnam Marine Police ship named CSB 2005.jpg
- File:Vietnam Marine Police ship named CSB 6006.jpg
- File:Vietnam Marine Police ship named DN 2000.jpg
- File:Vietnam Marine Police ship named SAR 413.jpg
- File:Vietnam Marine Police ship named SAR 9003.jpg
- File:Vietnam Marine Police ships in patrol.jpg
- File:Vietnam Marine Police ships named CSB 4032 and CSB 2012.jpg
- File:Vietnam Marine Police troops parade in Hanoi.jpg
- File:Vietnam Naval Academy.jpg
- File:Vietnam Marine Police leader Lt.General Pham Duc Linh.jpg
- File:Vietnam Marine Police aircraft.jpg
- File:Vietnamese paratroops.jpg
- File:Vietnamese Ship HQ-571.jpg
- File:Vietnamese Ship HQ-996.jpg
- File:Vietnamese Ship HQ-936.jpg
- File:Vietnamese Ship Amphibious.jpg
- File:Vietnamese Ship TruongSa20.jpg
--Martin H. (talk) 02:37, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but I find your logic quite confusing. They cannot exist because...why? Buffs (talk) 06:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- Because {{PD-VietnamGov}} is used wrong. Any work "issued by issued by state agencies, political organizations..." and so on must be a work according to Article 15, alinea 2. Thats legal documents, administrative documents and other documents in the judicial domain. This photos are not legal documents. --Martin H. (talk) 15:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
These images have legally right: Because according to the decree No. 100/2006/ND-CP of September 21, 2006, Article 2, "Subjects of application: This decree applies to Vietnamese organizations and individuals; and foreign organizations and individuals engaged in activities relating to copyright and related rights". Article 8, alinea 1, "Authors means persons who personally create part of or the entire literary, artistic or scientific works". All images have captured by individuals and organizations in Vietnam and accepted by Vietnamese Government also protected by Vietnamese law. These images are completely lawful when add permission: PD-VietnamGov.Dokientrung (talk)
- Of course this decree applies to organizations and individuals. Because all organizations and individuals have a copyright! We not collect copyrighted works here but public domain works, thats the opposite of what you just said. So why should Article 15 of the law apply to this works and excemt them from copyright? --Martin H. (talk) 02:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- The permission PD-VietnamGov can be used in these cases because according Intellectual Property Law of Vietnamese Government: all organizations and individuals have the right to use documents and belongs to public if respect the personal rights of authors. These images have exactly confirmed author's name in Author - Summary.Dokientrung (talk)
- You refer to fair use? The files have copyrights and you cant use something that has copyright for commercial purposes unless the copyright holder gave permission. Thats what we require on Commons, free reuse for any purpose. See Commons:Project scope#Required licensing terms. The copyright exemption of Article 15 is not applicable because this is not aministrative documents as specified in Clause 2, Article 15 of the Intellectual Property Law. This files are simply copyrighted and not ok to upload on Commons. Maybe on Wikipedia under fair use. --Martin H. (talk) 03:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- You don't understand Vietnam Intellectual Property Law, in this Law: The following forms of use of published works without obtaining permission and paying any royalties, remuneration: a) Self - reproducing one single copy for the purposes of science research and teaching; b) Reasonable quoting works without alteration of their contents for commentary or for illustration in one’s own works; c) Quoting from a work without alteration of their contents for use in articles, periodic journals, radio and television programs and documentary films; d) Quoting from a work for teaching in schools without alteration of the contents not for commercial purposes; e) Copying a work for archives in libraries for the purposes of research. I uploaded these images without any money purpose, only support for research and education. I think that's the main purpose of Common Wiki to encourage the development of knowledge. In Vietnam, all documents have been used free and belongs public for education purpose if respect the personal rights of authors.Dokientrung (talk)
- I understand this perfectly, but this is a free content project. Use only for educational purposes or reuse only for quoting a copyrighted work is great, but it is not free. It is fair use, and it is forbidden on Commons. See the first point at Commons:Project scope#Non-allowable license terms. --Martin H. (talk) 03:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- I don't understand your idea. I uploaded these images to common and public for free and education purpose. Then, everyone in Common Wiki can use these images to add to any titles in Wikipedia and download too, of course the copyright can be respected. That's Vietnam Intellectual Property Law imply and also my purpose. Do I have any misunderstand? (talk)
- Files on Commons must be free for money making purposes, everywhere, worldwide. --Martin H. (talk) 04:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Of course, that's the idea I tried to told you. Vietnamese Law allows use of published works without obtaining permission and paying any money if you use these images for non-commercial works for all over the world. Therefore, these images can be added PD-VietnamGov. Dokientrung (talk)
- Files on Commons must be free for money making purposes, everywhere, worldwide. --Martin H. (talk) 04:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- I don't understand your idea. I uploaded these images to common and public for free and education purpose. Then, everyone in Common Wiki can use these images to add to any titles in Wikipedia and download too, of course the copyright can be respected. That's Vietnam Intellectual Property Law imply and also my purpose. Do I have any misunderstand? (talk)
In hope you understand my ideas. Can you remove the "Deletion requests" in these images? I think it's so unfair if these images be deleted because you and I have something misunderstand each other. All authors of these images always want to develop knowledge in Vietnam and all over the world. Thanks and have a good day! Dokientrung (talk)
- Again, I think you not know or not understand what this project is about. You said: "if you use these images for non-commercial works". Thats forbidden on Commons. We not accept files here that you can only use for non-commercial purposes. Files must be free for commercial purposes too. Read about free content. --Martin H. (talk) 13:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Vietnam Intellectual Property Law correctly wrote that all documents can use free if these support for education and research purpose (have to respect the personal rights of authors, of course). I think that law is quite simple to understand. These images I uploaded satisfy both Common Wiki's content and Vietnamese Law. That's all. The Common Wiki I satisfied, the Vietnamese Law either. Dokientrung (talk)
- I say it a last time: Files on Commons must not only be free for education, but also for commercial purposes! Wikimedia Commons is not sattisfied, its NOT free content, its a violation of our licensing policy. --Martin H. (talk) 14:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Vietnam Intellectual Property Law correctly wrote that all documents can use free if these support for education and research purpose (have to respect the personal rights of authors, of course). I think that law is quite simple to understand. These images I uploaded satisfy both Common Wiki's content and Vietnamese Law. That's all. The Common Wiki I satisfied, the Vietnamese Law either. Dokientrung (talk)
- {{PD-VietnamGov}} is not used in Vietnamese Wikipedia since 2008, you can see at vi:Bản mẫu:PVCC-CPVN and vi:Thảo luận Bản mẫu:PVCC-CPVN (Martin H. can read if use Google Translate). This template is only used in Vietnamese Wikisource for legal documents, administrative documents and other documents in the judicial domain and official translations of these documents of Vietnam Government. So this template in Commons should be deleted. Tranminh360 (talk) 23:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Images on Commons must be free for commerical use. I hope that Dokientrung finally understands that. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Files in Category:PD Vietnam Government
[edit]See Template talk:PD-VietnamGov#Legal Documents. The full original of this statement in Vietnamese is "Văn bản pháp quy", rough translation to English is "Legal text documents". The template currently only using in Vietnamese Wikisource with official "Legal text documents" by VietnamGov, not the photos. Almost photos (especially logo and emblem) tagged with this template should be remove since it clearly copyright violation due misreading the content of statement in English translation. In the case badly tagged, they need to be sort in other category by correct licenses. Also a warning text should be added to template, make it only using for a scan of text, prevent any wrong photos upload in future.
