Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2012/01/09
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
-.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
it is unclear from the description that this is PD file. FU is not permited in the commons 98.88.100.52 07:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Obviously, album covers are not PD. →Spiritia 08:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
sex 31.25.106.114 08:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Not sex, just nudity. Invalid reason for deletion, NOTCENSORED et al. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Converted to DR by me from a speedy by Geagea for "non-free book cover", as uploader expressedly claimed[1] to be the author of all. --Túrelio (talk) 08:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Biciklom_do_Hilandara.jpg&diff=65108606&oldid=65102218){kind=link}
Delete unless credible permission is received via OTRS. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)- Delete Book from 2004 - en:Biciklom do Hilandara. Illustrator and cover artist - Jasna Njego. Not own work. Geagea (talk) 11:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader has emailed me to say that this is now out of scope anyway as the wiki article on the book is now up for deletion. His claim was real, but involves privacy issues, and he does not want to press down the OTRS path for something now unneeded in article space. 99of9 (talk) 11:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
This is a magazine published by a private organization in the Ukraine. While it does mention of a symbol being adopted by the Rada, it still does not, in my opinion, qualify for PD-UA-exempt. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 03:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi! I have created this file. We haven't problems with copyright because I'm a President of this organisation (Ukrainian Heraldry Society) and editor of the bulletin "Znak". So, I have all rights to publish a bulletin files or to use a logo of the Ukrainian Heraldry Society. Herald63 (talk) 11:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Well, that makes it simple. I changed the license to PD-self and I will close this debate. (I am not a member of the Ukrainian Heraldry Society but am of the RCVH and other organizations related to vexillology). User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: changed license User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
copyrighted poster --MGuf (d) 14:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Bonjour MGuf, je suis dans l'organisation des Stars de Montréal, et je suis l'une des trois personnes qui ont confectionnées l'affiche pour le match de hockey du dimanche 8 janvier 2012. Hello, I am in the organization of the Montreal Stars , and I am one of three persons who made the poster for the match of hockey of Sunday, January 8th, 2012, thanks, merci --Cordialement féministe ♀ Cordially feminist Geneviève (talk) 16:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Dans ce cas, il faut que l'auteur déclaré "Brandon Taylor" fasse parvenir par OTRS un courrier attestant qu'il met sa photo sous licence libre compatible.
- So, if you are the author of this poster, we need a proof that the original picture is avaiable under a free licence. The photogtapher Brandon Taylor have to send by OTRS an authorisation to publish his picture with az free licence. Without, this composite file can't have free licence, aznd can't stay on Commons. ----MGuf (d) 16:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Comme je vous expliquais , nous sommes 3 auteurs qui ont fait l'affiche ( photo, montage et impression), je tenterai de rejoindre les deux autres personnes ( dont Brandon Taylor) et que nous remplissions ensemble à 3 le formulaire exigé par Commons. Je vous remercie. --Cordialement féministe ♀ Cordially feminist Geneviève (talk) 17:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Ok. Ce n'est pas moi qu'il faut convaincre, mais celui qui va clore cette demande de suppression, probablement anglophone... Plus ce sera clair, mieux c'est. ----MGuf (d) 18:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by Fastily Morning Sunshine (talk) 04:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Given the uploader's other contributions, and the screen resolution of this one, I suspect it's a screenshot from some TV show. Prof. Professorson (talk) 23:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: copyright violation Polarlys (talk) 23:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
No FOP in USA. Derivative work of pirate statue GrapedApe (talk) 13:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Alternate: confirmed copyright violation of http://www.ecu.edu/cs-admin/news/photos/campus/images/pirate_statue.jpeg -_GrapedApe (talk) 04:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Blatant copyright violation High Contrast (talk) 10:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Though the Flickr license is correct, there are other images in the source photostream that appear copyvio material which casts doubt on this image. With no original EXIF data, this image could have been cropped from a non-free source though I have been unable to find alternates via TinEye. Fæ (talk) 19:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- I'm adding the recent upload of File:HipHop 100 Enhanced.png from the same stream though with apparent derivative works problems. --Fæ (talk) 19:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Can you please help me with uploading images from flickr? I really don't understand why its on deletion. Whats EXIF?--Renzoy16 (talk) 01:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- This link may be helpful. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Can you please help me with uploading images from flickr? I really don't understand why its on deletion. Whats EXIF?--Renzoy16 (talk) 01:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Speedily deleted as copyright violation as thanks to the link provided by Delicious carbuncle we know that this photograph is copyrighed by Ben Gabbe/Getty Images North America. I've blacklisted this Flickr account here. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
NOT PD -copivio 98.88.100.52 22:43, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Obvious copyvio from http://media.photobucket.com/image/recent/dreamagazine/Sasha%2520Pieterse/IMG_1916.jpg and some other websites Morning Sunshine (talk) 10:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- useless image meaning nothing to nobody as far as i can see.98.88.92.10 02:09, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: obvious nonsense image + personality rights ("attack image" likely), uploaded by a vandalism account (es./ca.wiki) -- :bdk: 23:29, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Useless personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Keep en:Leticia Calderón has articles in many wikis, all of them missing a picture of her. I'll request a rename instead. Capmo (talk) 22:59, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, file is now available at File:Leticia Calderón with a fan.jpg. Now the person is notable, the picture can be kept. Ices2Csharp (talk) 15:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Screenshot-Bolliwood production. FU is not permited 98.88.100.52 06:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: by Túrelio. Yann (talk) 13:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Taken from the website of the Land Transport Authority without permission. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 09:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: by Polarlys. Yann (talk) 13:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Taken from the website of the Land Transport Authority without permission. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 09:01, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: by Polarlys. Yann (talk) 13:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
EXIF tag says: "Author: Chris Ratcliffe/Sportsbeat Image" Razvan Socol (talk) 09:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: by Morning Sunshine. Yann (talk) 13:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Because the damn bots transferring files are transferring everything blindly. Floydian (talk) 13:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. As it refers only to the status of a set of articles on the English Wikipedia, this file is not pertinent to any project besides the English Wikipedia, and is of no conceivable use to anyone outside of Wikimedia either. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 14:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: by Fastily. Yann (talk) 13:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
it is not ok Farhan Akhtar Tyagi (talk) 17:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Personal photo for userpage not in use. Martin H. (talk) 15:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
No evidence of the PD-status provided in the description. FU is not permited on Commons 98.88.100.52 21:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: by Fastily. Yann (talk) 13:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
не туда залил Valkir89 (talk) 03:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: by EugeneZelenko. Yann (talk) 13:44, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
This is a duplicate of File:YE-150_схема.jpg, which is the same image but at a better quality level. No pages currently use this image. The Bushranger (talk) 02:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Speedy delete: duplicate Royalbroil 19:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
PD status claim is unsupported Book published in 2010 Author may still be alive. Copyright protected. Сергей Резниченко Ампуломёт: универсальная стрелковая система низкой баллистики для ближнего боя пехотных подразделений РККА // Техника и вооружение. — 2010. — № 4. — С. 14—22. 98.88.100.52 05:10, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Comment Unclear about 98.88.100.52 reasoning, however also not clear if the image meets conditions of the license. Could some more familiar with {{PD-Russia-2008}} comment here? --Jarekt (talk) 14:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- The source is no longer enough, and have to go almost to the crime and post the material out of it here? O.K.: http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/373/ampulethrower.jpg Vade Parvis (talk) 15:17, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- And this: http://img824.imageshack.us/img824/4010/ampulethrower02.jpg
