Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2012/01/10
 |
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}
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Car ma page me nuit carément maintenant, merci de la supprimer. Euroqueb (talk) 02:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Do not move your userpage from User:Euroqueb to other userpage names. --Martin H. (talk) 02:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Date Shot: 01 JAN 1994 (october 1993, http://www.deepstorm.ru/DeepStorm.files/45-92/nts/971/K-322/K-322.htm) Camera Operator: UNKNOWN - doesn't sound like PD-US-gov-military. It's highly dubious that such image was taken by US personel. Masur (talk) 13:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Keep The Image was originally form an US military site (not available any more) and the link given above also states, that it is an USNAVY photo. Therefore we can assume, it is a USNAVY photo and there is no need to delete. --GDK (talk) 13:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Keep It can be found at http://www.defenseimagery.mil/imagery.html reference DN-SC-96-00520.
- Their terms of use: http://www.defenseimagery.mil/terms.html
You agree to adhere to any copyrights. Copyright information can be found in the XMP data area in the data field labeled 'Rights'. In general, imagery on this site is not copyrighted (cleared for release Department of Defense imagery is usually in the public domain), but if in doubt, you agree to examine the Rights data field for appropriate information. We will make every effort to ensure that copyrighted works are so noted in the Rights field, but cannot be held responsible if the copyright is not conveyed to us for entry.
- The data fields in the file don't note any additional copyright. Hohum (talk) 14:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep If the US Navy wasn't out there photographing Soviet submarines whenever possible, they weren't doing their jobs! I see no suspicion that it's not a US military image, exactly as claimed. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Keep. Please find something better to do that nominating for deletion perfectly good, useful and properly licensed images. Jehochman (talk) 20:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept. Masur (talk) 20:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Prof. Professorson (talk) 18:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I posted this image in "Fakes (Habbo Hotel)", sorry, but there's not any reason to be excluded. It's a completely free image. I would like if you keep this image there.
- If it's an image from Habbo, then it's a copyright violation. According to their terms and conditions, You may not use the Site, or content created thereon, for commercial purposes. Prof. Professorson (talk) 20:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: copyright violation Polarlys (talk) 21:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
File:Flag of Belgium.svg is the proper file and pre-existing SVG. No use. ~ Fry1989 eh? 21:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
it might be in use... Mozaika2 (talk) 18:56, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- It is not. You can check the global usage and see that there is none. Fry1989 eh? 20:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: unused duplicate Polarlys (talk) 21:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
{{speedy| Нарушение авторских прав}} mamadjanov's (talk) 07:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: by EugeneZelenko. Yann (talk) 13:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Screenshot of a copyrighted work. Fair use is not permited on Commons Jacopo Werther (talk) 09:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Movie screenshot EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
I uploaded this picture to write a page about my website and saw that my content has been removed by the directors, I am in line to delete everything about this content. See the cover for the word "Afersig". cordially Afersig (talk) 10:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: by Fastily. Yann (talk) 13:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Forgery (eyebrows) of http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:John_Hamilton.jpg DVdm (talk) 15:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Delete out of scope. --Jarekt (talk) 16:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: by MarcoAurelio. Yann (talk) 13:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Vandalism copy of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kreayshawn_performing_2011.jpg DVdm (talk) 16:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: by MarcoAurelio. Yann (talk) 13:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Orphaned, the plant is unidentified and the specifics of the shot do not lend to its use in an encyclopedic manner, even if we could figure out which article to place it in. (based on this) Bulwersator (talk) 13:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep We might not know the plant but its a good picture of dewdrops. -- Herby (Vienna) (talk) 19:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio. This image with logo of kayseriliyim.com was posted to skyscrapercity.com on February 8, 2005 before January 30, 2006 (original upload date). Takabeg (talk) 01:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 10:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio. I don't think it's the uploader's own work. There is no proof for {{Own work}}. Takabeg (talk) 02:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Looks like a professional portait. Techman224Talk 03:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete unless uploader shows some evidence of being the author/copyright holder. Seen in multiple places on the web, including at [1] in higher resolution than this tiny photo. -- Infrogmation (talk) 04:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 10:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Not PD-text. I mean, there's a sword in there. GrapedApe (talk) 03:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 10:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Obviously photographed magazine page, unclear rights. Funfood ␌ 07:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 10:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
image too small to identify properly. appears to be a tarot image, but cannot be discerned 75.61.137.132 07:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 10:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
unused, personal file, see COM:SCOPE, bullying possible Polarlys (talk) 10:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 11:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
unused, personal file, see COM:SCOPE Polarlys (talk) 10:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 11:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
SVG bug, not used. Leyo 16:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
d'accord, pour la suppression, Pancrat (talk) 09:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom NEURO ⇌ 15:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
BadGIF, better alternatives in Category:Cinnamic acid. Leyo 16:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom NEURO ⇌ 15:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Low quality, better alternatives in Category:Safrole. Leyo 16:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom NEURO ⇌ 15:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- File:Legoland_000.jpg
- File:Legoland_002.jpg
- File:Legoland_003.jpg
- File:Legoland_004.jpg
- File:Legoland_005.jpg
- File:Legoland_006.jpg
- File:Legoland_007.jpg
- File:Legoland_008.jpg
Derivative work, FOP is for buildings only in Denmark. Prof. Professorson (talk) 00:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Own work without metadata? Mmmmmm, better not. --Andrea (talk) 11:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Pueden borrarlas ya no estoy interesada en que estén en este sitio, además siento que discutir o plantear algo aquí vas terminar siendo como arar en el mar y me disculpan no pretendo ofender a nadie pero así lo siento --Veronidae (talk) 18:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep There appear to be several buildings in these photos, even if they are miniatures.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:22, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- Miniatures of buildings are not buildings; they're not covered by the FOP exception. Prof. Professorson (talk) 12:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- "The article 24 of the Danish copyright law permits panorama freedom for architecture." Doesn't define how big that architecture has to be.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- Miniatures of buildings are not buildings; they're not covered by the FOP exception. Prof. Professorson (talk) 12:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Actually, the translation of the law uses the word "buildings", not "architecture". These are model buildings, but certainly not buildings. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio.
- File:BUTTIM Bursa Uluslararasi Tekstil ve Ticaret Merkezi.jpg: This image was posted to wowturkey on October 15, 2006 by Cemali 16.
- File:BUTTIM Bursa Turkey.jpg: This image was posted to wowturkey on March 14, 2006 by Hakan Aydın.
- File:BUTTIM Bursa.jpg: This image was posted to wowturkey on March 13, 2006 by Akın Alan.
- File:BUTTIM.jpg: This image was posted to wowturkey on August 4, 2006 by cemaliakangn.
- File:BUTTIM Bursa International Textiles and Trade Center.jpg: This image was posted to wowturkey on July 26, 2003 by Burç.
- File:BUTTIM and Mount Uludag.jpg: This image was posted to wowturkey on September 2, 2005 by barış.