- File:18th Infantry Division's flag.png
- File:3D portrait of general Phạm Tu (2).jpg
- File:3The-Duong-2---dai-tuong-Nguyen-Chi-Thanh.jpg
- File:81st Airborne Commando Battalion's Insignia.png
- File:81st Airborne Commando Battalion.png
- File:81st Airborne Commando Battalion.svg
- File:All of Vietnam People's Army insignia.jpg
- File:Alliance-for-Democracy-in-Vietnam logo.png
- File:ARVN 18 Division SSI.svg
- File:ARVN Armored Cavalry Regiment Flag.svg
- File:ARVN Joint General Staff Insignia.svg
- File:ARVN Presidential Guards Unit's Insignia.png
- File:B2 Corps following Ho Chi Minh Campaign.jpg
- File:Badge of Ho Chi Minh Communist Youth Union.svg
- File:Badge of Ho Chi Minh Young Pioneer Organization.svg
- File:Badge of the RVN Marine Division.svg
- File:Badge of Vietnamese Student Association.svg
- File:Bravery Order (cropped).png
- File:Bravery Order.png
- File:COA South Vietnam (1963 - 1975).png
- File:Cư an tư nguy.svg
- File:Determined to Win Military Flag Medal (cropped).png
- File:Determined to Win Military Flag Medal.png
- File:Drapeau de l'Armée Nationale Vietnamienne.png
- File:Duong Van Minh In Saigon, 1975.jpg
- File:Emblem of Angiang Province.png
- File:Emblem of Angiang Province.svg
- File:Emblem of Bacgiang Province.png
- File:Emblem of Bacgiang Province.svg
- File:Emblem of Backan City.png
- File:Emblem of Backan Town.png
- File:Emblem of Baclieu Province (2018).png
- File:Emblem of Baclieu Province.png
- File:Emblem of Bacninh Province.png
- File:Emblem of Bacninh Province.svg
- File:Emblem of Badon Town.png
- File:Emblem of Baria Vungtau Province.svg
- File:Emblem of Baubang District.png
- File:Emblem of Bentre City.png
- File:Emblem of Bentre City.svg
- File:Emblem of Bentre Province.png
- File:Emblem of Bienhoa City.png
- File:Emblem of Bienhoa City.svg
- File:Emblem of Binhchanh District.png
- File:Emblem of Binhduong Province.svg
- File:Emblem of Binhphuoc Province (construction).svg
- File:Emblem of Binhphuoc Province.png
- File:Emblem of Binhphuoc Province.svg
- File:Emblem of Binhthuan Province.png
- File:Emblem of Binhthuan Province.svg
- File:Emblem of Borough 4th.png
- File:Emblem of Buondon District.svg
- File:Emblem of Buonho Town.png
- File:Emblem of Caibe District.png
- File:Emblem of Cam Ranh.png
- File:Emblem of Campha City.png
- File:Emblem of Canglong District.png
- File:Emblem of Canloc District.svg
- File:Emblem of Cantho City.png
- File:Emblem of Caolanh City.svg
- File:Emblem of Chauthanh District.png
- File:Emblem of Chilinh City.svg
- File:Emblem of Chilinh Town.png
- File:Emblem of Cholach District.svg
- File:Emblem of Chse District.png
- File:Emblem of Dahuoai District.png
- File:Emblem of Dak Rlap District.png
- File:Emblem of Daklak Province.svg
- File:Emblem of Daknong Province.svg
- File:Emblem of Dakrong District.svg
- File:Emblem of Danang City.png
- File:Emblem of Daran District.svg
- File:Emblem of Dateh District.png
- File:Emblem of Dienban Town.svg
- File:Emblem of Dist 1st.png
- File:Emblem of Dist 4th.png
- File:Emblem of Doluong District.png
- File:Emblem of Dongha City.svg
- File:Emblem of Dongnai Province.svg
- File:Emblem of Dongthap Province.png
- File:Emblem of Dongthap Province.svg
- File:Emblem of Dongtrieu Town.png
- File:Emblem of Dongxoai City.svg
- File:Emblem of Duytien District.svg
- File:Emblem of Gocong Dong District.png
- File:Emblem of Gocong Tay District.png
- File:Emblem of Gocong Town.svg
- File:Emblem of Haiduong City.png
- File:Emblem of Haihau District.png
- File:Emblem of Haiphong City (2016).png
- File:Emblem of Hanam Province.png
- File:Emblem of Hatinh Province.png
- File:Emblem of Haugiang Province.png
- File:Emblem of Haugiang Province.svg
- File:Emblem of Ho Chi Minh City (2005).svg
- File:Emblem of Ho Chi Minh City.svg
- File:Emblem of Hongbang Borough.svg
- File:Emblem of Honglinh Town.svg
- File:Emblem of Hungyen City.svg
- File:Emblem of Jrai Province.svg
- File:Emblem of Khanhhoa Province.png
- File:Emblem of Khanhhoa Province.svg
- File:Emblem of Kontoum Province.svg
- File:Emblem of Kyanh Town.png
- File:Emblem of Kăm M'ran City.svg
- File:Emblem of Lagi Town.png
- File:Emblem of Laichau Province.png
- File:Emblem of Laichau Province.svg
- File:Emblem of Laivung District.png
- File:Emblem of Lamdong Province.png
- File:Emblem of Langson City.png
- File:Emblem of Langson City.svg
- File:Emblem of Langson Province.png
- File:Emblem of Langson Province.svg
- File:Emblem of Laokay City.svg
- File:Emblem of Laokay Department of Education and Training.png
- File:Emblem of Laokay Province.png
- File:Emblem of Laokay Province.svg
- File:Emblem of Longan Province (2014).png
- File:Emblem of Longan Province.png
- File:Emblem of Longthanh District.svg
- File:Emblem of Moncay City.svg
- File:Emblem of Muongkhuong District.svg
- File:Emblem of Myhao District.svg
- File:Emblem of Mytho City.png
- File:Emblem of Namdinh Province.png
- File:Emblem of Namdinh Province.svg
- File:Emblem of Nghean Province.svg
- File:Emblem of Nghixuan District.svg
- File:Emblem of Nha Trang.png
- File:Emblem of Ninhbinh Province.png
- File:Emblem of Ninhthuan Province.png
- File:Emblem of North Tlem Borough.svg
- File:Emblem of Nuithanh District.svg
- File:Emblem of Phongdien District (Cantho).png
- File:Emblem of Phoyen Town.svg
- File:Emblem of Phsar Dek City.png
- File:Emblem of Phumy Town.svg
- File:Emblem of Phuquy District.png
- File:Emblem of Phutho Province.png
- File:Emblem of Phuyen Province.png
- File:Emblem of Quangnam Province.png
- File:Emblem of Quangtri Province.png
- File:Emblem of Quyhop District.png
- File:Emblem of Songcong City.svg
- File:Emblem of Sontay Town.svg
- File:Emblem of Srok Khleang Province.png
- File:Emblem of Tamdiep City.png
- File:Emblem of Tamdiep City.svg
- File:Emblem of Tamduong District.png
- File:Emblem of Tanthi District.png
- File:Emblem of Tayninh Province.png
- File:Emblem of Thainguyen City.png
- File:Emblem of Thainguyen Province.png
- File:Emblem of Thangbinh District.svg
- File:Emblem of the People's Court of Vietnam.png
- File:Emblem of Thuathien Province.png
- File:Emblem of Thuathien Province.svg
- File:Emblem of Tiengiang Province.png
- File:Emblem of Tiengiang Province.svg
- File:Emblem of Tienyen District.svg
- File:Emblem of Tinhbien District.png
- File:Emblem of Tlem District.jpg
- File:Emblem of Trangan Scenic Landscape Complex.png
- File:Emblem of Travinh Province.png
- File:Emblem of Tuyen Quang province.PNG
- File:Emblem of Tuyenquang City.png
- File:Emblem of Tuyenquang Province.svg
- File:Emblem of Tuyhoa City.svg
- File:Emblem of Uongbi City.svg
- File:Emblem of Vietnam Communist Party.png
- File:Emblem of Vinh City.svg
- File:Emblem of Vinhcuu District.svg
- File:Emblem of Vinhlinh District.png
- File:Emblem of Vinhloi District.png
- File:Emblem of Vinhlong Province.png
- File:Emblem of Vinhphuc Province.png
- File:Emblem of Vinhtuong District.svg
- File:Emblem of Xuanloc District.png
- File:Emblem of Yenbai Province.png
- File:Emblème de l'École libre du Tonkin.svg
- File:Ensign of Vietnam People's Navy.png
- File:Ensign of Vietnam People's Navy.svg
- File:EVN flag (construction).jpg
- File:EVN flag.svg
- File:Fatherland - Space.png
- File:Fatherland Defense Order (cropped).png
- File:Fatherland Defense Order.png
- File:Feat Order (cropped).png
- File:Feat Order.png
- File:Female Vietcong Guerrilla.jpg
- File:First flag of FULRO.svg
- File:Flag of ARVN Armored Cavalry Regiment.png
- File:Flag of ARVN Junior Military Academy.svg
- File:Flag of ARVN Military Dog Training Center.svg
- File:Flag of ARVN Military Engineering Forces.svg
- File:Flag of ARVN's Artillery Forces.svg
- File:Flag of ARVN's Military Police.svg
- File:Flag of ARVN-RFPF.png
- File:Flag of Binh Xuyen Army.svg
- File:Flag of Central Highlands Liberation Front.svg
- File:Flag of Cochinchina 1946 (construction).svg
- File:Flag of Cochinchina 1946-8 (construction).svg
- File:Flag of Commander of the Republic of Vietnam Navy.svg
- File:Flag of Dong De Military School.svg
- File:Flag of FULRO.svg
- File:Flag of Muong Autonomous Region.svg
- File:Flag of National Progressive Movement.svg
- File:Flag of Nghe Tinh Soviet Movement.svg
- File:Flag of Nguyen dynasty's administrative unit - Bac Ninh.png
- File:Flag of Nguyen dynasty's administrative unit - Binh Dinh.png
- File:Flag of Nguyen dynasty's administrative unit - Binh Thuan.png