- Semi-machine translation into English of some of the fragments: "Experimental 125mm ampule-thrower during production tests in 1940"; "Developed ampule-throwers ... in pre-war years in Moscow in the experimental design department of the plant № 145 named after S. M. Kirov ... in the administration of People's Commissariat of Aviation Industry of the USSR"; "The names of the ampule-thrower designers, unfortunately, unknown to me"; "The author expresses his gratitude to A. F. Nosov, distinguished veteran of the company, the curator of museum of "IBC" Spark" named after I. I. Kartukov", for providing them all possible assistance in the preparation of this publication". Vade Parvis (talk) 16:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- My russian is not as good as yours but i see that the page states both that this " ampoule thing" was: something, something in 1941. And also something, some, something in 1940. So how do we know that this page gives this image a PD status . this there is a misprint about 1940 thats all. Besides we dont care designed the "ampule launcher" but rather who made a photo98.88.54.247 05:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Keep indeed. This image is from official test report and juridically it is of USSR government authorship, which means PD. Read Russian Civil Code, part IV, dear Anonymus... That's all I can say. Askold Ingvarssen (talk) 16:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: No valid reason for deletion. Yann (talk) 16:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Image lacking source, creation date stated source is bad. No evidence of PD status 98.88.100.52 05:50, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep I don't know, whether it is a problem of user's vision, but the sourse is written 'black on white'. Although it's russian book and its data is in Russian. Creation date is indicated clearly in the book too. Finally, PD status is clear, as image is made before 1942 and has no indicated author. And generally, stop waisting your time fighting with clear status images. P.S. Да и вообще, как говорится, "я, похоже, узнаю эти уши"... Askold Ingvarssen (talk) 10:01, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: No valid reason for deletion. Yann (talk) 16:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Image lacking source, creation date stated source is questionable at best. No evidence of PD status 98.88.100.52 05:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Again, the sourse is indicated clearly (I don't know where you're looking) and as it is russian book its data is in Russian. Creation date is indicated clearly in the book too. Therefore PD status is clear, as image is made before 1942 and has no indicated author. Askold Ingvarssen (talk) 10:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: No valid reason for deletion. Yann (talk) 16:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Useless personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep not useless, can be used in articles on en:Mathias Fuchs and de:Mathias Fuchs, perhaps better picture than File:Mathias Fuchs portrait 150.jpg which is in the German article now. --Geitost diskusjon 00:26, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, I now see the person is in scope, so the picture can stay. Please cancel this nomination. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- I don't know how. ;-) --Geitost diskusjon 12:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- I think the first moderator to see this will be able to close this as keep. Ices2Csharp (talk) 15:42, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- I don't know how. ;-) --Geitost diskusjon 12:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, I now see the person is in scope, so the picture can stay. Please cancel this nomination. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept. Yann (talk) 16:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Useless personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep not useless, can be used in articles on en:Mathias Fuchs and de:Mathias Fuchs, such as File:Mathias Fuchs postvinyl fairuz.jpg. --Geitost diskusjon 00:29, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, I now see the person is in scope, so the picture can stay. Please cancel this nomination. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- I don't know how. ;-) --Geitost diskusjon 12:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- I think the first moderator to see this will be able to close this as keep. Ices2Csharp (talk) 15:42, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, now there also exists a talk page to this page. ;-) --Geitost diskusjon 15:25, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- I think the first moderator to see this will be able to close this as keep. Ices2Csharp (talk) 15:42, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- I don't know how. ;-) --Geitost diskusjon 12:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, I now see the person is in scope, so the picture can stay. Please cancel this nomination. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept. Yann (talk) 16:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Please see the user page and the website (both are in French). Related article in fr-wp, Bagues anti-ronflements was deleted. Via null (talk) 08:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann (talk) 16:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
the storm is the wrong pic without source and author AtelierMonpli (talk) 11:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Reverted to original image, no need to delete anymore. Capmo (talk) 22:53, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept. Yann (talk) 16:56, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
out of scope AtelierMonpli (talk) 11:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: From Facebook. Yann (talk) 16:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Source is bad. Creation date is not obvious No evidence of PD-status 98.88.100.52 14:50, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Sometimes online sources disappear. That does not make them "bad". The creation date is obvious, as the expedition occurred in 1934, making it PD in its source country and in the U.S. Unless there is some reason to doubt that this image of 1930s truck travelling through mud in the Canadian wilderness is actually of the expedition, and I can't see an evident reason to do so, I am puzzled by this nomination. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Remember too that the image originally came from the website of a museum, in this case the Saskatchewan Western Development Museum (the museum appears to have reorganized its online exhibits). It didn't come from a blog or some other questionable/unknown source. As such, I think we can have the necessary level of confidence that the image is, in fact, from the Bedaux expedition.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: No valid reason for deletion. Yann (talk) 16:58, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
screenshot and not own work. FU is not permited on commons 98.88.100.52 15:59, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
screenshot and not own work. FU is not permited on commons Дмитрий Александрович (talk) 16:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Movie screenshot EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
bad quality, unusable --Geitost diskusjon 00:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete I am normally very "liberal" when it comes to quality, but this is way too low. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 12:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 10:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
bad quality, unusable, no need to rotate the picture --Geitost diskusjon 00:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 10:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Logo uses copyrighted wordmark of the university —Eustress talk 01:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Question - copyrighted? really? That would be interesting. Please give references. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:29, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: This is PD-text logo -- a "wordmark" iis a class of trademark, which does not concern us, and probably can't be defended here anyway. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
With all due respect, I seriously doubt the uploader is the author of this file. Without proper sourcing information, we do not know its copyright. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:59, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
The copyright status is unclear, given that the title indicates the picture is from the Yale Archives, the date does not match the date of the photo, and it is ambiguous as to what the original source of the image was. The file is also being hosted at yale.edu, see http://buildings.yale.edu/images/properties/21-27338306.jpg , which may indicate that the file likely originate there and is not tagged correctly Jayron32 (talk) 02:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete, missing essential source information. Prof. Professorson (talk) 11:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Source=http://oach-wyobrazni.blog.onet.pl/ Senator2029║talk 03:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 10:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Source=http://coach-wyobrazni.blog.onet.pl/ Additionally, the linked Polish Wikipedia article about this person was deleted for reasons of self-promotion. Therefore, this image is not in use, and doesn't meet Commons inclusion criteria. Senator2029║talk 03:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 10:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope: CD box cover
Other files by this author in the same situation:
- File:Muriel Esteban Horizons BehindCD.png
- File:Muriel Esteban Horizons CD.png
- File:Muriel Esteban Horizons Front.png
Capmo (talk) 03:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
All those files have already been verified and approved by the OTRS system, and are indeed licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license. There is no reason to delete them. --Muriel Esteban (talk) 10:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Muriel, that's not the point. I think your artworks are great, it's just that Commons may not be the proper place for them, according to the Commons:Deletion policy / Out of Scope / Not educationally useful case: "Self-created artwork without obvious educational use."
- Capmo (talk) 13:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom. Prof. Professorson (talk) 12:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
incorrect geometric designation of explicit H on benzaldehyde product (should not be wedged). Have File:Benzaldehyde-chemical-amygdalin.png as correct replacement DMacks (talk) 04:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete, unused, has a good replacement. Prof. Professorson (talk) 12:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
lacking source code possible copyright violation 98.88.100.52 04:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - I see no reason to doubt own work. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:35, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - Image has sufficient quality and EXIF metadata, thus there is no doubt in my mind, that this is own work. Armbrust (talk) 11:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep per above, unless there is reason to suspect fraudulent claim. -Pete F (talk) 18:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio, see: http://www.nathanberg.com/photos/bio-photos/nathan4.html Captain-tucker (talk) 10:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Source does not mention the date of the file "This is probably the only privately produced half track prior to WW2. The Marmon Herrington DHT-5 was available for sale in 1940. It came with a 37mm main gun. this vehicle was never made available to the US Army for testing. Photo taken from the private site. No evidence of PD status 98.88.100.52 05:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete current license is not valid. We can not claim that unknown author taking pictures around 1940, is surly dead in 1941. If image is proven to meet conditions of any license used on Commons, I am willing to change my vote. --Jarekt (talk) 14:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Used the same picture from another source, in which the authority and there is no doubt that there described, where the photo was taken and what was done during military service. The license replaced to
PD-US-not renewedPD-US-no notice. Vade Parvis (talk) 20:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)- There's no indication it was published in the U.S. between 1923 and 1977, or that there wasn't a copyright notice. Delete. Prof. Professorson (talk) 12:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- If the text of the book where the author is always where it is needed, adding dates to the signature to the illustrations, there is a direct indication that the prototype machine was introduced in 1940 and that she had never been taken into service, while is the caption to the photo on the same page has no a date — it is clear that the author simply did not want to repeat. Vade Parvis (talk) 13:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- One more time. This is not some kind of a little-known author, who can be stigmatized, in the spirit of the author of this nomination, as a "Russian thief". This is authoritative American writer, and this book of his authorship is in the Library of Congress. Vade Parvis (talk) 13:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- There's no indication it was published in the U.S. between 1923 and 1977, or that there wasn't a copyright notice.