Takabeg (talk) 01:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: All deleted by Jameslwoodward. --Marco Aurelio (disputatio) 19:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Suspicious claim of "own work." GrapedApe (talk) 03:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio. I think this uploader cut this image posted by Master of LightSaber on February 16, 2009. Takabeg (talk) 06:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Uploader added source=Own work, but the image is on a lot movie databases in the net and doubtfully own work. Funfood ␌ 06:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Permission added and proper information. SarahStierch (talk) 17:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Fine, tx :) --Funfood ␌ 20:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Permission added and proper information. SarahStierch (talk) 17:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: OTRS confirmed permission --Marco Aurelio (disputatio) 19:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
No proof of source - states "own work" Begoon - talk 06:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Speedy delete. This file is a screen capture from the Beatles film Help!, and was added to the enwiki article The Beatles with a blatantly false Creative Commons license. szyslak 09:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: copyright violation / fair use not allowed at commonswiki --Marco Aurelio (disputatio) 19:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Playlist of unidentified radio station, out of scope Funfood ␌ 07:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal biography page, out of scope Funfood ␌ 07:33, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
unused, personal file, see COM:SCOPE, content undescribed Polarlys (talk) 11:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
unused, personal file, see COM:SCOPE, article deleted Polarlys (talk) 11:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
unused, personal file, see COM:SCOPE, no description Polarlys (talk) 11:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
unused, personal file, see COM:SCOPE, article deleted Polarlys (talk) 11:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
unused, personal file, see COM:SCOPE, no description Polarlys (talk) 11:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
unused, personal file, see COM:SCOPE, no description Polarlys (talk) 11:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Commons:Project scope, used in an article-that-should-not-be only Polarlys (talk) 11:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Commons:Project scope Polarlys (talk) 11:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Commons:Project scope, unused, no description Polarlys (talk) 11:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
unused file, no description, Commons:Project scope Polarlys (talk) 11:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
unused, non-notable artist, Commons:Project scope Polarlys (talk) 11:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
unused, bad quality, non-notable band, Commons:Project scope Polarlys (talk) 11:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
unused, non-notable band, Commons:Project scope Polarlys (talk) 11:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
I doubt that the uploader is the author. PD-own probably does not apply. Widerborst (talk) 13:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
DW of the sculptures (fore- and background). FOP is only for buildings in the US. Saibo (Δ) 14:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Copyright vio. Rapsar (talk) 14:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete--►Safir yüzüklü Ceklimesaj 14:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - Copyrighted image. Takabeg (talk) 15:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Duplicat, better Version here: File:Karte historisches Farchant.svg TomGonzales (talk) 15:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Actually not at all a duplicate -- different colors, different streets shown. There is no reason not to keep both. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:43, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Unused private picture, out of scope. Prof. Professorson (talk) 16:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Blurred photo. Nice analog exist File:Smf, busto e epigrafe filipo brunelleschi (il buggiano).JPG Shakko (talk) 16:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
- I agree --Sailko (talk) 07:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
crop from a wide-angle shot included in a documentary, other uploads by this user exclusively taken from metallica.com Polarlys (talk) 16:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Unused private picture, out of scope. Prof. Professorson (talk) 16:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Commons:Project scope Polarlys (talk) 16:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete, was in use on the now deleted en:St. Anger II only. Prof. Professorson (talk) 17:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Commons:Project scope, fan artwork, doubtful source, article deleted Polarlys (talk) 16:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom. Prof. Professorson (talk) 17:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused private picture. Prof. Professorson (talk) 16:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
unused, personal file, see COM:SCOPE Polarlys (talk) 17:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- File:Harrisburg Covered Bridge2.jpg — same source, uploader, and circumstances
No valid license: Tagged PD-USGov but sourced from Tennessee state government, not federal government, and no evidence of being works of the U.S. federal government. Source appears to be http://www.tdot.state.tn.us/bridges/existingbridges.htm without dates. Closeapple (talk) 17:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
most likely no own work, can’t find definite source (although there matches). most uploads by this user were taken from panoramio Polarlys (talk) 17:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Commons is not a personal photo album – not useful for any project. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 17:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Low resolution image of someone who is apparently a celebrity with no metadata. Suspected copyvio. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:26, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Low resolution image of someone who is apparently a celebrity with no metadata. Suspected copyvio. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:26, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
From information provided: uploaded from Facebook, hence copyrighted. Guillaume2303 (talk) 18:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
don’t belive the own work claim, please see other uploads by this user Polarlys (talk) 18:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
official photo (http://www.upyd.es/contenidos/noticias/253/55086-David_Ortega), (c) Fernando Cozar Fernandez Polarlys (talk) 19:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
File show the colors incorrectly see [2] from the US Coast Guard Auxiliary. This file: 
shows them correctly and is currently in use gloabally. EricSerge (talk) 19:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Not be used (or will be used) in encyclopedia articles or project pages. No meaning for users Tp61i6m42008 and Tokopolo2002. JoeBlows (talk) 19:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Useless personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 20:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Useless personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 20:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Useless personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 20:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Useless personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 20:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
author http://et.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximilian_Maksolly died in 1968 WikedKentaur (talk) 20:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Useless personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 20:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Probably copyvio, link now leads to another picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 20:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Useless personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 20:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Useless personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 20:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Useless personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 20:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Useless personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 20:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Unused. Not educationally useful. Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 17:36, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Deleted. INeverCry 00:53, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Useless personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 20:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Useless personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 20:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Useless personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 20:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Just name and birth date of an unknown person in spanish, out of scope Funfood ␌ 22:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
photo of an older photo, no proper source, user certainly not author, no permission Polarlys (talk) 22:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
The Doon School Archives. Historically significant image! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Merlaysamuel (talk • contribs)
- Okay, who created it when and where? --Polarlys (talk) 12:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Certainly not "own work" as claimed. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
photo of an older photo, no proper source, user certainly not author, no permission Polarlys (talk) 22:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
photo of an older photo, no proper source, user certainly not author, no permission Polarlys (talk) 22:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
photo of an older photo, no proper source, user certainly not author, no permission Polarlys (talk) 22:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
photo of an older photo, no proper source, user certainly not author, no permission Polarlys (talk) 22:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
photo of an older photo, no proper source, user certainly not author, no permission Polarlys (talk) 22:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
This is a historically significant image of the first headmaster of Doon School. Must have been clicked in the 1920s. Now how can I get permission or source? Please save this file! It's extremely important for the Doon School page. Any help regarding this is greatly appreciated. I am new to Wiki so can't do much but can do a lot to make this a better encyclopaedia. Thank you!
User:Merlaysamuel (talk) 22:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Merlaysamuel, if you want to make this a better encyclopaedia, do the following:
- Please read the starting chapters of COM:L.
- Don’t provide false information on authorship.
- Provide your image source.