- File:Flag of Nguyen dynasty's administrative unit - Ha Noi.png
- File:Flag of Nguyen dynasty's administrative unit - Ha Tinh.png
- File:Flag of Nguyen dynasty's administrative unit - Hai Duong.png
- File:Flag of Nguyen dynasty's administrative unit - Khanh Hoa.png
- File:Flag of Nguyen dynasty's administrative unit - Lang Son.png
- File:Flag of Nguyen dynasty's administrative unit - Nam Dinh.png
- File:Flag of Nguyen dynasty's administrative unit - Nghe An.png
- File:Flag of Nguyen dynasty's administrative unit - Phu Yen.png
- File:Flag of Nguyen dynasty's administrative unit - Quang Binh.png
- File:Flag of Nguyen dynasty's administrative unit - Quang Nam.png
- File:Flag of Nguyen dynasty's administrative unit - Quang Ngai.png
- File:Flag of Nguyen dynasty's administrative unit - Quang Tri.png
- File:Flag of Nguyen dynasty's administrative unit - Son Tay.png
- File:Flag of Nguyen dynasty's administrative unit - Thanh Hoa.png
- File:Flag of Nguyen dynasty's administrative unit - Thua Thien.svg
- File:Flag of Nha Trang Naval Training Center.png
- File:Flag of of the Regiments of Cadets of VNNMAD.svg
- File:Flag of Quang Trung National Training Center.png
- File:Flag of Republic of Vietnam National Police Academy.png
- File:Flag of Saint Tran.png
- File:Flag of Security Force of Capital Special Zone.svg
- File:Flag of South Vietnam (construction).svg
- File:Flag of South Vietnam Air Force.png
- File:Flag of South Vietnam's Military Medical School.svg
- File:Flag of South Vietnamese Air Force 516th Fighter Squadron.png
- File:Flag of South Vietnamese Air Force 520th Fighter Squadron.png
- File:Flag of South Vietnamese Command and General Staff College.png
- File:Flag of South Vietnamese National Military Academy.png
- File:Flag of South Vietnamese Polwar College.png
- File:Flag of South Vietnamese Women's Armed Forces Corps.png
- File:Flag of South Vietnamese Women's Army Corps Training Center.png
- File:Flag of Tay Dam (construction).png
- File:Flag of the ARVN 18th Division.svg
- File:Flag of the ARVN 25th Division.svg
- File:Flag of the ARVN 2nd Division.svg
- File:Flag of the ARVN 3rd Infantry Division.svg
- File:Flag of the ARVN 7th Infantry Division.svg
- File:Flag of the ARVN 9th Infantry Division.svg
- File:Flag of the ARVN Airborne Division.svg
- File:Flag of the ARVN I Corps.svg
- File:Flag of the ARVN II Corps.svg
- File:Flag of the ARVN III Corps.svg
- File:Flag of the ARVN IV Corps.svg
- File:Flag of the President of the Republic of Vietnam as Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces.svg
- File:Flag of the Republic of Vietnam Marine Division.svg
- File:Flag of the Republic of Vietnam Navy.png
- File:Flag of the Republic of Vietnam Navy.svg
- File:Flag of the RVNMF.svg
- File:Flag of the South Vietnamese Army.jpg
- File:Flag of the South Vietnamese Army.png
- File:Flag of the State of Vietnam (with coat of arms).svg
- File:Flag of the Struggle Group.svg
- File:Flag of the Tay people (1947-1954).svg
- File:Flag of the Vietnam People's Air Force.svg
- File:Flag of Thu Duc Infantry School.png
- File:Flag of Tây Sơn Dynasty.svg
- File:Flag of Vietnam Information and Communications Force.svg
- File:Flag of Vietnam National Restoration League.svg
- File:Flag of Vietnam Revolutionary League.svg
- File:Flag of Vietnamese Nationalist Party (1929 - 1945).svg
- File:Flag of Vietnamese Republican Youth Movement.svg
- File:Flag of Vietnamese Revolutionary Army.svg
- File:Flag of Vietnamese Scout Association.svg
- File:Flag of VNQDD.svg
- File:Flag-raising ceremony for two first submarines held in Cam Ranh, 2014.png
- File:For National Security Medal.png
- File:Francois Hollande - Nguyen Kim Son VNU September 2016 photo by Bui Tuan (4).jpg
- File:Friendship Medal.png
- File:Friendship Order.png
- File:Glorious Fighter Medal (cropped).png
- File:Glorious Fighter Medal.png
- File:Gold Star Order (cropped).png
- File:Gold Star Order.png
- File:Great National Unity Order (cropped).png
- File:Great National Unity Order.png
- File:Hiệu kỳ Tổng thống Việt Nam Cộng hòa 1964-1965.gif
- File:Ho Chi Mihn order (cropped).png
- File:Hochiminh Order.png
- File:Hoian logo.png
- File:Huan chuong bao ve to quoc.png
- File:Huan chuong chien cong.png
- File:Huan chuong doc lap.png
- File:Huan chuong lao dong.png
- File:Huan chuong quan cong.png
- File:Huy hiệu Đoàn TNNDCM Hồ Chí Minh.svg
- File:Huân chuong Sao vàng van Vietnam.jpg
- File:Huân chương Sao vàng (1947-2003).png
- File:Independence Order (cropped).png
- File:Independence Order.png
- File:Khối quân kỳ - Đại nhạc hội Cảm Ơn Anh Người Thương Binh VNCH kỳ 6, 12 tháng 8 năm 2012.jpg
- File:Labor Order (cropped).png
- File:Labor Order.png
- File:Le Quy Don Technical University logo.jpg
- File:Logo Dai hoi HSV 1.2.2018...jpg
- File:Logo DuyTien.jpg
- File:Logo Huyện Vĩnh Cửu.png
- File:Logo of Vietnamese Ministry of Education and Training.svg
- File:Logo-tinh-tay-ninh.jpg
- File:Logovinhtuong.jpg
- File:Madame Bùi Thị Tuất.jpg
- File:Map-hoang-sa.png
- File:Map-Paracel Islands.png
- File:Military Exploit Order.png
- File:Military Fortress Flag of South Vietnam.svg
- File:Military Merit Medal (Vietnam).png
- File:National Day of South Vietnam, 1 November 1966.jpg
- File:Naval Ensign of South Vietnam.png
- File:New Year Cards for Thu Duc Military Academy.jpg
- File:Nguyen Chi Thanh and Chu Huy Man.jpg
- File:NIA Logo.png
- File:One traditional flag for the Millennial Anniversary of Hanoi, 7th October 2010.JPG
- File:Parade Unification.jpg
- File:Paratrooper Hoàng Ngọc Giao (the 5h Airborne Battalion), 1967.jpg
- File:Personal Flag of Emperor Minh Mang.svg
- File:Personal standard of State Chief Bao Dai.png
- File:Pham-van-Dong & Truong-Chinh & Le-Duan.jpg
- File:Photo of the car flag of State Chief Bao Dai used 1948 to 1955.jpg
- File:Portrait of EdD Nguyễn Thụy Anh, 2012.jpg
- File:Poster of Recruitment for ARVN Airborne Battalion.jpg
- File:Presidential Standard of South Vietnam (1955-1963).png
- File:Quang Nam logo.png
- File:Quang Trung National Training Center Flag.svg
- File:Quốc kỳ của Quốc gia Việt Nam (với huy hiệu).png
- File:Republic of Vietnam Marine Division SSI.png
- File:RVN National Police Flag.svg
- File:Souvenir photo-album of TDMA.jpg
- File:Standard of the Nguyen Dynasty (1890 - 1920).svg
- File:T4 Vietcong Tet Offensive.jpg
- File:Tet Offensive Preparation.jpg
- File:The emblem of Thu Duc Military Academy.JPG
- File:Thieu-tuong-Huu-An.jpg
- File:TIA-logo.jpg
- File:Typeface sample Giaothong1.svg
- File:Typeface sample Giaothong2.svg
- File:Tự thắng để chỉ huy.png
- File:Viet Cong Sworn In.jpg
- File:Vietnam Border Defense Force Captain.jpg
- File:Vietnam Border Defense Force Colonel General.jpg
- File:Vietnam Border Defense Force Colonel.jpg
- File:Vietnam Border Defense Force Corporal.jpg
- File:Vietnam Border Defense Force First Private.jpg
- File:Vietnam Border Defense Force flag.svg
- File:Vietnam Border Defense Force Lieutenant Colonel.jpg
- File:Vietnam Border Defense Force Lieutenant.jpg
- File:Vietnam Border Defense Force Major General.jpg
- File:Vietnam Border Defense Force Major.jpg
- File:Vietnam Border Defense Force Second Private.jpg
- File:Vietnam Border Defense Force Senior Colonel.jpg
- File:Vietnam Border Defense Force Senior Lieutenant.jpg
- File:Vietnam Border Defense Force Sergeant major.jpg
- File:Vietnam Border Defense Force Sergeant.jpg
- File:Vietnam Border Defense Force student officer.jpg
- File:Vietnam Border Defense Force SubLieutenant.jpg
- File:Vietnam General rank.png
- File:Vietnam Marine Police Captain.jpg
- File:Vietnam Marine Police Colonel.jpg
- File:Vietnam Marine Police Corporal.jpg
- File:Vietnam Marine Police First Private.jpg
- File:Vietnam Marine Police insignia 2.jpg
- File:Vietnam Marine Police Lieutenant Colonel.jpg
- File:Vietnam Marine Police Lieutenant General.jpg
- File:Vietnam Marine Police Lieutenant.jpg
- File:Vietnam Marine Police Major General.jpg
- File:Vietnam Marine Police Major.jpg
- File:Vietnam Marine Police Racing Stripe.jpg
- File:Vietnam Marine Police Second Private.jpg
- File:Vietnam Marine Police Senior Colonel.jpg
- File:Vietnam Marine Police Senior Lieutenant.jpg
- File:Vietnam Marine Police Sergeant major.jpg
- File:Vietnam Marine Police Sergeant.jpg
- File:Vietnam Marine Police SubLieutenant.jpg
- File:Vietnam Military Exploit Order (cropped).png