- Used the same picture from another source, in which the authority and there is no doubt that there described, where the photo was taken and what was done during military service. The license replaced to
Deleted: In order to keep this, you would have to show that this image was publiched before the 2001 book you cite. If that was its first publication, then it is under copyright until 120 years after its creation. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Only used in a now deleted article. I am unconvinced that this professional looking headshot was taken by the uploader. Guerillero 05:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete I don't doubt the authorship, but if the subject does not have a Wikipedia article or use on other projects, I'd consider him a private individual. The educational value of this photo is unclear to me. -Pete F (talk) 18:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio, see: http://www.starchefs.com/cook/content/chef-joe-isidori-and-pastry-chef-cedric-barberet-mar-lago-palm-beach-fl Captain-tucker (talk) 10:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
i created a category for this subject. hayward only needs one gallery, and definitely not aerial views, yet Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Galleries and categories serve different purposes. "[Galleries] can show captions and information regarding each image, and group images into sections. Images in a gallery can be arranged in chronological, geographical, thematic or other informative order. Galleries can exclude poorer quality and redundant images that fill some categories and impede users who simply are looking for a good image, say, to illustrate a Wikipedia article." (Commons:Galleries#The_benefits_of_galleries). While it may be argued to merge this gallery page with Hayward, California, in 2010, the nominator thought it should be moved to its current name.[2] --Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- your points are well taken. My move from 2010 was made before i understood the gallery concept. I guess i just dont think we have enough aerial views of hayward, of sufficient quality, to keep this. however, since i do believe in "eventualism", if we think it may be expanded in the future, then it could stay. i like the link from the hayward gallery thats been added.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: I agree with the original nomination -- the gallery Hayward, California has six sections. There is no reason why this one -- the third largest -- should be a sub-gallery when the whole gallery easily fits on one page. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Copyright issues 1unhwildcat (talk) 05:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 10:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
This does not qualify for the conditions set by PD-GE-exempt User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 06:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, this is not an official document or symbol, but a video of an event. The law cited would not apply. -Pete F (talk) 18:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
bad image 98.88.100.52 06:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 10:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
This does not qualify for the conditions set by PD-GE-exempt. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 06:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom. Prof. Professorson (talk) 12:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Image contains URL and commercial material 98.88.100.52 06:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete, out of scope. Prof. Professorson (talk) 12:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
bad license. this is not made in 2012 98.88.100.52 06:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete, missing essential source information. Prof. Professorson (talk) 12:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Creation date is not obvious from the source. Author is not disclosed. No evidence of the PD status. 98.88.100.52 06:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete current license is not valid. We can not claim that unknown author taking pictures around 1940, is surly dead in 1941. If image is proven to meet conditions of any license used on Commons, I am willing to change my vote. --Jarekt (talk) 14:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- License changed to PD-France. Vade Parvis (talk) 20:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Ok so you just uploaded this photo to some blog and dated it 1937? Smooth! Also whats with PD-France? How does that help us here?98.88.54.247 05:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: The fact that we do not know the photographer is not the same thing as "anonymous". Without better information, we cannot keep it. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
No evidence of the PD status 98.88.100.52 06:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Are uploader also copyright holder of poster Motopark (talk) 06:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Derivative work. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 12:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Are uploader also copyright holder of poster Motopark (talk) 06:50, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Derivative work--Morning Sunshine (talk) 07:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Poor quality image which is now superceded by two better quality images: file: 1_Doctors_Cottage_Prince_of_Wales.jpg. Plus file: 1_Superintendents_Cottage_Prince_of_Wales(1).jpg Sardaka (talk) 07:26, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep, not the best quality, but it doesn't hurt keeping it. Prof. Professorson (talk) 12:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: 3 very similar images -- not celar which is best. No reason to delete this one. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
press photo, see e.g. http://www.streamline.com/news/vicki-barr-s-journey/ User uploaded another image with a wrong authorship claim Polarlys (talk) 10:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 11:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
EXIF tag says "Creative Commons BY-NC-ND-3.0-ES 2011 Kutxa Fundazioa (kutxateka.com)". Razvan Socol (talk) 19:43, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 11:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Hertfordshire is a landlocked county. There are no beaches! Wikidwitch (talk) 21:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Empty Category Captain-tucker (talk) 11:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Hertfordshire is a landlocked county. It has no coasts! Wikidwitch (talk) 21:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Empty Category Captain-tucker (talk) 11:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Image lacking source, creation date and stated source is bad/false. No evidence of PD status 98.88.100.52 21:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Comment Unclear about 98.88.100.52 reasoning, however also not clear if the image meets conditions of the license. Could some more familiar with {{PD-Russia-2008}} comment here? --Jarekt (talk) 14:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- According to the source, this image is taken from the official test documentation. This in turn was published with 'Restricted' code in 1939. Restricted publication may theoretically be recognised as normal publication, but juristical author of it is the Main military and technical agency of Red Army. According to Russian situation with copyright, this automatically means PD. Askold Ingvarssen (talk) 18:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: No valid reason for deletion. Yann (talk) 16:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Unused private pictures, out of scope. Prof. Professorson (talk) 23:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 11:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Image takes from the private site. No evidence of PD status 98.88.92.10 01:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 11:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Image lacking source, creation date stated source is bad. No evidence of PD status 98.88.100.52 05:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Comment Unclear about 98.88.100.52 reasoning, however also not clear if the image meets conditions of the license. Could some more familiar with {{PD-Russia-2008}} comment here? --Jarekt (talk) 14:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- See an updated file documentation. Vade Parvis (talk) 21:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep indeed. The image is taken from the official test documentation which was published with 'Restricted' code in 1939. Restricted publication may be recognised as normal publication, juristical author of which is the Main military and technical agency of Red Army. According to Soviet and current Russian situation with copyright, this automatically means PD. Askold Ingvarssen (talk) 17:17, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: No valid reason for deletion. Yann (talk) 16:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
File sourse is bad-Page dont exist/blank 98.88.100.52 06:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep many sites come and disappear, many websites do not have stable URL, that can be provided as links. That is not a valid reason for deletion request. Image likely meets "This work was originally published anonymously or under a pseudonym before January 1, 1943 and the name of the author did not become known during 50 years after publication." condition. --Jarekt (talk) 13:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep per Jarekt. -Pete F (talk) 18:58, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: No valid reason for deletion. Yann (talk) 16:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Too new for PD 98.88.100.52 07:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
And other uploads of user, used for promotional purpose, out of scope Morning Sunshine (talk) 07:10, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
And other uploads of user, used for promotional purpose, out of scope Morning Sunshine (talk) 07:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
And other uploads of user, used for promotional purpose, out of scope Morning Sunshine (talk) 07:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
And other uploads of user, used for promotional purpose, out of scope Morning Sunshine (talk) 07:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
No evidence that this is a PD file. Copyrited material 98.88.100.52 07:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Useless personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:07, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: author is not uploader, no permssion -- scope? Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Avdeev.jpg
Probably copyrighted: photographer is Peter Ginter. The picture appeared in the July 2000 issue of the german GEO magazine. 128.141.33.145 08:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete, per [3] [4] [5]. Ginter was not CERN employee and his works are copyrighted even at the CERN cite. Materialscientist (talk) 06:38, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Photo of not notable person, She is not wikiuser. And in description pointed "Хотя фото делал не я" in translation - "although photo wasn't taken by me", so license is disputed. Dmitry89 (talk) 08:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Bad map (my own work). Superceded by Ancient Levant routes1.png Atefrat (talk) 08:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Bad map (my own work). Superceded by Ancient Levant routes1.png Atefrat (talk) 08:43, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Bad map (my own work). Superceded by Ancient Levant routes7.png Atefrat (talk) 08:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Bad map (my own work). Superceded by Ancient Levant routes7.png Atefrat (talk) 08:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Bad map (my own work). Superceded by Ancient Levant routes7.png Atefrat (talk) 08:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Needs to be deleted unless the following copyrighted and unlicensed elements are removed: (1) the logo in the background; (2) the MRT logo in the top right corner; and (3) the SMRT logo in the bottom right corner. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 08:50, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Doesn't the map itself also have a copyright? It would in the UK or the USA. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
No Freedom of Panorama in France, sorry... Eusebius (talk) 10:01, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Not enough knowledge of system. Avier (talk) 10:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: I don't understand the reason but the requestor (signed Avier, but actually Yostonmontoya) can request deletion of his own user page. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Josef Raab died in 1971. So he is most certainly not the person who uploaded this image. Widerborst (talk) 10:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Useless personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Useless personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Useless personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Useless personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Are uploader also copyright holder of poster Motopark (talk) 11:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Are uploader also copyright holder of poster Motopark (talk) 11:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Are uploader also copyright holder of poster Motopark (talk) 11:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Probably copyrighted. Source: http://www.singlesourcespeakers.com/speakers/sydnamasse/ Smooth_O (talk) 11:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:10, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Useless personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:24, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:10, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
-.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
-.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Useless personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:24, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
-.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:10, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
-.JPG){kind=link}
Useless personal logo. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:24, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:10, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Useless personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:24, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:10, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Useless personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:24, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:10, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Unused test file. Ices2Csharp (talk) 11:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:10, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Computer drawing, unidentifiable, out of scope Funfood ␌ 12:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:10, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Though this image is under the correct Flickr license, it looks likely to have come from an official European Union website. For sites such as http://ec.europa.eu reproduction is authorised, however not all content has an unrestricted license and correct attribution will be a requirement. A Hungarian reader may be able to explain the situation, otherwise deletion seems in order whilst there is ambiguity. Fæ (talk) 12:01, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- I don't understand your problem. I could not find this image that website. Európa Pont is a Hungarian organization which is supported by the Hungarian Representation of the European Commission and by the European Parliament Information Office. This photo was taken in a conference in December 2011, where Péter Oszkó and Péter Róna Hungarian economists discussed the future of the European Union. Please do not delete this image. Best wishes, --Norden1990 (talk) 21:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- I am happy to take it on good faith that the Flickr stream may be an official one by an organization. Though this particular image is odd as it is in png format at a resolution less than that appearing on Flickr and has no EXIF data, making it appear as if it were captured from some other website. If you know any of the history here or can explain the nature of this Flickr stream, this would help to close down this deletion request. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 23:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- The png format is my work. I used print screen then I saved this image. I did not want too high resolution photo, I hope it does not matter. --Norden1990 (talk) 19:04, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the explanation. On Wikimedia Commons the image is compared to the original Flickr file, if there is a discrepancy the system automatically flags this as a possible problem and hence the attention this file has got. Happy to Keep based on your feedback. --Fæ (talk) 21:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the explanation. On Wikimedia Commons the image is compared to the original Flickr file, if there is a discrepancy the system automatically flags this as a possible problem and hence the attention this file has got. Happy to
- The png format is my work. I used print screen then I saved this image. I did not want too high resolution photo, I hope it does not matter. --Norden1990 (talk) 19:04, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- I am happy to take it on good faith that the Flickr stream may be an official one by an organization. Though this particular image is odd as it is in png format at a resolution less than that appearing on Flickr and has no EXIF data, making it appear as if it were captured from some other website. If you know any of the history here or can explain the nature of this Flickr stream, this would help to close down this deletion request. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 23:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: While the image is OK, its upload is not. When a good JPG is available, there is no reason to upload a png version of a screenshot. Commons always wants the best quality and highest resolution available image. I have uploaded File:OszkoPeter.jpg and replaced this image with that at the WP:EN article. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal photograph, out of scope Funfood ␌ 13:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