- Accept, if we can’t keep and image when it is not old enough or not freely licensed.
Thank you, --Polarlys (talk) 12:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your suggestions. Can we do this:- you can delete this from Commons and I'll upload it again in Wikipedia under historically significant images fair use policy? Sound? User:Merlaysamuel (talk)
- And all similar images too? --Polarlys (talk) 10:56, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Indivial images within the collage are not sourced, and at least one of them (middle right) is a copyright violation from http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1006241-10-reasons-dolph-ziggler-is-the-best-heel-in-wwe NiciVampireHeart 23:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Commons:Project scope Polarlys (talk) 23:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
no useful photo for an encyclopedia, Commons:Project scope Polarlys (talk) 23:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep While i think that the person isn't notible, he does happen to have an article since 2009, and thus is automatically in scope. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 14:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - Commons isn't an encyclopaedia and the file is in use on en.wp. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 10:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- The article can be considered as advertising. --Polarlys (talk) 12:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Then bring that up on Wikipedia not here. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 15:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- The article can be considered as advertising. --Polarlys (talk) 12:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete, Looks like a professional photo, no EXIF data, probable copyvio.--Captain-tucker (talk) 12:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per Captain Tucker Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
No own work, DW from a pic of the DJ found on some sites, e.g. here http://www.loleg.com/blog/tag/darkstep/page/6/ Funfood ␌ 23:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Captain-tucker (talk) 12:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
The image is used for personal attacks on the photographer: some Commons users accuse the photographer of being anti-Semitic. They also change the description of the image in anti-Semitic style. The photographer made the photo because of its political mood, and had no national idea in mind. As soon as the image is used for the chauvinist propaganda and for personal accusation, I would like to ask for its removal. -- PereslavlFoto (talk) 16:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - What it's used for is irrelevant. Is its copyright status in order? Check! Is it informational? Check! --Fred the Oyster (talk) 10:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- There are two problems. First, it has irrelevant description, and creates a mess because of that, for its description was specially changed to make the image offensive. Second, after changing description to irrelevant the it is used for personal attacks. Maybe DR is not the best way, so please help me to find the correct method. The author published this image to show the political moods. Now its description is changed in chauvinist style and the author is prohibited from reverting the wrong description.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 11:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. This image is currently in use in ru.wiki as an example of antisemitic slogans in the place of traditional gathering of Russian neo-nazists. The uploader is systematically trying to defend the slogan in rather tricky way rejecting its antisemitic nature. So this activity of the uploader is a kind of advocacy for Russian antisemitism and as such should not be tolerated. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 23:17, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- The mass media tell this place is not «the place of traditional gathering of Russian neo-nazists», so your argument is far-fetched. You want to keep the image to use it for your chauvinist quarrels, as this claim against the photographer («kind of advocacy»).--PereslavlFoto (talk) 11:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep per above. In use, QI, good example of antisemitic graffiti in Russia, I see no reason for deletion at all. Trycatch (talk) 11:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Why do you think the graffiti about power authorities is anti-Semitic?--PereslavlFoto (talk) 14:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
I know very little Russian, yet it seems like the first three letters of the last line are жид... Why not put the Cyrillic text of the graffiti on the image description page, so that people can make up their own minds? -- AnonMoos (talk) 02:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- I would guess that the text is ДОЛОЙ ВЛАСТЬ ЖИДОВ which would translte to "Down with jewish power". /Esquilo (talk) 09:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- Literally this may be translated as "down with jewish power", yet the "jewish power" has nothing in common with the Jews, as well as with the power energy. It is a plebeian political cliche. The picture itself is not bad: the problem is, some users use this picture to accuse the photographer in chauvinism (see above).--PereslavlFoto (talk) 10:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- I've laid out the English captioning to reflect the basic facts and competing interpretations; feel free to edit the Russian captioning correspondingly (and of course remove all personal accusations). I see no real need to delete the file... AnonMoos (talk) 13:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the fine change. The personal accusations are in different discussion pages, as in this page above, where my wish to remove the image is called «advocacy for Russian antisemitism».--PereslavlFoto (talk) 14:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- I've laid out the English captioning to reflect the basic facts and competing interpretations; feel free to edit the Russian captioning correspondingly (and of course remove all personal accusations). I see no real need to delete the file... AnonMoos (talk) 13:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- Literally this may be translated as "down with jewish power", yet the "jewish power" has nothing in common with the Jews, as well as with the power energy. It is a plebeian political cliche. The picture itself is not bad: the problem is, some users use this picture to accuse the photographer in chauvinism (see above).--PereslavlFoto (talk) 10:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Comment: its license status is ambiguous as virtually any construction may be copyrighted in Russia. Apart from that there are no reasons for deletion. Artem Karimov (talk) 15:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: as above. Whatever might have a copyright is de minimis. Yann (talk) 11:29, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Unused chart with no meaningful description, out of scope Funfood ␌ 06:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Leyo 18:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Previous deletion decision was incorrect - the clear reasoning by Trycatch at Commons:Deletion_requests/File:"Appreciate_America._Come_On_Gang._All_Out_for_Uncle_Sam"_(Mickey_Mouse)"_-_NARA_-_513869.tif applies here too Ajbp (talk) 19:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Derivative work of a non-free file. Claritas (talk) 12:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- How difficult can it be to reference the correct pages… Commons:Deletion requests/File:"Appreciate America. I Get Exasperated at People Who Squawk" (Donald Duck) - NARA - 513868.tif Jeblad (talk) 14:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- I uploaded File:Donald Duck - Derivative of NARA 513868.svg to see how Commons would handle, and limit, a derivative work. It seems like you don't know, and that the discussion is far more hot-headed than usual; Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#COM:REVDEL, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Donald Duck - The Spirit of '43 (cropped version).jpg, etc. It was fun to se thoughtful comments on the original work, not so with some of the later remarks and edit wars. Better just close the discussion on this file, I hereby ask you to delete the file I made as a derivative work, a fanzine, to test the limits of a derivative work in this context. Enough of that… If the caracter as such is copyrighted, and it seems so to me, then the source for the file should also be deleted. This I would not request as I am not the uploader. I would although ask someone to please make a call to Disney corp to ask them to release a representative image with a well-defined license and clear limits on what derivative works can be made from it. Jeblad (talk) 10:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Author requested it John Vandenberg (chat) 10:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Dubious assertion of creation and copyright ownership; apparent derivative work, no reason offered to assume original photo is PD per Mexican law (See Commons:Licensing#Mexico) Infrogmation (talk) 04:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 00:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Renders poorly, not used anywhere. Leyo 16:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 17:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
File:Suomen ilmavoimien tunnus 1945-2001.svg is the sourced version and appears to have the correct date. This version is unsoured and just another of WPK's personal tinkerings. This one is also unused.~ Fry1989 eh? 05:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jafeluv (talk) 10:48, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
File:Suomen Ilmavoimien tunnus.svg is the proper file. WPK uploaded this version after his was reverted for being unsourced against a source. The eagle is also not SVG ~ Fry1989 eh? 06:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Support to clear out some of the mess. --Sankari (talk) 02:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jafeluv (talk) 10:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio. This image was posted to Wow Turkey on April 22, 2009 by samet cosqun. Takabeg (talk) 05:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 23:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Possible copyvio. Other images (Two of three) uploaded by User:Geia sou Levendi (File:Lev Ist Tur 1.jpg and File:Lev Ist Tur 3.jpg) are copyrighted. This image posted by Nuri1986 on February 9th, 2008, is lower resolution. But there is no proof for {{Own work}}. Takabeg (talk) 06:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 23:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Reasons for deletion request : Ignorance si l'auteur de ce document appartenant à une collection privée est décédé depuis moins ou plus de 70 ans.-Simonet63Simonet63 (talk) 14:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
J'ai ajouté ce fichier sans savoir si l'auteur de ce document (une photo de 1938 appartenant à une collection privée) est décédé depuis plus ou moins de 70 ans. Merci et cordialement. Simonet63 (talk) 13:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by Fastily Morning Sunshine (talk) 04:49, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
School logo not likely to be CC licensed Eeekster (talk) 21:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Kept: PD-textlogo Jcb (talk) 20:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- Renomination #1
copyright violation, logos in Turkey are not under free licences. Reality006 (talk) 15:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Already deleted --Denniss (talk) 01:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
I think this image is a little over the border to qualify to be {{PD-text}}. Sreejith K (talk) 08:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- File:Logo airberlin com 2009.jpg - Similar image.