- File:Vietnam People's Air Force Anti Aircraft gun.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Air Force Captain 2.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Air Force Captain.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Air Force Colonel 2.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Air Force Colonel General.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Air Force Colonel.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Air Force Corporal.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Air Force First Private.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Air Force Lieutenant 2.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Air Force Lieutenant Colonel.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Air Force Lieutenant General.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Air Force Lieutenant.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Air Force Major 2.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Air Force Major General.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Air Force Major.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Air Force Missile.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Air Force Paratroops.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Air Force pilot.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Air Force Radar.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Air Force Second Private.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Air Force Senior Colonel.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Air Force Senior Lieutenant 2.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Air Force Senior Lieutenant.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Air Force Sergeant major 2.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Air Force Sergeant major.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Air Force Sergeant.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Air Force signal 1.png
- File:Vietnam People's Air Force signal 2.png
- File:Vietnam People's Air Force signal 3.png
- File:Vietnam People's Air Force signal 4.png
- File:Vietnam People's Air Force signal 5.png
- File:Vietnam People's Air Force student officer.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Air Force SubLieutenant.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Army Armored Infantry.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Army Artillery.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Army Captain.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Army Chemistry.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Army Colonel General.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Army Colonel.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Army Commado.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Army Corporal.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Army Driving.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Army Engineers.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Army Ensemble.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Army First Private.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Army General.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Army Information.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Army Lieutenant Colonel.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Army Lieutenant General.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Army Lieutenant.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Army Major General.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Army Major.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Army Medical Corps.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Army Military Band.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Army Military Court.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Army Military Sport.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Army Officer.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Army Ordnance.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Army Second Private.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Army Senior Colonel.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Army Senior Lieutenant.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Army Sergeant major.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Army Sergeant.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Army signal 1.png
- File:Vietnam People's Army signal 10.png
- File:Vietnam People's Army signal 11.png
- File:Vietnam People's Army signal 2.png
- File:Vietnam People's Army signal 3.png
- File:Vietnam People's Army signal 4.png
- File:Vietnam People's Army signal 5.png
- File:Vietnam People's Army signal 6.png
- File:Vietnam People's Army signal 7.png
- File:Vietnam People's Army signal 8.png
- File:Vietnam People's Army signal 9.png
- File:Vietnam People's Army student officer.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Army SubLieutenant.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Army Tank and Armored.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Army Technology.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Navy Admiral.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Navy Army Captain rank lapel.png
- File:Vietnam People's Navy Commander.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Navy Commodorel Left.png
- File:Vietnam People's Navy Commodorel.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Navy Corporal.png
- File:Vietnam People's Navy Ensign.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Navy flag.svg
- File:Vietnam People's Navy Lieutenant Commander.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Navy Lieutenant.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Navy private first class.png
- File:Vietnam People's Navy Private second class.png
- File:Vietnam People's Navy Rear Admiral.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Navy Senior Commander.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Navy Senior Lieutenant.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Navy Sergeant major.png
- File:Vietnam People's Navy Sergeant.png
- File:Vietnam People's Navy student officer.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Navy SubLieutenant.jpg
- File:Vietnam People's Navy Vice Admiral.jpg
- File:Vietnam road sign P101.svg
- File:Vietnam road sign P102.svg
- File:Vietnam road sign P103a.svg
- File:Vietnam road sign P103b.svg
- File:Vietnam road sign P103c.svg
- File:Vietnam road sign P104.svg
- File:Vietnam road sign P105.svg
- File:Vietnam road sign P106a.svg
- File:Vietnam road sign P106b.svg
- File:Vietnam road sign P106c.svg
- File:Vietnam road sign P107.svg
- File:Vietnam road sign P107a.svg
- File:Vietnam road sign P107b.svg
- File:Vietnam road sign P108.svg
- File:Vietnam road sign P108a.svg
- File:Vietnam road sign P109.svg
- File:Vietnam road sign P110a.svg
- File:Vietnam road sign P110b.svg
- File:Vietnam road sign P111a.svg
- File:Vietnam road sign P111b.svg
- File:Vietnam road sign P111c.svg
- File:Vietnam road sign P111d.svg
- File:Vietnam road sign P112.svg
- File:Vietnam road sign P113.svg
- File:Vietnam road sign P114.svg
- File:Vietnam road sign P115.svg
- File:Vietnam road sign P116.svg
- File:Vietnam road sign P117.svg
- File:Vietnam road sign P118.svg
- File:Vietnam road sign P119.svg
- File:Vietnam road sign P120.svg
- File:Vietnam road sign P121.svg
- File:Vietnam road sign P123a.svg
- File:Vietnam road sign P123b.svg
- File:Vietnam road sign P124a1.svg
- File:Vietnam road sign P124a2.svg
- File:Vietnam road sign P124b1.svg
- File:Vietnam road sign P124b2.svg
- File:Vietnam road sign P124c.svg
- File:Vietnam road sign P124d.svg
- File:Vietnam road sign P124e.svg
- File:Vietnam road sign P124f.svg
- File:Vietnam road sign P125.svg
- File:Vietnam road sign P126.svg
- File:Vietnam road sign P127-20.svg
- File:Vietnam road sign P127-30.svg
- File:Vietnam road sign P127-40.svg
- File:Vietnam road sign P127-50.svg
- File:Vietnam road sign P127-60.svg
- File:Vietnam road sign P127-70.svg
- File:Vietnam road sign P127-80.svg
- File:Vietnam road sign P127-90.svg
- File:Vietnam road sign P127a.svg
- File:Vietnam road sign P127b.svg
- File:Vietnam road sign P127c.svg
- File:Vietnam road sign P127d.svg
- File:Vietnam road sign P127e.svg
- File:Vietnam road sign P128.svg
- File:Vietnam road sign P129.svg
- File:Vietnam road sign P130.svg