certainly not own work (see other contributions by this user), looks like a crop → hard to find Polarlys (talk) 13:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
certainly not own work, see other contributions Polarlys (talk) 13:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
ad, Commons:Project scope Polarlys (talk) 13:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Costume of college mascot. Likely copyrighted by the university. GrapedApe (talk) 13:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Derivative of plaque. (Dated at least 2000) GrapedApe (talk) 13:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
duplicate of File:Oleg Betin 2012-01-04.jpeg vlsergey (talk) 13:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Commons:Project scope: No idea where and who this is, unused Polarlys (talk) 13:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Commons:Project scope, wrong license Polarlys (talk) 13:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Commons:Project scope Polarlys (talk) 13:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
unknown person, unused, Commons:Project scope Polarlys (talk) 13:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --AtelierMonpli (talk) 22:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
The name of the allegory is wrong, is not Terpsichore but Sappho, I have uploaded another image Jafd88 (talk) 13:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Next time please use {{Rename}} -- having two copies of the same file (one visible, one not) is wasteful. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
unused, personal photo, bad quality, Commons:Project scope Polarlys (talk) 13:48, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --AtelierMonpli (talk) 22:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
bullying, unused, Commons:Project scope Polarlys (talk) 13:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Source is bad. Creation date is not obvious No evidence of PD-status 98.88.100.52 14:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Same rationale as set out at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bedaux half-trucks near Cache Creek.gif. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:24, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Just a note -- this nomination is even more questionable than the one for File:Bedaux half-trucks near Cache Creek.gif, as this image is still clearly on the museum's website. Did the nominator check the website or the background to these images before making this nomination? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:26, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - Oh well. I shouldn't have asked the question that I did above, because I myself did not check the museum website carefully. Ask a pointed question, make an ass of oneself. This photo is not of the expedition itself, but of a later diorama. While I suspect that the photo was created pre-1946, and is therefore probably PD in Canada and the U.S., I don't know that for sure, so prudence would require that this image be deleted. The other images of the actual expedition should all be kept, however, on the basis of the rationale at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bedaux half-trucks near Cache Creek.gif.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
derivative of copyrighted performance AndreasPraefcke (talk) 14:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Source is bad. Creation date is not obvious No evidence of PD-status Probably a screenshot 98.88.100.52 14:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted book cover Jacopo Werther (talk) 15:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Unused private image of an inactive user. GeorgHH • talk 15:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Bad license. Stated " Author Unknown US state employee." There is no evidence at all that it is a case. PD status of the file is not clear 98.88.100.52 15:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Delete No evidence was presented that the author was likely US Government employee. --Jarekt (talk) 15:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Since at this time machine existed in single copy and held military trials (just for reference: later, during the Second World War, several cars produced for the United States Navy to support sea landings — and anyone else they are not used, although the company later tried to sell some of these machines for commercial use); I have two paper authoritative sources (these sources, including an indication of the exact page: Кочнев Е. Д. Линн // Энциклопедия военных автомобилей — 2-е изд. — За рулем, 2008. — С. 279. — 640 с. — 3000 экз. — ISBN 978-5-9698-0152-3 and Холявский Г. Л. Энциклопедия бронетанкового вооружения и техники. Колесные и полугусеничные бронеавтомобили и бронетранспортеры — Минск: Харвест, 2004. — С. 554—555. — 656 с. — (Библиотека военной истории). — 5100 экз. — ISBN 985-13-1765-9) that evidencing and confirm this information, with a legal digital version of one of them ([6]) was specifically stated in the file description for easy verification of information. If these sources do not seem credible to you enough to confirm that the car actually took place at this time of military tests and photographed in them — tell me, please, which in this case, i should use a license and not it be better to simply transfer file to a local server to use as "fair use". Vade Parvis (talk) 14:20, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: The most likely source of this is the manufactuer, not the government. That is particularly true because it has an ordinary state license plate -- not military markings. Without knowing who took the image, and when it was first published, we cannot keep it. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Probably screenshot. FU is not repmited on commons 98.88.100.52 15:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Useless personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 16:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Useless personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 16:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
and other small resolution uploads by Infoxp2500 (talk · contribs). Looks like movies screenshots. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Leyo 18:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Useless personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 16:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Useless personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 16:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Useless personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 16:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Useless personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 16:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Useless personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 16:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Useless personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 16:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Useless personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 16:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
and File:Silvério D´Madriaga.jpg. Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Useless personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 16:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Bad source. Year 1928 stated but not shown in the reference. PD status is unclear. FU is not permited in the commons 98.88.100.52 16:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete current license is not valid. We can not claim that unknown author taking pictures around 1928, is surly dead in 1941. If image is proven to meet conditions of any license used on Commons, I am willing to change my vote. --Jarekt (talk) 14:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- License changed to PD-France. Vade Parvis (talk) 20:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Useless personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 16:59, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
no longer used and desired Luxusfrosch (talk) 17:01, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Copyright violation: the uploader talks about a "purchased text book" Crowsnest (talk) 17:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Copyright violation? I cannot find the provided licensing on the source website -- Crowsnest (talk) 18:01, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Copyright violation: I cannot find the provided licensing on the source website -- Crowsnest (talk) 18:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
this is a trademark; the license is no correct Pava (talk) 18:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Trademark does not concern us, but the color bar makes this not PD-text logo Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
screenshot NOT PD 98.88.100.52 18:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
appears to be a scan of a 1959 photo, but dated 2012 and uploaded as "own work" 67.230.141.91 18:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
aerial photo of doubtful source, user uploaded several unfree files from similar site before Polarlys (talk) 19:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Probably not own work. Seems to be scanned from an old photo (maybe from a book). Razvan Socol (talk) 19:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Comic book cover with unclear rights, named source definitively wrong Funfood ␌ 21:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
DW, out of scope Funfood ␌ 21:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
[7] copivio not own work FU is not allowed on commons 98.88.100.52 22:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
![[7]](http://www.topnews.in/files/Gary-Glitter-89312.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
most likely copyvio like the rest of this user, can’t find source, but small size indicates web source Polarlys (talk) 23:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:10, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
_bad lisence. Source does have any information in it. WWI uniforms do not mean picture is from WWI. Probably a screenshot from a movie and not PD.98.88.92.10 02:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- It is clear that this is not a screenshot from feature film. However, the exact source of the walking in the Internet photo is still well known: it is a book "Purnell's History of the First World war": [8]. Vade Parvis (talk) 19:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: We have a photo from an unknown (but not necessarily anonymous) photographer taken about 1917. That is nowhere near old enough to assume that he died by 1942. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Taken from the private site. No evidence of PD status.98.88.92.10 20:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Assuming this is, in fact, an American image, we need to know when and where it was first published. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
uploaded without permission. Photo author wants deletion of original photo Joshb (talk) 01:45, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep The nominator uploaded it; and stated that it was 'own work'. Free licences are non-revokeable. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 10:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete The original uploader wrote please delete the original photo on 11 December 2011. I respect the uploader's will. Moreover, it's useless image. Takabeg (talk) 14:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- This image is so definitely not useless (it's a great representation of a teenage male nipple) that i don't even know how to counter such a blatant lie. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 14:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment It is possible that Joshb simply misunderstands how DR work, so i have asked him to clarify. I would appreciate it if we would wait for his answer. I am willing to entertain some possibilities that it was just a misunderstanding, and that the user isn't trying to game the DR system. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 06:07, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Lack of permission seems plausible, and keeping body images against the subject's wishes seems like a bad practice, except in a very rare exceptional case where the specific image has value that would be difficult to replace. -Pete F (talk) 18:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, per VolodyA! V Anarhist. It's not like the picture was just uploaded, it's been on Commons for more than 3 years. The second revision should be deleted though, it has no source. Prof. Professorson (talk) 12:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment On one's talk page Joshb now claims that the images were uploaded from this account without permission. I think that admins should investigate this, because this seems to be happening a lot lately, seeing how recently there's been a bunch of users claiming to have stuff uploaded from their accounts like that, and the fact that photos are clearly different i am personally more inclined to believe that somebody is bruteforcing the passwords on old-forgotten accounts which have ever uploaded images they disagree with. But i have no way to check this, so the admin should look into that (there are logs aren't there?). VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 15:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: You uploaded it several years ago, you can't come along now and tell us it was done without your permission. Free licences cannot be revoked. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Can you please delete this picture and the rest on my account that i nominated? Joshb (talk) 05:53, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep While this can be considered a replacement, it's not as high of the quality. If we would have a similar image i would vote delete, but until such time a non-revokable licence + educational image = keep. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 07:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep non revokeable licence; plus no personality rights infringed. I don't see any reason why this image should be deleted. -- Blackcat (talk) 12:30, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Speedily Kept - per my last closure, turning up 3 years after you uploaded it and claiming you didn't give permission is frankly a poor joke. This isn't a photosharing service, once you release images here you cannot say "oh no I didn't mean that", especially not three years after the fact. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Please remove my photos. I am the original uploader of the photos and I want them deleted. Please delete. Thanks Joshb (talk) 19:43, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep You do not engage in discussions, you ignore people who attempt to communicate with you about the deletion requests, you simply keep nominating, hoping that eventually people will get tired. There is no reason for deletion so far, i am getting tired of this. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 00:11, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Speedily kept - per comments above. --Denniss (talk) 02:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Useless personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Useless personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:09, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 18:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Useless personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 16:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Too many Tuple Images in my gallery Doug youvan (talk) 23:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per Uploader's request. Also out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Too many Tuple Images in my gallery Doug youvan (talk) 23:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per Uploader's request. Also out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Too many Tuple Images in my gallery Doug youvan (talk) 23:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per Uploader's request. Also out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Too many Tuple Images in my gallery Doug youvan (talk) 23:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per Uploader's request. Also out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 19:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: What does this image contain unseen in Category:Penis? EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. Leyo 22:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
and other uploads by Xpress2004 (talk · contribs). Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. Some may be TV screenshots. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. Leyo 18:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
File was tagged with a "no permission" - I think it is PD-ineligible so I changed to a DR. MGA73 (talk) 09:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete User:Jacklee, who put the "no permission" on it, is a Singapore lawyer and is a very knowledgeable contributor, so I defer to his assessment of this. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete the weird font of the letters puts it over the edge. Move to Wiki English and delete here. Fry1989 eh? 22:59, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 00:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Old but still copyrighted logo of Singapore's MRT system by the Land Transport Authority of Singapore. Example of a map linked below, copyright symbol on lower right.