- Keep I'm going to suggest keep, on the basis of {{PD-textlogo}}. russavia (talk) 03:25, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept: PD-textlogo is OK for this Jcb (talk) 12:40, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Should be licensed as a fair use image. The shapes included are not simple geometric shapes, so this should not be licensed as within the public domain. Cloudbound (talk) 21:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep per last DR. The shapes are basic geometry. Fry1989 eh? 21:56, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep -- Looks good, better quality --Katarighe (talk) 14:42, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- Speedy
- Keep. Looking at Commons:Threshold of originality#Germany, the shapes here seem simple enough to be PD. Jafeluv (talk) 10:43, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept by Morning Sunshine on March 30, just forgot to properly close. --Denniss (talk) 14:43, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Non notable person - Image only created for vandalism to article on Joe Cole here. 109.145.102.167 12:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Vandalism PierreSelim (talk) 17:28, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
According to http://www.doctormacro.com/Legal/Visitor%20Agreement.htm, this non-profit use is unacceptable. Moreover, this photo may have been a work for hire and must have been taken by 20th Century Fox. 20th Century Fox might have provided copyright notices. Newspapers and other periodicals must have used this photo as part of copyright. No proof of copyright status of this photo is found yet, even with analyses. George Ho (talk) 10:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep: Per uploader, in response to the 5 reasons listed above, in the same order: 1) Source does not claim copyright or any ownership of their displayed images, only a desire that they not be used for commercial purposes without a request; 2) Sentence it contradictory, since a work for hire implies that studio did not take their own picture; 3) Contradicts later statement that "no proof" was found; 4) Photos require their own separate copyright and a studio photo does not become "part of" a newspaper's copyright of their text; 5) "No proof of copyright" accords with film still explanation of what these images were used for and why no copyright was found.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- 20th Century Fox usually puts copyright notice on their publicity releases, especially in 1960s. Here's one from 1955: http://www.ebay.com/itm/MARILYN-MONROE-SEVEN-YEAR-ITCH-VINTAGE-PHOTO-ORIG-/120494481267?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item1c0e07df73. It may be blurry, but it may contain copyright notice... or not. Here's 1965 poster of The Sound of Music: http://www.ebay.com/itm/SOUND-MUSIC-1965-lobby-card-poster-JULIE-ANDREWS-nuns-lc-/370553206850?pt=Art_Photo_Images&hash=item5646b13842. It may not contain copyright notice, yet it is the film still. Oh... here's another: http://www.ebay.com/itm/SOUND-MUSIC-JULIE-ANDREWS-1965-VINTAGE-STILL-/230622972614?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item35b2334ac6 --George Ho (talk) 18:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- The images you linked to are "production stills," not "publicity stills." There is a key difference, as explained in the film still article. Movie posters and lobby cards, like most production stills (ie "scene shots",) often had a separate copyright notice. They were made to promote the film, not the actor. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- What about the photos of Peter Fonda for Tammy from Universal?[3][4][5]? --George Ho (talk) 20:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- All 3 are movie promo photos, as each one states in their captions. The last one, which looks like a good publicity still for an actor, was also only used to promote the movie and it doesn't even mention the name of the actor, only the film. In any case, I'd guess that about 1 in 1,000 of those kinds of film promo stills had a registered copyright, as opposed to the printed notice. And of the .1% that did, I'd also guess that that 1 in 1,000 of those had them renewed. The last thing a movie studio wants to do is prevent publications from promoting their movie for free. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Yet there is no paperwork to prove copyright status of this photo. The analyses of photo stills are provided, yet they have not proved the copyright status of this exact photo. --George Ho (talk) 20:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- As you stated at first, "No proof of copyright status of this photo is found," which usually means that there is no copyright, so it becomes PD by default. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Yet there is no paperwork to prove copyright status of this photo. The analyses of photo stills are provided, yet they have not proved the copyright status of this exact photo. --George Ho (talk) 20:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- All 3 are movie promo photos, as each one states in their captions. The last one, which looks like a good publicity still for an actor, was also only used to promote the movie and it doesn't even mention the name of the actor, only the film. In any case, I'd guess that about 1 in 1,000 of those kinds of film promo stills had a registered copyright, as opposed to the printed notice. And of the .1% that did, I'd also guess that that 1 in 1,000 of those had them renewed. The last thing a movie studio wants to do is prevent publications from promoting their movie for free. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- What about the photos of Peter Fonda for Tammy from Universal?[3][4][5]? --George Ho (talk) 20:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- The images you linked to are "production stills," not "publicity stills." There is a key difference, as explained in the film still article. Movie posters and lobby cards, like most production stills (ie "scene shots",) often had a separate copyright notice. They were made to promote the film, not the actor. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Well... I should have rephrased: "there is no proof of either public domain or copyright status". Why have you not included "public domain" as part of an example of "copyright status"? There is no paperwork to prove PD either, even with analyses. --George Ho (talk) 22:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- PD is the default. Unless there is proof that something is copyrighted, it is PD. It is not necessary to prove PD status for something to be PD, but it is necessary to prove something has a valid copyright for it to be protected by copyright. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, it is beneficial to prove PD status, even if it is not necessary. Look at Steamboat Willie and It's a Wonderful Life; they are films that were supposed to be PD, but other paperwork may complicatethe status of copyright: is it active or expired? File:Evening Primrose Anthony Perkins Charmian Carr 1966.jpg has a lot of preserved paperwork to prove the copyright status. This image is a digital reproduction, and no paperwork was made to prove either PD or copyright. --George Ho (talk) 01:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- A number of companies publish posters and prints of celebrities from PD photos. Among those are Art.com and AllPosters.com, which have the same image.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- The same websites that also sell copyrighted posters? ...Well, lack of proprietor and form of copyright (under 1909 Act, year is not required for photographs) may null these photos' copyrights; if notice is provided and registration was made, the photos must be at Library of Congress. Sometimes, not all registrations and deposits are online. You may have a point: no need to prove real authorship, form, and year because the photo may have none. Still, this is a reproduction, and no borders were shown to prove lack of authorship; the borders were cut off. They can own their own reproductions and claim copyrights; I don't know. Still, the only proof of PD would be the Anthony Perkins photo I gave you. Also, post-1963 unregistered photos with notice may still be copyrighted due to Copyright Renewal Act of 1992. Here goes:
- No notice, and no efforts to correct omission, with or without registration → PD
- No notice, yet registration without efforts made → Copyright valid for works between 1978 and Feb 28, 1989
- Notice shown without a required year under pre-Berne 1976 Act → Copyright valid for: works that were registered within five years after publication, renewed after original term expired, and deposited successfully within three months after first publication; post-1963 works that were published with notice, without registration for original term, and without deposit turned in. (http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ15.pdf)
- Notice shown with all elements → obviously copyrighted