- File:Vietnam road sign P131a.svg
- File:Vietnam road sign P131b.svg
- File:Vietnam road sign P131c.svg
- File:Vietnam road sign P132.svg
- File:Vietnam road sign P134.svg
- File:Vietnam road sign P135.svg
- File:Vietnam road sign P136.svg
- File:Vietnam road sign P137.svg
- File:Vietnam road sign P138.svg
- File:Vietnam road sign P139.svg
- File:Vietnam road sign P140.svg
- File:Vietnam road sign W245A.svg
- File:Vietnamese Airborne Division 's Insignia.svg
- File:Vietnamese Leadership Plans 1975 Offensive.jpg
- File:Vietnamese Rangers Flag.svg
- File:Vietnamese Rangers SSI.svg
- File:VKNTC-Emblem.svg
- File:VN Order Labor 1kl.png
- File:VN Order Labor 3kl.png
- File:VNNMA-Emblem.svg
- File:Vtv5taynguyen logo.svg
- File:Vtv5tnb logo.svg
- File:War flag of South Vietnam.svg
- File:安南志原.pdf
- File:安南鄭政府·寄矫陶瓷器1.jpg
- File:安南鄭政府·寄矫陶瓷器10.jpg
- File:安南鄭政府·寄矫陶瓷器11.jpg
- File:安南鄭政府·寄矫陶瓷器12.jpg
- File:安南鄭政府·寄矫陶瓷器13.jpg
- File:安南鄭政府·寄矫陶瓷器14.jpg
- File:安南鄭政府·寄矫陶瓷器15.jpg
- File:安南鄭政府·寄矫陶瓷器16.jpg
- File:安南鄭政府·寄矫陶瓷器17.jpg
- File:安南鄭政府·寄矫陶瓷器18.jpg
- File:安南鄭政府·寄矫陶瓷器19.jpg
- File:安南鄭政府·寄矫陶瓷器2.jpg
- File:安南鄭政府·寄矫陶瓷器20.jpg
- File:安南鄭政府·寄矫陶瓷器21.jpg
- File:安南鄭政府·寄矫陶瓷器22.jpg
- File:安南鄭政府·寄矫陶瓷器23.jpg
- File:安南鄭政府·寄矫陶瓷器24.jpg
- File:安南鄭政府·寄矫陶瓷器3.jpg
- File:安南鄭政府·寄矫陶瓷器4.jpg
- File:安南鄭政府·寄矫陶瓷器5.jpg
- File:安南鄭政府·寄矫陶瓷器6.jpg
- File:安南鄭政府·寄矫陶瓷器7.jpg
- File:安南鄭政府·寄矫陶瓷器8.jpg
- File:安南鄭政府·寄矫陶瓷器9.jpg
- File:定南刀.jpg
- File:漢陽典故傳說·安南王府拱北樓.jpg
- File:竹齋仙翁.jpg
- File:遙賀阮窄庵誕辰詩一首.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
,_1967.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
minhhuy (talk) 03:26, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Discussion
[edit]- the license tag for file Nguyen Thi Kim Ngan 2012 was added by a sockpuppet and not by the author (who took the picture), so it does not fall into this category. The false license tag has been removed. Grenouille vert (talk) 04:31, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- Removed from the list. Also removed some photos created before 1960 after change to correct license(s). --minhhuy (talk) 04:34, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- Please pay close attention to license tags added by User:Musée Annam without concerns from the original uploaders. I already found some other images with similar issues (picture of Francois Hollande, for example). If you want to delete a contribution made by an uploader, please make sure about the validity of your reasoning. I haven't used Wikicommons for a very long time, had I not received the notification about the nomination for deletion of my picture, my contribution would have been unreasonably erased. This might be the case for other contributors, so it is your responsibility to help us avoid that situation. Grenouille vert (talk) 16:41, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- Removed from the list. Also removed some photos created before 1960 after change to correct license(s). --minhhuy (talk) 04:34, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- the license tag for file Nguyen Thi Kim Ngan 2012 was added by a sockpuppet and not by the author (who took the picture), so it does not fall into this category. The false license tag has been removed. Grenouille vert (talk) 04:31, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- Keep the following:
- File:Flag of Binh Xuyen Army.svg
- File:Flag of Central Highlands Liberation Front.svg
- File:Flag of Cochinchina 1946 (construction).svg
- File:Flag of Cochinchina 1946-8 (construction).svg
- File:Flag of Nghe Tinh Soviet Movement.svg
- File:Flag of Nguyen dynasty's administrative unit - Bac Ninh.png
- File:Flag of Nguyen dynasty's administrative unit - Binh Dinh.png
- File:Flag of Nguyen dynasty's administrative unit - Binh Thuan.png
- File:Flag of Nguyen dynasty's administrative unit - Ha Noi.png
- File:Flag of Nguyen dynasty's administrative unit - Ha Tinh.png
- File:Flag of Nguyen dynasty's administrative unit - Hai Duong.png
- File:Flag of Nguyen dynasty's administrative unit - Khanh Hoa.png
- File:Flag of Nguyen dynasty's administrative unit - Lang Son.png
- File:Flag of Nguyen dynasty's administrative unit - Nam Dinh.png
- File:Flag of Nguyen dynasty's administrative unit - Nghe An.png
- File:Flag of Nguyen dynasty's administrative unit - Phu Yen.png
- File:Flag of Nguyen dynasty's administrative unit - Quang Binh.png
- File:Flag of Nguyen dynasty's administrative unit - Quang Nam.png
- File:Flag of Nguyen dynasty's administrative unit - Quang Ngai.png
- File:Flag of Nguyen dynasty's administrative unit - Quang Tri.png
- File:Flag of Nguyen dynasty's administrative unit - Son Tay.png
- File:Flag of Nguyen dynasty's administrative unit - Thanh Hoa.png
- File:Flag of Nguyen dynasty's administrative unit - Thua Thien.svg
Which are eligible for "{{PD-Vietnam}}", some others might be as well. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 05:12, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Also some People's Army files might be old enough for "{{PD-Vietnam}}" but I don't have the time to check each of these files individually. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 05:17, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
File:Flag of Vietnamese Nationalist Party (1929 - 1945).svg is "
|
This work is ineligible for copyright and therefore in the public domain because it consists entirely of information that is common property and contains no original authorship. |
Vietnamese government awards files are self-drawn images. Low Image Quality. Against removal. --Kei (talk) 05:32, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Most of South Vietnam (Republic of Vietnam) branches or divisions' flag were created in 1955, this included some emblems and badges. Those could all be eligible, but I might be wrong. Emperofvietilia ☎ ✎ 06:22, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Here are some of them:
- File:Flag of Quang Trung National Training Center.png
- File:Flag of of the Regiments of Cadets of VNNMAD.svg
- File:Flag of Nha Trang Naval Training Center.png
- File:Flag of Republic of Vietnam National Police Academy.png
- File:Flag of Security Force of Capital Special Zone.svg
- File:Flag of South Vietnam Air Force.png
- File:Flag of South Vietnam's Military Medical School.svg
- File:Flag of South Vietnamese Air Force 516th Fighter Squadron.png
- File:Flag of South Vietnamese Air Force 520th Fighter Squadron.png
- File:Fatherland - Space.png
- File:Flag of ARVN Military Dog Training Center.svg
- File:Flag of ARVN Military Engineering Forces.svg
- File:Flag of ARVN's Artillery Forces.svg
- File:Flag of ARVN's Military Police.svg
- File:Flag of ARVN-RFPF.png
- File:Flag of the ARVN I Corps.svg
- File:Flag of the ARVN II Corps.svg
- File:Flag of the ARVN 18th Division.svg
There are more but it took too much time. However, I'll keep updating it in a few days. Emperofvietilia ☎ ✎ 06:28, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- As I was asked on my talk page: Most of these images are, as it is usual poorly tagged, that's logical. Anyway, we usually consider emblems of governmental agencies or military branches are PD-Gov, as these images can be found on public domain legal documents, as long it is not possible to find conflicting legislation. Of course that is an assumption, but if we do not do that, it is not possible to show official emeblems for most countries in the world. In additon, copyright does not play a role for official insignia, as their use is generally banned outside educational porposes.