https://i2.wp.com/www.transitmap.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/tumblr_lyjoepFQTC1r54c4oo1_1280.jpg?fit=1200%2C994&ssl=1 Seloloving (talk) 11:47, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- No idea how to judge Singaporean TOO status. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:18, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per previous DR. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 00:33, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Obvious television screenshot, yet licensed as public domain. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 10:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- "Own work (the video footage was taken by myself at a competition)" Bulwersator (talk) 14:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 00:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Picture doesn't meet the license conditions, which need the picture to be from before 1948, while the 'date' field says 1956. Ices2Csharp (talk) 08:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 17:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
and other uploads by Es.ro.ri (talk · contribs). Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 17:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Television screenshot masquerading as public domain. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 16:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- A screenshot of User:Artur Andrzej's "own private footage" would qualify as his own work. Is there a specific piece of footage that you believe that this infringes? Slawekb (talk) 19:33, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Obvious television screenshot deliberately licensed as public domain. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 16:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, for now. The author assures he/she took the video and I believe it is very difficult to prove otherwise. (I can't imagine copyright claims against WMF for this image.) Materialscientist (talk) 22:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- A screenshot of User:Artur Andrzej's "own private footage" would qualify as his own work. Is there a specific piece of footage that you believe that this infringes? Slawekb (talk) 19:33, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Obvious television screenshot deliberately licensed as public domain. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 16:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. "Own work: the video footage was taken by myself at a competition" Slawekb (talk) 19:34, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Obvious television screenshot deliberately licensed as public domain. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 16:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. "Own work: the video footage was taken by myself at a competition." Slawekb (talk) 19:35, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Obvious television screenshot deliberately licensed as public domain. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 16:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. "Obvious television screenshot" – of what? Slawekb (talk) 19:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Obvious television screenshot deliberately licensed as public domain. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 16:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. "Own work: the video footage was taken by myself at a competition" Slawekb (talk) 19:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Obvious television screenshot deliberately licensed as public domain. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 16:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. "Own work: the video footage was taken by myself at a competition" Slawekb (talk) 19:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Obvious television screenshot deliberately licensed as public domain. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 16:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. "Own work: the video footage was taken by myself at a competition" Slawekb (talk) 19:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Picture of TV screen Eingangskontrolle (talk) 12:43, 12 February 2018 (UTC) Uploader was: User:Artur Andrzej
Deleted: per nomination. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 06:48, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Obvious television screenshot deliberately licensed as public domain. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 16:43, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. It says it is from the uploader's "own video footage". Is there some specific piece of non-public domain footage that you believe this infringes? Slawekb (talk) 19:38, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Obvious television screenshot deliberately licensed as public domain. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 16:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. "Own work (the video footage was taken by myself at a competition)" Slawekb (talk) 19:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Obvious television screenshot deliberately licensed as public domain. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 16:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. "Own work the video footage was taken by myself at a competition" Slawekb (talk) 19:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Obvious television screenshot deliberately licensed as public domain. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 16:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. "Own work: the video footage was taken by myself at a competition" Slawekb (talk) 19:42, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Obvious television screenshot deliberately licensed as public domain. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 16:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. "Own work: the video footage was taken by myself at a competition" Slawekb (talk) 19:42, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Obvious television screenshot deliberately licensed as public domain. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 16:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. "Own work: the video footage was taken by myself at a competition" Slawekb (talk) 19:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Obvious television screenshot deliberately licensed as public domain. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 16:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. "Own work (the video footage was taken by myself at a competition)" Slawekb (talk) 19:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Obvious television screenshot deliberately licensed as public domain. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 16:48, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. "Own work (the video footage was taken by myself at a competition)" Slawekb (talk) 19:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Obvious television screenshot deliberately licensed as public domain. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 16:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. "Own work (the video footage was taken by myself at a competition)" Slawekb (talk) 19:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Obvious television screenshot deliberately licensed as public domain. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 16:50, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. "Own work" ... "(the video footage was taken by myself at a competition)" Slawekb (talk) 19:50, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Obvious television screenshot deliberately licensed as public domain. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 16:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. "Own work by uploader (the VHS footage was taken by myself at a competition)" Slawekb (talk) 19:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Obvious television screenshot deliberately licensed as public domain. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 16:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. "Own work by uploader (the video footage was taken by myself at a competition)" Slawekb (talk) 19:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Obvious television screenshot deliberately licensed as public domain. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 16:59, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. If as the Source field says, this is the uploader's "own private footage", then it is his own work. If, as you believe, it is an "obvious television screenshot", then the burden is on you to identify the source that you believe that this infringes on. Slawekb (talk) 19:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Obvious television screenshot deliberately licensed as public domain. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 17:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. If as the Source field says, this is the uploader's "own private footage", then it is his own work. If, as you believe, it is an "obvious television screenshot", then the burden is on you to identify the source that you believe that this infringes on. Slawekb (talk) 19:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Is this really PD-textlogo? =\ deerstop. 17:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, I think so, It is easy to create. --Rodejong (talk) 10:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
most likely copyvio like most uploads, can’t find the source here but small size indicates websource Polarlys (talk) 23:26, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 17:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Collage containing deleted images: File:Porsuk river-1.jpg,File:Eskisehir Train Station.jpg. Takabeg (talk) 23:59, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Agree with the deletion; obviously... I don't like throwing away the excellent work of The Emirr (talk · contribs), but we can't admit the use of copyrighted photos. --Stegop (talk) 01:50, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 19:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal image, out of scope Morning Sunshine (talk) 08:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 17:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Useless personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 16:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of COM:SCOPE. Wknight94 talk 19:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Derivative work. Rudolf Belling, the sculptor, died in 1972. Prof. Professorson (talk) 21:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- well, i was allowed to take the picture by the museum by paying a fee of € 2. unfortunately i cannot add any more information to this topic. thought, it's no problem at all to make a picture of a sculpture. pls keep me informed about the decision. N3MO (talk) 15:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Wknight94 talk 19:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Double template. No translations. Better use the existing template {{User SUL|de|w}} --217.186.23.95 08:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Your template can't be used inside the Babel-box! The Autor --Abrape (talk) 15:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Oh yes, that’s fine. I’m taking this also. :-) --Geitost diskusjon 00:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete redundant template. -- Nyan ∗ Dog 16:59, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Can be used inside the Babel-Box and show the right main account. --Abrape (talk) 08:11, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: My test shows that Abrape is correct -- the existing template cannot be used inside a babel box, so this is not redundant. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:00, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Arthrocnemum perenne is a synonym of Sarcocornia perennis, double category Thiotrix (talk) 16:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- This can be deleted. The corresponding category can be made into a redirect. JoJan (talk) 16:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Delete As said above, these are different names for the same plant. Synonyms of Sarcocornia perennis (Arthrocnemum perenne, Salicornia ambigua and Salicornia perennis) are no longer accepted as current. --AlphaEta (talk) 23:42, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jafeluv (talk) 10:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Converting speedy to a DR. Speedy was based on COM:DW, but it's possible that COM:FOP-Sweden applies here 99of9 (talk) 10:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - FoP does not apply to banners (not permanently situated outside), but this design is old and it does not have any copyrightable elements. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- I couldn't tell if it was a banner or painted on wood (and thus possibly on a building). The nominator thought the design was made in 1995. --99of9 (talk) 20:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- From the article on Swedish wikipedia where this image was used, I get the impression that these banners were archived in 1995 because the units were reorganized then. This one may have been created 1941. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
It insults my colleagues on Commons Doug youvan (talk) 23:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- So what is the reason for deletion? VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 12:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete No educational use. Which still doesn't explain why Doug uploaded it in the first place.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 01:15, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
It insults my colleagues on Commons Doug youvan (talk) 23:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep While i also believe that Christianity is a bunch of rubbish there's no insult in making a diagram showing how it works in the heads of these people. By its nature the diagram is educational. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 12:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Not a Venn diagram as it claims to be, and outside scope: no foreseeable educational use in Wikimedia projects. -- Crowsnest (talk) 11:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 01:15, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Datei fälschlicherweise unfertig hochgeladen. Muß noch von mir angepasst und dann neu hochgeladen werden. Miketheknife (talk) 14:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: by Fastily Morning Sunshine (talk) 02:09, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal image, out of project scope. ■ MMXX talk 23:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep not just a personal image, not unused anymore, is in project scope as you see here. Rename to File:Laura White and Kristopher Nimbley.jpg. For Laura White see enwiki, dewiki, huwiki. --Geitost diskusjon 23:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- File:Fdhgfgfg.jpg and this one have different uploaders. we need a clear source in case they're not personal. ■ MMXX talk 23:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- The uploader of the other picture is very active on the English Wikipedia at the moment. Set a message there to clear that? Could be that he uploaded the 2 pictures under 2 account names. --Geitost diskusjon 00:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- File:Fdhgfgfg.jpg and this one have different uploaders. we need a clear source in case they're not personal. ■ MMXX talk 23:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- I made a search about the photographed person on the English WP. I've found right now that the user en:User:Nimbley has been blocked infinitely in 2008 because of having lots of sockpuppets: en:Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Nimbley6 (3rd), he had a lot of accounts and CUs: en:Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Nimbley6 (6th), so these accounts may belong to the same person, too.