- I could go on... --George Ho (talk) 07:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- The reasons given by Wikiwatcher1 seem to be enough: PD is the default because there is not proof that File:Burton,_Richard_(Cleopatra).jpg is copyrighted. If someone nominates a photo for deletion, that person should support the request with clear evidence of copyright. Otherwise, the image is PD by default according to Law in the US. Fma12 (talk) 15:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- The same websites that also sell copyrighted posters? ...Well, lack of proprietor and form of copyright (under 1909 Act, year is not required for photographs) may null these photos' copyrights; if notice is provided and registration was made, the photos must be at Library of Congress. Sometimes, not all registrations and deposits are online. You may have a point: no need to prove real authorship, form, and year because the photo may have none. Still, this is a reproduction, and no borders were shown to prove lack of authorship; the borders were cut off. They can own their own reproductions and claim copyrights; I don't know. Still, the only proof of PD would be the Anthony Perkins photo I gave you. Also, post-1963 unregistered photos with notice may still be copyrighted due to Copyright Renewal Act of 1992. Here goes:
- A number of companies publish posters and prints of celebrities from PD photos. Among those are Art.com and AllPosters.com, which have the same image.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, it is beneficial to prove PD status, even if it is not necessary. Look at Steamboat Willie and It's a Wonderful Life; they are films that were supposed to be PD, but other paperwork may complicatethe status of copyright: is it active or expired? File:Evening Primrose Anthony Perkins Charmian Carr 1966.jpg has a lot of preserved paperwork to prove the copyright status. This image is a digital reproduction, and no paperwork was made to prove either PD or copyright. --George Ho (talk) 01:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete PD is not the default - what are you talking about? See COM:EVID. The burden is on the uploader to prove that a photo is PD/freely licensed. No evidence of no notice/no renewal has been provided specific to this image. What is more, Wikimedia counsel has stated, in response to a query about early publicity stills, "It is essential to confirm that the exact image uploaded to Common was released without a copyright notice." (See w:Wikipedia:CCI#Attorney_reply.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
In other words, you guys are trying to overturn the non-commercial fair use policy that has been in effect for 11 years on the English-language Wikipedia, at this point applies to millions of images on Wikipedia and commons, and only requires a "Copyright owned by XYZ, free equivalent for this particular image/situation does not exist/is not available/cannot be obtained" notice? --79.193.61.243 00:31, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- No, no, no. This is nominated to be deleted from Commons. In other words, this image will no longer be free for share and use if deleted. Nevertheless, this image may still be eligible as fair use in English Wikipedia and other language of Wikipedia, but fair use images are disqualified from Commons. --George Ho (talk) 05:24, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
- Keep: Fair use images are disqualified from Commons? Since when? Many of the images that are stored in Commons and linked from the various editions of Wikipedia have fair use legends and explanations on them. I feel that the Commons is the best place to put these images to prevent bloat in the databases of Wikipedia. Public Domain images, depending on jurisdiction, require an explicit statement of release or the copyright has to expire. In Canada, that is 50 years after death of the photographer, or 50 years after publication in the case of a corporate copyright. I don't remember the US version. Nutster (talk) 12:19, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
- What does fair use mean then? I thought it applies to only non-free images. --George Ho (talk) 15:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
- Fair use is a condition of the United States copyright law, which basically says you can use a copyright-protected work in limited ways for reasons of research and teaching (which is what is generally accepted in Wikipedia) or criticism and commentary (like reviews of movies on TV that show clips). In order to support the presence of various images in the Wikimedia, each image should have a block describing the copyright status of the image. As much as possible, images should be in the public domain, but in cases where public domain images are not available, an image with a valid claim of fair use can be used instead. See the link at the beginning for more information. Nutster (talk) 23:32, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
- What does fair use mean then? I thought it applies to only non-free images. --George Ho (talk) 15:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
- Keep: Fair use images are disqualified from Commons? Since when? Many of the images that are stored in Commons and linked from the various editions of Wikipedia have fair use legends and explanations on them. I feel that the Commons is the best place to put these images to prevent bloat in the databases of Wikipedia. Public Domain images, depending on jurisdiction, require an explicit statement of release or the copyright has to expire. In Canada, that is 50 years after death of the photographer, or 50 years after publication in the case of a corporate copyright. I don't remember the US version. Nutster (talk) 12:19, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Another point, the statement Newspapers and other periodicals must have used this photo as part of copyright. is not a valid argument. Only the creator of an image or written work can apply or assign copyright. The newspapers and magazines, etc. did not create the image nor did the studios and distributors of the image assign copyright to the periodicals, etc. Instead the studios basically said You can use this image without restriction, to all of the newspapers, etc. A specific newspaper publisher has a copyright for the stuff they wrote (the reporter assigns his/her copyright to the newspaper) and for the collection of all the articles, images, etc. (a collection copyright), but not for the individual image. Because the image was not produced by the newspaper nor was copyright assigned to the newspaper, the newspaper has not claim of copyright on the image itself. Nutster (talk) 23:32, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Creation and publication are different. Anyway, you are discussing images that are released under Creative Commons license, right? These images are released to Commons as free to share and to use, as long as they are attributed. They don't count as "fair use", do they? --George Ho (talk) 23:40, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
- I agree, creation and publication are different. Copyright belongs to the creator, not the publisher, unless copyright has been assigned from the creator to the publisher. I am talking about publicity images, like the one we are talking about, which are distributed to promote another work. They are distributed by the publisher of the other work (in this case, a movie) without restriction to redistribution or republication. This practice predates Creative Commons and other Open Source licenses. Fair use applies for images that are believed to be protected by copyright, whether a notice of copyright is attached or not. If not sure, err on the side of caution and give a fair use statement, such as given for this image. Read the Wikipedia Non-free Content Policy] for more information on using such images on Wikimedia sites. Nutster (talk) 00:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
- Have you forgetten Commons:Fair use? It's not allowed in Commons. --George Ho (talk) 03:59, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