--Antemister (talk) 07:58, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- Those files may meet the conditions for PD-simple (with flag only have some colors). My point here is all the files need the correction license(s) and avoid abuse the PD-VietnamGov, since it should only use for "legal text documents". Vietnamese Goverment may keep the copright protection with all the symbols using in those documents. --minhhuy (talk) 08:12, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- I understands the misused and error during translation of the license(s). So are you suggesting that those file’s license(s) should be replace with a more fitting one, to be create with a new license specific for them, or simply just removed them. Emperofvietilia ☎ ✎ 15:08, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- I agree to keep those files which others users listed above (as long as we can choose the right tag for them). I also removed the deletion tag for severals files which already replaced by more suitable licenses template by myself. But still, there are so many files which I believe they was uploaded due wrong understanding about the "legal text" (intentionally or not), such as the emblem and logo files of modern administrative units, and many history photos taken after 1960 but no author permission given as well. Therefore, to reply your question, I think "both". And the template itself need a notice about the scope of license, prevent more violation photos uploaded under PV-VietnamGov. --minhhuy (talk) 15:47, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- I had added a request to change the template that reminds users in the future to use the template for text document's images purposes only. And as for most of the flags and emblems, they all seem to be solely created by the authors of the images and not actual images that could have any copyright concern. So could those tags be removed without replacing it with any other tags or any other mean? Emperofvietilia ☎ ✎ 20:50, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- I agree to keep those files which others users listed above (as long as we can choose the right tag for them). I also removed the deletion tag for severals files which already replaced by more suitable licenses template by myself. But still, there are so many files which I believe they was uploaded due wrong understanding about the "legal text" (intentionally or not), such as the emblem and logo files of modern administrative units, and many history photos taken after 1960 but no author permission given as well. Therefore, to reply your question, I think "both". And the template itself need a notice about the scope of license, prevent more violation photos uploaded under PV-VietnamGov. --minhhuy (talk) 15:47, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- I understands the misused and error during translation of the license(s). So are you suggesting that those file’s license(s) should be replace with a more fitting one, to be create with a new license specific for them, or simply just removed them. Emperofvietilia ☎ ✎ 15:08, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- Those files may meet the conditions for PD-simple (with flag only have some colors). My point here is all the files need the correction license(s) and avoid abuse the PD-VietnamGov, since it should only use for "legal text documents". Vietnamese Goverment may keep the copright protection with all the symbols using in those documents. --minhhuy (talk) 08:12, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- Keep my road sign files. The majority of them do not contain anything original enough for copyright, while others with more complex images are taken from the Vienna Convention (Vietnam is a recent signatory) or other unoriginal sources. I will re-license them if this license is deemed inappropriate. Fry1989 eh? 18:46, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- Keep: If the license used is improper, then it should be replaced and fixed with the proper one; we shouldn't jump the gun by mass-deleting since many of the files listed are in the public domain due to their age or simplicity, but have just been mis-licensed is all. Anyway, I went ahead and fixed the licenses on some of the files. While I'm all for deleting copyrighted files, we first should identify which ones should be deleted and which ones kept before carelessly mass-deleting them all on a whim. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 20:36, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Quite a few of these seem to be merely mis-tagged—maybe by people who thought the template was for any & all images that are PD in Vietnam, rather than being specific to the Vietnamese government. I haven’t looked at many of them, but beside the flags & traffic signs mentioned above I notice things like centuries-old ceramics, more insignia with simple geometry or conventional emblems, and other items that I doubt would pass any but the lowest TOO. From what I’ve seen I would certainly oppose a mass deletion without such files being sorted out.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 20:54, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Emperofvietilia, Trần Nguyễn Minh Huy: I try a cleanup within the files I am affiliated. Anyway, reading the PDVietnamGov template, it states that not only "legal texts", but in general any "documents issued by state agencies" are in the PDs, with includes also documents like annual reports of state agencies, which usually includes emblems. Anyway, I a strict opponent of seperating the PD-Gov and PD-old template for each country, as this often causes such problems.--Antemister (talk) 15:35, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- Keep:the passport.It's a kind of administrative license，belongs to the category of the administrative documents. And according to Commons:2D copying , 2D copying does not generate any new copyright because the resulting work is defined entirely by the original work.--Jacky Cheung (talk) 14:08, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Keep File:安南志原.pdf File:竹齋仙翁.jpg, old enough to be PD in the entire world.--Roy17 (talk) 23:46, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
- Comment A warning had been added to the template to warn future users to use the template for scanned text documents only. Emperofvietilia ☎ ✎ 23:03, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Kept: Similar like the URAA mass deletion where we also mass deleted a lot of files, I decide here also that we should keep the files and do more specific deletion requests (eg by Army Flags, by users and so on). --Sanandros (talk) 13:47, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
File:Italy_currency_1c.gif
[edit]
- File:Italy_currency_1c.gif
- File:Italy currency 2c.gif
- File:Italy currency 5c.gif
- File:Italy currency 10c.gif
- File:Italy currency 20c.gif
- File:Italy currency 50c.gif
- File:Italy currency 1euro.gif
- File:Italy currency 2euro.jpg
I'm pretty sure these is copyrighted; see the copyright notice at w:File:Eur.it.001.gif, which states the rights are retained by Repubblica italiana. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
And I haven't even mentioned that this fails Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag#Photograph of an old coin found on the Internet. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
I doubt own work.
Please read COM:DW.
File:Escort1.gif is a derivative of http://www.rsownersclubaust.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Capture.jpg or of http://i6.tinypic.com/11qtw2c.jpg. File:Escort 1700t.jpg is stolen from blogspot, File:Rs2838271.jpg from www.tout-le-rallye.be, ...
- File:Rst1700 1986.jpg
- File:Rs2838271.jpg
- File:Escort2533231.jpg
- File:Escort 1700T paris.jpg
- File:Escort1700.jpg
- File:Ford Escort RS 1700T.jpg
- File:Escort1.gif
- File:Escort 1700t.jpg
RE rillke questions? 12:53, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Clearly these are a derivative of copyrighted works. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
DW of copyrighted product packaging Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 02:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- It's only used on the article about the cheese. Does fair use not apply? --HighKing (talk) 14:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- Not copyrighted (no visible (C) mark) nor trademarked (searched the Irish trade mark database. I also doubt that a photo of multiple packages (esp. in a public place) that shows a logo is a breach of copyright. Under those circumstances, would you not have to delete photos of people wearing Nike trainers, or Adidas football shirts, etc? --HighKing (talk) 15:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- You raise a lot of points. Please read the links to find out more than my brief summary.
- Essentially everything is copyrighted. Unless it turns out that this package design is old (designer died before 1942), I can't think of any exception that might apply.
- No (c) or other notice is required for copyright outside of the USA (and the USA did away with the requirement thirty years ago).