- I think that the photographed person should be relevant nevertheless. The deletion debate about the article on en-WP has also been in 2008: en:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kristopher Nimbley, but now it's 2012, 4 years later, and a lot has happened which one can see on IMDB and also actually in January 2012: en:19th Annual Young Quality Scot Awards. Therefore I think the photos should be kept here. They also both look like been selfmade. They are clearly not out of scope. English WP also tends to delete good articles just because they come from sock puppeteers. But there may be kept an article to the person some day (or at another wiki than en-WP), so the photos should't be deleted meanwhile. And especially to Laura White there are 3 articles yet.
- But if the English WP was right with identification of the person ("although simply saying that the username is identical to the real name is okay") and the photos are not made by the photographed person himself, then the real photographer would be missing and it would be a copyright violation such as others copyvios of text in the past which also seem to have led to the infinite block. Then deleting both photos as copyvios (and not because of "out of scope") really would be better. --Geitost diskusjon 01:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete The background of sockpuppeteering with the most recent sock being blocked on Wikipedia in January 2012, makes all the related uploads suspect. Unless the uploader can come forward an explain how these images are within Scope and add more real information to the image pages, there seems more reason to have sufficient doubt for COM:PRP to apply rather than unlimited good faith. --Fæ (talk) 14:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: No category or description, filename not informative. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:44, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
copivio
98.88.100.52 06:26, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Delete Used here before the Commons upload. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Credited there to Abdulla M AlBraiki, therefore not "own work" as claimed Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:50, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Schempp-Hirth Ventus C Marc Michel.jpeg and derivatives
[edit]- File:Schempp-Hirth Ventus C Marc Michel.jpeg
- File:Aérofrein du type Schempp hirth.jpg (derivative work of the first one)
The given source for the first image is en:File:Schempp-Hirth Ventus C 842838 Marc Michel.jpeg, which was deleted as "possibly unfree" in 2008. The original source is obviously this image at airliners.net. There is no evidence that permission was given to upload the file under a free license. --El Grafo (talk) 13:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Six photos of a concert of Valérie Sajdik, photographed and uploaded by me
[edit]- File:Valerie_Sajdik_Tulln_20080830_01.jpg
- File:Valerie_Sajdik_Tulln_20080830_02.jpg
- File:Valerie_Sajdik_Tulln_20080830_03.jpg
- File:Valerie_Sajdik_Tulln_20080830_04.jpg
- File:Valerie_Sajdik_Tulln_20080830_05.jpg
- File:Valerie_Sajdik_Tulln_20080830_06.jpg
Please delete them by request of the pictured singer. --Tschaensky (talk) 04:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - artist seems to have a new hairdo, but that is no reason to delete older photos. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, it's a public event. One of the pictures is even in use. Prof. Professorson (talk) 12:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Public concert, so no expectation of privacy. Tm (talk) 16:28, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- Keep If the artist has better photos that she prefers to be used on Wikipedia and other sites, I suggest she donates some new photos under a free license. Dcoetzee (talk) 02:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
kept No reason to delete this. We welcome other pictures as Dcoetzee suggested :-) --PierreSelim (talk) 15:20, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
source is bad /missing No way to verify PD-status 98.88.100.52 17:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- The statement is wrong and should be ignored. An applied templates states:
"This file has been identified as a priority candidate in the January 2012 Move to Commons Drive. You can help with moving these files by joining the drive and using CommonsHelper to transfer this file to Commons." and
"This image is a work of a U.S. Army soldier or employee, taken or made as part of that person's official duties. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the image is in the public domain." Source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Interceptor_body_armor.jpg.--Sometrager (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Of couse i see that, but the link provided there is dead. Perheps you should find a better source.98.88.100.52 18:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Delete Many images nominated for moving from WP:EN to Commons are copyvios, so that means nothing. Many images on military web sites come from manufacturers, not the military. This looks like a manufacturer's promotional image -- with the all white background mask it does not look like an Army photographer's work. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Found http://www4.army.mil/OCPA/uploads/large/IBA_high2003-11-12.jpg but not the description page... --MGA73 (talk) 20:48, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:25, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Image almost identical to File:Cabecou cheese.jpg Tangopaso (talk) 22:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- They are not "almost" identical, they *are* duplicates, but this one was uploaded to Commons two days before File:Cabecou cheese, so I'd keep this one instead and rename it to Cabecou cheese.jpg. Capmo (talk) 00:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Dupes. I am keeping the othr image because that's the one being used (this one is unused). Badseed talk 14:57, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Nearly identical image (only dif is in format) is at File:RomanVirgilFolio014rVergilPortrait.jpg Sven Manguard (talk) 22:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Keeping the other file, as it's the one being used (this one is unused) although this might be the source file (see File talk:RomanVirgilFolio014rVergilPortrait.jpg Badseed talk 15:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
and other uploads by Milankvasnica (talk · contribs). Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I commited a mistake. This correction is an upgrade and not a new file. Rossi pena (talk) 21:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Dubious copyright infringement. Identical images can be found through a cursory Google Images search of the subject's name. Either the image is in fact his own work, which would need to be verified, or it's infringement. elektrikSHOOS 23:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Franz Gertsch is a living painter and there's no indication that the works depicted here are freely licensed by him. Freedom of panorama doesn't apply as it was an indoor exhibition in Germany (no indoor FOP in Germany, nor for temporary exhibitions). Gestumblindi (talk) 23:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:28, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
This license does not match the image. The explanatory memorandum is very silly. (de: Die gewählte Lizenz gilt nur für Gesetzestexte, amtliche Erlasse, Wappen, Flagge, etc. nicht für photographische Aufnahmen die etwaige Regierungsangestellte gemacht haben, wie es in den USA für Angestellte des Federal Government der Fall ist.)--Sir James (talk) 19:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC) Sir James (talk) 19:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 20:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
This is most likely a copyright violation. The uploader uploaded an image of Pienaar by JEAN-PIERRE MULLER/AFP before (File:Fp.jpg, File:Fp2.jpg) and added it to the article (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Francois_Pienaar&diff=prev&oldid=332078018) It was deleted and so he uploaded another image, created from a professional perspective and with the same claims on authorship and added it shortly afterwards (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Francois_Pienaar&diff=prev&oldid=332084938). I can't find it on the net, but that doesn’t mean anything since most image databases belong to the hidden web. Polarlys (talk) 20:10, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Ok, found a much better version, here, uploaded there in 2007. --Polarlys (talk) 20:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: apparently copyvio FASTILY (TALK) 20:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Duplicative of another image Splitter Wall Plate (talk) 23:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC) This is the same "profile view" here http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:SWP_Profile_White.jpg
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- From the private site with no creation date attached Copyright protected. No evidence of PD status.98.88.92.10 00:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
- Максим Коломиец Танк Дыренкова // Танкомастер : журнал. — 2000. — № 4. Book published in 2000. Copyright protected. No evidence of PD status.98.88.92.10 00:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