- I agree, creation and publication are different. Copyright belongs to the creator, not the publisher, unless copyright has been assigned from the creator to the publisher. I am talking about publicity images, like the one we are talking about, which are distributed to promote another work. They are distributed by the publisher of the other work (in this case, a movie) without restriction to redistribution or republication. This practice predates Creative Commons and other Open Source licenses. Fair use applies for images that are believed to be protected by copyright, whether a notice of copyright is attached or not. If not sure, err on the side of caution and give a fair use statement, such as given for this image. Read the Wikipedia Non-free Content Policy] for more information on using such images on Wikimedia sites. Nutster (talk) 00:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: License tag claims copyright was not renewed, but no evidence for this has been presented. Nor has any evidence been presented that the still was originally published without a copyright notice. By default, we assume all images are copyrighted, per COM:EVID. Kaldari (talk) 06:57, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Unused personal album art for promotional purpose, see also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fares_Saidi.jpg from the same uploader. Funfood ␌ 07:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom, article was deleted for non-notability, out of scope. Badseed talk 15:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Scaled-down duplicate taken directly from File:Royal Crown of France.svg ~ Fry1989 eh? 22:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Wizardman 03:26, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. Badseed talk 15:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Solicited by person in photo. If you have OTRS access, here is the ticket in spanish Superzerocool (talk) 13:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think the photograph is attacking anyone. Should we really delete pictures because the person who appears in it requests so? --190.151.127.234 17:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- The person writes in the email:
Deleted: Per subject's request. Picture is probably taken in a private place. It is also not used anywhere. Badseed talk 20:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Screenshot of an unidentified program or from a website, out of scope Funfood ␌ 07:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Probably not own work. Seems to be scanned from an old photo (maybe from a book). Razvan Socol (talk) 09:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:27, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Derivative of the Wikipedia logo, which is non-free. January (talk) 22:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 07:36, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Unsharp and small resolution version of a bad quality - there are better photos available 80.187.107.2 10:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I consider that the photo is no different from others in resolution and is of reasonable quality, however, i have no objection to it being
deleted if it means that commons quality is maintained.
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 08:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio. This is the high-res version. There is no proof for {{Own work}} of User:Geia sou Levendi. Takabeg (talk) 06:33, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete All Rights Reserved on panoramio. Powers (talk) 15:11, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 20:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
The Coat of arms of the UAE was deleted. We are currently having a discusion at Commons:Undeletion ([6]) about undeleting it. It appears it will most likely be undeleted, but whether or not it is, this isn't the proper process. This filemust be deleted, and the other one can be undeleted as long as there is no reasonings to maintain it's deletion. ~ Fry1989 eh? 03:29, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
![[6]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:Coats_of_arms_of_the_United_Arab_Emirates.svg){kind=link}
Deleted: Wait until UDR is done. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 21:37, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry to re-nominate, but as File:Coats of arms of the United Arab Emirates.svg was restored per an unDR, we don't need two. ~ Fry1989 eh? 02:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- I think if this is deleted, the other file needs to move here since it is supposed to be "coat of arms" not "coats of arms." I would call for a merge and delete. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 03:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- I would also agree with a merge (I forgot to mention that as an option, and I don't know of a "merge template"). Fry1989 eh? 03:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- It's only scale down, so I'll take care of it. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 06:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- I would also agree with a merge (I forgot to mention that as an option, and I don't know of a "merge template"). Fry1989 eh? 03:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Closing: Case since solved, file redirected - Badseed talk 15:07, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
mystification, vandalism, copyright violation & promotion of terrorism 91.77.41.53 08:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Strongly Disagree. No evidence of copyright violation. Reporting the lands claimed by a terrorist organisation is not in itself promotion of that terrorism. And the only thing mystifying about the image is that it is in Russian and not English. 86.176.122.88 00:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- There is no license at all. And this map is not entirely in Russian. I have long laughed at the name of my city. Ю. Данилевский (talk) 04:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Not to mention that the territories outside the "emirate" are labelled in the map legend as "the lands of Muslims occupied by Kafirs and Munafiqs".
--glossologist (talk) 22:45, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- Not to mention that the territories outside the "emirate" are labelled in the map legend as "the lands of Muslims occupied by Kafirs and Munafiqs".
- There is no license at all. And this map is not entirely in Russian. I have long laughed at the name of my city. Ю. Данилевский (talk) 04:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete: the permission field says 'Отсутствует', I don't speak Russian but Google translates it as 'none'.--Underlying lk (talk) 17:25, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep: this is somewhat integral to showing the territorial claims made by the Emirate. -- 92.4.60.67 20:38, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: No evidence of permission. Philosopher Let us reason together. 06:15, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Low quality version of File:Idukki009.jpg and the source for the image doesn't contain any information about copyright. Armbrust (talk) 11:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment If you see the source, you can see the copyright notice in the footer. Might not be easy to spot, so its good to wait till a reviewer who knows Malayalam language reviews the file. By the way, the source website is Malayalam Sarvavijnanakosam, a GFDL licensed encyclopedia maintained by Kerala Government --Sreejith K (talk) 12:33, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Oppose - Invalid reason for deletion, Source is free..--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 09:12, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - Both the images are same and owned by govt. of Kerala. If commons is keeping different version of a file, we can keep this--Kiran Gopi (talk) 11:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep No worries about the copyright status. It's licensed under the GFDL 1.2, and as we have a template for images from that site, I assume the invariant sections (my only concern) is not an issue. Though it's lower quality than the other version, and misspelled in the name, the colors are different, which means it's not just a low quality version of File:Idukki009.jpg. --Quintucket (talk) 13:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Kept per discussion. Sreejith K (talk) 20:57, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
The background in this image is a painting by noted Swiss artist Franz Gertsch (born in 1930). The template {{Swiss Government Portrait}} was created in 2008 based on some mails stored in OTRS (partly in German, partly in French) which seem to be less than clear regarding the true extent of rights release, see this discussion over at the German Wikipedia. E.g. it seems that the Federal Chancellery could assert that portraits of then Federal Councillor Pascal Couchepin are free, but weren't able to give a definite answer regarding the portraits of Councillor Micheline Calmy-Rey ("... kann ich Ihnen keine zufriedenstellende Antwort bezügl. der Fotos von Madame Calmy-Rey geben", as translated from French into German by Schlesinger). So, it seems that there is no clear status for most images using this template, but in this case this is even beside the point, which is: The previous declarations that portraits of the Federal Councillors should be free certainly don't extend to releasing the painting by Gertsch also, which is a main subject of the photo, together with the Councillors. See also this NZZ article for some information about the painting. Gestumblindi (talk) 00:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment. The painting is not the subject of this photo and can be digitally removed (using our Graphics Lab or I can do that - I would first crop the image top, focusing on the people, and this will probably fix the painting copyright problem). Thus let us discuss the Council. Materialscientist (talk) 00:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep but crop. A crop reduces the painting to de minimis background. Unless the template release itself is called into question here, an opinion which few seem to voice in the de.wp discussion, that should be all that is needed. Sandstein (talk) 22:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - obviously. The painting is not the subject matter, particularly with 8 people standing in front of it. As for the Council-OTRS issue the discussion has been archived (couldn't find a link though), which I take is a status quo decision. Popo le Chien ouah 10:47, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. The painting is not the subject of this photo. And this photography don't include all parts of the painting. There is no problem. Ludo (talk) 10:49, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