- Trademark is irrelevant. We are concerned only with copyright.
- Fair Use is not permitted on Commons. It might be possible to upload this to WP:EN under a Fair Use rationale.
- We regularly delete images of logos -- a logo on a shirt that someone is wearing will be de minimis, but a closeup image of the logo is not.
- The fact that the items are in a public place does not matter because in Ireland FOP does not apply to 2D works and in any event they would have to be permanently displayed in the public place.
- Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- You raise a lot of points. Please read the links to find out more than my brief summary.
Deleted: Derivative work of a copyrighted packaging. Fair use is for Wikipedia, not for Commons. PierreSelim (talk) 14:42, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
the lettering of the word "Chile" is fairly complex, and we do not know Chile's threshold of originality, if it is lower or higher than the US (COM:TOO); my guess is it would be lower given Spanish-speaking culture, but in any case the precautionary principle dicatates this should be removed unless we can prove its PD status in Chile. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:19, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - update - actually we do know Chile's threshold now, and it turns out to be fairly low: COM:TOO#Chile. Magog the Ogre (talk) 10:45, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: The theshold is very low in Chile; if phrases can be copyrighted so can logos. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 06:36, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
see Commons:TOO#Common law countries; too complex according ot Canadian copyright. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:14, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment This channel's from France, not related to the Canadian Teletoon. France has Civic Law. Fry1989 eh? 05:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete This stills look too complex for PD-textlogo either way. C3F2k (Questions, comments, complaints?) 13:47, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Looks slightly beyond TOO to me, deleting per PRP. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:49, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
No author given; here credited to Topical Press Agency/Getty Images. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 05:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment This credit appears to me just an acknowledgement of the source. On a side note, this picture does not depict Paul Latham but Hubert Latham on his first attempt to cross the channel to win the Daily Mail Channel-crossing prize where he had to ditch his airplane into the water after an engine failure. This was very likely published at that time but unfortunately I have no additional info about that. However, it may be worth checking Daily Mail newspapers from that time, perhaps in the BL, as this was the very first newspaper to rely heavily on photographs. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- I found in the meantime this image which appears to carry an original credit line: "Photo Topical". --AFBorchert (talk) 08:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- And also has getty images copyright on the side of it. I'd hate to loose this one but we do not to be quite sure with licensing. --Herby talk thyme 16:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- The Getty version is described here. The photograph has a caption of "Photo by Topical Press Agency/Getty Images" with the photo dated as 1909. The Hulton Archive with Getty has control of access and charge for copies, however with the photographer being named as an organization and taken (and presumably published) more than 100 years ago, there would seem to be no tangible issue of copyright. --Fæ (talk) 23:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- http://earlyaviators.com/elathhu1.htm shows a postcard; it looks as if it might have initials; legible here as "LL". Also here. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Not sure what point you are making, the online Getty version is presumably the original photograph as owned by the press agency, not a postcard derived from it which itself would not create a new copyright, regardless of who might later initial that version. Paukrus gives no explanation of where this digital image came from. --Fæ (talk) 10:43, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- My point is that {{PD-anon-70}} cannot apply, that there is no basis for {{PD-Old}}, and that {{Cc-by-sa-2.0}} (approved by Fæbot and all) is just absurd. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks. As explained above, there is every indication that the photograph was published in the press of the time over 100 years ago and that copyright was held by the press agency. I am unclear why that scenario is absurd. If you could explain where there is evidence of a valid claim of copyright (presumably such a claim can only be made by Getty Images) this would help. --Fæ (talk) 12:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Not sure what point you are making, the online Getty version is presumably the original photograph as owned by the press agency, not a postcard derived from it which itself would not create a new copyright, regardless of who might later initial that version. Paukrus gives no explanation of where this digital image came from. --Fæ (talk) 10:43, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- http://earlyaviators.com/elathhu1.htm shows a postcard; it looks as if it might have initials; legible here as "LL". Also here. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- The Getty version is described here. The photograph has a caption of "Photo by Topical Press Agency/Getty Images" with the photo dated as 1909. The Hulton Archive with Getty has control of access and charge for copies, however with the photographer being named as an organization and taken (and presumably published) more than 100 years ago, there would seem to be no tangible issue of copyright. --Fæ (talk) 23:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- And also has getty images copyright on the side of it. I'd hate to loose this one but we do not to be quite sure with licensing. --Herby talk thyme 16:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- I found in the meantime this image which appears to carry an original credit line: "Photo Topical". --AFBorchert (talk) 08:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Delete on the basis that Pieter Kuiper wants it so much. There are more important things to help with on Commons rather than waste time with these arbitrary discussions for images over 100 years old with no obvious photographer claiming copyright. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment This is not about whether copyright was claimed or not - there is evidence that the image was a Getty image and - as such - clearly copyrighted. This is not about Fæ but about the legality of the images we host here. If no further evidence is forthcoming I will be closing this - sadly - in the next day or so as deleted. --Herby talk thyme 12:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Unless someone could show that LL died over 70 years ago. I looked around a bit on the web, but I could not identify the initials. It might be easy for someone well acquainted with French photography of that period. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- I am reluctant for Commons to loose such an image unless we have to - is there anyone who might help Pieter? --Herby talk thyme 12:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- "LL" does not appear on the original hosted by Getty Images. This may be initials of whoever made a postcard. Is the issue that this image is from a postcard? It also appears in several books and on book covers. --Fæ (talk) 13:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Indeed, it was not the photographer but a postcard publisher: Levy Fils & Cie (Imprimerie NOUVELL). It appears on the cover of a coffee table book of Hulton Getty photos. It is a high profile photo, and a commercial reuser would need to be very certain of PD status. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- "LL" does not appear on the original hosted by Getty Images. This may be initials of whoever made a postcard. Is the issue that this image is from a postcard? It also appears in several books and on book covers. --Fæ (talk) 13:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- I am reluctant for Commons to loose such an image unless we have to - is there anyone who might help Pieter? --Herby talk thyme 12:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Unless someone could show that LL died over 70 years ago. I looked around a bit on the web, but I could not identify the initials. It might be easy for someone well acquainted with French photography of that period. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Yes the image is a Getty image, I provided a link to the original above. Please read the Getty catalog entry. Being in a Getty catalog is no evidence that there is a current valid claim of copyright as made clear in their own T&Cs. In this case as the press agency published (or sold for publication) the image over 100 years ago and it is that same press agency that Getty recognizes as the copyright holder, the term of copyright has expired. As for this version of the image that appears Flickrwashed, I don't much care for it which there is a 17MB version that Getty own that could be released for the public benefit. I also do not enjoy taking part in any deletion request where replies and analysis made in good faith are derided as "absurd". This is not the positive or welcoming community we hope to foster on Commons. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- I do think it is a pity that you continually see this about you. Commons takes one thing seriously - licensing. Many of us spend much of our time dealing with nothing else. I do realise that many people who contribute here are under the impression that anything they find is free and are less than happy when we point out the reality to them however it is not done to annoy but to comply legally. That is such a rare part of en wp work that many users from there do not understand it either - I guess in much the same way I fail to see anything very rational about aspect of en wp. --Herby talk thyme 12:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- I assume that the "anything they find is free" is not directed at me. I have used Getty's online service to ask if copyright has expired on this image or not, and they have suggested I email in. I will be happy to copy to OTRS, along with any response they later give, if a ticket number would help. --Fæ (talk) 13:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Email sent, copy logged at Template:OTRS ticket. I recommend deleting this image in the meantime if it represents a realistic breach of copyright and nobody can bizarrely "prove the negative" that the photographer is unknown, which appears to be the requirement being made for this image. --Fæ (talk) 14:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- It is nearly 2 months since my email to Getty Images, I am copying below for information. At this point I doubt Getty will reply, it is not in their commercial interests to confirm they do not have any copyright protection and the determination of this DR may have to proceed on that assumption. The precautionary principle, in this case I suggest, encourages us to keep as there may be a technical doubt due to not knowing author details, but this is not the significant doubt that the precautionary principle is looking for. --Fæ (talk) 08:26, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Published in 1909, therefore in the public domain. Yann (talk) 08:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Ce logo ne devrait pas être sous common licence. Merci! Wanagain (talk) 17:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
I have uploaded this logo as commons, but I made a mistake. Could someone remove it from commons? Thanks!