-Максим Коломиец Танк Дыренкова // Танкомастер : журнал. — 2000. — № 4. Book published in 2000. Copyright protected. No evidence of PD status. 98.88.92.10 00:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- drawing should be made in 1931 (PD-Russia-2008) as anonymous. Handwriting clearly is very old fashion. "Коломиец" - name of writer, not painter. See article[9] - modern white drawing in the bottom of page is with author's name, this one - no. --Shakko (talk) 16:21, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete While we know that the photo was probably taken at or around 1931, there is no evidence that it was published before 1943. Sitting in a file somewhere in state archives does not necessarily equal publishing.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:06, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 20:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Bad source (no way to verify). No creation date. Book published in 1984 No evidence of PD status FU is not allowed in the commons 98.88.100.52 22:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Exactly what is it about Hunnicutt's book that you cannot verify? Though your argumenatation makes me doubt that you even read the description. Since being from US Army-created manual was already enough evidence of PD, I didn't bother finding out exactly which one. There, is it obvious enough now? --Saə (talk) 00:48, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: per Saə Sreejith K (talk) 20:25, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- Image dated 1970 book published -2008 Source Кочнев Е. Д. Энциклопедия военных автомобилей. — 2-е изд., доп. и перераб. — М.: За рулем, 2008. — С. 281. — 640 с с. — 3000 экз. — ISBN 978-5-9698-0152-3 Copyright protected. No evidence of PD status. No way to verify the PD-Claim since the book is a secondary source anyway. 98.88.92.10 01:26, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- The absurd nomination, as well as many others by this anonymous. This is an experimental fighting machine, photographed during the tests. It exists in a single copy and was shown to the public until much later than it was created - after state tests has been ended, after U.S. army rejected it and it was exhibited in the museum (and left there forever). Vade Parvis (talk) 16:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 23:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Reason: The image seems to be of too high a quality to be a screenshot from this film. I think it's a wallpaper image from The Disney Experience which is copyrighted according to the full un-cropped version. Furthermore, if you view The Spirit of '43 here, the aspect radio doesn't seem to match and there are words which are too close to his bottom jaw that couldn't have been removed by just cropping. Pigby (talk) 04:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Comment Viewing the links you made it appears to me that this image is merely a lavish copy of the others which according to Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. it is not enough to attract copyright protection in the United States. Tm (talk) 07:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep per Tm. --LMFAO - /let's laugh/ 14:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Pienso que si es tomado de la película debería quedarse pero si no parece tomado de la misma. Porqué no mejor sustituirlo con una imagen mas evidentemente tomada de la película.--Inri (talk) 14:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Jcb (talk) 15:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
Derivative work of a copyrighted character. Please see Commons:Deletion requests/File:"Appreciate America. Come On Gang. All Out for Uncle Sam" (Mickey Mouse)" - NARA - 513869.tif for a detailed explanation. Claritas (talk) 19:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Speedy keep - This is a completely different situation! This is a screenshot of a cartoon in the public domain. And please also read as written above! Angelus (talk) 19:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment How is it a "completely different situation" ? The derivative elements of the work are still copyrighted, the original elements are public domain, ergo, the file itself is not in the public domain. --Claritas (talk) 19:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- This is not properly a derivative work is only a screenshot ergo a part of the caroon in public domain! Angelus (talk) 19:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- The cartoon isn't in the public domain, however, because it contains derivative material from copyrighted works. Only the original authorship of the producers of the cartoon is in the public domain - the character of Donald Duck is not, and thus this image is not either. --Claritas (talk) 10:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- This cartoon was created for the US Government, so it is in public domain! Angelus (talk) 14:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. per ANGELUS and previously closed discussion above. No need to re open an artificial debate--Jebulon (talk) 21:09, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. per ANGELUS --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and Commons:Deletion requests/Donald Duck from Spirit 43. Donald Duck is still copyrighted -- he first appeared in The Wise Little Hen (1934), which was successfully renewed in 1961. Every single appearance of Donald Duck after The Wise Little Hen would be considered a derivative work from the first cartoon, hence copyrighted. Yes, the copyright on The Spirit of '43 wasn't renewed, and a part of the cartoon fall in the public domain, but parts of it with Donald Duck are still copyrighted as a DW from the previous works. See the long discussion cited by the nominator for details. Trycatch (talk) 11:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - I repeat, this is not a derivative work is only a screenshot! A frame of a cartoon in public domain! So this screenshot is in public domain too! Angelus (talk) 14:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- The cartoon is not entirely in the public domain. All frames from the cartoon which show copyrighted Disney characters are not in the public domain. --Claritas (talk) 14:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- If a work is created for a public body and is distributed with the aim of being in the public domain, it is entirely in the public domain! All frames of the work! Angelus (talk) 14:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- No. That's not how copyright works. All "original authorship" created for the federal government is in the public domain, but as Donald Duck was created before the cartoon was, and has independent copyright protection, the whole cartoon is not in the public domain, no matter how it is distributed. It's a derivative work of a copyrighted character. --Claritas (talk) 17:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- The entire film was created for the US Government, then all the frames present within it, are in public domain, regardless of who portray. Angelus (talk) 18:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- That's irrelevant, as it's a derivative work of a copyrighted character. Imagine the situation in which you're an employee of US government creating a film, and I give you permission for you to use some footage, i.e. I waive my copyrights for your particular use. I still hold all the copyrights associated with my footage - I've simply employed my right to let you use it. --Claritas (talk) 21:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- That's irrelevant for you! When waiving copyright of a work, all of its parts (therefore also the various frames) are public domain. Angelus (talk) 21:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- That's not how copyright works. I can let someone else use my work without putting it in the public domain. --Claritas (talk) 08:35, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- But the film in question and all its frame, are in the public domain! Angelus (talk) 19:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - Per Angelus and Jebulon. --o'Sistemonetell me 19:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- Speedy delete You cannot whitewash copyright by having a copyrighted work republished by a US government employee! พ.s. 21:01, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- This catoon was not republished by a US government employee but was published for the U.S. government and it was distributed with the aim of being in the public domain, so all its frame are in the public domain! Angelus (talk) 15:04, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Proof it. พ.s. 15:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
-
- That's not proof, that's misinterpretation of an opinion. พ.s. 18:58, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Misinterpretation of an opinion??? What does it means???
- Anyway, of course that's a proof! Have you read the article before responding?
This cartoon was created for the US Government, so it is in public domain, the only Donald Duck cartoon in the public domain.
— The Spirit of '43 - from en.wiki
Aquest film va ser creat per al Govern dels Estats Units, i com totes les pel·lícules fetes per o per al Govern dels Estats Units està al domini públic.
— The Spirit of '43 - from ca.wiki
Este cortometraje fue creado para el Gobierno de Estados Unidos, y como todas las películas hechas por o para el Gobierno de Estados Unidos está en el dominio público.
— The Spirit of '43 - from es.wiki
Het filmpje is betaald door de Amerikaanse overheid, om de belastingen op te krikken. Als gevolg hiervan is het een van de weinige Disney-producties in publiek domein, zoals alle werken van de Amerikaanse overheid.
— The Spirit of '43 - from nl.wiki
And please, also read here! --Angelus (talk) 20:30, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Per Angelus and Jebulon. Yann (talk) 09:58, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment This file seems to be more likely a derivatve work of that "Spirit of '43"-movie than a screenshot. Besides, obviously "Walt Disney Pictures" made a mistake by placing this movie in the public domain as a governmental work. Now anybody could use Donald's face for free without restrictions. What a pity. --80.187.107.33 17:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
...appears to me that this image is merely a lavish copy of the others which according to Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. it is not enough to attract copyright protection in the United States.
- Comment The word "lavish" in the Bridgeman quotation, should be "slavish". Please follow the link provided above to verify this. I verified the source of this image and corrected and elaborated the source information on the file page.[10] --Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Ok you're right, so I write this other quote.
![[10]](https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/w/index.php?title=File%3ADonald_Duck_-_The_Spirit_of_%2743_%28cropped_version%29.jpg&action=historysubmit&diff=65885532&oldid=65155126){kind=link}
A slavish photographic copy of a painting thus, according to Nimmer, lacks originality and thus copyrightability under the U.S. Copyright Act.