- You could crop a substantial part of the painting from this high-res photo which still be would be a good representation of Gertsch's art, so I see it as highly problematic. Gestumblindi (talk) 01:53, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
- Yes. You could crop, but - in this case - you create a new photography. Ludo (talk) 09:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- You could crop a substantial part of the painting from this high-res photo which still be would be a good representation of Gertsch's art, so I see it as highly problematic. Gestumblindi (talk) 01:53, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, but doesn't this show that the painting is not de minimis? Gestumblindi (talk) 21:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- There is not problem with the painting. This photography does not show the entire of the painting. Members of Federal council mask this painting. So, no problem. Ludo (talk) 10:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- The painting is not just some accidental element of this photo, quite the contrary: It is a central part of the composition, the councillors are posing deliberately in front of this painting by Gertsch, which makes the painting a part of the photo's message. Each year the media discuss the new official government portrait, its artistic choices and merits, and this year they discuss, naturally, the painting by Gertsch. So you really can't pretend that there is "no problem", unless it is shown that the Swiss state acquired the copyright of the Gertsch painting, making the 2008 release of government portraits in general applicable, which, however, I do not think we can assume. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, there is no problem with this photography. Ludo (talk) 16:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- And that's your argument now? Gestumblindi (talk) 02:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- I gave you arguments before. If you don't read.... it's not my fault. Ludo (talk) 10:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- I did read your arguments, but as I tried to explain above, it's not needed that the large painting is visible in its entirety for it being problematic in this case. It is still a major part of the photo. Without the Gertsch painting, this would be a very much different photo, don't you agree? The Gertsch painting is this year's "special feature" in the Councillors photo, like the Swiss cross in the 2006 photo or the Federal Palace in the 2010 photo. Gestumblindi (talk) 15:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Of course, the painting is "special feature" in the Councillors photo. But this photography don't show the entire of the painting. So there is no problem with this photography in CC By Sa. Nobody can crop the photography to take the painting.
- And it's the end for me. I don't understand how we can spend so much time for this tivial case. Bye. Ludo (talk) 17:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- I did read your arguments, but as I tried to explain above, it's not needed that the large painting is visible in its entirety for it being problematic in this case. It is still a major part of the photo. Without the Gertsch painting, this would be a very much different photo, don't you agree? The Gertsch painting is this year's "special feature" in the Councillors photo, like the Swiss cross in the 2006 photo or the Federal Palace in the 2010 photo. Gestumblindi (talk) 15:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- I gave you arguments before. If you don't read.... it's not my fault. Ludo (talk) 10:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- And that's your argument now? Gestumblindi (talk) 02:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, there is no problem with this photography. Ludo (talk) 16:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- The painting is not just some accidental element of this photo, quite the contrary: It is a central part of the composition, the councillors are posing deliberately in front of this painting by Gertsch, which makes the painting a part of the photo's message. Each year the media discuss the new official government portrait, its artistic choices and merits, and this year they discuss, naturally, the painting by Gertsch. So you really can't pretend that there is "no problem", unless it is shown that the Swiss state acquired the copyright of the Gertsch painting, making the 2008 release of government portraits in general applicable, which, however, I do not think we can assume. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- There is not problem with the painting. This photography does not show the entire of the painting. Members of Federal council mask this painting. So, no problem. Ludo (talk) 10:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, but doesn't this show that the painting is not de minimis? Gestumblindi (talk) 21:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- For the record viz. Micheline Calmy-Rey, this sentence was an answer to a request to release other pictures, given the fact that the one published on admin.ch at the time was not particularly flattering. There is no ambiguity in the original French that all Federal Councillors pictures published by the federal administration are indeed free to use. GL (talk) 11:03, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. Absolutely no ambiguities. The OTRS is clear and makes force. --Abaddon1337 (talk) 10:39, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- It seems to me that you (like me) don't have OTRS access (if I'm not mistaken, but I didn't see your user name in the list of OTRS people), so how can you speak of the "clearness" of the OTRS ticket? All I could read were the translated excerpts linked above, which seemed to be less than clear to me. And as already said, I really do not think that the issue of the councillors posing in front of a copyrighted painting by a well-known painter in 2011 was taken into account when the generic 2008 release was made. Do you really think they considered the fact that one could crop a substantial part of the image from this photo and use it freely, if the photo should indeed by released as completely free, which would mean that the visible parts of the Gertsch painting would also be free? Gestumblindi (talk) 02:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- No I ain't. To read the OTRS you have to ask an OTRS volunteer. That is not a secret inaccessible to the community. I am absolutely not favorable to crop the picture according to your criterion. The reason is that it will create a new picture and then a new artwork that will lead again to further discussion. However, nothing prevents to crop the picture and to have a new image stored with a new filename. The separation must be clear and that doesn't force to delete this present picture. Also don't be too narrow minded and try to focus on the meaning of this picture. What does it represent ? What is its purpose ? Where is the essential ? Best. --Abaddon1337 (talk) 14:32, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- This photography is released to the public by the Federal Chancellery. That implies an agreement on the copyright in this picture with Gretsch. According to the copyright of Swiss federal authorities (admin.ch) (also according to the discussion and the template you mentioned above) it's legal to display this photography here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.57.194.49 (talk • contribs) 12:13, 28 March 2012 (UTC+01:00)