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
No evidence for the license; this painting might well be very recent. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete I agree, this flickr account is misleading in their collection and tagging. I have no reason to challenge any other uploads made by Faebot for this Flickr account as a likely case of Flickrwashing. --Fæ (talk) 00:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment User:Pauk is pretty active on Commons, so it's possible to ask him about the source. Trycatch (talk) 05:14, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment it would be best to contact the user for clarification --Herby talk thyme 16:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Done on User talk:Pauk. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:37, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. It is not "might well be very recent". Old Russian Orthography changed in 1918 and was forbidden in USSR till 1988-90. ПР.СЕРГIЙ is Old Russian Orthography. "I" is absent in modern Russian. --Pauk (talk) 21:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Which suggests that this is less then 20 years old. The shape of the nimbus suggests that this was made using computer graphics. Where did you get this from? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Work in Photoshop. --Pauk (talk) 05:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- So you created the entire image yourself without using parts of existing artwork? De728631 (talk) 19:34, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- Work in Photoshop. --Pauk (talk) 05:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- Which suggests that this is less then 20 years old. The shape of the nimbus suggests that this was made using computer graphics. Where did you get this from? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: source and license uncertain A.J. (talk) 13:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely no information about the original publication. Must have been taken before 1923 (Merriam was 68 in 1923), but it is not given when exactly, or when this was first published, which would be needed to determine copyright status. —innotata 17:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - inconceivable that this would not be PD. Of course it was published, probably without notice, and if there was a notice, it expired. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- It is rather unlikely, but it is certainly conceivable (eg, if it was first published after 1923 in a larger newspaper), that this is copyright, and speculation is not enough. —innotata 19:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- And renewed?? There is no reasonable doubt that this is free. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:43, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- It's not impossible copyright was renewed, there is NO INFORMATION. We don't even know it wasn't first published after 1964, for certain. —innotata 19:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- Basically all photos that we have access to were published at the time of creation: several copies were made, and they changed hands and circulated. It does not require a printing press or a publisher with an ISBN number. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:54, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- We still don't know that several copies were made and circulated at creation. And nothing at all is explained on the description, so nobody can verify that this is—so far only given to be probably—public domain. —innotata 19:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- Probably, the information was disappeared when the enwp version was deleted. If you must have info, why not ask there first, instead of just deleting? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:05, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- The upload log reads "Clinton Hart Merriam (1855-1942) {{PD-flag-100}}" which is all the other uploads by the user say as well, and I've asked the uploader. —innotata 20:08, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- Basically all photos that we have access to were published at the time of creation: several copies were made, and they changed hands and circulated. It does not require a printing press or a publisher with an ISBN number. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:54, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- It's not impossible copyright was renewed, there is NO INFORMATION. We don't even know it wasn't first published after 1964, for certain. —innotata 19:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- And renewed?? There is no reasonable doubt that this is free. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:43, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- It is rather unlikely, but it is certainly conceivable (eg, if it was first published after 1923 in a larger newspaper), that this is copyright, and speculation is not enough. —innotata 19:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Questionable copyright status FASTILY (TALK) 20:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Changed speedy deletion to DR, speedy reason by User:Wvk: "I see no proof that is public domain" ■ MMXX talk 23:15, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
این عکس در سال 1341 گرفته شده است و در همان زمان هم به نشر رسیده ئر مطبوعات ان زمان و در گزارش کنگره جبهه ملی ایران در همان دوران هم به نشر رسیده و از زمان چاپ ان بیش از 49 سال می گذرد. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hootandolati (talk • contribs)
- جناب دولتی، من خودم موافق ماندن این صفحه هستم ولی طبق قوانین شما باید به نحوی نشان دهید که این تصویر منتشر شده (مثلا در یک روزنامه یا ...)، به گونهای که نتوان تصور کرد این تصویر جزئی از آلبوم شخصی و خصوصی بوده باشد و تاکنون منتشر نشده باشد. لطفا در قانون ایران به لفظ «نشر یا عرضه» توجه کنید. فقط کافی است اشاره کنید که این تصویر در فلان روزنامه در فلان تاریخ چاپ شده و یا در فلان کتاب. AMERICOPHILE 15:24, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Above comment copied from file's talk page. ■ MMXX talk 23:19, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Mentioned source is "آلبوم شخصی / personal album" and author "ناشناس / anonymous", {{PD-Iran}} requires proof of either publication date or author's death. ■ MMXX talk 00:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Comment I think it was taken from Encyclopaedia Islamica. If so this image was used by Ervand Abrahamian in his Iran between two revolutions (Princeton, N.J. 1983). However, I couldn't find the date of first publication of this image. If we can find it, maybe we can keep this image. Takabeg (talk) 06:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Comment Source information "personal album" indicates that this image may have never been published in Iran. That's why I requested speedy deletion. --Wvk (talk) 07:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- that photo was published in newspapers in Iran during the 1963 to 1967 and duringThe Iranian Revolution (also known as the Islamic Revolution or 1979 Revolution ) at national Front of Iran organization (Payam e Jebhe Melli weekly) --Hootandolati (talk) 07:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- Can you provide an image of the said publication which shows this image? ■ MMXX talk 16:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- thanks .I hope do it .I will provide an image of it max in 10 next year because I should go to the national library .and find it .And if I can not find it ( in the national library). I give original photo from MR H. Shah Hosseini member of Central Council of NFI . --Hootandolati (talk) 21:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Missing verifiable source information FASTILY (TALK) 20:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
File:Gympie_Road_in_Aspley,_Queensland.jpg
[edit]
- File:Gympie Road in Aspley, Queensland.jpg
- File:Apollo Road in Tennent, ACT.jpg
- File:Big Potato in Robertson, NSW.jpg
Three uploads by ; they are marked with the cc-by-sa-3.0 license at the source, but the uploader never states anywhere who the author is. For legal reasons, it should be deleted. (also, possibly for ethical reasons: sometimes users purposefully leave out the data because they are not the author, rather it is a family friend, or they got it off of a website). Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- We can assume that the uploader is the copyright holder or at least has the permission. The exif data is there so it would have come from a camera. Graeme 2 (talk) 21:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep All ofthe uploaders work is from the same camera. Do you have anything to back-up that they got it from a "family, friend or website"? en Wikipedia wasn't like Commons with its uploading of photographs (ie. no {{Own}} and {{Information}} templates), so you will find more photographs like this from other contributors. Are you going to assume the worse without getting facts? ~If I had doubts I wouldn't have transferred it. Bidgee (talk) 23:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, that's exactly what we do where there is doubt. Commons:Project scope/Evidence, Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- oh please, I've stated that all of the uploader's uploads were from the same camera and the only thing you can do is show me what I already know. Come back with facts to back-up that the uploader didn't photograph these photos! Bidgee (talk) 00:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- You have things backwards. It's your responsibility to show that it was definitely the uploader, not vice versa. Commons:Project scope/Evidence. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- To the contrary, we generally accept claims of "own work" unless there is some reason to doubt it. Otherwise it would be virtually impossible for individuals to contribute. This is effectively an exception to COM:PRP, but an established one. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- But the uploaders never stated it was their own work. Magog the Ogre (talk) 15:59, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- To the contrary, we generally accept claims of "own work" unless there is some reason to doubt it. Otherwise it would be virtually impossible for individuals to contribute. This is effectively an exception to COM:PRP, but an established one. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- You have things backwards. It's your responsibility to show that it was definitely the uploader, not vice versa. Commons:Project scope/Evidence. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- oh please, I've stated that all of the uploader's uploads were from the same camera and the only thing you can do is show me what I already know. Come back with facts to back-up that the uploader didn't photograph these photos! Bidgee (talk) 00:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept I kept these files on March 31, but apparently did not close the DR. I note that today DelReqHandler will not close it (it hangs indefinitely) -- I have closed it manually. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 01:06, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