--79.33.146.181 18:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - First, works created by the US Federal government are PD, but works created for the US government may be (and probably are) copyrighted (see en:Wikipedia:PD#U.S._government_works). Also, per the previous discussion (linked in the nomination), while the work itself (The Spirit of '43) might be PD, there is an underlying character copyright which remains, and based on recent cases, probably prevents the creation of many derivative works. Therefore, this is not really free for Commons purposes. cmadler (talk) 16:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Per file description. "The cartoon was created for the U.S. Government, so it is in public domain, the only Donald Duck cartoon in the public domain." Seth Allen (discussion/contributions) 15:41, Tuesday, February 7, 2012 (UTC)
Kept The movie is PD in USA, therefore a screenshot is also PD. There may be restrictions on some derivative works. Yann (talk) 10:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- Files copied to wikilivres:Category:Donald_Duck. Yann (talk) 11:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-3){kind=link}
The movie is not PD in the US, only _some parts_ of it are in PD in the US, but everything with Donald Duck is still copyrighted. Read the previous discussions about the problem (Commons:Deletion requests/File:"Appreciate America. Come On Gang. All Out for Uncle Sam" (Mickey Mouse)" - NARA - 513869.tif) -- if the character is not free, it "poisons" every work with that character published later, making non-free even works that otherwise would be considered PD (such as this move, or the Mickey Mouse poster). The "screenshot" (of course, it's not a screenshot, but the closing admin failed to read the previous discussion) is a derivative work from the copyrighted Donald Duck character, and is not in the PD. There is no way the file can be not copyrighted. Trycatch (talk) 11:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I read the discussion. And I think that the conclusion is wrong. Yann (talk) 11:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- Well, explain why you think it's wrong. You disagree that it's not a screenshot? Derivative work from a screenshot -- it's possible, but it's certainly has too high resolution and is too clean to be a screenshot from 1940s. Or you disagree that copyrighted content "contaminates" all future releases with that content even by the same author/studio? I've cited at least three court cases (and there are much more of them) confirming that point of view in the previous discussion. You disagree? Ok, _explain_ why you think that my interpretation was wrong. It's not possible to argue about anything without arguments. Trycatch (talk) 12:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- Your decision would be correct if the "Spirit of '43" would have been the first appearance of Donald Duck. But it's not the case. Donald Duck first appeared in The Wise Little Hen from 1934 (and it's still copyrighted), the cartoon in question was published much later. Trycatch (talk) 12:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- Well, explain why you think it's wrong. You disagree that it's not a screenshot? Derivative work from a screenshot -- it's possible, but it's certainly has too high resolution and is too clean to be a screenshot from 1940s. Or you disagree that copyrighted content "contaminates" all future releases with that content even by the same author/studio? I've cited at least three court cases (and there are much more of them) confirming that point of view in the previous discussion. You disagree? Ok, _explain_ why you think that my interpretation was wrong. It's not possible to argue about anything without arguments. Trycatch (talk) 12:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- Even if we ignore the fact that this is clearly derivative work from a screenshot (not a screenshot itself) which is probably encumbered by character copyright, it is not at all clear to me that the film is truly in the public domain. It was stated by many editors in the above discussions that the film is in the public domain because it was created for the US government. However, the US Code states A “work of the United States Government” is a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties. (17 USC §101) This film is therefore clearly not a "work of the United States Government" for copyright purposes. It's possible that it's public domain for having no notice or if it wasn't renewed, but that would need verification. cmadler (talk) 13:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter that it was created for the government, but yes, it was not renewed, so the parts of the cartoon without Donald Duck are truly free. Trycatch (talk) 14:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- It is not de minimis, because:
- This file depicts only one frame of the film,
- The frame depicted in this file shows Donald Duck,
- but as a major part, and
- Disney has never released comic characters into the public domain. --84.61.139.62 09:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter that it was created for the government, but yes, it was not renewed, so the parts of the cartoon without Donald Duck are truly free. Trycatch (talk) 14:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - per my original rationale.--Claritas (talk) 21:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- The DR was open for one and half month last year, and one month this year, and yet, Trycatch didn't care to participate. And 3 minutes after I closed it, he reopen it with the same arguments. This is very rude, and disruptive of the deletion process, and it is not acceptable. Yann (talk) 09:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- The issue is quite simple:
- Is the movie is in the public domain? YES.
- Is a simple screenshot of the movie is in the PD? YES.
- Does it meet Commons' requirements? YES.
Now, there are some restrictions because of the content of the file. But there is nothing in the requirements which says that there should not be restrictions. This request is trying to add new requirements under the disguise of a DR. This is not the right process. First create a general discussion (I think a request for comments is appropriate), then the DR can be examined again. Yann (talk) 09:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept Closing as per above: no new arguments, the file is allowed under current Commons' requirements. Do NOT open the DR again without new arguments. Thanks. Yann (talk) 09:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- I've opened a discussion about Yann's conduct at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Commons:Deletion requests/File:Donald Duck - The Spirit of '43 (cropped version).jpg & User:Yann. Trycatch (talk) 11:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Archive link to the above discussion: Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 33#Commons:Deletion requests/File:Donald Duck - The Spirit of '43 (cropped version).jpg & User:Yann. There is subsequent related discussion at Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2012/02#Disney characters deletion requests -- cmadler (talk) 13:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-4){kind=link}
Copyright violation. 84.61.139.62 11:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per extended discussion above and multiple incorrect closures. --Claritas (talk) 20:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - Per reason of admins above who kept it. --Wiki13 19:54, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- Comment No new valid reason added for deletion. --79.22.195.4 23:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- Keep speedy. I cannot judge the legal details, but reopening the same request time after time with the same arguments is wasting resources. No reason the fourth discussion will come to a more correct conclusion than the three earlier ones. Wait at least until there is new material to found the decision on, people have changed or people can be expected to have changed their minds (obviously wrongly closed requests will fulfil those criteria, but the decisions above are obviously not obviously wrong). --LPfi (talk) 06:12, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- There's a huge mixup with this images, with a lot of them being deleted and a few being kept. --Claritas (talk) 09:41, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- @LPfi. The earlier ones were closed in this way, because of some misunderstandings. Later the admin who kept this picture, nominated a bunch of similar pics himself. --Trycatch (talk) 12:42, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Per previous discussions. Tm (talk) 12:03, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- "per previous dicussions"? it should be {{Vd}} then. See Category:Disney characters deletion requests -- all of them were deleted, except this one. --Trycatch (talk) 12:42, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
%22_-_NARA_-_513869_-_cropped_and_tidied.png){kind=link}
- Comment To the closing admin -- there is a more or less general consensus that the pictures like this are copyrighted, read e.g. Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2012/02#Disney characters deletion requests, and so on. "Kept" results for this particular picture were nothing more than a small fluctuation. --Trycatch (talk) 12:42, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. The arguments made above for character-related deletion are wrong — multiple Looney Tunes cartoons fell into the public domain due to technicalities such as failure to renew copyright, and now those cartoons are republished all the time for profit. That wouldn't be the case if the appearance of characters such as Bugs Bunny caused the cartoons to remain in copyright, and if they were still in copyright, Warner Brothers would be able to file lucrative copyright infringement lawsuits against the other publishers — thus it's not possible for the appearance of a character to save copyright here. And since there's no evidence that copyright was ever renewed for this film, it's irrevocably in the public domain, even if it began as a copyrightable work. Trust the corporate lawyers for the video companies that reproduce cartoons like Falling Hare without royalty when they assume that PD really is PD. Nyttend (talk) 02:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- "if they were still in copyright, Warner Brothers would be able to file lucrative copyright infringement lawsuits against the other publishers" -- and that's exactly what they do. See e.g. Warner Bros. v. AVELA [11] (it was throughly discussed in the previous DRs on the same topic). Really, read the previous discussions, for starters this, this, and this. --Trycatch (talk) 06:48, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Kept per consensus. INeverCry 18:10, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-5){kind=link}
I can't believe this file was kept after so many deletion requests! This is derivative work of the copyrighted character design of Donald Duck, and besides, it had been used in films before "The Spirit of '43". All those who've kept this file on the basis of the FILM's copyright, without considering the underlying copyright on the CHARACTER - are real fools. The time is long overdue for this file to be deleted for good. SethAllen623 (talk) 22:15, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
- While I understand your frustration, please make your point without disparaging others. Thank you, Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:09, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- You're welcome. But I am not here to disparage other editors; I am instead here to address copyrighted content that is a derivative work of a copyrighted character design, and have it disposed of as soon as possible. Those are two separate copyrights we're dealing with here: copyright on a design, and copyright on a film. If the design and earliest appearances of a character are copyrighted, then the later appearances and redesigns of that character are copyrighted as well. The same goes for music in a film: Music does not go into the public domain with any films that use it. These are separate copyrights.
- Commons exists to provide free media that can be used anywhere, by anyone, for any purpose. This file, like many other "cartoon character derivative works" that I and other editors have ordered deleted recently, is in direct violation of United States copyright law as was decided in Stewart v. Abend. --SethAllen623 (talk) 21:40, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Let's say that I were to post on my userpage the following message "All my text contributions on Commons are in public domain", would this mean that this discussion is now in public domain? Of course not, only my additional element is. The discussion as the whole is under CC-BY-SA license and is copyrighted by several individuals who didn't release it to the public domain. The same here. All the additional elements except the Donald Duck have fallen into the public domain. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 17:42, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Derivative work of the copyrighted artwork Donald Duck. We've deleted lots of images of Donald Duck and other characters for that reason. --Stefan4 (talk) 08:59, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted. Consensus -> delete. -FASTILY 22:49, 3 June 2013 (UTC)