- Yes, but what we do here is different from standard copyright agreements. According to the license used here, it would be allowed to crop the large visible parts of the Gertsch painting from the photo and to use them independently. I'm not at all sure that the Chancellery considered this and their 2008 permission when they obtained permission for the Gertsch image, i.e. think we would need proof that the copyright owner (Gertsch himself?) agreed to a free license. Gestumblindi (talk) 19:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- Keep I was going to crop and RevDel the first version of the pictures, however I change my mind, the reason is simple, the Artwork is not the subject. The picture is not good at all to illustrate the painting (a lot of it is hidden) and it's IMO a good De minimis test. --PierreSelim (talk) 17:07, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- I do not think so. Make the test: Crop the part of the image above the councillors' heads from the image and view it separately - it is still a fine representation of Gertsch's art without the lower half. The painting is a central element of the photos' composition and not de minimis at all. It's not just accidentally there - the councillors pose deliberately in front of this specific painting, how on earth could this be de minimis? Gestumblindi (talk) 17:20, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- New reason for deletion
Interesting new development: There's now a new and compelling (I think) reason for deletion not only of this specific image but of {{Swiss Government Portrait}} and all associated photos as well. Maybe some of the Swiss readers here have the "SonntagsZeitung" newspaper from yesterday (Sunday, 15 April), too? There on page 4 you can find a very interesting article about the Federal Chancellery prohibiting commercial use of this photo. Vice Chancellor André Simonazzi is quoted as stating: "Die Verwendung für politische oder kommerzielle Zwecke ohne Erlaubnis der Regierung ist widerrechtlich." Translation: Use for political or commercial purposes without permission by the government is illegal. A PR agency who used the picture discussed here in a campaign was admonished and they are now expected to donate to a charity for compensation. The advertiser using the image stated that he didn't know you need an authorization to use the photo. So, to repeat: According to a recent statement by the Vice Chancellor himself, you can't use this image freely for commercial purposes. As Commons doesn't accept NC restrictions, it has to go. Apart from all this, I still think that my concern regarding the painting is valid, but if you can't use the image freely at all, the painting issue is probably moot. Gestumblindi (talk) 19:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- This discussion seems to spread to several pages; please see my full answer at Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Swiss Government Portrait. Short answer: I don't think it there is anything new here. Schutz (talk) 07:36, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Why did the copyright expired of this WW1 photograph? Where is the proof that the author is dead for 70 years ? 80.187.107.2 10:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Copyright by „Kriegs-Bild und Filmamt“, the bureau was in solution 1919. --Superikonoskop (talk) 19:33, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 20:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
JMSDF images
[edit]Converted from {{Speedy}}, placed by the uploader, User:トトト (talk), with the reason:
- "Per uploader's request. JMSDF didn't answer the OTRS inquiry, and there remains the possibilty that this is a copyvio."
Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- File:JS Abukuma (DE-229) 01.jpg
- File:JS Amagiri (DD-154) 01.jpg
- File:JS Ariake (DD-109) 01.jpg
- File:JS Asagiri (DD-151) 01.jpg
- File:JS Asashio (TSS-3601) 01.jpg
- File:JS Asayuki (DD-132) 01.jpg
- File:JS Atago (DDG-177) 01.jpg
- File:JS Chihaya (ASR-403) 01.jpg
- File:JS Chōkai (DDG-176) 01.jpg
- File:JS Hamayuki (DD-126) 01.jpg
- File:JS Hatsuyuki (DD-122) 01.jpg
- File:JS Ikazuchi (DD-107) 01.jpg
- File:JS Inazuma (DD-105) 01.jpg
- File:JS Jintsū (DE-230) 01.jpg
- File:JS Kirisame (DD-104) 01.jpg
- File:JS Matsuyuki (DD-130) 01.jpg
- File:JS Mineyuki (DD-124) 01.jpg
- File:JS Murasame (DD-101) 01.jpg
- File:JS Myōkō (DDG-175) 01.jpg
- File:JS Samidare (DD-106) 01.jpg
- File:JS Sawayuki (DD-125) 01.jpg
- File:JS Sendai (DE-232) 01.jpg
- File:JS Setogiri (DD-156) 01.jpg
- File:JS Setoyuki (DD-131) 02.jpg
- File:JS Shirane (DDH-143), Suruga Bay 01.jpg
- File:JS Sōryū (SS-501) 01.jpg
- File:JS Tone (DE-234) 01.jpg
- File:JS Umigiri (DD-158) 01.jpg
- File:JS Unryū (SS-502) at Kawasaki Kobe Shipyard 01.jpg
_01.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_01.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_01.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_01.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_01.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_01.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_01.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_01.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_01.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_01.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_01.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_01.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_01.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_01.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_01.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_01.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_01.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_01.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_01.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_01.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_01.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_01.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_01.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_02.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_Suruga_Bay_01.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_01.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_01.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_01.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_at_Kawasaki_Kobe_Shipyard_01.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Keep The possibility of a copyvio is not a reason for a speedy. However, I think there is solid grounds for keeping these.
First, the Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force site from which they came, says:
- ""Everyone can freely quote and reprint contents of the website of the Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force, under the condition of citing the source of the content."
That probably makes these OK by without further discussion, since "everyone" certainly covers commercial use. It is possible, however that modifications might be a problem.
Second, Commons:Licensing#Japan quotes:
- "Works corresponding to the following are not eligible for copyright (Article 13).
- 1. (omitted)
- 2. public notices, instructions, circular notices and the like issued by organs of the State or local public entities, incorporated administrative agencies ... "
- "Works corresponding to the following are not eligible for copyright (Article 13).
- At least in the English translation, I would think the web site of JMSDF is a "public notice" and JMSDF is clearly an "organ of the state". There may, of course, be subtleties in the Japanese original that escape me. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
As long as I understand,
- They didn't abandon their copyright.
- They allow quoting and reprinting without permission (freely).
- "Prince Pickles" and "Parsley-chan" are copyrighted.
At least, I found same notice in following official websites of headquarters of units of JMSDF:
- Kure District
- Ominato District
- Maizuru District
- Yokosuka District
- Sasebo District
- Atsugi Air Base
- Self Defense Fleet
But Kure Museum doesn't allow quoting and reprinting without permission.
- en:Japan Ground Self-Defense Force allows quoting and reprinting without permission. ([7])
- The copyright status of characters of JGSDF Takuma Kun and Yuu Chan is not clear.
- en:Japan Air Self-Defense Force allows quoting and reprinting without permission. ([8])
Takabeg (talk) 13:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Comment In January 2012 I had sent two OTRS inquiries to JMSDF but they did not answer them. So I rather hastened to request deleting these images. After 8 months of discussion, I see that there have not been persuasive arguments or claims in favour of deletion. The truth is that a certain ambiguity always remains with the images released by JMSDF. My first judgement was that images with "All rights reserved" watermarks, i.e. this, are certainly incompatible but those without such marks are the ones that JMSDF states as "freely quot(able) and reprint(able)". This line can be read as admitting the free use including remix and redistribution but it is not as explicit as the creative commons licenses such as 
. And the bureaucrats of the ministry of defense never answer the OTRS questions. So the truth is that if the community of commons judges them as OK, they are probably OK. So I will vote for Keep now and officially request restoring these images. --トトト (talk) 14:58, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Images were deleted by Fastily Anatoliy (talk) 15:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)